Jump to content

Menu

Because "well, they were both drunk, so..." comes up so often in discussions about rape...


Xuzi
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'll admit that I thought affirmative consent sounded ridiculous at first. The media did make it sound like an SNL skit. But at least they are trying something. No means no meant that the rapist could say "well she didn't say no so I thought I had consent." Affirmative consent is basically saying, Hey guys here's a tip, if she can't respond back because she's too drunk, drugged or passed out, she cannot consent If she's drunk or has been drinking, she can't consent legally, so you are taking your chances. If you want to have sex with a drunk girl, you had better be sure she is enthusiastically consenting. Not touching you like she's too drunk to push you off or saying something, but you can't tell what it is because her speech is so slurred, that doesn't cut it. In fact, it's better to do the responsible, gentlemanly thing and watch out for her, make sure she gets home safe and get her number for a time when she is sober.

 

 

 

Of course someone passed out cannot consent!  Of course someone who can't speak can't consent!  No one is arguing this, at least I'm not.  It's really sad and gross that there's a culture out there where it needs to be said.

 

So, I guess my questions from previously still stand.

 

Can a drunk woman never consent to sex?  Is that what we're saying?  A drunk man has total control of the situation and should do the "gentlemanly thing"?  What good is enthusiastic, affirmative consent if it was obtained from someone who otherwise would not have given it had they been sober?  What good is it if she cannot remember giving it the next day but the other party says that she did?  Or neither party remembers?

 

I guess reading all of this sounds pretty misogynistic in and of itself.  Like men can go out, get drunk, and decide to have all the sex and be perpetrators, but women can't do the same thing without being victims.  It doesn't seem very "sex positive" for the women.  It seems like they need the men to take care of them if they choose to binge drink.  From a feminist perspective, it seems that women should have the same options as men as far as sex goes, but this post seems to suggest that if a woman wants to go out for a night of drinking and a casual hook up, the man should not participate or acquiesce because she is not capable of making that decision because she's a woman.

 

Again, I agree that drunk people shouldn't be having sex, and I don't think drunk men should be having sex with drunk women unless they are married.  I do think men should be the gentlemen and protect women.  I don't think people should be having sex in general without being married.  I kind of get the impression that many of the feminists and others on college campuses would disagree with that standard though, and want people to feel "sex positive" and want women to be on the same footing as men when it comes to sex, so I'm left with a lot of questions.  Because no on is applying this standard equally, it seems to be about chivalry and being a good man by not letting a woman have sex if she is intoxicated.  Wouldn't that be another form of "slut shaming"?  To insist a woman (and only women, not men) cannot know what she wants if she chooses to drink?

 

I don't think affirmative consent is a bad thing at all (from a monogamous married perspective it seems hilarious, but whatever, I'm a boring fuddy duddy), it just seems like an impossible thing to apply to the type of binge drinking, pot smoking, casual hook up culture that exists.  How do you prove someone's drunken recollection of an event?  How do you reconcile it with the idea that people will do things while drunk that they will not do while sober?  How is it reconciled with the idea that loosening inhibitions is exactly the reason some people drink?  It seems more logical to just ban sex while drunk entirely, instead of trying to enforce a standard which is going to be fuzzily remembered by both parties the next day.

 

I guess my observations from many moons ago, is that in most cases both parties would have been drunk at the time of sex.  But all of this reads like the male is ultimately responsible for what happens in any sexual encounter.  Which seems to belie the idea that females are capable of making the same decisions about sex that men are.

Edited by JodiSue
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a guy is that worried that he might end up being accused of rape, the solution is EASY. Don't have sex when either of you are drunk. Don't drive drunk, don't take your finals drunk, don't show up to work drunk, and don't have sex drunk. There, now you don't have to worry anymore. 

 

Women are told to be responsible in order to minimize the chances of being raped. Well, guys can be responsible and do what they have to do to minimize the chances of being accused of rape.

 

I just can't feel sorry about telling a guy not to have drunk sex with a person he doesn't know well. Life's rough. 

 

I wholeheartedly agree with all of the bolded.  I also agree it is very simple and easy.  How do you think this should be enforced?  Should there be disciplinary action taken against the male by the university if drunk sex happens?  Should it be some kind of university policy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wholeheartedly agree with all of the bolded.  I also agree it is very simple and easy.  How do you think this should be enforced?  Should there be disciplinary action taken against the male by the university if drunk sex happens?  Should it be some kind of university policy?

 

No. I think if the woman accuses him of rape, it should be handled by the courts. 

 

I also think if he accuses the woman of rape, it should be handled by the courts. 

 

Either could happen. 

 

Neither probably will. Because as a general rule, women don't report drunk sex they regret as rape. And no one is showing up in their bedrooms each morning to quiz them about their sex life, then hunting down their partners. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. I think if the woman accuses him of rape, it should be handled by the courts. 

 

I also think if he accuses the woman of rape, it should be handled by the courts. 

 

Either could happen. 

 

Neither probably will. Because as a general rule, women don't report drunk sex they regret as rape. And no one is showing up in their bedrooms each morning to quiz them about their sex life, then hunting down their partners. 

 

 

ETA:  I agree with everything you wrote above, but I was speaking to your previous post that men should not have sex while drunk (which I also agree with).  So I'm not arguing with you, just thinking out loud.

 

So, drunk sex shouldn't be against university policy?  It should be against the law and the courts should prosecute it?  I'm confused about what you're saying.  I'm not talking about accusations of rape, I'm talking about the idea that men should not have sex while drunk (which I quoted from your post).  This suggested to me there should be a broad policy in place to ensure it doesn't happen, or at the very least that it is discouraged and punishable after the fact.  But maybe I misinterpreted.

 

I think it certainly would make it a lot more clear if the law or policy was against sex while intoxicated instead of relying on someone's memories of the even after the fact to prove disprove specific events.  If s/he was drunk, it was against the law/policy seems much simpler.  One doesn't have to drag a victim through he said/she said.  If someone brings an accusation, and the accused was drunk or the accuser was drunk then the accused is automatically guilty and that is clearly law or policy before any encounter so they can't claim confusion or poor memory of the encounter.  Again, maybe I'm misreading what you said in your previous post.

Edited by JodiSue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not going to get upset that universities are teaching students to make sure their partner wants sex before they proceed. Worse things are going on in the world. By far. This standard doesn't just protect women,it protects men from this hazy no mans land other posters are talking about. 

 

another poster (I think) talked about hook up culture being okay in people's minds, but then the idea of affirmative consent going against that. I'm not sure who these people are that are for affirmative consent, but also for getting drunk in order to have sex. I can't think of any. I'm for affirmative consent. I am against the hook up culture. 

 

And affirmative consent doesn't have to be weird. It can be "are you sure?" whispered softly. It can be crass if you want it to be "I want to take you home and bang the hell out of you!" Whatever. Again, in the real world, this doesn't apply to husbands and wives, where I think we are safe to say that although no means no, there can be consent without it being spelled out. 

