Woman blogs about sexual assault at tech conference

[you_with_the_face]

A lot of analogies have been used in this thread but I’ve found them grossly unpersuasive mainly because they either equate women’s bodies with inanimate objects or they attempt to compare the blogger’s party-girl behavior with provocatively offensive (or criminal) behaviors like picking fights and name-calling. So consider this thought experiment instead.

A bike rider is a victim of a hit-and-run. The accident is so severe he is left with permanent injuries that will leave him handicapped for the rest of his life. The perpetrator is found, charged, but utlimately is given a slap on the wrist for reasons that appear to be groundless. The story is discussed in a forum such as this one.

Questions:

How likely is it that most of the discussion will focus on the perpetrator’s actions versus the bike rider’s? Would we see that same amount of speculation about what the bike rider was doing wrong, as we do in a thread like this or similar ones?

Would posters be wondering so vehemently about whether the biker did anything that made the perpetrator’s actions less damning? If it came out that it had been raining the day of the accident, would people be suddenly willing to cut the driver more slack? Would people be calling the biker reckless for “putting himself in that position”? After all, riding a bike in the rain is more risky than riding under normal condition. But forget about the rain. Would anyone even question why the victim was riding a bike in the first place? Surely he could have been driving–a much more safer way to travel. Would anyone even care to point that out?

Would anyone be suggesting that biker should have assessed his risk accordingly and taken responsibility for his role in the accident that maimed him? Would anyone even care to list all the ways he could have prevented the accident from happening? Would anyone ask whether the biker did something stupid like turn without signaling or jump out in front of traffic to explain how the accident may have taken place or why the penalties were so mild…even while acknowledging (over and over again) that the actual crime came from the driver’s failure to render aid and remain at the scene, not the accident itself?

Answers to all of these questions can be found by reading this thread, but I don’t think you need to read it to accurately guess.

[Algher]

A friend of mine was accused of sexual assault back in college. They were both drunk, went back to his room, at some point she cooled off and went home. The next day he was in the Dean’s office having been accused of sexual assault. Lucky for him, the Dean (female for those who think it is relevant) listened to both sides and dropped the matter as a matter of drunken misunderstanding. The Dean also told both of them to cut back on the drinking as well.

If, instead, this women had gone straight to the public - his reputation would have been trashed. Some of us would have sat around wondering if we should take her reputation down in an attempt to protect his. I am glad we did not have the net at that time.

In this tech conference case, the woman has gone public - giving the man few avenues to defend himself. He can either attack her, or call her bluff and tell her to call the cops, or he can say nothing and hope it goes away. Of course, in the modern net world his name is now permanently attached to this accusation - whether it is accurate or not.

[bengangmo]

@you_with_the_face

A lot of analogies have been used in this thread but I’ve found them grossly unpersuasive mainly because they either equate women’s bodies with inanimate objects or they attempt to compare the blogger’s party-girl behavior with provocatively offensive (or criminal) behaviors like picking fights and name-calling. So consider this thought experiment instead.

A bike rider is a victim of a hit-and-run. The accident is so severe he is left with permanent injuries that will leave him handicapped for the rest of his life. The perpetrator is found, charged, but utlimately is given a slap on the wrist for reasons that appear to be groundless. The story is discussed in a forum such as this one.

Questions:

How likely is it that most of the discussion will focus on the perpetrator’s actions versus the bike rider’s? Would we see that same amount of speculation about what the bike rider was doing wrong, as we do in a thread like this or similar ones?

Would posters be wondering so vehemently about whether the biker did anything that made the perpetrator’s actions less damning? If it came out that it had been raining the day of the accident, would people be suddenly willing to cut the driver more slack? Would people be calling the biker reckless for “putting himself in that position”? After all, riding a bike in the rain is more risky than riding under normal condition. But forget about the rain. Would anyone even question why the victim was riding a bike in the first place? Surely he could have been driving–a much more safer way to travel. Would anyone even care to point that out?

