Everyone needs to read this regarding the Illinois rape case.

[Lindacooks]

Consent means words or overt actions by a person indicating a freely given present agreement to perform a particular sexual act with the actor. In the news stories of the event, even while describing the videotape, there is no mention of what words the girl said or overt actions she committed to indicate consent. Consent is active. A lack of "no" does not mean "yes." The lack of an active gesture of consent means that what happened was rape.

The jury didn't get this, so I'll say it again: words or overt actions are required to indicate consent. Apparently, at one point on the videotape, the girl groaned or moaned. For some reason, the jury decided that this fuzzy, ambiguous act indicated consent, and was not a noise of distress or confusion or fear from a child who had passed out. Unlike the jury, real men know that if you are not positive that you have consent, you stop and ask, and don't start again until you are certain.

"Consent does not mean . . . that the complaintant failed to resist a particular sexual act." The fact that she did not resist does not mean she consented. Real men know that. Real men want more than a limp, unresisting body. Molesting an inert, helpless form is an act for sadists and weenies.

A person who is mentally incapacitated or physically helpless cannot consent to a sexual act. If she was passed out, or even if she was incredibly drunk, she could not consent. Real men know that too, and will refuse to take advantage. Wimps, weenies, and punks don't know the difference.

a freely given present agreement to perform a particular sexual act . . . The defense attorney asked the victim if she had consented to attending the party. He asked if she had consented to getting drunk. It amazes me that the judge even allowed these questions, because they are completely irrelevant to the question. Attending a party, and getting drunk, have nothing to do with whether she consented to gang rape and humiliation.

The idea that a person -- especially a minor -- is not allowed one single mistake before "deserving" sexual assault is idiotic, unfair and completely un-American. The plain fact is, lots of girls attend parties, and lots of them get drunk. But in most cases, there are some real men on the scene who know that sex without consent makes you a criminal and a loser. In most cases, there are some real men who know that their duty is to protect this girl, not to torture her. To allow these four jerks to get away with their actions is a damned insult to every real man in the country -- and a message to women that the small minority of criminal males has society's permission to run amock.

[progmom]

1. thank you!!!!

[Warpy]

15. Thank you

for reminding us that some of our brothers out there are real men, men who think a nonparticipating partner is about as exciting as a blow up doll and for the same reason.

I will never understand what it is in the punk mentality that causes them to have such a thrill using an unconscious body to masturbate into.

It's better when we're awake and we HELP, guys.

[thinkingwoman]

2. as a woman

and a victim of sexual assault, I complete agree.

Thanks for posting.

[nostamj]

3. you'll catch more DUers with an acutal subject

than a command.

just sayin'

these "read this" subjs are a major pet peeve to many....

[Lindacooks]

4. Done.

[nostamj]

9. ah.... much better!

and see, it got another KICK and you're on the greatest page...

[RevolutionaryActs]

5. Wonderful post!

:yourock:

[truebrit71]

6. I am shocked, outraged and gob-smacked that the jury..

STILL didn't get it...even after watching her getting raped ON VIDEO-TAPE....

I am SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO angry.....:grr:

[RubyDuby in GA]

7. Recommended for the Greatest Page

Simply put - this is perfect.

[Mad_Dem_X]

8. Excellent post!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[tnlefty]

10. Great post!

Thank you.

[Ron Green]

11. This was not her fault....

but she surely was stupid in what she did.

[Lindacooks]

13. Not legally applicable.

Doesn't matter HOW stupid she was. It's the boy's fault.

[Ron Green]

16. Didn't say otherwise. Legally, the boys are at fault. Except, like OJ,

they walked, right? All I said was that she behaved stupidly.

[Lindacooks]

24. I can't let this go - that's still blaming the victim.

And until our culture stops doing that, women will be at risk.

I don't care if she was parading around the room naked. Those men have a responsibility to treat her as a human being.

Here's something else my dh wrote:

"I've said it before, and I'll said it again. Real men don't take advantage of women -- much less girls! -- who have made one mistake, or made one questionable decision. When I was in college, a bunch of buddies and I were going to drive home from a bar. We'd been drinking. And a woman who also attended the college asked for a ride. We gave her the ride. (This was in the 1970s, in case you're wondering.)

Should she have trusted us? Should she have gotten into the car with us? The twelve idiots on the Illinois jury would say no; that whatever happened to her next was her own fault. But me, and my buddies, and real men everywhere, shout out in enraged disagreement. Of course she should be able to trust us! Of course women should feel justified in expecting adult males to act like men! So when we dropped her off, safe and sound, it didn't even occur to us to feel virtuous. Assault her? Take advantage of her in any way? Ridiculous! Real men don't do that. Real men don't even consider it! And it's high time that juries, and our society in general, started expecting that too."

