Judge finds Steubenville teen athletes guilty of rape

missesdash said:

Mura, you're assuming that your definition of consent is universally known. If you think rape is violently forcing someone have sex then it's not an issue of making sure you have consent, your concern is making sure you *haven't been denied consent*. And that is disastrous thinking. Because anything but a "no" can be interpreted as consent.

So if you're raised being constantly told "no means no" and "if a girl tells you she doesn't want to, you stop" then it makes sense to think you're in the clear if she is sloppy drunk, throwing up, but going along with it.

That's my entire point: we don't teach consent, and this is the result. Over and over again. I can see why you think the rapists and even the witnesses would lie, but the victim? Do you think she was lying when she said she didn't know it was rape, even after she learned what happened?

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but it doesn't make sense to me, Misses. I agree that we need to teach consent, but to me what that really means is we need to teach respect. We don't teach young people to respect others and to assume that they don't have an automatic right to do things to others or take things from others. It shouldn't have to be a lesson specific to sex or rape. It should be just a general rule that you don't do something to someone unless they say it's okay. The minute someone assumes that, because someone is too wasted to know what's going on, that's a green light to do whatever to them, that's a problem.

In other words, I'm agreeing with your earlier point about "yes means yes." I'm adding to it the harsh message that I personally, as an individual, do not believe people who say things that suggest they don't know it's not okay to just jump on and do whatever to someone who can't answer back.

wishflower said:

Um...what? So if a girl has been raped, it's inappropriate for her to weigh in on a discussion about rape?...

Click to expand...

That's not what I meant. I already clarified my statement in another post.

muravyets said:

I'm sorry, but it doesn't make sense to me, Misses. I agree that we need to teach consent, but to me what that really means is we need to teach respect. We don't teach young people to respect others and to assume that they don't have an automatic right to do things to others or take things from others. It shouldn't have to be a lesson specific to sex or rape. It should be just a general rule that you don't do something to someone unless they say it's okay. The minute someone assumes that, because someone is too wasted to know what's going on, that's a green light to do whatever to them, that's a problem.

Click to expand...

I don't see why it's a problem to have a lesson specific to sex and rape. Seduction is a sufficiently complex and unique mode of human communication to warrant its own conversation when it comes to respect and responsibility, I think.

kuwisdelu said:

Suddenly I want to buy you a drink.

Click to expand...

Haha, me too! Bad puns can be endearing. I'm a very silly drunk, and have an unfortunate tendency to start singing opera when I'm VERY drunk. I'd take bad puns any day.

I have a tendency to accidentally say inappropriate things and misread social cues when I'm sober.

kuwisdelu said:

I don't see why it's a problem to have a lesson specific to sex and rape. Seduction is a sufficiently complex and unique mode of human communication to warrant its own conversation when it comes to respect and responsibility, I think.

Click to expand...

I didn't say it was a problem to have a lesson about sex and rape. Did the cosmic phenomenon of context break down while I wasn't looking this weekend? Clearly, obviously, in the context of full statements posted in this thread, I said that, over and above any question of education about sex and rape awareness, there is a whole meta-thing, sphere, whatever, of not doing shit to people without them saying its okay that is so broad and all-encompassing and common to everyday experience, that it causes me to disbelieve people who say they thought it would be okay to fuck someone who's barely conscious or totally unconscious or otherwise not going along with the effort.

I'm saying that before we get anywhere near talking about sex, there's already the concept of boundaries, and I do not believe people whose defense against a rape charge would require them to have no sense of boundaries with regard to other people's bodies.

I don't believe them. That's what I'm saying. Now, if other people do believe them, fine, whatever. I don't.

wishflower said:

It's not really that simple, though. Women in our culture are raised to use an "implied" no, because it's less rude and socially it's more comfortable.

Click to expand...

By what I've heard from at least some women, the implied "no" is also less likely to trigger retaliation--or so they hope. Because some guys who are turned down directly don't deal with it as adults.

So I've heard.

