From what I have read she had several reasons not to fight back. She was a poor, illiterate immigrant from the third world who had worked her way up to having her own floor to clean in a ritzy hotel. Any sort of he said/she said between her and a distinguished guest would not be sure to go her way.
She said he forcefully clamped his hands to the side of her head. Whether he did this as a blow was not clear. He had already at that point bruised her from brutally grabbing her crotch. The hospital later verified the damage. She claims her head was forced against the bathroom wall so it is easy to see how she could have easily been trapped or have thought her head would be beaten against the wall.
She also tore or stretched a ligament in her shoulder trying to fight him off and this injury was also later confirmed. I am not expressing an opinion on what happened only stating what she said occurred and what the papers reported the medical examination found. He would likely claim consensual if rough sex with an extortion attempt afterwards. Had she bitten him she would likely be in prison whether he attempted to rape her or not. He is a very powerful man.
In these circumstances I don’t think it is difficult to understand how such a thing could happen. I also wouldn’t place any bets on which of the two was stronger than the other. He looked pretty barrel chested to me while perhaps being short in stature. If the rumors are true then he has a lot of experience with this sort of thing and being prepared for violence is a huge advantage psychologically. If you think you are going to be putting in a new roll of toilet paper and you find your head banged against the tile wall instead you might not be in the best frame of mind to weigh everything quickly enough to make the very best decision. Whereas your attacker has likely fantasized the scenario and role played through it in his head… if he hasn’t already acted his fantasies out on other victims.
You don’t have to beat someone physically, just psychologically. Entire wars have been won that way. Being willing to fight isn’t just half the battle… sometimes it is the whole battle.
Forced oral sex among males is fairly common in prisons, according to a 2001 report by Human Rights Watch. No Escape: Male Rape in U.S. Prisons
Google for a .pdf.
I think the instinct, however, would not to clench your jaw in that situation - you’d be struggling and frightened and it might be tough to remain lock-jawed.
Except no one is saying that. The question seems to have been asked in good faith and the OP came back and said basically “Oh, I get it now. Thanks”. It’s been a great example of ignorance fought.
I agree with rachelellogram about this thread in general. Simply saying ‘no’ is sufficient grounds for rape when a stranger is involved, and any force removes all doubt. No one is required to fight to death to avoid being a victim in order to establish a crime. I’ll reserve other comments regarding the ignorance displayed in the topic of this thread.
But we don’t know if the accuser simply said no. DSK is claiming that she did not. Whether in fact it’s possible to force a woman to do this has a bearing on that.
If it were established that it’s impossible to force a woman to do this, then it’s unlikely that she simply said no. Because for the same reason that she said no, she would have also resisted. If OTOH, it were possible to force her, then it’s also possible that she said no and was subsequently forced.
That. And also, I suspect that biting off a penis could constitute lethal force. That doesn’t come naturally to most Western females, even in self defense. Not all of course. That doesn’t come naturally to most Western males, even in self defense. Not all of course- and the proportions might vary by gender. This is setting aside the cultural issues in the DSK case.
As a self defense matter, I would think attacking the balls would be slightly preferable. But either one would probably work.
There is no implicit “yes” when it comes to sex with passing strangers. Whether she actually verbalized the word “no” is irrelevant. Consent is not presumed, it is not the default. What if a rape victim didn’t speak English and know the word “no”? What if a rape victim were mute and couldn’t speak at all? What if a rape victim were unconscious and unaware of the situation?
Would a reasonable person say that this victim consented because she didn’t explicitly say the word “no” to her attacker? Sex is not “yes unless and until the other person says no.” Sex is “no unless and until the other person says yes.” ESPECIALLY with a passing stranger. ESPECIALLY when the stranger resists so violently that she ends up with bruised genitals, a head injury, and a torn shoulder. Claiming otherwise is rape-apologism.
Man I was this was the pit so that I could say what I really think to you.
Who ever said that the default for sex was yes? Or anything else that you are alleging.
I know for myself, that if I ever attempted, or it even crossed my mind to force anyone to fellate me I would be terrified of teeth. So from that point of view I can understand the question asked here.
From the answers it is also apparent that fear is an extremely powerful weapon.
Shrill screaming never helps anyone when a genuine question is asked.
I didn’t happen to say this, & in general, rachelellogram’s post is off target and she does not appear to understand the discussion. So the following is not directly related to my previous comments.
But as it happens, I do think the default for sex is yes. At least for legal purposes.
And the same goes for any other human interaction. If two people are walking together, you don’t assume that one is kidnapping the other absent positive proof of willingness. And so on.
There’s no reason for a special case to be made for sex other than that people who are worked up about rape prefer a different standard.
I’m not a lawyer or an expert on these matters but when 2 strangers have sex and one of them ends up with bruised genitals, a head injury, and a torn shoulder, and their lifetime encounters total to less than 30 minutes, my default assumption doesn’t involve consent.
I suspect there is some cross talk here, I doubt Machine Elf is counting opening the lips to be opening the mouth (jaw). I know my teeth are not so tightly fitting that I am unable to breath through them and my lips aren’t strong enough to provide any kind of barrier anyway.
Now I could see how fear and adrenaline could make breathing through my teeth problematic. I’m fine sitting in front of a computer, but I probably feel starved for air if I had fear and adrenaline running through my system, but mimicking said scenario (nose plugged) doesn’t require my jaw to unclench to breath and I think that’s what Machine Elf was getting at. That said, teeth can be knocked out with a boot to the face (or some other force) and once you have no front teeth there exists a place to put fingers so you can pry the mouth open.
There is no implied “yes” or “no” in sex. In a “he said she said” situation, the totality of the evidence is considered. Do the people know each other? Is this typical behaviour - for a normal person, or for these characters? Did their actions - ie. going with the person, saying something, etc. even suggest consent? What physical evidence is there?
Yes, sometimes (!! sometimes!) people allege rape or abuse where none exists; but usually this is a bargaining ploy in an ongoing (deteriorating?) relationship, not between perfect strangers. (although Duke Lacrosse comes to mind). And I still suspect that (like many experts in the field say) the number of unreported real rapes far far exceeds any “yes but they also lie” examples.
Note DSK has (allegedly) done similar acts before. The two did not know each other. The maid was where a maid was supposed to be, doing her job. The physical evidence suggests force was used. The maid was found in a bad state by a supervisor, she did not go running looking for authorities to raise trouble like a real “cry wolf” person would.
DSK may argue that she was a hooker… yea like an African immigrant would have the social smarts to offer her services to very many guests without being reported to the management toute suite. He may argue that she is lying, but physical evidence suggests otherwise. He may argue she is lying or exaggerting, or consented and then lied as a get rich scheme.
Are we supposed to be surprised that a low-wage black person living in New York knows drug dealers? Or that someone has not said to her, when she was victimized in America by an incredibly wealthy man, that the Goldman v OJ Simpson option meant she may have a jewel-encrusted silver lining in her very dark cloud? She may be poor, but she’s not stupid.
