"Rape...is not caused by rapists" WTF!?!

[Unacceptable]

If you aren't aware of the rapist Brock Turner and the campaigners who think he's getting a hard time, have a read of this guardian link.

AIBU to think that the statement from Leslie Rassmussen decrying political correctness that harms poor boys like Brock is the dumbest piece of shit I've ever read?

Even in their drunkest, most ridiculous states my Husband, Brothers and adult sons would not rape a woman because, and I'm sure Leslie wouldn't want to entertain this notion, they wouldn't rape somebody because they aren't rapists!!!!

Brock clearly is.
Having sex without consent is rape.
Forcing yourself upon an unconscious person is rape.

You don't have to be a stranger in a dark alley to do that, just your normal, average, everyday twat.

I know it is hard to accept the wrongdoings of a loved one.
I know we'd all fight to protect those we care about but you can still fucking accept the mistakes that people make...even if you can't get your head around it, don't bury your head in the sand and pretend it's less of an abuse because 'he's a nice guy'.
When will people wake the fuck up?

Link: gu.com/p/4kk46/stw

I just feel like shouting bollocks when people start talking about consent.

We all know it is really easy to tell if someone wants to have sex with you and when they don't. Super easy and if you are so idiotic that you can't tell then you need to remain celibate.

This video shows how easy it is to understand consent and explains it in an easy way a five year old would understand. (Video has swearing so nsfw)

God. With all these people saying these things 'in his defence' you can kind of see how he ended up doing something like that. I almost feel sorry for him he appears to have grown up completely surrounded by morally bankrupt people. I hope one day he actually realises what hes done not just for his victims benefit but for his as well because however short his sentance his life sentance is that he has literally no concept of how to respect women and thats not a recipie for a happy life.

At no point has the victim been awarded any kind of agency over what happened, apart from her letter which appears to have been ignored.

I am a bit troubled by this statement. It is virtually impossible to get a conviction in a sexual assault case, even one with witnesses, without the cooperation of the victim. She has obviously very courageously cooperated and endured much in the process.

She has also had system-based advocates who have supported her agency in this. There would have been no conviction without her willingness to proceed. There are people whose life's work is dedicated to empowering victims of sexual assault, and some of these people, including the prosecutor, did not fail.

I know what you mean MrsH and Aye, particularly with Adam Johnson there were so many people seemingly on his side, I thought I must be the crazy one who had it all wrong.

My various newsfeeds started having links to the woman's statement wben it came out.

Since then they have gradually be completely overrun with people expressing furious support.

It's amazing what a bubble you can live in.

I don't appear to know or follow a single person who thinks anythi g other than this little prick is a rapist who should be serving his 14 years.

But there apparently are people who will publicly justify a rapist caught in the act.

Fucking weird.

Lonny said what I thought when I read the father's statement. Am too tired right now to read the links but I will come back to them.

I had an experience similar in some ways to this woman. The perpetrator had a similar background also - family yachts, second home in Tuscany, privately educated etc.

About the "wounded antelope" thing... It is an unfortunate fact that many of us who fall victim to this type of experience also have previous histories of child sexual abuse, neglect, living with substance abuse etc.

It took me a long time to come to terms with the reality of revictimisation and why it happens - but it happens because of the wounded antelope effect. You can blame drink all you like, but the night it happened to me, I ignored very strong feelings that I wasn't safe long before I passed out. That was very much a product of my learning history. I had been taught to push down those feelings of unease and to do the "good girl" thing - to deny my own senses to make sure I was polite and "nice" - and so I ended up in this apartment at this party that I wasn't sure about.. because all the signs were there that this was not a nice friendly guy, but I didn't know how to back away.

And what do you think that says about the person who perpetrated the crime? This person who was sneaking me doubles (which I threw out, even realising this at the time)? This person who had a bet with his friends AND MINE that he would "bed" me that night because it would be fun to do a virgin? This bit about people being less culpable because of being drunk makes no sense. Having sex with someone who is passed out is not really like sex at all. It took me years to realise this. If a man is able to maintain an erection to have sex, he is also not that drunk.

I have more memory than this girl - I wasn't as drunk at all. I have a very clear memory of saying, listen, this isn't going to happen tonight, I'm wrecked and need to sleep.... I woke up several hours later with him already doing it, pinned down by this huge rugby player and I didn't even struggle. That again was something that was a product of my learning history. I just collapsed and left my body. It was my first time having sex. He knew this. That was the point.

It has taken me nearly TWENTY YEARS to call this rape. TWENTY YEARS. And you read the media around this, and it's not hard to understand why I had that struggle. I thought I was just a stupid girl who regretted going home with the wrong guy... even when I couldn't walk for a week, even though I had no idea if he had had a condom and had to get the MAP, even though he had violently thrown me off the couch onto the floor where I lay totally frozen and silent and awake for hours. It took me years to realise that DECENT MEN do not have sex with people who are asleep or unresponsive, because they do not view women's bodies as sperm buckets for their pleasure.