 

I think anyone thinking too hard about that probably is being distracted from the much greater issues facing men and women on campus. 

 

The problem to my mind with affirmative consent is that it isn't adaquate to work as a standard for regulation, which is what those universities are using it for.  It is probably reasonably good advice to give to kids that are going to hook-up parties, but it tends to become inadequate for other kinds of relationships, in the same way it does for husbands and wives - if the students have a history of sexual, or even other, interactions, they have established some kinds of patterns or signals for communications.  There were plenty of students who lived together, or were sleeping regularly in the dorm rooms every night when I was there.  All the same kind of issues that affect other long-term partners come in to play where it is just far more natural for people to go on with the way things usually are and expect them to say "no" if they are wanting something different.  So as a regulation to be used for all these situations, it will fall short.

 

And even within that party sub-culture, I also think you simply aren't going to get most people asking verbally all the time.  Too much of sexual communication is non-verbal.  Rules that depend on people behaving in ways that they are really disinclined to can be tricky.  IN reality what you see I think is that many people do not behave that way, so it creates mixed expectations.  Even the original article makes some reference to how young people feel about this kind of requirement. (And I don't think it is just that they find it distasteful - I think a lot of them are actually shy or lack confidence and significant sexual experience, they aren't really confident in themselves.  That is part of the reason for the drinking.  So even if they see the utility in being direct, getting them to do it will be more difficult.)

 

As far as hook up culture and support of affirmative consent - I expect some people do both, but more to the point many people who support the idea of affirmative and enthusiastic consent also will vigorously defend the right of young people to participate in hook-up culture.  And especially young women, because it is seen as part of their right to participate in whatever kind of party or sexual culture they want, but in a way that totally protects them from possible harm.  My feeling is that in that setting, it is simply impossible to create that safety, so rights don't really play into it.  Hook up culture has inherent risks, not only when people are trying to do things right, but because it attracts real predators who aren't people who are going to be swayed by things like education, because they are essentially sociopaths. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying it should be against the law to have drunk sex. I'm saying, that if a man is concerned that he might later be accused of rape, his best way to avoid that is to avoid having drunk sex. There is no law against going to a job interview drunk, but it's a bad idea and society says you shouldn't do it. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rape is a crime; drinking alcohol is not

https://socialistworker.org/blog/critical-reading/2013/03/16/rape-crime-drinking-alcohol-is

 

"Alcohol is the new Ă¢â‚¬Å“short skirt.Ă¢â‚¬ A poll done in 2005 by Amnesty International/ICM found that 30% of respondents believed that the victim was Ă¢â‚¬Å“partiallyĂ¢â‚¬ or Ă¢â‚¬Å“totallyĂ¢â‚¬ responsible if she was drunk.

 

The Ă¢â‚¬Å“hookupĂ¢â‚¬ culture of young people is where the newest rape myth, Ă¢â‚¬Å“gray rape,Ă¢â‚¬ is most insidious. Gray rape promotes the idea that it is hard to identify what constitutes consent or non-consent and that many situations described as rape, especially when alcohol is added to the mix, are confusing or simply unknowable. Legally, a person who is drunk cannot consent to sex and having sex without consent is rape. But alcohol consumption doesn't completely diminish the ability to consent to or decline sex. It is only in situations where the person is unconscious (blacked out) that consent isnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t possible.

 

Alcohol-facilitated rape isnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t an accident. And the gray rape ideas that are currently popular, that assert rape is the result of miscommunication, confusion or intoxication, are not only wrong, they let the rapist off the hook and blame the victim once again.

 

Dr. Abbey explained the sexist double-standard of drinking:

 

Ă¢â‚¬Å“Women who were drunk when raped are often viewed by others as partially responsible for what happened. Interviews with a group of college students showed that the male attacker was held less responsible for the rape when he was intoxicated than he was when he was reported as being sober. In contrast, the female victim was held more responsible when she was intoxicated than when she was reported as being sober. Thus, in terms of how others will perceive their behavior, the costs of intoxication are higher for college women than for college men.Ă¢â‚¬

 

Alcohol-facilitated rape doesnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t take place in a vacuum. Sex crimes occur in a society where women are unequal to men in every arena of life and in a culture that degrades and commodifies womenĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s bodies and sexuality."

 

 

All you have done here is stated a position - people saying that sexual assault with an unclear status takes place due to alcohol are wrong.

 

Is there any possible reason that is not purely ideological that we should believe this?  I don't mean some sort of scientific or statistical evidence which would be pretty hard to get - I mean something like an appeal to behavior, a psychological explanation, something that fits in with what we see of human behavior in other areas of life, or in other settings?

 

 

I've been to plenty of those parties, I've participated in them, I have close friends who were really into them.  This ideology just doesn't fit what I've observed going on, or even from what people have said to me about their own personal perceptions or motivations.

 

For example, you've said that this sort of assault cannot happen as a result of miscommunication (whatever the cause of that might be.)  Does that really seem all that likely?  Does it fit in with what we see about human communication more generally?  I can tell you right now that I've had miscommunications over sex with my husband - we've been married 10 years, most of the time are perfectly sober, and are adults.  Frankly, I would be very surprised if more serious miscommunications did not take place about sex in settings where people are very impaired, don't know each other, and have different expectations.  Heck, I've seen drunk people have angry miscommunications about sports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying it should be against the law to have drunk sex. I'm saying, that if a man is concerned that he might later be accused of rape, his best way to avoid that is to avoid having drunk sex. There is no law against going to a job interview drunk, but it's a bad idea and society says you shouldn't do it. 

 

Ah, I think you lumped it in with driving also, which may have been where I went off track because that clearly is not just a bad idea.  I mean, there are things one shouldn't do drunk because it's not wise, and things that are clearly dangerous and against the law while drunk.  I would place sex in the latter category in my mind, but I understand now that's not what you were trying to say.

 

I agree then, that young men should not be having sex while drunk with women they don't know very well while those women are also drunk. I guess I thought that was sort of a given.  Do people here disagree with this idea/philsophy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotta love that this discussion has turned into EXACTLY what the convicted stanford swimmer wanted, and the victim asked not to happen - a discussion about binge drinking and promiscuity. 

 

Except it was acknowledged multiple times that the guy was a guilty sociopath who raped a woman who was blacked out behind a dumpster.  I don't think it is controversial or that there is going to be much except agreement that "Yeah, that's wrong and he should get a harsher sentence".  And no one thinks that unconscious or concious women should be raped, so I'm not sure what else could be said. 

 

The discussion did move beyond the OP, but I would guess that is pretty much a matter of course around here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is interesting.  I wonder why this would be.

