Was Shia LeBeouf raped?

[Metaphor]

Why do you guys think any of that matters? I don't see anywhere in LaBeouf's version of events where he says the woman in any way expressed affirmative consent that was ongoing throughout the sexual activity. The law is quite specific that consent can be revoked at any time. She may have changed her mind and revoked consent after he was inside her; her silence and lack of protest or resistance does not mean she continued to consent any more than LaBeouf's silence and lack of protest or resistance means he consented; I don't see anywhere in LaBeouf's version of events where he says he made any attempt to make sure he still had her consent after she took him into her; and the law is quite specific that ensuring that he had her affirmative consent was his responsibility.

So you're saying a person who initiates and sustains a sexual activity entirely through their own efforts and an utterly passive, unresponsive recipient are equally liable if the sex act was non consensual on the part of either one? A person is a rapist if s/he fails to ask his/her assailant if they want to have sex?

It's almost as if Bomb #20 wanted to point out the absurdity of affirmative consent laws.

 

[RavenSky]

So you're saying a person who initiates and sustains a sexual activity entirely through their own efforts and an utterly passive, unresponsive recipient are equally liable if the sex act was non consensual on the part of either one? A person is a rapist if s/he fails to ask his/her assailant if they want to have sex?

It's almost as if Bomb #20 wanted to point out the absurdity of affirmative consent laws.

and its almost as if he failed completely, instead looking like he was trying to flame the thread

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Agreed. There was no incapacity. There was no indication that her actions were unacceptable. There was no fear that would keep him from resisting. I don't think a jury would convict her.

They should.

"He didn't say no" is not a valid excuse for sexual contact with a person who can't, won't, or hasn't indicated their consent.

"Can't" I agree with. An inability to say no doesn't mean yes.

However, in this case nothing has been presented to suggest that he had any reason not to indicate a lack of consent, nor any inability to do so. I take a somewhat higher standard of personal responsibility--in a case like this I expect him to say "no". Real world sex normally isn't a matter of asking, it's a matter of seeing how someone reacts to each step forward. He gave no indication the steps forward were unacceptable.

 

[PyramidHead]

However, in this case nothing has been presented to suggest that he had any reason not to indicate a lack of consent, nor any inability to do so.

Good fucking lord.

 

[Bomb#20]

Whoa whoa whoa: to the best of my knowledge, no state has passed legislation which mandates affirmative consent with the exception of California and such legislation is narrowly focused on state funded schools. Even that law does not make sex acts without affirmative consent to be criminal.

True; but where is the intellectual and moral justification for making such a distinction? If sex without affirmative consent is rape, why limit the rule to state funded schools? If it isn't, why order schools to pretend it is? Let us not be distracted by the circumstance that the legislature is composed of hypocrites who are taking account in their lawmaking of the fact that the banality of evil comes in forms so stupid you can only get college professors to go along with them, not twelve randomly chosen citizens.

Legally, this is a gray area: we don't know what acts were performed or attempted. We do not know whether legally, consent could have been reasonably construed. He did not inject to being beaten for 10 minutes; he did not object to having his clothing removed. Is it reasonable for her to have assumed that he consented? There were no restrictions on his ability to object to any actions except those which were self imposed and he seems not to have been under the influence of any alcohol or drug whichight have clouded his judgement. I have my doubts about his mental health but no claims as to diminished capacity have been made that I am aware of.

If he had actually been unable to respond, it would be much more clear that it was rape. But there was no incapacity, no force, no intimidation. He is a competent adult who was or drunk, or drugged or coerced.

I am not saying he was not raped but that it isn't a clear cut case of rape.

My point exactly.

 

[Toni]

I made the distinction because there was a suggestion in this thread that she be prosecuted. I could be mistaken but I don't believe that criminal law mandates affirmative consent. Rather some states have passed legislation which requires state funded schools to use affirmative consent as a standard when investigating allegations of sexual assault on campus. Please note that a university is not able to press criminal charges. It is limited in the kinds and severity of sanctions it can impose on students who violate the school's code of conduct.

My personal opinion is that allegations of sexual assault should be investigated by the police but students are often discouraged from doing so by school representatives.

Usually such cases involve heavy use of alcohol and or drugs by the victims who often live in the same dorms and attend the same classes as their attackers. Often there is some level of social relationship between attacker and victim which coupled with trauma and impairment due to substances ingested knowingly or not make police less willing to charge in such cases.


Universities are able and in fact are responsible for establishing standards of behavior for stolid end and staff. Those standards may be more stringent than what is considered to be illegal. For example, it is not illegal for a 50 year old to have consensual sex with a 19 year old but universities have very atrict rules about professors having sex with students. The professor can lose his or her job but normally not be prosecuted .


