Alcohol and Rape: The Stanford Sexual Assault Case – Part 1

It’s taken me a long time to finish this post. I’ve got so much to say that I have decided to post it in two parts. There are so many things about the Stanford sexual assault case that bothers me deeply. I don’t understand the total lack of understanding on the part of the offender and his supporters. How does a person not understand that performing sexual acts and/or having sex with an extremely drunk and unconscious person is rape/sexual assault? It doesn’t take a genius to figure that out. I do not believe for one minute that Brock did not notice she was unconscious.

How they can so easily dismiss his actions on collage drinking culture? Drinking alcohol or being drunk is no excuse for sexually assaulting a person; oh, excuse me…for “20 minutes of action” as Brock’s dad, Mr. Turner, has put it. Alcohol is not the issue here. Thinking it’s okay to have sex or perform sexual acts with a person who has consumed enough alcohol they can barely talk and walk; let alone when they are unconscious and it not being considered rape because alcohol is involved is one of the biggest issues here. Alcohol does not excuse his actions; it doesn’t even give an explanation as to why he did it. I do not believe you have to be sober to realize that a person is unable to consent to sex and all that leads up to it.

Brock’s victim does an amazing job in explaining it,

“Future reference, if you are confused about whether a girl can consent, see if she can speak an entire sentence. You couldn’t even do that. Just one coherent string of words. Where was the confusion? This is common sense, human decency.…Note; if a girl falls down help her get back up. If she is too drunk to even walk and falls down, do not mount her…”

Something that really bothers me is his statement where he says he thought she was enjoying what he was doing because she was rubbing his back. Has anyone stopped to consider, perhaps she was trying to signal him to stop, to get his attention, but was barely able to do so due to the amount of alcohol in her system? Brock had to have been so consumed with his own desires that he completely tuned her out and was only focused on satisfying himself.

It was alcohol consumption and promiscuity…or was it?

Let’s play the devil’s advocate here for just a moment since some seem to think alcohol is the issue here. One of Brock’s friends blames his conviction on political correctness, while Brock’s father blames it on alcohol consumption and sexual promiscuity. Saying Brock and the victim were both drunk, and since the victim had no memory of what happened how could it be determined it was rape.

Brock’s father, Mr. Turner wrote,

“Brock can do so many positive things as a contributor to society and is totally committed to educating other collage age students about the dangers of alcohol consumption and sexual promiscuity”

This case is not about alcohol consumption and sexual promiscuity; that kind of rationalization assumes that just because a person has consumed alcohol they are going to sleep around. How absurd to make that assumption! That kind of rationalization also assumes that a person has rights to another simply because alcohol was involved. Well, folks…that is some grade A victim blaming, right there.

Brock’s friend, Leslie, wrote,

“I don’t think it’s fair to base the fate of the next 10+ years of his life on the decision of a girl who doesn’t remember anything but the amount she drank to press charges against him. I am not blaming her directly for this, because that isn’t right”

Here is another example of subtle victim blaming; by saying because the victim can’t remember, it should be assumed it was consensual. This is not a “it takes two to tango” type of situation. What decision is Leslie talking about? The victim’s decision to drink alcohol that night? That has no bearing on what happened. It is ridiculous to believe that the victim made any kind of decision that night which would have made Brock’s actions okay. The victim was unconscious; what is anyone expecting her to remember? It doesn’t matter how she became unconscious. The fact remains that she WAS unconscious and Brock was on top of her. It doesn’t even matter IF she had consented to things they were doing prior to her passing out. When anyone has consumed enough alcohol they are barely able to talk and walk, barely conscious, or even unconscious you don’t fondle and have sex with that person; that is called rape. Really, it’s not that complicated. You can’t just say, “oh, well, she was just drunk and doesn’t remember what happened”. It doesn’t matter what anyone says; you don’t fondle or have sex with someone who is extremely intoxicated or unconscious…THAT IS CALLED RAPE. Just because Brock says he knows what happened does not automatically make his version the truth. Just because he did not pass out does not mean he gets to write the script for what happened that night. If the evidence did not point to rape, I highly doubt he would have been found guilty. It is not easy for a person to be found guilty of rape in a criminal court case; the burden of proof is very high.

Here are the links to read the articles I’ve quoted from:

The Powerful Letter by Brock Turner’s Victim

Brock Turner’s Father Sparks Outrage

Brock’s Friend Blames Political Correctness for His Conviction