Rape, blame, responsibility, Amnesty, etcetera.

That's before we get into the whole "how did they get drunk/were they drugged?" scenario.

well, maybe murder is a bit much, but the govt pays for posters that say that if you use a mobile/mp3 player in public you've only got yourself to blame if it gets nicked. the principle is the same.

Yeah. Remind me what the point is of having a mobile if you can't answer it when it rings?

That makes them careless, but NOT responsible though. One could get plastered and fall asleep on the front lawn and no one should ever take that as a cue for anything except to help them up and send them home ffs!

I must say that those posters actually quite irritate me, for very similar reasons. There's being sensible, but that somehow crosses a line.

But, in my head at least, there's a big difference between crime against property and crime against persons.

But how do you effectively *lock* your person? (To prevent rape, murder, being beaten up, etc?)

x-post

We like to think he made a difference that night.

haha but in soft, welfare britain the state is always there to pick up the tab < /mail>

Responsible?!? It might have been naive and stupid to get drunk, but it's still rape and she should not feel responsible. Rape is rape.

Responsible?!? It might have been naive and stupid to get drunk, but it's still rape and she should not feel responsible. Rape is rape.

Not responsible for being raped, but responsible for putting themselves in danger.

I think that Statutory rape - rape in cases where the ability to give consent is diminished (such as through age or incapacity) - it may be more about sex or sexuality. But it just seems to be that it's more about predation. I don't know.

yes, but it is *consensual*. "I allow you to have power and control over me in this limited situation"

Like most people on this thread have said, it's complicated. I have this "friend" who likes kinky sex - rough sex and B&D games and the like. She was raped when she was 13, and her early sexual experiences were non-consensual. Are the two things linked? Chicken and egg when you're talking about sexuality.

The prosecution made the very sensible point that , even though the victim may not have actually said "no" because she was so drunk she could not speak, this did not meet the required test for informed consent.

In other words "she was hammered" is not an excuse.

A footballer was on trial for rape recently, and his defence was that she had consented to sex. He also happily admitted that she was paralytic, couldn't stand up and had been throwing up in the taxi home from the nightclub. Yet he still thought she was in a position to weigh up whether she wanted to have sex with him.

an interesting moral dilemma: perhaps the police have traumatised someone who otherwise would have lived in happy ignorance?

A footballer was on trial for rape recently, and his defence was that she had consented to sex. He also happily admitted that she was paralytic, couldn't stand up and had been throwing up in the taxi home from the nightclub. Yet he still thought she was in a position to weigh up whether she wanted to have sex with him.

clearly have a degree of ambiguity for lawyers, prosecutors, etc. the issue here is not whether the woman 'asked to be raped', but of establishing what actually happened, what there was by way of explicit consent. in relationships you don't always have 'explicit consent' -- and there is such a thing as rape within relationships.

Which means that ultimate responsibilty lies with the man doing the raping.

I'm also somehow able to not steal a bike if it's left unlocked outside a shop, and not nick someone's wallet if I see it poking out of their pocket on the Tube. People do silly things, but the blame if a crime is committed lies with the criminal.

S'not rocket science.

not analogous, though. iraqis killing US soldiers are not criminals, they aren't breaking any generally agreed laws. whereas the US troops using chem weapons and torturing iraqis are.

(OK, perhaps technically the US are not "at war" with Iraq any more, but it's still an illegal occupation.)

If two 14-year-olds have sex, the boy can be prosecuted for rape but not the girl. Which is odd, especially as a 14-year-old girl is emotionally much more grown-up than her male counterpart.

So there's some room for improvement in the law there, but I'd guess that women having sex with a man against his will is pretty rare compared to the other way around — the man has the more 'active' role in proceedings, and if he's really, really drunk any would-be female rapists will find themselves trying to play snooker with a length of rope, if you know what I mean.

i certainly think that a women, not matter what state shes in or what shes wearing, is neither to blame nor responsible in any way if she is raped. but i think that there are certain conditions whihc might contribute to a rape occuring. its when a moral aspect comes in that i think judgements of this kind get twisted. there is a chance that if you control your drinking, cover up etc, you might be able to reduce the risk of rape, but this doesnt mean that there is moral force compelling you to do so, i think.

xpost i agree with trife that the idea that the woman should have to say no for sex to be declared non-consensual is freaky, given the power dynamic involved with sex why shouldnt there be a burden of proof that either partner said "yes", rather than "no"?

i dont expect to have to refuse everything that i dont want, i prefer to be asked if i do want them in most cases. why shouldnt this be the same in sex?

Don't bank with NatWest, then.

XXXXpost.

Whew, that one almost got away from me there!

That's not what anyone's saying though. What I'm saying is that if you impair your senses through intake of chemicals to a point when you cannot avoid certain situations, then you have to take responsibility for getting yourself in a fucking mess where something bad can happen. Yes, the rapist is 100% to blame for the rape itself, which is an entirely reprehensible and disgusting act and not the behaviour of a normal, moral human being; but if you are blind drunk and are raped in a situation where you would not have been raped were you not blind drunk, well, you got yourself drunk. Same if you get beaten up. It's awful and horrendous and no one should be beaten up or raped, drunk or not, but there are assholes out there and if you've half a brain you should know that and take steps to avoid them.

Henry's made some very cogent points about different kinds of rape too, obviously.

XXXpost.

really nick? what if you werent paying total attention and were rear-ended by another vehicle, which seems much closer to rape than driving your car into a tree or something, does that person deserve to be shamed as well? what about if youve been in a car wreck of your own making, lost both your legs, and then i kick your crutches out from under you and rob you? hey maybe "responsibility" isnt as important as your tory ass thinks it is

If you're not paying attention and someone rear-ends your car then yes, pay fucking attention. Take responsibility for your own actions and be aware of the potential asshole actions of others. How this makes me a tory I'm not quite sure, except that accusing someone of being a tory when they extole not 100% sassy "not my fault" uber-liberal bullshit opinions is a common ILX habit. As is anonymity.

drunkenness and immodesty are almost universally considered moral issues.

it's so normal pregnant women and toddlers do it.

It's a shame because this thread had got me thinking about some interesting stuff, and it seemed like quite sensitive things were being debated in a way that didn't make me feel uncomfortable on a personal level. Which it now does.

I like how Trife is now insinuating that I am a rapist. Not every victim is innocent. Not everything you read in the papers is true.

I take Nick's point, but the logic seems flawed somewhere. Maybe I'm being dumb but "The guy's 100% responsible, but the woman needs to take some of the responsibility" doesn't make sense to me.
-- Come Back Johnny B (john.barlo...)

you're looking at it from the wrong end of the telescope. with a large number of rape cases, the thing is to prove that an offence has taken place -- to prove that the woman is 'a rape victim'.

it's difficult to prosecute for rape, at levels below violent attack, precisely because concepts like 'consent' become very slippery when drink/drugs/etc is involved. so you have lots of very ugly court cases where the guy has clearly 'taken advantage' (and of course he may well have been under the influence also) but it's very hard to prove that the victim was not consenting -- partly of course because of lack of witnesses.

nick hasn't said the crime of rape is diminished by the irresponsibility of the victim, but it's actually fairly cold comfort for victims to know that they have some internet dude in their corner saying it's categorically never your responsibility to do your best not to get into difficult situations, like some guy's car at the end of the evening when you're shitfaced.

(Sorry Kate)

im sure rape victims enjoy some creepy internet dude looking for ways to blame them and increase their exact percentage of culpability even more

When a person, a private citizen, about their OWN business, fails to take whatever "reasonable measures" (avoiding drugs and alcohol; avoiding bad parts of town; avoiding living in a flood plain; avoiding living over a faultline; wearing heavy clothing; having a penis; carrying weaponry) then there are no damages to be apportioned to other parties. The victim is the only victim. So why does blame need to be apportioned?

Because it is in society's job description to protect the freedom of its private citizens to go about their own business. So by apportioning blame to said private citizens, you are effectively stating which protections are not in society's job description, and saying "we do not, as a society, give a shit about people's freedom to do this or this or this." What do you think should fall under "at your own risk" and what should be protected? Is going down the pub looking hot and having a few more than you really should (possibly because everybody else was cheering you on) honestly fall in the same fucking category as "trying to jump my snowmobile off this 50 foot bluff" or "racing motorcycles in the pouring rain?"

I'm not going to touch the idea of not blaming the rapist because the victim was so drunk because that's patently absurd and indefensible, ergo not worth anyone's time.

no-one has done this!

Nick Southall has said nothing on this thread which as offended me - AS A RAPE VICTIM - while Ethan certainly has.

And how is it an "ad hominem" attack to ask someone if they have ever experienced the behaviour that they are trying to prescribe the reactions to? Unless you think that asking someone if they've actually been raped is by definition offensive.

Ethan seems to think somebody has. I'm trying to send the message that he's being unreasonable and wasting his time.

I resent being told, as a rape victim, how I should feel about it. I ESPECIALLY resent a male instructing other males in the sensitive treatment of rape victims by threats of sexual violence.

Ethan's brand of chatter vs your brand of chatter vs. A Nairn's comments vs. Nick's = "one man's trash is another man's treasure" "different strokes for different folks" "welcome to the internet arguing about the relative validity of different forms of discourse is a moot point in 2005"

It's ad hominem because you're doing it because he's Ethan.

I am doing it because I utterly hate men shooting their mouths off about how women should or shouldn't or do or don't react to rape. And that gets a reaction and a comment out of me regardless of whether it's Ethan or John Darni3113 - with whom I've also tangled over this issue.

mark, explain that statement

But it is still rape: non-consensual sex. You're forcing sex on someone who did NOT ask. The woman or man said no and that should have been respected. If s/he was so drunk, s/he could not consent... then you should assume s/he said no. It's a sad thing if you put some blame on the raped woman (or man). they didn't want it, so how can you twist that around into saying "Well, you sort of asked for it." The underlying current in this: The rapist can feel less guilty. I just... *shudder* I find this a horrible train of thought.

Kate, what if someone told you:"Well, you wore a mini skirt and you drank too much alcohol. You sort of asked for it." This is a serious question. Not trying to hurt you; but trying to show you how people diminish the guilt of the rapist.

But if the woman 'bears some responsibility', then that by definition reduces the guilty man's sentence by a percentage.

Not necessarily - I think a man who takes advantage of a woman's drunkenness to assault her is as much a predator as a rapist by force.

I know that it's complicated by other factors - what if the man is as drunk as the woman and unable to assess *her* ability to give consent?

x-x-x-post

In court, if a degree of responsibility can be attached to the victim of an accident, their 'reparation' is reduced.

Similarly, if someone can be shown to have influenced the perpretrator into committing the crime, the verdict is influenced by 'mitigating circumstances'.

It depends on what you call 'degree of responsibility'. Admittedly, the original question was more about the woman 'accepting some degree' rather than the courts proving it as such.

I don't know if that's less offensive or what.

i was totally clear, i hope, in saying that morally there's no nuance (i didn't use that word) at all; my point was that in proving that a date/relationship rape has taken place, the authorities have great difficulties, for reasons i gave, in establishing whether there was or was not consent. no-one is saying that these types of rape aren't rape.

I think in most cases the underlying current is more along the lines of "rapists, muggers et al. are just OUT THERE, they exist, they are a risk, what can y'do" everybody who apportions some part of the blame to the victim of a crime is not necessarily empathizing with the perp, they're usually just thinking along the same lines of thought that people use to blame people for living in San Francisco or Florida. I think that's lazy bullshit thinking but it buttresses society's collective feeling of guilt for all the things that happen which are nearly impossible to police against or protect people from.

Does any of this make sense?

Enrique, you're right, nuances was Nick's word. Regardless, I think your point is basically crap. We're back down the slippery slope of the idea that there ARE different kinds of rape--which there aren't, really, there's just defendants who can get out of it and defendants who can't and a bunch of people in charge who don't take the crime that seriously, quite frankly--which I cannot help but feel actually encourages relationship/date rape. I mean, it's not really rape if it's your passed out/drunk/struggling gf, right? I mean, it's not like the authorities can prove it or really think much of it...

So, no, I don't think it's a point that should be brought up. Though I'm never a fan of police apologists.

xpost x2

I thought he (nick) was just playing 'devil's advocate'. i think you're absolutely right about the 'why the fuck would you' point about blame ratio in such situations ethan, but to attack Nick in this way still seems unfair, but whatever really.

i went out of my way to say that were weren't different kinds, but yeah i know it does kind of license this kind of thinking.

