The Hofstra Date Rape That Wasn't

maybe we should not name the accused, either

By: halides1 | Sat, 10/17/2009 - 12:46

If we agree not to identify the accuser in a rape case, why not shield the names of the accused as well? The allegation of rape carries a strong stigma, before a trial or even after a verdict of not guilty. For one thing, not everyone believes a "not guilty" verdict. With on-line searching as easy as it is, a shield law would protect the accused against undue harm.

Erring on the Side of Privacy

By: h0tr0d | Fri, 10/16/2009 - 10:13

Emily Bazelon makes clear she errs on the side of privacy for the false accusation of rape. Why ? She links to a "cogent" argument for release of the accusers name, but provides no background on her position. Please Emily, inquiring minds want to know, when physical evidence exists that someone falsely accused someone of rape, please explain your position that the accuser should be protected. Is there any other area of law this "privilege" exists ? How do you demand equality while still demanding special treatment ?

journalism almost as bad as Nifong's conduct

By: halides1 | Thu, 10/08/2009 - 08:16

tmaguire18,

If the laws of chemistry and physics work the same way in Durham, NC as they do everywhere else, we can be certain that Mr. Evans, Mr. Finnerty, and Mr. Seligmann did not have any sexual contact with Ms. Mangum. No DNA evidence was found from any lacrosse player from the rape kit, even using YSTR testing. The DNA can derive from skin cells as well as semen, obviating any questions about condoms. In addition, Mr. Seligmann’s photo was taken by a security camera a mile away from the house during the time that the rape was supposedly occurring. Mr. Finnerty’s cell phone records were triangulated, and he was shown to be on the move and not at 612 Buchanan at about the same time as Mr. Seligmann was at the ATM. With respect to the alleged wall of silence from the players, Mr. Nifong was the first person to promulgate this lie, and columnists Selena Roberts of the New York Times and Ruth Sheehan of the Raleigh News and Observer both echoed it. Yet the facts are that the co-captains cooperated in the early phase of the investigation and that every white member of the team gave DNA despite being told that they could fight the nontestimonial order demanding it. The “code of silence” lie also flies in the face of common sense: At least one and probably many lacrosse players were told individually that if there had been a rape, they should go to the DA because the first player to do so would get the best deal. Most of this information, including the basis for my summary of the party, can be found in the books “Until Proven Innocent” and “It’s Not About the Truth,” or in the blog “Durham in Wonderland.”

You managed to cite two of the articles that made KC Johnson’s list of the ten worst news articles about the case (http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/03/march-madness-ii.html), so I will be brief. Duff Wilson’s New York Times story treats Officer Gottlieb’s bogus notes as if Moses brought them down from the mountain. Janet Reitman’s Rolling Stone article has very little to do with the case itself. The Newsweek cover story features mug shots of two sophomores whom we now know couldn’t have committed the alleged crime (see above), along with the headline, “Sex and Lies at Duke.” This headline presumes guilt, because the players consistently said that there was no sex, i.e., this was never a “He said, she said” case, unlike the Hofstra case. Fortunately, some of the honest and not-so-honest errors of the media were discussed in an excellent article in the American Journalism Review (http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4379). To my way of thinking, your response proves my point. The lacrosse team, and especially the indicted players, had their reputations trashed due to the MSM’s mental laziness and willingness to buy into stereotypes.

halides1

By: tmaguire18 | Tue, 10/06/2009 - 15:26

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10464110/sex__scandal_at_duke

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/25/us/25duke.html

http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=617800&TICK=NEW...

Nobody knows what really happened but how can you seriously believe that 30 teammates who are treated like Gods on their campus couldn't come up with a story that everyone sticks to. Do you really believe they are going to have a keg party until midnight and then go out for tacos without looking for another party to go to or another chance to get laid? And they all either went home and called their girlfriends (who wouldn't lie about their alibi either, right?)or got pizza then went home and went to bed at 1:30am, like every one of their stories are some variation of? If you do, then you are just as gullible as the rest of the women on campus who actually believe the complete bs they have shoveled to them, the press, the police, their attorneys (who obviously don't care b/c they are getting paid by the players' parents), and their families. 30 guys sit around the living room and only one guy makes an inappropriate comment about the broomstick? Only one guy said something about getting their money back? C'mon, you don't think some type of mob mentality creeped up in a house with 2 strippers and 30 lax teammates who felt like they got ripped off? After 6+/- hours of drinking no less? Think about it.