Would anyone be suggesting that biker should have assessed his risk accordingly and taken responsibility for his role in the accident that maimed him? Would anyone even care to list all the ways he could have prevented the accident from happening? Would anyone ask whether the biker did something stupid like turn without signaling or jump out in front of traffic to explain how the accident may have taken place or why the penalties were so mild…even while acknowledging (over and over again) that the actual crime came from the driver’s failure to render aid and remain at the scene, not the accident itself?

Answers to all of these questions can be found by reading this thread, but I don’t think you need to read it to accurately guess.

In answer to your question - I can’t speak for others, but for me. Absolutely YES.

I ride I bike, I rode a bike to school everyday for years. I rode a bike at night on the busiest road in what passes for my city.

Its dangerous, even when you are doing every thing right. I recognised that and conducted myself accordingly. I recognised that not everybody could see me as well as they could a car and was more circumspect because of it.

I hoped that people would give way to me as they were supposed to, but was always prepared in the expectation that I knew some wouldn’t.

Does that answer your question?

[bengangmo]

@Fionn

Would you start telling the men in the situation that letting a woman sit on their laps is trashy and not something they should be doing?

I wouldn’t tell him (my friend) not to let her sit in his lap, but I would tell him to be careful of what he does and how he behaves.

If my wife saw a strange lady sitting in my lap she would laugh and ask me later “so did you get a hard-on”? And yes I know this from the way that she has handled similar incidents before

[bengangmo]

@even_sven

This is a situation of a guy who was probably angry that he was rebuffed and figured he’d just take what he was denied.

And here we are back to “guys don’t give a shit about ladies, and will just take what they want, when they want it”

How do you know he was angry? How do you even know he wanted her?

having her “sitting in people’s laps” doesn’t make her sexually available, by the same token, because he kissed her it doesn’t mean “he desperately wanted to fuck her and is going to punish her any way he can if she doesn’t comply”

[bengangmo]

@Fionn

That’s not what I said, but I can see where you’d rather assert that than counter anything that I actually said.

Should we throw out due process? Didn’t say that, because it’s necessary.

Dispassionate search for the truth? Absolutely necessary for the legal process, but not at all what is happening here. As even sven noted, people jump to say “If that’s what happened” for sexual assault allegations in a way that you just don’t see for any other crime.

Presumption of innocence? Absolutely necessary for a defendant going to trial, but what we see here are complete strangers bending over backwards to exonerate a guy who they don’t know from Adam, even though they weren’t there either.

But you have castigated us for suggesting that alcohol consumption makes her a less reliable witness.

You have complained when we asked for his side of the story, as though that has no relevance.

So how is that NOT throwing out the priniciples of due process. You have quite obviously reached your conclusion, screw what the alleged perpetrator and other witnesses have to say

[you_with_the_face]

@bengangmo

Does that answer your question?

I’m not asking what you personally would do or say. It’s rather easy to say you’d take the enlightened position. And for all I know, maybe you would be calling the biker’s behavior into question like you have the blogger’s. Don’t have enough evidence to doubt you. But certainly you can see that other people generally aren’t that way? Can you acknowledge that? Just a little bit?

But let’s revisit the first post you made in this thread. First thing out of your keyboard was a statement supposing that if the blogger had done X behavior that happened to not be evident anywhere in the blogger’s account–only in your imagination–this would alter your assessment of the guy’s behavior.

Now you might think that a perfectly reasonable thing to say. But to me, it would be like entering a thread condeming the actions of a hit-and-run driver and saying if the victim had done X behavior (let’s say, pulled out a gun and pointed it menancingly at the driver prior to the collision), that would alter your assessment of the driver’s actions. It’s like okay, why do you think X behavior is even relevant to discuss when we haven’t been told this happened? Dreaming up creative what-ifs is cool and all, but when you keep doing it, in manner that only serves to excuse the alleged wrongdoer and slam the accuser, it doesn’t make you look very enlightened.

[bengangmo]

@Lynn_Bodoni

I don’t know exactly what she said. I don’t have evidence, other than her word. But I’ve seen this situation happen so many times that I find her believable. On the other hand, as someone else said, if she was just being a lying hosebeast, she could have made up a much more damnable story than that.

