A more honest article on the college rape mess

[Toni]

In the Crawford case, she was tied down and gagged and blindfolded: she could not communicate any safe word. Before the incident she refused to have sex and his response was to come up from behind, knock her over the head, drag her to the bed, tie her hands and feet, blindfold and gag her, cover her eyes with duct tape, set up a video camera and then rape his wife with various objects and his penis. Perhaps there is a way that I am aware of that she could have communicated a safe word. I can't think of one.

You're assuming that safewords must be verbal. Read the Wikipedia article I linked above, such cases are addressed.

I made no such assumptions. Actually read my post and tell me what means of communication were left to her.

 

[ksen]

She could have wiggled her pinkie twice counterclockwise, 3 times north and south (magnetic north and south), and 1 time in a "J" shape.

easy-peasy

 

[Bronzeage]

In the Crawford case, she was tied down and gagged and blindfolded: she could not communicate any safe word. Before the incident she refused to have sex and his response was to come up from behind, knock her over the head, drag her to the bed, tie her hands and feet, blindfold and gag her, cover her eyes with duct tape, set up a video camera and then rape his wife with various objects and his penis. Perhaps there is a way that I am aware of that she could have communicated a safe word. I can't think of one.

You're assuming that safewords must be verbal. Read the Wikipedia article I linked above, such cases are addressed.

What sort of safe signal would be appropriate in a situation such as this, where the woman refuses to engage in sex, or a BDSM scene? The only thing I can think of of would be to make an arrangement with a neighbor to call the police unless some prearranged signal is not seen every 20 minutes.

 

[Arctish]

She could have wiggled her pinkie twice counterclockwise, 3 times north and south (magnetic north and south), and 1 time in a "J" shape.

easy-peasy

And he would have testified she never made that gesture, which apparently is enough for some people here to dismiss this case because once a woman admits she dabbled in a little BDSM (at her husband's request) it's safe to assume she was eager for its most brutal form, and she's a lying bitch if she says otherwise.

 

[RavenSky]

Actually there was.

And people wonder why the claim of a "rape culture" is credible.

You keep ducking and dodging the points being made and repeating this like some sort of religious mantra.

If somebody asks you to play act a rape on them, because they get off on it, and explicitly tell you not to stop when they say no, then them saying no no longer means they want you to stop. Do you disagree and why? Perhaps you could amswer that point instead of continuing to chant your mantra.

Except that there was no evidence of that in the case. not even the rapist/husband claimed they had that discussion prior to his attack on her. He specifically acknowledged that she said no to sex, and that he attacked her from behind because he didn't think she really meant it.

Well... she did. As such, he did not have consent and he raped her.

 

[RavenSky]

But when she has previously said that no doesn't really mean no then how is he supposed to know if she really means no or if it's part of the game? That's the whole point of safewords.

First, you don't know if someone previously said no without meaning it. Second, and more importantly, no means no until the naysayer clearly indicates otherwise. FFS, two year olds are taught that.

Guess what? Mistakeningly thinking "no" means "yes" does not absolve a rapist from the act.

What you are missing is that when couples are playing rape fantasy games no does not usually mean no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeword

What you are missing is that consent to BSDM a month ago or even a day before, is not evidence of consent today. There was no evidence that she consented to a BDSM session that day.

 

[Arctish]

What you are missing is that when couples are playing rape fantasy games no does not usually mean no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeword

What you are missing is that consent to BSDM a month ago or even a day before, is not evidence of consent today. There was no evidence that she consented to a BDSM session that day.

He's also missing the slightest shred of evidence their previous BDSM session involved anything more than a bit of spanking and uncomfortable shoes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But when she has previously said that no doesn't really mean no then how is he supposed to know if she really means no or if it's part of the game? That's the whole point of safewords.

First, you don't know if someone previously said no without meaning it. Second, and more importantly, no means no until the naysayer clearly indicates otherwise. FFS, two year olds are taught that.

