Was it Rape?
An article today in the Cincinnati Enquirer about a Xavier student who was raped last spring and has been in a he said / she said fight since reporting.
A few questions:
1. Why do readers need to know that her hair was long and dark and her nails were painted red that night?
2. Her advocate talked to the paper about this case???
The comments from readers are a serious trigger alert... don't even go there.
Props to Emily for being brave enough to report her assult, and I hope she continues to find strength as this drags on. Today is not a day I'm proud to live in Cincinnati.
2
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Was it Rape?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12105
Wow. That's an awful story.
I don't think they described her hair and nail polish to slut-shame her at all. The article is all about her and a physical description isn't important, but it makes sense to include it. They describe the rapist, as well.
The comments are disgusting. "I don't want to have sex" is NOT A MIXED MESSAGE.
"I don't want to have sex" is NOT A MIXED MESSAGE.
Agreed. She was clear about her limits, and he chose to ignore them.
I agree, the description fits in the tone of the article. Its not a news report, its an indepth descriptive piece.
Does it say anywhere if she agreed to the article? I assume she did because I think there are usually laws against naming rape victims. If she did not agree to have an article like that printed, I'd be pretty pissed.
I don't think the physical description of the victim is intended to "slut shame" her at all. While I don't think it was executed properly, I think the description is there to ask the reader to humanize the victim rather than using a strictly clinical style of writing when describing the incident.
While I'm not sure what the nail polish had to do with it, the hair length also serves as a means of communicating the internal physical effects of the assault by comparing how Emily looked before being attacked and how she made major changes in her physical appearance as a result of the psychological trauma.
Maybe I just read too much into the authors mindset, but that's just how I assume the article was meant to be seen.
I read the nails and hair descriptions as highlighting the fact that she has resorted to changing her physical appearance in an attempt to cope with the situation. However, that only became clear after getting to the end of the article, where the changes were noted. The placement of the initial description was poorly done, in that it could be misinterpreted as implying that her original mode of fashion was asking for trouble.
Yeah, inserting visual description into an article about a person you've interviewed is a staple of journalistic writing. It adds a human touch. Plus, this isn't a hard news story, but a mix between a profile and an expose, so the journalist has more licence to add detail and description.
I'm sick to my stomach. The comments section was worse than terrible.
My heart goes out to Emily, and I commend her courage.
It appears that the advocate talked to the paper with Vassil's approval & encouragement.
Overall its a tragic story without any simple solutions as far as I can see. I think the school's sexual assault policy is biased toward the accuser. It virtually presumes the veracity of the charge in that it requires explicit, verbal permission for any sexual activity. Further, from the wording, it requires this in the case of any physical activity whatsoever. This means unless she says "Yes please kiss me" when he leans in for the smooch you're setting yourself up for trouble...much more so if they actually have sex. How many times do people get an explicit "Yes" before sexual activity? And the University says that the only 'acceptable answer is "Yes" '. That presumes a level of communications clarity unheard of in human relationships.
I'm not sure what the right answer is for these he said/she said cases, but I'd like to find an answer more consistent with our Constitutional principles of innocent until proven guilty.
Your argument becomes really problematic when you consider the ramifications--
If we assume it's not rape, even with the absence of consent, then what if she's feeling threatened and doesn't want to say no, or is unable to say anything? Getting a "Yes" probably isn't necessary in a relationship (where yes is assumed but no is always accepted) or when both parties are obviously consenting even if they don't say it, but what about when one party isn't into it, then doesn't the other party have a responsibility to make sure that they actually want to partake?
Maybe it's not rape if she doesn't say no, but isn't it better to say, "This is why people should only have sex when both parties are obviously consenting either through statements or enthusiasm" rather than, "Consider the (potentially not) rapist! He might not have known he was raping her."
I don't think it's ridiculous to expect a verbal "yes" before proceeding with sexual activity. I have been dating my boyfriend for five years, and still, every time we have sex, he waits for my enthusiastic, verbal consent. Even if I say yes grudgingly, we don't have sex.
It is unjust and infringes upon his rights to assume the man is guilty and purposely raped her when it hasn't gone through the court system. That's the same as saying "He is guilty until proven innocent."
