Coito ergo sum wrote:She wrote --
We have these conversations about rape, conversations that always include a question of “Was the rape reported to the police?” Women are taught that when they get raped, it is our duty to report it. We are obligated to press charges. We must crusade for justice. If the rapist is a real rapist, and he raped someone, it the victim’s duty to stop him.
No. That isn't it. It's not a duty. However, if someone rapes, or beats the shit out of you, or steals your wallet, it is a fair question to ask "did you report it to the police?" when you make a public accusation against a person. If someone said "Obama stole my wallet in 1994." We would definitely ask, "did you report the theft? And, what was the result of the investigation?" That doesn't mean it is a person's "duty" to "crusade for justice." It's just that if you're going to accuse someone of a crime long after the event occurred, and without presenting concrete or corroborating evidence that they did it, a person might reasonably wonder if you did, indeed, report the crime contemporaneously, because IF YOU DID THAT, then it would tend to show that you believed the incident occurred at the time and it is harder for the accused to suggest you're doing it now because you have an ax to grind. And, it is also more believable when an accusation is consistent with contemporaneous statements.
Okay, slow up. It's a fair question, perhaps, but the absence of someone not reporting a crime to the police is in no way indicative of the truth of their statement. Since you bring up someone stealing a wallet, I've had my wallet stolen, and yet no one doubted that it was actually stolen. I never made a police report. I've had tools stolen from my car, and when I reported it to the police they took my word that I did indeed have possession of two ratchet sets. They never questioned. They didn't even question me when I told them I was an idiot and left my door unlocked in the parking garage.
Most recently, my motorcycle was totaled by my cousin. My insurance company has not questioned this fact, and actually gave me a check outright. There was no police report. They literally gave me money on my word alone.
This isn't to say that my word is worth much, merely that the lack, or presence, of a police report is in no way indicative of how truthful a claim is. I've known folks to not report crimes because they were high and were worried about being arrested. There are reasons people don't report things to the police.
Coito ergo sum wrote:And we think we know what rape looks like. We know there’s bushes or drinks involved. There’s kicking and screaming… or unconsciousness… and the word “NO!” can be heard from the next room or by passersby. And there’s crying. Crying during. Crying after. So. much. crying. And there’s blood. At least SOME blood.
Again, no, she's got it wrong. It's not that there has to be bushes, drinks, kicking, screaming, unconsciousness, "NO!," crying or blood -- it's that those are facts and circumstances that tend to indicate a lack of consent. They are not "necessary" elements, but they are indicative of someone lacking consent. We certainly would infer lack of consent from a crying woman shouting "no!" -- And, we would not infer lack of consent from a woman passionately exclaiming "Yes!" It all depends on the facts and circumstances, of course.
But, this is the thing -- like any assertion, a third party can only evaluate the truth of the assertion based on the given facts. So, even when we are not in a court of law, we can never "know" what really happened. We can only know if the assertion has been supported by evidence we find persuasive. In a court of law, it's even more difficult because there we have legally imposed burdens of proof. So, even having some proof and evidence is not enough. We have to have a very large amount of proof without plausible exonerating explanations.
So, she's wrong, but she accurately describes a scene in which you are more likely to agree that one party did not, in fact, consent? So, if those elements aren't there, is it less likely that there was a lack of consent? Or is it merely more difficult for a third party to ascertain -- without talking to the other parties involved -- what seemed to have happened?
Honestly, the most indicative thing pointing to a lack of consent is one party or the other stating that there was a lack of consent.
Coito ergo sum wrote:And we know what to do when you know you’re being raped. If there’s a weapon, you don’t fight. If there’s no weapon, you do. And you make sure you scratch him to get his DNA under your nails. And you don’t shower. And you don’t change. And you go to the hospital. Right away. You’d be irresponsible to wash away evidence.
Again, no. Most everyone understands that assaults, batteries, rapes, kidnappings, and the like are all traumatic experiences and people react to them in different ways. It's not, however, that you have to scratch and have to refrain from showering, and you have to go to the hospital right away. The thing is, if you do scratch, there will be DNA available. If you do refrain from showering, there will be DNA available. If you do go to the hospital right away, there will be a better examination done that is closer to the time of the incident. That helps close off defenses for the accused, who might claim intervening causes of injuries, etc.
This is no different than any other assault crime. If a guy jumps another guy in a bar and starts beating him up, the victim doesn't have to fight back and scratch to get some DNA under his fingernails. But, if the victim does, in fact, do that then the DNA can, in fact, be tested.
