Comment by _qwfv
4 years ago
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.
To be clear, that guy held several positions of power over her. Even in the most absolutely charitable reading, which is that this is a bad relationship (a reading I strongly disagree with) -- if you hold significant power over someone, you shouldn't be entering into casual sexual relationships.
If you want to pursue that relationship, it can be done, but not carelessly. This isn't a situation where a one night stand went awkwardly, there are several additional factors here.
> if you hold significant power over someone, you shouldn't be entering into casual sexual relationships
I think this situation is stretching the word "power". There's a social power imbalance, sure - but nobody acts shocked when sports figures and rock stars sleep with groupies. Hell, they write autobiographies. We don't live in a caste system where people with X popularity can only sleep with other Xers.
She didn't work for the guy nor did her career or finances depend on him. He wasn't a VC lording (someone else's) money over her. She was a naive young adult new in town and the guy was an (extremely) minor celebrity. People have hooked up for far worse reasons. If the guy was simply a better date we wouldn't be talking about this.
1 reply →
Perhaps why she did not explicitly call out rape in her message. However, it's a very realistic abuse and harassment claim, that in itself is already extremely problematic.
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.
She was left panicked and crying. That's not generally a sign that there was unambiguous consent.
And it doesn't take a Rasputin-like figure to be an abuser. Plenty of people are taken advantage of and taught to believe things they later realize were abusive, even in relatively short situations. Pretty held all the power here -- he controlled where she was staying, he helped her get to the conference, she was intoxicated, she believe he was her mentor, she believe he had the ability to get her industry connections, etc.
Coercing someone into sex that they later realize wasn't consensual (once they are free from that person's influence) doesn't mean she was lying in the moment or is somehow "discovering" something now.
> Can I not expect her to know, in the typical case, whether she does or does not consent to sex?
Adult humans (because I think this can happen to men too), can absolutely be caught off guard and be "unsure" about whether they are consenting to sex. Not everyone is wired the same, and not everyone is able to make a quick snap judgement. Not everyone is fully able to say no when pressured.
Furthermore, grappling with the question, "Was I just raped/sexually abused?" is really, really challenging. What does that do to your identity? Are you forever a victim? Are you going to have to out yourself and someone else? Will you forever be the target of the public's pity? Are you going to have that stigma attached to you when you want to enter relationships in the future? That's a LOT to put on someone, and many, many victims choose to try and believe that things were consensual, because it seems easier that facing the realization they were abused.
She says that she remembers panicking and crying. I agree that those are both clear signs of non-consensual sex. Why does it take months and therapy for her to decode those clear signals? If Jon noticed her crying and panicking we would expect him to interpret that as a clear "I do not consent" signal.
The power Pretty holds here is pretty minor. He's helping her get into conferences and mentoring her. He "controlled where she was staying" in the sense that he made the reservation for their AirBnB. He's not confiscating her passport, she isn't destitute. She could've gotten another hotel, hostel, AirBnB. To be clear, I am not saying "She didn't get another room and so deserves to be raped" but I am saying that his "power" in this regard is pretty minor - just because someone is paying for your room that shouldn't make it impossible for you to say "No" to them.
A big part of why it is morally and legally wrong to have sex with children is that children aren't mature enough to make decisions about sex. Children cannot consent. You seem to be suggesting that a similar standard applies to this adult woman - she can't know if she consented to a sexual encounter or not. To me, that implies you are suggesting it should be illegal to have sex with this woman - after all, she apparently can't tell if she consented or not.
9 replies →
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?
Women often feel confused about the detail of their own consent after date rape or acquaintance rape. This is true in part because most people imagine rape is some kind of violent assault by a total stranger conking them on the head and dragging them into an alleyway.
They don't expect to have to ask themselves how much alcohol is too much alcohol for me to have been consenting? Did he or did he not intentionally get me drunk for the purpose of impairing my judgement?
Did he or did he not lie to me and maneuver me into staying alone with him in an Airbnb in the name of "helping" me? Since he did, in fact, help me get to this conference, does that somehow negate his bad actions or something?
Etc.
People expect rape to be some obvious, easily identifiable crime and it's often not.
I once saw a question posted to the internet where the woman was like "I know I need to drink less..." when a colleague plied her with alcohol until she couldn't stand up anymore and then took her to his hotel room. She felt she had been unfaithful to her boyfriend and internet strangers had to tell her "Girl, you were raped, not unfaithful."
Hopefully women are clearer than that "in the typical case." Presumably, "the typical case" isn't actually rape.