[Ron Green]

26. I'm certainly not blaming the victim...

this jury was wrong, and yes, real men do not take advantage of even the drunkest teenage girl. These were not real men, they were horny drunken boys who acted wrongly, as horny drunken boys often do, and are culpable. The jury SHOULD have sent the other message, but they didn't. The boys SHOULD have behaved responsibly and they didn't. And yes, the girl SHOULD have made a better decision as well.

[autorank]

32. Lindacooks, Your analysis is impeccable.

:yourock:

[Lindacooks]

33. Thank you - that's all due to my dear husband, who is

a trained women's advocate.

Well, and being a woman I certainly agree with everything he has to say (at least on this subject!).

[autorank]

35. Good for him. Tell him the advocacy starts at home, for you!

[Lindacooks]

36. Oh, yes.

He and I are still so frustrated that Repukes cost him his job at the agency by cutting funding for child abuse prevention programs and then firing him when he spoke out against those cuts.

But he's going back to school to get his teacher's license. Although it's not easy finding a job as a teacher either, thanks to - wait for it - REPUKES and their 'hurt everybody except the filthy rich' poison policies.

[phylny]

40. Great post

Having gone to college from 1976 - 1980, I can say that we had many, many more "gentlemen" than we did idiots. I never felt threatened around the guys, and they all seemed to know about boundaries.

[bloom]

17. too bad the jury didn't get it that "stupid" isn't a crime - but rape is.

[blondeatlast]

22. If that is the price we all paid for being stupid, we'd be in a world of

hurt--even far more so than we are now.

Stupidity isn't a criminal act, and should not be punished (nor even compared, for that matter) to one.

[Ron Green]

25. We don't all pay such a price for being stupid, but some of us pay this or

even greater. Nowhere did I ever try to place any blame for what happened to this girl on her stupidity. The jerks who did this are solely to blame, although a jury obviously thought not. These males did not behave as "real men" (as the OP has pointed out many times), but the world is full of dangerous jerks who do not behave as real men. The teenage girl was exceedingly stupid, as many teenage girls are. She did not deserve what happened, but I hope she changes her own partying methods.

[Scout]

34. so what's your point?

if you don't think it's her fault, what's the point of pointing out that you think she was "stupid"?

She went to a party. She drank alcohol. I bet you never did anything so stupid as to go to a party and drink alcohol!

[Ron Green]

38. My point is that being raped was not her fault, but being stupid enough to

put herself and keep herself in this situation WAS her fault. It's wise to stay out of high-crime areas, and she was not wise.

[Scout]

39. since when is a party a high-crime area?

methinks you ARE blaming the victim.

Did you ever go to a party and drink alcohol? You shouldn't go to a high-crime area, are you stupid? You could get raped if you go to a party and drink alcohol.

[Ron Green]

45. Someone's being naive now, I think ...

If we consider intercourse with a semi-conscious girl who didn't consent to it (as defined by the OP above) a crime, then indeed a party is a high crime area, because that's the kind of thing that happens at parties, and always has and always will. I would venture that a high percentage, maybe 50%, of sex that happens at or after drunken high school and college parties would qualify as rape under this definition.

Therefore, one of these parties is OF COURSE a high-crime area. In most cases the drunken girl is not going to get beat up or cut up, but she is VERY LIKELY to get screwed, literally. Anyone who doesn't understand this has not been to many drunken parties.

Now, as the OP pointed out, a "real man" is not only not going to do this kind of thing, but he will prevent it from happening, by standing up to the opportunistic pussy-hounds. However, "real men" seem to be in short supply these days, and the jury in Illinois obviously didn't care enough about this trend to send the right message.

[Scout]

46. You just proved my point ... you ARE blaming the victim.

and always has and always will. I would venture that a high percentage, maybe 50%, of sex that happens at or after drunken high school and college parties would qualify as rape under this definition ... but she is VERY LIKELY to get screwed.

[Ron Green]

48. Your point is that I'm blaming the victim?

I think a more important point is that we have a significant amount of crime that's not being reported, prosecuted or punished, because juries, such as the one in Illinois, don't understand or agree with the point the OP made here: that legal responsibility relies entirely upon securing expressed permission from someone before engaging in intercourse. This jury couldn't or wouldn't make that leap, knowing, as you and I both do, that drunken parties frequently involve semi-conscious sex, and that "real men" are often nowhere to be found at such occasions.

I happen to agree that these males are guilty and should have been convicted and punished, from what I know of the case. If your point continues to be that I am "blaming the victim" just because I'm pointing out her stupidity, then we really have nothing else to discuss. I wish you well.

:-)

[Lindacooks]

12. Thank you all - this was written by my husband,

a trained women's advocate, and the head of a women's agency in the midwest before the Repukes cut funding and the agency was decimated. Yes, that loss to women and children everywhere was directly and absolutely caused by REPUKES.