To be honest, the only comments I've seen that actually make a valid point are from the article itself...
cintiareaperson wrote:
Has anyone ever thought about how we hold drunk drivers liable for what they do while drunk, or the alleged rapist accountable for what they do while drunk, but if someone says "I couldn't consent b/c I was drunk" we go along with that? Just an example of how the legal system is contradictory and a difficult thing. What you feel should be done usually depends on your situation and your point of view.
Also, I believe the physical description was justified in the piece. If you can imagine what she looked like, you can play a better picture in your head and get a better idea as to your educated (which seems to be rare around here) opinion. If you can actually picture this young, far from pure girl, can you grieve with her more?
- kdivers
We hold people accountable for the harm they do to others, regardless of their intoxication. That's the common theme between the drunk driver and the drunk rapist. They hurt, and sometimes kill, other people. To me, this isn't contradictory at all. It's common sense.
Many times, the "I couldn't consent because I was drunk" is really "I was passed out or blacked out and effectively unconscious." Surely, you'll agree that an unconscious person cannot consent.
Too bad she wasn't passed out, or else your argument would hold water.
There are many states/countries in which a drunk person, legally, cannot consent to sex, even if they are only mildly intoxicated.
What the fuck does this girl being "far from pure" have anything to do with anything?!?! Let me guess...you're one of those people that only thinks virgins can be raped.
Sheesh, You are jumping to conclusions and making unsupported and false assumptions.
"If you can actually picture this young, far from pure girl, can you grieve with her more?"
Let's try again: Please provide an explanation for this statement that doesn't sound like you believe that a woman who is sexually experienced/drinks alcohol/makes out with strangers deserves what she gets.
Do you really think we hold alleged rapists accountable if they were drinking? We should but society is bad at that.
Why hello there, future rapist.
Let me guess, you are self righteous single woman who blames all of her faults on men?
See, isn't it just silly when people blow stuff out of proportion and try to make a point with it?
According to her side of the story, she wasn't drunk, and she clearly said she didn't want to have sex.
Now, its true that there's no real way to prove whether or not she said that, in the absence of a recording. So you can argue about whether we should believe her or not. But it doesn't seem that this case has anything to do with consenting while intoxicated and then regretting it later.
If a drunk rapist is like a drunk driver, then a drunk rape victim is like a drunk pedestrian who gets run over by the drunk driver. You don't prosecute the pedestrian for getting run over, regardless of whether the pedestrian was drunk at the time.
But what if the drunk pedestrian was wandering in the middle of the road?
You analogy isn't completely accurate in the sense that you are implying that her being drunk does not effect anything.
picture this with your oh-so-educated mind, kdivers: you're drunk and walking home from a bar. another bar patron who left at the same time as you begins a conversation as the two of you walk. he seems like a nice guy. at some point he asks if you have a few bucks so he can buy a pack of cigarettes - sure, you think, i've enjoyed his company, i'll spare a few dollars for him. you take out your wallet, making no effort to hide how much cash is inside, and this nice guy sees the $500 in $20 bills you have in there. he asks for more money - hey, you were the one showing off the crap-load of cash you had with you. you say no, you don't want to give him more than $5. he beats the living sh*t out of you and takes all your cash. and then every friend, acquaintance, police officer, person who hears you're story tells you how much it's all your fault for being drunk. if you hadn't been drunk, you probably wouldn't have walked with a total stranger, or said no to the request for a few dollars, or you would've been careful not to show how much cash you had.
do i have that right, brilliant mind? victims of violent crimes who had been drinking prior to the crime are at fault and deserve less or no sympathy than sober victims of violent crimes?
and i apologize to anyone who might have been offended that i used a mugging in comparison to rape - i know there's no comparison. but, i must admit that it was enjoyable for me to picture kdivers - this genius commenter & defender of male constitutional rights being mugged while drunk, and then receiving no sympathy - only blame.
This is a terrible, terrible example, if only because the average person would, indeed, lay some blame at the feet of the victim in this situation for flashing huge amounts of cash to someone they don't know or don't know well.
