Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

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

649 replies

Unacceptable · 08/06/2016 10:50

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
WellErrr · 09/06/2016 06:18

This is for you, horatio. It's for people who are a bit hard of thinking when it comes to consent.
Please do read it. Particularly the part I have bolded.

'If you’re still struggling, just imagine instead of initiating sex, you’re making them a cup of tea.

You say, “Hey, would you like a cup of tea?” and they go, “OMG, fck yes, I would fcking LOVE a cup of tea! Thank you!” Then you know they want a cup of tea.

If they are unconscious, don’t make them tea. Unconscious people can’t answer the question, “Do you want tea?” because they are unconscious.

If you say, “Hey, would you like a cup of tea?” and they um and ahh and say, “I’m not really sure…” then you can make them a cup of tea or not, but be aware that they might not drink it, and if they don’t drink it then — this is the important bit — don’t make them drink it. You can’t blame them for you going to the effort of making the tea on the off chance they wanted it; you just have to deal with them not drinking it. Just because you made it doesn’t mean you are entitled to watch them drink it.

If they say, “No, thank you,” then don’t make them tea. At all. Don’t make them tea, don’t make them drink tea, don’t get annoyed at them for not wanting tea. They just don’t want tea, okay?

They might say, “Yes, please, that’s kind of you,” and then when the tea arrives they actually don’t want the tea at all. Sure, that’s kind of annoying as you’ve gone to the effort of making the tea, but they remain under no obligation to drink the tea. They did want tea, now they don’t. Sometimes people change their mind in the time it takes to boil that kettle, brew the tea and add the milk. And it’s okay for people to change their mind, and you are still not entitled to watch them drink it even though you went to the trouble of making it.

If they are unconscious, don’t make them tea. Unconscious people don’t want tea and can’t answer the question, “Do you want tea?” because they are unconscious.

Okay, maybe they were conscious when you asked them if they wanted tea, and they said yes, but in the time it took you to boil that kettle, brew the tea and add the milk they are now unconscious. You should just put the tea down, make sure the unconscious person is safe, and — this is the important bit — don’t make them drink the tea.

If someone said yes to tea, started drinking it and then passed out before they’d finished it, don’t keep on pouring it down their throat. Take the tea away and make sure they are safe. Because unconscious people don’t want tea. Trust me on this.

If someone said “yes” to tea around your house last Saturday, that doesn’t mean that they want you to make them tea all the time. They don’t want you to come around unexpectedly to their place and make them tea and force them to drink it going, “BUT YOU WANTED TEA LAST WEEK,” or to wake up to find you pouring tea down their throat going “BUT YOU WANTED TEA LAST NIGHT.”

And that’s how you do that. The genius of this metaphor basically exposes everything — EVERYTHING! — that’s wrong with the unevolved dinosaurs who think the issue of consent is a complicated one. It’s not.

diddl · 09/06/2016 06:19

"But actions can imply consent."

But surely actions could also negate that consent?

Such as collapsing through intoxication?

And if she had agreed to go to his room-why is that a consent to sex?

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

One can only hope!

1horatio · 09/06/2016 07:00

WellErrr
I read this.Tea...? A slightly ridiculous analogy imo. I could make one about doctors that would show exactly the opposite.

But ok, let's stick with the tea analogy.

I agree, if the person making the tea (A) the realises that B has lost consciousness your example works. But what if A doesn't realise that? A is also drunk and enjoys making this tea and is therefore not particularly perceptive....

enterYourPassword · 09/06/2016 07:22

Of course he is a disgusting rapist and deserves a far harsher punishment than he got.

Some comments on this thread stand out:

If I had a teenage son I'd make him read [the victim impact statement].

Why? Because as he grows into a man, without it he'll end up raping someone?

People (normal, regular ones) don't need to be told not to rape.

Scapegoat the lone rapist and pretend he is a one off.

It's not scapegoating the lone rapist, it's blaming him for his crime.

DoinItFine

I don't think it's a coincidence that it was two Swedes who put a stop to what he was doing. I think she was very lucky in terms of the nationality of the witnesses.

