What Had Happened Was Trending stories on the intersections of race, sports & culture

Derrick Rose and friends found not liable in gang rape case

Another victory for toxic masculinity, rape culture and patriarchy

5:30 PM“Do you have an understanding as to the word consent?”

“No. But can you tell me?”

Those were the words of New York Knicks point guard Derrick Rose when he was asked by lawyers in a June 17 deposition about the sexual assault case involving him, two friends and an ex-girlfriend. On Wednesday, Rose and company were found not liable of rape charges by a Los Angeles jury, one that featured two men and six women. The decision was another victory for toxic masculinity, rape culture and patriarchy. Why? Let’s explain.

At the most basic level, Rose and his lawyers went to the most basic of defenses to get their client cleared. All of this was done openly, playing their man card, which historically, fundamentally and in practice is designed to set a higher burden of proof on women to prove they were raped. On a basic level, that is reason for pause from a decent person’s standpoint.

Off the break, Team Rose was trying to not only out the accuser’s identity, but also paint her somehow as a sexually deviant person, another notion rooted in basic forms of misogyny that is often applied in sexual assault cases as a way of rationalizing awful behavior by men. It’s the courtroom version of “she was asking for it.”

“Of special note, plaintiff is publicly portraying herself as sexual,” lawyers argued in pretrial meetings. “The production includes photos from plaintiff’s Instagram account that are sexual in nature. In these images, plaintiff is dressed in provocative attire, is in sexually suggestive poses and is in photographs indicating that she engages in sexually charged encounters with more than one man at a time. Plaintiff’s use of Twitter and other forms of social media further belies her apparent desire for anonymity.”

This is not OK on multiple levels. Putting aside the specificity of Rose and the plaintiff right now, this has nothing to do with consent. No. 1, consent can be given or taken at any time, no matter one’s history. Period. Point being, going into this ordeal legally, Rose’s lawyers were relying on one of the biggest fallacies of rape as a way to discredit the claims. The judge immediately called B.S. on that.

More importantly of note during the deposition, Rose made a statement so shocking that it cut right to the heart of what patriarchy is all about. Unless otherwise stated, the desires of a man trump (pun intended) any civil, personal or physical rights of a woman. It should be noted that a toxicologist estimated her blood alcohol content was 0.20, which is more than double the legal limit. Follow this exchange:

Q: So they just said, ‘Hey, it’s the middle of the night. Let’s go over to plaintiff’s house’ and they never gave you a reason why they wanted to go over there?’

Rose: No, but we men. You can assume.

Q: I’m sorry?

Rose: I said we men. You can assume. Like we leaving to go over to someone’s house at 1 a.m., there’s nothing to talk about.

Q: All right. Is there  —  within what you just reviewed in those text messages — is there anything within them that would lead you to believe that plaintiff wanted to have sex with you and the other two defendants on Aug. 26, 2013?

Rose: No.

What Rose is saying is that up until the very point of actual sexual contact, all consent is presumed, assumed and given. This is rape culture. The notion that unless otherwise stated, sex is always an option on the table. It is not an opt in for you to have access to a woman’s body, she must opt out. The fact that he can’t seem to even wrap his head around that notion is precisely the kind of mindset created by toxic masculinity.

During the trial, Rose took that even further, saying that he didn’t actually think he’d done anything wrong in this situation. Which, again, is not how consent works, but is how courtrooms allow men to portray things in their favor to put a higher threshold on women to prove the truth. This is where the larger matter moves away from Rose specifically and gets into the larger problem. Never mind the fact that the NBA is apparently teaching rookies to keep used condoms.

“I took [the] claim very seriously, but a couple of things stood out immediately. The first was she didn’t go to the police. She chose to sue Rose. The second was that she waited two years to do so,” Robert Littal at BlackSportsOnline.com wrote. “I can understand that with any traumatic event it may take time to become strong enough to speak out on it, but if someone raped you and you truly wanted them to pay for their crimes, why wouldn’t you want them to be in jail?”

Littal, who reports frequently on athletes’ sex lives, went on to report that the plaintiff needed the money and thus concocted a wild story as a way to potentially draw a settlement out of Rose to make the story go away. Which, even if true, doesn’t hold water. The rule of law does not always make right, and in this case, the details of whether or not this woman was as honest as George Washington became more important than making a determination based on what both sides admitted happened.

