What’s Wrong with the World

The definition of rape is penetration however slight using any object or penis in which the other person has not given consent! This was rape! He penetrated her with his fingers and with a foreign object! He did not have consent, as one who is passed out or incoherent does not have the ability to give consent! Furthermore, if he wasn't guilty of rape, why drag her behind a dumpster? Why run from the two men who interrupted his actions? The man is a rapist, was caught in the act and should be punished accordingly. Yes, there is a bigger cultural problem we are facing, however, undermining what this really was is not helping anyone tackle the bigger problem! Undermining the act of consenting is not helping solve the bigger problem, it is contributing to it! If all other ways of communicating consent are absent from cultural norms, it would seem that ensuring you received clear consent should be a high priority! She was penetrated! Behind a dumpster! He was caught in the act and ran!

He penetrated her with his fingers and with a foreign object!

Not actually, separately. I don't want to go into this, but I'm pretty certain the "foreign object" was...the sexual touching itself. If you have further evidence on that point, feel free to provide a link, but without graphic information. Evidently they both were covered in pine needles and what-not because they were on the ground together.

He did not, as far as I know, drag her behind a dumpster. They walked (she and/or he probably stumbling) behind the dumpster. She fell down (she even makes a big deal out of this in her own statement, that being her own conclusion about a situation she doesn't remember) in the course of the encounter. Whereupon they were rolling about on the ground together. I haven't heard any allegation of "dragging" behind the dumpster, but that's the kind of thing that gets added in this sort of scenario, precisely to try to justify the rape accusation. Since rape is by definition violent, and since one has decided that this incident was a case of rape, one invents added violence and adds it to the scenario, beyond the public record evidence.

If you have public-record evidence of "dragging," fine, feel free to post it and I'll take it into account. If not, don't add hysterical, inflated language.

Furthermore, if he wasn't guilty of rape, why drag her behind a dumpster? Why run from the two men who interrupted his actions?

Well, now, there's a garbage argument. I'm sure you think Freddie Gray deserved to be arrested, too, right? Only people guilty of whatever we're accusing them of run.

She was penetrated! Behind a dumpster!

See? It was sordid and disgusting (which it was), so we have to name it rape. That doesn't follow. At all.

It would have been close to as sordid and disgusting if she'd been less drunk and had agreed. You don't think there are sordid and disgusting hookups at frat parties between people who are non-drunk enough to agree to them? Maybe even outdoors? Don't be naive. This probably wasn't one of them, because the girl was too drunk and doesn't even remember it. I'm willing to believe her side of the story. But the ambiguity is inherent in the hookup culture.

And "Oh, I know, you have to get really clear consent" just isn't going to take away the problem. It just isn't.

To take away the disgustingness and sordidness, consent has to be part of commitment, part of marriage, part of love. Otherwise, if you take the hookup culture and just keep yelling, "Consent!" you just have sordid hookups where one party seduces the other, or they mutually agree to behave like animals, and nobody happens to get accused of rape. Yay.

Or maybe not.

But the more direct answer to "Why did he run away?" is almost certainly: Because he was a spineless rat, caught in the embarrassing situation of engaging in sexual acts in semi-public, and was drunk out of his mind.

Nobody said this guy was anything remotely admirable. Just that he isn't a rapist.

I think you're just wrong on the legal definition of rape. As far as I know, having sex with an intoxicated person isn't a crime in California or anywhere. The person has to be incapacitated—so intoxicated they're unable to know what's going on and give consent. That's like unconscious or close to it.

On your comment on informed consent, I think your analogy is misleading. The consent principle does work, in a very imperfect way, even if it doesn't address all the underlying problems. (I'd like to see comments on Jeb Rubenfeld's law review article critiquing the consent principle in rape, if anybody here has read it.)

Finally, just a remark on your post in general. For all the problems with the consent principle, and for all the problems with Kids Today, there's still a vast difference between drunken, "animalistic," consensual sex, and rape.

By the way, here's the Yale Law Journal article on consent by Rubenfeld that I mentioned. By the principle that he suggests as a replacement for consent, sex with an unconscious person would not be rape in some cases (for instance, maybe with one's spouse).

Not certain why you "don't want to go into this". It speaks to the very act you are trying to deny happened! She states in her letter that she learned of the details of her assault from an article. The article stated she was penetrated by a foreign object. Fingers are not foreign objects and certainly not foreign to a vagina. Without an actual police report, I can not prove their was a foreign object. However, the cyclists response to what he witnessed brought him to tears. A grown man brought to tears while relaying what he witnessed. I doubt witnessing a simple roll around on the ground kind of hook up with a little bit of sexual touching would bring a man to tears!

I agree consent belongs in commitment, marriage, love. Unfortunately, this is a counter cultural idealistic view and to deny women the ability to communicate consent in other ways, women who may have never experienced the kind of commitment and love you are referring to, is irresponsible!

First, from direct witness testimony from the 2 men who came upon them, she was completely unconscious, and not moving whatsoever; which was why they stopped to investigate. They certainly were not rolling around on the ground together. You can easily Google this. Plus, the foreign objects were not his fingers, although her blood and DNA were found on them. He was shoving trash and other debris into her vagina. This is hardly typical.

I have read her statement she made, and I noted she spoke of being bewildered hearing she was raped, saying she had not "known" anyone at the party. I found that a statement of "today" - as in - if young people "know" someone there is a possibility of a hook-up? I - do think he needs to be a registered offender for the rest of his life...whether she stumbled out there with him or not, the witnesses (one) were brought to tears and he did penetrate her with foreign objects = rape in my book. If it had been a coupling without the violence, bruising, then they both are complicit but I believe she only did one thing in error-getting plastered at a frat party (worst place to be!) but did not consent to what he did. He's a pig and it is proven that a murderer is redeemable but a sexual offender - rarely. I was thinking the other day of how women used to be locked up with a chastity belt - why can there not be some kind of contraption zip-tied to a man's penis - to prevent sexual violations but still allow him to pee - even painfully!? But then - this asshole proves a man can rape a woman/person in many ways besides just using his penis.

Aaron, if he definitely knew she was unconscious--say, for example, that he _carried_ her outside after she passed out--then I would agree with you. He _claims_ that he believed she was conscious throughout the encounter, though she was found unconscious at the end. She herself doesn't know at what point she passed out, though the fact that she made phone calls that she doesn't remember shows that she was doing things during which she would have seemed conscious to other people (e.g. talking on the phone) but that she doesn't remember.

It seems to me entirely plausible that he took advantage of her, that she in her befuddled state was confused about what she was doing or even his identity and seemed to be going along with it, and that either he was too drunk to realize at what point she passed out or that she passed out at the point where he ran away. That would explain everything, including the parts of his testimony that seem credible. (By the way, I actually didn't mention that he now says she uttered "yes," but I find that _not_ credible, because he didn't bring it up until a year later. Sounds to me like that is a lie, added later to try to get himself out of trouble.)