 

 

This seems to me to be similar to other kinds of stats about people who have been victimized as young adults or children.  Look for example at people in teh sex trade, be it prostitution or strippers - they are very likely to have been molested in some way as kids, they are psychologically able to create a place where they can do that work, and the work itself places them at further risk.

 

I suspect that having been sexually victimized can lead young adults into sexual risks in various ways.  Some have really poor self-image, some have a poor sense of how a healthy relationship looks operates,  some may not be good judges of when people are pushing boundaries, some may be more likely to have substance abuse problems.

Edited by Bluegoat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a guy is that worried that he might end up being accused of rape, the solution is EASY. Don't have sex when either of you are drunk. Don't drive drunk, don't take your finals drunk, don't show up to work drunk, and don't have sex drunk. There, now you don't have to worry anymore. 

 

Women are told to be responsible in order to minimize the chances of being raped. Well, guys can be responsible and do what they have to do to minimize the chances of being accused of rape.

 

I just can't feel sorry about telling a guy not to have drunk sex with a person he doesn't know well. Life's rough. 

 

You shouldn't feel bad about it, but why then is it not reasonable to tell a girl the same thing?  And if we are going to tell them that, it must be based on some underlying reason - it isn't a random statement, it is based on something about drunken sex.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course someone passed out cannot consent! Of course someone who can't speak can't consent! No one is arguing this, at least I'm not. It's really sad and gross that there's a culture out there where it needs to be said.

 

So, I guess my questions from previously still stand.

 

Can a drunk woman never consent to sex? Is that what we're saying? A drunk man has total control of the situation and should do the "gentlemanly thing"? What good is enthusiastic, affirmative consent if it was obtained from someone who otherwise would not have given it had they been sober? What good is it if she cannot remember giving it the next day but the other party says that she did? Or neither party remembers?

 

I guess reading all of this sounds pretty misogynistic in and of itself. Like men can go out, get drunk, and decide to have all the sex and be perpetrators, but women can't do the same thing without being victims. It doesn't seem very "sex positive" for the women. It seems like they need the men to take care of them if they choose to binge drink. From a feminist perspective, it seems that women should have the same options as men as far as sex goes, but this post seems to suggest that if a woman wants to go out for a night of drinking and a casual hook up, the man should not participate or acquiesce because she is not capable of making that decision because she's a woman.

 

Again, I agree that drunk people shouldn't be having sex, and I don't think drunk men should be having sex with drunk women unless they are married. I do think men should be the gentlemen and protect women. I don't think people should be having sex in general without being married. I kind of get the impression that many of the feminists and others on college campuses would disagree with that standard though, and want people to feel "sex positive" and want women to be on the same footing as men when it comes to sex, so I'm left with a lot of questions. Because no on is applying this standard equally, it seems to be about chivalry and being a good man by not letting a woman have sex if she is intoxicated. Wouldn't that be another form of "slut shaming"? To insist a woman (and only women, not men) cannot know what she wants if she chooses to drink?

 

I don't think affirmative consent is a bad thing at all (from a monogamous married perspective it seems hilarious, but whatever, I'm a boring fuddy duddy), it just seems like an impossible thing to apply to the type of binge drinking, pot smoking, casual hook up culture that exists. How do you prove someone's drunken recollection of an event? How do you reconcile it with the idea that people will do things while drunk that they will not do while sober? How is it reconciled with the idea that loosening inhibitions is exactly the reason some people drink? It seems more logical to just ban sex while drunk entirely, instead of trying to enforce a standard which is going to be fuzzily remembered by both parties the next day.

 

I guess my observations from many moons ago, is that in most cases both parties would have been drunk at the time of sex. But all of this reads like the male is ultimately responsible for what happens in any sexual encounter. Which seems to belie the idea that females are capable of making the same decisions about sex that men are.

People cannot legally consent to many things if they are inebriated. Men or women. People can make stupid decisions when inebriated and would be wise to have a sober support person. Both men and women. This is not a case of demanding chivalrous behavior by another name.

 

There is no flood of regret accusations, there just isn't. 54/100 victims never report. Only 3 out of every 100 rapists ever sees a day in prison.

 

The law won't be applied in bedrooms on campus, it will be applied in court when testing evidence if charges are laid.

 

Don't want to risk being accused? Don't have sex with drunk people. Easy peasy. It's not a trick!

 

The only way that this becomes a men vs women issue is because 99% of rapists are men.

 

The laws are there to level the playing field a little for victims who choose to report- because rapists (and society at large) traditionally paint the woman as responsible for allowing the rape by drinking, while simultaneously absolving themselves of any responsibility because they were drinking.

Edited by LMD
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotta love that this discussion has turned into EXACTLY what the convicted stanford swimmer wanted, and the victim asked not to happen - a discussion about binge drinking and promiscuity. 

 

Given the title of the thread, what would you expect?  If it was a "gee, that is a crazy incident, that poor girl" thread then probably the commentary in the OP was out of place.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FTR I didn't write that. It came from the article I linked. I was on my iPad, so I couldn't use the quote box, but I did use "".  I'll go back and correct it now that I'm on my desktop. 

 

Oh, I think I realized it was a quote.  But I guess I thought it must in some way resonate with you - opinions are after all a dime a dozen,so I assumed you tended to agree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You shouldn't feel bad about it, but why then is it not reasonable to tell a girl the same thing?  And if we are going to tell them that, it must be based on some underlying reason - it isn't a random statement, it is based on something about drunken sex.

 

I fully plan on telling all my children not to have sex with strangers while intoxicated. 

 

Of course, I don't want them having sex with strangers at all. 

 

But, I will not, and do not, respond to a story about a woman being raped by going off on a tangent about drunkeness and promiscuity. It isn't the time or place for that discussion. Especially when it focuses mostly on the women, and not the men's behavior. For all the reasons I listed before, the biggest being that it creates an environment where women are unlikely to report rape. 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fully plan on telling all my children not to have sex with strangers while intoxicated. 

 

Of course, I don't want them having sex with strangers at all. 

 

But, I will not, and do not, respond to a story about a woman being raped by going off on a tangent about drunkeness and promiscuity. It isn't the time or place for that discussion. Especially when it focuses mostly on the women, and not the men's behavior. For all the reasons I listed before, the biggest being that it creates an environment where women are unlikely to report rape. 

 

I just can't see how it is a tangent given the thread title brings up the question of sex when two people are drunk, and puts it in the context of not only this particular instance, but the wider setting.  "Comes up so often in discussions" does not mean just this incident, the OP seemed very clearly to want to put all such discussions in with this particular case.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Don't want to risk being accused? Don't have sex with drunk people. Easy peasy. It's not a trick!

 

 

I completely and wholeheartedly agree with this.  100%.