What's with this "far from pure" bullshit? So she's drank before and maybe had sex before, does that mean it's ok to have sex with her against her will? And you claim people around here lack education...
Also, i see no contradiction in your examples. To decide to drive or rape someone while drunk is still and active decision, while someone who is drunk to the point of unconsciousness is unable to give consent, or do much of anything else.
There you go, assuming what she said is the complete truth.
Never, not even once, have I said that people here "lack education." It doesn't take a genius to realize that many women here have masters degrees in various fields and live very fulfilling lives. At the very most, you might say I'm disappointed in the rudimentary posts. I came here hoping to learn from well informed people. All I'm getting is the vibes, in my opinion, like those from the socially awkward kids from high school dances who stood in the back corner.
Damn straight I believe her. This shit goes on all the time. You still haven't answered what her level of "purity" (by which I assume you mean sexual naivity) has to do with a goddamn thing.
Also from your original troll comment(and if a rape apologist isn't considered a troll here I don't know what is):
"better idea as to your educated (which seems to be rare around here) opinion"
Ergo implying that the posters lack education.
False, I'm saying that many poster's here are not putting their full potential into their posts.
Good example of someone not thinking through and just making a random post so they feel less insignificant in this large, dismal world:
"nightingale replied to kdivers :
Why hello there, future rapist."
Good example of someone who is thinking through:
cfriend said:
Secondly, I would like to say that this issue should just be dropped. There is not enough proof to convict the man. The article clearly states that Emily's rape kit showed no evidence.
It is stories like this one that made me afraid to have sex with women I met at college. I escorted ladies I had gotten hot and heavy with to their dorm rooms because I was afraid of being accused of rape (they had had a few drinks). Afer I did have sex with a girl who was to be come my girlfriend I had a pang of fear that I asked her "should I get a condom?" and not "do you consent?". My brothers does data entry for the university working with the state entering sexual assault info and he told me of a accuser who filed a report where she said she was thinking no the entire time but never said it... holy cow He never asked and she never said. Two lives can get ruined.
If she's thinking no the whole time, wouldn't she seem a bit unenthused about the whole affair? If I was having sex with someone and they were obviously not into it, I would definitely ask them if they were okay.
Then again, I avoid this problem by not having sex with random people.
I sure hope your brother's not breaking school/state law by revealing this information to you (naming names would most likely be a big no-no).
It seems as though your fear boils down to the fear of being falsely accused of rape. Though I certainly empathize with the fear of unfounded accusation (I have been in a job where I had to work one-on-one with minors), I gently suggest to you that you have been unduly influenced by the "U.S. rape culture" myth mill.
It is the same patriarchal machine that has destroyed the lives of rape victims through blame and shame. And it harms men by construing them to be less than human (i.e. ruled by irrepressable bodily urges and insensible to reason or will) and by generating mostly apocryphal tales of lying women/fake rape victims, thus conferring on men the sexual angst you are feeling.
Here is my advice: In the [unlikely] event someone is bent on making up a rape story about you, they will do so. So, you might as well go about your life being as decent and law-abiding a human being as possible.
What this means is: Ask. If it makes you feel better to get explicit consent, do so in that many words: "Will you go to bed with me?" (Or "fuck me?" if that's your preferred language). And it means "Don't have sex with intoxicated or unconscious or ill people (that is, people whose consent is not plain as day)."
Isn't it better for you, anyway, when you know for a fact that your partner is fully engaged in the sex act?
I know right now that I'm going to get a lot of negative responses to this comment, but I feel like this is a valid point that I haven't seen anyone make yet. As I read that story, I was thinking the entire time that the situation that poor girl went through is exactly why I have made the personal decision to never accept a ride anywhere from, or for that matter to go anywhere private with any male that I do not know extremely, extremely well. I would honestly rather walk home alone if there is no other alternative, with my pepper spray in hand, knowing that a stranger assault is much less likely.