I mean, it's not really rape if it's your passed out/drunk/struggling gf, right? I mean, it's not like the authorities can prove it or really think much of it...

in britain at least we have a through-and-through sexist police and judiciary, but at the same time it's hard to tell cases where sexism has been in play from those where they really *do* have trouble proving non-consent in date rape cases (front page example: numerous footballer 'roasting' incidents). i'm not defending it or being a police apologist, but the difficulty of prosecuting is as much a fact of life in this society as the number of people prepared to commit date rape.

it's really just to do with trying to get to the causes of the problem rather than wasting time pointing out the obvious (that the problem is a bad thing). granted people tend to go about it in a cack-handed fashion. if nick's suggestion is sincere then he'd do well to expand on it hugely though i suppose it would cause offence however detailed (still doesn't mean people need fly off the handle onto a high horse, even if this is ILX). there are lots of interesting questions re sexual behaviour of men and women and the subject of rape tends to bring most of them rearing their often ugly heads. but with presumably everyone ultimately being so unanimous in their views on this matter, threads like these only really deliver vitriol based on misinterpretation. unfortunately there's no satisfactory answer to the question of 'why do they do it', excuses such as 'because they're evil' (wrt the rapist) and 'because they asked for it dressing like that' (wrt the victim) are equally feeble.

boozy babes wearing short skirts need to be encouraged in their behavior by feeling safe and protected to the utmost extent of the law, and that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned

Because: I defy you to explain to me what these "dangerous situations" are. Most of the usual suspects that get trotted out up top -- drunkenness? flirting? revealing clothes? being in private with men? -- are things that people do all the time, constantly, normally, without getting raped willy-nilly, which is precisely as it should be and mostly normally is. And I'd guess that most of the women who are victims of rape never put themselves in any position more dangerous than anyone else's life: their big "dangerous" moves were walking down the street in sweatpants in the middle of the day, having fathers, having boyfriends, or any of a million everyday things.

So without even getting into the details of this, and the bizarre idea that it should be the victim's responsibility to protect herself (that being raped is equivalent to leaving your iPod on the table when you go to the bathroom, that we should "expect" rape on the human-nature level of petty theft), the whole thing strikes me as idiotic on the face of it. There's no thread of "dangerous situations" that women put themselves in, unless that dangerous situation is just "normal participation in the world around us." The thread that does exist in all instances of rape is the same one: that there are men who do it.

And oh we can fret forever about the most confused and subtle of cases here, the real headscratchers and vexed ones, but that's beside the point. It's the expectations in this whole discussion that are striking me as flatly ridiculous.

EXACTLY

nabisco, you've been on the internet, right?

seriously though is Nick just playing devil's advocate? Cos he doesn't seem to be explaining his point very well.

This morning on the radio Nicky Campbell was asking a woman from Amnesty whether she thought a prostitute being raped was equally as bad as a nun being raped. I was surprised there wasn't already a thread on the topic actually (specifically relating to the Amnesty survey thing).

Also I'm in the UK, right? I finished work several hours ago and I can't (quite) sit on the net all day monitoring a thread when I am at work - if that makes me a scaredy cat, so be it.

Trife, Evan, whatever the fuck you're called and whoeverthefuck you are, I don't really know or care, you seem like an asshole.

see, there, he admits he's only even attempting to argue another viewpoint because it's in the news!

Does any of this make sense?

Yes, it makes perfect sense.

Sick Mouthy, how could this be a thread? The answer is just sort of, "yes" and that's it, or am I missing something?

nick, it is a gigantic waste of bandwidth. i am outraged.

xpost oh hell no

The first one is the idea that women's choices or situations in life somehow affect their right to not be raped, something it's implied that a nun "earns" or a prostitute "waives." That's the part we all reject flat-out; that right is basic, human, and non-conditional. Nobody puts himself in a position where it's "more okay" to murder him; nobody puts herself in a situation where it's "more okay" to rape her; period.

The second subtext is that rape is more or less wrong depending on how much the victim might be expected to "mind" -- which (a) kind of trivializes rape by assuming some women might not care so much, and (b) is kind of funny, as a notion, since most of the issue with rape is precisely that the perpetrator isn't, you know, paying much attention to what the other person does or doesn't want. There are arguments to be made that an act is more or less morally reprehensible depending on the amount of damage it does in its own context -- this is a part of why we take the sexual abuse of a child more seriously than that of an adult -- but that's just so complex and not at simple nun/whore play here: couldn't it be worse to violate a vulnerable, unstable, often-exploited prostitute than it would be to violate some particularly strong and saintly nun, firm enough in her faith to withstand with fortitude the evils of the world? And more importantly, since when does any rapist sit around gauging exactly how life-destroying his actions are going to be in relation to the particular victim? How can anyone involved ever claim to know exactly how deeply something like this will hurt one person versus another? And how much does it matter, anyway, with something that's this bad to begin with? And in the end, what bearing does this have on anything, anyway? It certainly doesn't change the ways our laws should respond -- so why are we playing St. Peter and ferreting out exactly how awful an awful act turned out?

The third subtext of the question is that men are so stupid that we'll perceive any form of sexual receptivity as consent directed at us in particular -- that we know to keep our hands off nuns, what with the wimples and all, but prostitutes are just too confusing. This is deeply insulting to the vast numbers of men who never come anywhere close to raping anyone, ever.

I dunno: you can take that thing apart on any number of levels. (In terms of the danger to society, my first thought was the the nun-rapist is likely just nuts, whereas the prostitute-rapist is likely to be an exploitative menace who knows what he can get away with!) But it always comes back to the same thing: in both a moral and a legal sense, it's just wrong, no matter what the circumstances. Killing hobos isn't "more okay" than killing priests; raping prostitutes isn't "more okay" than raping nuns.

If it is a wife instead of a nun or prostitute, should it be "more okay"?

in 33 states, there are still some exemptions given to husbands from rape prosecution. When his wife is most vulnerable (such as, she is mentally or physically impaired, unconscious, asleep, etc.) and is unable to consent, a husband is exempt from prosecution in many of these 33 states.

The only person demonstrating any "glee" on this thread is you, moron. And I don't see what's wrong with being moralistic? But seeing as you've no problem with accusing people you don't even know of being racist, misogynist, priveleged neo-rapists I don't imagine for one second that you'd even begin to understand that.

because, er, "A third of people believe a woman is partially or completely responsible for being raped if she has behaved flirtatiously, a survey suggests".

A THIRD OF PEOPLE BELIEVE THIS. who the fuck are these people, and why are they such total and utter cunts?

that's why it's a thread. because one-third of people who responded to that survey said a woman was in some way responsible for being raped. these things matter. they need discussed. ILX is a discussion forum. i want to discuss who these people are, why they feel like that, and whether "society" can do anything to change them, or whether we should just line them up and shoot them in the fucking face.

christ. (one third of) people = shit.

someone could make the argument that men are socialized in a context which encourages rape or the objectification of women. is a man who absorbs these social tendencies 100% responsible for them? no one would make the argument that a woman who absords this social environment is anything but a victim i presume. while their are social norms dictating that rape is wrong, there are also contrary messages meaning the opposite.

i personally would blame the rapist 100% for the rape not because i can honestly claim that he is a free acting agent but because i have to think that it's in our interest to perpetuate the fiction of morality.

sorry if this seems weird or offensive--just a thought experiment really. i think a lot of confusion abotu who is "responsible" for rape is really patriarchal bullshit, so maybe this sort of questioning is out of place.

i am pleased that the pinefox likes my posts here but i fear this one may not be up to his standards.

the point about "absorbing messages" from the larger culture matters (in the abstract--keep in mind im just being academic here and feel free to dismiss what i say as such) because i dont think there is some free moral center to people that makes assigning something like responsibility feasible.

i think, and things like thread and people's general attitude towards rape, that there are in fact contradictory attitudes about women and objectification and rape and all that stuff in our society.

assigning "responsibility" often as not, then, seems to be motivated by larger forces at play, often political.

ok im creeping myself out with this line of thought so maybe i'll shut up!

(1) No matter how many words you pour onto that first post, it's still a tautology: you're saying a third of people blame women for rape because our culture tells them to, and our culture tells them to in the form of a third of people (women included) blaming women for rape. I'm not sure the issue there is any sort of societal message that rape is acceptable. The problem is the flip side of that. We raise little girls to believe a lot of complicated things: that they're surrounded by the everpresent horrible threat of male sexuality but that they're somehow responsible for managing it, that their goal is to provoke male sexuality but it's wrong and sinful of them to respond to it, that they're meant to walk some tightrope of attracting it but not "asking for it."

(2) I don't understand this ongoing idea that everything has to be categorized as either "personal responsibility" or "product of environment," as if these things are mutually exclusive. In most cases they have everything to do with one another. There are environments you can put people in, and things you can teach them, that will make them more likely to do bad things; that doesn't absolve them of responsibility for those things. And vice versa: there is no horrible thing anyone does that doesn't have some story behind it, some narrative of badness and lies that leads up to it. So?

maybe not, but i would not be surprised in the least to find critical studies that suggest otherwise. personally i think, implicitly, that our culture is saturated in a view of women that leads directly to things like rape, but im not really in a position to back that up. it's ALSO true that our culture is strongly against rape in more explicit ways--but it's like the sexualization of young girls coupled with the hysteria of pedophilia (sp?): there is DEFINETLY a huge contradiction going on. it's almost like they depend on each other.

and as for the tautology: im not sure why that invalidates what im saying. that survey is evidence for the fact that people blame women for rape and certainly contributes to the general atmosphere where people blame women for rape. our culture tells them to in any number of ways, that survey surely included. why ELSE would people blame women for rape other than that's something they get from their social context?

as for point 2 i think you're having your cake and eating it too. responsibility is created by social norms. what we do and do not take responsibility for is determined by things larger than ourselves, namely our culture. (it's not a man's fault for raping a woman in some cultures)

my point is that they ARE mutually exclusive, and your argument in point 2 doesn't really show how they are having anythign to do with one another. you're just saying that there's both, at the same time, but they aren't interacting in any way at all. i dont know the answer to this problem, but i dont think there's really any sort of "compromise" solution possible in an analytic sense. we have to sort of muddle through and do our best with each new situation, respond with the tools at our disposal, provided by our cultural context.

Isn't there any morality or ideas of responsibility inherent in people? Where is there a society of people totally lacking morality or responsibility? There are many critical studies suggesting morality or ideas of responsibility are inherent in people.

Also that survey is not evidence for the fact that people blame women for rape. It only suggests it.

We're getting closer when we talk about the way we socialize children, and how we're telling them sexuality works. The purpose this kind of thinking serves is to basically shift responsibility from men to women: we just shrug our shoulders at the idea that men will take whatever's near -- kind of like swiping your belongings if you leave them unattended -- and therefore we make it the responsibility of women to "protect" their own virtue. There might also be some element of safety involved in blaming rape victims: if a woman is willing to believe that rape victims did something to provoke it, she may also be reassuring herself that it will never happen to her.

As for the responsibility thing, I have nothing to say but just no: I think it's just kinda silly and reductive to imagine that everything is either fully someone's fault or fully the fault of his environment. Both of these things are 100% at play in everything everybody does; your conscious "moral" decisions are based on what you've learned from the world around you, and the effects of your environment still lead up to some conscious "moral" descision. Trying to separate these things is just fucking pointless.

Trying to separate these things is just fucking pointless.

I agree. (though i think the troubling contradiction between the two ideas hold--but it can be a beneficial contradiction sometimes--making us question each case anew)

so: you never go to the pub? you never talk to a man? you never, ever, invite someone back to yours for coffee? because you have to be "responsible" for the fact that some people are cunts?

yeh, some life that's going to be.

look, i don't know what the answer is here. all i'm saying is that this notion of "responsibility" is horribly, horribly wrong. yes, women - and men - need to keep their wits about them, but the same is true of, er, crossing the road or changing a plug. if i cross the road and get hit by a speeding car, am i in some way responsible?

am i fuck.

rape is an abuse of power. there is no excuse. end of story.

ok, right. twinset and orange juice from now on for everyone, is it?

nobody is "perfectly safe" anywhere: in their house, crossing the road, at work, driving their car. yes, you need to be aware of the dangers inherent in everyday life. but for fuck's sake: the very notion that women should avoid "situations where they're more vulnerable", such as - say - the pub, or a nightclub, or someone's flat, or the company of any man they haven't had thoroughly vetted by the police is just ... it's so wrong i don't have the words right now.

how the fuck we do this, i don't know.

what "society" somehow needs to do - somehow - is utterly de-normalise any notion that women are "responsible", even slightly, for being attacked.

of course -- but will this stop rapes happening? i doubt it.