I would change my evaluation if I thought that this guy was doing the bizarre, perverse sexual act that is being attributed to him by the commentariat, which sounds like the kind of thing that he would know nobody would agree to and thus raises the probability that she passed out at least when he got her outside. That is not how I interpret the evidence I've seen. It sounds to me like people are misunderstanding the legal use of the phrase "foreign object." I'll just leave that there.

Your attempts to rationalize Turner's self-incriminating attempt to flee the scene of the crime (appealing to Freddy Gray, etc.) are deeply unconvincing.

Here is a principle you can take to the bank: A sexually aroused man having a consensual encounter — or one he believes is consensual — with a half-naked woman, who believes that she wants him on top of her and that nothing wrong is going on, is very highly motivated to stay on top of her.

Such a man might possibly be inclined to abandon his advantageous position if he were spotted by the young woman's outraged father or boyfriend. Merely being spotted in such a position by a couple of peers, at or near the site of a party where such behavior is supposedly expected if not the main point of the event, might be embarrassing (or it might not), but it's hardly sufficiently alarming to induce one to leap up and try to run away, abandoning one's supposedly consensual partner lying exposed on the ground behind a Dumpster.

The fact that he could leap up and run away while she lay there insensible is obviously proof that they were not "equally intoxicated." The fact that he was motivated to run away is evidence that he knew it.

Culpability shared among perpetrators of an act is mostly a concept of civil law. In the case of criminal law, the fact that the woman was drunk and unconscious should make the crime WORSE, not better; it is the purpose of the law to protect the vulnerable and defenseless (like those drunk to incapacity). Bad enough to beat up a strapping man your own size; worse to beat up an aged granny in a wheelchair and everyone instinctively knows that. Was the young woman unwise? Yes. Does it make the crime less horrible? No. More so.

Lydia, I agree with you that the hookup culture is sordid and soulless. It sounds like you are suggesting that her decision to become intoxicated within a "hookup" environment constituted her consent to be sexually assaulted. Fortunately, the justice system does not agree with your bizarre and reprehensible interpretation of the law.

I was raped when I was 16. While I was so drunk I couldn't talk or walk. People like you are why I didn't bother to report it and he got away with it. Because I got what I deserved, right?

It sounds like you are suggesting that her decision to become intoxicated within a "hookup" environment constituted her consent to be sexually assaulted.

No, that's not what I think.

It could, however, create a situation where a jerk of a guy who is also drunk might think she was tacitly consenting by her appearing to cooperate with him when actually she didn't know what she was doing. That seems to explain what they both attest. Again, their testimonies are actually consistent with each other. There is no obligation to accept her after-the-fact *interpretation* of the events, when by her own admission she doesn't remember what happened.

In the case of criminal law, the fact that the woman was drunk and unconscious

And if he swooped down on her when he could see she was unconscious and carried her off deliberately in that situation, it would be a cut-and-dried case. But apparently there is no evidence to that effect.

Because I got what I deserved, right?

No. But as an *evidential* matter, if both parties are drunk, and especially if the woman is unable to give any clear testimony as to what happened, it does make it a lot more difficult to gather evidence as to what occurred. There may be other evidence that makes it a clear case in which the man knew what was going on, knew that the woman was not consenting, and did what he wanted to do to her without her consent. The fact that you were a minor compounds the whole lack of consent issue as well. There are many factors. But when the surrounding evidential situation, including the woman's drunkenness, is super-messy, it can become that much harder to figure out exactly what happened and charge someone with rape. That's a fact that a lot of people don't want to agree with nowadays, because of angry responses such as I'm getting here--you must think she deserved it, etc. But in legal situations, and especially when prosecuting for rape, one has to work by evidence rather than sentiment and a desire to "show solidarity with the victim" come what may.

Lydia,

I agree with most of what you said. I read the woman's long, hyperbolic statement (which she obviously put a lot of work into, or had someone else edit) and it seems clear that the only penetration was from his finger, which in legal terms is a foreign object. It does not seem clear to me, as one commentator said, that he stuffed dirt, etc. into her. If she was butt naked and moving around across the ground it would be normal for dirt to get inside her, wouldn't it? Her biggest complaint and the thing that seems to have disgusted her more than anything else was the fact that she had pine needles all over her (Oh my God! They're even in my hair!) I believe that if you go through her statement and count, the pine needles are cited more than any other item or activity. I suppose though that she's not responsible even for the pine needles (Ewe! Gross!) even though she stupidly got blind drunk and passed out after she went behind a dumpster to pee (this last bit I am inferring from the attorney's questions to her). As you said, the frat boy is an asshole, but if the victim can use her intoxicated state (did someone put a gun to her head and force her to drink, and drink and drink?) to excuse her behavior--which she can't even remember but may have included willingly making out with him--then why can't his intoxicated state be used to excuse his wrong behavior? And as for the bicyclist who chased him off and captured him, his crying doesn't necessarily mean that what he witnessed was so barbaric. His crying may just be a normal reaction that follows a dramatic, adrenalin-producing event. I've seen this happen hundreds of times (in movies, the men don't cry after such an occurrence, they vomit).
And I don't understand how this has become such a traumatic event for her, basically ruining her life as she claims, when she didn't even know what he did to her [edited] until other people told her. In other words, if no one had told her what had happened, and she had no memory of any sort of violent encounter because she was so obliterated with alcohol, where's the actual harm to her? Some abrasions? [edited]Again, what the jerk did was not right, and he should be punished for it, but to be a lifetime registered sex offender? Her name hasn't even been released. What's to stop her from pursuing any career she chooses? She could easily move to a new place and start over, but he is permanently marked as a pervert and will have a hard time in the future finding a decent job. And in my mind, because of her lack of judgment and her lack of discipline regarding the alcohol (and the possibility of her consent), she is partially to blame for what happened.

Have you bothered to read the police report or any of the court documents? The witnesses who stopped the assault verified that she was completely unconscious. They were so disturbed by what they saw that they broke down and cried describing it. She was covered in bruises and abrasions and had leaves and debris shoved into her vagina. In what world does that sound like "consensual sex?"

Matt's supportive comments are as damning as any critique of Lydia's post. If I were Lydia, I'd feel mighty uncomfortable being "agreed" with in such a fashion.

Nice post. Clear and smart.

Judging from the comments here, people don't seem to be disagreeing with the substance of your argument, but with the facts of the case, which, I am certain, the court is in a better position to know than anyone else.

A bad man? Check. A rapist? Depends on the facts. If your read is accurate, then, no, he is not a rapist.

I appreciate your insights re. the demon "Eros." Yes, the sex ed culture he grew up in facilitated his deplorable view of sex and of women.

No. Wrong. If one is too drunk to consent to sex, that means consent is WITHDRAWN, not IMPLIED.

Katie, I have seen no reference to her being "covered in bruises and abrasions," which I take you to interpret to meant that he beat her up. If you have a link to something that supports such a violent interpretation of events, feel free to provide it. It's odd that in that case assault and battery wasn't even included in the charges, isn't it?