I feel that while this is often unjustly categorized as a rape apologist's way of thinking, women can take certain steps to protect themselves against the kinds of predators and situations that all too often result in this kind of a he said/she said battle. I am in no way excusing his behavior, or that of any other rapist, nor am I blaming her for what he did. Just because she perhaps made a choice that was not the wisest, does not mean I am insinuating IN ANY WAY that she deserved to be raped, so please do not accuse me of this. I have made a poor choice in my past that resulted in me getting sexual assaulted, and while I know that the assault was not my fault, I do take responsibility for my choice. I learned from it, and am now much wiser and know to never make a choice like that again. I just know that I would rather do everything I could to avoid being in that situation ever again altogether and believe that it is valid to encourage women to make decisions that will not put them in such a vulnerable position.
That is actually a good point that I used to wonder about when I was in college. People often say that you shouldn't walk home alone from a party, and its usually guys who offer to walk you home. I remember thinking back then, is it safer to walk home by myself or to let some guy I don't know very well walk me home? The answer probably depends partly on what kind of area you live in, but for me I often decided to just walk home by myself rather than try to find someone to walk me. (When girls or guys I trusted offered to walk me home I accepted). Sometimes I'd be with girls who wouldn't want to leave the party yet, but they'd tell me to call them when I got home safely or else we'd just stay on cell phones with each other for the whole walk (short walks). I used to get calls from friends in other cities saying "I'm walking by myself and I just felt better being on the phone, what's up?"
It definitely wasn't her fault, but we can still discuss what we'd feel safe doing in situations like that.
I don't recommend being in a phone conversation while walking alone in an isolate area.
IT is a good idea to be connected on the phone to someone who can hear you scream for help, but not to be in an actual conversation that reduces your awareness of your environment and of soft noises behind or around you.
I dial a family member or friend, tell them I'm walking alone at night, identify my location, and then leave the phone open in my hand. (The person on the other end of the line putters about doing whatever it was they were doing--the dishes; watching TV, etc, until I reach my destination, let them know, and end the call).
I almost said something about that-- but these people weren't REALLY that worried about being jumped by a stranger. Its usually a combination of distracting you from being worried (like calling a friend if you watch a too-scary movie when you're home by yourself), and appearing busy so that guys that are nearby don't try to hit on you.
I almost said something about that-- but these people weren't REALLY that worried about being jumped by a stranger. Its usually a combination of distracting you from being worried (like calling a friend if you watch a too-scary movie when you're home by yourself), and appearing busy so that guys that are nearby don't try to hit on you.
If I were walking in a place where I was really scared that I might get attacked out of nowhere, then I'd probably be more careful just to have the phone on but not be talking.
Firstly, I would like to say that this is a terrible situation for the parties involved and I feel for them both.
Secondly, I would like to say that this issue should just be dropped. There is not enough proof to convict the man. The article clearly states that Emily's rape kit showed no evidence.
Thirdly, consider this unrelated example: When a teenage girl gets pregnant because she decided to have sex, should be considered a victim? Of course not. Sure, people might feel bad for her, but she is not a victim. She chose to have sex and therefore has to accept whatever dangers or consequences come with it.
Emily Vassil went to a party and drank (drank illegally nonetheless, but that is beside the point). She then accepted a ride with a man she did not know well and who had also most likely been drinking. Further, she engaged willingly in intimate sexual contact with this man. These poor decisions were likely a result of impaired judgment from alcohol consumption.
Regardless of what happened in that car, Emily cannot be considered a victim. She went to the party. She drank. She got into the car. She began "fooling around" with a man she did not know well. So she needs to accept the consequences of her decisions.
Wow.
When I first started reading your post I thought you were going to say that because there's no evidence, we shouldn't jump to the conclusion of assuming she was the one telling the truth. That would have been a fair comment; it is possible that she made the whole thing up, although most of us can tell you why it seems much more likely that the guy would lie in this situation than that the girl would make this up. However, setting aside the probabilities of who's telling the truth, the fact is there's no way to know for sure who's telling the truth without a video of the situation.
But then, instead, you said that because she had two drinks, accepted a ride from a man, and made out with him, she deserves the consequences. That sounds like you are saying that even if she is telling the complete truth, she's still not a victim, and that is messed up. If its true that she said she did not want to have sex and he forced her anyway, it IS rape and she IS a victim. It might be near-impossible to prove and so legally the case might have to be dropped, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have been rape.