Also I find the idea of taking away responsibility from women (in general, not for being attacked) to be possibly the most oppressive and patriarchal thing mentioned on this thread. Have we not got past the view that women are weak and vulnerable things who cannot look after themselves and need big, responsible men to care for them?

No one should need to worry about crime, and society should be a free place where people can do what they like as long as it doens't harm anyone else without fear of consequence (?wtf?), society should care for those less well-off and protect those that are vulnerable. But it doens't. People are often assholes, there are dangers and there are crimes and people can't swan through life as if nothing can ever touch them. Society needs rules and needs a moral basis and that counts for liberties as well as crimes. You cannot do anything that you want to do with no fear or thought for consequences.

The number of recorded rapes of a female in 2004-05 was 12,867, up from 12,345 in 2003-04 - an increase of 4 per cent. The number of convictions for rape of a female in 2004 was 741, up from 666 in 2003.

• ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,095 adults aged 18+ by telephone.

They were given a series of scenarios and asked to indicate whether they believed a woman was totally responsible, partially responsible or not at all responsible for being raped.

If the woman was drunk, 4pc said she was totally responsible and 26pc said she was partially responsible.

If the woman behaved in a flirtatious manner, 6pc said she was totally responsible and 28pc said she was partially responsible.

If the woman failed to say "no" clearly to the man, 8pc said she was totally responsible and 29pc said she was partially responsible.

If the woman was wearing sexy or revealing clothing, 6pc said she was totally responsible and 20pc said she was partially responsible.

If it is known that the woman has many sexual partners, 8pc said she was totally responsible and 14pc said she was partially responsible.

If she is alone and walking in a dangerous or deserted area, 5pc said she was totally responsible and 17pc said she was partially responsible.

I mean, sure, you can say that's because I'm "blaming myself" for what happened, like a "typical rape victim" but the truth is, although I was certainly not "asking for it" it was patently foolish and inadvisable to be rolling around Hoxton by myself in the midst of a booze-induced blackout to the point where I am still not entirely sure what happened to me beyond the police report and rape kit and horrible bruises and garbled memories that I've actually had therapy to repress.

When I think back about how drunk I used to get, and the risks that I took, thinking that I was indestructable because "the worst thing in life that can happen to a woman had already happened" - I am surprised that worse things didn't happen to me. That doesn't mean that I "deserved it". But it does mean that I believe that women should think twice about getting into situations which appear patently dodgy. It doesn't mean that women shouldn't feel free to flirt in bars, wear miniskirts, invite men back for coffee, etc. etc. - but it does mean maintaining a certain amount of common sense about what situations are more than likely to be dangerous and stupid.

And if you want to rip me a new arsehole for saying that, then go ahead. You really can't do any worse than my attacker or the police gynocologist or the detective who asked me if I wanted to drop the case because they had sworn testimony from bouncers that I was plastered and being "aggressive".

I mean, there are the obvious reasons, that I don't want deeply private and personal stuff like this ending up on "ha ha Britishes are so funny!" threads for adolescent boys.

But partly because I hate that way it seems to *change* people's attitudes towards you. (My most recent Ex actually found out about it and was "Errr, I don't know how to handle this." F*ck you, because I do.) Don't feel sorry for me, because I don't. It happened, and it sucked, but I've dealt with it in the best way I know how. Feel sorry for the f*cking animals who do this kind of thing. Feel sorry for the police who don't know how to treat this sort of thing with any degree of sympathy.

I don't *mean* to bring threads crashing to a halt like this, but OTOH it does piss me off when people start saying EVERY rape is like this or EVERY rape is like that. Because every rape is different and unique and there's no one size fits all blanket solution or attitude to take.

and yes, you're right, every such incident is different. and people's perceptions are different too. i'm just talking as an incredibly angry man who fucking hates - hates - aggressively sexual male behaviour in any form. JBR, i didn't mean to sound like my earlier rant was directed at you: it wasn't, and i appreciate totally what you mean about keeping your wits about you (exactly the phrase both mrs fiendish and i used, at the same time as each other, when discussing this last night).

it just shouldn't have to be like that: what gives any person the right to impose themself on someone else, no matter who that person is, what they are doing or why they are there?

but hey. the world is a shitty place full of shitters. we knew that.

But don't actually buy a copy, for god's sake. Try your local library.

OK... my girlfriend was raped about six months before I met her. Once when we were having sex, I looked down and released that the bed, her lap, and my self were completely covered in blood, from where I'd reopened a wound where she'd had a knife inserted into her vagina. Do you understand what it's like for us though? When every single touch we make runs the risk of triggering off memories of what happened? It's hard. Asking us to treat you as you would anyone who hadn't been raped is a ridiculous thing to do. We do that and we're heartless. We make allocations and then we're pandering. It's... it makes me seem like such an asshole for worrying about myself when I'm not the one that was raped, but to have someone you love, and to know they've been... ruined like that... I think what you're saying is umpossible.

But as I said above, there really is no "one size fits all" response to rape and its aftermath.

Sure it changes you, and it can change your responses, emotionally, sexually, and otherwise. But the important thing is to talk to the victim about how *they* want to handle it - which does also include how they'd prefer you react to it.

Personally, *I* would prefer that it didn't affect anything within my sexual relationship(s). Your GF may have a completely different response, and it really is her right to say what that is.

Part of recovering from rape and any other sexual abuse is regaining control over your own sexuality. So it really is her/my/any other victim's call about how to deal with it.

anyone who's been through anything like this has my absolute undying sympathy.

other than getting cross and railing at people who sexually assault others in any way, i don't have any more to say. so i'll shut up now.

jesus christ. i think "insensitive" has just been redefined.

I'm not sure what you mean here - if you've been in the same position then that's terrible.

I'm still only assuming I am reading it correctly, I could easily not be - I guess he means that his girlfriend has been irreversibly changed for the worse by the experience, scarred permanently both literally and figuratively, and nothing that anyone does can make it go away.

I might be wrong though.

The answer is no, not to distract the thread from the charming ruined versus not-ruined debate. This is the thing that bothers me about most of these discussions, is that basically "Anonymous" is right, every single instance is different, but however studies show, in the US at least, that most rapes are done not by strangers but by people the women knew, friends or boyfriends or neighbors.

There is this great big myth that all rapes are like Jodie Foster in The Accused, drunk off her ass girl in a bar getting banged by a bunch of strangers but it's just really not that common an instance.

So yeah, what I'm saying here is you can "minimize risks" all you want but the bottom line is that there's only so far that goes. grimley OTM, basically.

Also Nick, that study is disgusting. 8% of poll respondents think a woman is totally responsible for rape if she has had many sexual partners. I fail to see what point you were trying to illuminate by posting it. It says the exact same thing the article says.

Um, 8% think the woman should be completely blamed. You've still got the other 20+% who think it is A-OK to partially blame the victim. Or did you skip that part?

It makes me kind of wonder what kind of shit goes on in the heads of people you meet on a day-to-day basis, behind the mask of "normality"

is the absolute key. what the fuck is our so-called functional western society DOING to people? that's what needs discussed!

jesus. these people have the vote. they have children. they ... wow, pash's "doing my head in a bit" is a vast, vast understatement :(

People are all sick stupid sheeplike fucks, I assume everybody has as much right to be alive as I do though and that gets me by okay

Does any of this make sense?

Yes, it makes perfect sense.

-- Sick Mouthy (sickmouth...), November 21st, 2005.

I don't think these statistics are common to the UK, either. I can remember surveys of American college students where the questions were phrased quite ambiguously - and it was fightening how many would admit to doing things that were certain morally and quite possibily legally apalling. This was 10, 15 year ago. I actually have a hard time believing that it's changed that much.

Even despite the PC excesses of the early 90s - does anyone remember pamphlets on campus that advocated men asking women at every step of the seduction if they consented to having their knee touched, their breasts fondled, etc. Gah! Who would want to have consensual sex under those circumstances?

How *do* you go about changing these attitudes? How do you go about changing the attitudes of men who think that they *own* their partners, to the point of abuse and marital rape? How do you go about changing the attitudes who think no more of sexually assaulting a drunken woman than they would of picking a lost five pound note off the floor? Are we really going to change anything by flapping and grandstanding here? (Well, apart from upsetting a couple of people who are clearly in pain, because they used words that "offend" our sensibilities.)

I don't know. I'm not sure that anyone does here.

Castrated maybe, but even that doesn't deliver satisfaction, as it'd probably make them angrier, and drive whatever sick non-sexual violence that makes them rape women in the first place.

The thing is, that's the point I'm trying to make with what I said, what kind of responses did you expect? No one here besides Ethan has accused Nick of anything! Every single person here is reacting to the attitudes et al being presented in the information he's giving. So I don't understand in the least why he keeps popping in to remind everyone "OH WELL NO ONE HERE ACTUALLY ADVOCATED THIS," it's like I said, a bunch of people read an article about something Cheney says and get really bitchy about it I don't think the thread starter usually takes it so goddamn personally! Even all the other thread starters that ethan has threatened to sodomize!

Also I'm with Dan on shooting people out of general principle, including rapists.

I agree with jaymc though, people should not be up and stealing things just cos they're there, either. I don't think a person is responsible for getting their shit stolen just because they didn't know better or forgot.

I haven't read the whole thread. It is possible I am being redundant. But I'll say it anyway.

The woman only bears responsibility for the act of drinking herself into a stupor and therefore only bears the responsibility for the precise consequences of that act and only that act. These would be such consequences as a terrible hangover, loss of control of her appendages, the danger of going comatose outdoors and freezing to death - or similar things directly consequent to her personal actions and bad choices.

Being raped is not a direct consequence of drinking any more than being raped is a direct consequence of going into a diabetic coma. The rapist, whoever it was, bears the sole and complete responsibility for the act of rape.

The fact that the woman was helpless to fend off the rapist is irrelevant. A quadraplegic is equally helpless to chase after a thief and a blind man is easier to mug than a sighted one. This does mean that the blind man bears responsibility for making the mugger's job easier by leaving the house and exposing his helpless condition to danger.

She could have been more sensible, more foresightful and more prudent, but she is not therefore responsible for the rape itself.

Because I don't really know who Ethan is and his behaviour has led to me feeling attacked by all and sundry and paranoid as a result even though that's totally not the case!

Ok the Cher thing has given me night terrors, I can tell.

Xpost - Aimless OTM.

Also, I'm really not surprised that 8% of people think women are to blame for being raped, and I'd consider myself an idealist rather than a cynic when it comes to social mores / trends etcetera. It's horrible, yes, but is it really that surprising?

See, this still doesn't make sense, though. Why is it not possible to say that the woman makes the rapist's job easier, too?

xpost read his whole post, I believe he meant to say "doesn't mean" in context of everything else he said.

sorry but that's BEEN DONE

TO WHAT DEGREE ARE WE AS A SOCIETY INCLINED TO SEE THAT PEOPLE ARE PROTECTED, AS OPPOSED TO MAKING PEOPLE TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROTECTING THEMSELVES

JUDGING BY THE CURRENT US HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, NOT FUCKING MUCH

GOOD AFTERNOON

To submit a normative view that people should not get mugged, raped, murdered, etc... is fine and praiseworthy. These things do happen, though, and to fail to take into account how one has left oneself more vulnerable is mere foolishness.

That said, anyone who wants to browbeat a rape victim for something she may or may not have done is just a heartless asshole.

Yeah, god forbid we approach it in anything remotely approaching an objective, reasonable fashion, otherwise we wouldn't get a chance to say the SAME. TIRED. ANGRY. SHIT. for 500 posts about how - get this - rape is bad.

"common sense moral culpability" and "responsibilities" etc all are culturally set "norms" that are completely and totally tied to local custom

the numbers in the story nick posted proabably coincide with the numbers for people who think abortion is bad and the public healthcare is a waste of money. These are people who as Ethan says "lack basic human empathy" and think that everyone is responsible for their own safety, ayn rand motherfuckers, gun collecting libertarian types in the US. That's who thinks like that. The degree to which we listen to this minority of fuckheads basically shapes our state.

The funny/counterintuitive thing is that it seems like the less protection the state offers, the more "freedom to pay for your own emergency room visits" you allow, the more Orwellian everything becomes. Conversely the more protection the state offers, the more Tuomas everything becomes. You'd think it would be an easy choice, but we still let aformentioned fuckheads dictate policy.

this isn't a rape right or wrong issue at all, to me. It's about the degree of responsibility we make people take for their own protection. Which I think is some second-amendment inspired horseshit that's about to bite us in the ass if it hasn't already

Red herring.

I fail to see that "society" lifted a finger to protect this victim from rape. Such an approach would have taxed those around her with full responsibility for the rape, because they failed to notice her vulnerability or to take adequate measures for her safety.

