When will we, as a people, realize that there is something terribly wrong with a culture that encourages women to take completely normal human sexual interactions -- the same sorts of interactions that have been going on since pre-history -- and transmogrify them into the most vile crime of rape solely because the women decide in some after-the-fact, ex post facto, false and belated hissy fit of regret that they should not have consented to sex?
We don't know what happened in the case reported in the news account below. The story notes that the alleged victim told the accused male "no" fifteen times. But then, according to the news account, she says she joined the young man on her bed and removed her clothes. She claims she was "scared," but the story furnishes no factual basis in support of such fear. He was not physically constraining her, apparently.
When she came to the bed, absent threats of physical coercion, a reasonable person in the position of the male had every right to assume she had assented to sex, and it wasn't rape. Period. Ah, but that's not how the sexual assault counseling industry, in conjunction with the radical feminist agenda, characterizes rape: Forget her objective manifestations of assent that reasonably led the man to believe she assented to sex -- her subjective, after-the-fact emotions trump any semblance of rationality. This, of course, leaves men of good will who would never dream of raping a woman (which is the vast majority of men) utterly clueless as to whether their conduct will be metamorphosed into an alleged felony merely because a woman later decides to cry rape.
Putting aside the alleged victim's characterization that she was "scared" (for which the news account provides no supporting factual basis), the facts set forth could just as easily be read as a garden variety instance where a male came on strong; the female may have been conflicted at first, but he persisted; and she finally gave in.
Newsflash: this is precisely how men and women have interacted since the beginning of time. And guess what? It doesn't matter if she was conflicted before she consented to have sex by coming to the bed and removing her clothes; and it doesn't matter if she was conflicted after she had sex. From the account set forth in this news report, it sounds as though the woman simply regrets having sex; she was angry that she gave in to the male's persistence, and now she's going to teach him a lesson.
But from this news account, it does not sound like rape, and it's not fair that this woman is dragging the guy through hell -- with his name plastered all over the news while she retains her anonymity.
A woman's after-the-fact regret should never be sufficient to send a young man to prison. Sadly, this is where the "rape culture" manufactured by radical feminism is leading us.
And it has to stop.
HERE IS THE NEWS ACCOUNT:
15 times 'no,' rape accuser testifies
Kutztown U. ex-athlete to face court in alleged on-campus sex attack.
By Chris Reber Of The Morning Call
May 28, 2008
She said no ''15 times.'' But, the alleged victim in a Kutztown University campus rape case tearfully testified on Tuesday, that didn't deter her attacker.
''He was too much for me,'' the woman said.The person charged, former Kutztown University athlete James Vanderbeek, 19, of Telford, is headed to court in Berks County Court on charges stemming from the alleged March 25 incident.
District Judge Gail Greth of Fleetwood approved rape and aggravated indecent assault charges, and the addition of a sexual assault charge.
The trial is scheduled for June 25. With no prior convictions, Vanderbeek could face a maximum of 20 years in prison and a $25,000 fine.
At one point during the hearing, defense attorney Maureen Coggins asked that all charges be dismissed based on the alleged victim's testimony.
''Did you have sexual intercourse with Mr. Vanderbeek?''
Coggins asked the alleged victim. She replied that she had not.
Coggins then asked that the charges be dismissed. Greth denied the motion. Coggins then asked that the alleged victim take the stand again for a clarification.
The alleged victim then testified that she had engaged in sexual intercourse, but that it was not consensual.
Both Vanderbeek and the alleged victim have left Kutztown University since the incident. He is free on $20,000 bail. Coggins said the two-sport athlete had not yet made a decision on the fall semester.
On April 16, the preliminary hearing was postponed after the alleged victim failed to appear to testify. Coggins said the woman had not received a subpoena from the district judge.
The alleged victim's testimony on Tuesday corroborated most of the sequence of events presented in the affidavit filed by Kutztown University Police.
On March 24, the woman testified, Vanderbeek and another student were signed into her apartment at University Place to work on a class project.
The group shared a bottle of vodka, with Vanderbeek drinking the majority, she said. The woman said she took two shots of vodka and Vanderbeek drank the rest. She said she later escorted the males out so she could continue her work.
When she returned to her room, she said, she discovered that Vanderbeek had followed her. He sat down on her bed as she did her work.
She testified that after denying his advances and saying ''no'' to him 15 times, she joined him on the bed and removed her clothes.
''I was scared,'' she testified.
She could not recall how long she was on the bed with Vanderbeek. She said she eventually left him in the room and found a friend to take her to university police.
Vanderbeek was arrested early on March 25.