Definitely lucky with the swedes.
If it had been a couple of frat boys (athletes or otherwise) instead, who knows what might have happened?

DoinItFine

They probably would have joined in.

Disgusting comments. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

It's a culture of rape and misogyny.

There is no such thing. Normal men are not dangerous rapists.

Babieseverywhere · 09/06/2016 07:23

1horatio
If anyone thinks that issue of consent is difficult or nuanced, then that person needs to be celibate and NOT have sex with anyone.

Simmi1 · 09/06/2016 07:23

But let's face it - in this case he was perceptive enough to carry out the vile attack and run away when confronted. He knew he was in the wrong but just thought he'd get away with it and if it wasn't for the two Swedes he probably would have done.

WellErrr · 09/06/2016 07:26

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

PalmerViolet · 09/06/2016 07:31

I agree, if the person making the tea (A) the realises that B has lost consciousness your example works. But what if A doesn't realise that? A is also drunk and enjoys making this tea and is therefore not particularly perceptive....

So the rapist (person A) is somehow justified in pouring boiling hot tea over his victim (person B) because he likes making tea? Are you being obtuse for effect?

People (normal, regular ones) don't need to be told not to rape.

There is no such thing. Normal men are not dangerous rapists.

How do women tell the difference between normal regular men and rapists? Do rapists have the mark of Cain on them? Lizard eyes?

If you think there is no rape culture and misogyny, how do you explain the sharp rise in campus rapes?

The ridiculous hoops victims have to jump through to get their attacker convicted?

The fact that this woman, who's attacker was caught red-handed in the process of assaulting her, had to endure having her whole life called into question, while her attacker was allowed to be portrayed as the super star who made a 20 minute mistake?

Querty12345 · 09/06/2016 07:34

EVERYTHING enter said. Spot on.

UnderTheGreenwoodTree · 09/06/2016 07:40

But what if A doesn't realise that? A is also drunk and enjoys making this tea and is therefore not particularly perceptive....

You're fucking kidding me, right?

FTFO.

Roussette · 09/06/2016 07:43

The tea video is spot on, it's brilliant, thanks for linking it Babies.

Horatio how can A not realise B has lost consciousness. She was not moving! She was motionless, so much so the lovely Swedish guys actually thought she was dead. They probably thought they had chased a murderer, then when they realised she wasn't dead, that's maybe the point that one vomited after realising what the disgusting rapist had been doing.

The woman concerned could have been drunk and dancing with the rapist (can't bear to call him by his proper name) and he said "let's go outside for some action" (that seems to be his family way of talking about this) and she says "Yeah great, let's". They go outside, the fresh air hits her, she passes out - the fact she was willing to go outside for whatever she thinks was going to happen is totally negated by the fact she is now unconscious. It really isn't hard to realise that consent is now worthless, she has not agreed that "should I pass out you can insert foreign objects into me and rape me".

Vestal Virgin ^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"^
This really hit home for me. I have DDs and they are now young adults and not at home. I'm afraid they've been conditioned to be nice and polite and sometimes that scares me. Maybe I've done wrong, they are feisty girls but also respectful. One of the daughters said there was some bloke who more than once appeared to be walking next to her or just noticeable enough to be just "there". I had chills up my spine. I told her.... look, if ever he gets too close or you feel uneasy or your gut feeling is telling you something, do not hesitate to look at him and shout FUCK OFF as loud as you can so that people hear. Your post just hit home, sorry I'm rambling.

enterYourPassword · 09/06/2016 07:55

palmer

How do women tell the difference between normal regular men and rapists? Do rapists have the mark of Cain on them? Lizard eyes?

How do men know they aren't going to start a family with a lady who will go on to murder their children (children are many times more likely to be murdered by their mother than their father).

My point is, they can't. It sounds like you're all for guilty until proven innocent but happily you're in the minority. We assume that people aren't rapists, murderers etc unless proved otherwise.

The ridiculous hoops victims have to jump through to get their attacker convicted?

They aren't ridiculous. He should have been presumed innocent.

The fact that this woman, who's attacker was caught red-handed in the process of assaulting her, had to endure having her whole life called into question, while her attacker was allowed to be portrayed as the super star who made a 20 minute mistake?