As far as I can see, that approach isn't being favored by anyone - unless you are arguing in favor of placing this liability on the bystanders. Are you?

i guess the point is that while you can perform logical gymnastics to partially "blame" the victim for rape or assign some responsibility you shouldnt because those particular logical gymnastics perpetuate inequality?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Kobe should have his fingers melted off by hydrochloric acid on live TV, that's what I mean by society taking responsibility for protecting people

I wonder what Tuomas does when he sees crime in progress

yeah, me too. I am starting to think the survey is not very representative. Are there other similar surveys that get similar results?

can remember surveys of American college students where the questions were phrased quite ambiguously - and it was fightening how many would admit to doing things that were certain morally and quite possibily legally apalling.

Surveys that are quite ambiguous I tend to think are probably not too accurate.

Most people are probably not too good at taking surveys, and if you were to sit down with that 8% most of them would probably really have different ideas if they could understand the situations better. Like has anyone seen Jay Leno's Jaywalking. Those are the kinds of people that are part of surveys.

So we do nothing at all, in order to protect ourselves. That's the world we live in.

"The most common explanation of this phenomenon is that, with others present, observers all assume that someone else is going to intervene and so they each individually refrain from doing so. This is an example of how diffusion of responsibility leads to social loafing. People may also assume that other bystanders may be more qualified to help, such as being a doctor or police officer, and their intervention would thus be unneeded. People may also fear "losing face" in front of the other bystanders, being superseded by a "superior" helper, or offering unwanted assistance. Another explanation is that bystanders monitor the reactions of other people in an emergency situation to see if others think that it is necessary to intervene. Since others are doing exactly the same, everyone concludes from the inaction of others that other people do not think that help is needed. This is an example of pluralistic ignorance and social proof.

A victim may be able to counter the bystander effect by picking a specific person in the crowd to appeal to for help rather than appealing to the larger group generally. This places all responsibility on that specific person, instead of allowing it to diffuse; it counters pluralistic ignorance by showing that all bystanders are indeed interested in helping; and it kicks in social proof when one or more of the crowd steps in to assist."

I think arguments that men are "beyond control" after a certain amount of sexual tension are ridiculous. There are arguments I've heard that men are able to abdicate some level of responsibility because of biology that are just as ridiculous as the idea that women are "asking for it."

And it still seems meaningless to me: just look at the stuff in that survey! I mean, if 40% of women who got drunk in skirts wound up rape victims, then maybe someone could start tsk-tsking that women shouldn't do that. But every one of the factors in that survey -- drinking, flirting, having slept with different people -- are things that women do every day without being victimized. By the same token, plenty of women are victimized without having put themselves in any of those situations. So why in the world are we using those factors to reconfigure the blame? Like, even just on a raw-statistics level -- how much does this stuff really matter?

So yeah. I live near a large college. Every weekend night, my neighborhood is thronged with, well, loud drunk teenage girls in shockingly slutty outfits. Now, I'm sure the number of them who do wind up being sexually assaulted would probably shock and disgust all of us, but it's still a small portion -- and it's still reasonable for any one of those hundreds and hundreds of girls to believe that she's not putting herself in some giant high-risk rape category. If one of them is assaulted, how much can you really say "well, you made a mistake by getting drunk and dressing like that" -- when hundreds of girls around her do the same thing every night and come out fine? The common thread isn't anything to do with the woman's behavior; the common thread is what some man is willing to do. Take a rapist and a chronic drunken flirt, and which one is going to be involved in multiple rapes? It's the rapist who'll keep creating that situation; the drunken flirt will do the same thing over and over and maybe never be victimized at all.

Anyway. We can construct scenarios where theoretical women make really bad decisions, decisions they should probably know are putting them at serious, obvious risk. And then we can play the semantic game of where "blame" lies, pointless as that might be. But the stuff being discussed here -- I just don't buy it. I don't buy these moralistic "she drank" and "she dressed like this" notions.

The fact that these rapists' only defence at trial is often "she was asking for it/consenting" means that the woman's conduct is often open to interpretation and up for discussion. The fact that so few rape cases get to court makes them newsworthy and it's always nice and sensationalist to go "sixteen year old wears sexy pants, she must be up for shagging any bloke that wants her", and people nod and agree that women are tarts and the Daily Mail sells a few more copies, people are outraged and stupid bloody opinions are formed.

Because people have been conditioned over and over and over and over again by movies, news stories, pornography, social "norms," etc etc? Nabisco you are usually OTM but you not buying that people are "moralistic" about this type of behavior is implying you come from another planet or something. I agree with you that people SHOULDN'T think that way but they do, whether or not it is "rational".

"If it is known that the boy is devoutly Catholic, 8pc said he was totally responsible and 14pc said he was partially responsible."

xpost YES but in whose universe does saying "I just don't buy these reasons!" help anything? I mean what kind of nutjob would buy those reasons. Oh, right, 1/3 of people.

"If anybody is alone and walking in a dangerous or deserted area, 5pc said they would feel obliged to take advantage of the situation themselves and 17pc said they had seen this movie before."

loud drunk teenage girls in shockingly slutty outfits

er, that's a bit pejorative, no? i know you kinda check yourself before saying it, but ... what exactly is "slutty"? who decides?

if i was a woman and i had good legs, for instance, i sure as fuck would want to show them off every once in a while. but that sure as fuck wouldn't be for the delectation of passing males; it would be for me, simple as that. it's why, as a bloke, i wear jeans that flatter my legs and arse: i'm proud of my legs and arse. (stop laughing, those who know me.)

but, as we keep reiterating, this kind of semantic quibbling isn't the problem. the problem is that US/UK society contains far too many people who believe some women are - semantic shorthand to avoid repeating bits of the original article yet again - "asking for it".

and what i want to know is not "who are these bastards" but "why are they turning out that way"?

movies, news stories, pornography, social "norms," etc etc

which movies? which news stories? certainly none in my fucking newspaper ... is it all the daily mail? does pornography really make one a rapist? i don't think so: i think all porn i've come across (hem-hem) is consensual. but then maybe i've lived a sheltered life.

women are sexualised all the time by the media at large, but: at what point does that start to mean, to a percentage of the population, that "display of legs/breasts/etc" = "desire to be forced into sex"? HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN?

because, seriously, i am totally at a loss to understand it.

i will, however, be discussing it in the pub with every man i know.

As far as the queasy world of not-being-sure, well, that's the really vexed part here that we really haven't gone into; beyond the obvious "rape is wrong, always" part, there's a spectrum of hopefully-minor harms to horrifically-major ones.

Grimly: I used those words kinda pointedly, hence the little drawback before them! So yeah, the point isn't me calling them slutty, the point was that they fit what these survey respondents would presumably think of as "slutty behavior." (It would have been a bit fussy to say "revealing" or "provocative" when we all know what we're talking about is what's commonly referred to as "slutty.")

I'd bet the minority who think it is made up of:

a) women who don't approve of sexually suggestive dressing, and would
half-like there to be causation where none is;
b) men who know the affect that attractive women have on them, and reckon there
must be some men, less strong-willed than they, more desperate than they, who just can't help themselves;
c) people of both sexes who think of addicts and the like, who really couldn't resist their temptation if it was there, and think that putting flesh on display in front of a sex addict is like putting heroin on the table in front of a drug addict.

my point - maybe not as well fleshed-out as it should have been, but i'm at work dealing with 4,000 words of potential legal horror - is that not every newspaper is guilty of this kind of thing, and that many UK papers - mine, the indy, the guardian, the mirror (i think: wd need to check this) - would go out of their way to argue against it.

to wit: how much can "the media" as a whole be blamed?

The idea that men can't help themselves or that most rapes have anything to do with sex is ludicrious and but yes, the "What did you expect, boys will be boys!" societal norm is definitely at play here as well.

In the minds of these people, I don't think that saying women are partly responsible means excusing the rapist at all, much as you don't excuse an alcoholic for his drinking problem. Being an alcoholic doesn't let you away with drunk driving, to their minds, but it does give additional blame to the people who left you alone with the eight bottles of whisky

how about in the classroom? seriously: do we start with kids as young as six or seven and say, right, listen up, this is CATEGORICALLY NOT how it works; that it's a big, bad world but just think, we can all do our bit to make it better?

no, it isn't a panacea. but ... perhaps if these things were addressed - if we weren't so fucking scared to discuss these things with kids - then we'd make some headway.

wouldn't we?

And I bet if you started teaching against gender stereotypes in schools you'd get this horrified outcry about "politicising" or "corrupting" children, as if the other media they're bombarded with was neutral and benign.

If you want a model for that dynamic, well, you see it pretty clearly between women all the time! I mean, women are put in a position of having to constantly draw lines around their own sexuality, to argue that their behavior is proper, but women who flirt more or dress more revealingly are wrong, or dirty, or stupid, or whatever -- you get all this in-fighting, essentially, that's working to draw lines around how women are "supposed" to be, and it's policed in large part by other women. And so on both sides, among both men and women, there's this idea that there are things women can do that are some kind of invitation not to respect them -- this idea that women acting in certain ways (what we call "slutty") are signalling that they don't need to be treated with respect, whether its in everyday social ways or in terms of consent.

And that's bullshit. But in little ways -- "harmless" ways -- I doubt there's anyone among us who doesn't kind of play by those rules: I doubt there's anyone here who doesn't kind of peg the level of respect offered based on cues like these.

The extent to which we're all implicated is disturbing tho. I'm not a paragon of virtue, but I'd like to think I didn't do the angel/whore thing. But I'd have to admit that some of the best sex I've ever had has been with people I didn't have any serious emotional attachment to.

Umm so yeah, Ailsa, I wouldn't be surprised that something like that would come from a woman! We have rules, right for how "proper" women should act -- but in the end there's no punishment for not following those rules beyond the punishment we create. And so I think a lot of women are tempted to read something, anything, as enforcing those rules. Saying something like that is a way for a woman to say she's put all this effort into being a "good" girl, and if other women don't do that, then, well, hahaha, the consequences have come along. I mean, some women, particularly those of certain generations, can be awfully fierce in enforcing this heirarchy of moralism on other women!

xpost - Yeah, Noodle, it comes from both ends, I'm certainly not trying to say this is something women invented. It's just interesting to me that it winds up evident from that direction quite often. I assume this is because chastity and virtue were once considered kinda women's JOBS, right, very nearly their only jobs, and so a lot of attention to that has been drilled in. And it only gets more vexed when it turns out that the "good" and the "bad" women are sometimes competing for male attention, and male attention is curiously drawn to the women who aren't doing their "jobs."

I don't understand this ongoing idea that everything has to be categorized as either "personal responsibility" or "product of environment," as if these things are mutually exclusive. In most cases they have everything to do with one another.

i do think for a portion of rape victims there's a relationship between the uh situations they get in and previous (childhood?) traumas - one that unconciously compels them towards situations (and people) where they have a higher than normal potential of being victimised and/or reliving certain traumas. trauma survivors will usually disassociate when thrust into abusive situations, whereas women without that background will probably fight back or try to run when assaulted. lemme say point blank that this doesn't mean they're responsible or deserving of blame in any way - the onus of responsibility always falls on the aggressor. this is where the above 'personal responsibility' vs. 'product of environment' dichotomy reveals it's uselessness (the meeting point is somewhere inbetween). people are responsible for what they do, but they can't be held accountable for the events, people, places that made them the kind of person who does what they, uh, do. it's a pattern of behavior that people relive over and over, often with little cognizance of how to take control (or the power to do so), and it's a cycle that will never end as long as people exist (a patriarchal society that's crafted a culture of guilt, shame and double standards obv. doesn't help).

(NB. i don't really have statistics or science or anything to back this up, it's mostly just a pet theory of mine derived from personal experience. i obviously understand that many rape victims [maybe the majority] don't fit the description i put forth, i really dunno.)

However, with all that said, it's not like those women are born that way. Everyone basically starts out as the regular person.

There was little dispute about what happened next. Dougal, from Moville, County Donegal, Northern Ireland, had sexual intercourse with her on the floor of the corridor.

"Drunken consent is still consent," a jury was told as the prosecution gave up in a rape trial involving a drama student and a security guard.

she didn't actually give drunken consent, though.

I think the judge kicked it out because the woman had no idea whether or not she'd consented.

Even if she had, wouldn't the guy feel a tiny bit bad about having sex with an unconscious woman?

He had sex with her WHILE ON DUTY and WHILE SHE WAS UNCONSCIOUS and then he TOLD THE POLICE HIMSELF?