Rose didn’t know what consent was. She was too drunk to give consent. He found a way into her home and had sex with her along with his friends. This. Was. All. Admitted. In. Court. So why did Rose walk free? In short, he’s a man. Eventually the jury felt that, because her story, she lied about all the details.

According to Deadspin: The jury initially declined to speak to reporters, but later two jurors —identifying themselves by first name only — agreed to. Jared said Jane Doe “didn’t do any of the steps to prove her own case” and “nothing added up to a correct statement.” Jared felt like Doe “was playing us,” and he believed witness Gabriel Chavez, who testified that Doe was a liar. In contrast, Jared said Rose and his friends seemed “genuine” and “honest.”

For sexual assault victims, these must be the most triggering of cases. Ones in which because a woman might not have had the instant wherewithal to follow every specific step necessary to prove something in court where the rules are stacked against her — not only does that suddenly mean it didn’t happen, but she’s also suddenly a terrible person for not being able to figure it out on her own.

After the civil trial ended, Rose posed for pictures with jurors. The judge even wished him well, saying good luck to him with the Knicks, except when they play the Los Angeles Lakers.

The specific details of Rose’s case here were obviously important to this trial. In many ways, this whole situation from a larger standpoint isn’t even about him specifically as a bad guy. If he legit thinks she lied to extort him, fair enough. If she says she was violated, understandable.

But the tactics, method and manner of the proceedings here are important. This could have been anyone. The justice system, the same one which finds way to exonerate police officers for killing unarmed citizens, isn’t suddenly fool-proof for sexual assault.

A woman who believes she was raped confronted her accusers. The accused openly admit what they did, under the guise that if she can’t prove it was wrong, then it shouldn’t matter at all. Jury sides with men. Toxic masculinity, rape culture and patriarchy. Wash, rinse, repeat.

A tale of two covers

Russell Westbrook and Kevin Durant don different looks

5:30 PM“Do you have an understanding as to the word consent?”

“No. But can you tell me?”

Those were the words of New York Knicks point guard Derrick Rose when he was asked by lawyers in a June 17 deposition about the sexual assault case involving him, two friends and an ex-girlfriend. On Wednesday, Rose and company were found not liable of rape charges by a Los Angeles jury, one that featured two men and six women. The decision was another victory for toxic masculinity, rape culture and patriarchy. Why? Let’s explain.

At the most basic level, Rose and his lawyers went to the most basic of defenses to get their client cleared. All of this was done openly, playing their man card, which historically, fundamentally and in practice is designed to set a higher burden of proof on women to prove they were raped. On a basic level, that is reason for pause from a decent person’s standpoint.

Off the break, Team Rose was trying to not only out the accuser’s identity, but also paint her somehow as a sexually deviant person, another notion rooted in basic forms of misogyny that is often applied in sexual assault cases as a way of rationalizing awful behavior by men. It’s the courtroom version of “she was asking for it.”

“Of special note, plaintiff is publicly portraying herself as sexual,” lawyers argued in pretrial meetings. “The production includes photos from plaintiff’s Instagram account that are sexual in nature. In these images, plaintiff is dressed in provocative attire, is in sexually suggestive poses and is in photographs indicating that she engages in sexually charged encounters with more than one man at a time. Plaintiff’s use of Twitter and other forms of social media further belies her apparent desire for anonymity.”

This is not OK on multiple levels. Putting aside the specificity of Rose and the plaintiff right now, this has nothing to do with consent. No. 1, consent can be given or taken at any time, no matter one’s history. Period. Point being, going into this ordeal legally, Rose’s lawyers were relying on one of the biggest fallacies of rape as a way to discredit the claims. The judge immediately called B.S. on that.

More importantly of note during the deposition, Rose made a statement so shocking that it cut right to the heart of what patriarchy is all about. Unless otherwise stated, the desires of a man trump (pun intended) any civil, personal or physical rights of a woman. It should be noted that a toxicologist estimated her blood alcohol content was 0.20, which is more than double the legal limit. Follow this exchange:

Q: So they just said, ‘Hey, it’s the middle of the night. Let’s go over to plaintiff’s house’ and they never gave you a reason why they wanted to go over there?’

Rose: No, but we men. You can assume.

