I write today to discuss a case that has been brought to you recently involving former Dept. Insurance Commissioner {D}. I am the victim in the video.
It is my understanding that context seems to be the issue in the decision not to move forward with this case. I do find that interesting from an academic standpoint. If sexual assault is defined simply as “forced sexual penetration against another person’s will.” The video clearly shows that. Any reasonable person would see that and hear the word “no” and see me grabbing at his wrist trying to pull his hand out of me, while screaming and they would say the fits the legal definition of sexual assault in Nevada law.
However, in this case it is a question. Was I doing this voluntarily? Did I give consent? What is on film is fact. You can see it, it is real. It would appear that I said no. It would appear I begged him to stop.
The real questions in this case is ones of substantial circumstance for women all over this country. When does no actually mean no? What rights to legal protection do women forfeit by being in a relationship with their attacker? At what point or state of mind does a woman have to be in to finally take action against their assailant and at what point is that too late. Nevada is 20 years and this happened within the current calendar year.
These are definitions that we need as women. Honestly, how do we navigate not knowing? It’s a contract you enter into with someone giving sexual consent. If I can’t say “no, stop, you’re hurting me” and have it stop, there must be a caveat in the contract somewhere stating that there are exclusions of when no doesn’t mean someone has to stop. Without a legal definition of what constitutes forfeiture of protection by law from rape, how am I actually supposed to navigate?
This is an interesting case. This is something big. It is literally the definition of rape in America that could be determined by this case. This could from a legal standpoint be a turning point in laws protecting women.
There are a lot of women not currently protected from sexual assault under the law. We put ourselves in situations that are dangerous and it’s our fault. But Jesus, I should have been able to say no. Just because I walk into a bad part of town doesn’t mean I deserve to be shot. Just because I know my attacker and had a relationship with him, doesn’t give him the right to penetrate me against my will as I told him to stop.
I know it is easier to prosecute the men in the shadows who violate virgins. But that is not the only definition and victim profile that exists. Women deserve better protection and we can’t protect ourselves unless we have legal definitions.
If that was your wife, your daughter, your sister, or your friend in that video, would that be rape? I’m certain you would say so. I certainly would. That’s how I had to look at it to take myself out of the equation and see what it shows.
This may not be a slam dunk case, however it is an important case. Not just for me. You have film. There is no denying what happened during that time on film. That was the legal definition of rape. It’s not a matter of proving that it is clearly defined as rape. It’s a matter of does no actually mean no and at what point that is. That is the crux of the defense. It’s not rape because she stayed and dated the guy. So, is that not still rape? Legal definition. Black and white. If rape is forced sexual penetration against another person’s will, if those are the words that define what rape is, that not being rape isn’t possible.
It’s a tough case and a tough question and frankly I want an answer. Like this is important. I didn’t handle it well and I should have taken it to the police. But again, I was questioning if I was being raped. Yes that’s what it looks like. Yes that’s how it felt. Yes that is what I would call that looking at it. But, he was a man I had been engaged in a sexual relationship with for six years. I didn’t think anyone would believe me, because of this murky water with known persons and ongoing relationships. This was a tangled incident. There is a lot to it. But so few cases are cut and dry. You have video recordings. Moment by moment what happened. What was said. Who did what. If that’s not enough to prove it there needs to be some sort of legal precedent clearly defining this.
I When I taught, I taught that law had letter and intent. This is rape, letter of the law. Is it rape intent of the law? It’s truly fascinating and I hope you will at least review it again and see if you see my point.
Please contact me if you have any questions or just even thoughts about this.
Add comment
Comments