Man rapes woman, calls it "50 Shades" reenactment

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's hard to use a safe word with a necktie shoved in your mouth.

Because you're interpreting it too literally. Safewords don't need to be words. If she's tied up and can't speak do something like have her hold a noisemaker. Triggering said noisemaker is a safeword.

*sigh*

 

[ksen]

Because you're interpreting it too literally. Safewords don't need to be words. If she's tied up and can't speak do something like have her hold a noisemaker. Triggering said noisemaker is a safeword.

I must have missed the part of the story where Hossain describes setting up a non-verbal safeword with his victim the lying slut.

 

[Jayjay]

And on a side note, has everyone in the BDSM community been constantly face-palming since this movie came out?

What about those who are irked that they were into face-palming fetish before it became popular?

 

[ronburgundy]

Clearly rape as described, but the thread title implies the whole thing was forced and the 50-shades claim is bogus, while the story suggests it might have been a consensual re-enactment entailing consensual sex, up until he hit her too hard, she objected and wanted to stop, and he ignored her. Still rape by that account, but a more accurate headline would be "50 shades re-enactment turns into black and white case of rape after idiot ignores rule #1 of BDSM", with maybe a sub-headline of "Idiots should avoid fiction."

Isn't it common in BDSM to ignore plain pleas to "stop" as part of the scene while actually listening for safe words? Why did she not use the safe words? Did he think she didn't mean it because she didn't use the safe word? In that case there was no rape.

Um, no. Failure to negotiate an alternative safe word to rape, means that "no" remains the unequivocal indication of "no", and thus he both raped her and committed general assault the moment he kept going after "no" (and perhaps before then, depending upon whether she had agreed to the activity in general).

If anything, even a negotiated "safe word" likely provides no legal protection from a rape charge. The default is "no means no", so it may technically hold even in BDSM, and it all rests on whether one party decides to charge rape.
I know of no relevant cases, so its largely a hypothetical to evaluate logical implications of the law, even if the absence of any such accusations means it is a "problem" for BDSMers that doesn't really need a solution.

 

[laughing dog]

I think the "no means no" default is just another example of matriarchy in action.

 

[RavenSky]

And on a side note, has everyone in the BDSM community been constantly face-palming since this movie came out?

This is what I have been wondering ever since the first stupid book came out.

- - - Updated - - -

This case looks shady to me...

Of course it does But since the guy has already admitted to doing "something wrong" I think maybe you should step out of the shade at least this once.

 

[Ford]

Buy Derec's How to Get Away with Rape book, currently 14th on the NY Times best seller list. Say it was BDSM to excuse the bruising. Say it was consensual, to create doubt. You'll win every time!

I haven't read it, but scanned the chapter titles and it looks like a gripping read.

Chapter 1: "If she accuses you of rape, then you may not have raped her."

Chapter 2: "False rape accusations elsewhere means you probably didn't rape her."

Chapter 3: "Beware the left wing media! They will try to make you look all rapey!"

Chapter 4: "Was she black? Are you white? She's lying!"

Chapter 5: "College - A place where women are rarely if ever raped."

Chapter 7: "Alcohol consumption and rape: What you need to know once she passes out (hint, she wants sex)."

Chapter 8: "What is it with women anyway?"


I'll wait until the paperback comes out, I guess.

 

[ZiprHead]

You, my friend Ford, are a comedy genius!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because you're interpreting it too literally. Safewords don't need to be words. If she's tied up and can't speak do something like have her hold a noisemaker. Triggering said noisemaker is a safeword.

I must have missed the part of the story where Hossain describes setting up a non-verbal safeword with his victim the lying slut.

So what? With no safeword established he has to respect her no.

 

[Derec]

Because you're interpreting it too literally. Safewords don't need to be words. If she's tied up and can't speak do something like have her hold a noisemaker. Triggering said noisemaker is a safeword.

I must have missed the part of the story where Hossain describes setting up a non-verbal safeword with his victim the lying slut.

The story is her/prosecution side of the story. Of course you have already decided she is a victim and he the rapist just like so many were convinced the Duke Lacrosse students were rapists as well.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The story is her/prosecution side of the story.

So, there IS a source for their understanding of the situation.

Where, exactly, did you get the idea that she'd agreed to let him beat her?
Or have you just already decided he's innocent?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I must have missed the part of the story where Hossain describes setting up a non-verbal safeword with his victim the lying slut.

So what? With no safeword established he has to respect her no.

Those loud noises people are hearing are the points whooshing over Loren's head.

 

[Derec]

The story is her/prosecution side of the story.

So, there IS a source for their understanding of the situation.

Where, exactly, did you get the idea that she'd agreed to let him beat her?
Or have you just already decided he's innocent?

Nothing in the story indicates that she even alleges that he placed her in a bondage situation against her will. Unless I am missing something.
So in order to convict the prosecution would have to prove that the situation that started out consensual turned non-consensual.

That may be true, and it even may be provable beyond a reasonable doubt, but we do need that proof which the article itself doesn't provide. To categorically claim that he is a "rapist" is thus very much premature. As it was when people claimed the three innocent Duke students were "rapists".

- - - Updated - - -

Those loud noises people are hearing are the points whooshing over Loren's head.

I thought there were the tips of a whip.

 

[Derec]

If anything, even a negotiated "safe word" likely provides no legal protection from a rape charge. The default is "no means no", so it may technically hold even in BDSM, and it all rests on whether one party decides to charge rape.
I know of no relevant cases, so its largely a hypothetical to evaluate logical implications of the law, even if the absence of any such accusations means it is a "problem" for BDSMers that doesn't really need a solution.

