A more honest article on the college rape mess

[Derec]

Not really. While Trish Crawford's former husband was allowed to testify that they had BDSM sex during their marriage; Anthony Dale Crawford's former wife was not allowed to testify that he had violently raped her.

I think that is because he is the defendant and thus enjoys greater protections than the prosecution. I do not think that should be thrown out just because it's a rape case.

On the other forum, this was discussed in much greater detail. I have no wish to repeat the discussion here but the fact is that he duct taped her eyes and mouth, which would have caused pain upon removal of the duct tape and would have also left nasty marks on her face, probably ripping out eyelashes, ripping off skin from eyelids and lips. Not likely to be part of a consensual act.

Some people do pretty crazy things for sex. I mean if sounding (men pushing metal rods up their urethra) is a thing duct tape doesn't sound that extreme.

Another woman was abused, terrorized and finally raped and murdered because a jury refused to believe, despite videotaped evidence, that what happened was rape.

Yes, but that is hindsight. In the case in question, the prosecution had to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence of the wife engaging in BDSM sex consensually provided that doubt to the jury. Again, see the Jamie Rzucek case. She falsely accused a guy of raping her and he spent 20 months in prison and was almost killed while inside. All while being innocent because the judge didn't allow evidence of consensual BDSM activities between the two or evidence of Rzucek's prior false allegations. Possibility of false allegations is why we need to be very sure before locking somebody up for rape.

Btw: have you seen the video? Do you know what exactly it depicts? Who shot the video and why?

 

[Toni]

I think that is because he is the defendant and thus enjoys greater protections than the prosecution. I do not think that should be thrown out just because it's a rape case.

On the other forum, this was discussed in much greater detail. I have no wish to repeat the discussion here but the fact is that he duct taped her eyes and mouth, which would have caused pain upon removal of the duct tape and would have also left nasty marks on her face, probably ripping out eyelashes, ripping off skin from eyelids and lips. Not likely to be part of a consensual act.

Some people do pretty crazy things for sex. I mean if sounding (men pushing metal rods up their urethra) is a thing duct tape doesn't sound that extreme.

Another woman was abused, terrorized and finally raped and murdered because a jury refused to believe, despite videotaped evidence, that what happened was rape.

Yes, but that is hindsight. In the case in question, the prosecution had to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence of the wife engaging in BDSM sex consensually provided that doubt to the jury. Again, see the Jamie Rzucek case. She falsely accused a guy of raping her and he spent 20 months in prison and was almost killed while inside. All while being innocent because the judge didn't allow evidence of consensual BDSM activities between the two or evidence of Rzucek's prior false allegations. Possibility of false allegations is why we need to be very sure before locking somebody up for rape.

Btw: have you seen the video? Do you know what exactly it depicts? Who shot the video and why?

No I haven't seen the video. It was shot by Crawford, for his own pleasure and to humiliate his wife. This happened in 1992--before Youtube or other media whold have been up to show it--and we all know that it would have made it to some such in today's world. Also before Jamie Rzucek.

Because the case happened more than 20 years ago, online articles are scant. I remember the case very well from when it first gained national attention--the rape, not the murder. I didn't actually know that he abducted, raped and murdered his third wife until relatively recently.

I have no idea what weird stuff guys are into but I do know that women don't like to do things that will mess up their face. She didn't consent. The jury just didn't want to believe it was rape. Kinda like you and any case of rape. Ever.

 

[Arctish]

This is the year 2014, not 1974. Is there some resurgence of chastity or purity movements on campus and I am so out of touch, I haven't heard about it? Is there some sort of Slut Police Force in charge of shaming women who have intercourse outside the bounds of matrimony?
Why else would a young woman feel guilty about having sex with someone? Someone please explain to this poor old man how this works. The last time I saw this kind of nonsense, I was in 8th grade.

I suspect there are many reasons. But the only relevant question is: did she genuinely consent at the time? If she did, she has no business retroactively withdrawing it.

I agree. That is the only relevant question. In fact, it's fundamental in this discussion. Did the sexual contact happen with or without genuine consent?