As I see it, there are basically two possibilities here:
1) The girl is lying. She consensually had sex and then said that she didn't consent in some ploy to ruin this guy's life. In that case, yes, it would not be rape and she would not be a victim. (I think this case is unlikely, but it is a possibility).
2) She is telling the truth. She said she didn't want to have sex and the guy forced her anyway. In this case she was raped and the guy committed a crime. Unfortunately it is extremely difficult to prove the crime, so he isn't likely to be punished by our legal system, but that doesn't mean he didn't do it.
Now, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that even in case 2, even if she is completely telling the truth, she was not raped. Is that what you're saying?
Your analogy with the girl getting pregnant doesn't work because the key word in your sentence is that she DECIDED to have sex. The whole point is that in this case, Emily says she did NOT decide to have sex.
"As I see it, there are basically two possibilities here:"
You're field of vision is awfully narrow.
The reason you gave for her lying is completely absurd, to say the least. There are many more logical reasons for why she would lie about being raped. Here's the first one that comes to my mind:
They willingly (while drunkenly) had sex in the backseat of his car. He told a buddy, buddy told random people. All that escalated into rumors and half truths about what they did. To try to defend herself, she claimed she didn't want to. Everyone went all up in arms over her viscous and cold blooded rape. Now she's tangled in a huge net of lies and doesn't know how to free herself and just tell the truth because of the horribly oppressive chauvinistic* society.
*And no, I'm not trying to "troll" like people are saying. I completely agree that society is unrightfully dominated by males and that women don't necessarily get the voice they deserve. I'm proud to say I live in a state (NH to be exact) where the majority of the state senate is women.
Ok, you're right that I was too specific in case 1. What I meant to say was that there are two possibilities: she's lying (for whatever reason) or she isn't. The situation you describe would fit under case 1, she's lying, which isn't really what I was talking about.
Here's what I wanted cfriend to answer:
Assume, for the sake of discussion, that she is telling the absolute truth about everything. Suppose a videotape came out showing that everything she said was accurate: They made out, she got inreasingly uncomfortable, she told him she did not want to have sex, and he forced her anyway.
Now, if that is true, would you still say that she wasn't raped because she deserves the consequences of her actions? That's what cfriend's post sounded like-- he seemed to be saying that EVEN IF she is telling the truth, she still wasn't raped. That's the part I want to discuss.
I think we all agree that if she willingly had sex and then made up a rape accusation for any reason, then it wasn't rape. So set that case aside. IF she is telling the truth-- do you still claim she wasn't raped, isn't a victim, etc?
I know. I'm not questioning your #2.
Ok. Thanks for clearing that up. (I still want to hear an answer from Cfriend though, since it came up in response to his post).
So then the next issue is, who is more credible? This isn't really possible for us to determine 100% or even 90% since we aren't there and don't know all the facts. In general, in a situation like this, I feel like its more likely that the woman is telling the truth because of the motivations involved. Does a guy have a motivation to have sex? Yes. If he forces someone, does he have a motivation to lie and say he didn't? Obviously, yes. Now, why would a girl lie about this? There are possible motivations, sure-- maybe she regretted it later and didn't want anyone to think she was a slut, maybe she wanted to hurt this guy. The problem is, neither of those are very good motives because (a) people in general will think and say much worse things about her if she accuses him of rape than if she just admits she had sex, or doesn't talk about it at all, and (b) given the low conviction rate, and the low rate of even your own friends believing you, its a really bad way to try to hurt someone. I'm definitely not claiming that no girl has ever or could ever make up a rape accusation, I'm just saying that to me it seems less likely than that she would tell the truth about it. Its HARD for a victim to report a rape. She has to endure hours of interrogation by the police, invasive medical exams, people she knows and doesn't know judging her and saying she's a slut who was asking for it, reliving it over and over as long as the legal process drags out... And in many cases she faces outright intimidation and threats by the guy or his friends. Its not an easy thing to do, and its not something most women would do just for the hell of it.
