Doctor Assaulted Suicidal Transgender Patient

[Annwyn]

When she actually starts fighting and means no.

And that is to be determined by the male, how?

When the Dom ignores the safe word.  Which is exactly why BDSMers use a safe word.

And that is to said when the sub is gagged, as could well be the case in more extreme BDSM thingy cases?

If a woman was raped she was raped.  I don't even understand your question.  Why "should" she be able to "claim" rape?  What "should" she "claim" if she is raped besides that she is?

If a woman wasn't raped, she wasn't raped.  Christ what constitutes rape when the victim is intoxicated and gives consent, just pretend you're in a debate here.

Why would we presume he's not guilty because he says so?

On the same basis that we would assume he is guilty just because she says so.

She was in the hospital receiving treatment for a slashed wrist, you really don't think she was heavily medicated?  And that the doctor knew this and took advantage of her confused and vulnerable state?

I've been in hospitals for slashed wrists quite a few times, with the pictures to prove it.
You're not sedated.
Local anesthesia is applied and you're stitched up.  Then you sit around in a room for a few days with a security guard right outside your door until you get shipped off to a mental institution.  Boredom is the sedative.

Most men don't ever even consider that this could happen to them.

In your own words, "That's an incredible generalization, and in my experience quite false."

For every one time that this happens there are fifty more cases like in Santa Barbara a couple years ago of multiple witnesses to a gang rape where all the rapists have their charges dismissed.

We're not discussing those cases.  We're discussing THIS case.  Please address the original quote accordingly then.

For us to look at a man who was convicted of a crime against this woman is the same as presuming with no evidence one way or the other?  How?

Because it's she said he said or he said she said until certain things can be established to support what she said he said, such as witnesses that he was at her house, phone records of him calling her, medical examinations proving that she was indeed penetrated(which obviously turned negative considering the worst he was convicted of was digital rape).

[whatsername]

In the same sense, not *all* woman walk around scared of being raped, I'm sure.

... Yes we do.

Not every minute of every day mind you, but you would be hard pressed to find a woman who hasn't feared being raped multiple times in her life.  It crosses our minds all the time and is something we actively and thoroughly learn to protect ourselves against.

Exactly, and the sheer likelyhood of that makes the latter situation even less likely to be recognized, don't you think?

I don't think I understand what you mean here.  My point of the Santa Barbara case is that real rapes happen in astronomical numbers next to false accusations, so the assumption that, or at the very least defense of, a woman who says she is raped actually was is really quite fair.

Now cops, sure, they shouldn't make any assumptions, they should be gathering evidence before making accusations, and sure, juries, they should be waiting to hear evidence before deciding things.  But an audience like us?  Especially in the case of this story?

[Sarah Louise]

This kind of feels to me like everyone has reached an empass and the arguments are just going back and forth. 

Why not take a deep breath and move on to something else?

Sarah L.

[Annwyn]

I don't think I understand what you mean here.  My point of the Santa Barbara case is that real rapes happen in astronomical numbers next to false accusations, so the assumption that, or at the very least defense of, a woman who says she is raped actually was is really quite fair.

That is well made up for by the consequences I believe. 

Men have that on their record for life, convicted or not.

Women don't even get charged for purgery. 

[NicholeW.]

Ann, when's the last time you were at a group where only rape victims were present? The effects last far longer than you might believe.

That is the truth. And I think you may well be aware of it. A permanent record and an indelible mark on a psyche are very different.

Nichole


I wish I could find it in me to add smiles and shrugs to that response as it was meant to be "quiet" not accusatory in any way. I just couldn't find the emoticons that would fit it.


N~

[whatsername]

And that is to be determined by the male, how?

By being an attentive lover.  You're in the middle of an intimate act, you can feel the changes in the body language of a person rather easily.  My husband has certainly noticed any time I've stopped being into it or gotten distracted, and the same for me.

And that is to said when the sub is gagged, as could well be the case in more extreme BDSM thingy cases?