In this particular case (Shia LeBoeuf) he was not impaired or restrained in any manner. At least one article online details the writer's experience at the art installation and it is clear that the actor could indeed interact with exhibit goers.

The question is what really happened? Did LeBoeuf express objections in any way? If no, why not?

Of course forcing sexual contact is horrendous and should not be tolerated. My question is whether that is what actually happened,

 

[Arctish]

They should.

"He didn't say no" is not a valid excuse for sexual contact with a person who can't, won't, or hasn't indicated their consent.

"Can't" I agree with. An inability to say no doesn't mean yes.

However, in this case nothing has been presented to suggest that he had any reason not to indicate a lack of consent, nor any inability to do so.

He didn't say "no" and that's good enough?

How do you tell the difference between someone who can't communicate and someone who refuses to communicate when the two of you haven't communicated at all? How do you justify proceeding with a sex act when there was absolutely no indication the other person understood your intentions and accepted your advances? If you have not communicated at all, how could you think you had consent?

I take a somewhat higher standard of personal responsibility--in a case like this I expect him to say "no". Real world sex normally isn't a matter of asking, it's a matter of seeing how someone reacts to each step forward. He gave no indication the steps forward were unacceptable.

Real world sex if rife with people who grope, molest, and sexually assault others and then pretend to be surprised to learn the others didn't want to be groped, molested, or sexually assaulted.

We had a long thread about this a while ago, in which I and others told of how we'd been sexually assaulted by people who either thought it was okay to grope first and ask for permission later, or who knew it wasn't okay but took advantage of their victim's momentary lack of situational awareness. The question posed in that thread was this: is it okay to proceed with a sex act until told to stop, or should you stop until you know your partner wants you to proceed, i.e. gives consent?

How would you answer that question? Would it be okay for a gay man to finger your crotch if he thought you were sexy, even though you'd given no indication you were aware of his intentions, much less wanted him to proceed? Would it be okay for a woman not your wife to straddle you while you were snoozing and rub you in a pleasing sexual manner, even though you and she had not communicated consent?

If you said "stop" and he or she stopped immediately, does that make everything okay? The posters with direct, personal experience of unwanted sexual contact were unanimous in their opinion that it wouldn't.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He didn't say "no" and that's good enough?

How do you tell the difference between someone who can't communicate and someone who refuses to communicate when the two of you haven't communicated at all? How do you justify proceeding with a sex act when there was absolutely no indication the other person understood your intentions and accepted your advances? If you have not communicated at all, how could you think you had consent?

In a case like this where there is no reason for a lack of communication, yes, I would consider that he gave consent.

Real world sex if rife with people who grope, molest, and sexually assault others and then pretend to be surprised to learn the others didn't want to be groped, molested, or sexually assaulted.

Keyword: "pretend".

We had a long thread about this a while ago, in which I and others told of how we'd been sexually assaulted by people who either thought it was okay to grope first and ask for permission later, or who knew it wasn't okay but took advantage of their victim's momentary lack of situational awareness. The question posed in that thread was this: is it okay to proceed with a sex act until told to stop, or should you stop until you know your partner wants you to proceed, i.e. gives consent?

Real world consensual sex involves a series of small steps. Trying to go one more step and being told "no" and stopping doesn't add up to rape in my book. Jumping ahead 20 steps without a good reason to believe that's appropriate is a sexual assault.

Taking advantage of a lack of awareness isn't a matter of taking a small step and it isn't a matter of not knowing it's unwanted.

How would you answer that question? Would it be okay for a gay man to finger your crotch if he thought you were sexy, even though you'd given no indication you were aware of his intentions, much less wanted him to proceed? Would it be okay for a woman not your wife to straddle you while you were snoozing and rub you in a pleasing sexual manner, even though you and she had not communicated consent?

Small steps! Nothing to fingering a crotch is a very large step indeed.

 

[Arctish]

In a case like this where there is no reason for a lack of communication, yes, I would consider that he gave consent.

IOW, he didn't say "no".

Real world sex if rife with people who grope, molest, and sexually assault others and then pretend to be surprised to learn the others didn't want to be groped, molested, or sexually assaulted.

Keyword: "pretend".

Take the key word out and what do you get? A sexual assault without any pretending, that's what. It's still sexual contact without consent.