I was very close to a situation like this once. I knew both people involved, I was there the night before and saw how they were acting, I was told specific details about how the guy treated other women that same night (before the rape happened, so there was no morning after confabulating involved), and I was the first person to see each of them in the early morning after it happened. Without going into more details, I can say that I had a lot of reasons in that particular situation to believe the girl's story over the guy's, far beyond my natural (admitted) inclination to believe the girl. And I saw what happened afterwords. I saw how people, mostly guys but also some girls, who were equally friends with both of them, jumped to the conclusion that she was a lying slut who was asking for it before they even heard either side of the story. I saw her afraid to sleep in her own bed again, and so she stayed with us for a week, and cried for most of that time. I saw how the police treated her, how the university treated her. I saw how friends of that guy (who had previously been her friends too) intimidated her to the point that she transferred to another school. It dragged out for months and months. I saw how in the end nothing at all was done to the perpetrator, but her life was nearly ruined.
Then I had another friend who was attacked by a guy she knew. And she chose not to report it. And you know what? I couldn't blame her at all.
So tell me, how likely is it that someone would volunteer for all of that if nothing had happened in the first place?
Now, for legal purposes, we certainly can't assume guilt without proof. So I agree that he probably shouldn't be convicted in a case like this. But that doesn't mean he didn't do it.
Oh also, in the article it sounds like she accused him of rape immediately afterwards, so I doubt there was time for a scenario as you describe. But again, that's not relevent to the point I was making in the post you replied to.
1. The scenario you describe for her reason to lie is not possible seeing as that she was in the police station 2 hours after the incident occurred. If you read the article you would have known that.
2. Still waiting for you to defend your "less than pure" comment from before that myself and another poster have commented on. Funny how you've responded to the other comments we've made about your post...yet not that one...?
3. Yes, you are a troll. Your other posts on this thread say so.
A couple more analogies for you.
A) Is a person who DECIDED to sell their car for a low amount and then regrets it the same as a person who's car is stolen?
B) If I leave my car unlocked overnight and it gets stolen, does that mean I need to accept the consequences of my mistake and not report the theft to the police or anything?
Okay, fine. The rape kit didn't support her story. That's a valid point. Assuming someone is guilty without evidence is unfair.
She had two drinks, and she was fooling around with someone she didn't know. It happens. I've definitely been there. If a drunk girl who is making out with you tells you she doesn't want to have sex, is it okay for you to rape her?
Most rapes (and murders) are committed by people the victim knows. Does that mean women have to stay away from all men?
Your description is reasonably accurate up to the point where you state, "she engaged willingly in intimate sexual contact with this man." Actually, she engaged willingly in intimate physical contact with this man. There is a difference, you know.
The sexual contact came after the physical contact, and apparently while she was willing for the latter, she was not willing for the former. When someone says stop, and you don't stop, you are violating their rights. It doesn't matter what led up to that point. When they say stop, you stop. This is not a difficult concept.
According to her, she got cold feet at the point where the physical intimacy advanced to actual sexual acts, asked him to stop, and he didn't. According to him, she didn't; and that is the crux of this case. The evidence as presented in the article is unfortunately sketchy, in terms of producing a criminal conviction. However, her behavior that night doesn't sound like morning-after regrets, and his quotes from the phone conversation sound more than a little fishy to me.
I agree with you but a small question-- is making out, groping, etc, not considered a form of sexual activity? To me it sounds like you're saying no wait, its physical activity, like playing soccer. Maybe I'm just not used to how the words are used.
Seriously though, this doesn't sound like a case of morning after regrets, but even more fishy is that this guy seems to be saying there's no possible interpretation here in which she is the victim. He should come correct me if I read him wrong but it sounds like he's saying even if we totally believe her side of the story, it still wasn't rape because it was her fault. That's just wrong. It reminds me of guys I knew in college that I'd rather not be reminded of, who jumped to conclusions like that.
Well, yes and no. They may be leading up to sex, and they may be done as part of a generally sexual encounter, but they aren't literally sex.
There are two points to be made here regarding consent:
1) The comment to which I was responding seemed to be implying that by climbing into the back seat with him, she had consented to pretty much everything else that followed. That's not true. She only consented to go as far as kissing and making out, not intercourse. Indeed, she says she explicitly, verbally revoked consent for intercourse and he ignored that.
