Sexual Assault of an Unconscious, Intoxicated Woman

By Voices of Women | September 23, 2019 in CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM, RAPE CULTURE, SEXUAL ASSAULT, SURVIVORSHIP

Back in 2015, a man sexually assaulted a woman on a college campus and it became “huge” news!  Why?  Initially, because the victim was unconscious at the time, due to being intoxicated, and because the perpetrator of the assault was at the time a budding athlete and a member of Stanford University’s swim team.  And later, uproar from some, when the perpetrator’s father, Dan A. Turner, let it be known that he believed that prison was too harsh of a punishment for his son and referred to the sexual assault as “20 minutes of action”!  Giving his opinion on the proposed six years prison sentence, Dan Turner wrote in a letter submitted to the court: “That is a steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action”.  Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/06/06/a-steep-price-to-pay-for-20-minutes-of-action-dad-defends-stanford-sex-offender/  Retrieved 9/18/19.

Back in 2016, the victim of the sexual assault, then not named, criticized how much attention the media was giving to the impressive swimming ability that the defendant had and the negative effect that this incident would have on his future in relation to opportunities as a professional athlete.  “The fact that Brock was an athlete at a private university should not be seen as an entitlement to leniency.”  Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/02/stanford-swimmer-sexual-assault-brock-allen-turner-palo-alto  Retrieved 9/18/19.

Earlier this month, more than three years following the sexual assault, the victim has revealed her identity to the public.  She is now no longer just seen as the intoxicated, unconscious woman.  She is Chanel Miller.  She has a book coming out on September 24th.

It is my hope that the book has a decent-sized portion dedicated to acknowledging the two “angels” who by chance witnessed Brock Turner sexually assaulting Chanel Miller in 2015 as they were cycling through the campus, and stepped in, one of them going to the aid of the victim and the other chasing the perpetrator as he attempted to flee the scene and managing to stop him and hold him there until police arrived.

We, the public, need to be made aware of and potentially educated about acts of abuse, such as sexual assault.  For example: Possible circumstances, dynamics, consequences.  I also believe that we could benefit from more emphasis being given by the media on the details related to any heroes/heroines involved in violent crime stories.  Had Carl-Fredrik Arndt and Peter Jonsson not intervened the night of Chanel Miller’s attack, the outcome of the story would have been different.  Let’s increase positive reinforcement of good/right behavior, as well as paying attention to bad/wrong behavior!

Note: Although “Bystander Intervention” is potentially very valuable.  It can also unintentionally escalate a situation, making it worse!

Permalink  |  Leave a Comment

Australia. A country that takes Domestic Violence seriously!

By Voices of Women | September 3, 2019 in DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, POLITICS, SURVIVORSHIP

“In the past, Australia has denied travel visas to R&B singer Chris Brown and boxing star Floyd Mayweather due to domestic violence convictions.” Source: https://www.travelandleisure.com/travel-news/australia-bans-travelers-with-domestic-violence-charges  Retrieved 8/1019

“On Thursday 28 February 2019 Australian Immigration Minister David Coleman issued a new directive barring anyone with a domestic violence conviction from entering Australia.” Source: http://www.ozkiwi2001.org/2019/03/no-visas-for-domestic-violence-offenders/  Retrieved 8/10/19

“The new Directive applies to decision-makers within the Department of Home Affairs who are considering the cancellation or refusal of a visa under s501 of the Migration Act 1958, or who are considering the revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s501CA.” Source: http://www.ozkiwi2001.org/2019/03/no-visas-for-domestic-violence-offenders/  Retrieved 8/10/19.  Previously, this Migration Act had stated that “a person’s visa must be cancelled if they have been sentenced to 12 months or more in prison.” Source: https://minister.homeaffairs.gov.au/davidcoleman/Pages/govt-introduces-measures-against-domestic-violence-perpetrators-20190303.aspx  Retrieved 8/10/19.  The new directive is not so forgiving in relation to dealing with convicted perpetrators of Domestic Violence; the type of sentence decided by a foreign court is irrelevant when it comes to Australia’s Department of Home Affairs following the directive.

Basically, David Coleman has decided that “Australia has no tolerance for perpetrators of violence against women and children”.  Source: https://minister.homeaffairs.gov.au/davidcoleman/Pages/govt-introduces-measures-against-domestic-violence-perpetrators-20190303.aspx  Retrieved 8/10/19.  Mr. Coleman said in a public statement, “If you’ve been convicted of a violent crime against women or children, you are not welcome in this country.”  Source: https://www.travelandleisure.com/travel-news/australia-bans-travelers-with-domestic-violence-charges  Retrieved 8/1019.  I did note that the emphasis was very much on violence against women and children, and I am grateful to hear this, although we must not ignore the fact that there are males who are victims of Domestic Violence too.

To clarify, any person now wanting to visit Australia on a visa and who has been charged with Domestic Violence, will not be permitted to enter the country, and any person already in the country as a visitor or living there with visa status and who has a record, from anywhere abroad, of Domestic Violence, will be banished from the country.

Some people are arguing that this new directive is too harsh and even unfair.  For example, in the case of a perpetrator of Domestic Violence who served their sentence in the country where they committed the crime and then emigrated to Australia and has been living there for years on a visa, it could be argued that it is unfair to uproot this person from the country that they have chosen as their current home; they have been convicted, punished to some degree according to the laws in their home country and the case has been closed.  Others, however, welcome such a strict directive, aware of the likelihood of recidivism for perpetrators of Domestic Violence.

