I'm surprised there has been no mention of the Stanford rape trial and sentence on all nurses. I'm opening up the discussion as I feel it pertains to us in many ways. One as people who may have been victims or know others who have been victims of sexual violence and two as nurses that have taken care of others in this situation, whether directly in ER or a patient suffering from PTSD with other health problems as well.
I applaud the survivor's bravery and her impact statement that has gone public. I hope this will comfort other survivors, but even more I hope this will discourage rape in general. Campus rapes are common and rapes at frats are in the news frequently. Once again a college athlete got off with just a slap on the wrist, although I don't think he counted on all the negative publicity this case has garnered.
What disturbs me the most is the letters of the parents to the judge. The father's don't punish him for 20 minutes of action. Then the mother's letter, who by the way is a nurse for gynecological surgeries and in the past as a pediatric nurse, who had not one iota of empathy for the victim. Her letter simply astonished me. I can't believe as a woman, as a nurse, as a mother of a daughter she had no empathy for the victim! This troubles me the most! I imagine in her years as a nurse she must have taken care of a rape victim and her total lack of empathy for the victim disturbs me greatly!
As a gay man I can only offer my personal experience with being in situations that I should not have been in... and because of the way I was socialized I don't see it as a huge violation. Now if a stranger attacked me and penetrated me, I would feel very violated and call that rape.
You were socialized how exactly? Thinking that it's acceptable that someone kisses you, fondles you or penetrates you while you're asleep or unconscious, as long as it's not a stranger? I think that you'll find that most people feel differently about their bodies and the law in most countries regards those acts as some sort of sexual offense.
Here is the Merriam Webster Definition:
Eh.. No.
There is a sense of empowerment when you join others as a "victim" or a "survivor"... we change the language to empower. Cancer victim... cancer survivor... etc...
Assuming this is correct, do you think that it's a bad thing? People do what they need to try to cope after experiencing life-altering events like cancer and rape. Both these events, though vastly different in nature, have one thing in common. They are major events and can have profound and long-lasting effects on a person.
The victim in this Stanford case found out she was a victim in the newspaper.... then she fell into a serial of self deprecating victimhood in which she has to sleep with the light on... this is after she read about the account in the newspaper...
I get the sense that you are mocking the reaction this woman has had after the incident. To me that's an ugly sentiment. After reading your various posts in this thread I'm under the impression that you don't think that a person has a right to claim that they got raped after voluntarily getting drunk. That's not a different perspective, it's just plain old victim-blaming.
I find it odd that because I choose not to call myself a survivor, or victim, or shift the blame to the other parties that my experience is dismissed....
You're experience is not being dismissed. All I'm telling you is that legally what was done to you wasn't acceptable and if you were to shift the blame to the person or persons who did things to you when you were asleep and in no state to consent, that would be within your legal right to do. If you chose not to, that is also your right. Just don't project your own personal attitude to this onto others and make light of their experiences. Sexual assault and rape can be extremely traumatizing events.
All I know is that around the world this guy has been tried in the public court of opinion, and we don't actually know what happened.
If you're talking about the Stanford case, it's been tried in a court of law. There were two eye-witnesses who caught him engaging in some sort of sexual act with a clearly unconscious woman. This case really isn't particularly "grey".
This has happened- someone who had been drinking, but not legally over the limit. The drunk person (well over the legal limit) stumbled off the sidewalk at midnight right in front of the car. Driver stopped, was cooperative, but because they had been drinking and admitted to it they were arrested for DUI and manslaughter....
She was a single mother, she is in jail... that to me was an egregious punishment. Now if she had been over the legal limit.... different story.
I think its a super grey area, none of us were there, we don't know what led up to the rape, we just know what happened afterward. Its all subjective, and sounds terrible...
There are some other subjective things that mitigate the terribleness....
All I know is that around the world this guy has been tried in the public court of opinion, and we don't actually know what happened.
I used my personal experience with non-consensual sex, and drinking, to illustrate the reason why someone else might have a different opinion on the seriousness, obviously the survivors want any hint of a no (See the Tea video) to be the accepted no... and I won't argue that you can change the culture.
I actually think we have a pretty clear idea exactly what happened, especially when you consider that he tried to run away and was physically tackled and restrained when approached.
The conversation had been a reinforcement of one narrative. I know what I am saying is a foreign concept, but it is my truth, and the truth of other people who are afraid to voice their opinion.
Why do you keep using unreasonable analogies? When I go to the surgeons office I sign a consent for my wisdom teeth to be removed.