Also But High Court Judge, Mr Justice Roderick Evans, said he agreed with the prosecution - and instructed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty "even if you don't agree."

Who the fuck is prosecuting who and for what? That sounds like she is NOT prosecuting against him for raping her, but that he is prosecuting her for... for what? What the fuck?

Can we find out who this judge is, how old, what politics, etcetera? This is insane.

He had sex with her WHILE ON DUTY and WHILE SHE WAS UNCONSCIOUS and then he TOLD THE POLICE HIMSELF?

I still don't get this. I cannot fathom it. "Hi officer, I just had sex with this unconscious girl while I was meant to be a security guard, is that rape, should I get her to press charges against me? Thanks." wtf?

Passerby: "Oh, that guard is having sex in this corridoor with that unconscious girl, I'm calling the cops!"

yo, hang on, your fucking honour: she also said she was "losing focus and very dizzy". so what if:

a) earlier that day, she'd eaten something bad and was developing the symptoms of food poisoning?
b) someone spiked her drink?
c) she was suffering from the symptoms of some other, completely unrelated illness?

how do they know that her inability to give consent was 100% related to her alcohol intake?

just say, for instance, that she'd been totally sober but had fallen and bashed her head. she felt woozy, was taken home and collapsed outside her front door. would the same rules apply there?

christ on a bike.

(1) If a woman who was on the verge of blacking out later accuses a man of rape, there's this problem: she may very well be right, but it comes down as always to conflicting stories, and she'll be the one who can't remember it or credibly argue the details in court. So --

(2) You create rules that bar having sex with anyone who's significantly drunk at all, just so there's no confusion -- just so all consent is given in clear, sober, remembered states. But then --

(3) Not the devil's advocate, but maybe the imp's: exactly how drunk are we talking? How are people supposed to be clear on precisely where this legal cut-off is? In lots of cases (say, near-unconscious and in the hallway), we can put it down to common sense -- but then what if your common sense just happens to be a tiny notch apart from the person you're with? It's subjective, right? And if the cut-off is anyone who's drunk at all, isn't that casting a really wide net -- criminalizing something people do all the time, just so you have a clear answer when someone complains? And then --

(4) All those questions leave men with an even bigger excuse of ignorance: "How was I to know how drunk she was?"

And you're right back to the conflicting stories of the start, with a whole new gray area layered in on top of it -- in addition to the question of consent, you now get to argue about whether the person was in a position to give it. Which is problematic, legally, because suddenly there are shadows of doubts built into the question itself. If the accusation is that someone was too drunk to consent, but we don't have any very clear standards of what exactly constitutes "too drunk" ... and the benefit of the doubt will always be with the accused ...

Which is probably part of why there was that 90s boom of consent rules on e.g. private college campuses -- motivated mostly by the desire of the institution to not have to arbitrate and investigate these things, which is always kinda impossible and ugly. They wanted to come as close as possible to having paperwork involved, so there would never be questions. But I think, as of the late 90s, that a lot of them discovered this was even worse, because as soon as some guy could reasonably question the subjectivity of things, he didn't just bring into question the accusation against himself, but the whole system around it.

(P.S. For the record I am the proud haver of common-sense standards about drunkenness that would exclude sex with near-unconscious strangers in hallways, so, you know, yeah. Actually I find that disgusting on levels even beyond the rape issue.)

Actual rapists, maybe not, but potential rapists? I think this is pretty OTM, pretty much by definition. If these people believe the woman is totally to blame then that means they think the man is 0% to blame and all moral impediments to rape are therefore removed.

(it is also worth noting that however fucked up things remain in this regard, i do think that there's been at least mild progress since, say 1850 in terms of at least majority attitudes in the most developed nations.)

(as for that "obliged to continue" survey up thread -- is it possible that the students weren't talking about implied consent in the big way so much as social norms -- i.e., sure they know anyone can say "stop" at any moment, but there's just this point where if you get that far and suddenly say "no further" then the other party can at least feel somewhat rightfully confused and wounded?)

A new poll by Amnesty International says that 1/3 of the UK population (England & Wales) think that women are partly to blame for being raped. Only 6% of reported rapes result in conviction, and there are probably over 50,000 rapes each year (approx. 12,000 reported)

The BBC are also leading with this story & quote that"the government must launch a new drive to counteract this sexist 'blame culture"

So why do people think this, and how do we counteract it?

Well, IMHO this is a reasonably new feeling, and has very little to do with the rise of sexual freedom, girl gangs, chavs or a drop in moral standards - all of which I expect to be blamed by the MSM & Politicians looking for a quick soundbite.

I believe it is more to do with the few high profile "date rape" cases that were splashed all over the media a few years ago. These made people think that rape was not the violent, repulsive and socially abhorrant act we had asociated with the word throughout the 20th century, and instead, is a mistake that anyone could make given the right circumstances.

I think this, because although I am a stalwart believer in a womans right to have total control over exactly the same things in their lives as men, and I consider violent rape to be among the worst possible crime to commit & probably the worst one to be a victim of, I am one of those who if polled would probably have said "well, there are times when the womans behaviour is responsible for the rape".

Before you all switch off in disgust, let me give you some examples from my own experience. I guess I have actually been raped twice. When I was fourteen I was taken to a "grown up party". I had some drinks. I had a lot to smoke. I chatted to a nice lad. In the early hours of the morning he asked if I wanted to go for a walk with him in the woods. I agreed. When secluded in the woods he started kissing me. I kissed back. It went further that I was expecting. I said no. He talked nicely to me, and tried again. after a short while I said no again. He tried once more, before nicely agreeing to stop, chatting to me till I felt ready to go home. I am absolutely positive that he felt he had acted the perfect gentleman. He did act exteremely well given the circumstances. It never occured to me that he had done anything wrong - other than believe I understood what "a walk in the woods" meant. But I lost my virginity that day, so some kind of penetration must have happened. I distictly said no.

Was that rape? yes. Was my behaviour partly to blame? Yes. Do I feel like a rape victim? No way. Did he do anything wrong? No (well apart from the fact that I was 14, but he never knew).

The second time was a few years later. It was a classic date-rape. After a party we started making out. I said no, he ignored me. Actually I said no a good few times, although I can't say I fought at all. Afterwards I went home & we studiously avoided ever speaking to each other again.

Was that rape? yes. Was my behaviour partly to blame? Yes - I was virtually naked in bed with him! Do I feel like a rape victim? Not at all. Did he do anything wrong? Yes, he behaved badly, but hardly in the same league as violent rape.

We need to differentiate between the various sexual offences. "date rape" is different from violent rape. under-age sex (counts as rape under UK law) is not the same as paediphillia. Until we use different terms, we will be fighting an impossible battle, because lots of people know of "rapes" like mine, but few have any first hand knowledge of the other type, so they rely on their own interpretation of the words.

PS, this is NOT supposed to be a sob story. these incidents are just part of my life. I did not find it difficult to write about them, or to remember them. Please do not leave consoling or supportive comments, I do not feel in need of either.

So, people who consider themselves feminists (as stated in "I am a stalwart believer in a womans right to have total control over exactly the same things in their lives as men")and are rape victims to boot actually agree with the results of the survey.

Not that I'm aligning myself with any side here or "just trying to provoke a reaction", I'm just adding the views of another member of the GBP. Who I'm guessing isn't a 'potential rapist'.

hmmm, does anyone else here see the incredible irony in this post?!?

Does anyone know how the trial process works with this? Does the victim have to show up or confront or see or talk to the rapist?

Oh, crap. Crap crap crap.

Yes, if you testify in court usually the defendant will also be present. I think there might be options in some states, though. A rape crisis center would have more info.

Can they wear Groucho Marx comedy glasses? Legally?

I'd imagine this varies by state.

I would look this up but I am terrified of looking at a website and there's all this picture of Tori Amos, that is about the last thing I need.

I've got mad McMartin Preschool Trial fears here.

http://www.nsvrc.org/default.aspx

http://www.victimrights.org/

tori-free

thx

Yeah so guess how I spent spring break, guys.

Oh, Abbott! I'm so sorry. I don't even know what to say.

Jesus Abbott. I'm so sorry. I don't mean like ":(" sorry I mean I feel really terrible about it.

Do what you have to do to put the bastard away - for your own sake and the sake of everyone who is hurt by bastards like that. And don't feel embarrassed about calling one of those places for help.

I e-mailed you abbott.

x-post - Absolutely. It's the worst feeling in the world and whatever happens you need support.

I went to the clinic to get all wiped and poked and pumped full of pills and get my hand held. John broke a wall there by punching it. They had Finding Nemo all over the walls...dear god. Poor little kids.

Anyway, I don't want to call them right now. But I just remembered I am talking to a detective on Thursday so I can ask him. Who'd have thought, jesus I could ask HIM, huh? I bet he'd know. I can't think.

Dear god. I'm so sorry.

http://www.zianet.com/lapinon/

La Piñon
24-Hour Crisis
Hotline
1-575-526-3437
1-888-595-7273

Yeah, that's where I went. They're fucking wonderful, good caring people.

thx all btw

abbott, i hate it so much that someone has hurt you, i'm really really sorry.

exactly. I keep refreshing and trying to think of something to post but I'm at a loss. I'm just so sad for you and so fucking angry that you have to experience this. fuck.

my god. abbott, i'm so sorry.

love and support to you abbott. what I hear is that it's hard to be the accuser in court but I hope you find the strength to see it through.

Yeah, I am hell of worried they'll decide that, say, I am making everything up or that my flat affect means I don't really give a fuck about it or...who knows. Thanks, JD and all others.

be strong abbott no matter what happens you are always really really awesome <3

^^ this. I am so, so sorry this happened :(

It was in my living room! My dog watched the whole time.

That's awful. I'm so sorry.

Abbs, we've only directly interacted a few times, but I've read so many of your posts and enjoyed them and your general personality so much that when I read this, I felt the same anger and sadness as when I heard about the same sort of thing happening to women I know personally, a number which is, unfortunately, higher than women I know who haven't had it happen to them.

But yeah, Ethan knows what he's talking about in re: The Awesomeness of Abbott.

Your Bronner's label poster lights up my room, FWIW. thank you.

x-post -- Yes, he does.

<3 stay well, abbott

just webmailed you abbott.

i don't post much but reading this made me very ill, especially since we are both getting married soon and my fiancee went through some similar bullshit a few years before we met with an alcoholic boyfriend. if your man is anything like me, punching a hole in the wall was showing restraint. just wanted to add to the chorus of good wishes for you.

Stay strong, Abbott. We don't talk much but I always love your posts and think you're great and fuck, this is not fair.

you'll get through this abbott, stay strong

Oh my god, I'm sorry. Be strong.

Oh man. Estela says it better than I can:

"abbott, i hate it so much that someone has hurt you, i'm really really sorry."

I don't really know what to say except to echo sentiments of anger and sadness, and hope you get through it. With regard to people thinking this: my flat affect means I don't really give a fuck about it, I do know there is currently a drive (hopefully your side of the pond too) to educate judges & jurors that individual response more often than not will not tally with their expectations - A LOT of people do not get wildly emotive. You sound like you're being hella brave about it, so keep strong and throw the bastard behind bars if you can.

I don't really know what to say except to echo sentiments of anger and sadness, and hope you get through it.

^^ this and what everyone else has said too. so sorry.

Abbott, it's terrible to read this, I'm so sorry.

Because the 'justice' system is how it is, I'm hoping the assailant was a stranger because that's your best chance of securing a conviction. Also WTF at having to speak to a male detective at this stage? Although it all depends on the guy, obviously.

You and your family are in my thoughts and prayers, Abbott. Nail the son-of-a-bitch to the wall.

Abbott, you're the best. I'm sorry you have to deal with this.

Only just seen this - I'm so sorry and can only echo what everyone else has said here.

Basically I echo what everyone else has already said. Best of luck to you.

I'm so sorry that this happened to you. We don't know each other, but I wanted to commend your bravery in contacting the police and pursuing legal action. It may seem like a no-brainer to some people, but an ENORMOUS amount of rapes go completely unreported. It takes a lot of courage to do what you're doing, and I really admire you.

just adding to the chorus. for what it's worth, a random person for the internet is thinking of you.

I'd like to offer my sympathies too. Hope you get all the support you need through this.

Just to add my name to all the others offering support and thoughts from afar. You're doing all the right things as far as I know anything about it. Wish there was more I could do!

Oh yeah, and get the bastard put away.

It may seem like a no-brainer to some people, but an ENORMOUS amount of rapes go completely unreported. It takes a lot of courage to do what you're doing, and I really admire you.

