Slightly later she writes "I maintained friendship with him for a few months after May, because I was convinced that it was all consensual". I think it is something of a philosophical issue to debate about whether you can think you consented and later determine you didn't. It's also strange to me that it takes months and consultation with a therapist to determine if you did or did not consent.
Have you ever been in an abusive relationship? Or seen one firsthand? People can be made to believe all sorts of things that aren't true by charismatic or powerful people. It may take them some time to realize they are being tricked or abused.
You absolutely can be told you consented, and trust that person's word, and realize later that no, actually you had not. It's just convenient for the abuser for you to believe you had.
>You absolutely can be told you consented, and trust that person's word, and realize later that no, actually you had not. It's just convenient for the abuser for you to believe you had.
There has to be a line drawn somewhere when you start talking about hardcore felony level criminal accusations though. Should anyone who's ever had an (at the time) consensual intimate encounter then have cart blanche to hold accusations of rape over you for the rest of your life?
I mean just picture this guy's POV for a moment. You think you had a consensual relationship with someone, who then continued having friendly relations with you for months afterwards. Then out of nowhere you're being called a rapist on the internet. I get that the guy is a total creep. But it's absolutely terrifying to think that being in a crappy relationship can land you in prison now.
Maybe that's true and some Rasputin-like figure could manipulate you into believing you thought things that you didn't, but that doesn't seem to be what is alleged here. She wasn't living in this guy's cult, he helped her professionally and with conferences, and she agreed to share a room with him on a trip. That strikes me as less mind-control and more just a situation that people get into sometimes.
She is and was an adult woman. Can I not expect her to know, in the typical case, whether she does or does not consent to sex? And I'm not talking about "He got me drunk and then forced sex when I couldn't consent" - obviously that would be rape, but it seems like you should realize that when you sober up, not months or years later.
This article reads like she did not say no as much as she did not say yes, which leaves the reader in a muddled, grey area and unsure of how to interpret anything. Is she consenting, or more specifically, is she explicitly claiming to not consent? It's a very awkward article, leaving readers with more questions than answers at the end, which is never what you want your readers to feel when garnering support.
The same argument can be made the other direction. It is quite common for someone to be convinced after the fact it was nonconsensual when it was indeed consensual.
> it's also strange to me that it takes months and consultation with a therapist to determine if you did or did not consent.
No, this is not strange at all. Psychology is a non-falsifiable "science" with foundational literature that is littered with reproducibility scandals.
Psychological therapists are roughly as scientific as tarot card readers, and this woman's therapist had a full three years of time to gaslight her memories.
It's certainly possible that Pretty did what he's accused of. But any time you hear "years" and "therapist" in the context of an abuse allegation, be skeptical. The entire field is pure charlatanry.
Being taken advantage of while intoxicated and while there was a significant power imbalance between the two. She was not in a position to give consent there -- being intoxicated, being in a place that was being rented Pretty (and she could risk being out on the street if she refused), having no money and luggage on hand, being the mentee of Pretty (or believing she could be), etc.
She ended up crying and panicking. That generally isn't the outcome of a consensual relationship.
I don't know what the law is in Germany, but here in California the threshold for alcohol isn't intoxication it's incapacitation. What happens if two intoxicated people have sex with each other? They're both simultaneously rape victim but also rapists?
They were both intoxicated and Pretty is not a very big name, not even in the Scala community. It's not as if we were talking about Martin Odersky. The guy gives talks from time to time and contributes code to some projects. That's it.
> She was not in a position to give consent there [...]
Of course she was. If all the stated facts in her account are true, then Pretty was behaving like an asshole (In setting her up and then trying to get in her knickers). But she was absolutely in a position to consent. Otherwise you make it very easy for people to shed responsibility. Being in a shitty position doesn't absolve you from bad decisions.
> She ended up crying and panicking.
If that's true, Petty should have stopped right there and then. Pretty much an asshole otherwise.
That said; that's _her_ side of the story and while I'm not _not_ believing her, I'm also not making any judgement on Pretty.
It definitely sounds like he abused his position and did a horrible thing, but the thing he did is not rape (assuming OP story is 100% accurate description of events).