We had a long thread about this a while ago, in which I and others told of how we'd been sexually assaulted by people who either thought it was okay to grope first and ask for permission later, or who knew it wasn't okay but took advantage of their victim's momentary lack of situational awareness. The question posed in that thread was this: is it okay to proceed with a sex act until told to stop, or should you stop until you know your partner wants you to proceed, i.e. gives consent?

Real world consensual sex involves a series of small steps. Trying to go one more step and being told "no" and stopping doesn't add up to rape in my book. Jumping ahead 20 steps without a good reason to believe that's appropriate is a sexual assault.

Taking advantage of a lack of awareness isn't a matter of taking a small step and it isn't a matter of not knowing it's unwanted.

How would you answer that question? Would it be okay for a gay man to finger your crotch if he thought you were sexy, even though you'd given no indication you were aware of his intentions, much less wanted him to proceed? Would it be okay for a woman not your wife to straddle you while you were snoozing and rub you in a pleasing sexual manner, even though you and she had not communicated consent?

Small steps! Nothing to fingering a crotch is a very large step indeed.

Well, if we're talking about small steps then the woman should have taken a small step and then waited for an indication of consent. Touching his arm for example and then waiting for a response. If he doesn't respond, she keeps her hands to herself. No further contact, therefore no rape. Which, BTW, is very different from going all the way unless and until he says "no".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

IOW, he didn't say "no".

Real world sex if rife with people who grope, molest, and sexually assault others and then pretend to be surprised to learn the others didn't want to be groped, molested, or sexually assaulted.

Keyword: "pretend".

Take the key word out and what do you get? A sexual assault without any pretending, that's what. It's still sexual contact without consent.

We had a long thread about this a while ago, in which I and others told of how we'd been sexually assaulted by people who either thought it was okay to grope first and ask for permission later, or who knew it wasn't okay but took advantage of their victim's momentary lack of situational awareness. The question posed in that thread was this: is it okay to proceed with a sex act until told to stop, or should you stop until you know your partner wants you to proceed, i.e. gives consent?

Real world consensual sex involves a series of small steps. Trying to go one more step and being told "no" and stopping doesn't add up to rape in my book. Jumping ahead 20 steps without a good reason to believe that's appropriate is a sexual assault.

Taking advantage of a lack of awareness isn't a matter of taking a small step and it isn't a matter of not knowing it's unwanted.

How would you answer that question? Would it be okay for a gay man to finger your crotch if he thought you were sexy, even though you'd given no indication you were aware of his intentions, much less wanted him to proceed? Would it be okay for a woman not your wife to straddle you while you were snoozing and rub you in a pleasing sexual manner, even though you and she had not communicated consent?

Small steps! Nothing to fingering a crotch is a very large step indeed.

Well, if we're talking about small steps then the woman should have taken a small step and then waited for an indication of consent. Touching his arm for example and then waiting for a response. If he doesn't respond, she keeps her hands to herself. No further contact, therefore no rape. Which, BTW, is very different from going all the way unless and until he says "no".

She didn't start with the blowjob.

 

[Arctish]

She didn't start with the blowjob.

And this means what, exactly? That the absence of "no" is the same as the presence of "yes"? That silence is consent?

 

[bigfield]

She didn't start with the blowjob.

And this means what, exactly?

There was whipping, first.

You should always start with whipping.

 

[Metaphor]

Where are people getting the idea that the sexual act was a blowjob? In the reports, he says he was raped, but he does not specify how.

 

[Axulus]

Where are people getting the idea that the sexual act was a blowjob? In the reports, he says he was raped, but he does not specify how.

Good point. She was clearly into sadistic stuff by first whipping his legs for 10 mins. Wouldn't be surprised if the sadism escalated further. Although it's still weird why he wouldn't say "WTF are you going, get the fuck out of here you deranged person" after a few minutes of the whipping or after she began to take off his clothes. Not saying that excuses it in any way, but perhaps some of the damage of these types of situations can be mitigated if victims feel more empowered to act.

 

[Bomb#20]

So you're saying a person who initiates and sustains a sexual activity entirely through their own efforts and an utterly passive, unresponsive recipient are equally liable if the sex act was non consensual on the part of either one?

For the sarcasm impaired, no, I'm not saying that; I'm saying that that's what the state's affirmative consent law literally implies.

A person is a rapist if s/he fails to ask his/her assailant if they want to have sex?

If by "a person", you mean a recipient who is utterly passive and unresponsive by choice, then yes, that's what the state's affirmative consent law literally implies.