I would love it if we didn't need evidence to determine what the truth is about accusations that happened outside of our presence or not videotaped, but unfortunately, there is no other way.
Does this sound like something a police officer would actually say?
Miss Wojnowski?”
“Yes?”
“This is ____ from the Decatur Police Department. Your rape kit came back. No semen was found. Evidently nothing happened. Please let your parents know.”
[click]
If a cop said this, I'd call his supervising officer and also the public affairs department, the chief of police and the mayor. Because if this is what was said it is a dereliction of duty and it would deserve some serious condemnation.
I'm sure you would, because you know you can. You aren't in shock. You aren't the person relating the story. You didn't go through this particular circumstance. You have knowledge that she most likely didn't at the time.
It's awesome that you have the knowledge and resources to do something like that, but not everyone does. That you would do it in that situation, and that she did not, is in no way indicative of the truth or falsity of her claim. It has absolutely no bearing on the claim.
Coito ergo sum wrote:And despite the incident not following my script for how my rape would go down, it follows a pretty standard template. Drunk -> assaulted -> reported -> not believed -> no investigation -> dismissed.
From her story,though, the problem isn't really that she wasn't "believed." It's that there was not sufficient corroborating evidence. She noted that the accused's girlfriend said that the accused could not have done it because he was with her all night and did not go to the party in question. If she told that to the police, and there was no forensic evidence linking the accused to the rape (were the blonde pubic hairs his? Did they find his DNA in the rape kit? - according to Elyse they did not). She doesn't remember the rape. She was tested immediately, and the implication that she was given roofies seems to be incorrect because they would have shown up in the urine testing - rohypnol can be tested in urine up to 3 days later, and she went tot he hospital immediately. Other processes can detect it up to almost a month after ingestion.
So, anyway, we don't have to call Elyse a liar to find reasonable doubt that the specific accused person raped her. For him not to have been arrested seems strange, though. The information given by Elyse does seem to indicate probable cause to arrest. And, contrary to Elyse's implication, men are accused of rape all the time, and quite often it's the men who are not "believed" when they say they did not do it. A high profile case is the Duke rape case where the "Frat boys" were assumed guilty.
A high profile case is not the case to use to provide an accurate generalization of all cases. Too much attention from too many parties to assume that no pressure, deliberate or not, was applied.
If you want some hard numbers as to why, from the FBI 2011 UCR: Only 83,425 forcible rapes were reported. Only 19,491 people were arrested for forcible rape. So, there (assuming this was in 2011, which it wasn't) was about a 23% chance of her rapist, or accused rapist, being arrested that year. The odds ain't so good. For a comparison, there were 354,396 robbery reports for 2011. 106,674 arrests for robbery were made. So, only roughly 30%. Better odds than rape, though.
Coito ergo sum wrote:Later on she says -
Years later, I was out partying with a group of “friends.” And I was raped.
I know, I know… “But Elyse, if you get raped at parties, shouldn’t you know better than to go?”
O.k. -- look -- who the fuck says that? This seems to be a case of Elyse hearing something that only a few idiots would ever say. Women who don't want to get raped should know better than to go to parties? Nonsense, and I have never in my life heard anyone say anything like that.
I doubt anyone said those words specifically. More likely a few of the common responses like "Well, you shouldn't have drank so much," or "How could you let yourself be in that position again?" The gist of the statement is that she feels blamed for being raped. People don't just assume blame for things in my experience, especially not something like being the victim of a crime.
Coito ergo sum wrote:I'm sorry but her third story is ridiculous:
Fortunately right then I got my period, for three days, which kept him away. And since it deterred him, I kept a tampon in for a few extra days. I had to accept, though, that I couldn’t fake menstruate forever, and I had to face my fate. I gave in. He’d insist on fucking me several times during the day.
Gist of the third story, which is longer than the blurb I posted -- she was trying to be a model. A photographer invited her to Montana to stay at his house for a few weeks to talk about modeling stuff and do modeling stuff. She went. He hit on her. In the dark room, he put his hand down her pants and she didn't say "no, don't do that" -- she just didn't react positively. He then talked to her about it and she said she had to warm up to such encounters because she had been raped, and he told her to get over it. Instead of leaving, she stayed. Weird. And, then she got her period which she claimed kept him away, and then she pretended to have her period longer, so she's there like another week with this leering, fondling, "get over your rape" guy ready to pounce. He then comes right out and says "if you don't fuck me I won't help you in your modeling career." So, she fucks him. Several times a day. But, she doesn't enjoy it.
She was trying to be a model, was in a strange person's house in an unfamiliar place being sexually assaulted by her prospective boss, and you find it odd that she didn't strike out on her own? That's what you find odd in that story?
