Juliet Macur on Jameis Winston

Then you are not doing it correctly

 

Maybe wrong hole. Not sure. -- Boots

 

Perfectly played, DQ.

 

I would say that "infuriating" is a perfectly reasonable response to that consent law. It's OK to disagree with the government AND football players.

 

I guess my point is that the consent law infuriated people because it went too far, right? People said that it criminalizes regular sex. Macur, on the other hand, finds Winston's explanation of how the woman consented "infuriating" because ... well ... she doesn't say why.

 

I think reasonable people could agree that saying a woman who is accusing you of rape had consented by "moaning" is a ridiculous and infuriating response.

How much more explanation is needed?

 

A lot, I guess. California's law, considered to be hugely overreaching by many, considers moaning to constitute affirmative consent. It clearly would not consider Winston's interpretation infuriating at all.

 

According to you, it considers "appreciative moaning" to be consent. So that's kind of important. Not sure how you prove that in court, but ....

 

I'm not sure what you are arguing against here. You consider Winston's description of her consent "infuriating," and don't believe Macur should have explained why it is infuriating and "ridiculous" - we should all just realize it. And yet, in California, moaning is explicitly mentioned, by law, as a means of possible affirmaticve consent.

So what was so infuriating about Winston's response? Seems reasonable to me.

 

What seems to get overlooked a bit in all of this is how difficult it is to get a conviction on charges similar to the ones filed against Winston under any circumstances.

I don't dispute that the Tallahassee PD is making it even harder. As far as Winston not talking to the cops, I'm sure he's just doing what the lawyers are telling him to do.

It's tough, because if he's guilty, you want to see the asshole incarcerated, but that is such a tough conviction to get.

 

Good points, RJ. I know that the advocacy movement has educated us - and its true - that trauma can make people forget or misremember details. Just think about how tough it is to recall what happens to your memory of a car accident. On the other hand, a shifting story can also indicate someone is lying. So it's so tough to be able to tell which is going on, in any particular case.

I'm working on a takeout about someone who was accused of attempted sexual assault several years ago - it was in the news, locally where he lived, at the time, but the charges were dropped due to lack of evidence, etc. I went back and forth with myself about whether to include it in my story. On one hand, you can possibly ruin the guy's life by dredging up something like that for a new audience and it's possibly not true. He's doing well now. On the other hand, the guy you're writing about might be a fucking rapist.

 

If you believe someone was raped, then using the defense that she "liked it" will obviously upset you.

But, it's a fair defense if you are saying the other party consented to what transpired.