Victims of the media, perhaps

By: halides1 | Tue, 09/29/2009 - 14:27

TMaguire18,

Your version of the events at Duke bears almost no relationship to reality. There were no beer cans thrown. The AV was not cornered in a bathroom; she and the second stripper ended their show and locked the door of the bathroom. The only racial insult was directed at the other stripper, and it was in response to her equally vulgar and inappropriate racial remark. Most importantly, two of the three indicted players were out of the house when the racial exchange took place. I would say that the mainstream media bear some responsibility for not reporting the facts of this regrettable incident more clearly and more fairly, for failing to sort through the DNA evidence critically, and for a number of other things that are tangential to this discussion.

"Victims" of what, exactly?

By: tmaguire18 | Tue, 09/29/2009 - 10:03

"Victims" of what, exactly? The nationwide sympathy they received for cornering a stripper in a bathroom, then chasing her out by verbally abusing her, racially and sexually? The only things they were 'victims' of was the pompous, entitled upbringing they endured that taught them its okay to try and force women into sexual acts then taunt and hurl beer cans and insults at them as they run out of the house for their safety, ESPECIALLY if their strippers, and even more so if their black.

Hofstra case unlike Duke

By: halides1 | Tue, 09/29/2009 - 07:57

Dear Ms. Bazelon,

Your brief allusions to the Duke lacrosse case might unintentionally mislead those unfamiliar with the earlier incident. First, the three accused players never had any sexual contact with the false accuser, unlike what appears to be true at Hofstra. Second, the Duke case was not a "he said, she said" situation, but it was an instance of prosecutorial and police misconduct. Third, the Hofstra faculty did not pounce on the accused in the way that some faculty at Duke did. I have yet to decide whether the young men at Hofstra should be called victims, but there is no doubt in my mind that the three accused players were victims in several ways.

consent and safety

By: P Starling | Sat, 09/26/2009 - 14:56

One thing the guys on this thread seem not to be getting is the problem of consent, refusal and safety. If you were a woman alone with five guys who intended to have sex with you, what are the possible consequences of saying yes or saying no? If you say no, perhaps everyone stops and goes back to the party, and forgets about it. That's the response you hope for, right? But is it possible that you would say no and would be forced anyway? Yes. Is it possible to be in a situation where you feel that your best chance of not getting hurt is not to cry or scream or say no? Yes, that's possible as well. And, on balance, it's more likely you will be raped and hurt in a situation where there are five men, one woman, no one else around, and inhibitions have been lowered by alcohol.

Now, the smart answer is not to go in bathrooms with five drunk men who expect to have sex with you. Well, duh. But not all people (particularly drunk teenage people) can be expected to act smart all the time. And even people who act stupid should still be able to determine whether or not they want to have sex. They should still have the right to refuse.

I can see quite easily how a woman (who is intoxicated) might consent to risky sexual behavior, put herself in a secluded area, freak out and decide she's not willing, but feel like she has to have sex or risk serious injury. I can see how, in the same situation, the men involved (who are intoxicated) think they are having a super-good time and don't see any coercion at all. So what do you have? A woman who had sex with five men against her will, and five men who had no intention of having sex with a woman against her will. That is a horrible situation for everyone involved, but I'm going to remind the guys on this thread that, while the men might feel misunderstood and humiliated and harassed, the woman feels gang-raped. (And then misunderstood, humiliated and harassed.) Not to say this is what happened at Hofstra--I have no specific information. But it could easily happen.