 

So, how do we enforce this at universities where it is obviously an ongoing problem?  How do you get an entire culture of drunken casual sex to stop doing that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It took a year and a half for this guy to get his very light sentence. Should Stanford have just let him remain a student, attending parties, swimming on their team, etc for a year and a half until the court ruled? Many people are saying that colleges should be leaving these matters to the courts. What should happen in the meantime?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just can't see how it is a tangent given the thread title brings up the question of sex when two people are drunk, and puts it in the context of not only this particular instance, but the wider setting.  "Comes up so often in discussions" does not mean just this incident, the OP seemed very clearly to want to put all such discussions in with this particular case.

 

I took the quotes in the OP to mean that she was being tongue in cheek, and rolling her eyes at the "they were both drunk" excuse.  Not that she thought that applied to the situation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought that the thread title was pretty clearly pointing out that almost all genuine discussions about rape inevitably turn into repugnant debate over the minutiae of irrelevant tangents.

 

I assumed that it was posted in the hope that people would actually listen to the victim this time.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It took a year and a half for this guy to get his very light sentence. Should Stanford have just let him remain a student, attending parties, swimming on their team, etc for a year and a half until the court ruled? Many people are saying that colleges should be leaving these matters to the courts. What should happen in the meantime?

 

That is a tricky question.  It's easy for me to say that it should be the school's prerogative to treat accused rapists the same as convicted rapists because they are a private institution and they can operate how they see fit.  However, college seems to be a unique situation because if you take away scholarships, expel someone, revoke their status on a team, that really impacts someone for the rest of their life, and if they are not found guilty, then they can be reinstated, but you've created a huge impact on a legally innocent person.

 

But, it also seems like if someone has to show up to court every day (or even sporadically) for a trial they aren't going to be able to participate in school anyway, so something like deferment might have to be the only option.  Suspend enrollment, scholarships, and sports participation until the verdict and then either expel or reinstate the student, I think that would probably be the best option.

 

I think Columbia made Paul Nunguesser move to a different dorm when he was investigated about Emma Sulkowicz, but she never went to the police and it was all handled by the school itself, so that's a bit different.  IIRC, they both graduated on time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely and wholeheartedly agree with this. 100%.

 

So, how do we enforce this at universities where it is obviously an ongoing problem? How do you get an entire culture of drunken casual sex to stop doing that?

Oh, that's easy! Two simple steps:

 

1. Listen to and support victims.

2. Actually punish offenders.

 

These laws are a first step.

 

This guy was caught in the act. It took over a year to get him a slap on the wrist sentence and people on the internet (and I'll bet in real life too) call her an idiot and insinuate that it was her own fault.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I took the quotes in the OP to mean that she was being tongue in cheek, and rolling her eyes at the "they were both drunk" excuse.  Not that she thought that applied to the situation. 

Yes, thank you.

 

I posted this because discussions about rape seem to, without fail, devolve into "well she was drunk (or did some other "idiot" thing), so what did she expect," completely cutting the rapist out of the picture of what happened.

 

Making a poor choice doesn't cause rape. Rapists cause rape. A woman making an unwise choice doesn't negate the rapists ILLEGAL, IMMORAL, HORRENDOUS CHOICE to violate her body, and it certainly doesn't lesson the trauma making her wonder "Well, maybe I did something before I passed out that lead him to think it was okay?"

 

Assaulting an unconscious person is wrong, whether the person is unconscious because of their own actions or not. Her actions leading up to the rape are not what caused it. They don't make what he did less horrendous, or less illegal, or less traumatizing for the victim. They only make HIS actions more horrendous, because he was obviously looking for the "weak" member of the herd. I'm sure there were plenty of not-passed-out women at that party who he could have tried to get interested in having sex with him. Waiting until someone is unconscious to have sex with them speaks volumes about HIM, NOT HER.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the whole discussion of false accusations always bugs me, because it occurs so much less often than actual rapes do, and yet we, as a society, seem more concerned about men not being believed, than women not being believed.

Edited by Xuzi
  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought that the thread title was pretty clearly pointing out that almost all genuine discussions about rape inevitably turn into repugnant debate over the minutiae of irrelevant tangents.

 

I assumed that it was posted in the hope that people would actually listen to the victim this time.

 

 

Another PP said these things don't happen in a vacuum.  I think that's why you're going to get a lot of discussion about the culture that leads to these sorts of things.  The culture that leads young men to believe that drinking to excess and finding similarly drunk women to hook up with is an acceptable lifestyle.  I actually think it's really helpful to come to agreement on some issues.  Like, young men shouldn't sleep with people if they are drunk, and hook up culture is unequivocally bad.  I actually thought there would be more disagreement on the latter point.  And, to be honest, I thought I would be thought of as prudish for even suggesting the former.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone really has any doubts about this guy.  So - really I don't see any "not listening to the victim."  Everyone seems to think the judgement seemd to lenient.  People that have defended him are his friends and father, who don't count as in any way unbiased.

 

It was also in many ways a very clear cut case.  She was totally unconcious, and there were witnesses, and he seems to have realized quite clearly that he was doing something he would get in trouble for.  It seems like the least likely sort of incident to get that kind of comment. 

 

I would not have said at all that it fits into some "they were both drunk" paradigm.  So I am not surprised that given it was put within that paradigm, you would see people discussing other kinds of incidents.  Ones where both people are conscious, or there are no witnesses, or no witnesses who are not also drunk.

 

And for that matter, the first comment that people jumped on was that it was really foolish to get pass out drunk in a dangerous place, which isn't the same kind of discussion as how to navigate an assault or allegation of one when all the people involved are drunk - it takes for granted that there was in fact a rape, whereas the difficulty in the second scenario is usually trying to figure that out in the first place.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Assaulting an unconscious person is wrong, whether the person is unconscious because of their own actions or not. Her actions leading up to the rape are not what caused it. They don't make what he did less horrendous, or less illegal, or less traumatizing for the victim. They only make HIS actions more horrendous, because he was obviously looking for the "weak" member of the herd. I'm sure there were plenty of not-passed-out women at that party who he could have tried to get interested in having sex with him. Waiting until someone is unconscious to have sex with them speaks volumes about HIM, NOT HER.

 

Has anyone in this thread disagreed with any of this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is not poor drunk guys just trying to have fun and getting confused,carried away or accused. The issue is not silly, reckless, vengeful girls.

 

1 in 4 women are sexually assaulted. Very few rapists are brought to justice.

 

This law takes away one layer of power from rapists in court - the baffling idea that having a drink increases the victim's responsibility whilst simultaneously lessening the rapist's. That the victim/perpetrator is overwhelmingly woman/man is not, I think, a coincidence.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You shouldn't feel bad about it, but why then is it not reasonable to tell a girl the same thing?  And if we are going to tell them that, it must be based on some underlying reason - it isn't a random statement, it is based on something about drunken sex.

 

People are telling the woman (23 years old isn't a girl IMO) she shouldn't get drunk. ------> If she weren't drunk, she wouldn't have been raped. The woman was NOT "having sex." She was unconscious and being raped.