Remember Charlie from this post: http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?1168-No-such-thing-as-Rape-Culture-redux&p=30672&viewfull=1#post30672 in the other thread? Let's talk about his situation.

Charlie woke up to find himself being straddled by a woman he barely knew. He quickly realized his penis was erect and inside her, and she had been humping him while he was unaware of her presence. He felt confused, unhappy, and violated. He faked an orgasm to make her go away, and finally got her to leave him alone by rolling over and pretending to be sound asleep.

Charlie was raped. You might quibble about "legitimate rape" meaning forcible rape, but this was clearly a sex act performed on him without his consent and therefore a sexual assault aka rape.

Now suppose Charlie had gotten staggeringly drunk at a bar, been seen chatting and dancing with this woman, and she had volunteered to escort him home. Does that imply consent? Charlie doesn't remember giving her consent, and knows he wouldn't have given it if he was sober. Does his being drunk rule out genuine consent or does it mean valid consent might have been given, and he just doesn't remember? Could he be having morning-after regrets and trying to retroactively withdraw consent?

Suppose it wasn't a woman but a man Charlie found humping him when he woke up. Does that change anything? Would it change anything if Charlie had been seen chatting and drinking with the guy at a bar?

I would really like to hear what folks think about this. Charlie was raped by a woman who took advantage of an opportunity to fuck him without his consent. Would his being drunk change anything about how you perceive the encounter? Would the gender of the assailant make a difference? Would it matter if the two were seen drinking together, and if so, how would it change your view of his claim that he did not consent to being fucked by her/him?

 

[RavenSky]

Which just proves my point that not even a video tape of a violent rape is good enough for some people.
Good night.

As you can see from the other case I linked to, just because people engage in BDSM sex does not mean it's rape.

Kindly point out where I ever said it did. But when there is a woman tied down, duct taped over her mouth and eyes, visibly struggling, violently raped, AND she reports it as rape - people like you STILL insist she is a liar - which exactly proves my original point.

You claim you are all about "assumption of innocence" but all I ever see from you is "presumption of a lying bitch". I want to know exactly what YOU would consider evidence of a rape short of a full confession from the rapist.

 

[ksen]

No, Anthony Dale Crawford, who was acquitted of rape charges although he tied up his wife, duct taped her mouth and her eyes and he videotaped her struggling, attempting to escape and attempting to scream. She admitted that they had engaged in BDSM previously but claimed that this was rape. He was acquitted and went on to rape and murder his second wife, for which he was ultimately convicted and sentenced.

Pfft. Typical. His second wife was totally dressed like a whore when he did that. The misandryst judge screwed this guy.

Ugh, women.

Can't live with em, can't tie them down, duct tape their faces, film it, and screw the shit out of them.

Society's really going to hell.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

 

[laughing dog]

Some people do pretty crazy things for sex. I mean if sounding (men pushing metal rods up their urethra) is a thing duct tape doesn't sound that extreme.

Given your interest in rape cases, I am surprised you appear unfamiliar with this one, especially since you participated in the discussion at FRDB. Crawford admitted his wife said no but that he thought she did not mean it. Which means he tacitly admitted to the rape. Now, this was over 20 years ago, so the notion of marital rape was not well-accepted, so it is not that surprising a jury did not acquit him. That miscarriage of justice led to another tragedy, because later on, Crawford was convicted of murdering his next wife.

 

[Derec]

Kindly point out where I ever said it did.

You implied it.

But when there is a woman tied down, duct taped over her mouth and eyes, visibly struggling, violently raped, AND she reports it as rape - people like you STILL insist she is a liar - which exactly proves my original point.

Nobody insists that she is a liar but that the prosecution didn't prove he was a rapist beyond a reasonable doubt which are very different things.

You claim you are all about "assumption of innocence" but all I ever see from you is "presumption of a lying bitch". I want to know exactly what YOU would consider evidence of a rape short of a full confession from the rapist.

I have not seen the video and thus do not know how extreme it is. But it without the history of consensual BDSM sex would certainly have been enough. That history is what threw the monkeywrench into the prosecution's case.

