Russell Brand 🤢🤮 in the Docky Wock

[U53rName]

Credit to @thebrowncatisback for the title. Original thread is here: www.mumsnet.com/talk/in_the_news/5589048-russell-brand?callback=in&code=YTEWYJJJMZQTMJFHNS0ZNDI5LTK3N2QTZWJHYWNHZJGXNZA2&page=39&state=aa7521b41da5458084d85ced7c73c27d

Here we go again. Same old misogynist "she didn't fight back enough" bullshit.

She said she was screaming in pain and asking him to stop. ANYONE who continues having anal sex with someone who is doing that is at that point raping them. Do you understand this? Yes even if they HAD said "I consented to anal sex' beforehand. Which there is absolutely NO evidence whatsoever she did, in fact the evidence is quite compelling that she didn't at all. Especially given the lack of preparation and the mess afterwards. Which an experienced lothario should probably know about tbh. I think he just did it and didn't give a shit about whether she consented or not.

This isn't difficult, it really isn't. Sad that so many men's understanding of sexual consent appears to be worryingly shaky at best.

Oh, and that some women might throw themselves at a given man isn't the reason to discount rape. Rape is about power and control and disregarding boundaries (and often humiliation). It's not about "not being able to get sex".

But if there was no indicator (‘she froze’) that she wasn’t continuing to consent - how can the jury possibly convict?
This is really serious accusation with life/changing consequences for the defendant. The onus has to be on the accuser to convince that it wasn’t consensual. If it was initially consensual and the accuser didn’t give clear unequivocal communication that she wanted it to stop, then you can’t possibly convict of rape.

I'm just reading through Laura Brand's testimony from yesterday. What a grotty little relationship from day one.

Why allow it to continue if she was not consenting?

Jesus Christ. You cannot believe the definition of consent includes not fighting someone who's bigger and stronger than you, who's got you in a compromised position (you're asking her to fight while his penis is in her bum!), while in pain and terrified.

By your standards, that bloke who was killed by the lion consented to it!

I realised you've set yourself up as an agent provocateur here, @LaDeratiseuse, but you're crossing some serious lines.

Profuse bleeding is unequivocal communication.

No - you are missing the point.
Is she withdrew consent after initially consenting, then she obviously needed to communicate that withdrawal of consent.

You’re just on here trying to provoke people. This has been an interesting and informative thread which you continually try to derail.

Indeed.

Tedious, isn't it?

I had understood he roughly flipped her over and just penetrated her anus while her head was shoved into a pillow. She alleged that Brand pushed her down onto the bed and that she struggled to breathe during the incident. If you’re struggling to breathe, you’re not going to have the breath to support speaking.

But she never actively consented to anal sex: he just flipped her over and did it anyway.

If the jury believes a complainant's evidence that she agreed to sexual intercourse generally but expressly refused anal sex, and the defendant proceeded anyway, that can amount to rape.

Conversely, if the jury has a reasonable doubt about whether she withheld consent, or concludes that the defendant reasonably believed she consented, it must acquit.

What’s been great about this thread is that it hasn’t descended into insults and name calling as so many threads do. I suspect this is because this subject is one so many of us have some experience of - either directly or indirectly.

IMO almost the worst thing about this case is that RB has played the old card of trying to make the complainant in the anal rape count appear morally dubious - referring to her rimming him, saving her as “Tart.” For all his professed liberalism he’s tried to paint her as someone who has blurred lines and someone the jury shouldn’t care about. Despicable. That would be enough for me if I were his long suffering wife irrespective of the verdicts.

@LaDeratiseuse the old stereotype of “the good victim” who fights back is now recognised as just that - an outdated and inaccurate stereotype, that benefits no one other than perpetrators.

No one has to have physically fought back or screamed to be a victim of rape. There is no “normal” or “good” response to rape or sexual assault.

Many, many victims of sexual violence freeze, or fawn or dissociate, all of which are well documented and recognised responses to trauma.

Please do not suggest that if it were really rape she would or should have fought back.

But the question is of consent.
And if she initially did consent - did she then withdraw consent and was the defendant aware the she had?

If she did consent to anal sex and Brand said he would be gentle, why didnt he ask her if she was ok? He could have stopped after a few seconds to see if she was alright. If he was a gentle, caring bloke. Which he isnt. His goal was to ejaculate and that’s all he cared about

If that’s the case, what was her response to him?
If I were a juror I would expect that to be explored.

@LaDeratiseuse she didn’t consent. That is the whole point. And, on the facts (bleeding and screaming), he could not have had reasonable belief in her consent in any event.

Think about it: if someone is bleeding, flinching and screaming, would it be reasonable to believe they are consenting to what you are doing to them?

No, one would hope not.

hwr response was: please stop, please stop, please stop

there is no exploration needed. She already told them what she said

@thebrowncatisback and even if she hadn’t said that, it is v hard to see how he could have had reasonable belief in consent anyway.

The more I think about it (and I have thought a lot today), the more I think he is likely in real trouble with this charge. GOOD.

Can I just put that my deleted post was objecting strongly to the suggestions that women should put a fight. I’d hate anyone to think otherwise.

I hear you @TofuTuesday.

Also just wanted to echo earlier comments on this thread, ie that the thread has been interesting and helpful and balanced. I hope it continues to be. As a pp said, I suspect that is because a lot of us have experienced sexual violence and know the impact only too well.

💐

I was trying to 'like' your post when it got deleted. I fully agreed with you.

I wonder why the prosecutor didn’t explore with Russel on how he experiences consent vs non consent?

the main point of the whole trial really… wasn’t even looked at.

@LaDeratiseuse are you actually following the case? Woman 5 has clearly explained she told Brand to stop “a few times quietly and then really loudly.”

The prosecution case wasn’t that he was mistaken about consent it was that he knew full well the complainants didn’t consent - I suspect introducing a concept of mistaken consent would be to muddy the waters and hand the jury a way to acquit.

Thank you @Shloopieand @idontknowhowtodreamyourdreams appreciate it. Agree, lots of recognising of things