 

What about the women who have *one* drink that gets roofied? Women shouldn't drink at all? Even non-alcoholic drinks? Then it's oh they shouldn't have been at the bar or with that type of person. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone really has any doubts about this guy.  So - really I don't see any "not listening to the victim." 

 

 

she said in her letter to the court that she specifically didn't want this to turn into a discussion about binge drinking and promiscuity, which was what her assailant was determined to make it about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another PP said these things don't happen in a vacuum. I think that's why you're going to get a lot of discussion about the culture that leads to these sorts of things. The culture that leads young men to believe that drinking to excess and finding similarly drunk women to hook up with is an acceptable lifestyle. I actually think it's really helpful to come to agreement on some issues. Like, young men shouldn't sleep with people if they are drunk, and hook up culture is unequivocally bad. I actually thought there would be more disagreement on the latter point. And, to be honest, I thought I would be thought of as prudish for even suggesting the former.

They don't happen in a vacuum, you're right. I disagree that hookup culture is the main guilty party, it may at most provide some easier targets.

 

Rapists rape across all cultural contexts.

 

I don't personally agree with hookup culture at all - but it is too simplistic to blame it.

 

Anecdotally, I was a promiscuous party girl once upon a time. I was never assaulted then. Years later I was attacked walking to work in broad daylight.

 

My friend was a good girl who hardly ever went to parties and only ever had one drink. It didn't stop the uncle or neighbor or teacher or co-worker. It didn't stop someone spiking her one drink.

Eta-she could count on half a hand the people who didn't disbelieve or partially blame her. Not one of any of these men were ever charged.

Edited by LMD
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It took a year and a half for this guy to get his very light sentence. Should Stanford have just let him remain a student, attending parties, swimming on their team, etc for a year and a half until the court ruled? Many people are saying that colleges should be leaving these matters to the courts. What should happen in the meantime?

 

I think people are talking about automatically kicking rapes to the non-campus police department and prosecutors instead of handling things "in house" with student judiciaries. The student judiciary should ALSO act, but it should not be an investigation in lieu of an actual criminal investigation. The big report that came out a couple/few years ago talked about how this was one way colleges swept sexual assaults under the rug so to speak. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

she said in her letter to the court that she specifically didn't want this to turn into a discussion about binge drinking and promiscuity, which was what her assailant was determined to make it about. 

 

Which is to say, she didn't want her case to be used as an example or facet of the larger problem around vulnerable people being victimized, or the even larger one of the culture that enables that.

 

If people wanted to honour that, putting it into that context in the first post was probably a mistake. 

 

I'm not sure that it is really a reasonable request, unless she also does not want it to be part of a discussion about campus rape.  I can understand a person not wanting to be a part of public discussion at all, about something that to them is very much a personal issue, but I think that is an unlikely thing to happen when it is related to wider cultural problems. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bluegoat - she just wanted to be heard.

Victims so rarely are.

 

She is not a lesson in how to avoid being raped, she is a real woman, angry and hurting.

 

Eta- and she is far from the only one.

Edited by LMD
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Hook up culture has inherent risks, not only when people are trying to do things right, but because it attracts real predators who aren't people who are going to be swayed by things like education, because they are essentially sociopaths. 

 

 

Except it was acknowledged multiple times that the guy was a guilty sociopath who raped a woman who was blacked out behind a dumpster.  I don't think it is controversial or that there is going to be much except agreement that "Yeah, that's wrong and he should get a harsher sentence".  And no one thinks that unconscious or concious women should be raped, so I'm not sure what else could be said. 

 

The discussion did move beyond the OP, but I would guess that is pretty much a matter of course around here.

 

I don't think anyone has said, agreed, or has given any evidence that this rapist has a personality disorder or any other mental illness. As disabled people and people with mental illnesses are more likely to be raped and otherwise attacked (and I think in our current society often face far higher stigma than rapists ), I think the rhetoric that people who do evil things like this are automatically labelled as having personality disorders or mentally ill is something people should be careful to avoid. If nothing else, because it increases stigma against people who have done nothing wrong and it removed the responsibility from the individual and the attitudes about violence, sexual and otherwise, in wider society and how that affects us all. 

 

Personally, for me, that is a big issue I have around a lot of conversation around rape and sexual violence. The people who do these thing are not actually that different to anyone else, they do not have neon sign on them, they are not born with tails or horns, and yet so much writing on rapists is that they are some other with an innate issue rather than an individual who has taken society's messages about power and place to a violent conclusion. The reason so many want consent and other similar education for everyone, for all of our kids, is because everyone deserves to know that their boundaries should be respected because a lot of are told in so many ways that we don't have and/or deserve our own boundaries -- and no one can tell at a glance who thinks rape is an acceptable use of power. One step towards changing culture is having these concepts within as many system as possible - education, law, media, and so on. They're not - our current culture puts everything on the victim and the vast majority of 'safety advice' on the topic reads more like 'it's okay as long as you aren't raped, make sure it's someone else' which is disgusting because there will always be someone more vulnerable and the vulnerable shouldn't have to pay.

 

I will hold my hand up and say at 15, 16, 17, I did pretty everything on the do-no-do-or-you-will-get-raped list except for drinking & drugs [my parents did those so they have no appeal]. I lived in short shorts and tank tops, I went to night classes and took the night bus alone, I went walking alone in strange places often for hours without anyone knowing where I was, I was openly affectionate with many people, I travelled alone to places I didn't know well including large cities, I met people from the internet alone, and so on. The only time I've been sexually assaulted is when I was in hospital, questioned the need for a medical test, and got held down and left in a pool of blood with the women who did it talking and laughing about the lesson I was apparently taught as they laughed their way out the door. Part of that was luck -- and part of it is that I was far more vulnerable in hospital as a disabled pregnant adult than I was as a wandering neglected teenager. Society still treats sexual violence as spurt of the moment crimes of passion rather than the power plays they are and until the issues around power are dealt with, the vulnerable will pay the price and get the stigma attached while those with the power do what they want and laugh away. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people are talking about automatically kicking rapes to the non-campus police department and prosecutors instead of handling things "in house" with student judiciaries. The student judiciary should ALSO act, but it should not be an investigation in lieu of an actual criminal investigation. The big report that came out a couple/few years ago talked about how this was one way colleges swept sexual assaults under the rug so to speak. 

 

I agree 100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, that's easy! Two simple steps:

 

1. Listen to and support victims.

2. Actually punish offenders.

 

These laws are a first step.

 

This guy was caught in the act. It took over a year to get him a slap on the wrist sentence and people on the internet (and I'll bet in real life too) call her an idiot and insinuate that it was her own fault.

 

So, you're essentially saying trials should be speedier?