Men would be unhappy and horrified if they knew how often the fact of their physical presence is considered threatening by women--on the street at night, too close in a public place, when accompanied by certain expressions or gestures--when it isn't intended to have that effect. It's a problem that continues into the intimate sphere, particularly since a lot of the sexual images presented in porn and in more mainstream media have some fetish edge of compulsion or control by the male. What a man may consider only sex play can nevertheless be taken as a genuine threat by the woman.

What's the answer? Women don't have as clear-cut a physiological response to arousal as men do--it's not as if they lose an erection if they get scared or are unwilling. So I encourage my younger brothers to understand the idea of enthusiastic participation: if she's not saying, "Yeah, baby!" you need to verify it's okay before you go further. And in any case where there's already a control imbalance (intoxication, multiple men, certain sex acts, an isolated situation where the man controls the means of transport, etc), it becomes really, really important.

Besides, what's not to like about enthusiastic participation? Not only does it help prevent "gray rape", it's more fun for everyone.

Anna B- You missed my point;

By: Demosthenes XXI | Sat, 09/26/2009 - 11:33

Anna B- You missed my point; not by much, but by enough to skew the conclusion. Before there can be any real work in solving most of these issues, there has to be a recognition of what is going on and a meeting of the minds on concise definitions of what is acceptable and not. Despite more vocal opinions, men are not rapists and decent men do not respect or tolerate rape. But nobody likes to be criminalized and that is exactly where the current politics of rape is heading.

In regards to "Begging and Pouting," you are putting men who "beg for sex" or react poorly to being denied sex in the same category as men who will spike a woman's drink, or use blackmail. While the second group can definitely be a subset of the first group, it is quite fallacious and unethical to lump them into one group.

Also, you are putting conditions in my argument that completely change the context in which my discussion was originally framed. But nevertheless, if after a girl or woman gives a clear and concise "no," and he continues to bother her, then she needs to get away from that guy because he is potentially a problem. My mother and father made sure that my sisters always knew that if a date didn't go the way they wanted, they could just hit a pay phone (this was before cell phones) and call home and they would come and get them.

What I meant was that parents have to teach their daughters to say "no" and help them develop the self-esteem to be able to be comfortable with their feelings and wants. If the guy continues beyond that, then we know for a fact what we are dealing with and that is where the law comes in.

What I also said is that people always try to cajole their way into getting what they want. Your placing sex on an ivory tower apart from other human wants and needs, does not change that reality. And yes, a child wanting a cookie and a desire for sex are actually congruent. Both come from a primal place in the human psyche. Children are in a closer place to their primal selves than adults. Furthermore, you are denying the simple fact that both women and men often use the ideas of these primal needs to their advantage and gain. Men trade financial/material benefits for sex with women, women trade sex for the same with men, and vice versa.

Your nightclub argument is equally as fallacious. According to you, every time that a woman decides to say no to a man in a nightclub, she is placing herself at risk of being doped or harassed by that man. This is the very thing that cause so many men to take issue with this line of reasoning. You are placing men and rape in the same context that African American men and theft has been historically placed; guilt by reasoning of identity.

Secondly, and according to your argument, there is no line between pursuit and stalking. Personally, I have walked away from a woman at a bar after being rebuffed, only to have her come back and ask "why did I give up so easily?" This issue especially damns men who unfortunately lack sufficient social experience/skills, to know the "nuances" of the difference between "no (I'm interested but I want to be chased)" and "no (I am not interested in you at all)."

Rape is a definite problem in human relationships. But as it is commonly known, rape is not about sex; it is about dominance and power. In the past, some men used the threat of rape as a means to control women. Today, some women use the specter of rape to control men. Both of these actions are wrong and debating about "degrees of wrongness" isn't going to help us solve these problems, nor is the failure of women to accept some responsibility in the failure of communication between the genders.

Your response to my post is a perfect example of that point. I acknowledged all of the problems on the male side with learning about accepting a woman's right to say "no," but you refused to acknowledge any responsibility for women in failures of communication and the reinforcement of feminine self-esteem in defense of being "cajoled" into having unwanted sex.

