That Brock Allen Turner is a dirtbag

[Anonymous]

the girl gets to be the victim

Please read her victim impact statement and then reevaluate your entire life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why was this rape and not regret sex? He ran, which makes him a jerk. Bit it doesn't make him a rapist, it means he didn't want to be caught having sex with a stranger outside.

Hope it was rape and she didn't send a man to jail for regret sex.

She was unconscious. I don't know about you, but I don't have consensual "regret" sex while unconscious.

She was at the end. Was she at the beginning?

It doesn't matter at all. If you're having sex with someone and they pass out, ALL CONSENT CEASES. Saying "yes" to sex (which I doubt he did, since it took him a year to remember she supposedly said it) does not extend to when someone is unconscious. A non-rapist would try to get someone who suddenly passed out help, not keep fucking them.

If he's drunk too, he might not have noticed. And he was drunk.

Uh, too bad. His problem. Still rape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you saying he was drunk so he should be excused, how many of you have raped another human while drunk? I'm gonna guess NONE.

Some of the PPs may be saying that. I'm saying he may have thought he was having (unromantic) consensual sex with a stranger met a party.

The fact that he said he was not guilty and is appealing makes him look unremorseful. Or that he believes that he is innocent. He's not, because by definition any sex with a drunk girl is rape.

Its still trivializing what he did to suggest it was rape by definition or that he had anything to be confused about. She was passed out behind a dumpster. Anyone who attempted to think about the question even slightly would come to the conclusion that most women do not in fact want to be fingered while unconscious behind a dumpster.

There are some legitimately hard questions about consent. (For example, what sort of consent is needed for someone in a long term loving relationship to initiate sex in the morning with their then-still-sleeping romatic partner?) Fingering an unconscious woman who just fell over behind a dumpster is not a tough case, and its sad we pretend it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why was this rape and not regret sex? He ran, which makes him a jerk. Bit it doesn't make him a rapist, it means he didn't want to be caught having sex with a stranger outside.

Hope it was rape and she didn't send a man to jail for regret sex.

Regret sex? She was unconscious. There are no circumstances in which an unconscious person can consent to sex. NONE.

Do you have a specific timeframe re: when she passed out? None of you know if he dragged her behind the dumpster. Or carried her, for that matter. They were snuggly inside the house - she could have passed out while in the act, and he, being drunk too, didn't notice.

Then why the injuries to her vagina? Then why did the swedes know she was unconscious? She was clearly passed out long enough for it to be a crime. The jury agreed.

Again, if he was drunk, he will not be of his right mind either. Too rough, etc. All you people screaming 'rapist' are explaining away her drunk (and she was drunk with a capital D) and not even considering that he was drunk too. If she's not of his right mind, neither is he. Or do guys have to be responsible when drunk and women don't?

Because while they were both falling down drunk (supposedly, yet he was the only one conscious, so clearly he was the less drunk of the two), he was the only one who committed a crime. Alcohol didn't make him do anything. It may have given him the courage to be the asshole he already was inside. He obviously had the mentality that if they're drunk it is ok, etc. If he had a mentality of respect, being drunk wouldn't change that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why was this rape and not regret sex? He ran, which makes him a jerk. Bit it doesn't make him a rapist, it means he didn't want to be caught having sex with a stranger outside.

Hope it was rape and she didn't send a man to jail for regret sex.

Regret sex? She was unconscious. There are no circumstances in which an unconscious person can consent to sex. NONE.

Do you have a specific timeframe re: when she passed out? None of you know if he dragged her behind the dumpster. Or carried her, for that matter. They were snuggly inside the house - she could have passed out while in the act, and he, being drunk too, didn't notice.

Then why the injuries to her vagina? Then why did the swedes know she was unconscious? She was clearly passed out long enough for it to be a crime. The jury agreed.

Again, if he was drunk, he will not be of his right mind either. Too rough, etc. All you people screaming 'rapist' are explaining away her drunk (and she was drunk with a capital D) and not even considering that he was drunk too. If she's not of his right mind, neither is he. Or do guys have to be responsible when drunk and women don't?

It's simple anatomy. Men have to enter a woman. Women do not enter a man and for the most part can't force a man to have sex. Additionally, women are able to get pregnant and men are not. All of these facts are what lead us to concern over rape. Additionally women typically aren't as strong and able to defend themselves. Even if this woman was completely sober she probably wouldn't have been able to defend herself against a student athlete much larger and stronger.

I'm concerned you don't understand this.

I'm concerned that you do, yet don't hold responsible in any way women who drink to excess and agree to leave parties with men they've just met.

you are right. I don't hold her responsible. I simply don't think being drunk means you deserve to be raped or that it changes the definition of rape. There are millions of women who go to bars and parties every weekend in this country. I don't want to live in a world where a woman being drunk means she's a free pass and deserves to be raped. That's how life is in many middle eastern countries. This is America. Where you should be able to attend a party, get drunk and not get raped in a backyard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Actually, the father is correct.