Q: I’m sorry?

Rose: I said we men. You can assume. Like we leaving to go over to someone’s house at 1 a.m., there’s nothing to talk about.

Q: All right. Is there  —  within what you just reviewed in those text messages — is there anything within them that would lead you to believe that plaintiff wanted to have sex with you and the other two defendants on Aug. 26, 2013?

Rose: No.

What Rose is saying is that up until the very point of actual sexual contact, all consent is presumed, assumed and given. This is rape culture. The notion that unless otherwise stated, sex is always an option on the table. It is not an opt in for you to have access to a woman’s body, she must opt out. The fact that he can’t seem to even wrap his head around that notion is precisely the kind of mindset created by toxic masculinity.

During the trial, Rose took that even further, saying that he didn’t actually think he’d done anything wrong in this situation. Which, again, is not how consent works, but is how courtrooms allow men to portray things in their favor to put a higher threshold on women to prove the truth. This is where the larger matter moves away from Rose specifically and gets into the larger problem. Never mind the fact that the NBA is apparently teaching rookies to keep used condoms.

“I took [the] claim very seriously, but a couple of things stood out immediately. The first was she didn’t go to the police. She chose to sue Rose. The second was that she waited two years to do so,” Robert Littal at BlackSportsOnline.com wrote. “I can understand that with any traumatic event it may take time to become strong enough to speak out on it, but if someone raped you and you truly wanted them to pay for their crimes, why wouldn’t you want them to be in jail?”

Littal, who reports frequently on athletes’ sex lives, went on to report that the plaintiff needed the money and thus concocted a wild story as a way to potentially draw a settlement out of Rose to make the story go away. Which, even if true, doesn’t hold water. The rule of law does not always make right, and in this case, the details of whether or not this woman was as honest as George Washington became more important than making a determination based on what both sides admitted happened.

Rose didn’t know what consent was. She was too drunk to give consent. He found a way into her home and had sex with her along with his friends. This. Was. All. Admitted. In. Court. So why did Rose walk free? In short, he’s a man. Eventually the jury felt that, because her story, she lied about all the details.

According to Deadspin: The jury initially declined to speak to reporters, but later two jurors —identifying themselves by first name only — agreed to. Jared said Jane Doe “didn’t do any of the steps to prove her own case” and “nothing added up to a correct statement.” Jared felt like Doe “was playing us,” and he believed witness Gabriel Chavez, who testified that Doe was a liar. In contrast, Jared said Rose and his friends seemed “genuine” and “honest.”

For sexual assault victims, these must be the most triggering of cases. Ones in which because a woman might not have had the instant wherewithal to follow every specific step necessary to prove something in court where the rules are stacked against her — not only does that suddenly mean it didn’t happen, but she’s also suddenly a terrible person for not being able to figure it out on her own.

After the civil trial ended, Rose posed for pictures with jurors. The judge even wished him well, saying good luck to him with the Knicks, except when they play the Los Angeles Lakers.

The specific details of Rose’s case here were obviously important to this trial. In many ways, this whole situation from a larger standpoint isn’t even about him specifically as a bad guy. If he legit thinks she lied to extort him, fair enough. If she says she was violated, understandable.

But the tactics, method and manner of the proceedings here are important. This could have been anyone. The justice system, the same one which finds way to exonerate police officers for killing unarmed citizens, isn’t suddenly fool-proof for sexual assault.

A woman who believes she was raped confronted her accusers. The accused openly admit what they did, under the guise that if she can’t prove it was wrong, then it shouldn’t matter at all. Jury sides with men. Toxic masculinity, rape culture and patriarchy. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Daily Dose: 10/19/16

The first lady slays for one last state dinner

5:30 PM“Do you have an understanding as to the word consent?”

“No. But can you tell me?”

Those were the words of New York Knicks point guard Derrick Rose when he was asked by lawyers in a June 17 deposition about the sexual assault case involving him, two friends and an ex-girlfriend. On Wednesday, Rose and company were found not liable of rape charges by a Los Angeles jury, one that featured two men and six women. The decision was another victory for toxic masculinity, rape culture and patriarchy. Why? Let’s explain.

At the most basic level, Rose and his lawyers went to the most basic of defenses to get their client cleared. All of this was done openly, playing their man card, which historically, fundamentally and in practice is designed to set a higher burden of proof on women to prove they were raped. On a basic level, that is reason for pause from a decent person’s standpoint.