In that case there is a safety gesture.  BDSMers are meticulous in making sure continued consent can be obtained.  It's absolutely necessary when you're playing on the edge of abuse like that.  Those who don't make absolutely certain of these things are the rare abuser using BDSM for an excuse to gain access to victims.  Ask anyone who is in the lifestyle.

what constitutes rape when the victim is intoxicated and gives consent

It depends on the level of intoxication.  At some point you quite simply CAN'T give consent, you're just not in any condition to do so.  I mean I love drunken sex as much as the next person but there is a line that quite simply has to be respected.  And if you don't know the partner you might be taking to bed, you shouldn't be having sex with them if they're falling down drunk!  It's just a terrible idea all around.

On the same basis that we would assume he is guilty just because she says so.

I'm simply assuming the story is accurate.  He was convicted of misconduct.  Quite clearly he did something wrong and unfortunately the story is lacking in details.  But the fact is we're not assuming anything, he was convicted.  Why he wasn't also convicted of the rape isn't detailed, but we know he abused this patient.

You're not sedated.

But surely that's not the only way to be vulnerable?

Most men don't ever even consider that this could happen to them.

In your own words, "That's an incredible generalization, and in my experience quite false."

Fortunately I qualified my statement with "In my experience" and again "as the wife of a man falsely accused of rape".  Also while truth seeker simply said "men" I said "most men", thereby recognizing it is not a universal truth, which is where my criticism of his statement was based.

We're not discussing those cases.  We're discussing THIS case.  Please address the original quote accordingly then.

What quote?  The "fear men have" of being falsley accused of rape?  If all we're discussing is this case I don't see how it's even relevant, this man was convicted of abusing his patient.  Obviously he didn't have any such fear, he had designs on actually sexually assaulting this woman.

Because it's she said he said or he said she said until certain things can be established to support what she said he said, such as witnesses that he was at her house, phone records of him calling her, medical examinations proving that she was indeed penetrated(which obviously turned negative considering the worst he was convicted of was digital rape).

He was convicted by a jury.  I'm quite certain at that point we can safely stop "assuming" guilty and simply be acknowledging it.

I also find "the worst he was convicted of" to be an appaling statement.  As if the violation of her body is somehow not as important because it was "just" his fingers?

Were we actually on the jury I'm sure we would have more details like the tests done etc.  As it is, we have their decision.  Which was to convict this doctor of sexually assaulting this woman.

*edit* If a man is cleared of charges he is cleared.  Women live with the consequences of assault of the rest of our lives.  He can start over.  And while the after effects from assault differ from woman to woman, for many of us they are indeed life long and dramatic.  I've never understood the comparison, personally.

[Annwyn]

Ann, when's the last time you were at a group where only rape victims were present? The effects last far longer than you might believe.

That is the truth. And I think you may well be aware of it. A permanent record and an indelible mark on a psyche are very different.

Nichole

I quite disagree.

As a rape victim myself, I can tell you it doesn't invade my conscious thought too much.  I get night terrors, everytime I spend the night with a friend or a lover I'm told I am saying the same things I said that time and struggling around in the sheets.

If I were accused of a sex crime however, every parent in the neighborhood could google that I was a, "sex offender," and keep their kids away from me, exclude me from the community, and pervade many aspects of my life on a daily basis.

Granted I've never been accused of something like that, I imagine the shame would be intolerable, and no matter where you went in the USA it would be inescapable as well.  I grew up in a neighborhood where bulletins were passed out to parents identifying sex offenders so us kids could be, "kept away" from them.  People who first moved in and were as friendly as could be turned sour from the constant judgment and hatred passed onto them.  They could once be seen doing yard work every day and then all you saw were weeds growing in their yard.

Living in eternal pain is bad.  I can get away from it when I'm not reminded.  I choose the movies I own carefully, I remember watching Billy Jack just about killed me inside.  Just a film where a woman gets assaulted in a back alley and is suddenly saved by Spiderman or Ghost Rider or whatever is too much stimulus for me, but I can live with it and still find a way to smile everyday like most of us.

Now try reversing it from pain, to shame for a crime that was never committed.  To having to live a, "lesser" life all because a woman pointed her finger and cried wolf.  I don't even know how I would begin to cope.

[Truth Seeker]

Does a rape "ruin a life?"

I said "could".

Could it? Most definitely.