But what she described is very normal for anyone who has been treated abusively not by some random stranger at gun point but by someone insinuating themselves into their lives and claiming to be a friend who just wants to help, etc. Even without the detail of sex, people often agonize over what they did wrong, whether or not they "owe" someone who intentionally shafted them etc when they were supposed to be friends, business partners, etc.
People who know ahead of time how this works are much less vulnerable to such predators and can still get shafted. Predators typically seek to place themselves in a position of trust and to operate under a cloak of plausible deniability. They actively seek to obfuscate their real intentions and then act all hurt if you question their intentions, etc.
It's very hard to sort something like that out.
People expect rape to be some obvious, easily identifiable crime and it's often not.
They expect that because rape carries enormous jail penalties, because it's got a clear legal definition and because as the extremely low successful prosecution rate shows, most juries are not actually willing to send a man to jail for a decade on the basis of claims like "He invited me to his room, I brought a bottle of wine, we had sex and for months we were still friends because I told everyone I agreed, but now I changed my mind". That is not rape, and if she was claiming it was, she'd be making a false allegation of rape, which would be very serious.
This pretty simple concept has been relentlessly attacked for decades now by a rather nasty form of feminist activist who isn't satisfied with the standard definition of rape and who have been trying to change it to something more like this: "Rape is whatever a woman says it is". But they want the jail penalties to remain. That's dystopian and no honest person can support it, but sadly, many years of aggressive activism have resulted in the legal system being steadily chipped away when it comes to men and accusations of rape. That's why in the UK just a few years ago it was discovered there had been a massive set of miscarriages of justice, where men had been falsely accused of rape and sent to prison when evidence the women was lying was withheld from the defense. It happened because the woman in charge of the CPS had the mentality of "the victim must always be believed", leading to a collapse in standards. Many innocent men were jailed and their lives were ruined. Now one MP is campaigning to change the law to ban the form of evidence that was used to get the men released.
Honestly, I went into this article with an open mind. There are plenty of nerdy guys at programming conferences who don't know how to handle women. But this essay leaves a very bitter taste. As other commenters observe, she appears to be defining sexual harassment as "it means whatever I want it to mean at any later time", which is not something that can ever be fair to men.
1 reply →
I think you underestimate how skilled abusers can be at emotional manipulation.
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.
Consent is unambiguous and enthusiastic yes. The default assumption is that no consent is given. Not saying yes is the same as saying no.
> Consent is unambiguous and enthusiastic yes.
No, “consent” is, like “intent” on the other side, a mental state rather than an action: it is the active desire for the act.
An ambiguous and enthusiastic yes is outward evidence of consent, though, and it tends to be the kind of evidence without which (or at least, some similarly very clear sign) we would tend not to infer consent to other acts where consent negates criminality, like battery.
I agree that this is morally correct but the law and the majority of real life intimate interactions don't reflect this. "Yes, I agree to have sex with you, and I am stating this without being under duress" or variations of that sentence is very rarely verbalized as such beforehand. Hence innocent until proven guilty and not vice versa, reasonable doubt, etc. and all the other law jargon applied.
This just leads to sill propositions and exclamations like "Now we all have to sign a contract before we kiss another!".
Human communication is complicated and complex and error prone. Combine it with sexuality and you have a mess.
There must be room for error and for dialogue. Humans are not binary machines. We're probabilistic ones.
> This article reads like she did not say no as much as she did not say yes
Yeah, if I beat someone up and they didn’t explicitly agree or explicitly ask me not to pummel them, no one is going to hem and haw about whether or not it was battery or whether it wasn’t because of secret unexpressed consent.
But no, when the issue is battery-that-involves-sexual-penetration, *which legally had the same basic “without consent” factor (except that there tend to be more factors which explicitly negate or make the alleged victim legally incapable of consent), suddenly lots of people have a radically different view.
Beating someone up and having sex with them are two very distinct things. And saying sex is "battery that involves sexual penetration" is no helping either.
Just painting this as a simplistic "powerful male predator abuses helpless little female" does not help to move society forward one bit.
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.
I'm sure it happens, I strongly doubt it's "quite common". Especially relative to the incidence of it happening the other way (where an victim escapes and abuser and realizes they were being abused.)
People believe all sorts of things on the basis of false memories.
You know there's a fairly large community of people that are convinced that they were abducted by aliens?
There's also a community of people that are convinced they have had a past life and know the intimate details of it. They don't suffer from schizophrenia, they literally just have false memories.
In the end it shouldn't be about what party X subjectively felt or what they felt afterwards. It should be about what party X actually portrayed and communicated at the time of the encounter. If they legitimately consented and weren't intoxicated but deep down were thinking "I don't want this", then that sucks for them but no crime was committed and the counterparty isn't culpable.
I'm talking generally, not about the specific allegation in question.