^^ Yes. This can't be stressed enough. Abbott - you're being incredibly brave.

xxx ooo and endless love, Abbs.

Sorry this happened. I donated some cash to that shelter.

Oh man, thank you. That's incredible.

Thanks all, it means a lot to me.

They didn't even arrest this guy, let alone take him to trial. Nothing on his record indicates this ever happened.

Words are inadequate to express my rage at reading that.

Country justice is in order.

part of me wants to say 'rip the fucker's balls off then' but a larger part of me is kinda mute with disbelief that society can still be so backwards

I want to call his wife and explain why it was her husband didn't come home that night last March. That's my 'revenge fantasy.'

Not that I have any idea how to find her phone number or what her name even is.

jaymc to thread?

actually fuck it yeah that is the sweetest revenge of all, the one that leaves them regretting it for the rest of their goddamn life, and leaving no external grievance

You can make that fantasy a reality, quite easily. A little fact-finding mission at the local records office and this is on the agenda.

Or even online -- it's easier to track down personal information that a lot of people think.

I have some decent databases at my work too, actually. Just sayin'.

ilx's collective bloodlust has i venture to say never been higher; i motion this actually happens

Is there anything about dude you feel comfortable posting in googleproof web lingo?

Can you get in trouble for posting flyers that say "Your neighbor raped me and didn't go to jail" on people's doors in his neighborhood? It's probably libel, but dayyyum.

Or you could use PM! xp

wow laurel that is fabulous

I actually gotta bounce outta work here in a second and I'm going straight to a back-to-school picnic for my kid, but if you want I could get back to you later.

I am so, so sorry Abbott.

ok well contacting his wife is pretty much a doddle from here on in

wtf? did the pd say anything why or did they just forget about it? that's shitty.

initials LF looks like her

Okay, as a moderator of this site I am going to have to request that you guys stop planning a harassment campaign of this guy here.

Police wouldn't say anything, I talked to the DA (bcz a friend who worked at the local paper bugged her, wld not have happened otherwise) and she (she!) says it was a "weird case" and that there "weren't any witnesses" so it was far from being a presentable case.

oh, that's nice

fuck this, i'm sorry abbott. fuck that guy

that doesn't even explain why he was never arrested or charged at all :(

it was a "weird case" harbl, that's a totally lucid explanation

My sympathies, Abbott.

i know, she might as well have told you you were lying, right? i hate people.

Does the DA mean that it's not presentable 'cause it's a he said/she said case?

I'm really, really sorry, Abbott. I know this has been bothering you for a while. I guess I can just wish you the best in coping with it.

(Also thanks, Dan.)

I asked and she just said, "Well, it's a weird case." She used that phrase at least ten times. I think that's why, tho, the he said/she said thing. She also said that I didn't remember the exact specifics of how my clothes were removed made for a big hole in the narrative.

guys thanks for being nice about this, too, it's really been eating at me lately and I'm mad at myself for not being over it. I just get madder as time goes on.

I'll put a hole in her narrative.

Jesus fuck, what a travesty. Now you have to worry about the NARRATIVE? If the teacher gives you an A in English Comp, do the police agree to pretend you have a case?

They saw my paper on Turn of the Screw and thought I was mixing with bad company. :P

(fwiw that did not actually happen, that they read a paper I wrote)

Haven't you always had to worry about narrative? Isn't that the foundation of most of the frustration expressed upthread before this happened to Abbott?

All of which makes this even more upsetting and it didn't even happen to me. I'm so sorry, Abbott.

how did i miss this abbott, i'm so, so sorry

and >:(

Oh god, irl ;_; reading all this. Not exactly unbelievable that you're not over it given the total lack of resolution/impotent justice whatever whatever I don't have the words for it. Ned kinda hit the nail on the head with the opening response there.

Can you get in trouble for posting flyers that say "Your neighbor raped me and didn't go to jail" on people's doors in his neighborhood? It's probably libel, but dayyyum.

― The Lion's Mane Jellyfish, pictured here with its only natural predator (Laurel), Thursday, September 3, 2009 3:54 PM (37 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

^it's not libel if it's true. so there's no legal barrier to doing this.

FOR THE RECORD I will start banning people outright if they continue to discuss revenge strategies on this site.

law advice from bill magill

call 1-800-lol-what

Don't beat yourself up for not being "over it." Not being able to get anyone to take action about it is still part of it, you know? I mean, don't feel bad or weak for being infuriated; why shouldn't you be. You can get over it on whatever schedule you damn well please.

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST this makes me so angry I could fucking scream and punch things.

HOW?!?!? HOW!?!?!? HOW?!?!?!??!?!?

OK, I fucking know how - when faced with a situation of being sexually assaulted a few years ago, I backed down and caved in under the tiniest of inquisition and didn't go ahead with any investigation, let alone pressing charge because it was too fucking scary.

And in this situation, you know who it was, you're ready and willing to do this and go through all this and yet they STILL STILL STIL FUCKING FUCKWIT POLICE don't fucking DO anything about it.

I'm just so filled with rage and outrage and anger and betrayal I can't even form coherent thoughts.

Christ, Abbott, I'm so sorry. I'm sorry you had to go through it in the first place, I'm sorry you had to go through the invasiveness of the police procedure and and STILL FUCK FUCK FUCK I want to punch things.

I'm so sorry.

i'm so sorry Abbott.

never saw this until now, I feel so awful for you abbott, so sorry for what you've gone through.

my only advice is to investigate hiring a lawyer. DAs, public defenders, even abuse "advocates" working for the city/state have their own agendas and rarely have the individual's best interests as their motivation. they want cases they can clear. if you really want action on this to get some sense of closure and you have the resources to hire a lawyer, do it. attorneys know the system and can get done in 30 minutes what it would take you 50 phone calls (if ever) to achieve.

locating and telling his wife is an appealing idea but one that could also backfire. she could get defensive and see you as a threat to her family. you're better off steering clear of him and his kin and try to get this guy into the system.

Oh, totally, you can't get a call like that and believe it. Human brain does not work that way.

Well I mean unless she knows but she's subject to his daily shittiness as well. In which case, what's she supposed to do about it anyway.

totally

I just think it's funny how that is the most outrageous & violent fantasy I can think of whereas most people are like, "I am going to make his genitals into chicharrones."

"law advice from bill magill"

hahahaha, you're welcome. its accurate, by the way.

it's from the "I'm gonna tell mom" school of revenge fantasies

it also speaks volumes about what a good egg you are

xp

I'm just made at the lady who told Abbott it was a "weird case". Yeah, well, being raped is a weird kind of experience, so that's probably not a coincidence. You think?

following up from Edward: I have a not-technically-a-lawyer-just-yet friend who lurks here, and she wants you to know that you still have plenty of options, and can probably get good advice on them from any area legal aid or crisis counseling/legal referral center, etc., if it's your decision to pursue them.

Bill, did you not see my FOR THE RECORD post?

that's good to know, I thought the cerements were already thrown on the whole process

yr in NM, right? got a friend in law school down there who might know people that would know how to best proceed according to state law

no, and it might also help to send an email or call the head DA (assuming the one in charge of your case is an assistant DA) to get a real explanation xp

it pisses me off personally bc i have spent time in the criminal justice system (working, not getting arrested) and i know for sure that a number of the cases they actually prosecute are "weird"

could this just be a prosecutor cynically thinking that they might have to work a little harder than slum-dunk, and demurring on that count instead of, you know, doing the right thing?

well i'm sure she's plenty busy and doing her own little triage but that doesn't mean you shouldn't bug her, if you still want to pursue it

right!

Abbot you are super brave and amazing. I'm really, really ferociously angry that still, in 2009, prosecutors and police have still not figured out a way to appropriately prosecute one of the most common (and most underreported) crimes.

"she wants you to know that you still have plenty of options, and can probably get good advice on them from any area legal aid or crisis counseling/legal referral center, etc., if it's your decision to pursue them."

this is true, your options don't start and end with this 'weird case' dipshit.

Don't beat yourself up for not being "over it." Not being able to get anyone to take action about it is still part of it, you know? I mean, don't feel bad or weak for being infuriated; why shouldn't you be. You can get over it on whatever schedule you damn well please.

THIS!!! ^^^^^^^^

Also you may have to accept that this is something you'll never truly be over. I was assaulted by an accquaintance when I was 17 and I am still definitely not over it. In fact, I have to acknowledge that it still, to this day, effects my realtionships and trust issues and I suspect that it always will.

that's bittersweet but helpful

your perspective, not your having gotten assaulted, which is terrible

I mean it totally sucks but somehow accepting that it's something that I may never get over and shouldn't be expected to get over entirely has helped me process the trauma. I don't know if that makes sense.

x-post - I knew what you meant!

No that totally makes sense, the good kind of practical thing that'll get you through the day.

Like a supremely shitty and fucked up thing happened to you and that is going to effect you for a long time and it's ok that you're not "over it". The experience unfortunately is now a part of you and ppl shouldn't expect you to "get over it" least of all yourself. I would honestly be more concerned if you were "over it".

Take care Abbott, I wish you strength and peace.

nothing more to really add other than: so, so, so sorry Abbott, stay strong. Also hope the fucker burns in hell if he can't see the inside of a cell anytime soon.

Abbott, I am very genuinely sorry that you are going through this, and I totally know what you mean ^^^. If you lose the rage, you have given up, and that would be one tragedy on top of another. Growl and howl as loud as you can until something gets done.

I just finished a term of service on a grand jury and we had more than a handful of "weird" rape cases, including several that were LITERALLY cases of "he said/she said." Detectives and prosecutors seemed to have no problem presenting those to us.

Fuck, I'm sorry.

another one always on your side Abbott. you are smart enough to know what all your options are so all I got really is put a good helping of the energy you have into healing. cheeseball to say I know but while justice & work & doing what you can to get this guy dealt with are so important for real, so is you getting to a place where the harm done to you doesn't have any kind of hold on you. terms like "getting over"/"getting past" etc aren't really what I'm about here. "healing" is really what I mean. so know & remember that healing is your right, and seize that, when you can!

Abbott, that is terrible; they need to prosecute that fucker instead of throwing people in jail for weed, traffic violations, ad nauseum.

The reason I have logged out is to tell you all the abbreviated version of a fucked up story that has given me a weird, some may say warped view of this whole issue. When I was 19, I was in love for the 1st time (and having sex for the 1st time) with a 17 year old girl who was in love with me (her 2nd love). She broke up w/ me cause she still had feelings for her ex, but we still were friends and had sex a couple more times. Once we were at a friend's house drinking and she suggested we go into an empty bedroom. We had both drank a bit, but apparently she was feeling the effects more, and I at first rebuked her advances, thinking she was too drunk. My body thought it was a good idea, my brain not so much. but she kept coming on to me, and I gave in. I remember weird details that I gave into, such as that she told me not to use a condom (she was on birth control but we always used them), that she was telling me she loved me DURING which we had stopped saying, just weird shit that made me feel kind of bad after. We ended up at another friend's later and she was telling her (the friend) how much she loved me, etc. We see each other a few more times and then it comes out that she is telling ppl that I took advantage, basically raped her.
And I knew exactly what happened and think it was not the best choice, but certainly consentual, or really her idea, but I start feeling like an asshole for it, start questioning my own memory even though I KNOW what happened and she didn't really remember but had a bad feeling about what happened, but it made people who believed her side hate me, in some ways fucked my confidence, self-esteem, and sexuality, not even wanting to sleep with girls if I wasn't in a relationship out of fear that it would be misconstrued, etc. FWIW we have since gotten reaquainted, become basically best friends, and "forgiven each other".
Sorry very long and very personal, but I wanted to say, and this is ABSOLUTELY NOT to question the accounts of Abbott or anyone else, but it just makes me, possibly take certain accusations w/ a grain of salt? That sounds horrible, but what if my girl had prosecuted? Should I be locked up for that? Sometimes a bad feeling about something hazily remembered can be made worse in the mind I guess? Rape is an extremely serious charge and my heart goes out to anyone who has had to endure it, but there are crazy people, spiteful people, and just people whose bad vibes lead them to say things that aren't as they remember it.

No, it is a really complicated issue, and like with any crime, I'm sure some quantity people get prosecuted when innocent.

But way more often it seems like some people in some communities throw so many grains of salt on the whole question that it gets buried and ignored.

That is why we have a court system. xposts

A big part of why the law thing here pisses me off so much (and what was hardest for me to get my head around), is I did everything you're supposed to, you know? No shower, stayed in same clothes, went to the clinic when I woke up & told John (who was asleep through the whole thing in another room), got the photos & swabs & CSI action. And the stuff he did was such Max Hardcore-level shit, not even something anyone could consider consensual in the most kinky of bedrooms, not even shit I knew people could think of doing, that I can't believe the cops or anyone else could read that and think 'it's just one of those bitches that cries wolf.'