Again, there is no alternative. He must be presumed innocent and given the opportunity to defend himself. The prosecution will have certainly not portrayed him as a superstar and the defence certainly won't have called her whole life into question. You're slightly twisting what happened.

Just to reiterate, I think that now he's proven guilty he should have a far more severe punishment, there is no such thing as a mitigating factor* and I feel nothing but pity for the girl involved. I'm not attempting to excuse anything.

*arguably pleading guilty so the victim didn't need to go to court but even that has some dubious moral grounds.

UnderTheGreenwoodTree · 09/06/2016 08:00

and the defence certainly won't have called her whole life into question.

And yet, that's exactly what they did do. Exactly that - they grilled her on all aspects of her life, and used private investigators to attempt to discredit her. Did you actually read about this case at all?

MrsHathaway · 09/06/2016 08:00

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 think I was being too philosophical. She could not attest to the assault itself (because she was unconscious and remembered none of it). She didn't know she had been assaulted until HCPs told her so. Hypothetically if she had been rescued by someone who had taken her home, put her in the bath and then into bed with a pint of water and two paracetamol, she might never have known. See my remarks about chattel: it bothers me that the prosecution went ahead because there were two male witnesses, as pp pointed out, who seem to count more than the one female witness in most rape cases.

Reading her statement, I'm struck by how the trauma she has experienced is to do with the medical and legal process, rather than the assault itself.

PalmerViolet · 09/06/2016 08:09

They aren't ridiculous. He should have been presumed innocent.

If you truly think that I was suggesting that the adversarial system of law we have shouldn't be used in cases of rape, then you're being very silly, possibly deliberately. Or you just have no clue what you're on about, in which case I pity you.

Out for the day now, so won't have to read rape apologist crap for a few hours. I'll get back to you later.

Roussette · 09/06/2016 08:10

enteryourpassword I'm not sure that the rapist wasn't portrayed as some superstar TBH. The judge apparently went to the same college as him and did the same Course, that was used in court (so I read - no idea if that was true). Then there's the holding back of the mugshot because the Judge said it would upset him, he was granted privilege in court because he was rich, white and intelligent with family backing him and using every trick in the book to get him off.

Just read this. The letter the rapist wrote was pre-sentencing and as it says, it hit the right buttons with the Judge.

If you want to read his statement, here it is. Warning, it will raise blood pressure. He takes no responsibility whatsoever. It's all the fault of alcohol.

LurcioAgain · 09/06/2016 08:24

It's worth asking what the culture of rape apologism does. The work of American sociologist David Lisak is relevant here. He's done a lot of work on campus date rape. Much of his methodology centres round questionnaires which ask men about behaviours - behaviours which meet the legal definition of rape, but where the description doesn't use the word "rape". 6% of men in his sample admit to the behaviours - that is, they have carried out assaults on women which meet the legal definition of rape. Now for the scarily interesting bit - if he repeats the surveys actually using the word rape, the percentage of men in his sample admitting to rape falls to... 5%. That's right. Educating men would make only a small impact, because most rapists know they are rapists, understand consent perfectly well, just don't care about their victim. The only thing they care about is not getting caught. (Incidentally, they are also repeat offenders - Lisak finds that on average they have perpetrated 6 rapes each - which, allowing for women who are unlucky enough to be raped twice, pretty much gives you the 1 in 4 women are victims stat!)

So what does rape apologism do? It creates the necessary atmosphere of "reasonable" doubt in the minds of jurors which enable these men to get off a lot of the time even when the woman has found the strength to press charges and the police have managed to build a case. So, rape apologists on this thread, I don't blame you for rape itself, but I sure as hell blame you for propping up the culture which makes it extremely hard to get a conviction, and means that these men (mostly repeat offenders) are allowed to remain at large, raping over and over again.

Oh, and if a man says he doesn't get the "cup of tea" analogy, or wastes twenty minutes of your life mansplaining why it's a bad analogy - actually, he hasn't wasted 20 minutes of your life, he's given you the very, very valuable knowledge never, ever to be alone with him!

DoinItFine · 09/06/2016 08:24

Penetrating an unconscious person is rape.