-If I am using substances, then there is a social contract to watch out for my wellbeing.
-If we are both using substances, its hard to say the outcome
-If only you are using substances, then you come upon me and harm me, it is your fault for choosing to take said substance.
If the surgeon and I were both using versed or valium while going over the consent.... I might not be surprised if she was not capable of performing the extraction, or accidentally did the wrong thing. That is the grey area.
I was actually quite surprised that the "narrative" here was very supportive of women and the right to sexual autonomy whether or not the woman makes other mistakes. I am well aware that the world at large is full of people like the rapist, the parents, and the judge, who think that whole situation was just a bad consequence of "20 minutes of action," alcohol, and "promiscuity." You seem to be in agreement with them.
There is nothing revolutionary about blaming victims for not trying hard enough to avoid being raped.
You're not just defining your own experience (which is fine), you're claiming to know better than the rest of us what is and is not rape, and you said do not believe that having sex with someone against their will is rape unless it's violent. No one owes you a discussion about that.
Regarding the analogies, I'm presenting situations where there is very clearly a law that has been violated and a perpetrator of crime. Crimes against property are wrong. Crimes against the person (including medical malpractice) are wrong. Property ownership, medical procedures, and sexual interactions all have laws in place with the goal of preventing people from harming each other or taking something that isn't theirs. The fact that sexual consent isn't a written contract does not make it optional.
Either you honestly think that all victims should be held responsible for not trying hard enough to stop criminals from coming after them, or you're just dismissing the examples because you're determined to excuse rape. I don't know which and I don't particularly care. Any hope that there could be meaningful discussion ended when you said it's not necessarily rape when someone has sex with an unwilling partner.
It is indisputable that the Stanford rapist was performing sexual acts on a completely unresponsive person. It is indisputable that that is against the law. The evidence convicted him of three felonies. There is no grey.
The reason I don't use the word victim to describe myself is because people often flip the word around and use it to discredit any fear/anger/sadness/outrage I feel over sexual assault. As if I can be dismissed because I'm the victim.
If I did use the word survivor as a form of empowerment, it wouldn't be because of my rapist. It would be because people still ask me questions like "were you drinking?", "what were you wearing?" and "why did you go to his house?".
You were socialized how exactly? Thinking that it's acceptable that someone kisses you, fondles you or penetrates you while you're asleep or unconscious, as long as it's not a stranger? I think that you'll find that most people feel differently about their bodies and the law in most countries regards those acts as some sort of sexual offense.
I was socialized as a human man? ... I don't let people do this sort of thing normally, but if I am at a party, and I am getting drunk and flirting with someone(s), and I "wake up" and they are on top of me... I wouldn't be super surprised.
Eh.. No.
This was in response to someone stating that the definition of rape was....
Assuming this is correct, do you think that it's a bad thing? People do what they need to try to cope after experiencing life-altering events like cancer and rape. Both these events, though vastly different in nature, have one thing in common. They are major events and can have profound and long-lasting effects on a person.
I never said it was a bad thing, it is a phenomenon that is happening. They are major events that can have but aren't required to have... it all depends on the way a person is socialized.
I get the sense that you are mocking the reaction this woman has had after the incident. To me that's an ugly sentiment. After reading your various posts in this thread I'm under the impression that you don't think that a person has a right to claim that they got raped after voluntarily getting drunk. That's not a different perspective, it's just plain old victim-blaming.
I am not mocking her reaction, I am pointing out that she didn't have as strong a reaction until she read a strangers account (which could have been embellished) of the rape. I fully admit, that if two parties are drunk that there is a grey area for me. If only one of the parties was drunk, different story.
You're experience is not being dismissed. All I'm telling you is that legally what was done to you wasn't acceptable and if you were to shift the blame to the person or persons who did things to you when you were asleep and in no state to consent, that would be within your legal right to do. If you chose not to, that is also your right. Just don't project your own personal attitude to this onto others and make light of their experiences. Sexual assault and rape can be extremely traumatizing events.
I feel like there is an acceptable "personal experience" that is allowed to be shared, which is why I shared mine. If you support the narrative that has been set forth from this you are free to post it repeatedly to Facebook. If you have my narrative "Just don't project your own personal attitude"... I am not telling you to stop telling people its ok to be a victim, or traumatized. Why can't I tell people its ok if you aren't a victim (based on my own experience)?
The world is grey- had this been a black man he would have been sentenced to a long prison term. Had the victim been a black woman- probably would have not been on the radar at all.
So before we go and get all "the world is black and white" and law this and that... just open up any medical journal or law journal and look at disparities...