Guess what? Mistakeningly thinking "no" means "yes" does not absolve a rapist from the act.

What you are missing is that when couples are playing rape fantasy games no does not usually mean no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeword

It is hard to believe you read the post you quoted, since it contains Second, and more importantly, no means no until the naysayer clearly indicates otherwise.

You're not god. I'm pointing out that you don't understand how such games work. We are talking about cases where the naysayer has clearly indicated that no doesn't mean no.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In the Crawford case, she was tied down and gagged and blindfolded: she could not communicate any safe word. Before the incident she refused to have sex and his response was to come up from behind, knock her over the head, drag her to the bed, tie her hands and feet, blindfold and gag her, cover her eyes with duct tape, set up a video camera and then rape his wife with various objects and his penis. Perhaps there is a way that I am aware of that she could have communicated a safe word. I can't think of one.

You're assuming that safewords must be verbal. Read the Wikipedia article I linked above, such cases are addressed.

I made no such assumptions. Actually read my post and tell me what means of communication were left to her.

How about dropping a held object? Or ringing a bell?

I do agree she no doubt didn't have such options but failing to set up a safeword doesn't make his actions rape.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

She could have wiggled her pinkie twice counterclockwise, 3 times north and south (magnetic north and south), and 1 time in a "J" shape.

easy-peasy

And he would have testified she never made that gesture, which apparently is enough for some people here to dismiss this case because once a woman admits she dabbled in a little BDSM (at her husband's request) it's safe to assume she was eager for its most brutal form, and she's a lying bitch if she says otherwise.

Except we are looking at a situation where there is no disagreement about what happened. He didn't lie.

I see no reason to think it would have happened at all if she had a safeword.

- - - Updated - - -

But when she has previously said that no doesn't really mean no then how is he supposed to know if she really means no or if it's part of the game? That's the whole point of safewords.

First, you don't know if someone previously said no without meaning it. Second, and more importantly, no means no until the naysayer clearly indicates otherwise. FFS, two year olds are taught that.

Guess what? Mistakeningly thinking "no" means "yes" does not absolve a rapist from the act.

What you are missing is that when couples are playing rape fantasy games no does not usually mean no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeword

What you are missing is that consent to BSDM a month ago or even a day before, is not evidence of consent today. There was no evidence that she consented to a BDSM session that day.

In the absence of a safeword there's also no evidence she didn't.

Playing such games without a safeword is stupid. It doesn't make the top a criminal, though.

 

[Arctish]

She could have wiggled her pinkie twice counterclockwise, 3 times north and south (magnetic north and south), and 1 time in a "J" shape.

easy-peasy

And he would have testified she never made that gesture, which apparently is enough for some people here to dismiss this case because once a woman admits she dabbled in a little BDSM (at her husband's request) it's safe to assume she was eager for its most brutal form, and she's a lying bitch if she says otherwise.

Except we are looking at a situation where there is no disagreement about what happened. He didn't lie.

I see no reason to think it would have happened at all if she had a safeword.

That's because you refuse to believe Crawford raped his wife and are making shit up to excuse his actions.

She says she told him no. He agrees she told him no. You used your imagination to think up a scenario in which she had previously told him no as part of their sex play, and then used your creation to brush away the brutal rape of Trish Crawford with a glib assertion of "facts" you made up out of stuff and nonsense.

- - - Updated - - -

But when she has previously said that no doesn't really mean no then how is he supposed to know if she really means no or if it's part of the game? That's the whole point of safewords.

First, you don't know if someone previously said no without meaning it. Second, and more importantly, no means no until the naysayer clearly indicates otherwise. FFS, two year olds are taught that.

Guess what? Mistakeningly thinking "no" means "yes" does not absolve a rapist from the act.

What you are missing is that when couples are playing rape fantasy games no does not usually mean no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeword

What you are missing is that consent to BSDM a month ago or even a day before, is not evidence of consent today. There was no evidence that she consented to a BDSM session that day.