 

As Ravin said early on, the guy's defense attorney did his job.  He did what he was supposed to do.  If the law was changed where it was simply illegal for a male to have sex with a drunk female at all, then I think there would be much less defense involved.  So, I guess the law could be changed to reflect that as the actual crime so that is the only thing that the accuser would have to prove?  It seems like that could be much less painful than allowing for a defense based on the fact that alcohol was involved.

 

Other than that, I'm not sure how you conduct an investigation and a trial without questioning of the victim and establishing all the circumstances surrounding the crime.  Again, unless the crime itself was sleeping with a woman while she was drunk (in which case alcohol couldn't be used as a defense), and even then our laws say the accused has the right to face the accuser, has a right to defense, etc.  It may be really distasteful in all sorts of circumstances, especially with something as personally devastating as rape, but unless you completely change how criminal investigations and trials are conducted then I don't see how you avoid what you and I would probably consider as horribly traumatic for the victim.  IMO, that's part of the insidiousness of the crime.

 

It seemed from the article that for her part she noted that the hospital and police did the best they could to support her.  If the rapist is a filthy sociopath, there is not a lot to be done about the trial being ugly for her unless, again, the law is somehow changed so that he cannot present his defense in the way that he did.

 

As for social commentary, okay, I don't see how that can be avoided either.  I have seen nasty comments from people on all kinds of issues and articles on the internet, from sick children to adoptions to wedding celebrations.  It amazes me what people will say on the internet about even the most uplifting or benign articles, much less the more controversial ones.  I don't think that can really be controlled for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It took a year and a half for this guy to get his very light sentence. Should Stanford have just let him remain a student, attending parties, swimming on their team, etc for a year and a half until the court ruled? Many people are saying that colleges should be leaving these matters to the courts. What should happen in the meantime?

Yes. Because he had not been convicted of any wrong doing and therefore no one had any rights to expel him or fire him from work or force him out of his lease or many other things.

 

Unless we are actually suggesting that people who have never been convicted of anything can be treated same as convicted rapists and murderers without legal due process.

 

The colleges should:

Submit any documents or video tapes to police that could pertain to the case.

Encourage and assist the victim in seeking legal help.

Create campus policies that encourage and promote safety.

 

But if a woman comes in and says she was raped, the very first thing the school should do is offer to give her a ride to the nearest hospital and or police station.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's of course disgusting, but to be fair, it's not the only time that crimes committed while drunk are treated differently than when sober. I guess the idea being the person's judgement was impaired and it was not premeditated. To which I say bull crap because you had control over getting pi$$ drunk (unless someone tainted your beverage or something).

This is why I have such a difficult time with these situations in general. I certainly DO NOT BLAME girls when they are taken advantage of, but in this day and age, when so many things like this are happening, I really can't understand why any girl would want to get herself into a position where she is this impaired.

 

That being said, I also HATE that people are not appropriately punished. There will be too many more like this POS because they know they'll basically get away with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. Because he had not been convicted of any wrong doing and therefore no one had any rights to expel him or fire him from work or force him out of his lease or many other things.

 

Unless we are actually suggesting that people who have never been convicted of anything can be treated same as convicted rapists and murderers without legal due process.

 

The colleges should:

Submit any documents or video tapes to police that could pertain to the case.

Encourage and assist the victim in seeking legal help.

Create campus policies that encourage and promote safety.

 

But if a woman comes in and says she was raped, the very first thing the school should do is offer to give her a ride to the nearest hospital and or police station.

Universities and workplaces have the right to impose their own disciplinary action on those under a feeling indictment. I have no issue with a internal judiciary process suspending a student if they believe there is enough evidence to do so.

 

I do agree that otherwise universities should stay out of the process except as requested by law enforcement to provide information.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are telling the woman (23 years old isn't a girl IMO) she shouldn't get drunk. ------> If she weren't drunk, she wouldn't have been raped. The woman was NOT "having sex." She was unconscious and being raped.

 

What about the women who have *one* drink that gets roofied? Women shouldn't drink at all? Even non-alcoholic drinks? Then it's oh they shouldn't have been at the bar or with that type of person. 

 

The point I think people are making about hook-up culture is somewhat beyond this incident, it is about the commentary that places it within the "both drunk" question.  That seems to be where that leads to serious problems.  Not always about rape, but about sexual encounters that are not always what people would normally do, where there are regrets or people feel used, and so on.

 

With regard to this women, the comment that she shouldn't get drunk in that situation was a lot more straightforward - don't get drunk in a dangerous situation.  Don't get drunk and go swimming, don't get drunk and go off with people you just met, and so on.  Both men and women put themselves in vulnerable situations though women are likely to be sexually assaulted and men more like;ly to get beaten up or robbed.

 

Where that insterscts with hook-up parties is that they are a dangerous situation, precisly because they are a good cover for predators, well beyond someone having an encounter they wish they haven't, or a real misunderstanding.  In a way, this guy was just unlucky - if no one had found him, he was in a perfect environment to cover up his crime - he could say she was conscious, anonymous sex wouldn't seem odd in that situation, she would not remember and the people around would not have been reliable witnesses.  Totally aside from its inherent problems it is the perfect place for a predator, just like the killer who signs up for war.

 

Your point about people being roofied seems like a total non sequiter.  What about them?  No one seems to have claimed that it is possible for anyone, even those who are hyper-vigilant (which I personally would not choose to be) to avoid being victimized entirely.  People do all kinds of things in everyday life to avoid more serious risks without any guarantee that they will be perfectly safe.  I don't think I've seen anyone say no one should ever have a drink, or that even that is a perfect solution.  Someone might still wait until you are alone and over-power you.  OTOH, I think it's pretty reasonable to look out for situations that you can avoid that.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't usually post on threads like this, but I've been reading through all of your comments and thinking about this a lot over the last couple days.

 

First, I don't necessarily think that stating the fact that this girl could have statistically lowered her chances of being raped if she had not been drunk or taken other precautions is promoting rape culture.  I have read The Gift of Fear.  I have purchased books for my girls to read about how to protect themselves from predators.  There are actions that you can take to reduce your chances of being a victim.  Does this mean that girls who drink are responsible for being raped?  NO. No, no, no.  However, drinking heavily puts you at a higher risk, simply because it is harder to make good choices and protect yourself when you are drunk.  In a perfect world, a girl should be able to go to a party, drink all she wants, and not worry about her safety.  But we don't live in such a world.  As a mother of two daughters, my first thoughts when I read an article like this are always, "This poor girl.  This is terrible and terrifying.  What can I teach my girls that will lower (not completely remove, I know) their risk of such things happening to them?"  I start there, not because they have the burden of responsibility, but because I can proactively DO something that can statistically lower their chances of becoming a victim.  And I desperately want to do something.  It's the only part of the puzzle that I have any amount of control over.  This is only one small thing, and I know that educating them and teaching them to behave in ways that makes them less likely to be chosen as a victim, only means that some other girl might be chosen in their place and doesn't solve the overall problem.  However, if around the world girls were taught to look out for each other, how to protect themselves and each other, what types of behaviors make them an easy target, it could have a positive effect.  I have to believe that some percentage of rapes that occur would likely not happen if there were no easy targets to be found.  I really think that having a village sort of mentality about this can empower our girls and make a big difference. No, it should not be their burden, but it would be proactive.