I disagree with any implication (which one might take from Matt's comment) that violence perpetrated upon a person who does not remember it does not constitute a harm. Obviously, that is neither legally nor morally true. But I do not see that the facts of the case support the conclusion that violence was perpetrated upon this woman. Indeed, one of the oddest features of her long statement is the extent to which she was traumatized by what *other* people said and did to her afterwards and by the tests performed. Well, that all does sound horribly traumatic, and it's also hard to see how they could have done otherwise, because they had to collect evidence. But one can't allow the trauma of the investigation to create some kind of backwards causation in time: What he did must have been rape because it was investigated in an invasive way as a possible rape, because the woman was told she was a possible rape victim, and because all of that was terribly traumatic for her. I actually have a lot of pity and sympathy for her. But I don't think she is objectively helped by calling Turner a rapist. We've developed this odd idea that the only way to help women is to cooperate with them in vengefully hunting down men whom they think of as having raped them, by accepting and affirming their interpretation of events, even without sufficient evidence. That doesn't actually help anyone.

If one is too drunk to consent to sex, that means consent is WITHDRAWN, not IMPLIED.

If one turns this into a tautology, it isn't at all helpful. By definition, if one is "too ____ to consent" then there's no consent! But that's an empty tautology.

If one tries to give it content, then it can turn out _false_. For example: If one does not consent _verbally and explicitly_, it is _not_ true that consent is withdrawn rather than implied. Plenty of natural, morally good encounters, even between married people, do not involve _out loud_ consent. And plenty of morally wrong instances of fornication also don't involve that but are not ipso facto rape. Moreover, being drunk could obviously make it less likely that one would be having an out-loud conversation about the matter, but again that doesn't make everything that follows ipso facto rape.

Is criminalization of all sex while under the influence actually good policy? I'm inclined to doubt it.

Lydia,

My takeaway from your original post is that the fact that both Turner and the woman were intoxicated invalidates the claim of rape. I can't understand your reasoning here. Do intoxicated people have sex all the time? Sure. Does said intoxication muddy the waters when a woman makes a rape claim afterward? No doubt. However, there's more than a he said/she said scenario going on here. From what I've gathered, Turner changed his original story in the year between the the assault and the trial. Originally, Turner stated (to the police, I believe) that he didn't remember if the woman consented (which is consistent with intoxication). But a year later he claims that he remembered both asking her for consent three times and her granting him consent three times at each escalating stage of their encounter. Admittedly, I'm still looking for transcripts on this, but if it's the case, that's a pretty convenient bit of memory recovery from the fog of a drunken stupor one year later!

But here's the most damning thing: The two Swedish bikers who happened upon the scene. Interestingly, these two initially thought they were witnessing a consensual encounter. However, when they noticed that the woman wasn't moving, they intervened. Even if someone were to say, "Okay, it started out as consensual sex between two drunk people, and then one of them passed out," you've still got to deal with the fact that an intoxicated Turner had the wherewithal to run for the hills when the bikers yelled at him. Notice: They weren't taking pictures or trying to rob him; they simply yelled, "Hey!" The only thing that stopped Turner was being run down by one of the bikers. It is entirely conceivable that someone caught in such a compromising position--even with consent involved--would be deeply embarrassed and jittery. But bolting the way Turner did and having to be run down like that is about incriminating as it gets!

I would like to know how you and others who question the rape allegation account for those facts that go beyond the he said/she said narrative.

My takeaway from your original post is that the fact that both Turner and the woman were intoxicated invalidates the claim of rape.

No, that would be way too simplistic.

From what I've gathered, Turner changed his original story in the year between the the assault and the trial. Originally, Turner stated (to the police, I believe) that he didn't remember if the woman consented (which is consistent with intoxication).

Meaning audibly. But I gather he said he understood consent from her apparent response to him. Which again, is sordid and bizarre to those of us with a moral compass. Shouldn't you actually have a relationship with the person?? But that's not the same thing as rape.

But a year later he claims that he remembered both asking her for consent three times and her granting him consent three times at each escalating stage of their encounter.

Yeah, frankly, that's one part I think he's lying about. It sounds to me like his original statement was one of these "going with the flow" types of situations, which sounds quite realistic, and then he got scared (he seems to have neither any character nor any courage) and made up a verbal act of consent.

But bolting the way Turner did and having to be run down like that is about incriminating as it gets!

Everybody keeps saying this, but I just don't agree. I think it's a weak argument. Here's what I said above. He ran away because he was a spineless rat, caught in the embarrassing situation of engaging in sexual acts in semi-public, and was drunk out of his mind.

Presumably being able to respond with savoir faire when somebody yells, "Hey, what are you doing?" or something like that while you're on the ground outdoors in a drunken sexual encounter takes practice, and this little twit hasn't had that much practice yet.

The transcript of the trial isn't on the I terne that I can see. Here is a brief summary from the sexual assault nurse who examined the woman who testified that she had "internal abrasions in her private regions (vagina) ", and if you read other articles which states that during the rape examination, dirt, pine needles and other substances were removed from from internally. http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Dramatic-Day-of-Testimony-in-Stanford-Sexual-Assault-Trial-372627792.html Here is testimony from the 2 men on bikes who came upon Turner and the woman, who state that she was out cold. https://www.buzzfeed.com/emaoconnor/meet-the-two-swedish-men-who-caught-brock-turner?utm_term=.ytM2VJQGO#.phVBGoZ8w

She definitely passed out at some point. It sounds like there is quite legitimate question as to how various substances got where they got. It's not exactly a great location for that sort of activity, and I don't imagine he, er, washed up. He would have had dirt, etc., on his clothes as well. The whole thing is disgusting beyond belief, but not ipso facto rape.

SDG apparently asks that we simply take his word for it on the psychology and precise behavior of a drunk guy on the ground with a girl behind a frat house. I'm not at all sure *why* we are supposed to "take to the bank" his precise analysis of how such a guy would respond to various people and whether he would simply stare down a couple of on-comers who yell "Hey!" so long as they don't include an outraged father, whether he would just continue doing what he was doing. Does SDG have extensive experience with mindless, drunken, male freshmen confronted with that kind of situation?

It's very strange to me the way that people take this type of a priori approach to human nature and human responses. This was almost by definition a bizarre type of situation. How does a sense of generic shame play into it? How does sheer startlement play into it? How does the absence of morals play into it? How does the fact that he doesn't care about the girl play into it? (The girl herself suggested that, if he was frightened by the two men running at him, he should have stayed to protect her. Seriously? It's not like anyone is accusing this guy of being chivalrous, for goodness' sake!) For SDG to claim that he knows exactly what this type of guy would do in this type of situation and that his running away therefore supports the conclusion that he must have known that the girl was unconscious just goes way beyond anything SDG can possibly know, much less with that much confidence.

I'm just going to repost this, because it's the best analysis of this horrific piece I've writing I've read. I know it's not going to change the author's mind, but it's wel worth repeating.