Make a deal with you shall I Lynn.

If you are going to base his guilt on YOUR experience.

Can I base his innocence on mine? I have NEVER seen a guy shove his hands down a girls pants after being told to fuck off. So obviously she is a vindictive lieing bitch that’s out for a big payday.

Or perhaps, just maybe, in the interests of science we could examine all the factors, listen to all the stories, asses all the behaviours and come to a reasoned conclusion? Might that not be a better way to do things? Maybe BOTH sides can reserve judgement, and have a scintella of skepticism until we know more than just what one person posted on their blog. Would that be acceptable to you?

Or would you rather continue with Vive La Sisterhood?

[Ostrya]

@Algher

A friend of mine was accused of sexual assault back in college. They were both drunk, went back to his room, at some point she cooled off and went home. The next day he was in the Dean’s office having been accused of sexual assault. Lucky for him, the Dean (female for those who think it is relevant) listened to both sides and dropped the matter as a matter of drunken misunderstanding. The Dean also told both of them to cut back on the drinking as well.

I had a similar thing happen to me as a freshman living in the dorms, had a girl I had just met up to my room. We both had a lot of drinks, and after she left my room, apparently went someplace else and had a few more. Later that evening, she was outside the girl’s dorm running around in the snow in her stocking feet. I didn’t find out about this until wee hours of the morning, after being accused by friends of this young woman of drugging her drinks and generally taking advantage of her. At this point, the girl was passed out sleeping it off.

When she got around the next day, she set the record straight, apparently had gone to another dorm, had more drinks before coming back home to her own dorm where she had gone on her little midnight frolic in the snow. Thank goodness for me this woman admitted what had really happened that evening. She even requested to be allowed to come to my dorm room to apologize to me for bringing me into accusation for freaking out after leaving my room and causing me to become suspect of criminal behavior.

I had already endured so many accusations by this young woman’s friends, in only a few hours, I only very reluctantly agreed to see her. This episode was a very bad experience for me at the time.

I learned a lesson from that experience, do not allow myself to get into a situation that I might be accused of wrongdoing. After all, things are often determined by how things look - not the truth of what really happened.

There are many posters in this thread who desperately want to believe this woman and her blog without knowing the real truth.
You remind me of the girl’s friends in the story I have shared above.

The young women who were so against me (they had never even met me) weren’t simply defending the best interest of their friend. It was much more than that. They all had their minds made up - without solid evidence - that I was some kind of predator. Their friend was drunk and acting stupidly. So let’s look for the guy she was with, it must be their fault.

Back to the blog. The fact that this woman chose to handle this incident by writing it in an online blog should be setting off alarm bells in impartial minds.
But save for a few, we have basically the same SD posters coming into this thread to bash all men - like they have in other similar threads.
You know what men do, what men are like. So even though this woman wrote this shit in an online blog, she is still credible in your eyes.

Instead of trying to see this incident impartially, objectively, it must be true because you know what men are like. And after all, she wrote it in her blog so it must have happened.

[Fionn]

@bengangmo

But you have castigated us for suggesting that alcohol consumption makes her a less reliable witness.

You have complained when we asked for his side of the story, as though that has no relevance.

So how is that NOT throwing out the priniciples of due process. You have quite obviously reached your conclusion, screw what the alleged perpetrator and other witnesses have to say

Most sexual assault cases don’t come anywhere near a court room. If they do, then due process applies. This thread, which is what I was talking about, is not a court of law. This is not the court of the internet, you are not a prosecutor, and no one is on trial.

I should have clarified why the “we need to get his side of the story” bugs me. In this case, “we need to get his side of the story” means “we need to get his version of events in order to decide if this woman was telling the truth about what happened to her.” It assumes that the woman’s version of events lacks credibility in a way I have yet to see anyone talk about any other crime in the same way. Which scenario seems more likely:

Joe: Man, I woke up this morning and someone stole my car out of my driveway.
Fred: That really sucks. What did the police say?

or

Joe: Man, I woke up this morning and someone stole my car out of the driveway.
Fred: Stealing sucks, but I want to hear their side of it.