Compassionate conversatives my ass.

[tubbacheez]

14. My advice: don't get into a situation where consent is so fuzzy...

... that it takes a jury watching some amateur videographer's footage to decide whether you consented or not.



I agree with you on where to draw the line.



And I simultaneously advise people not to tread too close to that line. It's just not worth it.

[Lindacooks]

21. Yes, I agree - but men need to learn the line.

Since it's their action that leads to rape.

If you are slipped GHB (the date rape drug, which can happen to anybody), you have no control over what happens next - no control over the situation.

And may I remind everyone that alcohol is actually the number one date-rape drug.

[tubbacheez]

30. Targeting "men" in general seems overbroad to me.

There are plenty of men out there with zero inclination to commit rape. There are simultaneously plenty of men out there who might. Therefore, simply being a man cannot the root cause.

I do not subscribe to the notion I've heard elsewhere that all men harbor some deep-seated inner demon that could drive them to commit rape if it ever gained the upper hand within his inner psyche.





As I see it, the actual problem is an interpersonal political situation, a powerplay. There is a continuum of influence that begins long before anyone's clothes come off.

The modern manifestations of our human species' courtship and mating rituals are social events at all levels of intimacy from fully public to fully private. It is within this social construct that men and women interact to explore, and possibly influence, each other for sexual activity.

The political problem is a imbalance of power that arises through a series of shifts in who is in control. This imbalance is then ripe for abuse.





So what's the difference between rapists and non-rapists? And what's the difference between victims and non-victims? I think it's an understanding of where the balance of power lies.

While we all have the LEGAL right to be as vulnerable as we want, I cannot ever recommend entering such a state voluntarily. The law simply sets up the terrain. But just because we CAN let ourselves become vulnerable doesn't extrapolate into thinking it's ever a good idea to do so.

So if I notice I'm becoming vulnerable (for whatever reason), I either seek the safety of long-trusted friends or I leave the party. There are plenty of parties. No need to milk every last bit of fun out of any particular one, even though it would be my legal right to do that.

Likewise, if I notice someone getting into that vulnerable state, I don't take advantage of that state. If I'm really that interested in something from this person, there will be other occassions to interact with that person. No need to press the matter right now.

But that's just me.

And notice that it doesn't matter what my gender is for the above statments to apply. It's my relative vulnerability that matters most. Not whether I'm a man or a woman.

My advice is "Don't be a rapist, and don't be a victim". And I think that version is more focused on the actual problem than telling all men to shape up.

[_TJ_]

18. wimps? weenies?

I'd call 'em something stronger than that. How about pathetic
rapist scumbags who wouldn't know acceptible behaviour if it
bit them on the ass.

These creatures do not deserve to be called men.

[unblock]

19. exactly! how dare he insult us wimps and weenies!

of course i realize why he's using those terms, he's trying to alter the behavior of the people most likely to commit this sort of heinous act, and calling them "wimps" and "weenies" might be effective to that end.

but for the record, wimps and weenies are far better men than the scum that he's talking about.

[blondeatlast]

20. Very well said and thank you. Required reading. nt

[BrklynLiberal]

23. Excellent post!!!!

Can there be a civil suit? These POS don't deserve to walk away scott free!!

[ultraist]

29. Two of the perpetrators have fled the country

So they haven't even stood trial yet in the criminal courts, but that's a good idea, she should bring a civil suit against them.

[WindRavenX]

27. best. post. ever.

Thank you so, so, so much for posting this.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

28. Exactly, this jury just got at least 100 more drunk young women raped

their biggest crime being they had a few too many around the wrong guy

[Desertrose]

31. well written and well said!

That there should have even been a question here that this wasn't rape.....disgusting how low some have sunk.

[Solly Mack]

37. Yep n/t

[Cuban_Liberal]

41. The jury heard all the testimony and viewed the tape repeatedly.

It is incredibly presumptuous to assume that the jury didn't 'get it', just because one disagrees with their verdict. It is entirely possible that they believed he did it, but also believed that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

42. It's also presumptious to believe juries are always right

maybe the prosecution sucked, but juries have been wrong-a lot. What about the OJ case? Cases against African-Americans in the Jim Crow South?

[Cuban_Liberal]

43. They get the benefit of the doubt, IMO.

The contrary proposition is unacceptable, to me.

[cally]

44. Thanks for posting this

This whole case and some of the responses on this board sickens me. These men were not rowdy boys....they were adults who raped a young woman.

[Nikia]

47. Thanks for posting this

It is unfortunate in our culture that there are young men who think that anything other than forced rape is acceptable. Men need to be taught that anything other than active consent of a non impaired adult (or someone within the age of consent for someone their age) is wrong and doesn't make them more of a man.