I also disagree that most men worry about being accused of rape as there are women worry about being raped. Where do you find any evidence of that?

I said the idea of being accused is as scary to men, I didn't say most men actively worry about it.

Please make an effort to respond to what I say, not what you are expecting to hear.

Rape statistics are certainly not in your favor. Evidently all sorts of guys "think" they will get away with it.

Those would be rapists, my dear, not men. I'm talking about non-rapists being posed with the fear of being judged by the standards set BY rapists.

In other words, what you just did.

Case and point.

What "assumption" is being made here, Truth Seeker? That's the real problem I am having understanding what you've written.

Perhaps that's my fault, maybe I didn't word it properly. What I was trying to say is this; in response to someone who said it looks like she faked the rape, you posted expressing your disaproval of this kind of assumption, and how it victimized and dismisses real rape victims, yes?

But in the same reply, you appeared to be making the same kind of assumption about the doctor, assuming that he was definitely guilty, in the same way that the other person assumed that she was faking it. I was trying to point out the double standard being expressed by that particular assumption.

TBH, guys can often seem much more "logical and rational" about rape simply because it's not in their minds that they'll ever experience it. Doncha think?

Undoubtedly. Though this does not negate the rationality itself.

The "objective observer" stance can be really nice when one doesn't have a dog in the fight. That hardly makes the observer "objective" though. It simply makes him immune to the experience, at least in his own thoughts.

Nichole

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that men are not qualified to comment on the female fear of rape? If that is the case, then you are proving my point for me. Because all I was trying to say is that it works both ways, and females cannot comment on the male fear of being accused of rape - as you did quite blatantly in this very post.

Whether you assume the woman was just faking it, or that the man is automatically guilty, you're still making an assumption. Now from your perspective, you are not in a position to recognize the kind of damage that assumption can do to the man, just as I am not in a position to understand the harm that could come from assuming the woman was just faking it.

Now I am not making either of those assumptions... are you?

In the same sense, not *all* woman walk around scared of being raped, I'm sure.

... Yes we do.

You mean you do. If you don't want other people to generalize, why do you do so?

Not all women walk around afraid of being raped, I know this because I know many strong hearted women who don't identify themselves as being that weak or helpless.

Not every minute of every day mind you, but you would be hard pressed to find a woman who hasn't feared being raped multiple times in her life.  It crosses our minds all the time and is something we actively and thoroughly learn to protect ourselves against.

In the same way, I guarantee you that the fear of being falsely accused has crossed every man's mind at some point. Why do you think we have this engrained tradition of asking "do you want it" before we begin?

What exactly is seperating your claim from mine? Women fear rape, men fear accusal of rape. Not permanently for either case, but it is definitely something that both are wary of, and the damage of being raped/accused of rape is immeasurable in either scenario.

So by what means do you object to me saying that assumption either way is a negative thing?

Exactly, and the sheer likelyhood of that makes the latter situation even less likely to be recognized, don't you think?

I don't think I understand what you mean here.  My point of the Santa Barbara case is that real rapes happen in astronomical numbers next to false accusations, so the assumption that, or at the very least defense of, a woman who says she is raped actually was is really quite fair.

And what I was saying is that THAT assumption, which is made by most females, makes it virtually impossible for a male who actually IS innocent to be given a fair trial. No assumption has any place in a situation like this, you never know whose life could be ruined as a result, even if you are ignorant to that possibility.

Now cops, sure, they shouldn't make any assumptions, they should be gathering evidence before making accusations, and sure, juries, they should be waiting to hear evidence before deciding things.  But an audience like us?  Especially in the case of this story?

The audience can be the harshest judge and jury, we're the ones who form the mobs, the witchhunts, the inhospitable communities that will make the person's life miserable. You're on a TG forum for god's sake, surely you can appreciate the harm that a prejudicial and judgmental crowd can do?


Truth Seeker

[whatsername]

Annwyn, you are incorrect on the consequences of a conviction.

My husband is a registered sex offender due to his false accusation.

He can NOT be looked up on those databases.  He could NEVER have been, even when the charges were fresh.

This is because there are different levels of sex offenses.  The vast majority of them cannot simply be looked up on those databases, only the high levels charges can.  In fact I don't know if this doctor would even qualify for that list here.  And California has some of the most severe sex offender laws.

