Shia LeBouf rape,sexism at its fineist.

[FayKorgasm]

My facebook is full articles about Shias rape. I am so sorry he went through this. However not one article mentions his clothing at the time,alcohol consumption,past partners,whether he knew the person. Not even "rape" or alledged rape. Pick up any article about a woman talking about her rape and it is full of what she was wearing etc.
Fucking deprressing really.

He wasn't tied to a chair or gagged or anything, there was nothing to stop him getting up or shouting out. Like if someone had pulled out a knife or gun I'm guessing there would have been a plan of action...

Whatever happened, he's not comfortable about it.

He has the right not to be.

It's odd, definitely.

But I think on this board posters need to be very careful about dismissing someone just because they are male.

Puffins, listed...

Although English law states that only men can rape, the art exhibition was in the United States where the law states women can rape men.

I think suffice to say this is an absolutely bizarre situation.

Clearly if a woman was in a room and invited allcomers to "do whatever you want to me" she would be extremely likely to be sexually assaulted. And no-one would be surprised.

Surely he must have been expecting all sorts of weird stuff - people are weird after all. A man could have raped him, he could have been sexually assaulted in a variety of ways, people could have urinated on him, tattooed him, cut him with a blade...... I mean what on earth?

So I'm not sure that this incident tells us anything about sexual assault generally does it?

To be fair I think poor Shia might be in the middle of some kind of mental health crisis. In this context his capacity to consent and ability to make judgements may be impaired. So someone else taking advantage of this situation sexually is clearly an issue.

He didn't consent...and I'm not trying to say that not stopping her constitutes consent...but...

He had the ability to stop her and chose to continue with his art installation instead - I just can't understand that. Why would you choose not to call the security you were presumably paying to make sure nobody went too far?

It's a very unusual situation isn't it.

Clearly anyone who assaulted him in any way - whether sexual or otherwise - as a part of this should be prosecuted. Having said that, the fact that he had said you can do anything you want to me might make prosecution/conviction a bit difficult. Certainly for female victims in the UK truly bizarre things are taken as consent so in this instance and imagining it's not too different in the US I can't imagine a legal process would get very far.

Prashad, thanks for pointing that out, good to see you learned something from your thread, however, I think I was pretty clear about jurisdictions.

And YY Buffy and Seven, if the sexes had been reversed and it was to get to court, then 'do anything you want to me' would almost certainly be viewed as consent, it will be interesting to see if this gets to court and whether that is posited. It is also a perfect example of why 'enthusiastic participation' has to be seen as the benchmark for consent.

While it's true that he said that anyone could do anything they wanted to him, under British law, it's imposible to consent to assault, is this true in America?

It has to be said that we don't actually know how she raped him. And yes, it is his right as the victim to keep that private, but bearing in mind that he came out with this in a self-publicising interview months after the event, and (presumably) not in a police interview immediately after it happened, I don't know whether that information is ever going to be forthcoming.

I believe rape is the insertion of bodily parts or implements into orifices against another persons will?

So he had put a whip amongst other items out on a table in the room for the guest to interact with him. If she picked it up and asked him if it was ok to use it on him, and as part of his installation he didn't answer her (pure speculation on my part), does he have a right to now complain?

Does she poke the end in his mouth? Worse?

It's horrible to think about. No matter what the sexes involved. But he can't put his hands up and say he has no responsibility for what went on in the room, assuming he hadn't been gagged and cuffed at that point.

That's not true Nibled.

It's a well known legal principle that you can consent to certain types of "assault" which aren't then assault - being tackled in a rugby match for instance.

Dont want to make assumptions, but i can see how after saying "do what you want to me" one would feel they couldnt call security as they'd brought it on themselves. And that would then explain the lack of complaint at the time too? Perhaps?

He's definitely odd.

I've just read his interview and it's bizarre, to say the least.

The art installation thing is a strange idea, it's odd to let someone do what they want to you,and have no boundaries for what is acceptable and what not.

He says he had whips etc out on a table that people could use on him.

So he would have consented to assault, certainly.

He would have trouble getting a conviction for rape, given that he could have stopped it at any time but didn't. I'm not saying that it then wasn't rape, but it's all very weird.

Yes indeed.