This isn't going to be solved until both genders come together in this.

Coercion 101

By: AnnaB | Fri, 09/25/2009 - 14:46

Demosthenes XXI - I said earlier, in regards to the idea of "consent", that men should get real consent: "Not "consent" that isn't real because someone's been coerced, pouted at, blackmailed, or begged. Not even a lack of saying no."

Breaking it down: "Blackmail" - of course, you know that the word has a colloquial usage (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackmail). And even if you're referring to the crime, the blackmailer knows that going to the police will victimize his victim again by revealing her secret. This is why blackmail is effective. But, you knew that.

As for being pouted at or begged, you say a "decent" man will stop if a girl firmly says "no." Really? So I guess you agree with my assessment of mythos as a rapist, or at least you agree he's not a "decent" man.

You then say that "pouting and begging for something you want is human nature; we do it as children and it often carries over into adulthood. Women do it all the time when they want something. Suddenly, it's wrong when men do it?"

So, I guess a "decent" man actually doesn't stop at "no." Or are most men not decent?

Plus, are you asserting that begging for sex is the same as a child begging for a cookie? Or it's the same as a woman begging for whatever it is that you think women beg for? (Which would be what? Something like OMG shoez?)

Sex is not a material good. Sex involves sharing of oneself in order to build a connection with another, and/or an agreement to have a mutual good time. Why would someone want to engage in sexual activity with another person who doesn't want to do the same? It's not for the connection or the good time - it's to have power over another human being.

Committing a fundamental violation of someone's personhood is a pretty different thing than stealing a cookie from the cookie jar. And it's disturbing that men are socialized to routinely push for this type of violation. A "decent" man doesn't pout, beg, or threaten merely when faced with not getting his rocks off. And the fact that women AND men have been told to expect that sort of behavior should tell you WHY women believe that their sexual wishes aren't worth a damn.

You say, "If the woman really does not want to have sex, she has to be firm in her resolve." Hmmm. I thought the onus was on the rapist not to rape someone. Let's just squash the notion right now that a woman can prevent her own rape. If a woman can prevent it, why would society assume she would rather be violated instead? When a woman is being victimized, she has to make whatever decision minimizes the risk of harm to her, including not saying "no" if she believes she will get hurt more severely.

We live in a world where "no" isn't enough to prevent an attack, and certainly not enough to stop it. Nothing is an ironclad guarantee of safety. So let's not pretend that it's always possible for a woman or girl to safely say "no" once, let alone a hundred times. If she fights back or doesn't, it's merely a calculation about what level of harm she is about to endure. This includes making judgment calls about the rapist's behavior after an attack. If you know that your "no" will result in months of verbal abuse and that you'll be raped anyway, it's not very practical to say no.

Coercion comes in many forms. If a man comes up and propositions a woman in a club, his behavior can indicate that if she rejects him and she stays in the club, she's going to spend all night tracking his whereabouts to try to prevent him putting something in her drink or attack her in the parking lot. Women make these calculations every day of their lives. And men mostly have no clue that it's going on. What seems like a simple question isn't a simple question if a woman is physically isolated, or intoxicated, or is being asked for the 50th time.

That's why as you note, it's essential to take a "no" seriously, and to stop physical contact then and there.

In the end, I don't understand what the problem is with a sexual initiator asking two simple questions, "would you like to have sex with me?" (at the beginning) and "Is this OK?" (throughout the act). And, of course, asking those questions as if there is an option to stop. Is that really so difficult? And yeah - I mean every time, even with a repeated sexual contact with a girlfriend, boyfriend or spouse.

This isn't about being the "guardians of womens' self-esteem." This is about affording one's sexual partner at least the same level of courtesy as you would afford a buddy when you ask what they'd like to have on a pizza. ASK BEFOREHAND!!

You also say,"Men have no problem letting women know when they want or don't want sex. History is the culprit regarding the reason that women are not as clear."

I'd say "history" is the reason that many men don't feel the need to ask women for sexual access. Because historically, men just took that forgranted.