Also, passing out bulletins as you describe is illegal here.

[Annwyn]

This is because there are different levels of sex offenses.  The vast majority of them cannot simply be looked up on those databases, only the high levels charges can.  In fact I don't know if this doctor would even qualify for that list here.  And California has some of the most severe sex offender laws.

Also, passing out bulletins as you describe is illegal here.

Speak for your area, I'm speaking from South Carolina.

[whatsername]

You mean you do. If you don't want other people to generalize, why do you do so?

My next sentence was vital to the message as a whole.  I don't mean I do.  I mean we as women do.  I am a strong woman too.  I'm not weak or helpless.  But we know very very well what we have to do to protect ourselves, and I gaurantee you the strong women you know make similar concessions as the ones I (and every single other woman cis and trans I know) do to stay so.  You don't have to quiver in fear over something to live with consistent consciousness of it.

Why do you think we have this engrained tradition of asking "do you want it" before we begin?

Well, I actually thought that was because some men aren't actually jerks and want to have willing partners...not to stave off a lawsuit.  Silly me?

What exactly is seperating your claim from mine?

Well it's getting off track at this point I suppose, but to try and compare the two fears is just... It doesn't make sense in my experience, they're just not equivalent fears, not by measure of emotion involved or adjustments in ones life made.

And what I was saying is that THAT assumption, which is made by most females, makes it virtually impossible for a male who actually IS innocent to be given a fair trial.

That would make sense if most people made this assumption.  Look at the statistics of rapes reported, rapes estimated to actually happen, rape accusations that go to trial and then convictions had.  The numbers are positively appalling.  And then look at the conversations had around these trials.  For every me and Nichole, willing to believe a victim, there's two others willing to blame her.  I've had this conversation many times.  Sometimes I'm vastly out numbered by folks casting doubt on the victim.

It is very hard to be the "perfect victim" needed to obtain a conviction in the country, generally speaking.  So I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with you, even with my husband's background.

Annwyn, I was speaking for my area, which is why I said "here that is illegal".  But there are different levels of sex offenses in every state.  Please feel free to tells us what the laws of your state are.  Or maybe I'll go Wiki them and bring back some national comparisons.

But California is nationally known to be notoriously harsh on it's sex offenders, so it's generally a pretty decent measuring stick.

[NicholeW.]

TS, I appreciate your "even-handed" and "rational" take on something like rape or molestation or anything of that sort.

But, I also find that you sometimes "do" the very things you say whatername and I should not do.

A certain god-like distance may be a nice trope to bandy about, but, as we see from Annwyn, even someone willing to give the extra bit has experienced the fact of a rape, or maybe more than one, can exist, but still doesn't make her anymore "rational" about the question than the other two of us.

"Are you saying that men are not qualified to comment on the female fear of rape? If that is the case, then you are proving my point for me. Because all I was trying to say is that it works both ways, and females cannot comment on the male fear of being accused of rape - as you did quite blatantly in this very post."

In your "rationality" you do make exactly an assumption: that being that some sort of totally objective pov exists among human beings.  I am not "reading" your "rationality" as rationality, I'm reading it as simply cogitating about an experience you've never had and making some fairly breath-taking assumptions yourself about the frequency that men are "falsely accused" of rape. And how to try and balance those against the very real incidence of rapes, at least in many parts of the world.  
 
"Whether you assume the woman was just faking it, or that the man is automatically guilty, you're still making an assumption. Now from your perspective, you are not in a position to recognize the kind of damage that assumption can do to the man, just as I am not in a position to understand the harm that could come from assuming the woman was just faking it.
 
"Now I am not making either of those assumptions... are you?"


In point of fact, I am making an assumption. I am "assuming" that the jury had at least one member who was as "rational" as you are being here. They discussed relative veracity and the previous instability of the victim and that she was trans. They also discussed the relative social standing of the "poor doctor."

 
Consequently, a "no-true" rape verdict was on the cards. I do this in absence of the facts about this single case, but in a plethora of facts about the cases of real women I have worked with and shared groups with.