I think that was Celeste was saying earlier about him 'lessening' the value of the word rape does actually make sense when you look at the wider picture of the the whole installation - the fact that he provided the whip, had given permission up to a point, and then didn't say stop (and yes I KNOW THAT THIS IS THE IMPOSSIBLY TRICKY PART that sets it apart from any other rape situation in my mind).

That a lot of the articles in the papers are giving half the story isn't helping.

Shia LeBouf isn't the first do do this as performance art, it was done by the amazing Mairina Abramovic in the 70's

To test the limits of the relationship between performer and audience, Abramovi? developed one of her most challenging (and best-known) performances. She assigned a passive role to herself, with the public being the force which would act on her. Abramovi? placed on a table 72 objects that people were allowed to use (a sign informed them) in any way that they chose. Some of these were objects that could give pleasure, while others could be wielded to inflict pain, or to harm her. Among them were a rose, a feather, honey, a whip, olive oil, scissors, a scalpel, a gun and a single bullet. For six hours the artist allowed the audience members to manipulate her body and actions.

"Initially, members of the audience reacted with caution and modesty, but as time passed (and the artist remained passive) people began to act more aggressively. As Abramovi? described it later: “What I learned was that... if you leave it up to the audience, they can kill you.” ... “I felt really violated: they cut up my clothes, stuck rose thorns in my stomach, one person aimed the gun at my head, and another took it away. It created an aggressive atmosphere. After exactly 6 hours, as planned, I stood up and started walking toward the audience. Everyone ran away, to escape an actual confrontation"

From a (relatively) informed point of view and as a woman I do feel that if as an artist you chose to create a piece where you are inviting people to 'do what they want to you' then as part of your preparation for the work you are going to have to consider that someone might do something very awful, including causing your death. It is then your decision as to whether you wish to proceed, generally performance artists are used to taking huge risks with their body, it goes with the territory.

This is no way conflicts with a woman (or man's) absolute right to say no in real life, but this isn't real life, it's a performance, no performer creates work like this without both themselves and many other people, (you cannot undertake work like this without an extensive health and safety review) dissecting the risks to the nth degree.

That all makes sense to me gobbler.

This situation is bizarre and I think there's no point trying and draw any conclusions about sexual assault / rape generally from it.

In British law you can't consent to the more serious assault (sorry can't remember which is the higher offence gbh or abh) the case is R v Brown

"I believe rape is the insertion of bodily parts or implements into orifices against another persons will? "

Depends completely on the jurisdiction but tbh I think it's a bit of a red herring for the debate at hand. For example I doubt people who'd confidently say "it's not rape because legally a woman can't rape a man in England because it requires penetration " would similarly discredit a woman in Canada who had been raised by saying "it's not rape because legally there's no offence of rape in Canada, it's sexual assault. So nobody has ever been tapes on Canada."

I don't disagree with those who say what happened to Shia wasn't rape, but I just think the argument of applying struck English legal terms to the argument as though its a net point are slightly disengenuos.

This is nothing like someone being intimidated or in fear so they think saying no will make it worse, not is it a case of someone being out of control so that their consent has been vitiated.

*who had been raped

Jesus those typos

Posting off the phone should be discouraged

From a (relatively) informed point of view and as a woman I do feel that if as an artist you chose to create a piece where you are inviting people to 'do what they want to you' then as part of your preparation for the work you are going to have to consider that someone might do something very awful, including causing your death. It is then your decision as to whether you wish to proceed, generally performance artists are used to taking huge risks with their body, it goes with the territory.

This is no way conflicts with a woman (or man's) absolute right to say no in real life, but this isn't real life, it's a performance, no performer creates work like this without both themselves and many other people, (you cannot undertake work like this without an extensive health and safety review) dissecting the risks to the nth degree.

^this. A conviction would be hard to secure I'd imagine. What is the law in the US about consenting to assault ?

Oh I have seen it op!

So far he has been blamed because

he must have had an erection for it to have been raped
he secretly enjoyed it
he didn't tell anyone
he didn't make any noises of discontent
the 'perp' looked dishevelled, so he must have been an active participant
he has mental health issues
he is an alcoholic/was an alcoholic
he put himself in that position
he didn't fight
he didn't object

Sorry, first line was incomplete

he must have had an erection for it to have happened, therefore he was aroused & it couldn't have been rape

Gobbler the difference between Shia and Marina Abramovic is that his was a one to one performance where Marina's was open. whole different set of risks involved and it really did prove a point as a social experiment.