In the absence of a safeword there's also no evidence she didn't.

In the absence of a safe word, or consent, or a by-your-leave, there is no evidence the sexual contact was consensual, and a shit ton of evidence it wasn't.

Playing such games without a safeword is stupid. It doesn't make the top a criminal, though.

I agree. It's only a crime if it wasn't a game they both agreed to play at that time on that day.

Now, why is it you think this was a game?

 

[laughing dog]

But when she has previously said that no doesn't really mean no then how is he supposed to know if she really means no or if it's part of the game? That's the whole point of safewords.

First, you don't know if someone previously said no without meaning it. Second, and more importantly, no means no until the naysayer clearly indicates otherwise. FFS, two year olds are taught that.

Guess what? Mistakeningly thinking "no" means "yes" does not absolve a rapist from the act.

What you are missing is that when couples are playing rape fantasy games no does not usually mean no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeword

It is hard to believe you read the post you quoted, since it contains Second, and more importantly, no means no until the naysayer clearly indicates otherwise.

You're not god.

And neither are you.

I'm pointing out that you don't understand how such games work.

Since you are not god, you have no fucking clue what I know about these games and what I don't know.

We are talking about cases where the naysayer has clearly indicated that no doesn't mean no.

Two observations. First, then you are not talking about the Crawford case - which is what the discussion was revolving around. Second, then your response is evident that your really don't read posts, since you are responding to posts that contain " Second, and more importantly, no means no until the naysayer clearly indicates otherwise."

 

[Togo]

I'm pointing out that you don't understand how such games work.

Since you are not god, you have no fucking clue what I know about these games and what I don't know.

If it helps, I have extensive personal experience in this area and know exactly how these games work.

[What you are missing is that consent to BSDM a month ago or even a day before, is not evidence of consent today. There was no evidence that she consented to a BDSM session that day.

In the absence of a safeword there's also no evidence she didn't.

Playing such games without a safeword is stupid. It doesn't make the top a criminal, though.

Yeah, it does. You might not like that it does, but it's clearly doing stuff to someone without their consent, because you've put them in a position where they can't consent. The situation is even worse for masochists than it is for subs.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Actually there was.

And people wonder why the claim of a "rape culture" is credible.

You keep ducking and dodging the points being made and repeating this like some sort of religious mantra.

If somebody asks you to play act a rape on them, because they get off on it, and explicitly tell you not to stop when they say no, then them saying no no longer means they want you to stop. Do you disagree and why? Perhaps you could amswer that point instead of continuing to chant your mantra.

Except that there was no evidence of that in the case. not even the rapist/husband claimed they had that discussion prior to his attack on her. He specifically acknowledged that she said no to sex, and that he attacked her from behind because he didn't think she really meant it.

Well... she did. As such, he did not have consent and he raped her.

I am not familiar with this particular case. If what you say is so, then I agree. But that doesn't address the points being made in the larger context. Are there any people here who would call it rape if a woman put herself in this situation voluntarily, had done it before willingly, told him not to stop when she said no, and then said no? I really don't see how anybody could find the guy guilty of rape. I had posted this question before, along with a bunch of other questions to try to see where people would fall on various configurations of these facts. Why is everybody getting so attached to this one particular case?

Another thought: What if she establishes as safe word and then promptly forgets it? What if she teased forgetting it before, as part of the game? Should he somehow be able to tell the difference between the game and a real objection, based on her tone and body language, and if he fails to do so, should he be charged? Where would you draw the line?

 

[RavenSky]

I am not familiar with this particular case. If what you say is so, then I agree. But that doesn't address the points being made in the larger context. Are there any people here who would call it rape if a woman put herself in this situation voluntarily, had done it before willingly, told him not to stop when she said no, and then said no? I really don't see how anybody could find the guy guilty of rape. I had posted this question before, along with a bunch of other questions to try to see where people would fall on various configurations of these facts. Why is everybody getting so attached to this one particular case?