What does this mean "worthy of consideration?" This article ranges from being morally incoherent to morally outrageous. It trivializes rape by arguing that sexual penetration of an *incapacitated* woman -- not simply "intoxicated" -- is not rape, when any sane person recognizes that incapacitated people have no ability whatsoever to consent, whether their incapacity be permanent (as with people in comas or minimally conscious states), or temporary (as with people who are sleeping, intoxicated, or drugged). The woman who wrote this also has no idea how alcohol works: it doesn't turn otherwise decent, moral men into rapists. Decent moral men don't rape, even when punch drunk, because they don't have any kind of wish to force themselves on a woman or inflict violent pornographic fantasies on them. Alcohol removes inhibitions in persons who already have in them the desire to perform certain acts, but hold back because of a fear of consequences or repercussions. If you don't have the interior disposition to do X, you don't magically do X when drunk. In the case of Brock Turner, that desire was a violent sexual fantasy where he subjugated a woman's body against her will for his own violent sexual exploitation and performed acts she never would have consented to. The victim's bruises, lacerations, and violation of her bodily integrity with sticks, pine needles, and his own fingers convey a mind bent on sexual violence, and alcohol served as "liquid courage" for him to carry out the crime. The victim's documented physical and psychological trauma confirm the acts in question were rape, not some consensual drunken encounter, and it is morally outrageous to maintain otherwise. The witnesses testified that what they saw was clearly rape in progress. But the author wants to throw all that out, and swallow the rapist's lie that it was some soulless, drunken sexual encounter! The rapist who changed his story as he was confronted with the facts that showed him a liar.

This woman's article is nothing short of an exercise in moral relativism that excuses the moral gravity of the rapist's crimes by assigning moral fault to the victim. But rape is a violation of a woman's bodily integrity, and a crime against the moral order that has absolutely nothing to do with the victim's moral status, whether she was drunk, a prostitute, or married. Even so, the author exercises rash judgment by assigning her the moral fault of voluntary drunkenness, ignoring the fact that the woman testified she accidentally drank too much by misjudging her alcoholic tolerance, because she didn't realize how much her body had changed in its ability to process alcohol since her college days. But the author also doesn't know if the predator slipped his victim a date rape drug, and then rapidly enchanced its effect with more alcohol. I know people who were saved from their rapist, who had slipped rape drugs in their drinks, and were trying to lead them out of the bar when friends or strangers intervened. In their cases, they could not recall drinking much or how they could have got so drunk they blacked out and have zero memory of the past 8 hours -- the victim's account of her rapid loss of memory, no knowledge of her attacker, and slurred speech that startled her boyfriend who recognized over the phone this was not normal behavior, all suggest this possibility. Because that's what a predator does: he incapacitates his prey before he strikes. And again, blaming the victim for her rape, or trying to tell us it wasn't really rape as this author did, is just morally offensive to a properly formed conscience. This author exploited and downgraded a woman's rape to make a point about hook-up culture -- which is quite perverse , esp. when one reads how that woman went to the party with no intention of hooking up with anyone.

This article is exhibit A for what Pope Benedict XVI called the "dictatorship of relativism" and why we have what Pope Francis denounces as the "culture of waste," the cancer infecting our society.

Here's an actual article worthy of consideration: the victim's own testimony. It deserves to be read in full. https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/heres-the-powerful-letter-the-stanford-victim-read-to-her-ra?utm_term=.djlKVpnWp#.cxm7wKplK

I would, again, change my evaluation if I believed that the woman was definitely *unconscious* and that Turner knew this *prior* to engaging in sexual activity with her. That is just not clear from the facts of the case.

Second, this whole idea that he was engaging in some perverse act of pushing garbage into her body is also not supported. The outdoor conditions of the whole encounter provide a sufficient explanation without that theory.

The victim's bruises, lacerations,

Everybody keeps mentioning this like he beat her up or roughed her up. They fell down in the course of the whole thing. What evidence is there that he lacerated or bruised her by violent attack? In fact, he wasn't even _charged_ with aggravated assault or assault and battery, as far as I know. I'm open to correction on that, but these repeated references just don't seem to be backed up by evidence of the violence they imply.

The witnesses testified that what they saw was clearly rape in progress.

Generally, witness *interpretation* of acts is not incontrovertible evidence. What is wanted in a legal context is witness testimony to what was seen. As far as I can tell, what was seen is not inconsistent with an act which was not rape.

The hypothesis of a rape drug is being pulled out of thin air. It was not alleged at the trial (as far as I know) nor argued by prosecutors. It's just something angry people are coming up with now.

The victim's documented physical and psychological trauma

She doesn't even remember what happened. Her own long, rambling account clearly ties her psychological trauma to the discovery that she was designated as a possible rape victim, to the fact that she didn't know what had happened to her, and to the invasive nature of the tests for possible rape. It's simply absurd to say that _this_ means that she _was_ a rape victim.

blaming the victim for her rape

Getting that drunk was highly unwise, but I have a lot of pity for her. I just don't think we do her any favors by telling her that her ex post facto _conclusions_ about what happened must be correct, and doing this as a sign of solidarity with her.

What bothers me a great deal in all of this is the tacit and almost postmodern idea that truth is a function of what side you are on, and that we always have to be on the side of anyone who is allegedly a victim of rape. Moreover, that this means that we are justified in even making up additional material not actually supported by evidence or included in allegations (such as the "rape drug" allegation coming out of thin air in the above comment). Apparently the only way to show how much you hate rape is to show unmitigated hostility and bias against anyone accused of it, and extreme willingness to accept the designation.

Well, that's bad law, bad policy, bad epistemology, and bad thinking. It does nobody any favors. It encourages hysteria and a legal system that is anything but blind.

It's one thing to disagree with me about the facts of the case. Obviously a lot of people do. Well and good. But when you start saying that you're a virtuous person because your conclusions about the facts of the case are "with" the victim and that I'm a non-virtuous person because I differ from your conclusions and therefore am being mean to the victim, then you're just being silly and making bias into a virtue in and of itself.

God save us from any judges, prosecutors, or juries who think this way. That's not how law or policy is supposed to be done, even when dealing with little, shallow, characterless people like Brock Turner.

the victim's account of her rapid loss of memory, no knowledge of her attacker, and slurred speech that startled her boyfriend who recognized over the phone this was not normal behavior, all suggest this possibility.

I had a male friend in college who got so drunk he thought he could teleport, and that's not even the craziest case of impaired judgment I saw. Date rape drugs are absolutely not required to cause what you describe. Heck, my first roommate was a foreigner who had barely tasted alcohol before the night before he decided to get smashed for the first time and everything you describe happened to him when he had alcohol poisoning.

And again, blaming the victim for her rape, or trying to tell us it wasn't really rape as this author did, is just morally offensive to a properly formed conscience

Given that we consider self-inflicted intoxication to be a mitigating circumstance on a variety of issues, it is questionable whether this should be considered rape under the standards we have.

