tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730657139931062421.post6715509197163997152..comments2023-05-14T03:03:09.451-05:00Comments on Female Impersonator: Woman doesn't consent, but jury finds consent anywayAmeliahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10884754298018500343noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730657139931062421.post-57557277607663252842010-07-27T09:00:19.328-05:002010-07-27T09:00:19.328-05:00Yeah, this outcome was decided when I had no acces...Yeah, this outcome was decided when I had no access to a computer, so it's a bit late, but I was shocked when I read about it. But I suppose I shouldn't have been because the concept of consent is always so troubling in the eyes of many people (and has for years been troublesome in the eyes of Girls Gone Wild).<br /><br />Those of us concerned about this misunderstanding about the idea of consent still need to work on how to communicate that idea in a way that sticks with people. I guess that would start with getting people to believe that women are, in fact, human beings with rights that deserve to be respected and can't be treated any way men/people in power choose.<br /><br />Ugh.Ameliahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10884754298018500343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730657139931062421.post-23437719958223091092010-07-26T21:45:54.159-05:002010-07-26T21:45:54.159-05:00Eck- I am so glad you highlighted this, Amelia. Ho...Eck- I am so glad you highlighted this, Amelia. Hopefully ensuing uproar will prevent this kind of crap from happening again.Victoriahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13968935965317086952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730657139931062421.post-85017021023091679182010-07-26T14:10:22.463-05:002010-07-26T14:10:22.463-05:00Mr. O'Brien and 10 of his colleagues decided t...Mr. O'Brien and 10 of his colleagues decided that the 26-year old woman is a criminal. He also happens to be a fool with a sprinkle of reductive reasoning on top.<br /><br />If you look at the reasoning behind his explanation, he mentions that she gave her consent simply by attending the party and "dancing" for the photographer (which could mean anything from full show to simply acknowledging the photographer's presence - and I'm inclined to believe the latter, here). To say that she is, therefore, responsible for the actions of others that <b>all sides have agreed are not party to either plaintiff or defense</b> is ludicrous - but this legal standard is only permissible in sexual assault cases (mostly involving women as the primary victim). This even if the actors involve harm the defendant, as was the case here.<br /><br />Second, silent or implied consent is only required if there is a "reasonable expectation" based on the situation. And it has to be reasonable to a "lay person" (ie, someone off the street who happens upon this). For anyone to believe that getting physically and sexually assaulted is a reasonable expectation because the woman was dancing in a public venue shows not only Rape Culture in all of its disgusting splendor, but just how far the depravity goes.<br /><br />Wow. Just...wow.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com