This morning a report of a brutal gang rape of a mentally handicapped 18 year old female landed on my twitter feed. You may read and watch the associated video here:
http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/special_report/disabled-chicago-teenager-gang-raped-south-side-basement-20100802
Usually such rape stories are "simple." You have a victim and a perpetrator. However; this case is an example of a confluence of pathologies that go far beyond the normal "random victim" discussion.
Firstly we have the group of males involved. By the reports there were adult males of undetermined age and boys of various age. So the first thing we have to ask is why are "grown men" leading "immature" males to have sex with a person known to be mentally disabled? If I were the 'hood type I would ask "where they do that at?"
This is similar to the situation that took place in Trenton NJ where another group of "grown" men raped a child who had been brought to them by another child and involved other minor males.
I'm not sure how widespread this particular phenomenon is but I find it particularly disturbing that male minors are being this influenced by "grown" men who have clear psychological issues.
The next issue here was the willingness of the males to violate a female whom they could not determine had or could give consent. I'm not naive. I know that there are in fact women who do engage in sex with multiple people at one time. Some do so in private some do so in very public settings. Therefore I'm not going to spend space here discussing whether persons ought to be engaged in that behavior. It's just not my business if they do.
The problem with this case is that the victim was apparently beaten and bloody. In what state of mind does one have to be in to engage in intercourse with someone who is bloodied and bruised? Even with the clearly warped sense of "consent"that the interviewed male had. How does one's mind work to think " Bloody? Bruised? She must want it."
Which leads to the next issue: Consent. From the videotape it is clear that the one fellow did not understand what the legal definition of consent was. When he was asked whether he thought a mentally disabled person could consent to intercourse, particularly in this particularly atypical manner, he just looked dumbfounded. That sad few seconds where it was clear that he really did not understand the impact of the words that were about to come out his mouth.
He said "But she let 'em".
Essentially this fellow, who had previously gotten in line for his turn but decided the wait was too long, admitted on national TV (and now the global internet) that he is a rapist. Yet he has no clue at all just how dumb he sounded. Why?
That leads to my final issue. The mother of the male who was too impatient to get his rape on, who, like those "grown" men involved should have known better. Backed up her son's outrageous claim of the victim's consent. Clearly we have a failure on the part of the parent. If you are a parent and your son thinks that it's OK to engage in intercourse with someone who is unable to give consent, you have failed.
This goes beyond a mentally handicapped person. This applies to the chick at the bar who had too many and is falling in your lap. It applies to the "girl" you "found" laying passed out on a bed at a party. And yes, it includes the chick that let you suck on her left teat while finger popping her who later decides it's not going any further. Though in the latter case I suggest unhitching that person pronto.
Essentially it is your job as a parent to teach your son that "no" means "no" and "unable to consent" means "no" too. This is not a hard conversation. It is not even a long conversation.
This incident shows a total failure of the adults from the men who assaulted the victim to the parents who defended this BS. It is sad that in the latter part of 2010 we have parents who are not instructing their sons on how to treat women. These guys are going to be trying to involve themselves with our daughters. We cannot stand for this kind of abdication of parental and community responsibility.
(17 years of informed commentary)