… the victim told investigators that she did not remember anything that happened from shortly after the time she arrived at the party. The victim would be unable to counter claims that she had consented.

The result would be such a confusing and conflicting account of what happened that we would be unable to convince 12 jurors to convict. For example, the media reported that the victim vomited. But lab tests showed that the vomit did not come from her. The defense would challenge any account which depended upon the vomit to prove that the victim was too intoxicated to consent.

And what of the three soccer players who witnessed men huddled around a man having sex with a teenage girl? … But they only saw the last 30 to 60 seconds of a two hour party. The totality of the evidence of what happened that night would make it impossible for us to prove sexual assault charges beyond a reasonable doubt against anyone.

What happened and what can be proven beyone a reasonable doubt in court are often two different things. It seems to make sense to believe that these guys are rapists. After all, how likely is it that this young woman actually gave informed consent to all this? But in the face of these comments can the assertion that she did not give informed consent be proven to the extent demanded in a criminal case? And if it can’t be proven in court, on what basis should the D.A. bring charges? How much of this is “she doesn’t want to bring charges” and how much of this is “there actually is no legally provable case here”?

Let’s say for the sake of further discussion that due to the factors listed by the D.A. it is in fact correct that under current law, rules of evidence, etc., she made the correct legal decision and that the allegations of rape made in this case cannot be proven. How would you propose to change the law so that in such a case it would be practical to bring charges?

In other words, do, r@d@r, don’t talk.

Oh, and, the responsibility for rape belongs to the rapist alone, not his absent daddy.

boys learn how to behave towards women two ways: by watching their fathers, and by watching other boys. secondly, their motivation regarding their own emotional relationship to women is shaped by their process of attachment to their mother. part of the damage that patriarchy does to boys is that fathers abdicate their responsibility to provide emotional connection, and so boys come to feel that mother and through her all women are the repository of their emotional well-being. when this is coupled with indoctrination by the patriarchy toward treating women as things, the combination is lethal.

the responsibility and blame for every rape by a man goes back in an unending line through every emotionally absent father. maybe at some point men developed these behaviors because of some drama of social evolution i couldn’t begin to understand. what is more important is that every time that stories like these gang rape cases emerge, all of us men need to feel shame, guilt, responsibility, outrage, whatever it takes to spur us to ACTION to stop it. because only men can stop what men do.

ALL RAPISTS LIE ABOUT RAPE.

So, feel free to shove it.