I am all for prosecuting him as a rapist personally, but then I'm also in favor of swing a hard second degree murder charge against any drunk who commits vehicular homicide (among other things). Are you willing to go there, Katie?

It's important to distinguish blaming the girl for what happened to her from blaming her for being unable to give an account of what happened. If she hadn't gotten herself blind drunk, we would have a lot more information. I realize it's difficult to accept that her degree of intoxication makes figuring out precisely what happened hard, but that's just the way it is. She can tell us how she felt afterwards, but she can't tell us what happened. Apparently pointing that out is taken to be tantamount to "blaming the victim" for the occurrence. That isn't logical.

Sexual contact with an unconsenting person is rape. She wasn't just intoxicated: she was UNCONSCIOUS. She literally could not have consented to sex.

It is also dangerous because alcohol can frequently cause short term memory loss while a person is more than capable of engaging in a consensual sex act. Anyone who has gone to a typical college and not lived under a rock has heard at least a few cases of "duude you wouldn't believe what you did last night while drunk" that the person being question has no memory of doing but they sure as heck did.

Jim, you missed your calling in forensics.

He was not convicted of rape, he was convicted of intent to commit rape of an intoxicated/unconscious person, penetration of an intoxicated person and penetration of an unconscious person. It really doesn't matter whether Lydia or anyone else believes she might have expressed her consent at one point. Her blood alcohol was 3 times the legal driving limit, which makes her a priori intoxicated and any sexual penetration that occurred a crime under 289(e). And she was unconscious when they were discovered, which means any sexual penetration that occurred during that time a crime under 289(d). If he was on top of her, and had penetrated her with some object, he also had committed a crime under 220(a). Here are the pertinent legal references:

California Penal Code 220(a) (1) Except as provided in subdivision (b), any person who assaults another with intent to commit mayhem, rape, sodomy, oral copulation, or any violation of Section 264.1, 288, or 289 shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, four, or six years. [Subdivision (b) refers to victims under the age of 18].

California Penal Code 289 is lengthy, so I'll give the link: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=289. The pertinent subdivisions are:

289(d) states: Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration, and the victim is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act and this is known to the person committing the act or causing the act to be committed, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years. As used in this subdivision, “unconscious of the nature of the act” means incapable of resisting because the victim meets one of the following conditions:
(1) Was unconscious or asleep.

289(e) states: (e) Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration when the victim is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, six, or eight years.

(k) As used in this section:
(1) “Sexual penetration” is the act of causing the penetration, however slight, of the genital or anal opening of any person or causing another person to so penetrate the defendant’s or another person’s genital or anal opening for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, or abuse by any foreign object, substance, instrument, or device, or by any unknown object.
(2) “Foreign object, substance, instrument, or device” shall include any part of the body, except a sexual organ.
(3) “Unknown object” shall include any foreign object, substance, instrument, or device, or any part of the body, including a penis, when it is not known whether penetration was by a penis or by a foreign object, substance, instrument, or device, or by any other part of the body.

it's not that it was sordid that makes it rape is that it was NON CONSENSUAL.

You can't give consent if youre passed out.

And she was unconscious when they were discovered, which means any sexual penetration that occurred during that time

If she was unconscious by that time and known to be unconscious by him (you'll notice that is mentioned in the statute), yes. But when did she pass out? Some time between their walking out to the area behind the building and her being found after he ran away. He says she appeared to him to be conscious and cooperating during their encounter. She could have passed out at any time. She doesn't, and can't, testify to the contrary, because she doesn't remember what happened.

As for 289e, taken at face value it could mean that it's illegal for married people to have intercourse if the wife has been drinking, depending on the meaning of "prevented from resisting." If "prevented from resisting" is interpreted narrowly enough, it might not apply in this case either. If interpreted broadly enough, it would make sexual intercourse between tipsy spouses illegal. Take your pick.

To 220a, I assume that by assault you mean some sort of bodily force was used upon her, not simply that he engaged in sexual acts with her. But I can't find any evidence that he used physical coercion.

"You can't consent if you're passed out."

One can consent *moments before* one passes out. I *hope* we're all understood on at least that much. In such a case, Rebecca's comments citing relevant provisions in the CA penal code comes into play. But Rebecca overstates her case, as Lydia has pointed out in her reply to Rebecca highlighting the "knew or should reasonably have known" language in two separate passages.

Lydia writes (to Rebecca): "Take your pick."

I believe she has.

Lydia, Let Me Google This For You. Assault is also defined by the California penal code: "240. An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another." The pertinent qualifier that makes it a 220 offense is "assault with intent to commit any violation of Section 289."

Terry Morris, I have "taken my pick" based solely upon the statements of the two eyewitnesses, Arndt and Johnnson. Two bystanders who have no dog in the fight. They stated that they approached the scene because the woman appeared to be asleep or unconscious while Brock was on top of her. While Johnsson chased down her attacker, Arndt checked the woman and found her unconscious. Her BAC was tested and found to be three times the limit of presumptive intoxication (e.g. for DUI).

Rebecca, very well. You do realize that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable? Also that *assuming* someone has "no dog in the fight" is not the same thing as their not having one? ...

There's no question that this man took advantage of an intoxicated woman.

There is no question that she was completely incapacitated when the Good Samaritans intervened. You know that she was unconscious from at least 12:55AM to 4:15AM, right? All the noisy commotion of police and bystanders, a few of whom actively tried to wake her, flashing lights of emergency vehicles, taken by ambulance to a hospital, yet she didn't regain consciousness until 2 hours after she arrived at the hospital. Turner, on the other hand, remained awake but impaired the entire time.

There's no question that he's a despicable cad.

After the jury trial, there is no legal question Turner sexually assaulted her and she was his victim, she is not an "alleged victim" as you wish to assert. If you want to blame some of his crime on hookup culture or claim she wasn't the perfect victim, fine, but don't imagine it blurs any legal facts or that his sentence wasn't unbelievably lenient.

As far as I can tell, what was seen is not inconsistent with an act which was not rape.

What the witnesses saw was a male repeatedly thrusting his clothed pelvis against a partially naked, motionless woman. Do you seriously think they should have just shrugged this off and continued with their bike ride?

While I consider it extremely unlikely due to multiple factors, there is a sliver of a reason for Katie to speculate about a roofie, although perhaps not from Turner even if he took advantage of it. In the police report one of the very last things the victim remembered from the party was drinking a beer that she said tasted very bad, bad enough that she commented to others in her group about it and her memory blanks out moments after that. One thing I found particularly disturbing about his actions is that Turner claimed he wanted to hookup, that was his supposed objective going to the party, but his staying fully clothed during the encounter seems much better designed to conceal evidence rather than be involved in a consensual hookup.

Jim:

Sexual contact with an unconsenting person is rape. She wasn't just intoxicated: she was UNCONSCIOUS. She literally could not have consented to sex.

Rebecca:

289(d) states: Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration, and the victim is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act and this is known to the person committing the act or causing the act to be committed, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years. As used in this subdivision, “unconscious of the nature of the act” means incapable of resisting because the victim meets one of the following conditions: (1) Was unconscious or asleep.