If 2 people are intoxicated and have sex, do they both rape each other? If one person holds more power than the other, while both are intoxicated, is it just a one-way rape? Or is it still a two-way rape, where one person just "rapes a bit more" and the other person "rapes a bit less"? What if the person who had power ends up regretting sex afterwards and cries, does it "turn the tables" and cause the rapist to suddenly become the victim of rape, after the fact?
Yes, she was drunk. Yes, she later regretted having sex. These things alone do not mean that rape was committed. As far as I can tell, she is not referring to the events as "rape", so maybe you shouldn't either.
She was unable to resist his advances, for various reasons listed. While it doesn't sound like she beat him off with a stick, it does sounds like she shut down, dissociated, and didn't say "no." Consent isn't presumed; consent is not the lack of a "no", consent is the presence of free, ongoing, and enthusiastic yes. Even if she reluctantly agreed, it consent wasn't freely given in light of the power imbalance and intoxication. Even if she reluctantly agreed, that isn't enthusiastic consent. Even if she wanted sex, but he refused to use the protection she wanted him to use, that's not ongoing consent. But she clearly didn't want sex with this dude; not like that
She is definitely the kind of woman where a man shouldn't be making such advances. Let her be the acting party. She would have been telling another story if she were on top and had taken the initiative.
One of the simplest ways for a man to avoid the problems of consent where he suspects there may be is to be the one from whom consent is needed.
That is the absolute safest other than leaving. If you as a man attempt to get consent that may not be something you're able to obtain. She might be intoxicated and unable to consent. You might not know that. However what's safe is to let anyone initiate sex with you while you remain passive and let them have sex with you.
If you leave then I would strongly advise to say it is because you are feeling sick and think it's something you ate. Go to the toilet first and say you have the runs. That will cushion her pride and make her just glad you left. No chance of something mean-spirited.
Slightly later she writes "I maintained friendship with him for a few months after May, because I was convinced that it was all consensual". I think it is something of a philosophical issue to debate about whether you can think you consented and later determine you didn't. It's also strange to me that it takes months and consultation with a therapist to determine if you did or did not consent.
Have you ever been in an abusive relationship? Or seen one firsthand? People can be made to believe all sorts of things that aren't true by charismatic or powerful people. It may take them some time to realize they are being tricked or abused.
You absolutely can be told you consented, and trust that person's word, and realize later that no, actually you had not. It's just convenient for the abuser for you to believe you had.
>You absolutely can be told you consented, and trust that person's word, and realize later that no, actually you had not. It's just convenient for the abuser for you to believe you had.
There has to be a line drawn somewhere when you start talking about hardcore felony level criminal accusations though. Should anyone who's ever had an (at the time) consensual intimate encounter then have cart blanche to hold accusations of rape over you for the rest of your life?
I mean just picture this guy's POV for a moment. You think you had a consensual relationship with someone, who then continued having friendly relations with you for months afterwards. Then out of nowhere you're being called a rapist on the internet. I get that the guy is a total creep. But it's absolutely terrifying to think that being in a crappy relationship can land you in prison now.
4 replies →
Maybe that's true and some Rasputin-like figure could manipulate you into believing you thought things that you didn't, but that doesn't seem to be what is alleged here. She wasn't living in this guy's cult, he helped her professionally and with conferences, and she agreed to share a room with him on a trip. That strikes me as less mind-control and more just a situation that people get into sometimes.
She is and was an adult woman. Can I not expect her to know, in the typical case, whether she does or does not consent to sex? And I'm not talking about "He got me drunk and then forced sex when I couldn't consent" - obviously that would be rape, but it seems like you should realize that when you sober up, not months or years later.
15 replies →
This article reads like she did not say no as much as she did not say yes, which leaves the reader in a muddled, grey area and unsure of how to interpret anything. Is she consenting, or more specifically, is she explicitly claiming to not consent? It's a very awkward article, leaving readers with more questions than answers at the end, which is never what you want your readers to feel when garnering support.
6 replies →
The same argument can be made the other direction. It is quite common for someone to be convinced after the fact it was nonconsensual when it was indeed consensual.