Both of them were drunk. Both. She was so drunk, she had no idea of anything, and didn't come-to until she was in the hospital, with no recollection. She was black-out drunk. While no one deserves to be raped, she placed herself in a very dangerous state. I do want to know where her friends were, where her sister was, where ANY responsible person was - probably drunk themselves. It would have been a cold day in hell, in college, when I would have left one of my friends (or a perfect stranger) alone, that dangerously drunk.

His son, in his drunken state, assaulted this girl. Very, very wrong. He IS taking responsibility for his actions. What disturbs me, is not only is she NOT taking responsibility for her own stupidity, but she has all the pity in the world. The net result of that is the message that people can get as stupid-drunk as they want and expect NO harm to come of them. That is NOT a message I have EVER given my children, and ever will.

This statement from the victim? “You took away my worth, my privacy, my energy, my time, my intimacy, my confidence, my own voice, until today,” she read in court from her victim impact statement,

What kind of worth does one have when one is so drunk, one can't even function? What kind of confidence? What kind of intimacy?

And this? "I was the wounded antelope of the herd, completely alone and vulnerable, physically unable to fend for myself, and he chose me."

She completely brushes aside her responsibility in becoming a 'wounded antelope'.


The judge did good in this case.

You're a horrible person. And I hope you don't have children.

Facts are pretty horrible things. She can't get that stinking drunk, and then complain about not being able to physically fend for herself. He didn't pour the liquor down her throat. She drank it herself. She made HERSELF vulnerable. It sucks, but it is what it is.

That's not what it is, you stupid bitch. I hope you are infertile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Actually, the father is correct.

Both of them were drunk. Both. She was so drunk, she had no idea of anything, and didn't come-to until she was in the hospital, with no recollection. She was black-out drunk. While no one deserves to be raped, she placed herself in a very dangerous state. I do want to know where her friends were, where her sister was, where ANY responsible person was - probably drunk themselves. It would have been a cold day in hell, in college, when I would have left one of my friends (or a perfect stranger) alone, that dangerously drunk.

His son, in his drunken state, assaulted this girl. Very, very wrong. He IS taking responsibility for his actions. What disturbs me, is not only is she NOT taking responsibility for her own stupidity, but she has all the pity in the world. The net result of that is the message that people can get as stupid-drunk as they want and expect NO harm to come of them. That is NOT a message I have EVER given my children, and ever will.

This statement from the victim? “You took away my worth, my privacy, my energy, my time, my intimacy, my confidence, my own voice, until today,” she read in court from her victim impact statement,

What kind of worth does one have when one is so drunk, one can't even function? What kind of confidence? What kind of intimacy?

And this? "I was the wounded antelope of the herd, completely alone and vulnerable, physically unable to fend for myself, and he chose me."

She completely brushes aside her responsibility in becoming a 'wounded antelope'.


The judge did good in this case.

You're a horrible person. And I hope you don't have children.

Facts are pretty horrible things. She can't get that stinking drunk, and then complain about not being able to physically fend for herself. He didn't pour the liquor down her throat. She drank it herself. She made HERSELF vulnerable. It sucks, but it is what it is.

Ah, yes. And little tiny Kuwait was just sitting there on the coast with all that money and oil. They totally deserved to get invaded by Iraq.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why was this rape and not regret sex? He ran, which makes him a jerk. Bit it doesn't make him a rapist, it means he didn't want to be caught having sex with a stranger outside.

Hope it was rape and she didn't send a man to jail for regret sex.

Regret sex? She was unconscious. There are no circumstances in which an unconscious person can consent to sex. NONE.

Do you have a specific timeframe re: when she passed out? None of you know if he dragged her behind the dumpster. Or carried her, for that matter. They were snuggly inside the house - she could have passed out while in the act, and he, being drunk too, didn't notice.

Then why the injuries to her vagina? Then why did the swedes know she was unconscious? She was clearly passed out long enough for it to be a crime. The jury agreed.

Again, if he was drunk, he will not be of his right mind either. Too rough, etc. All you people screaming 'rapist' are explaining away her drunk (and she was drunk with a capital D) and not even considering that he was drunk too. If she's not of his right mind, neither is he. Or do guys have to be responsible when drunk and women don't?

It's simple anatomy. Men have to enter a woman. Women do not enter a man and for the most part can't force a man to have sex. Additionally, women are able to get pregnant and men are not. All of these facts are what lead us to concern over rape. Additionally women typically aren't as strong and able to defend themselves. Even if this woman was completely sober she probably wouldn't have been able to defend herself against a student athlete much larger and stronger.

I'm concerned you don't understand this.

I'm concerned that you do, yet don't hold responsible in any way women who drink to excess and agree to leave parties with men they've just met.