We are "attached" to this case because I brought it up as evidence that Derec would not even accept video (& what amounts to the husband's confession) as compelling evidence that the woman was raped. Derec, of course, has proved my point beautifully.

Another thought: What if she establishes as safe word and then promptly forgets it? What if she teased forgetting it before, as part of the game? Should he somehow be able to tell the difference between the game and a real objection, based on her tone and body language, and if he fails to do so, should he be charged? Where would you draw the line?

As to your six million "what ifs" - IF there is clear, sober, consent between the parties, they can be as kinky as they want and it is not rape. But what they did or didn't do last time they met has no bearing, nor does any flirting/laughing/dancing or other so-called displays of sexual interest leading up to the sexual encounter. Women (& men) have the right to consent, and also to rescind consent at any time.

If the parties to a BDSM have a genuinely consensual relationship, all of your "what-ifs" will have been addressed; there will be no "well she said 'no' but I didn't think she meant it". Not every BSDM relationship requires a safe-word either. My 2nd ex and I played at BDSM (his choice, and I was top) & we didn't need a safe-word because that safe-word was "no". We never did anything that he didn't clearly, fully, soberly and verbally consent to (ask for). A true BDSM relationship includes a complete discussion about the wants and expectations of both parties, but especially the wants and expectations of "the bottom" as that is the person placed in the most vulnerable position. And the discussion is ongoing, because moods/wants change. Especially in a BDSM relationship, if there is not that crystal clear, unambiguous, consent - it is rape. The "top" doesn't get to say "well she said 'no' but I thought she meant yes" anymore than the frat boy gets to say that.

 

[Arctish]

Are there any people here who would call it rape if a woman put herself in this situation voluntarily, had done it before willingly, told him not to stop when she said no, and then said no? I really don't see how anybody could find the guy guilty of rape.

Given those circumstances, I don't think anyone would find him guilty of rape. But no-one here has been talking about a case where consent was clearly, explicitly given and then one partner in the sex act changed his/her mind at a time and in such a way as to render their "no" confusing or questionable.

We might as well be talking about Harry Potter and Albus Dumbledore when they were trying to retrieve the horcrux from the pool of poisoned water in the cave. Harry had to keep giving Dumbledore more to drink even though Dumbledore begged him to stop because Dumbledore made him promise to keep giving him the water to drink even if he begged Harry to stop. It made Harry very upset, btw, because he couldn't be sure if he was doing the right thing. I don't think anyone would have blamed Harry if it turned out Dumbledore really did want him to stop and he didn't, and all because Dumbledore couldn't remember the safe word.

I had posted this question before, along with a bunch of other questions to try to see where people would fall on various configurations of these facts. Why is everybody getting so attached to this one particular case?

Because the question posed to Derec was what evidence of rape would he find convincing. In this case there was a video recording of a brutal rape, and an admission from the husband that his wife had said no but he disregarded it.

Another thought: What if she establishes as safe word and then promptly forgets it? What if she teased forgetting it before, as part of the game? Should he somehow be able to tell the difference between the game and a real objection, based on her tone and body language, and if he fails to do so, should he be charged? Where would you draw the line?

I would draw the line at consent, and what each did to make sure they both had it.

 

[Bronzeage]

She could have wiggled her pinkie twice counterclockwise, 3 times north and south (magnetic north and south), and 1 time in a "J" shape.

easy-peasy

And he would have testified she never made that gesture, which apparently is enough for some people here to dismiss this case because once a woman admits she dabbled in a little BDSM (at her husband's request) it's safe to assume she was eager for its most brutal form, and she's a lying bitch if she says otherwise.

Except we are looking at a situation where there is no disagreement about what happened. He didn't lie.

I see no reason to think it would have happened at all if she had a safeword.