It is your responsibility not to do any rapes.

So you need to make sure the person you are penetrating is conscious.

Even if you are drunk.

HTH

There are people who want to define rape out of existence.

They literally want the bar to be "did the rapist think it was OK?"

Simmi1 · 09/06/2016 08:31

There's absolutely no doubt here that if the rapist was black, poor and uneducated there is no way he would have gotten away with such a lenient sentence. The "reason" the judge gave was that Brock would be unlikely to re-offend and that he had suffered enough already. Whereas it is perhaps true that he has "lost" more than someone coming from nothing and that this sort of thing happens a lot and Brock was unlucky that there were witnesses in his case- the system almost needs to make an example out of him by giving him a sentence closer to the maximum in order to change society views on what constitutes rape, what constitutes a rapist and that you can't buy your way out of justice!

enterYourPassword · 09/06/2016 08:36

UnderTheGreenwoodTree

Yes, I made a mistake with my wording.

The prosecution won't have questioned her whole life in the same way that the prosecution won't have made him out to be a super star.

As for the judge, he seems terrible. I suspect he won't last long now this story is gaining traction. Can judges be sacked in the states?

PalmerViolet

Or you just have no clue what you're on about, in which case I pity you.

Out for the day now, so won't have to read rape apologist crap for a few hours.

I have no clue what you're on about or what caused the attitude problem!

What are the ridiculous hoops that someone has to jump through when claiming they were raped?

so won't have to read rape apologist crap for a few hours

I assume that little comment wasn't aimed at me. If so, why?

witsender · 09/06/2016 08:47

More likely to be aimed at Horatio.

AugustaFinkNottle · 09/06/2016 09:24

It would appear that the ridiculous hoops a rape victim has to go through in the US when giving evidence against their accusers include the need to deal with a defence team that has trawled through their past and will take every opportunity to claim they are promiscuous, lying sluts. That is obviously not the normal experience of the burglary or fraud victim.

This rapist of course had every right to the presumption of innocence. However, having been found guilty, the extra ordeal he and his legal team put his victim through should have been fully taken into account in sentencing. It seems to have been ignored.

BuunyChops · 09/06/2016 09:31

I'm just hanging around to find out the analogy about Drs.................

Oh and a reference for the statement 'children are many times more likely to be murdered by their mother than their father', cause all the data I've found that was on offical websites and not not MRA site states the opposite; with the FBI stating In murders with multiple victims, fathers are the culprit 70% of the time.

Querty12345 · 09/06/2016 10:04

Has anyone seen the dedication made to the victim by the cast of 'girls'? If you have what do you think?

1horatio · 09/06/2016 10:08

Oh, and if a man says he doesn't get the "cup of tea" analogy, or wastes twenty minutes of your life mansplaining why it's a bad analogy - actually, he hasn't wasted 20 minutes of your life, he's given you the very, very valuable knowledge never, ever to be alone with him!

Ok... We should be able to have reasonable conversations without calling each other potential rapists... But apparently we can't. Mansplaining?

I am actually a woman and a victim of sexual assault (more than once actually, but luckily never rape. Maybe I also used to be a wounded antelope). I am not "mansplaining". The user name "horatio" has no connection to my actual name (or gender.). This is my take on things.

Of course it matters whether a woman initially consented (asked for tea)!
They got it on and the woman then lost consciousness. Sure, the guy should stop. But only if he actually realises what's going on. Is it rape/assault if he doesn't realise for the first 5 seconds? For 20 seconds? Does he need to finger her for a minute...? 2? at what point should a drunk guy in the dark realise that she's unconscious?

On the other hand we have a woman that "never asked for tea" (me for example...). She said from the start that she didn't want to. The guy knew that and he did whatever he wanted anyway. You don't see the difference?

A guy knowing that a woman doesn't want to engage in any sexual act and doing so anyway? Or a woman that does consent, then loses consciousness and it takes the guy some time to realise what was actually happening? (I am not saying this is what actually happened in the Stanford rape case, as I said, I do believe she was assaulted. But I do see a possible scenario that would actually lead to the guy not being a rapist/not intending to rape her...)