The Legacy of the Kobe Bryant Rape Case

[GVC]

He said that he now knows that to her it wasn't consensual. Non-consensual sex is, by definition, rape. He admitted that when he listened to the evidence and listened to what she said that he understood that she hadn't consented. So, he was convinced by the evidence that the sex wasn't consensual.

No, he didn't say that. He said he understood she didn't believe she had consented at the same time that he believed what happened was consensual. What level/type of consent is required, and at what point does consent end? Again, more details are needed for his quote to be an admission of guilt. Had she consented to some of their encounter? If so, at what point does she believe she stopped consenting? Given the nature of the encounter at that time, might it be unclear that the victim no longer consented? How frequently must a person ask for consent during a sexual encounter?

If I close my eyes and start swinging my fists it's still called assault when I hit someone. Kobe didn't seek consent, he just took sex.

Does that apply to their whole encounter? Might other details about the case alter your conclusion?

 

[Gameface]

So if she doesn't believe she consented then what's the question? The only defense to that statement is that she is lying. If she doesn't believe she consented then she didn't consent. There's no way to get around that. The consent is 100% up to her, so if she didn't consent, if she "believes" she didn't consent and Kobe agrees that she didn't "believe" she consented then... she didn't consent.

Kobe's assumptions about her consent are meaningless. The fact that his point of view differs from hers is meaningless. What matters is whether or not she consented. Saying "no" is a withdrawal of any previous consent. Resiting at any point is a withdrawal of consent. Anything that happened without her consent is rape. It doesn't matter if Kobe sees it differently, what matters is if she gave her consent.

 

[Boris]

So if she doesn't believe she consented then what's the question? The only defense to that statement is that she is lying. If she doesn't believe she consented then she didn't consent. There's no way to get around that. The consent is 100% up to her, so if she didn't consent, if she "believes" she didn't consent and Kobe agrees that she didn't "believe" she consented then... she didn't consent.

Kobe's assumptions about her consent are meaningless. The fact that his point of view differs from his is meaningless. What matters is whether or not she consented. Saying "no" is a withdrawal of any previous consent. Resiting at any point is a withdrawal of consent. Anything that happened without her consent is rape. It doesn't matter if Kobe sees it differently, what matters is if she gave her consent.

Okay really guy. Because she does not BELIEVE she consented Kobe should have divined this in the heat or the moment?

I do not like your hindsight 20/20 indictment argument.

 

[Gameface]

Okay really guy. Because she does not BELIEVE she consented Kobe should have divined this in the heat or the moment?

I do not like your hindsight 20/20 indictment argument.

The word "believe" is completely superfluous. It's his way of trying to say this is all a matter of opinion, her opinion is that she was raped, Kobe's opinion is that it wasn't. Unfortunately for Kobe that's not how it works. If she "believes" she didn't consent then she didn't consent. The word "believe" is used to negate her lack of consent, as if she might actually be mistaken about her consent.

 

[Boris]

The word "believe" is completely superfluous. It's his way of trying to say this is all a matter of opinion, her opinion is that she was raped, Kobe's opinion is that it wasn't. Unfortunately for Kobe that's not how it works. If she "believes" she didn't consent then she didn't consent. The word "believe" is used to negate her lack of consent, as if she might actually be mistaken about her consent.

If she believed she was raped does not mean that she was not raped or that the rapist is guilty of rape.

 

[GVC]

So if she doesn't believe she consented then what's the question? The only defense to that statement is that she is lying. If she doesn't believe she consented then she didn't consent. There's no way to get around that. The consent is 100% up to her, so if she didn't consent, if she "believes" she didn't consent and Kobe agrees that she didn't "believe" she consented then... she didn't consent.

Kobe's assumptions about her consent are meaningless. The fact that his point of view differs from his is meaningless. What matters is whether or not she consented. Saying "no" is a withdrawal of any previous consent. Resiting at any point is a withdrawal of consent. Anything that happened without her consent is rape. It doesn't matter if Kobe sees it differently, what matters is if she gave her consent.

It'd be awesome if some of my questions were answered directly.