 

I would never, never bring up the above to a girl who had been raped.  I would also not tell a child who went off with a stranger and their cute puppy and was assaulted that they should have done xyz and that because they didn't they have partial fault.  They are innocent and they and their actions/behaviors are NOT the problem.   However at the appropriate times, we have to have conversations like this, look at hard facts, and teach our children how they can mitigate their risks.  Think about this:  if this was an article about a pre-teen who was given free reign over her computer activities and ended up being lured by a predator, would we not be having a huge conversation about internet safety?  How to keep this from happening?  What we can do as parents to protect our children?  Talking about how to keep our kids safe online as a result of such an incident doesn't mean that we blame the child for the predator's actions.   It doesn't do anything to reduce the number of predators out there.  It's just part of the larger conversation we need to be having, and as parents we have more control over what we teach our children about such things than we do over the number of predators in the world.  So it's where we start.

 

The attitude of this young man and his father is infuriating.  Yes, this is a huge issue in our culture.  We need to talk about it.  We need to change it.  It is a huge shame that in the modern world, attitudes toward women have not changed enough and rape culture still exists in any form.  Colleges can and should play a part in addressing this, but in reality, it needs to be addressed way before this.  Is consent being discussed in health and sex ed classes in a way that is respectful of all genders?  Are parents discussing this with their children while they are still living at home? Starting when they are very young with personal boundaries in general, and continuing as they begin to experience romantic relationships? 

 

I wonder if some sort of systematic way of giving consent for the college crowd could be developed.... I'm just brainstorming here.  A small statement that could be signed and kept by both participants stating consent?  Some sort of mobile app?  A video saved of each party giving consent?  I don't think it's wrong at all for colleges to have policies about stuff like this.  Legally, proof of consent is not a requirement, but colleges could make a policy of requiring proof of consent.  Such a policy could at least get students thinking about what consent means, why it is important, and how having proof and some sort of identifying information for both parties can serve as a protection if something goes wrong.  And it could help people who are choosing partners because they will be able to tell who cares about the idea of consent and who doesn't. 

 

We need to get past the mentality of "boys will be boys" and "college students will be college students" and not normalize degrading attitudes and risky behaviors in this age group.  College students are capable of being responsible and thoughtless behavior needs to stop being an expected part of the college experience.  I am glad for conversations like this, even when not everyone can agree on how to best approach this issue.   Makes me hopeful that a problem has been recognized and a solution will eventually be found.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone has said, agreed, or has given any evidence that this rapist has a personality disorder or any other mental illness. As disabled people and people with mental illnesses are more likely to be raped and otherwise attacked (and I think in our current society often face far higher stigma than rapists ), I think the rhetoric that people who do evil things like this are automatically labelled as having personality disorders or mentally ill is something people should be careful to avoid. If nothing else, because it increases stigma against people who have done nothing wrong and it removed the responsibility from the individual and the attitudes about violence, sexual and otherwise, in wider society and how that affects us all. 

 

Personally, for me, that is a big issue I have around a lot of conversation around rape and sexual violence. The people who do these thing are not actually that different to anyone else, they do not have neon sign on them, they are not born with tails or horns, and yet so much writing on rapists is that they are some other with an innate issue rather than an individual who has taken society's messages about power and place to a violent conclusion. The reason so many want consent and other similar education for everyone, for all of our kids, is because everyone deserves to know that their boundaries should be respected because a lot of are told in so many ways that we don't have and/or deserve our own boundaries -- and no one can tell at a glance who thinks rape is an acceptable use of power. One step towards changing culture is having these concepts within as many system as possible - education, law, media, and so on. They're not - our current culture puts everything on the victim and the vast majority of 'safety advice' on the topic reads more like 'it's okay as long as you aren't raped, make sure it's someone else' which is disgusting because there will always be someone more vulnerable and the vulnerable shouldn't have to pay.

 

I will hold my hand up and say at 15, 16, 17, I did pretty everything on the do-no-do-or-you-will-get-raped list except for drinking & drugs [my parents did those so they have no appeal]. I lived in short shorts and tank tops, I went to night classes and took the night bus alone, I went walking alone in strange places often for hours without anyone knowing where I was, I was openly affectionate with many people, I travelled alone to places I didn't know well including large cities, I met people from the internet alone, and so on. The only time I've been sexually assaulted is when I was in hospital, questioned the need for a medical test, and got held down and left in a pool of blood with the women who did it talking and laughing about the lesson I was apparently taught as they laughed their way out the door. Part of that was luck -- and part of it is that I was far more vulnerable in hospital as a disabled pregnant adult than I was as a wandering neglected teenager. Society still treats sexual violence as spurt of the moment crimes of passion rather than the power plays they are and until the issues around power are dealt with, the vulnerable will pay the price and get the stigma attached while those with the power do what they want and laugh away. 

 

Well, for what its worth, I don't think that all people who commit sexual assault are sociopaths.  And you are right, I don't know this guys mental state.

 

I do think though he seems like he was clearly predatory, even consciously so.  Which is to some extent a reason I'm not sure he's a great example of a more typical sort of person.  I find it hard to imagine being predatory in that way without some significant lack of empathy beyond what is normal.  I generally can imagine a lot, but not that - I can't see how he could have cared about her in any way.

 

Alcohol does inhibit social inhibitions, a lot for some people.  It might be that was more what happened here, he came upon the opportunity and he was already sexually aroused to some extent, not thinking far ahead, and all his inhibitions were gone.  Sex is pretty primitive brain stuff and still seems to lurk down there when all the frontal cortex stuff has been suppressed.  And then he was a coward and wouldn't just admit that was what happened..  It seems less likely to me, but perhaps that is because I find him so unsympathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bluegoat - she just wanted to be heard.

Victims so rarely are.

 

She is not a lesson in how to avoid being raped, she is a real woman, angry and hurting.

 

Eta- and she is far from the only one.

 

So really then, dont frame the discussion in another way than hearing her story.  Say - this woman was raped, it is very sad.

 

Though I rather wonder if she cares at all about being heard by us - people she does not know, who have no connection to her, who she will never meet.  So maybe not posting about it at all would be more respectful.

 

I am not sure why you feel that anyone who disagrees with your understanding is naieve or unaquainted with sexual assault. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't usually post on threads like this, but I've been reading through all of your comments and thinking about this a lot over the last couple days.