289(e) states: (e) Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration when the victim is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, six, or eight years.

Both of you, please answer this question: suppose a woman consents to sex (to happen "later"), goes to the party with her boyfriend, gets drunk, spends all evening reminding him they are going to have sex later, spends half the evening making sure he is aroused, gets more drunk, leaves the party with him and takes him to her room, has one more drink, takes off her clothes, starts willingly and wantingly having sex with him so that they are in the middle of intercourse (i.e. with penetration), and then she passes out. Is the mere fact that she is now unconscious and he is penetrating proof that he is engaging in rape or violations of 289(d) or (e)? Why or why not.

He took her behind a dumpster, took off her clothes, put his finger in her vagina, and when he was spotted, he ran away. He was NOT incapacitated, and completely in control of his motor functions. Case closed. He raped her. Why would anyone defend this?

The woman is known only as "Emily Doe" because newspapers, television and other respectable, responsible media outlets recognize the stigma attached with rape and do not publish their names. It's a general consensus that they have suffered enough. The perpetrators, since they are responsible and charged with crimes in open court, get no such concession. Do I think hookup culture is awful? Yes. Do I counsel my teenage daughters against it? I do. But the moment she became unconscious this was not a "hookup" anymore. If it ever was.

Why would anyone defend this?

I'm not defending it. I hope God keeps me and those I love far away from people like this guy. I'm saying that we shouldn't define down rape and also that her intoxication and memory loss means that the encounter may have at least begun as consensually as any other encounter with a drunken person. I'm also saying that a good deal of the sordidness of this, as well as the difficulty knowing what actually happened, arises from hookup culture.

Step2

Do you seriously think they should have just shrugged this off and continued with their bike ride?

Nope.

Ignatz, yes, we get that you and others make several assumptions we do not. E.g., you assume he took her behind the dumpster, removed her clothes and the other thing all *with the intention to rape her*. And that when approached by bystanders, he necessarily ran because he was guilty of raping her; because he'd been caught in the act of raping her and ran because he didn't want to face the consequences, immediate and/or long term. All of which, or none of which, may be the case. We do not assume any of it is the case.

But when did she pass out? Some time between their walking out to the area behind the building and her being found after he ran away. He says she appeared to him to be conscious and cooperating during their encounter.

And this is what the case should turn on. It seems to me what Lydia is saying is that there is a factual dispute about this, and it is up to a jury to decide it - evaluate the physical evidence, the testimony and credibility of the various witnesses (the victim, the defendant, the two cyclists) and make a determination.

What we can't do, really, is sit back at our keyboards, not having heard the testimony live or seen the witnesses in person, and then claim this definitely was/was not rape.

The date rape drug claim - should that not have shown up in blood tests, along with the alcohol level? The slurred speech, change in behavior, loss of memory can occur with or without the drug.

and this [the victim is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance] condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused

This is where both the defendant's and victim's intoxication levels come in - was she too drunk to consent, did she become too drunk to continue, and was he/was he not too drunk to realize it? These are all factual questions that a jury, observing the evidence first hand, are to answer.

Bad tasting beer is hardly evidence of a roofie.

Two drunks wallow like pigs. One revels in her martyrdom. One gets convicted.

Most valiant Lucretia! O foulest Sextus Tarquinius!

One question: What, in you esteemed and learned view, DOES constitute rape, if unconsented penetration with ANY thing for ANY reason in the young woman's unconscious (or at least semi-conscious) person does not quite reach that definition?

In the absence of actually conclusive facts the important thing is to avoid admitting ignorance at all costs, to insure that society's designated victim groups are strongly affirmed in their victimhood, and to make sure that members of society's designated oppressor groups are punished severely.

I would be quite willing to call this act the moral equivalent of rape if Turner knew that the girl was unconscious during their encounter and proceeded despite that knowledge. I think I've made that amply clear.

If both are blind drunk, one is not guiltier than the other.

Roger G., that's not what I'm asserting, myself, and I'm inclined to disagree. I would assert the more moderate claim, that the drunkenness of the man is a factor in the situation as is the drunkenness of the woman. As others have (correctly) pointed out, he was obviously not as drunk as she was, because he never lost consciousness. He was even able to run away. Moreover, by his own admission, he initiated and continued the encounter. So he certainly has some not-insigificant degree of moral responsibility. However, his own degree of drunkenness could have impaired his judgement about things like, e.g., what the woman's state of mind was, what her apparent cooperation meant, and even when she ceased to be conscious. Not to mention making him more likely to run away when the two Good Samaritans showed up, without that meaning that he was raping someone.

Lydia, you are unsure of whether Turner really knew she was unconscious? So, two men from their bikes at a distance could see she was unconscious and became concerned but you have doubts as to whether Turner, who was right on top of her, was aware that she was unconscious? Really?

I guess I'm just confused by the intention of your post. Granted, society's understanding of sexual ethics is beyond distorted. However, I don't see how one arrives at a more moral / Catholic / Christian ethos of sex by not calling this action rape. Rape involves sexual violence against another person. To quibble about whether she gave "consent" is indeed silly. She was not in a mental state to provide consent, and he was not in a state to understand her intentions. As such, his initiation of sexual acts with her is violent because it is a violation of her dignity and sexuality. To continue to question or blur the line of what constitutes sexual violence, mutual consent, or rape will only weaken our society's moral conscience. Granted, it may be disproportionate that there is a "mob fury" over this incident when so many are silent on so many other grave evils. Nonetheless, I'm not sure why we should want to call this act anything other than what it seems to be - rape - evil - violence - reprehensible - and criminal.

I'll tell you who hookup culture has corrupted: you. Don't feel too bad; it has corrupted many. Because Kim Kardashian posts naked photos of herself, there is less sympathy for Scarlett Johanssen and other female celebrities who had their private photos stolen. Because of the popularity of BDSM and 50 Shades of Gray, sexual abusers have gotten juries to believe that the beatings and abuse they meted out were consensual. Because of the British culture of promiscuity and "ladette" crassness, the police blew off the rapes of young girls in Rotherham as consensual sex.

And now, because of the prevalence of drunken hookups, Brock's victim is apparently unrapeable. I was struck by her pained cry of disbelief that anyone would assume she would willingly give her body to a stranger on the filthy ground behind a dumpster. But we have become so cynical--even the fine, Chesterton-quoting Catholics--that we believe that "kids these days" are just into that sort of thing. Yes, the most logical explanation is that she was a willing, giggling participant in random dumpster sex. Even in our crass society, this scenario is unlikely outside of porn. (Of which, I'm sure, Brock had his fill.)

I would be quite willing to call this act the moral equivalent of rape if Turner knew that the girl was unconscious during their encounter and proceeded despite that knowledge. I think I've made that amply clear.

I think you're going to have to start using fewer syllables because Lynne just proved that wrong...

Bad tasting beer is hardly evidence of a roofie.

Some of the beer college students will drink to get drunk tastes so bad that a roofie might improve the taste.