2) Consent can be withdrawn at any time. Even if she had consented to intercourse and said stop somewhere in the middle, after they had already started, if he then proceeded to hold her down until he was finished, that is still against her consent, i.e., rape.
As far as his statements go, they just sounded a little too evasive. The way he hemmed and hawed and changed the subject when she mentioned that she had asked him to stop sounded really bad to me. It makes me think he had been operating under that same assumption -- that once she climbs into the back seat, anything goes -- and now the wrongness of that is staring him in the face. He'd like to pretend it was just a misunderstanding, but it apparently goes well beyond that.
(p.s. please forgive the ID change. MovableType has gotten confused again. For months it wouldn't let me log in under this old ID, now it insists on it.)
Well, yes and no. They may be leading up to sex, and they may be done as part of a generally sexual encounter, but they aren't literally sex; thus she had not "consented willingly to sexual activities."
There are two points to be made here regarding consent:
1) The comment to which I was responding seemed to be implying that by climbing into the back seat with him, she had consented to pretty much everything else that followed. That's not true. She only consented to go as far as kissing and making out, not intercourse. Indeed, she says she explicitly, verbally revoked consent for intercourse and he ignored that.
2) Consent can be withdrawn at any time. Even if she had consented to intercourse and said stop somewhere in the middle, after they had already started, if he then proceeded to hold her down until he was finished, that is still against her consent, i.e., rape.
As far as his statements go, they just sounded a little too evasive. The way he hemmed and hawed and changed the subject when she mentioned that she had asked him to stop sounded really bad to me. It makes me think he had been operating under that same assumption, that once she climbs into the back seat, anything goes -- and now the wrongness of that is staring him in the face. He'd like to pretend it was just a miscommunication, but it apparently goes well beyond that.
(p.s., please forgive the change in ID. MovableType has gotten confused again. For months it wouldn't let me use this ID, now it insists on it.)
I agree with everything you said, and its probably not important to quibble over the word's definitions, but I would say that "sexual contact" covers things that are sexual in nature but are not full intercourse, things like making out and groping. There's a difference between french kissing and kissing your grandmother on the cheek, and the difference is that the first is related to sexual feelings and the second is not.
Anyway, obviously calling it sexual contact in no way means that she had given up consent for everything sexual.
Last I checked, rape was a felony, not simply a "consequence" of a poor decision. Do you also think the guy should accept the "consequences" of committing a crime? Probably not, because you come across as a bigger rape apologist than that troll a few posts up.
Congratulations on generalizing.
You called me a "rape apologist." If he did rape her, shame on him, he should go to jail. But considering there is not sufficient evidence, no one can prove that it was, in fact, a rape.
You seem hung up on this idea of "proving" rape.
Sometimes justice does not seem to be served by the high standard of proof required by the U.S. criminal justice system. Most people believe O. J. Simpson murdered Nicole Brown Simpson, yet the government failed to convince the jury in the murder trial. Human nature being what it is, people are free to reject a legal judgment they disagree with, although these opinions do not influence the legal result.
Nowhere in your posts have you acknowledged that only a tiny fraction of rapes is prosecuted to conviction.
Because of the low conviction rate, most women don't bother to report rape. Rape laws are lacking in deterrent effect.
Since the justice system does not protect people from rape, people make due with the resources available, including publicizing cases, in attempt to educate people about the issue.
Given that a lack of a rape conviction is essentially meaningless in our system, any suggestion that people should withhold judgments based on available information smacks of rape apology.
Given that a lack of a rape conviction is essentially meaningless in our system, any suggestion that people should withhold judgments based on available information smacks of rape apology.
So, essentially, there are 2 choices:
1. Hop on the band wagon and say it's rape.
or
2. Consider the fact that it might not actually be rape, taking into account that there is more evidence disproving rape than proving, and bear the title "Rape Apologist" ?
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Very well: You're wrong.
There is a continuum of possible opinions, between certainly rape and certainly not rape. I don't recall anyone here having expressed certitude that a rape occurred. At the other end of the continuum, we have two people (present company included) whose comments have been generally determined to amount to victim-blaming.