 

[Derec]

Given your interest in rape cases, I am surprised you appear unfamiliar with this one, especially since you participated in the discussion at FRDB. Crawford admitted his wife said no but that he thought she did not mean it. Which means he tacitly admitted to the rape.

Not really. People like saying "no" and variations thereof (play resistance) during BDSM play. That's the whole reason why safe words were invented. So with BDSM scenes you can't deduce non-consensuality from it. I don't know if the issue of safe words was discussed at trial. Do you?

Now, this was over 20 years ago, so the notion of marital rape was not well-accepted, so it is not that surprising a jury did not acquit him.

Explains why I was unfamiliar with the case. Marital rape is real, but similar to prostitute rape the issue is proving it beyond a reasonable doubt.

That miscarriage of justice led to another tragedy, because later on, Crawford was convicted of murdering his next wife.

But of course the jurors were not blessed with the gift of clarivoyance so that is irrelevant to their "not guilty" verdict. And once again, "not guilty" verdict doesn't mean they are convinced she is a liar, it doesn't even mean they think he is more likely "not guilty" than "guilty", it merely means that they are not convinced he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[laughing dog]

Not really. People like saying "no" and variations thereof (play resistance) during BDSM play. That's the whole reason why safe words were invented. So with BDSM scenes you can't deduce non-consensuality from it. I don't know if the issue of safe words was discussed at trial. Do you?

Wow, your willingness to excuse rape is truly amazing.

But of course the jurors were not blessed with the gift of clarivoyance so that is irrelevant to their "not guilty" verdict. And once again, "not guilty" verdict doesn't mean they are convinced she is a liar, it doesn't even mean they think he is more likely "not guilty" than "guilty", it merely means that they are not convinced he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I find it interesting that you are interjecting about the possibility that the jury may not have been convinced she was a liar. Especially, since you claim to be unfamiliar with the case. It is even more fascinating that you are willing to defer and defend a jury's decision to acquit a dangerous male defendant, but rail against jury decisions that acquit women defendants.

 

[ksen]

How do you use safe words when you have duct tape over your mouth?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

How do you use safe words when you have duct tape over your mouth?

The safe word is "Ummfph"

 

[Bronzeage]

How do you use safe words when you have duct tape over your mouth?

Good question. People who are into that kind of play have non verbal signs, such as a tennis ball held in the fist. Drop the ball and the play is over. This is a good thing because most people will drop the ball before oxygen depletion causes brain damage. This assumes there is not already some degree of brain damage already present.

Slightly off topic, but still relevant: There is a line between BDSM play and sadism. In BDSM play, both partners enjoy(strange choice of word) themselves. A sadist is a person who is excited by the fear, pain, and anguish of another person. It's nice when a sadist is paired with a masochist, but not necessary for the sadist to have a nice time of it.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The masochist said to the sadist, "Beat me! Beat me!"

And the sadist said "No."

 

[ksen]

How do you use safe words when you have duct tape over your mouth?

Good question. People who are into that kind of play have non verbal signs, such as a tennis ball held in the fist. Drop the ball and the play is over. This is a good thing because most people will drop the ball before oxygen depletion causes brain damage. This assumes there is not already some degree of brain damage already present.

Slightly off topic, but still relevant: There is a line between BDSM play and sadism. In BDSM play, both partners enjoy(strange choice of word) themselves. A sadist is a person who is excited by the fear, pain, and anguish of another person. It's nice when a sadist is paired with a masochist, but not necessary for the sadist to have a nice time of it.

Hmmm, you seem to know a lot about this topic!

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The horror of the idea of being eaten by a shark inflates our fear way out of proportion to the real likelihood of it happening. There is a very effective way to avoid shark bite, which is to stay out of reach of sharks. Some may say, "I have a right to dangle my legs in murky seawater, which is the natural habitat of a predator who has no concern for my well being," and they have a point.