Meredith,

And now, because of the prevalence of drunken hookups, Brock's victim is apparently unrapeable. I was struck by her pained cry of disbelief that anyone would assume she would willingly give her body to a stranger on the filthy ground behind a dumpster.

You are naive. [Decided to remove the link. LM] Yes, that link is vulgar and refers to a real thing (term is British slang, but it describes a real thing on both sides of the Atlantic). Many a slut has also followed a man she just met at a bar to have sex with him in a public bathroom stall.

there is less sympathy for Scarlett Johanssen and other female celebrities who had their private photos stolen

Feeling sympathy for women who create erotica and distribute it is actually a modern phenomenon. There was a time within living memory that their acts would be considered scandalous and career-ruining, if not illegal. Part of why women didn't do that for most of Christian history was that it was criminal for a woman to create erotica.

If you want to see what is wrong with much of what passes for conservatism these days it is this: we bemoan the existence of pornography and then castigate as callous and insensitive people who aren't sympathetic to the people who create it.

Lydia, no offense, but I think you've been too tentative all along on this sordid mess. I don't subscribe to all this balancing and factoring with the criminal justice system. I want guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Though your points are valid. And now that I see Patrick's input at 3:54 PM, I'm having second thoughts. I guess I'm prejudiced by her mounting a pedestal and perorating 12 meticulously crafted pages of violated beatitude, while we genuflect below in reverent awe.

Didn't she profess to strong womanhood, somewhere in all that dreck? Several times, in fact? But they all do http://yaleherald.com/op-eds/my-rape-isnt-just-another-statistic/ http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/10/9/assault-no-grey-area/ (My G_d! Harvard and Yale compete at everything!!). Selfsozzled to oblivion and mounted by fellow crocked scholars. Veritable Boudiceas!

Agh. It's too much for me.

I am a fan of yours. And I have no place to roost, what with Larry in heaven, and Laura having spiraled down the rathole.

Andy Hardy, call your proctor.

Lydia, I agree. And I believe the victim at some understanding in her letter understands the incoherent state both of them were in to lead to the destructive behavior that had to have consequences to teach from this, but what is being taught isn't the right thing. We are still a culture that wants our sex and alcohol...so, to change that would not be logical. On another thought, I think what dragged out this whole situation was his constant denial. I can imagine that his lawyers and family wouldn't want him to admit fault, but there is something to admitting wrong when under the influence and finding empathy and the best way to apologize for the destruction caused. Instead he continued to defend his actions. She even talks about this in her letter...to add onto how long this had to keep going on.

If he admits fault, then he opens himself up to all sorts of liability both civil and criminal. Our society doesn't really accept a diminished culpability on the part of the male in cases like this. She apparently was at .24 BAC. If he were at .24 himself, odds are he couldn't get an erection, but he could still be otherwise interested in messing around. In such a case, our society would still treat him as a rapist even though he was equally blitzed.

People forget that this is a system of law where a 12 year old boy who impregnates a 38 year old teacher is on the hook for child support, even though the law calls him a victim of statutory rape. Our sex laws often set up perverse incentives, and it doesn't help that many people who think their views are coherent are anything but.

Rebecca, very well. You do realize that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable?

Case in point, the recent Gorilla shooting. Several people witnessed the conduct of the parents of the child, but their accounts were so divergent that the police had to dismiss their statements.

I guess I'm just confused by the intention of your post.

Patrick, I think it's unfortunate that our culture has lost many of its various terms and concepts for bad sexual behavior. Consider the following list:

Seduction/seducer
Taking advantage of a woman (e.g., of her inebriated state)
Cad
Groper
Creep
Dirty old man
Making a pass

(Note: I'm not applying all of these by any means to Turner's actions. It's a list in a wider context.)

Notice that virtually all of these terms and concepts have disappeared from public discourse, particularly that controlled by the secular media. All of these permit varying degrees of badness and guilt, though all of them are bad. And there may be varying degrees even _within_ one of these categories. How insistent was the seducer? How drunk was the woman taken advantage of? How pushy was the pass? And so forth.

But this is all gone. Public discourse is on a binary system: Rape/no rape. All of such acts are "sexual assault," all sexual assault is morally equivalent to rape, and all bad men in the sexual arena are ipso facto rapists.

This tends to let the sexual libertines off the hook for having inaugurated a sexual culture that favors pick-up artists, creeps, seducers, and cads. They can pretend that _that_ isn't the problem at all, the problem is "rape culture," and it ought to be _easy_ for men to just "avoid raping women."

Moreover, too many Christians and conservatives are cooperating with a culture (which I discussed a bit in one of the earlier comments) in which the only way to show hatred for rape is 1) to be willing to define it down, 2) to agree that any woman who feels that she was raped was, 3) to agree that no putative victim ever lies and that there is never any *epistemic* ambiguity about whether a rape has occurred.

In other words, standards both of terminology and of evidence must be lowered for this crime in order to "show solidarity with the victim." Anything else is victim-blaming, defending rape, and means that you are a bad person.

I think to some extent your own wording is an example here:

She was not in a mental state to provide consent, and he was not in a state to understand her intentions. As such, his initiation of sexual acts with her is violent because it is a violation of her dignity and sexuality.

I'm sorry, but that's not what the term "violent" usually connotes. Initiation of sexual acts with a woman whose judgement is impaired by alcohol, by a man whose judgement is also impaired by alcohol, is _wrong_ but is not what I would refer to as "violent." No puns allowed. *Any* sordid sexual activity is a violation of the dignity of both parties, but it is not ipso facto either violent or rape. We need to be precise. "Violent" has a particular meaning and connotation. It is not *by definition* violent for a drunken man to make sexual advances to a drunken woman he doesn't even know. It's sordid and disgusting and caddish, but it isn't violent.

Now, I take seriously your concern that one could simply make people ho-hum about the badness about all of this by not calling it "rape," but it shouldn't be _necessary_ to call it "rape" to prevent people from being ho-hum about it. But people need to be horrified about it for the right reasons. For example, people need to recognize that it would also have been horrible even if she had done this exact thing but had in some more recognizable sense agreed to it, hadn't passed out, the scene hadn't been interrupted, if she had not woken up on a gurney with a label calling her a potential rape victim, and if she hadn't felt particularly upset about it after realizing that she must have engaged in sexual acts with a stranger at some point in the night. This happens *all the time* on college campuses all over the country. Are they *all* rapes? Really? I read one story about hookup culture in which a girl didn't remember it but was very happy to realize that she had finally succeeded in losing her virginity. A roommate told her that the man was "nice" enough to bring her home afterwards. Oh, but she presumed that she had given consent because, apparently, she remembered the beginning of the encounter and had a positive feeling about it afterward!

*That* is what is creating situations like this where nobody knows what is or isn't rape anymore. Women *rightly* feel that they are ill-served by the whole mess, but that isn't because the guys aren't making sure to have them sign a sex contract and take pics of it with their phones. (Yes, there are such ideas out there.) It's because love, commitment, and meaning have been removed from the situation. We just aren't getting to the root of the problem by defining "rape" in ever-less-clear ways. Instead, we could be covering up the root of the problem.