[bengangmo]

@Fionn

Joe: Man, I woke up this morning and someone stole my car out of my driveway.
Fred: That really sucks. What did the police say?

or

Joe: Man, I woke up this morning and someone stole my car out of the driveway.
Fred: Stealing sucks, but I want to hear their side of it.

No it’s not.

It’s more akin to:

Joe: that fucker Simon punched me last night, out of the blue the aggressive wanker just up and slugged me after I told him I wasn’t interested in a fight.

Fred: Eh? Really? Why did he do that? Were you having an argument with him or was he off his face drunk and being a stupid idiot?

Please note: I actually DID have this conversation with my brother.

Somebody attacked him, backing him up against my sister’s car (and breaking it)

Me: Eh Bro, why?
Him: Uhmmm…he was angry at me for fucking his girlfriend

[you_with_the_face]

@bengangmo

No it’s not.

It’s more akin to:

Joe: that fucker Simon punched me last night, out of the blue the aggressive wanker just up and slugged me after I told him I wasn’t interested in a fight.

Fred: Eh? Really? Why did he do that? Were you having an argument with him or was he off his face drunk and being a stupid idiot?

But the conversation needs to continue.

Joe: He punched me out of the blue. I was watching the game and cheering on my team. He came over and punched me. I assume it’s because I was cheering for the Giants, and he’s a Colts fan. I didn’t say two words to him the whole night.

Fred: Really? I still need to hear his side of the story.

Joe: But I’m telling truth.

Fred: I don’t know that. I need to hear his side of the story. You were drinking.

[bengangmo]

@you_with_the_face

But the conversation needs to continue.

Joe: He punched me out of the blue. I was watching the game and cheering on my team. He came over and punched me. I assume it’s because I was cheering for the Giants, and he’s a Colts fan. I didn’t say two words to him the whole night.

Fred: Really? I still need to hear his side of the story.

Joe: But I’m telling truth.

Fred: I don’t know that. I need to hear his side of the story. You were drinking.

Well considering that the accused in the blog hasn’t had even one response…:dubious:

But ok, I’ll play your game…

Fred - eh, why would he single you out? What did the guys in the bar with you do? What did you do after he punched you?

[Redpill]

Joe: Man, I woke up this morning and someone stole my car out of my driveway.

Fred: That really sucks. Was it locked?

[you_with_the_face]

@bengangmo

Fred - eh, why would he single you out?

Yeah, I can really see you giving a friend the 3rd degree like this. Like totally. You must be joy to have around.

If a friend of yours had their house broken into, would you ask them something like this? Supposed that one of your loved ones was mugged. Would you really ask them to get into the minds of their attacker and speculate on reasons why they were singled out? Seriously?

I had my car stolen last year. Thank God none of my friends had the audacity to ask me why the thief singled out my car out of all possible cars they could have stolen. Because they would be non-friends now.

[you_with_the_face]

@Redpill

Joe: Man, I woke up this morning and someone stole my car out of my driveway.

Fred: That really sucks. Was it locked?

Joe: Yeah, dude. I’m pretty sure I locked it.

Fred: If it’s true that it was locked, it sucks that it was stolen. But I need to hear the thief’s side of the story too. Because you could be mistaken. You said you were “pretty sure”. Seems like there’s some doubt.

[Redpill]

@you_with_the_face

Joe: Yeah, dude. I’m pretty sure I locked it.

Fred: If it’s true that it was locked, it sucks that it was stolen. But I need to hear the thief’s side of the story too. Because you could be mistaken. You said you were “pretty sure”. Seems like there’s some doubt.

Fred: Were you behind on your car payments?
The point is, its always better to assess the situation to learn what happened so that it can be prevented in the future.

[bengangmo]

@you_with_the_face

Yeah, I can really see you giving a friend the 3rd degree like this. Like totally. You must be joy to have around.

If a friend of yours had their house broken into, would you ask them something like this? Supposed that one of your loved ones was mugged. Would you really ask them to get into the minds of their attacker and speculate on reasons why they were singled out? Seriously?