See the bolded. These details would certainly affect my judgment of Kobe's statement. In posting that, you've left open the possibility that she did consent (explicitly) to some of the encounter. Did she? If so, at what point does she believe she stopped consenting? Did she resist or say 'no'? Or did she simply stop 'actively' participating (still waiting for some clarification on this)? If the latter, could this not leave room for one to honestly believe there was still implicit/active consent? If so, would this still constitute rape AND would recognition of differences in perception still constitute an admission of guilt?

I'm trying to be very careful about talking about the responsibility of both partners in a sexual encounter. I'm also very sensitive about this issue for a variety of reasons (and not, as JG and others might believe/imply, because I've ever been accused or guilty of rape or any other sexual assault).

 

[Boris]

Also from your quote I might actually stop calling Kobe a rapist since it shows his deeply emotional character. It seems more likely to me now that he is trying to understand that poor woman's viewpoint enstead of simply saying **** her for attacking me w this rape ****. In fact I think he might have been the one offering a huge cash settlement out of court in hopes that the poor girl could afford some counseling out of it.

 

[GVC]

And I get that sometimes there may be less active participation by a woman in a long term relationship who is just trying to make her partner happy. Yes and No are the clues there.

Did she say 'no'? Had she at some point said 'yes'? You're grossly oversimplifying here.

I realize that guys like sleeping with drunk girls because consent is easier to get. But if she is too drunk to participate and say Yes, then it is rape.

Nice generalization. Bravo.

 

[Gameface]

It'd be awesome if some of my questions were answered directly.

See the bolded. These details would certainly affect my judgment of Kobe's statement. In posting that, you've left open the possibility that she did consent (explicitly) to some of the encounter. Did she? If so, at what point does she believe she stopped consenting? Did she resist or say 'no'? Or did she simply stop 'actively' participating (still waiting for some clarification on this)? If the latter, could this not leave room for one to honestly believe there was still implicit/active consent? If so, would this still constitute rape AND would recognition of differences in perception still constitute an admission of guilt?

I'm trying to be very careful about talking about the responsibility of both partners in a sexual encounter. I'm also very sensitive about this issue for a variety of reasons (and not, as JG and others might believe/imply, because I've ever been accused of rape or any other sexual assault).

I don't see how Kobe would have agreed with her assessment of the situation if all she did was stopped actively participating. He would have, in my opinion, said that she is lying, that she consented and never didn't and that her insistence that it was not consensual was untrue. Instead he agreed that she saw the sexual encounter as non-consensual.

So maybe Kobe isn't an English major and he spoke incorrectly. Am I 100% confident I know what happened? No. I know very little about what happened. But what I do know is that she claimed she was raped and Kobe agreed that after looking at the evidence that she "belived" it was not consensual. If he wanted to say she consented to most of the sexual encounter but maybe changed her mind then he should have said that. But that's not what he said.

 

[Boris]

It'd be awesome if some of my questions were answered directly.

See the bolded. These details would certainly affect my judgment of Kobe's statement. In posting that, you've left open the possibility that she did consent (explicitly) to some of the encounter. Did she? If so, at what point does she believe she stopped consenting? Did she resist or say 'no'? Or did she simply stop 'actively' participating (still waiting for some clarification on this)? If the latter, could this not leave room for one to honestly believe there was still implicit/active consent? If so, would this still constitute rape AND would recognition of differences in perception still constitute an admission of guilt?

I'm trying to be very careful about talking about the responsibility of both partners in a sexual encounter. I'm also very sensitive about this issue for a variety of reasons (and not, as JG and others might believe/imply, because I've ever been accused or guilty of rape or any other sexual assault).

Mang, if you lay a hoe on her belly and finish off are they ever active? Dat ish ain't rape or we are all rapists.

 

[Gameface]

Mang, if you lay a hoe on her belly and finish off are they ever active? Dat ish ain't rape or we are all rapists.

Way to keep it classy.

sigh

 

[Boris]

Girls get wasted to lose there guilt on giving consent. I usually get em off then wait till they wake up to get mine. I hate screwing sloppy drunk chicks.