- - - Updated - - -

But when she has previously said that no doesn't really mean no then how is he supposed to know if she really means no or if it's part of the game? That's the whole point of safewords.

First, you don't know if someone previously said no without meaning it. Second, and more importantly, no means no until the naysayer clearly indicates otherwise. FFS, two year olds are taught that.

Guess what? Mistakeningly thinking "no" means "yes" does not absolve a rapist from the act.

What you are missing is that when couples are playing rape fantasy games no does not usually mean no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeword

What you are missing is that consent to BSDM a month ago or even a day before, is not evidence of consent today. There was no evidence that she consented to a BDSM session that day.

In the absence of a safeword there's also no evidence she didn't.

Playing such games without a safeword is stupid. It doesn't make the top a criminal, though.

No, the criminal part starts when the partner dies.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's because you refuse to believe Crawford raped his wife and are making shit up to excuse his actions.

She says she told him no. He agrees she told him no. You used your imagination to think up a scenario in which she had previously told him no as part of their sex play, and then used your creation to brush away the brutal rape of Trish Crawford with a glib assertion of "facts" you made up out of stuff and nonsense.

You obviously know nothing of rape fantasy games.

In the absence of a safe word, or consent, or a by-your-leave, there is no evidence the sexual contact was consensual, and a shit ton of evidence it wasn't.

No. There's no evidence either way.

Playing such games without a safeword is stupid. It doesn't make the top a criminal, though.

I agree. It's only a crime if it wasn't a game they both agreed to play at that time on that day.

Now, why is it you think this was a game?

What you are missing is that her not "choosing" to play at that time could be part of the game.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If the parties to a BDSM have a genuinely consensual relationship, all of your "what-ifs" will have been addressed; there will be no "well she said 'no' but I didn't think she meant it". Not every BSDM relationship requires a safe-word either. My 2nd ex and I played at BDSM (his choice, and I was top) & we didn't need a safe-word because that safe-word was "no". We never did anything that he didn't clearly, fully, soberly and verbally consent to (ask for). A true BDSM relationship includes a complete discussion about the wants and expectations of both parties, but especially the wants and expectations of "the bottom" as that is the person placed in the most vulnerable position. And the discussion is ongoing, because moods/wants change. Especially in a BDSM relationship, if there is not that crystal clear, unambiguous, consent - it is rape. The "top" doesn't get to say "well she said 'no' but I thought she meant yes" anymore than the frat boy gets to say that.

They certainly should have been addressed. That doesn't mean they were. People can be stupid about such things.

 

[Arctish]

You obviously know nothing of rape fantasy games.

In the absence of a safe word, or consent, or a by-your-leave, there is no evidence the sexual contact was consensual, and a shit ton of evidence it wasn't.

No. There's no evidence either way.

The video of her husband violently fucking her while she was bound, gagged, blindfolded, fighting and screaming is evidence her husband raped her. Her testimony she said no but he violently fucked her anyway is evidence her husband raped her. His testimony she said no but he violently fucked her anyway is evidence he raped her.

The only evidence it wasn't rape is his testimony that he thought she didn't mean it when she said no. That is extremely flimsy and obviously self-serving. It is also an extraordinary claim. It should require extraordinary proof to support it. But you not only take him at his word, you have invented a fantasy world in which she gets raped regardless of what she says and it's all good.

You made up that story about her having said no in the past when she really meant yes. You are trying to use your made-up story to support your conclusion that Crawford's violent sexual abuse of his wife was just a minor misunderstanding because they forgot to have a safe word. But you can't disguise the origin of your explanation. It came from your imagination. You made it up.

Playing such games without a safeword is stupid. It doesn't make the top a criminal, though.

I agree. It's only a crime if it wasn't a game they both agreed to play at that time on that day.

Now, why is it you think this was a game?

What you are missing is that her not "choosing" to play at that time could be part of the game.

What makes you think this was a game?