You definitely snipped this part out:
One day, while his wife was at her office job, the photographer and I were in the dark room, like we’d done every day. And suddenly, he was behind me, hand down my pants, finger in my vulva. I froze. I didn’t know what to do. So I stood there. I didn’t want to get hurt, so I didn’t fight. But I didn’t want to give the impression that this was enjoyable. I shut down.
Later that night, he had a talk with me about how my behavior in the dark room was unacceptable. He was giving me a pleasurable experience and I was refusing it.
That's more than not reacting positively. That IS a negative reaction in that context.
Further:
He told me that wasn’t fair. He wasn’t a rapist. And I needed to learn to live in the now. “How long are you going to let this keep you down? If you can’t get over this, you’re never going to have a successful career.”
As the days went on, the attempts continued. And all the stories of all the models who fucked photographers and who they fucked and how that helped their careers. And the feigned concern for my mental health continued. Finally, I was told straight out that if I didn’t start fucking him, he couldn’t help me. He reminded me that it was a thing models do. All models. I needed to figure my shit out or he was going to have me dropped off at the airport and I could find my way home on my own.
These are pretty important bits to the story. You made it sound like she could leave easily, at any time, when that is not clear at all.
Coito ergo sum wrote:So I started faking it. I started to believe him. I started hoping that maybe his wife would put this into perspective. But she was so enthusiastic about it, I was sure I was the one who was wrong. Maybe I was just puritanical like he said. Maybe I just didn’t get things about grownup sex. He told me that I was naive and sheltered to believe that he couldn’t have sex with me because he was married. His wife was obviously fine with it. It didn’t matter if I was or not. He was. She was. I was being a baby. And I didn’t know what was good for me. If I wasn’t going to fuck my way to the top, I was never going to get there. And I here I was, still at subbasement 12, metaphorically speaking, not even willing to fuck my way out of Billings, Montana
At this point, I knew this was the definition of sexual harassment in the workplace. You can’t just threaten someone’s career if they don’t fuck you––but this wasn’t really a normal workplace and for some reason I had a hard time admitting that sucking on someone’s crotch who asked you specifically, clearly and indisputably not to was beyond “harassment” and was actually assault.
Eventually I convinced myself that this wasn’t really a consensual thing.
Quick question. If she had to convince herself that it wasn't really a consensual thing, and that occurred "eventually" then how would the accused be expected to know immediately?
I explained to the man over three times my age that I was not really comfortable with such surprises [Referring to the photographer sticking his hand down her pants uninvited] and that I need time to warm up to intimate encounters since I’d been raped in the past.
That's a pretty big red flag that what was done was not welcome, nor consensual.
Coito ergo sum wrote:And another description by Elyse of a rape --
Please, no.” I whispered. But he was putting on a condom.rape
At that point, I knew there was nothing I could say or do to stop him. So I stopped stopping him and I said yes.
And that’s where I convinced myself I consented. As I drove home, I asked myself, “What happened? Was I just raped? No… I said yes. I did say yes. I said yes. I said yes.”
How about "knock it the fuck off! I don't consent! Stop!"
whispered "please no?" Whisper? And, then you say "yes?" You didn't just let it happen, you SAID yes?
Again, you are cutting out context.
I was in high school. It wasn’t like “no means no” hadn’t been drilled into my head for years. I knew what rape was. I knew it was awful. I knew it was never the woman’s fault and skirts don’t matter. I knew the talking points. I read Sassy. I was kind of a feminist, even if I didn’t know that I was.
So when I look back at this thing, it’s a little heartbreaking for me. I was well educated on the subject. And I didn’t get what happened. What happens to girls who don’t grow up in affluent progressive schools that promote feminist ideals and encourage girls to find their feminist bearings? Girls who have sex ed every year? Girls who are taught that consent matters? I didn’t call it rape for over 15 years. Even though, immediately, I knew it was, but convinced myself it wasn’t. At worst, I decided, there were some blurred lines.
...
Once we started fooling around, he got weird. Silent. Not just silent, but non-responsive to anything I said or wanted. If I said no to something, he kept going. I said no repeatedly, but he kept going. I was having trouble processing what was happening. I kept telling him no, but why wasn’t he getting that? I was confused more than scared. I didn’t know what to do.
So she did say no. Repeatedly. And he didn't respond.
Coito ergo sum wrote:By the time he was coming at me with a condom on his cock, what would another “no” have done?