That would be a terrible law as it would define perfectly consensual sex as "rape". Now, things probably vary by state but in the Columbia case I mentioned the judge (using "rape shield law") improperly excluded emails between the false accuser and her victim detailing their plants to engage in BDSM and he was convicted. Luckily an appeals court found in his favor and he was freed, but not before spending almost two years in prison and getting attacked there. However, that shows that at least in New York consensual BDSM would be a valid defense against bogus rape claims (unless the judge improperly excludes exculpatory evidence).

 

[Nice Squirrel]

So, there IS a source for their understanding of the situation.

Where, exactly, did you get the idea that she'd agreed to let him beat her?
Or have you just already decided he's innocent?

Nothing in the story indicates that she even alleges that he placed her in a bondage situation against her will. Unless I am missing something.
So in order to convict the prosecution would have to prove that the situation that started out consensual turned non-consensual.

Which will be when she explicitly told him to stop.
I repeat: she explicitly told him to stop.
Just in case you didn't get it. She explicitly told him to stop.

This is what the case will hinge on. That she explicitly told him to stop.

That may be true, and it even may be provable beyond a reasonable doubt, but we do need that proof which the article itself doesn't provide. To categorically claim that he is a "rapist" is thus very much premature. As it was when people claimed the three innocent Duke students were "rapists".

I would like to remind you that this is not the Duke case nor the Norfolk Four nor the Central Park Five.
In case you need a refresher: this is not the Duke case.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Nothing in the story indicates that she even alleges that he placed her in a bondage situation against her will. Unless I am missing something.

So? Nothing in the story indicates that she agreed to sado-masochism. Which you said she 'apparently' agreed to. That's not apparent, it's in your head, entirely.

So in order to convict the prosecution would have to prove that the situation that started out consensual turned non-consensual.

You're assuming that she started out consenting to a beating. Try establishing that, first, then we'll see what sort of level of evidence is required to establish the rest.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So, there IS a source for their understanding of the situation.

Where, exactly, did you get the idea that she'd agreed to let him beat her?
Or have you just already decided he's innocent?

Nothing in the story indicates that she even alleges that he placed her in a bondage situation against her will. Unless I am missing something.

You may be missing the lack of relevance of your point. She could have initially consented to something, but changed her mind on that something when she realize that it wasn't good, or that the partner ramped things up out of her expectations. Initial consent can be withdrawn which should be anticipatible if new stuff is being tried out. If there are photos of a lot of bruising for a first-timer, it'll be hard for the jury to think it was consensual. Additionally if there is testimony about the roommate not being allowed in, that'd be additional evidence that something bad was going down.

So in order to convict the prosecution would have to prove that the situation that started out consensual turned non-consensual.

Of which you'll just say 'the bitch is lying'.

That may be true, and it even may be provable beyond a reasonable doubt, but we do need that proof which the article itself doesn't provide.

There is nothing that can be provided that would make you think it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

To categorically claim that he is a "rapist" is thus very much premature.

Correct, he is an alleged rapist.

 

[Derec]

You may be missing the lack of relevance of your point.

Why is there a lack of relevance?

She could have initially consented to something, but changed her mind on that something when she realize that it wasn't good, or that the partner ramped things up out of her expectations.

Or she could be lying like in the Columbia BDSM case I mentioned. Note, prosecution must prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. "She could have" doesn't really come close to that.

Additionally if there is testimony about the roommate not being allowed in, that'd be additional evidence that something bad was going down.

I am confused. Do people usually allow their roommates in to watch during sex?

Of which you'll just say 'the bitch is lying'.

No, it's you who categorically assumes that the "jerk is lying". I think both are possible and I have no idea who is telling the truth but what I do know is that when it doubt we have to go with the defendant, not the accuser. Note that the OP assumed that the woman is telling the truth in the very title of the OP. Kind of like what happened in the OP of the Duke Lacrosse debacle where the original thread on the case was titled "Rich White college student gang rapes poor Black woman".

There is nothing that can be provided that would make you think it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Nonsense, but her say-so is not it.

Correct, he is an alleged rapist.

And OP should have reflected that uncertainty.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

She could have initially consented to something, but changed her mind on that something when she realize that it wasn't good, or that the partner ramped things up out of her expectations.

Or she could be lying like in the Columbia BDSM case I mentioned. Note, prosecution must prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. "She could have" doesn't really come close to that.

Additionally if there is testimony about the roommate not being allowed in, that'd be additional evidence that something bad was going down.

I am confused. Do people usually allow their roommates in to watch during sex?

Of which you'll just say 'the bitch is lying'.

No, it's you who categorically assumes that the "jerk is lying". I think both are possible and I have no idea who is telling the truth but what I do know is that when it doubt we have to go with the defendant, not the accuser.

That is the most laughable thing I've read in a while. "I think both are possible". Bullshit!

There is nothing that can be provided that would make you think it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Nonsense, but her say-so is not it.

Bullshit.

 

[Derec]

That is the most laughable thing I've read in a while. "I think both are possible". Bullshit!

Just because it doesn't fit into the feminist Left's black and white "either you believe rape accusers automatically or you are a filthy misogynist" party line doesn't make it "laughable".

Nonsense, but her say-so is not it.

Bullshit.

So you think a woman's say-so should be enough to constitute proof "beyond a reasonable doubt"? That's messed up.