Which is why I don't want to try and press charges or go further legally, really. I've done everything I can so far, with all my power/energy and help from everyone in town who could do something. Putting all that energy into long, angry bike rides would be a lot more relieving (& probably productive).

I'm really sorry to hear this happened, Abbot.

I just finished a term of service on a grand jury and we had more than a handful of "weird" rape cases, including several that were LITERALLY cases of "he said/she said." Detectives and prosecutors seemed to have no problem presenting those to us.

― Mario Brosephs (Pancakes Hackman), Thursday, September 3, 2009 11:43 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

OTM. I was on a grand jury several years ago myself and like half the cases are like that.

I asked and she just said, "Well, it's a weird case." She used that phrase at least ten times. I think that's why, tho, the he said/she said thing. She also said that I didn't remember the exact specifics of how my clothes were removed made for a big hole in the narrative.

― god bless this -ation (Abbott), Thursday, September 3, 2009 8:19 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Ugh. You have my utmost sympathies, Abbot.

Abb jesus I'm so sorry.

I'm quite aware that of course there isn't anything I can do, but if there ever is, you've got my email and much more importantly I hope you know that a whole lot of people care and feel the same way

^^this. How fucking horrible. I know we don't know each other, but I'm there if you need to spill your guts to a stranger.

Abbott, I'm amazed at your perseverance and perspective. I wholeheartedly wish you the best. Take care.

Unifying Abbot and "Logged out to avoid" is this:

If the justice system was good (enough), the cases should have been presented, and in the best possible scenario, the details presented and one side retains credibility uner questioning. And so on.

Of course, it isn't.

Did you know (you probably do), that in rape cases, the summing up judge is legally obliged to state that "women are known to lie". (something like that anyway, my memory, sorry). Even if the whole thing was captured on video with 10 witnesses all stating the same thing, etc..

They don't have to state this for burglars (admittedly that's a defendant), or anyone else presenting a civil case.

I.... I just really don't know what to say except it's hardbreaking reading this. I feel tears welling up. I'm trying to find some wise words, some good advice or at least some comforting words, yet I can't because... I don't know. I can't begin to imagine the pain you are going through. And then a woman just pushing you out the door with the words "weird case." I can understand from a judicial (?) standpoint but how can she, as a woman, utter those words? Abbott, I hate his happened to you. I wish I could hug you.

god, I'm so sorry, Abbott. also, I think it's amazing that you were able to keep it together and do everything necessary to report the rape completely; thank you for doing that. i wish the legal system had done its part, too.

John (who was asleep through the whole thing in another room)

Oh man, my thoughts are with you, and with John, as well. I can't even imagine how either of you feel, but I know what it's like to learn that someone you know has had something like this happen, and I can't even imagine how he would feel knowing that he was there.

thanks to all you guys...I keep these things to myself so much that I thought maybe I was overreacting, but seeing it from an outside perspective I feel a lot better and more 'normal' about getting totally angry about this at random times ~1.5 years later. <3 ilx

I don't think you are overreacting at all, in fact I think you are handling things pretty well considering how awful the situation is. I would have probably gone postal.

oh, abbott. <3 <3 <3

Mods, if you know who "logged out to avoid hatred" is, just transfer my suggested ban to that person, plz, thanks.

Where is it the law to say that "women lie"? How can gender-specific language be legal?

That's a Britisher thing, I think, but I'd like to see some linky to prove it for sure.

Abbott, I had a run-in with some policemen four years ago that still makes me seethe and see red, so you have my every sympathy. I don't know how NM is with civil actions re. rape but that's an option.

crazy question of the day, is it possible to sue a DA for dereliction, for refusal to prosecute a legit case?

eh, not really. what i would do is to write a long letter to her supervisor or head DA and cc: the police department. though i'm not abbott and if i was i'd probably also just want to put it all behind me.

Might be therapeutic to write that letter anyway - if you are the kind of person that finds comfort and solace in the act of writing.

That's a Britisher thing, I think, but I'd like to see some linky to prove it for sure

Me too, because it seems v. odd. The only thing I've ever heard about that a judge might want to say is the thing about the time between the (alleged) offence and the complaint, i.e. just because a woman doesn't immediately go to the police that shouldn't have a bearing on the case. But even then there's no legal compulsion for the judge to say it.

you need to get a lawyer

A friend of mine was in a very similar situation a few years ago, Abbott (police basically dropped the matter after he didn't immediately confess guilt when they called him, "he said/she said"), though the police were at least nice enough to let her know she could continue to prosecute on her own dime. I can't tell you whether to do that (she didn't), but if you think it would help with dealing, you should. It's an infuriating situation and my heart goes out to you.

can you IMAGINE any other crime where the police would behave like that?

report an assault - "this guy stabbed me!" - they ring up the perp "nope, I didn't stab nobody" and they just drop it with an "you can prosecute the dude that stabbed you on your own dime..."

I can't believe that the police are allowed to get away with this shit.

Oh, they've always had "mixed feelings" about rape.

Admittedly, that's a line from "Bedazzled" Peter Cook, but as they say, in humour...

How does one prosecute on their own dime anyway? You can't hire a lawyer to be your prosecutor, right?

abbott i had no idea about this, and am so sorry that you had to go through any of it.

just reading this is fucking infuriating. god, i'm so sorry.

Guys, if anyone can confirm or disprove my "women are known to lie" tale above, I would really like to know.

("tsk, he says guys there." OK, you know that's inclusive i.e. to all youse people, you know that, right?)

It's certainly not true in Scotland; I'd be staggered if it's true in England.

just reading this is fucking infuriating. god, i'm so sorry.

^^^^^ this. Just read this thread and am outraged and just plain pissed off. I really really want to take up a torch and pitchfork but don't want to get banned so I just sent some $ to the La Piñon address mentioned up thread. Maybe there will be a couple less Post Secret cards in the universe.

Guys, if anyone can confirm or disprove my "women are known to lie" tale above, I would really like to know.

While judges have certainly been said to say such things (see bottom of this page for example (even though it doesn't state the actual case - http://www.crcl.org.uk/cjs.html) I am quite sure they are not obliged to say it (indeed I'm pretty sure that CARA would mention it if it was the case).

Aw Elvis, thanks so much. They really are champs. They made the whole ordeal a lot more manageable (+ free rape kit you know). They didn't even mind that John punched a hole in their wall out of anger.

ugh. god. abbot i am so sorry for the events of the last year for you. the rage i feel when reading shit like this makes me want to destroy personal property out of general impotence. (personal baggage plus general hatred-of-injustice i think we all feel.)

we haven't had like a ton of interaction on ilx (especially since i was m.i.a. for 12-plus months), but i just wanted you to know if i had a dollar to my name at the moment i'd donate it to my local rape crisis center. in fact, i'm making a note of it now for when i get paid. (and more than a dollar, obviously.)

aw geez Abbott I don't even irl know you but I do know that you are a badass and I am certain that you will move forward on your own terms and find some peace and all that stuff. you have like a gazillion internets friends pulling for you, y'know.

Aw Elvis, thanks so much. They really are champs. They made the whole ordeal a lot more manageable (+ free rape kit you know). They didn't even mind that John punched a hole in their wall out of anger.

I've been thinking a lot about John too. What a horrible horrible thing to go through, for both of you. Again words lack so I hope my "cyberhugs" mean something. :-(

I just read the recent posts on this thread. Abbott, I'm so sorry about the incident and the State Attorneys' refusal to prosecute. You seem like such a strong, bright and thoughtful person; I hope those traits will help you move past this horrible episode to the extent possible.

just putting this here for any Brits who feel like clicking a link to help out London based rape crisis centres?

Tell Boris Johnson to keep his promise to fund 4 rape crisis centres for #London: http://bit.ly/aSjc2 #38degrees #bkyp

bump4boris

Ok guys gonna do some ranting here.

It's my last semester of college & all my classes are those "you must take this X class to graduate" classes. First day today, I go into this class, sitting there & then the guy that raped me walks in. First time I've seen him since then. I am flipping the fuck out. I mean, I'm lucky I got out of the room before I started hyperventilating & crying.

If I drop this class then I won't graduate until December but it looks like it'll have to be that way since no way in fuck can I sit in a discussion-based, 20-person class 2x a week with this dude. I can't say to the prof, who I don't know, "Hey, this dude who raped me but never got convicted is kind of harshing my pedagogical buzz, any chance you could kick him out?"

I'm just choked with rage right now. I have no idea what to do.

you can totally say that to the prof

I don't know if they can do that, what the protocol is, etc.,

print this thread out and show it, and say you're not coming back until dude's removed. the guy deserves a back-alley pulping at best

I don't really like talking about it with strangers in person. I'm afraid I would look like a crazy lady. Prof is a dude, what is he is a dude that thinks "one of those sluts that cry rape"?

talk to a counselor and/or administrator before talking to the prof, i'd think

better to investigate alternative classes/credits than go straight to kicking him out (which i'd wager the prof ~couldn't~ do)

yeah, talk to your advisor or a dean even better

There aren't any alternative classes listed but I'll see if I can talk to an advisor about this. If they could do anything? tbh it is like the world's most embarrassing thing to tell a stranger.

well surely there is a counselor/therapist on campus that can act as an advocate for you, so you don't have to flat out tell a dean

you don't have to tell them exactly why -- you were in an unresolved criminal dispute with this individual and ask what are THEY going to do for YOU.

they work for you.

also chances are the professor isn't in a position to change your class schedule (or his) but an advisor might be

you can also ask if they can offer you an independent study to complete this coursework if all else fails

you don't have to tell them exactly why -- you were in an unresolved criminal dispute with this individual and ask what are THEY going to do for YOU.

Exactly. And please don't feel embarrassed -- this is sad, but I can almost guarantee that the advisor or counselor that you speak with will have heard many similar situations over the years.

yeah, talk to your advisor or a dean even better

I cannot even begin to presume to speak for you, but were I you, there's no way in hell I'd let this guy's convenience trump mine after all that he's done.

agree with everybody else, there has to be someone in the administration of the school you could talk to. there are all sorts of exceptions made for unusual circumstances - often part of school policy - that you can appeal on.

you don't have to tell them exactly why -- you were in an unresolved criminal dispute with this individual and ask what are THEY going to do for YOU.

^ otm. if you say "a violent crime that went unprosecuted", anyone besides a dimwit is going to be able to read between the lines.

I just called my friend who works as an advisor and he says to go see the counselor at the school right away to get like paperwork showing this is A Thing I tried to deal w/proactively asap. So I guess I'm gonna do that.

also independent study ought to be a v reasonable alternative. i knew ppl as an undergrad who had exceptions made like that for much, much less pressing reasons

xp Yes, good idea. Don't let confusion or embarrassment keep you from doing SOMEthing right away, so no one can say, "Well, you came to class for the first WEEK, why did it only become a problem later?"

whatever you do, be proactive, be confident, and know that you are in control if you stand up straight and strong and require that your needs be met.

I agree with everyone else. I knew a muslim girl who went to uni at the same time as me through a friend Sav. She was racially abused by someone in her class. She couldn't 100% prove it so he (i think it was a he anyway, it was first year) wasn't kicked out or anything but went through the official channels to make sure she was able to go to the lectures without putting up with his shit. I think in the end they gave him some bullshit excuse about scheduling and made him take another class.

Also fuck that guy with a chainsaw.

xpost - just joining the chorus: Lechera's advice is absolutely right. Just inform the institution (not the prof -- someone administrative) that you can't attend this class because of an issue with another student in it. (You don't need to say what or who or even talk about it in person -- "unresolved criminal dispute" is a solid way to convey the seriousness of it, and sending something in writing is not a cop-out here.) Ask them directly to provide other accommodations for your finishing on time. See what they have to say and work from there. You have like whatever is a "right" x 400 to do this, and should not feel like you're presenting a difficulty or "asking" for anything special.

Absolutely. I work at a college and we have a lot of similar situations, namely domestic abuse stuff or overbearing husbands who impede their wives educational progress by always fucking being RIGHT THERE so it's a perfectly reasonable assumption that the administration has heard similar requests and will not expect you to tell them any details.

What you should focus on is talking with people who are authorized and able to do something about your situation to minimize the number of times you have to talk about this. Also putting it in writing is an excellent idea.