 

First, I don't necessarily think that stating the fact that this girl could have statistically lowered her chances of being raped if she had not been drunk or taken other precautions is promoting rape culture.  I have read The Gift of Fear.  I have purchased books for my girls to read about how to protect themselves from predators.  There are actions that you can take to reduce your chances of being a victim.  Does this mean that girls who drink are responsible for being raped?  NO. No, no, no.  However, drinking heavily puts you at a higher risk, simply because it is harder to make good choices and protect yourself when you are drunk.  In a perfect world, a girl should be able to go to a party, drink all she wants, and not worry about her safety.  But we don't live in such a world.  As a mother of two daughters, my first thoughts when I read an article like this are always, "This poor girl.  This is terrible and terrifying.  What can I teach my girls that will lower (not completely remove, I know) their risk of such things happening to them?"  I start there, not because they have the burden of responsibility, but because I can proactively DO something that can statistically lower their chances of becoming a victim.  And I desperately want to do something.  It's the only part of the puzzle that I have any amount of control over.  This is only one small thing, and I know that educating them and teaching them to behave in ways that makes them less likely to be chosen as a victim, only means that some other girl might be chosen in their place and doesn't solve the overall problem.  However, if around the world girls were taught to look out for each other, how to protect themselves and each other, what types of behaviors make them an easy target, it could have a positive effect.  I have to believe that some percentage of rapes that occur would likely not happen if there were no easy targets to be found.  I really think that having a village sort of mentality about this can empower our girls and make a big difference. No, it should not be their burden, but it would be proactive.

 

I would never, never bring up the above to a girl who had been raped.  I would also not tell a child who went off with a stranger and their cute puppy and was assaulted that they should have done xyz and that because they didn't they have partial fault.  They are innocent and they and their actions/behaviors are NOT the problem.   However at the appropriate times, we have to have conversations like this, look at hard facts, and teach our children how they can mitigate their risks.  Think about this:  if this was an article about a pre-teen who was given free reign over her computer activities and ended up being lured by a predator, would we not be having a huge conversation about internet safety?  How to keep this from happening?  What we can do as parents to protect our children?  Talking about how to keep our kids safe online as a result of such an incident doesn't mean that we blame the child for the predator's actions.   It doesn't do anything to reduce the number of predators out there.  It's just part of the larger conversation we need to be having, and as parents we have more control over what we teach our children about such things than we do over the number of predators in the world.  So it's where we start.

 

The attitude of this young man and his father is infuriating.  Yes, this is a huge issue in our culture.  We need to talk about it.  We need to change it.  It is a huge shame that in the modern world, attitudes toward women have not changed enough and rape culture still exists in any form.  Colleges can and should play a part in addressing this, but in reality, it needs to be addressed way before this.  Is consent being discussed in health and sex ed classes in a way that is respectful of all genders?  Are parents discussing this with their children while they are still living at home? Starting when they are very young with personal boundaries in general, and continuing as they begin to experience romantic relationships? 

 

I wonder if some sort of systematic way of giving consent for the college crowd could be developed.... I'm just brainstorming here.  A small statement that could be signed and kept by both participants stating consent?  Some sort of mobile app?  A video saved of each party giving consent?  I don't think it's wrong at all for colleges to have policies about stuff like this.  Legally, proof of consent is not a requirement, but colleges could make a policy of requiring proof of consent.  Such a policy could at least get students thinking about what consent means, why it is important, and how having proof and some sort of identifying information for both parties can serve as a protection if something goes wrong.  And it could help people who are choosing partners because they will be able to tell who cares about the idea of consent and who doesn't. 

 

We need to get past the mentality of "boys will be boys" and "college students will be college students" and not normalize degrading attitudes and risky behaviors in this age group.  College students are capable of being responsible and thoughtless behavior needs to stop being an expected part of the college experience.  I am glad for conversations like this, even when not everyone can agree on how to best approach this issue.   Makes me hopeful that a problem has been recognized and a solution will eventually be found.

 

 

There actually was an app that was developed for just that purpose.  It died a pretty quick death though.  People really didn't like it, but more to the point, it doesn't really make much difference since it only captures a moment in time.  It isn't like a contract to transfer a bit of property where you are legally obligated once you have signed, you can still change your mind later as far as deciding to have sex with someone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, thank you.

 

I posted this because discussions about rape seem to, without fail, devolve into "well she was drunk (or did some other "idiot" thing), so what did she expect," completely cutting the rapist out of the picture of what happened.

 

 

 

I didn't ignore the rapist, and I agreed that he should have received a harsh sentence.   I'm glad I saw his name and photo in the newspaper because he deserves to be infamous.  His first name made me cringe because I always associate that name with a disgraced former senator from our state who had accusations of sexual assault made against him.

 

I think it's proper that the rape victim wasn't named in the article I read, and I have no intention of looking for her identity on the internet.  But I do stand by the use of "idiot".  The definition is a foolish or stupid person.  After reading the newspaper article and her letter to the rapist linked here,  the definition fits IMO.   And I shouldn't have to say this, but believe me, it gives me no satisfaction to say that about someone. Just reading her letter,  the responses here, and some of the linked material  (especially the disgusting webpage supporting the rapist) have made me sick to my stomach.   I can't imagine just sitting around patting someone's hand and saying "Poor dear..." or something else that is supposedly "supportive".  No woman deserves to be raped,  and if a woman is her own worst enemy my conscience wouldn't allow me to just be quiet instead of possibly offending/"shaming" her.  

 

Again, I have no sympathy for the rapist at all.  He makes me sick.  His father's letter makes me sick.  And it's disgusting to even think of that rapist presuming to go around to schools, etc. to lecture to them.  I don't know how he can look at himself in the mirror.  But in a twisted way, his father said something that could be helpful...so girls everywhere, listen up.   When he says "20 minutes of action" that should speak volumes to you.  Why would anyone risk her physical and emotional health on someone who may think like this???  I don't know if victims ever completely heal, but it sure won't happen in 20 minutes.     

 

When my son attended student orientation, he was welcomed with a booklet about sexual assault.  Rape also happens to be against the law in our city, not just on campus.  And then there have been "raising awareness" activities  (men racing on inflatable ponies and signing pledge cards).  But I wouldn't trust in any of those things to protect women from rape.  Maybe it's just the way I am, but I place more trust in myself to lower my risks of becoming a victim. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

-Don't have sex with someone who is not giving enthusiastic consent.  It's not much fun.

 

For that one, I still don't get it.  What kind of decent guy says, "Well, she really didn't want to, but..."  Who wants to have sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with them?!?  I can't get why affirmative, enthusiastic consent would ever be considered a bad thing.

 

I agree, except how do you define this in legalese?  Everyone is different in how they express enthusiasm in that context, right?  How do you codify it?

 

Again, if taken seriously, I could see this leading to a lot less casual sex, which wouldn't be a bad thing.  But I just don't see how it is practical to enforce.  As a personal guideline, sure.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...