This I don't get. And, I fully acknowledge that I probably need some good education from women. But, a firm "stop it -- I don't want this -- NO!" loudly with a push -- wouldn't that work with the vast majority of guys? Maybe not. I don't even need that in order to be held on second or third. All I need is the third base coach to give me the signal, and I'll stick to the base I'm on. So, I don't know.
it just seems to me that if someone was going to stick something in me that I didn't want there, I'd fucking make it damn clear that I didn't want to be stuck. How about yelling it. No!!! Don't do this to me! ?
Once again, context. She was in high school, this was a completely new experience, she said no multiple times. I would think that most guys, except those that are completely ignoring their partner (as seemed to happen here), would stop at "No" and ask if things were okay.
Once again, though, you are making an assumption that you wouldn't have reacted in a similar way in a similar situation. That is, one in which you were completely naive, new, shocked to be in, and likely at a physical disadvantage.
Coito ergo sum wrote:So I didn’t go to the police. What was I going to report? That I just consented to having sex with some guy? I couldn’t even convince myself I’d been raped.
If you can't even convince yourself that you'd been raped, then it's pretty hard to prove rape. I mean, an essential element of rape is lack of consent. If you can't even convince yourself that you didn't actually consent, then how can you convince 12 people who weren't there to tell you that you did not not consent, whether you're convinced you consented or not?
She didn't consent. 50 no's and a yes isn't consent; it's coercion, and in this case, rape. If someone that is likely larger than you is ignoring your protests in a new situation, are you seriously thinking that you have the will to continue to resist after you've already resisted in the manner you've been trained to? Do you assume that everyone will react in the same way despite stating previously that people react differently to different things?
Coito ergo sum wrote:But rape doesn’t always follow the script. And we live in a culture that apologizes for rapey behaviors. If a woman says no, she sometimes means yes. You should never give up trying to get a woman to give you her affection. Women have internalized these messages. We often can’t recognize these attacks for what they ar
Fair enough. We know that. Rape comes in many forms. But, what can we do about it if a woman doesn't recognize that she was raped? Tell her "whether you think you consented or not, you clearly did not really consent?"
She does recognize that now. She said she didn't recognize it then, as a high school student that didn't know how to handle a situation in which the guy undressing her didn't respond to her protests and resistance.
Coito ergo sum wrote:So, she goes on to suggest a new "script" - a new definition for what we will consider rape:
And maybe a script that goes like this
Partner: [not enthusiastic]
You: [moves on to a non-sexual activity]
I did not read that script as a script detailing what rape is. I read it as a script detailing what should be expected during sex. If enthusiasm is not present, move on to non-sexual activities. She does not state that it is a script to determine what is rape.
Here's the last bit in full:
Maybe it’s time we wrote more scripts. Better scripts. Ones of true stories. Ones with surprising characters. Ones with flawed protagonists we can relate to. Ones with antagonists we can recognize. Ones with outcomes we can understand. Ones our friends can understand. Our families can empathize with. Ones that humanize the survivors. Ones that recognize all survivors.
And maybe a script that goes like this
Partner: [not enthusiastic]
You: [moves on to a non-sexual activity]
Because if we were more familiar with that script, I’d have 5000 fewer words to say about rape today.
Meaning: We need more varied scripts for rape. We also need a better script for sex, one involving and expecting enthusiastic consent so as to avoid raping altogether.
Coito ergo sum wrote:There are more than a few problems with this.
Let's start with the evidence nonsensical character of a definition of rape that is "if the woman is not 'enthusiastic' about fucking you, then it's rape." I mean, really? It's now up to the guy to judge the level of enthusiasm a woman has? LOL.
She didn't state that no enthusiasm = rape. You assumed that that's what she meant.
Also, yes, it's up to the people involved to read non-verbal and verbal cues from their partner. If the partner is willing, it shouldn't be difficult to ascertain that. A quick question will suffice. I'm assuming you talk to folks in your day to day: When someone looks bored or annoyed with you while you're talking, do you continue to talk unabated even though you can gauge their attitude?
Coito ergo sum wrote:And, how does this even help the question of "being believed." There is going to be more proof around of "lack of enthusiasm" than "lack of consent?" This is what Elyse says is the solution? Well, we can't get people to believe that women who didn't know whether or not they consented to sex were actually raped, so let's just make change the question into whether those same women fucked with requisite "enthusiasm." If they just let the guy do it, then he's a rapist. If she howled at the moon, then it's fine.
The point of having an enthusiastic partner is so that it is clear that the sex is consensual. If one party, at any time during the act, decides that it isn't, then it isn't. It takes, as they say, two to tango. So if either party say later on that they didn't consent, then they didn't.