You are comparing women to sharks? Why? Women have moral accountability. Do you disagree? As I said, yes, a guy can take precautions to try to make himself less likely to be a victim of false accusations, just as a woman can take precautions to avoid being raped, but that doesn't make the wrong done to them excusable.

The "real false rape" accusation is a very rare thing. The real problem here, and the focus of this discussion is not "real rapists" and "real false rape" accusations. It is that grey area in between, where people's judgment is clouded and what seems like a good idea at the time, is a very bad idea.

You can't have a grey area if you dismiss the concept of white or black. False accusations happen. There is not always alcohol involved. There is not always a woman who feels raped. Consent can be genuinely given, she can even want it more than him at the time, and the act can later be regretted, and an accusation can be made. Is it rare? Perhaps. That doesn't make it any less wrong.

Instead of comparing it to a Shark Attack, where the wrongdoer has no moral accountability, I would compare it to stranger rape. It is very very unlikely that a stranger is going to rape or abuse you or your children, and far more likely that a relative or somebody you know will, yet our society freaks out over stranger danger more than it probably should. You seem to feel the same way about false rape accusations. But the liar accusing people of false rape is morally accountable, like the stranger who rapes.

We are discussing "the college rape" mess. I propose a really simple solution, which is to instruct young men to "not do that," which, instead of blaming the victim, prevents him from becoming a victim. We have a problem which stems from a particular behavior. It is unrealistic to think there is a solution which does not include modifying that behavior.

Not do what though? Not get women drunk and have sex with them? Not spike their drinks? Sure, I agree. Not have sex with women you don't know well? That seems advisable, but just as much something you should be telling women. Not have sex at all? That is safer, and even then it doesn't completely remove the possiblity. Keep away from women and never be alone in a room with one? Now we've gone Muslim.

 

[ksen]

You are comparing women to sharks? Why?

I think he is comparing the men who prey on drunk women at bars with sharks.

I could be wrong though.

Keep away from women and never be alone in a room with one? Now we've gone Muslim.

Or independent Baptist!

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

How do you use a safe word with duct tape over your mouth? Good question you ask!

The answer is to make it a gesture. I have known people who are into BDSM, and they are always careful to have an escape word/gesture. This couple didn't have one?

If she put herself in a position where he had no way of knowing she really wanted him to stop, I don't see how you could say he was guilty of anything.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well if she was capable of consenting and she consented than it can't be rape no matter how she feels afterwards.

That is simply untrue as a general statement. Consent can be coerced or tricked.

Trickery--you're right. However, rape by trickery is very uncommon.

Coercion--this one falls into a gray area. Very often what is defined as coercion is not--he's free to withdraw any non-mandated support if he wants to. "If you don't sleep with me I'm going to leave" is not illegal. Only if he is threatening to inflict harm, not merely withdraw aid, does it become a wrongful act.

But you would agree that: "Sleep with me or I'm throwing the kid out the window" would be coercion, right? And probably: "Perform this sex act or I'm tossing you out of here even though it's 2 a.m. and -20 outside. I'm keeping the clothes you're wearing because I let you live here and you haven't paid me rent." Or: " Fine, if you don't want to have sex with me, I'll just use your little sister (or little brother). Who cares if they are 11?" Or "I'll beat your mom again."

The survey questions don't distinguish the form of the coercion and they include things which are legal.

There's nothing wrong with a guy deciding that since she won't put out the relationship is over.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How do you use safe words when you have duct tape over your mouth?

The approach I have heard of (there may be more, it's not my thing so I haven't paid attention to the details) is either a gesture (if they are sufficiently free to permit that) or they are holding something, the dropping of which is the safeword.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How do you use a safe word with duct tape over your mouth? Good question you ask!

The answer is to make it a gesture. I have known people who are into BDSM, and they are always careful to have an escape word/gesture. This couple didn't have one?

If she put herself in a position where he had no way of knowing she really wanted him to stop, I don't see how you could say he was guilty of anything.

And back when this happened there was much less discussion of such things--they might not have realized the need for a safeword. Sorry, but in my book if you don't have a safeword and you play such games you don't get to cry rape. It's inherently impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.