That is all sorts of effed up, but not because women are trying to avoid punishment.

Added:

muravyets said:

In terms of what constitutes consent to sex, I'd say this is one of those "when in doubt, stop" situations. If you're making moves and you're not really sure the other person is into it, stop. If you're already starting to get it on, and the other person seems shy or stiff or hesitant, stop. Ask.
... I'd really like it if more people could learn that it's not safe to assume consent without having other people having to demonstrate it by going through such trauma as this poor girl suffered.

Click to expand...

And all of this.

Hammering home the need for consent rather then the need not to have a clear "no" is part and parcel of targeting educational campaigns to those who might rape, rather than towards those who might be raped.

Enough of telling women what they can do (dubiously) to avoid appearing to ask for it. Instead, just don't be that guy.

muravyets said:

Did the cosmic phenomenon of context break down while I wasn't looking this weekend?

Click to expand...

Actually, yes. It was on the news, but without context, it probably looked like a Harlem Shake music video.

muravyets said:

I'm sorry, but it doesn't make sense to me, Misses. I agree that we need to teach consent, but to me what that really means is we need to teach respect. We don't teach young people to respect others and to assume that they don't have an automatic right to do things to others or take things from others. It shouldn't have to be a lesson specific to sex or rape. It should be just a general rule that you don't do something to someone unless they say it's okay. The minute someone assumes that, because someone is too wasted to know what's going on, that's a green light to do whatever to them, that's a problem.

In other words, I'm agreeing with your earlier point about "yes means yes." I'm adding to it the harsh message that I personally, as an individual, do not believe people who say things that suggest they don't know it's not okay to just jump on and do whatever to someone who can't answer back.

Click to expand...

I feel like so so so much of this is about respect. I remember listening to the video that Anonymous released of a young man speaking of the rape and it reeks of disrespect: disrespect toward people, toward the authorities, toward laws. This isn't just about rape. I sense with this particular case, it's about entitlement as well. Entitlement on part of the students who committed the crimes, and, on part of the adults who took part in trying to cover this up.

On another (related) note, the way CNN and other news outlets are handling this is downright infuriating. CNN in particular seems to be focusing on "the poor boys who lost their futures because of putting pictures up on Twitter."

God, what happened to women's rights that we've fallen this far?

CrastersBabies said:

Entitlement on part of the students who committed the crimes, and, on part of the adults who took part in trying to cover this up.

Click to expand...

That's why I'm glad there's going to be a Grand Jury on this.

An adult or adults bought the booze present at all three parties. Adults left the kids alone and let them not sexually assault the young girl but god knows what else - including driving drunk from one party to the other.

I want their names out there. I want to know who wasn't looking out for the teenagers and provided them not only with free booze but also refused to help the authorities figure out this crime.

There's a lot more slime under that rock that needs to be cleaned off. The adults involved may not have raped the young woman but they're sure responsible to some degree for their lack of supervision and illegally providing a safe haven for underage drinking and sexual assault.

IMO, of course.

And Fox News has outed the victim's name on national television. http://www.alternet.org/media/fox-news-airs-name-16-year-old-steubenville-rape-victim

In the clip, Mays states: “I would truly like to apologize to [redacted], her family, my family and the community.”
But unlike CNN, which aired the same clip on Monday, Fox failed to redact the victim’s first name when airing the clip.

Click to expand...

Anaquana said:

And Fox News has outed the victim's name on national television. http://www.alternet.org/media/fox-news-airs-name-16-year-old-steubenville-rape-victim

Click to expand...

I was about to get all outraged when I read

But unlike CNN, which aired the same clip on Monday, Fox failed to redact the victim’s first name when airing the clip

Click to expand...

My bolding.

The release of a first name is not the same as the release of the complete name. It's still poor in poor taste imo, but I'm not nearly as outraged as I was over the earlier CNN report worried about the future of the little rapists poor young boys.

