"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

Horatio. Forget the tea.

To see the reality of the events in this case, you need only look at the testimony of the two bystander witnesses - the Swedish students who caught him. The ones cycling past (in the dark, I believe), who could see what was going on, from a distance, when Brock failed to. Apparently. When he was on top of the unconscious woman.

So devastated were these guys, by what they saw, that one was crying so much he couldn't initially speak to the police.

He found it so horrific, to see Brock grinding away on top of a stripped, unconscious woman, that he couldn't speak. I don't think anyone can deduce from his testimony that Brock could have been "confused" about consent, could they? That he made a "mistake" ? That he could genuinely believe she was consenting?

No of course not. The jury saw straight through him - they convicted. But superstar Brock still had one more thing on his side: the privilege of a judge sympathising with him, this white frat boy, this sports star, this guy from a moneyed family, doing the same course as he, the judge, had done, at the same University: this man was not dangerous to society (only unconscious women) He was remorseful (blamed the drink). Was going to campaign against drink and promiscuity (but not consent - he's still a bit in the dark on that one.) He's a good guy. A fellow, a brother. Oh ok, lets give him a unduly, ridiculously lenient sentence. That's not justice. That's what people are outraged about.

If you read his statement (which is so badly expressed it makes you wonder how well-educated he actually is - I know sports scholarships are not given for academic prowess but this is an embarrassment) he says that he had got up & moved away in order to vomit when he heard the swedes shouting at him, & that he ran away then.

But they are quite clear that he was still on top of her until they shouted.

So he lied under oath? Or did he concede in court that his memory was faulty?

Edinburgh Rape Crisis published this anonymous statement by a victim of rape and how the justice system failed her. It's heart breaking how so many people within the criminal justice system fail victims of rape in every country.

Yes, and that's why I also stated in an other comment that I'm very happy these Swedes were there.

One could deduce a few things from his testimony. Look, it really depends. I could see various possible scenarious. Some that would clearly help the victim and some that clearly would help the attacker. I

I do believe that she was a victim and he an attacker. But I do see scenarios that would lead to an other outcome. She is actually really lucky that he ran away. It's very damning,

Look, I had to take 3 years of crim law and we had rather horrific cases (gang rape, pedophilia, murder, cannibalism, "consensual" partial cannibalism [that one probably made everybody nauseous]), this is what crim law classes are where went to uni.

And we learnt how to defend people that do these things. Maybe this is what's making me so "callous" (I'd call it rational, but ok...). I wrote Falllösungen (case solutions? I studied in a German speaking country) that contain much more "callous" arguments than anything I wrote here. It was simply what was asked from us. (mostly for private law, but this also involved parties that wanted compensation for criminal actions, obviously).

Btw, why have we started talking about parents killing their children?
As far as I know (statistically) fathers are the ones more often responsible. Unless that 70% statistic also counted abortion as murder? (Which, depending on who did this study, may not be an entirely unreasonable assumption).

But only if he actually realises what's going on.

Em, nope sorry.

Failing to notice that he person you are penetrating is unconscious does not mean that you are not raping them.

You can't reasonably believe that an unconscious person wants your dirty finger in their vagina.

It's actually terrifying that there are people who think it is too much to ask that men make sure the women they are penetrating are conscious.

And yes, writing these "Falllösungen" (case resolutions?) as a victim of sexual assault wasn't exactly funny.

But it did teach me to stay rational. Which I do believe is important in the justice system. (btw, I personally do not work in the criminal justice system. You couldn't pay me enough to do so...)

His statement sounds like a complete lie: it directly contradicts what the two witnesses saw.

On the issue of consent, maybe I've been very fortunate, but I am struggling to think of a situation when the person I had sex with did not ask me for my consent, even if it was just a mumbled "Do you want to go all the way then?" I assumed this was pretty normal and standard.

Mind you, I am quite old and haven't shagged anyone except DH for 25 years, maybe sexual etiquette has changed.

You seem to be defining rationality as making up asvmany weak excuses as possibke for why a rape didn't happen.

That type of "rationality" is often used by mansplainers.

I've just read about Brian Banks a black man who also had a successful sporting (NFL) career ahead of him who was accused and convicted of a rape he didn't commit at the age of 16. He was sentenced to 6 years in prison until the girl admitted he was innocent 5 years into the sentence. What about his future? The fact there were actually no witnesses in his case? Everything about the Brock Turner case makes me so angry. Would the same thing have happened in the uk? Probably....

Brian Banks was also held on remand for a year before his case went to trial.

When he was a minor.

Unbelievable.

The 70% figure came from the FBI, so not not including abortions (though the way things are going in some places I wouldn't be surprised if someone tried that soon)

This

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).

Oh, that's easy - they don't. No one tells men to fucking marry that "lady" (interesting choice of word), or they're baaaad and eeeevil men who insult poor innocent women.

But that's EXACTLY what is done to women who don't want to trust a man they know NOTHING about.

Also, your statistics are, in all probability, complete bullshit. I read the newspapers, and NO, the husband of the woman who had ten dead babies buried in her garden was NOT some poor, innocent bloke who had never, ever noticed she was pregnant.

Just read the rapists statement - what a pile of disingenuous bullshit. I notice his version of events is rather different to the witnesses. Vile little creep.

I also judged him for his grammar.