I'll own that "rationality" is not my gut-response to rape and that I am not likely in many cases to be able to "abstract" my own experience from my decisions. But, I'd also maintain that neither can you. Your "rationality" is simply as much a part of how you are inclined to view the topic as is my "experience" of something you've not experienced.


They are both, in that regard "poses" of a human nature that simply don't partake of a cold Minervan concept of "truth and justice." Fact is "justice" consistently has her blindfold held up so she can see.


Nichole

[whatsername]

Annwyn, if you're interested in the legalities there is a helpful article here: http://www.freewebs.com/adamshajnfeld/article.htm

Section III seems to pertain to what we're talking about.  The three tiered system is what CA has, and not all three tiers are published through Megan's Law, which is what I was talking about in my post originally, but I wasn't positive if that was state or national.  It is in fact a national database. 

You were correct that leafletting is apparently still legal rather widely, which personally I find appalling, but there it is.

[Annwyn]

In point of fact, I am making an assumption. I am "assuming" that the jury had at least one member who was as "rational" as you are being here. They discussed relative veracity and the previous instability of the victim and that she was trans. They also discussed the relative social standing of the "poor doctor."

A really good point.
However, I really don't have faith in society to be as rational as you would have us believe regarding rape.  It's a touchy subject.
Regardless, it's a really good point.

[Annwyn]

So, I've skipped half my lectures today to keep arguing this topic and reminding myself of my pain in some twisted self-punishment or something, I don't know.  Either way, I really need to withdraw for the sake of my own sanity.
You guys have fun figuring this stuff out.

[NicholeW.]

I'm sorry, Ann, but "It's a touchy subject." would be funny in another context. It almost rises to that level for me here. Yes, dear, it is a "touchy subject" as would be shown by your own responses to it in your dreams and other things you've mentioned.

That was some understatement!

N~
And yes, leaf-letting does take place. I have a neighbor who walks aroud the complex monthly passing them out.


And I've also had clients who were of Megan's Law offenses (one case regarded a guy who'd had sex with 17 yr, 10 mos individual) who even in the Cat 1 area was "outted" ruthlessly. He'd been 19 when he had sex with the girl.


So, I am aware that what I would consider abuses do take place. And that in some areas what the state allows or doesn't is rather a moot point since all state jurisdictions aren't the same. The neighbor's leaflets come from a New Jersey site that prints everyone.


Nichole

[whatsername]

*channels her inner-Hermione*

Skipping class for this?!

The horror!

[Lisbeth]

Dispite the rather entertaining dialog here, he was the doctor, she was the patient. That makes what he did a crime, reguardless of solicitation.

Also, please, don't make assumptions because of a lack of rape conviction. I don't know about Australia, but in Texas you cannot be charged with rape if the victim is an MtF.

[whatsername]

Really good point Lisbeth.  The part the authority of a doctor played and the inherent power relations involved is really a vital part of why this was so wrong.

[Truth Seeker]

My next sentence was vital to the message as a whole.  I don't mean I do.  I mean we as women do.  I am a strong woman too.  I'm not weak or helpless.  But we know very very well what we have to do to protect ourselves, and I gaurantee you the strong women you know make similar concessions as the ones I (and every single other woman cis and trans I know) do to stay so.  You don't have to quiver in fear over something to live with consistent consciousness of it.

Well as I said, at some point or another all guys undoubtedly feel a chill at the thought of being falsely accused. I mistook your point to be that woman feel afraid of rape all the time, my mistake.

Why do you think we have this engrained tradition of asking "do you want it" before we begin?

Well, I actually thought that was because some men aren't actually jerks and want to have willing partners...not to stave off a lawsuit.  Silly me?

I didn't mention anything to do with lawsuits. The fear of being accused is as much to do with the horror of thinking you might actually have made her feel that way, as it is of simply the accusal itself. We don't want to be, be seen, or feel like the guy who does that to someone.

It's the same fear, you're the only one focussing on the letigeous aspect of it.

Well it's getting off track at this point I suppose, but to try and compare the two fears is just... It doesn't make sense in my experience, they're just not equivalent fears, not by measure of emotion involved or adjustments in ones life made.