2 replies →
> It's also strange to me that it takes months and consultation with a therapist to determine if you did or did not consent.
It would have been strange to me.
But I was recently victim of emotional abuse by someone I admired and trusted. And it is not strange to me anymore.
Abusers are sophisticated. Trust is a complex thing.
> it's also strange to me that it takes months and consultation with a therapist to determine if you did or did not consent.
No, this is not strange at all. Psychology is a non-falsifiable "science" with foundational literature that is littered with reproducibility scandals.
Psychological therapists are roughly as scientific as tarot card readers, and this woman's therapist had a full three years of time to gaslight her memories.
It's certainly possible that Pretty did what he's accused of. But any time you hear "years" and "therapist" in the context of an abuse allegation, be skeptical. The entire field is pure charlatanry.
That is not what she says there. She says she felt uncomfortable and taken advantage of.
Being taken advantage of while intoxicated and while there was a significant power imbalance between the two. She was not in a position to give consent there -- being intoxicated, being in a place that was being rented Pretty (and she could risk being out on the street if she refused), having no money and luggage on hand, being the mentee of Pretty (or believing she could be), etc.
She ended up crying and panicking. That generally isn't the outcome of a consensual relationship.
I don't know what the law is in Germany, but here in California the threshold for alcohol isn't intoxication it's incapacitation. What happens if two intoxicated people have sex with each other? They're both simultaneously rape victim but also rapists?
They were both intoxicated and Pretty is not a very big name, not even in the Scala community. It's not as if we were talking about Martin Odersky. The guy gives talks from time to time and contributes code to some projects. That's it.
> She was not in a position to give consent there [...]
Of course she was. If all the stated facts in her account are true, then Pretty was behaving like an asshole (In setting her up and then trying to get in her knickers). But she was absolutely in a position to consent. Otherwise you make it very easy for people to shed responsibility. Being in a shitty position doesn't absolve you from bad decisions.
> She ended up crying and panicking.
If that's true, Petty should have stopped right there and then. Pretty much an asshole otherwise.
That said; that's _her_ side of the story and while I'm not _not_ believing her, I'm also not making any judgement on Pretty.
It definitely sounds like he abused his position and did a horrible thing, but the thing he did is not rape (assuming OP story is 100% accurate description of events).
If 2 people are intoxicated and have sex, do they both rape each other? If one person holds more power than the other, while both are intoxicated, is it just a one-way rape? Or is it still a two-way rape, where one person just "rapes a bit more" and the other person "rapes a bit less"? What if the person who had power ends up regretting sex afterwards and cries, does it "turn the tables" and cause the rapist to suddenly become the victim of rape, after the fact?
Yes, she was drunk. Yes, she later regretted having sex. These things alone do not mean that rape was committed. As far as I can tell, she is not referring to the events as "rape", so maybe you shouldn't either.
2 replies →
She was unable to resist his advances, for various reasons listed. While it doesn't sound like she beat him off with a stick, it does sounds like she shut down, dissociated, and didn't say "no." Consent isn't presumed; consent is not the lack of a "no", consent is the presence of free, ongoing, and enthusiastic yes. Even if she reluctantly agreed, it consent wasn't freely given in light of the power imbalance and intoxication. Even if she reluctantly agreed, that isn't enthusiastic consent. Even if she wanted sex, but he refused to use the protection she wanted him to use, that's not ongoing consent. But she clearly didn't want sex with this dude; not like that
She is definitely the kind of woman where a man shouldn't be making such advances. Let her be the acting party. She would have been telling another story if she were on top and had taken the initiative.
One of the simplest ways for a man to avoid the problems of consent where he suspects there may be is to be the one from whom consent is needed.
That is the absolute safest other than leaving. If you as a man attempt to get consent that may not be something you're able to obtain. She might be intoxicated and unable to consent. You might not know that. However what's safe is to let anyone initiate sex with you while you remain passive and let them have sex with you.
If you leave then I would strongly advise to say it is because you are feeling sick and think it's something you ate. Go to the toilet first and say you have the runs. That will cushion her pride and make her just glad you left. No chance of something mean-spirited.