I had my car stolen last year. Thank God none of my friends had the audacity to ask me why the thief singled out my car out of all possible cars they could have stolen. Because they would be non-friends now.

Actually, I am a joy to be around

But seriously, in my experience people don’t just randomly go up to other people and whack them. They pretty much always have a reason. What we need to do is see if its an “acceptable” reason or not.

See above. My own brother got whacked. And with good reason.

You know what I told him? Well bro, next time you probably shouldn’t fuck his girlfriend.

What do you think might have been a better response.

“Oh you poor poor victim, here’s the number for a support group for victims of random violence”?

Coming back to the case at hand…

the “reason” here, or in other words a better understanding of the facts won’t change the crime or what happened.

What it may, or may not do is to move the offender from “dangerous sexual predator who regularly molests, rapes and assaults and gets away with it” to MCP who treats women as sex objects, but normally manages to keep his hands to himself" to “socially clueless guy who had too much to drink, had a horrible lapse of judgement and needs to be taught an important lesson about boundaries”…

Don’t you think such distinctions are important?

[bengangmo]

@Fionn

Joe: Man, I woke up this morning and someone stole my car out of my driveway.
Fred: That really sucks. What did the police say?

or

Joe: Man, I woke up this morning and someone stole my car out of the driveway.
Fred: Stealing sucks, but I want to hear their side of it.

Ok…just for shits n giggles…

Fred: Somebody stole my truck out of my driveway last night
Joe: You sure? Last night you were pretty trashed and at one stage you passed the keys to Simon to go get more beer - have you checked that he didn’t take the truck home after dropping you off?

[you_with_the_face]

@bengangmo

Actually, I am a joy to be around

But seriously, in my experience people don’t just randomly go up to other people and whack them. They pretty much always have a reason.

Okay, but those reasons aren’t necessarily justified reasons. Except for self-defense, no one is justified in punching another person out of the blue. If your friends insists they were randomly whacked (even after multiple rounds of you interrogating them), then at a certain point it becomes stupid to fall back on what most people in your experience do. Doubting them because of what occurs in your limited set of experiences (and they sound pretty limited, sorry) is stupid.

Most people in my experience don’t lie about being groped, raped, and sexually assaulted but you know what? That doesn’t mean I’m automatically going to believe a claim of such. Notice how a few guys in this thread have mentioned how they or someone they knew were false accused of sexual impropriety? Notice how no one is interrogating them or blaming them for what had happened to them or asking to justify why they reacted the way they did? Why aren’t you asking them to explain why the women singled them out for false accusations? Would it even occur to you to do that?

What it may, or may not do is to move the offender from “dangerous sexual predator who regularly molests, rapes and assaults and gets away with it” to MCP who treats women as sex objects, but normally manages to keep his hands to himself" to “socially clueless guy who had too much to drink, had a horrible lapse of judgement and needs to be taught an important lesson about boundaries”…

A little more information will not automatically help us decide what box to put this guy into. The blogger says one thing and odds are, he is going to say something different happened. She says she told him “no” and that he understood that but still took liberties anyway because he wanted what he wanted; he’ll probably say he thought she was just kidding around and made a miscalculation, oopsie! Who’s word should we take?

You seem to be thinking that hearing his side of the story will automatically mean we’ll be closer to the truth. Not bloodly likely.

Don’t you think such distinctions are important?

It’s not that I don’t think they’re important. I just don’t think there’s any realistic way we could make that determination based on he said-she said. So it’s a irrelevant question in this kind of topical discussion.

But I will say that if a grown man guy is so clueless when drunk that he loses the ability to control his own behavior and respect other people’s boundaries, to the extent that he’s actually assualting people and breaking the law, then he’s dangerous and shouldn’t be regarded as some well-meaning but misunderstood bloke. Not that this how I would characterize this guy. If the blogger’s account of true, the guy knew perfectly well that he was going against her wishes but didn’t care. So he’s whatever that would make him. I guess a flaming asshole.