I didn't report him. I wouldn't even have known to. None of my friends saw it as a problem. "My first time was fairly shit too", "Glad you got it over and done with", "I wouldn't be making a big deal out of it, men get carried away a lot of the time".

I am very grateful that in recent years, with things like Gaga's video and the Hunting Ground and the consent = like tea thing that I finally realise it was okay not to find it okay that someone decided to have sex with me when I was asleep and passed out on a couch.

That's about the only good that comes out of these kind of cases - that hopefully someone somewhere will read about all this and think, heck yeah, that happened to me and that's called RAPE. And it is not my fault.

The father's "20 minute remark" is simply disgusting. It would take less than 20 minutes to slit his throat (especially if he was intoxicated). What exactly is the point here...?!? Does one need to slowly kill or rape somebody to be guilty? Does it matter whether it takes 20 or 25 minutes??

However, alcohol does remove inhibitions. So, one could claim that this most likely wouldn't have happened if he (or she) hadn't been drunk. And I do think that we ought to have an honest discussion about the impact of alcohol consumption. It certainly does have a legal impact where I grew up (and studied law. A continental European country). If alcohol leads to a person not having the ability to consent, does a similarly intoxicated person still have the ability to correctly judge what's going on..? Should they be held accountable for their actions? Was he aware enough to realise that this woman actually wasn't participating?

I'm very happy these Swedes walked by! And the fact that this guy ran away does lead me to believe that he knew what he was doing was wrong. But one could obviously also argue that he simply ran because he was embarassed (having sex in public is also frowned upon).

I do think that the fact that she remembers nothing impacts her credibility. She was apparently able to walk when they left the frathouse. It's therefore not impossible that she was conscious when the... sexual actions/the assault started.

And yes, I'm a woman that has personal experience with sexual violence. Maybe I do deserve "a kick in the vulva" for believing what I just wrote down. But I just believe in at least trying to stay rational.

Yes, I do believe she was assaulted. But my believe ultimately isn't what matters.

Horatio that 20 minute comment turned my stomach, I felt ill reading. Fucking dreadful. His family and friends that defended him are just as bad, they perpetuate these crimes by playing them down and generally making a mockery of it all. I just get a 'we are better/ bigger than this' vibe from them. A smugness that Emirates from every orifice of them.

Eminates not Emirates!

1horatio I think its in Germany that if someone tries to use 'I was drunk'as an excuse for their crime their sentance is increased.

Its not ok to get drunk and rape someone any more than it is to do it while sober or angry.
He was sober enough to try to run away when caught.
Doesnt running away means he knew he was doing wrong?

fusionconfusion I am so very sorry for the appalling experience you went through. I wish you the best possible future, you are a strong and amazing person.

1horatio I am also very sorry you were assaulted. Are you saying here that because one or other person was drunk that this somehow impacts on the reality of raping someone? If a man can't get drunk without raping a woman it is his responsibility to not get drunk.

"I do think that the fact that she remembers nothing impacts her credibility." This seems a very callous thing to say.

And even worse "It's therefore not impossible that she was conscious when the... sexual actions/the assault started." What even does this mean? Are you implying because she was conscious that means she was OK with the being assaulted behind a dumpster?

Horatio you have misquoted me there, I was directly criticising his family for defending his actions. Why would I think you deserve a kick in the vulva?

You're entitled to an opinion, and as a victim of assault I have much respect for it.

If no consent is obtained it is rape, committed by a rapist. That thing and his father and this woman are really worrying members of society.

1horatio I think its in Germany that if someone tries to use 'I was drunk'as an excuse for their crime their sentance is increased.

Interesting. I live in Germany, and have never heard of sentences for anything but causing car accidents being increased if the perpetrator was drunk.
I would be delighted to learn it is also the case for sexual assault and rape.

@fusionconfusion: So sorry that happened to you! And yes, you are so right. The only time I was physically molested happened because I didn't listen to my gut feeling, instead wanting to be "polite". (And also because a man wanted to molest me, but that goes without saying)
And in my case, I wasn't even neglected as child or something. Just conditioned to be "nice".
I hate men who act all offended if a woman doesn't trust them. They're reinforcing this shit. (There's a thread on this on here, currently, and I was rather shocked to discover that some women think that sort of behaviour is okay.)

Uhm no, I highly doubt this is what happens in Germany. They do have the doctrine of actio libera in cause, you can't get drunk with the intention of comitting a crime and then use the drunkenness as a reason for not being persecuted.... (Btw, I'm not German. Any German that wants to correct me please do). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actio_libera_in_causa

There's als the doctrine of falic (fahrlässige alic). If a man should have known that he would be likely to rape whilst being drunk he's still legally culpable. But what if the man didn't know that? What if the man was (from his point of view) not raping somebody?