If, as you say, a preponderance of evidence discounts rape, I'm just not seeing it. The only evidence appears to amount to the victim being "less than pure," the "I couldn't consent b/c I was drunk" non sequitur, and we cannot forget "Emily cannot be considered a victim."
I could rehash the reasons most people here find the accuser's story to be credible, but I'm not sure it would do any good. It seems like everyone else has written you off as a troll. I guess I've gone on as long as I have in hopes of helping you to understand why your comments have not been well-received.
No one is saying its FOR SURE rape, but it does seem pretty likely.
As far as legal evidence goes, I don't see any evidence PROVING that it was rape, but I also don't see any evidence DISPROVING that it was rape. Our legal system is innocent until proven guilty, so legally, he's innocent. But that doesn't mean we can't discuss what we think happened, and based on the article to me it seems much more likely that it was rape, for reasons that have been outlined by myself and others.
You're entitled to your opinion that the guy is more credible, although I'm curious why you think he is more credible than she is?
But considering there is not sufficient evidence, no one can prove that it was, in fact, a rape.
I'm venturing a guess here that it's rather common for there to be insufficient evidence (physical) from these types of cases.
I think we all can agree that in many circumstances, e.g. spousal rape, rape of civilians by soldiers, rape of prostitutes, that there is often a lack evidence beyond the word of the victim. So then what?
To me these are two different issues here: One is rape and victim blaming; and the other issue is a conversation about false accusations (outright or based on miscommunications or misperceptions).
It's generally not productive to try mix the two conversations.
But if dissenters are here to denounce the poor choices made by the female victim, there should also be a discussion about the poor choices of the male in this case. In addition I'd appreciate some honesty about a culture where too many people continue to entitle themselves to sex in situations where at minimum there is a significant risk of under-communication and at the very worst it's obvious that a person is taking advantage of the circumstances as a means to get sex (e.g., power differential, alcohol and drugs, peer pressure, taking advantage of people in need of transportation or a place to stay).
Ahem.... I have more people to reply to than I think I can so I will list them via name.
cfriend: I will begin by saying that you are wrong. I do consider her a victim. I do know that this man will not be criminally convicted of rape... at this point I do not think that I would convict him if i was sitting in judgement, but the lady in question clearly belives she was raped. All off her emotions and reactions are totally genunie, and her suffering ought not be mitigated.
instrumentjamlord; their contact in the back of the vehicle was sexual. Making out, petting, all that was sexual.
llevinso, rustyspoons; kdivers is not a troll. Idiot and wrong? You betcha. But merely having idiotic wrong opinions do not a troll make. Rape apologist does not a troll make.
In as much as subjecting someone to unwanted touching in sexual areas constitutes sexual assault (though not necessarily rape), yes, they were sexual. Be that as it may, it does not address the substance of my response.
cfiend wrote: "She began "fooling around" with a man she did not know well. So she needs to accept the consequences of her decisions." Read the original article again. It only describes willing participation in kissing. "But things were moving fast" sounds to me like petting was already more than she had consented to. How does consent to kissing equate to consent to anything else, let alone penetration? At what point does a woman's right to not consent or to stop consenting become irrelevant? (clue: never.)
I don't know how productive it is to argue about who's a troll and who isn't, but I gotta say that I appreciate that kdivers is at least responding to posts and addressing points raised. However, I would still like to see an explanation for the "far from pure" comment. I mean, he bolded it, so it must have seemed important. Why not explain it because obviously the rest of us are taking it in a way that he claims he didn't mean.
Cfriend is not responding to questions, but I've never seen them before so maybe it was a one time post and they'll never read feministing again.
But the thing is he isn't addressing points raised. At least not valid points that several of us have raised about his "far from pure" comment. As you said, he put it in bold so it must be important, right? He's never addressed it. Why? Because there's no good way to do so without it all blowing up in his face. Without him admitting that the reason he doesn't believe his story and believes the guys story instead is because in his mind the girl is a whore and whore's cannot be raped. And IMO the only reason a rape denier comes on a website like this is to cause trouble and stir things up. And that's the definition of trolling.
Yeah, true enough. I was kinda hoping that if I posted that, he would address those other points. But I think its pretty clear now that he isn't going to.