Permalink  |  Leave a Comment

Isolating Himself and Withholding Affection, as Ways to Abuse.

By Voices of Women | September 3, 2019 in DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, GENERAL NEWS, MEMOIR, RAPE CULTURE, SURVIVORSHIP

Have you ever experienced the sort of emotional abuse that involves him locking you OUT OF a room, or withholding affection from you?  I have.

It is, I think, more often that we hear survivors of Domestic Violence recount stories of how their abusive partners isolated or attempted to isolate them from their friends and family, or how they were forced to have sex with their abusive partners, despite protesting.  And these are certainly very common occurrences within an abusive relationship.  My abusive ex-boyfriend engaged in the isolation tactic that I have just described, but he also had a couple of other habits, other abusive tactics, that I don’t hear much talk of.

My abusive ex-boyfriend would lock himself inside one of the rooms in the house, so that I was unable to enter and so that, (I came to know), he’d be free to sit at his computer or with his phone and communicate with other women.  He once said to me, when I confronted him about his infidelity, “But it’s you who I come home to at the end of each day!”  An example of verbal abuse.  Keeping me from entering the room where he was sitting, an example of non-verbal emotional and psychological abuse.  I believe that it’s acceptable for partners to keep some secrets from each other.  But this was a case of deceit on his part; of him knowing that the only way to try to hide it from me, was to keep me physically away from the proof; and furthermore, of him knowing that locking me out of the room would likely cause me anxiety and depression.

There were other times when he would be sitting at his computer with the door to the room open, and I would approach him to ask, for example, how his applications for Medical Residency were going.  We worked on them together sometimes.  Quickly, but not quite quickly enough for me to not have seen, the computer screen with a Live Chat in progress would be minimized, and a different screen would have replaced it.  The replacement being, for example, something related to applying for a spot on a Residency Program at a hospital somewhere in the country.  He was desperate to not let me get too close to his Computer of Secrets!  Woe betide me if I were to question him on the minimized screen that I had caught a glimpse of!

Another of his abusive behaviors was to withhold physical affection and sexual intimacy from me.  “Don’t most relationships in trouble look like that?”, you may ask.  Remember that this is just part of a bigger picture.  And this was a way of behaving with the intention to hurt me.  “According to the Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine, the definition of abuse is the following: “Abuse is defined as any action that intentionally harms or injures another person.””  Source: https://www.healthyplace.com/abuse/abuse-information/what-is-abuse-abuse-definition.  Retrieved 7/7/19

I recall the emotionally painful nights that I experienced, when he didn’t go out, but would climb into bed next to me at 4am, knowing that I’d probably wake up and knowing that I had to get up early for work the next day, (he didn’t have to rise early).  He’d then make sure that he remained far enough away from my body to not be touching me at all.  He knew that this would hurt me.  It absolutely did!  And he knew that I would have been suffering emotionally up until then, lying there thinking about him in another room, indulging in his secret world.  He knew I longed for the consistency of a warm-bodied, warm-hearted boyfriend; I had practically begun to beg him to go to bed at the same time as me.  Deliberate neglect.

 

Permalink  |  Leave a Comment

New DOJ Definition of “Domestic Violence”

By Voices of Women | September 3, 2019 in DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, GENERAL NEWS, POLITICS, SURVIVORSHIP, VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

The Department of Justice, (DOJ), has changed the definition of “Domestic Violence”!  I only recently discovered this and was curious.  When I read the new definition, I became concerned.

The Department of Justice’s previous definition of “Domestic Violence” was:

“A pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner. Domestic violence can be physical, sexual, emotional, economic, or psychological actions or threats of actions that influence another person. This includes any behaviors that intimidate, manipulate, humiliate, isolate, frighten, terrorize, coerce, threaten, blame, hurt, injure, or wound someone.”  Source:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/doj-change-domestic-violence-definition/

Retrieved 06/22/19

The current version on the DOJ website, as of April 2018, reads:

“The term “domestic violence” includes felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence committed by a current or former spouse or intimate partner of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse or intimate partner, by a person similarly situated to a spouse of the victim under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction receiving grant monies, or by any other person against an adult or youth victim who is protected from that person’s acts under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction.”  Source:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/doj-change-domestic-violence-definition/

Retrieved 06/22/19

My observations:

  1. What is glaringly obvious is how drastically different the two definitions are from one another! I.e. Not just a few minor changes.
  2. We see that whereas the previous definition recognized that Domestic Violence is not merely physical violence, (it listed all forms of abuse), the new definition includes only “felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence”, which means that it is discounting many forms of abuse that perpetrators use on his/her/their victim.
  3. The previous definition explained the goal behind the Domestic Violence, i.e. to gain power and control, and it even offered further explanation for how the abusive behaviors seek to gain power and control. g. Aiming to intimidate or manipulate a victim.  The new definition acknowledged none of the above.

Why am I concerned about the new definition?  I feel that the new definition is sending a message that only Domestic Violence punishable by law is considered as “Domestic Violence”, and by offering such a narrow description, it is potentially misleading, as well as appearing to invalidate all other types of Domestic Violence.  Also, I am wondering why the Trump administration felt compelled to change the definition.  What could be the thinking and the goal behind such an extreme change of wording?

Permalink  |  2