And yet you just finished telling me that I cannot possibly understand the female fear of rape. What makes you so sure you could possibly comprehend how it would feel to worry that you might make the one you love/make love with feel forced?

This is beginning to annoy me, because you are expressing nothing more than a typical femenistic dismissal of men's feelings. You think that just because you have to deal with the fear of being vulnerable that men could never feel anything close to that.

Don't you see the hypocrisy of that position? I can't claim to understand the female fear, nor am I allowed to dismiss it, but somehow you're allowed to do just that to men?

Being falsely accused can ruin men's lives, and bring raped can be just as destructive to females. So what you're really saying here, if you must insist on disagreeing with me, is that female lives are more important than male lives. Think about that, and ask yourself if that really is fair.

That would make sense if most people made this assumption.  Look at the statistics of rapes reported, rapes estimated to actually happen, rape accusations that go to trial and then convictions had.  The numbers are positively appalling.  And then look at the conversations had around these trials.  For every me and Nichole, willing to believe a victim, there's two others willing to blame her.  I've had this conversation many times.  Sometimes I'm vastly out numbered by folks casting doubt on the victim.

That has simply not been my experience, so perhaps the argument is moot. In my experience, the very mention of the word rape inspires total dismissal of the man, and total sympathy for the woman regardless of the facts. The reason I am driving in the point that I am is precisely because I too have had this argument a dozen times with the majority of people acting the way you are.

It is very hard to be the "perfect victim" needed to obtain a conviction in the country, generally speaking.  So I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with you, even with my husband's background.

But surely being the wife of a man who was falsely accused you *can* appreciate the damage it can do? And with that in mind, how am I so wrong in saying that contributing to the witchhunt against a man in that position is unfair?

This is not about me arguing the frequency of that event, I'm *not* trying to say that men are falsely accused more than woman are genuinely raped, and I'm *not* trying to say that that women are always treated better than men in this situation, what I *am* saying is that assuming the man is guilty is no better than assuming the woman is faking it.

It's the *assumption*, and the double standards therein which I am objecting to. You simply cannot dissaprove of someone for making an assumption when you are going to do the very same thing.

TS, I appreciate your "even-handed" and "rational" take on something like rape or molestation or anything of that sort.

Hehe, the rest of your post would beg to differ.

But, I also find that you sometimes "do" the very things you say whatername and I should not do.

I certainly don't intend to, please provide examples of my hypocrisy so that I can work on it.

In your "rationality" you do make exactly an assumption: that being that some sort of totally objective pov exists among human beings.  I am not "reading" your "rationality" as rationality, I'm reading it as simply cogitating about an experience you've never had and making some fairly breath-taking assumptions yourself about the frequency that men are "falsely accused" of rape. And how to try and balance those against the very real incidence of rapes, at least in many parts of the world. 

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult but I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say here. The only thing I can discern from that passage is that you seem to think I am arguing that the frequency of false accusations is comparable to the frequency of rapes.

If you had read my posts properly, you would see that this is not the case. I'm only arguing that the assumption that the man is guilty is no less negative or destructive than the assumption that the woman is faking it. Assumptions cause harm, and there is NEVER any excuse or justification for them.

In point of fact, I am making an assumption. I am "assuming" that the jury had at least one member who was as "rational" as you are being here. They discussed relative veracity and the previous instability of the victim and that she was trans. They also discussed the relative social standing of the "poor doctor."

Again, we're not talking about lawcases and such, we're talking about the dismissal of the man's role in rape accusal.

I'll own that "rationality" is not my gut-response to rape and that I am not likely in many cases to be able to "abstract" my own experience from my decisions. But, I'd also maintain that neither can you. Your "rationality" is simply as much a part of how you are inclined to view the topic as is my "experience" of something you've not experienced.

The difference is I am arguing a neutral point, I'm not making an assumption one way or the other, and as such neither am I being hypocritical in the presentation of my points. All I am saying is that it *can* happen either way, and as such we should never make assumptions either way.


Assumptions ruin lives. Don't assume that men are automatically guilty, don't assume that women are automatically lying. It's not a competition about who suffers the most, ANY amount of suffering is too much. DON'T ASSUME, that's my only point.


Truth Seeker