Are you implying because she was conscious that means she was OK with the being assaulted behind a dumpster?
I am saying that if she was conscious she should have shown in some way that she didn't consent. And the fact that she could walk might imply that she was actually conscious.

2 people meet at a party, they're both drunk, they dance together and they leave together... Person A believes person B wants to have sexual relations and initiates this. If person B doesn't want to engage in sexual actions, isn't there a moral duty to say so? How is person A supposed to know (especially when drunk) that person B was actually not consenting when they never indicated this?
Person A is not a mindreader. Person A may not want to rape somebody and is genuinely assuming that it's consensual. If person B doesn't indicate that they aren't consenting they make A a rapist, even though A didn't even have the intention to rape.

So, some people may now say that verbal consent is always needed. I'd argue that this is a lovely sentiment but is simply not reality nowadays. Actions can imply consent.

This is why I believe it's very important to know if a potential victim was conscious or not.

Querty12345
Ah, sorry. I misunderstood this (most likely didn't read correctly). I thought it was more of a generalised statement.

1horatio I'm sorry but you've got some really screwy thinking going on there. It's Person B's moral responsibility to tell Person A not to rape them? No, Person A has no right to sex, regardless as to how horny he might be feeling. If he isn't sure how person B feels that's not a license to try and stick his penis in her just in case she might like it. Why is getting verbal consent "simply not reality nowadays"? Because women are now unable to speak? Or because men can't be bothered and think that if they asked the woman might say no, and then suddenly he'd be a rapist, whereas if they never ask and pretend that they have consent then they somehow aren't raping her? I call bullshit.

Also in this case bear in mind that Brock assaulted his victim with a hand full of pine needles, causing her abrasions and bruises. It didn't appear that he was interested in consensual or enjoyable sex. She was also so out of it that one of the rescuing Swedish men initially thought she was dead (and she was unconscious for several hours after too). I can't imagine that Brock seriously thought a woman he'd just met, who was extremely drunk (she left a incoherent message for her boyfriend just before she left the party) was giving any consent whatsoever. And no it wasn't her responsibility to say 'no', it was his responsibility to only have sex with someone who wanted to have sex with him. I've taught my children that if there is any doubt at all that your partner isn't enthusiastically consenting, don't have sex. Pretty easy huh? Sex with someone very very drunk sounds shit to me anyway, unless you are into necrophilia and/or a rapist.

Of course there's no right to have sex. But actions can imply consent. Of course it's different when only one person is drunk... But 2 drunk people may potentially cause things to be murky.

In the case of Brock...As I said, I do believe she was assaulted. And she's actually rather lucky he wasn't smarter (or drunk enough to not be very smart when it was happening). If he hadn't run her story would sound much less believable.

I've never had sex with a person this drunk, but it is not something I'm interested in. However, he was also very drunk. And one hasn't to be very aware to finger somebody, I believe. The dirt in her vagina may actually even be seen as evidence in his favour.

I do believe she was assaulted. But I could also think of a chain of events that may suggest something else.

Well that's clearly what his attorneys tried to prove. And in this case failed, although I'm sure many people have avoided being held accountable for similar reasons.

One of the things that I found really abhorrent in this case is the amount of sites discussing this case with at least a few people saying that he shouldn't be punished because 'loads of college guys go to parties, pick up drunk girls and finger them'. I work for a university (not in the States) and have read lots of stuff about campus rape culture, but it's comments like that that really bring it home. There are groups of young men who have very very unpleasant attitudes to women and who do genuinely seem to think that consent is an irrelevancy. Many of them probably have pretty faces and bright futures, just like Brock, and cause huge harm, just like he has.

Including possibly to the girl who wrote the supporting letter, so that she has come to believe that 'college rape' isn't like 'real rape', because it's too hard to think that maybe you too have had some pretty nasty experiences that it's easier to minimise than accept.

I am shocked that he's appealing - do he and his team not appreciate how lightly he's gotten off? And anyway the appeal process will create more publicity and negative public opinion about him thus (hopefully) damaging his future even more. You would think a judge now (given public opinion) would be crazy to reduce the already tiny sentence. And going forward he will have to carry this public perception of him as a cruel and opportunistic rapist wherever he goes for a very long time.

"But actions can imply consent."

I'm not sure what you mean - the fact she could walk out of the party? She was unconscious when the Swedes came along. Even if she'd signed a consent form in front of 100 witnesses, she was unconscious. There is little ambiguity there. Having sex with someone who is out cold is not consensual.

Could an appeal blow up in his face and bring about an increase in his sentence?

ODFO horatio