 

[Bomb#20]

It's almost as if Bomb #20 wanted to point out the absurdity of affirmative consent laws.

and its almost as if he failed completely, instead looking like he was trying to flame the thread

And yet I evidently didn't fail at all. No offense to Metaphor, but I have to wonder if his reading comprehension is really several sigmas above average, or merely several sigmas above those who make baseless flaming and trolling accusations in lieu of counterarguments.

 

[Bomb#20]

I made the distinction because there was a suggestion in this thread that she be prosecuted. I could be mistaken but I don't believe that criminal law mandates affirmative consent.

I meant, where is the intellectual and moral justification for the legislators making such a distinction? Of course when they make it that puts you in the position of having to make the distinction too. Sorry about the ambiguity.

My personal opinion is that allegations of sexual assault should be investigated by the police but students are often discouraged from doing so by school representatives.

This.

Usually such cases involve heavy use of alcohol and or drugs by the victims...

And that colors people's perception of what the rules should be.

In this particular case (Shia LeBoeuf) he was not impaired or restrained in any manner. At least one article online details the writer's experience at the art installation and it is clear that the actor could indeed interact with exhibit goers.

The question is what really happened? Did LeBoeuf express objections in any way? If no, why not?

Bingo. The notion that LaBeouf was raped is based on an affirmative consent principle; and that principle is in turn based on the insufficiency of "no means no", plus the notion that there is nowhere between affirmative consent and "no means no" where the line could be drawn. But it should be painfully obvious that a person who does not express objection in any way because of heavy alcohol or drug use is not the same thing as a person who does not express objection in any way even though he was not impaired or restrained in any manner.

 

[Arctish]

For the sarcasm impaired, no, I'm not saying that; I'm saying that that's what the state's affirmative consent law literally implies.

A person is a rapist if s/he fails to ask his/her assailant if they want to have sex?

If by "a person", you mean a recipient who is utterly passive and unresponsive by choice, then yes, that's what the state's affirmative consent law literally implies.

I don't see how you have reached that conclusion. The law addresses persons who engage in sexual activities, not those who don't engage or are utterly disengaged from them.

You aren't required to seek consent before doing nothing; the law says you are required to seek consent before knowingly doing something, specifically something that is or results in sexual contact with another person.

A person who is utterly passive and unresponsive, by choice or otherwise, has no need to seek consent because they aren't doing anything that requires it. They aren't doing anything, period.

 

[Toni]

I meant, where is the intellectual and moral justification for the legislators making such a distinction? Of course when they make it that puts you in the position of having to make the distinction too. Sorry about the ambiguity.

My personal opinion is that allegations of sexual assault should be investigated by the police but students are often discouraged from doing so by school representatives.

This.

Usually such cases involve heavy use of alcohol and or drugs by the victims...

And that colors people's perception of what the rules should be.

In this particular case (Shia LeBoeuf) he was not impaired or restrained in any manner. At least one article online details the writer's experience at the art installation and it is clear that the actor could indeed interact with exhibit goers.

The question is what really happened? Did LeBoeuf express objections in any way? If no, why not?

Bingo. The notion that LaBeouf was raped is based on an affirmative consent principle; and that principle is in turn based on the insufficiency of "no means no", plus the notion that there is nowhere between affirmative consent and "no means no" where the line could be drawn. But it should be painfully obvious that a person who does not express objection in any way because of heavy alcohol or drug use is not the same thing as a person who does not express objection in any way even though he was not impaired or restrained in any manner.

Distinctions are made at universities because the university is not imposing criminal charges or sentences. While I believe that the police should investigate all cases of sexual assault, the fact is that many depts. refuse to pursue cases of acquaintance rape and assume that it is just morning after regrets. The bigger issue is not the trauma done to the victims but that it validates the behavior of those individuals who feel there is nothing wrong with 'taking advantage of the situation' when there is someone who is too impaired to effectively object or assess the situation. Including when someone is actually passed out, although that level of impairment is not necessary for it to be rape. And if the 'situation' needs to be helped along with extra drinks or an extra something in the drinks, well, c'est la vie.

Universities are responsible for creating and maintaining a safe environment for students and staff. They also are responsible for educating students. The lesson that it is wrong to take advantage of someone who is so impaired or so intimidated that they are unable to respond needs to be learned somewhere. I prefer from early childhood onward but better late than always a rapist.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Slightly confused by one detail...

I was under the impression that sexual assault involved forcing someone into contact with YOUR genitals. Unwanted touching of your OWN genitals is technically molestation, isn't it? So if she blew him, technically that would be molestation, not rape.

Also, wondering how she managed to whip his legs for ten minutes but nobody intervened until it turned sexual. I have a sneaking suspicion that he's basically trying to avoid a shakedown.