Staying rational means to me looking at a case, contemplating the legal implications and deciding what result one would like to reach (this obviously depends on various things. In an exam on the legal problems one wants to discuss for example. In moot court on the party one happens to be assigned to. IRL it obviously depends on other things. clients, politics etc. But as I said, I don't practice crim law at all, so...).

I do believe she was assaulted, but I do see scenarios that would lead to an other result.

I do think that cases like Brian Bank's are actually a huge problem. It's the main reason why there is a duty to scrutinise potential victims of sexual assault this closely. It sucks, but it is in dubio pro reo...

I am struggling to think of a situation when the person I had sex with did not ask me for my consent, even if it was just a mumbled "Do you want to go all the way then?" I assumed this was pretty normal and standard.

The victim impact letter touches on this. She suggests that there is usually a naturally unfolding series of events leading to consensual sex, rather than a verbal question being asked. I think either way can happen and is often implied in some dialogue about condoms - eg. 'Should I put on a condom?' from him or 'Have you got a condom' from her. It doesn't apply here because the victim wasn't even conscious, obviously.

I think we do need to look at how women actually behave when they're being raped. If they are unconscious or actively resisting, it's easy to establish that they were not consenting. But I agree with Horatio that may not be the case every time and we need to look at that possibility to establish how it can be avoided. Verbal consent isn't always sought -there are different kinds of sex and in enthusiastic sex, verbal consent might feel absolutely unnecessary. There is, however, unwanted sex that is nevertheless consensual, in which one or both parties would rather not but are still choosing to go ahead for other reasons, such as a desire to retain their partner's interest. Or someone very, very shy might be willing enough but very passive.

I'm trying to make the point that there are lots of times where sex is consensual but not enthusiastic at all and therefore a lack of enthusiasm could be interpreted as 'normal consensual behaviour' by some men, rather than a reason to verbally check. One thing I don't think is fair is to introduce a 'you should have asked' rule unless it is widely known and agreed that verbal consent is and should always be obtained before sex. If that rule is established and men claim they did ask for consent, we need to focus on whether they are speaking the truth, rather than respond with 'yeah right, nobody does that' - which is how it was dealt with in the victim impact letter. (That's the only criticism I have of that letter BTW and I don't mean to diminish it in any way).

The cup of tea analogy doesn't go far enough for me because the events leading up to sex aren't like boiling a kettle and putting in a tea bag. To follow the analogy, a woman may be very happy and willing for those events leading up to 'the cup of tea'. One could argue that an interest in, and participation in, events leading up to this could be interpreted as having a mutual interest in the tea.

It's really sad that without the two Swedes as cogent eye witnesses, Brock probably never would have been convicted at all.

Because somehow people can be convinced that it's totally reasonable that a woman might want to have sex with a stranger behind a dumpster, that abrasions and dirt up a vagina are all par for the course.

To follow the analogy, a woman may be very happy and willing for those events leading up to 'the cup of tea'. One could argue that an interest in, and participation in, events leading up to this could be interpreted as having a mutual interest in the tea.

But that's the point. The woman could be wildly enthusiastic, could consent to boiling the kettle, choose a cup etc. But when it came to putting the cup to her lips, if she either changed her mind and said 'no' or passed out, you would not then continue tipping boiling tea down her throat.

It's not complicated at all.

I don't understand how a man putting his fingers inside a woman and then having sex with her could be unaware that she's unconscious. He's inches away from her face, surely he would expect some sort of reaction or would at least be alerted by the lack of it?

Exactly, Well.

And however annoying it is for someone to reject a cup of tea, you don't get to ridicule or assault them as punishment for refusing. You go off and have a quiet cup of tea on your own.

That witness statement is one of the most revolting things I have ever read.

Have the witness statements of the Swedes been released Cory or do you mean Brock's own statement?

I assumed Cory meant the support statement by Rasmussen - don't think it counts as a "witness" statement though.

well
I have already said that if a woman volunteers the word 'no' or is unconscious, that is simple. The trickier point is whether a woman who has gone all the way up to the cup of tea point can ever be reasonably assumed to be willing to have a cup of tea if she doesn't say no. Not everyone who has been raped has resisted and said 'no', making it far from simple in my book.

Having consensual sex somewhere 'private' in a public area is not unheard of. Women in general would not appreciate being told that no sane woman would ever choose to go off to a secluded part of a car park and have sex with someone they'd recently met. Women do consensually do those things sometimes. Also, abrasions don't necessarily indicate rape and being drunk doesn't necessarily prove you must have been raped. (I do think that being unconscious does prove you can't have been participating).

I have personally been part of sexual activity when I didn't really want to and I wish I hadn't. But it wasn't assault. I wasn't pressured. I participated enough for there to be a reasonable assumption I was willing and I wasn't at all drunk. The only way I could possibly call it assault is if I believed men should always stop and ask for verbal consent and that failure to do so is assault. But if men are given no reason to doubt the other person's willingness, I don't think in our culture at the moment that this can reasonably be expected.

I'm not saying that Brock isn't a rapist - he clearly is. Nor am I apologising for him or any rapist in any way. My observations are around the consent issue in general.

No you are definitely not being unreasonable.

I posted on 'recording rape culture' in feminism.

In an experiment, apparently when asked, without actually using the word rape, about 8% of men admitted to rape, of considering rape fine, of using alcohol to get sex too. Some had done it more than once. Rapists rape because they are rapists.

Thank goodness in this case the other students who stopped him knew this was rape.