I'm still outraged by it because it's far too easy for people to take just a first name, age, and city they live in and cross-reference it with other readily available information on the internet and find their full name and possibly address, especially if it's a unique name (I don't know if it is because I didn't watch the unaltered video clip).

Anaquana said:

I'm still outraged by it because it's far too easy for people to take just a first name, age, and city they live in and cross-reference it with other readily available information on the internet and find their full name and possibly address, especially if it's a unique name (I don't know if it is because I didn't watch the unaltered video clip).

Click to expand...

To be clear, it's not that I think it was okay for Fox to air the victim's first name. It's just that I'll save the bulk of my outrage for a network that treats rapists like victims.

Plus, I hear she's been getting DEATH THREATS already...

And god, doesn't that say a lot of horrible things about this country when not only does a rape victim gets death threats but it's not even UNEXPECTED.

Zoombie said:

Plus, I hear she's been getting DEATH THREATS already...

And god, doesn't that say a lot of horrible things about this country when not only does a rape victim gets death threats but it's not even UNEXPECTED.

Click to expand...

Last night I saw a website full of screen-captures from Twitter, the (vile) ones with the #steubenville hashtag. I wanted to throw up after about the first three.

Then to hear the victim's getting DEATH THREATS? Then there's the fact that no, I'm not even remotely surprised by it? Horrid. Just horrid.

I'm going back to writing now, sans internet, because I want to drop-kick the world.

I hope she sues the holy crap out of Fox News and buys herself an island somewhere.

The girl is getting death threats? For what, being raped by a group of yahoos who thought it was okay because she was drunk and then decided to press charges?

I think I just tossed up a little of my breakfast.

Not only should she sue them for everything they have, she should also sue the living hell out of the network. And I hope she wins.

CrastersBabies said:

I hope she sues the holy crap out of Fox News and buys herself an island somewhere.

Click to expand...

Sue them for what? Unless things have changed, it's policy to not publish a sexual assault victim's name, not the law.

absitinvidia said:

Sue them for what? Unless things have changed, it's policy to not publish a sexual assault victim's name, not the law.

Click to expand...

Ah, but this is America. You can sue someone for anything.

kuwisdelu said:

Actually, yes. It was on the news, but without context, it probably looked like a Harlem Shake music video.

Click to expand...

Oh, well, that explains a lot of things, then.

absitinvidia said:

Sue them for what? Unless things have changed, it's policy to not publish a sexual assault victim's name, not the law.

Click to expand...

The victim in this case is a minor and media need a parent's permission to do anything with regard to a minor. Also, since no one is surprised that the victim of a sex crime is getting death threats, then it should come as no surprise to Fox that their carelessness and thoughtlessness put an already horribly traumatized girl's life in danger. Yeah, they should be sued.

And yeah, in the US, anyone can bring a suit against anyone for anything. It's civil law, not criminal. There doesn't have to be a law against what they did for people who are harmed by it to bring a suit.

Just to bring some cheer into your lives.

Trigger warning, btw.

And if you're interested in fighting it out on twitter, here are the unedited tweets.

I'll finally chime in. I remember the last thread on the subject where I was lambasted but so be it. I'm wine-fortified.

I think the sentence--the incarceration part--is appropriate. I'm not so sure about the sexual offender part. If the "minor" designation makes it easier for them to move on, then maybe it's not so bad.

But I do think kids are really fucking stupid. I also think kids are not always taught properly, and thus don't see the things that they do wrong as actually wrong. And yeah, these are kids to me. Just because "some kids know better" doesn't make it more right to me that the punishment should be extreme. I think the girl, and the boys, needed more instruction that they didn't get (and I wholeheartedly agree with missesdash's suggestion that we as parents and adults need to do more, teach more, explain more thoroughly and accurately). I think it's clear that these kids aren't actually sociopaths headed down a path of raping and pillaging for the rest of their lives. And so I think the punishment should fit the crime, and that rehabilitation, and education, rather than punishment and a sense of "justice served" is the key to change--for these boys, and for all our kids.