You have an agenda to push, I do not fit that narrative, so you dismiss anything that I have said. Which fits into my narrative that we are entering a scary age where trial by the public court of opinion is going to be the norm...
I actually think we have a pretty clear idea exactly what happened, especially when you consider that he tried to run away and was physically tackled and restrained when approached.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
All we know 100% is that both people were intoxicated- any other motive/action is subjective.
Did he run because his reptilian brain told him the two people yelling at him were a threat? or did he run because he knew he was raping someone?
I actually don't think that this woman gave consent... I think she was taken advantage of in her intoxicated state. But I am sharing my different (as I warned everyone) perspective
You have an agenda to push, I do not fit that narrative, so you dismiss anything that I have said. Which fits into my narrative that we are entering a scary age where trial by the public court of opinion is going to be the norm...
If he'd been convicted by the court of public opinion I doubt that he would have gotten a measly six-month sentence.
I feel like there is an acceptable "personal experience" that is allowed to be shared, which is why I shared mine. If you support the narrative that has been set forth from this you are free to post it repeatedly to Facebook. If you have my narrative "Just don't project your own personal attitude"... I am not telling you to stop telling people its ok to be a victim, or traumatized. Why can't I tell people its ok if you aren't a victim (based on my own experience)?
I don't do Facebook.
You are free to say that you're not a victim if that is how you feel about yourself. Despite the law disagreeing with you, you are of course still free to interpret how you feel. You have that right. It's just not generalizable to others because they actually have the law on their side, so if they feel that they're the victim of a crime, despite having been drinking, that's their right. My background is approximately a decade in law enforcement and a Masters Degree in Criminology. I have met countless rape/sexual assault victims and the perpetrators. I've seen a lot of pain and suffering. Beyond that, I don't have an agenda.
I am not mocking her reaction, I am pointing out that she didn't have as strong a reaction until she read a strangers account (which could have been embellished) of the rape.
It sounds like you are trying to discredit her. How do you even know how strong her reaction was, what went through her mind at the time?
hey are major events that can have but aren't required to have... it all depends on the way a person is socialized.
This is the second time that you've said something in a similar vein. How on earth is a person socialized to not mind being raped or taken advantage of while being unconscious?
I'm walking away. I can feel myself getting irrational/ emotional and wanting to verbally lash out. I highly doubt many people take kindly to having a man explain they weren't really raped, because it wasn't violent enough. I'm a survivor because I will not be a victim. I thought my whole triggered phase was past me - I was wrong.
Like I said, I have a very different perspective...
It was a bad decision to put myself in that situation- I did get myself drunk/high of my own free will. The ability to give informed consent wasn't there.
I refuse to be forced into the victim box and be told it was rape.
This is the VERY definition of rape! If the "ability to give informed consent" isn't there, it's NOT CONSENSUAL, therefore it's rape. Oh my God.
I'm walking away. I can feel myself getting irrational/ emotional and wanting to verbally lash out. I highly doubt many people take kindly to having a man explain they weren't really raped, because it wasn't violent enough. I'm a survivor because I will not be a victim. I thought my whole triggered phase was past me - I was wrong.
macawake, MSN
2,141 Posts
You were socialized how exactly? Thinking that it's acceptable that someone kisses you, fondles you or penetrates you while you're asleep or unconscious, as long as it's not a stranger? I think that you'll find that most people feel differently about their bodies and the law in most countries regards those acts as some sort of sexual offense.
Eh.. No.
Assuming this is correct, do you think that it's a bad thing? People do what they need to try to cope after experiencing life-altering events like cancer and rape. Both these events, though vastly different in nature, have one thing in common. They are major events and can have profound and long-lasting effects on a person.
I get the sense that you are mocking the reaction this woman has had after the incident. To me that's an ugly sentiment. After reading your various posts in this thread I'm under the impression that you don't think that a person has a right to claim that they got raped after voluntarily getting drunk. That's not a different perspective, it's just plain old victim-blaming.
You're experience is not being dismissed. All I'm telling you is that legally what was done to you wasn't acceptable and if you were to shift the blame to the person or persons who did things to you when you were asleep and in no state to consent, that would be within your legal right to do. If you chose not to, that is also your right. Just don't project your own personal attitude to this onto others and make light of their experiences. Sexual assault and rape can be extremely traumatizing events.
If you're talking about the Stanford case, it's been tried in a court of law. There were two eye-witnesses who caught him engaging in some sort of sexual act with a clearly unconscious woman. This case really isn't particularly "grey".