Aha! Lydia caught the flaw in Patrick's reasoning, which I did not.

Isn't anyone here amazed by that Harvard/Yale thing (June 9, 2016 5:35 PM above)? Talk about Frank Merriwell and Dink Stover.

If I didn't think there were any actual question about what happened in this case, I wouldn't have put up the post. But why, one might ask, even post despite having such a question? Well, I easily might not have. There are tons of things I don't bother to post about for tons of reasons. But one reason for doing so is this:

We're surrounded by cases in the news where there is some question about what happened, and guess what? All one's friends are ready to tell you exactly what you *have* to believe about the cases, on pain of being a bad person.

Don't think Trayvon Martin was a victim? You must hate blacks. Or at least "not understand" blacks.

On the other hand, do you think maybe the police in the Freddie Gray case did something wrong? You must hate cops. Or not love cops enough. Or something. (According to some conservatives.)

And while I'm ruffling feathers (though I'm being a coward and burying this in a comment): Do you think a certain investigating organization that goes around digging up dirt about Christian missions organizations and schools has maybe too low a standard of evidence and _maybe_ all of those alleged acts of rape and pedophilia that are included in The Report didn't actually happen? Ah, well, you must not hate pedophilia enough.

And on and on and on. You must believe *this* or else you don't really care about *this*.

This is assigning belief by pure bias and social bullying, and I don't appreciate it.

Just as no political party owns my vote, no one side in a particular case in the news owns my credence.

Are there such cut-and-dried cases that there must be something wrong with a person who denies a particular factual conclusion? Of course there are. Instance: Holocaust denial.

But not every case in the news is like that, and the Brock Turner case is not like that.

There could have been other cases with more sympathetic people that maybe would have made a better example of this phenomenon. It's unfortunate that my posting this might make it look like I have some liking for Turner, which I certainly do not. There is always some degree of arbitrariness about when and where one decides to blog a controversial opinion. It often has to do with when one happens to have extra time on one's hands.

This just happened to be the time for me. Maybe next time instead I'll blog about one of the other topics or about a really _innocent_ person who was denied due process in a rape accusation.

Roger, the second of your links about "no grey area" definitely describes a situation where the woman is expressing all the craziest views and where there is genuine ambiguity. (Though she explicitly denies any such ambiguity.) That post is precisely the kind of thing I'm trying to counter: "You have a right to get as drunk as you want. If the person agreed *ahead of time* with you to have sex and there was consent before you were blind drunk, then it's okay, even if the person is a stranger." "There are no grey areas. The fact that a person voluntarily got drunk has nothing to do with anything." Insanity. And, of course, it's too idealistic to try to end the hookup culture, so let's just elevate consent through education.

The other linked story is different because she is claiming coercion and real violence despite her refusal and struggles. A horrific story. Of course it was extremely foolish of her to make herself drunken and vulnerable (as it was in the other story), but if her story is true, there was no ambiguity about what happened and could have been no doubt in the man's mind. He behaved as a monster. The term "rape" can be applied unambiguously to a monstrous act of that kind carried out with premeditation, intent, force, etc. This qualified.

Point taken, Lydia. I was thinking more of the Harvard vs. Yale aspect.

All this drunken stupefaction. Handcuffs. Whips. Human sacrifice. It's just so completely outside my own sheltered existence.

Ask a woman out. Go where she wants. Do what she wants. Pay all the bills. Back to her place. Get rejected. Go home.

That's how I roll.

Lydia,
I appreciate your thoughtful response. My intention was not to produce puns or become sophistical with the term "violence" but to actually really consider the implications and associations which the word ought to hold. Violating someone's sexuality is a form of violence, even if it isn't commonly termed as such or even if some people wouldn't see it that way. I don't believe violence needs to only entail physical force, but I think it can also involve a more subtle seduction or blatant disregard for another's dignity. The evidence for this is that the human person does experience real and significant damage from such sexual encounters, even through encounters which were desired or accepted, like the story you alluded to at the end of your response. I also realize not all that is damaging or immoral will be considered criminal in our court system.
Consequently, I do think you have a very valid point in bringing up the culture which promotes sexual promiscuity in all sorts of forms, and society seems to depend way too heavily on whether someone subjectively decides whether a situation was "rape" or whether it was consensual. Let's take the story of the girl you mentioned who was proud of her "lost virginity badge." Even though this girl "sort of" consented and was happy with the outcome, I would still consider her being a victim of sexual assault. Whether or not she sees herself as a victim, and whether or not she allowed this to occur, she has been violated. Obviously though, the law will do nothing if the girl herself does not see the crime committed and she herself was complicit in it. Do we call it rape? I think in a society which is more sane, it would be seen as such. However, if you don't think it should be termed such, how would you suggest we go about terming it in a way which captures the sense of violation?
Your original article was centered around the recent news story which has filled our social media pages, and from all that I read, it seems reasonable to conclude that this man was guilty of rape and that the girl was a victim of sexual assault. I don't say this merely because it is a man who is the rapist. I believe that a woman can also sexually assault a man or be complicit in the sexual promiscuity, but in this particular story (again from what I've read), it seemed quite clear as to who the offender was and who was the victim. My confusion then results from not understanding why you chose this particular story to voice your points, as I think this story does not highlight any sense of injustice towards the man (only the woman). I do think there are plenty of other stories which might better illustrate your points.

However, if you don't think it should be termed such, how would you suggest we go about terming it in a way which captures the sense of violation?

Seduction and exploitation of an intoxicated woman. In a sane society, he would be kicked out of college for seduction, possibly subject to civil suit by her (if she thought she could convince a civil jury), and she, if she were believed, would be penalized, perhaps without being kicked out, for drunkenness. For that matter, in a saner society, colleges simply would put the kibosh on all drunken parties on campus and would have sufficiently strict penalties for drunken parties involving students even off-campus that they would be rare. I went to a small Bible college in the northeast thirty years ago even while the society at large wasn't terribly sane, and such were the rules. Not saying nothing bad could happen, but girls certainly weren't out there being put at this kind of risk all the time as they are now.

For sheer reasons of prudence, *all* college campuses including frat houses should be "dry." Not only at Christian colleges. It's only common sense, and all the more so given that college spans the age when drinking is technically illegal to the age when it is legal in any event, which is utterly unenforceable if you allow drinking on campus at all. Male and female dorms should be kept strictly separate, and men should never be allowed in women's dorm rooms or vice versa at all, at any time of day. Again, for reasons of sheer prudence.

I've decided that this is a good place to close comments. Many of the same comments have been made by readers who haven't had a chance to read what others have written. There have been a number of thoughtful comments (such as by Patrick) to which I have responded. It has also proven more difficult than I could wish to exclude some graphic content due to the nature of the charges, so editing has been difficult. I think various sides have been fairly aired at this point.