I'm concerned that you think that is what we should be talking to when a young man thought that it was okay to engage in sexual contact with someone he did not know on the ground behind a dumpster. I'm concerned that you apparently do not understand that this is a young man who was actually found guilty of multiple serious crimes. Was he charged with rape? No, because he didn't put his penis inside her. He put other things inside her, however, and she was not able to consent. I am concerned that you are splitting hairs about that. The person putting things inside someone is responsible. Full stop. It doesn't matter what she drank or how long she'd known him. She was not able to consent. She says she did not consent. It is not consensual and he is a sex offender.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Again, if he was drunk, he will not be of his right mind either. Too rough, etc. All you people screaming 'rapist' are explaining away her drunk (and she was drunk with a capital D) and not even considering that he was drunk too. If she's not of his right mind, neither is he. Or do guys have to be responsible when drunk and women don't?

One person was unconscious. The other person engaged in a criminal act.

Do you also excuse drunk drivers?

Usually, only the driver was drunk. Not the innocents he hit. That's the difference. We know the other party didn't say "yes, please hit us with your car and kill/maim us please"

You don't know if she consented before falling unconscious. Both were well above the legal limit. So he was not of his right mind either. End of.

Right. Maybe she said "yes, please have sex with me behind this dumpster. And if I happen to pass out, keep going." Sure. That's plausible.

[Anonymous]

Supposedly he remembered her consenting (yeah right) so he couldn't have been that drunk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why was this rape and not regret sex? He ran, which makes him a jerk. Bit it doesn't make him a rapist, it means he didn't want to be caught having sex with a stranger outside.

Hope it was rape and she didn't send a man to jail for regret sex.

Regret sex? She was unconscious. There are no circumstances in which an unconscious person can consent to sex. NONE.

Do you have a specific timeframe re: when she passed out? None of you know if he dragged her behind the dumpster. Or carried her, for that matter. They were snuggly inside the house - she could have passed out while in the act, and he, being drunk too, didn't notice.

Then why the injuries to her vagina? Then why did the swedes know she was unconscious? She was clearly passed out long enough for it to be a crime. The jury agreed.

Again, if he was drunk, he will not be of his right mind either. Too rough, etc. All you people screaming 'rapist' are explaining away her drunk (and she was drunk with a capital D) and not even considering that he was drunk too. If she's not of his right mind, neither is he. Or do guys have to be responsible when drunk and women don't?

It's simple anatomy. Men have to enter a woman. Women do not enter a man and for the most part can't force a man to have sex. Additionally, women are able to get pregnant and men are not. All of these facts are what lead us to concern over rape. Additionally women typically aren't as strong and able to defend themselves. Even if this woman was completely sober she probably wouldn't have been able to defend herself against a student athlete much larger and stronger.

I'm concerned you don't understand this.

I'm concerned that you do, yet don't hold responsible in any way women who drink to excess and agree to leave parties with men they've just met.

I'm concerned that you think that is what we should be talking to when a young man thought that it was okay to engage in sexual contact with someone he did not know on the ground behind a dumpster. I'm concerned that you apparently do not understand that this is a young man who was actually found guilty of multiple serious crimes. Was he charged with rape? No, because he didn't put his penis inside her. He put other things inside her, however, and she was not able to consent. I am concerned that you are splitting hairs about that. The person putting things inside someone is responsible. Full stop. It doesn't matter what she drank or how long she'd known him. She was not able to consent. She says she did not consent. It is not consensual and he is a sex offender.

She has no idea. She doesn't know what she said.

[Anonymous]

Every adult has the right to have consensual sex, but when people have unprotected sex, they can get STDs. Do they deserve it? No, but they took a risk, behaved irresponsibly, and something bad happened. This happened to my BF.

No woman deserves to be raped. Period. But, we should all be mindful of our actions that can lead to consequences.

In this case the victim stated she didn't realize how quickly the alcohol would affect her. I don't blame her for what happened. But, I do think too many people are irresponsible drinkers, and then bad stuff happens, like drunk drivers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he was sober enough to realize he should run away and did in fact run away, he was sober enough to realize she was unconscious.

Fight or flight is pretty primitive. He wasn't sober when he fled. Either he knew he was committing a crime, panicked and fled, or thought he wasn't committing a crime, panicked and fled.

People don't usually panic and flee when they're not doing anything wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Supposedly he remembered her consenting (yeah right) so he couldn't have been that drunk.

I don't know that she said anything, but she went with him. She didn't have to, she could have stayed at the party and passed out there. Or she could have said no at any time, and maybe he would have stopped and helped her home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every single woman in this thread knows she has at some point drank too much and if she has a daughter, her daughter will undoubtedly one night or more in college drink too much because that's what happens. You misjudge your tolerance, you're having a good time, and suddenly you're hammered. There but for the grace of God did I never end up raped behind a dumpster when I had too much to drink at 21, and same goes for all of you. And if you have a daughter who at some point will go to parties or bars, you need to think very, very carefully about assigning blame to this girl because it could happen to your daughter just as easily and I highly doubt you would be so sanguine about her "role" in being victimized as you are right now

nope. Never. And I know other women who have never been that drunk. Not an excuse for what happened, though, but your blanket statement is incorrect.

The rape counselor at my daughter's college said that on that particular campus, 100% of rapes involved alcohol on the part of at least one person. Alcohol allows one person to make bad choices more easily.

Allow?