University of North Carolina football player accused of sexual assault: 'Everything was completely c

[ColemanMaskell]

11. He may actual believe it was consensual even if it wasn't

Though most such cases in the news are clear cut, this does not sound clear cut to me.

People can honestly see a situation in totally different ways.

I'm inclined to think he actually believed it was consensual (from the scant information given).

Reality is -- real life situations are -- often nuanced, not clearly black and white.

I'm reminded of an intimate situation in which a guy suggested his intent to do something, and the girl responded with the words "Oh yeah?", as a question like "says who?" or "oh really? You think so?", and the guy honestly believed she meant "Oh yeah!" as a statement of enthusiastic acceptance and encouragement. True she had the opportunity to clarify her position subsequently as long as there was no actual force involved, but this is just an illustration: The different interpretations of the simple statement --- "Oh yeah?" or "Oh yeah!" -- illustrates how two people can interpret the same situation differently.

Another illustration is the old idea of "silence is consent" which can mean that a woman conflicted by indecision might not resist an advance, and a man inclined by his nature to be a bit egotistical might interpret this as acceptance. He should be smarter than that, but it is an honest mistake (or can be).

In some cases there might be intimidation without actual use of force. The problem in understanding such situations is that the man might not intend to intimidate and might not understand that he is coming across as intimidating. If the woman is by nature shy, as many young women are, and if she is not just shy but further hindered by feelings of fear, she might not protest; she might even respond. If he understood the situation, this would be wrong, but if he does not understand what is going on then it is unclear -- sort of like the difference between injuring someone accidentally or deliberately.

Another thing that sometimes happens sometimes is that one or the other party to a consensual interaction, typically the woman (or the man sometimes if he's married), regrets an intimacy after the fact. This can happen spontaneously, but more often it is the result of emotional conversation with a third party, say for example the woman's father or the man's wife. The third party naturally wants to place blame on the accused offender, and badgers the victim until she (or he) agrees that it was a case of rape (or sometimes seduction).

For (some) other crimes we make the distinction of intent, e.g. manslaughter vs murder. It is possible that some such distinction might be called for in laws dealing with rape.

Obviously we don't know all the details, but he should be innocent until proven guilty.