Abbott my own advice such as it is: is there a department of women's studies on campus? you might ask a professor from that dept to help you deal with this. not saying this is cure-all just a thought, all the women's studies profs I knew in college would have been people who'd have been up for trying to deal with this & also sharp enough to know how to do it.

strength & hope to you in this also. I am familiar with the horror of feeling like the person who victimized you gets to exercise some more lasting hold on you & how bad that sucks. you are stronger and greater so hold on to that!!

Absolutely. I work at a college and we have a lot of similar situations, namely domestic abuse stuff or overbearing husbands who impede their wives educational progress by always fucking being RIGHT THERE so it's a perfectly reasonable assumption that the administration has heard similar requests and will not expect you to tell them any details.

It is commonplace. Every time I see police on campus, it is domestic violence related.

This might sound cynical, but my sense is that any administrator with a lick of sense will want to actively avoid getting involved in details, and will see immediately that the safest and easiest action is to provide another way to fill the requirement. Here's hoping that's how it goes.

(good) college administrators tend to be pretty skilled at dealing with education-impeding personal issues that they dont, and sometimes, i would guess, legally cant, know about

exactly. they don't want to be involved. they just want students to be happy and safe.

I'm not sure if US colleges have a Women's Officer (or similar) but if they do then that's also a useful point of call.

you don't have to tell them exactly why -- you were in an unresolved criminal dispute with this individual and ask what are THEY going to do for YOU.

OTM.

Hey this worked out really well, actually. I talked to a counselor, who didn't really know what to do at all. Then I talked to an advisor in my dept. She told me the professor of the class in question was, in fact, the department head and so could "pull every magical string you need." We both went and talked to the professor/dept. head, who said he would be more than happy to let me meet with him outside class and just do it independently during his office hours. He said he'd make sure the time I met with him was private so the student I don't want to see would not accidentally run into me there. He seems like a considerate, professional guy. After that, I went to my advisor/friend who I had telephoned earlier, and he told me his wife teaches a self-defense class at the women's gym they own, and that she wants me to take it for free.

Thanks for all your advice and kindness, everyone.

oh good!

!! yay !!

Yay1 Good for you, Abbott

this thing sounds so shitty its good some things are going your way

great news, enjoy your self-defense classes!

self-defence class!

that's so awesome, i'm really glad it worked out well - especially that you didn't have to find an alternative and can still do the class you chose with this prof, who sounds pretty decent.

Well done! Glad it worked out swiftly.

I like getting things out of the way!

Excellent indeed. :-)

hurrah! and hurrah for even-more-kickass abbott!

Here's to future thread: Learn Karate With Teh Abbott.

what a relief that he was helpful about it. and enjoy self defense!

wd totally learn Karate with teh abbott btw

I'm really glad this has worked out for you. I was hoping that's how it would go.

it's really heartening to see evidence of people being helpful and awesome, especially in a situation like this.

Is the Brock Turner Stanford rape case already being discussed somewhere on ILX? Sort of surprised I haven't found any.

I think the poor guy's gone through enough already.

i had a long talk with my gf about the letter and the sentencing last night. very emotional.
everyone should give the letter a read btw; it's brilliantly written and likely to be taught in future.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/heres-the-powerful-letter-the-stanford-victim-read-to-her-ra

Maybe it's the kind of thing ILX would be in such complete agreement about that a thread would just become a pointless echo chamber. Nonetheless, yeah the letter is very powerful and I sort of hope the collective outrage I'm seeing represents some kind of zeitgeist shift

On a friend's facebook thread discussion of this, two of the friend's female friends said that similar things had happened to them in college (one was raped unconscious by a "nice white college guy," the other was raped conscious by a "nice white college guy.") As much as I dislike the "As the father of daughters" preface (we're all related to a woman, and that's not the only reason you should care), this shit really scares and upsets me as the father of two daughters.

man the rapists dad said some reallllly stupid stuff in his statement.

I sort of hope the collective outrage I'm seeing represents some kind of zeitgeist shift

i suspect it does? ashleigh banfield spending half an hour reading the whole thing live on cnn seems p remarkable to me.

I know article comments are of limited scientific value, but I'm struck by how few comments I've seen even remotely apologizing for or defending the judge, the rapist, the dad, etc.

On a friend's facebook thread discussion of this, two of the friend's female friends said that similar things had happened to them in college (one was raped unconscious by a "nice white college guy," the other was raped conscious by a "nice white college guy.") As much as I dislike the "As the father of daughters" preface (we're all related to a woman, and that's not the only reason you should care), this shit really scares and upsets me as the father of two daughters.

― socka flocka-jones (man alive), Wednesday, June 8, 2016 1:11 PM (51 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I really can't stand the backlash to "as the father of two daughters" or "somebody's mother/sister/daughter". How could anyone think that those are not legitimate reasons why people would care? It's so infuriatingly stupid.

This has been sort of amazing in terms of how openly people are discussing this on facebook. I've never seen people talk as openly about rape, even after Steubenville. I really hope its turning a corner in the conversation and we'll see more just sentences.

I've only seen one person on my fb feed try to defend this guy by downplaying his crimes. This same person had spoken up passionately about the UVA case during its time, being adamant that "we all have known some woman who faked a rape claim to get attention..." I know I haven't, but I suspect he has and this has distorted his ability to process it. These are obviously very different cases.

ok while we're talking about infuriating, i really resent that the "fathers of daughters" didn't care enough to be more outraged about this when it was happening to their friends
which (sorry) it was

i don't even want to talk about this honestly but try just sparing women your own age the humiliation of remembering how few of their male peers declared their outrage when they experienced sexual assault

TBH I never in college had a female friend reveal to me that she had been assaulted, or otherwise learned of a female friend or acquaintance being assaulted.

Meaning I'm sure it happened but they did not tell me about it.

But anyway that was kind of my point, it shouldn't take being the father of daughters to be outraged. That's why I don't really like the tic of starting with that qualifier. Although it certainly adds a new dimension of worry and fear to things.

i understand that it adds a new dimension and appreciate that; it just feels like a slap in the face from men my own age.

in my personal opinion, a better way to discuss it is in terms of a very clear cut example of rape culture, where the dad defends his son's unconscionable behavior by railing on alcohol consumption and promiscuity instead of the violent act that his son committed. the judge gave a light sentence because he is part of rape culture too.

college, after college, high school -- it happened

Oh definitely. H and I were talking about how this case is such a clear demonstration of "rape culture" being a real thing.

I think it's the best framework to use when discussing this because it clearly demonstrates the structures that support rape culture.

same person had spoken up passionately about the UVA case during its time, being adamant that "we all have known some woman who faked a rape claim to get attention..."

Statistically, we all likely know more than one person who has been raped, and it's very unlikely most of us know anyone who faked a rape claim.

From a facebook post of a (female, fwiw) friend of a friend:

when I was a dorm security guard at the front desk of a large dorm at our alma mater, I was told to not "bother" signing in the female guests of the athlete residents...so that there wouldn't be a written record of them having been there

seems there are always new ways to realize it really is that bad

people who "know" people who "faked" a rape claim are often very loud about their garbage opinions on rape and tend to extrapolate their own "experience" out as an indicator of something more widespread or even conspiratorial, like my great grandmother's opinions on people of a certain race bc she was mugged by someone in the 1930s.

I sort of hope the collective outrage I'm seeing represents some kind of zeitgeist shift

I'd like to think so, but on more than one comment thread on this, I have honestly seen men make comments along the lines of "it wasnt rape, he only fingerbanged her". And they werent trolling, they seemed to genuinely think that made a difference.

http://jezebel.com/prospective-jurors-refuse-to-serve-under-aaron-persky-1781618871

I didn't know you're allowed to do that as a juror, bow out because you don't like the judge. Or does the judge simply have discretion to allow that?

I think the judge probably has discretion to allow that, but I don't know the state rules. Usually there's a portion of voir dire where they ask you if there's any reason you think you wouldn't be able to serve objectively, and if you said "I have a problem with the judge" the lawyers doing the selecting would almost certainly dismiss you anyway.

I didn't know you're allowed to do that

lol this was my first thought too

When I've gone in for jury duty the first thing the judge asks everyone is whether they have some kind of bias in regards to the justice system--either if you're related to DA or you're predisposed to not trust a cop. I'm sure telling the judge that you don't respect him personally will probably get you dropped like that.

I've always been hesitant to just up and say "I have a deeply rooted distrust of all cops" in a courtroom even though it's m/l true

https://frinkiac.com/meme/S04E06/714096.jpg?b64lines=IFRIRSBUUklDSyBJUyBUTyBTQVkKIFlPVSdSRSBQUkVKVURJQ0VEIEFHQUlOU1QKIEFMTCBSQUNFUy4=

Wow that Jez article indicates that the judge has form in this area, which makes it even more disgusting.

got into really aggravating fb arguments with friends over sentencing leniency and how this is really not the case to hang your hat on when it comes to the whole harsh-prison-sentences-are-bad thing.

there's this inherent grossness in how sex as a depersonalized act is both incentivized and demonized depending on context and who is involved

I have been disconnecting from so many media sources this week, made easier because I've been on vacation, but it's been gnawing away at the back of my mind.

sex isn't inherently good or bad. sex requires mutual consent and interest. the phrase "getting some action" or some variation thereof, which the rapist's father in this current case in the media used, is an indicator that there's some inherent value in one individual pursuing a sex act regardless of whether the other party can give consent, because it's somehow still an inherent good to that mindset even if you're perpetrating the act on someone who can't give consent, or has expressly denied consent.

there's something at the root to many of these cases that fall between what people see as pure acts of violence (which rape, at its root, is) and the supposed murkiness of drunken actions or mixed signals or whatever is used to brush a lack of communication under the rug

honestly, these things make me question my own past actions and those of people I know, as far as whether I had sex when I didn't necessarily want to because it's "what you do" when drunk and hooking up or w/e. and whether I misread cues or was the stereotypical man pushing and testing boundaries in some situations instead of backing off when it was clear I should have

I don't think we can continue to be lenient. but there needs to be some serious reflection in society when a number of people think that an act between two people where one person is praised and the other told they should be ashamed is normalized. we're still at the point where "got some action" and "shouldn't have let him" are the viewpoints of perpetrators and some of their authority figures are reinforcing that view

On the same day, on the same site:

http://wonkette.com/605534/teen-tennis-player-who-sexually-assaulted-autistic-girl-will-not-have-future-ruined-by-prison
It’s so weird how this keeps happening, right? You know, like it just happened with Brock Turner, and his beautiful future that no one wanted to dare ruin! Jeez, it is almost like if you are a white teen athlete, and you sexually assault someone, people are really concerned about how that might affect your future!
Read more at http://wonkette.com/605534/teen-tennis-player-who-sexually-assaulted-autistic-girl-will-not-have-future-ruined-by-prison#VWG0vX911mfLCGtW.99

http://wonkette.com/605513/lets-talk-about-juanita-broaddrick

can absolutely see Bill Clinton doing this (then, not now) and not even thinking of it as rape, but thinking of it as dominant, alpha sex. I can see a LOT of men doing that during that time period, before we started telling them in the ’80s, “hey, that is rape, do not do that.” I can see YOUR NICE GRANDPA doing that, back then.
***
Rape is about power, not sex.” For those for whom it’s about power, those are the serial rapist guys, and they hate women and want to punish us. But I don’t think that’s in every case. I think good men can rape, and be sorry, and not do it again. This is very bad feminism.
***
To sum up, I think Bill Clinton could very well have raped Juanita Broaddrick; that it doesn’t make him an evil man, or irredeemable (I’m Catholic; we’re all forgiven, if we’re sorry, and Broaddrick says Bill Clinton personally called her up to apologize). It doesn’t even necessarily make him a bad feminist — you know, later, once he stops doing that.

Thought this revive was going to be about Kurt Metzger.

http://www.dailydot.com/irl/kurt-metzger-sexual-assault-amy-schumer-twitter-block/

xpost that last half of the last sentence is worthy of the site being taken down.

Yeah I p much felt like wonkette should be deleted after I read that, especially coming from its publisher.

Also, as if it weren't enough "once he stops doing that," oh you mean other than the time he abused the oval office to have an affair with a young intern.

my alma mater, byu, finally getting into some hot water over this. way overdue. that place is a patriarchal cesspool.

and institutionally vulnerable because it's so opaque re: its retrograde policies about student bodies. i can't lie i'll be more gratified the more they get punished for it, but also if it leads to change in de-fanging the honor code it would have a real effect on hundreds of students who get caught in that horrible whirlpool every year.

This has to be fake, right?

https://twitter.com/realbrockturner

Brock Turner ‏@realbrockturner June 29
Loving the new #HeterosexualPrideDay hashtag! #Proud #Swimmer #Hetero

I'm pretty sure this is a troll account