Off the break, Team Rose was trying to not only out the accuser’s identity, but also paint her somehow as a sexually deviant person, another notion rooted in basic forms of misogyny that is often applied in sexual assault cases as a way of rationalizing awful behavior by men. It’s the courtroom version of “she was asking for it.”

“Of special note, plaintiff is publicly portraying herself as sexual,” lawyers argued in pretrial meetings. “The production includes photos from plaintiff’s Instagram account that are sexual in nature. In these images, plaintiff is dressed in provocative attire, is in sexually suggestive poses and is in photographs indicating that she engages in sexually charged encounters with more than one man at a time. Plaintiff’s use of Twitter and other forms of social media further belies her apparent desire for anonymity.”

This is not OK on multiple levels. Putting aside the specificity of Rose and the plaintiff right now, this has nothing to do with consent. No. 1, consent can be given or taken at any time, no matter one’s history. Period. Point being, going into this ordeal legally, Rose’s lawyers were relying on one of the biggest fallacies of rape as a way to discredit the claims. The judge immediately called B.S. on that.

More importantly of note during the deposition, Rose made a statement so shocking that it cut right to the heart of what patriarchy is all about. Unless otherwise stated, the desires of a man trump (pun intended) any civil, personal or physical rights of a woman. It should be noted that a toxicologist estimated her blood alcohol content was 0.20, which is more than double the legal limit. Follow this exchange:

Q: So they just said, ‘Hey, it’s the middle of the night. Let’s go over to plaintiff’s house’ and they never gave you a reason why they wanted to go over there?’

Rose: No, but we men. You can assume.

Q: I’m sorry?

Rose: I said we men. You can assume. Like we leaving to go over to someone’s house at 1 a.m., there’s nothing to talk about.

Q: All right. Is there  —  within what you just reviewed in those text messages — is there anything within them that would lead you to believe that plaintiff wanted to have sex with you and the other two defendants on Aug. 26, 2013?

Rose: No.

What Rose is saying is that up until the very point of actual sexual contact, all consent is presumed, assumed and given. This is rape culture. The notion that unless otherwise stated, sex is always an option on the table. It is not an opt in for you to have access to a woman’s body, she must opt out. The fact that he can’t seem to even wrap his head around that notion is precisely the kind of mindset created by toxic masculinity.

During the trial, Rose took that even further, saying that he didn’t actually think he’d done anything wrong in this situation. Which, again, is not how consent works, but is how courtrooms allow men to portray things in their favor to put a higher threshold on women to prove the truth. This is where the larger matter moves away from Rose specifically and gets into the larger problem. Never mind the fact that the NBA is apparently teaching rookies to keep used condoms.

“I took [the] claim very seriously, but a couple of things stood out immediately. The first was she didn’t go to the police. She chose to sue Rose. The second was that she waited two years to do so,” Robert Littal at BlackSportsOnline.com wrote. “I can understand that with any traumatic event it may take time to become strong enough to speak out on it, but if someone raped you and you truly wanted them to pay for their crimes, why wouldn’t you want them to be in jail?”

Littal, who reports frequently on athletes’ sex lives, went on to report that the plaintiff needed the money and thus concocted a wild story as a way to potentially draw a settlement out of Rose to make the story go away. Which, even if true, doesn’t hold water. The rule of law does not always make right, and in this case, the details of whether or not this woman was as honest as George Washington became more important than making a determination based on what both sides admitted happened.

Rose didn’t know what consent was. She was too drunk to give consent. He found a way into her home and had sex with her along with his friends. This. Was. All. Admitted. In. Court. So why did Rose walk free? In short, he’s a man. Eventually the jury felt that, because her story, she lied about all the details.

According to Deadspin: The jury initially declined to speak to reporters, but later two jurors —identifying themselves by first name only — agreed to. Jared said Jane Doe “didn’t do any of the steps to prove her own case” and “nothing added up to a correct statement.” Jared felt like Doe “was playing us,” and he believed witness Gabriel Chavez, who testified that Doe was a liar. In contrast, Jared said Rose and his friends seemed “genuine” and “honest.”

For sexual assault victims, these must be the most triggering of cases. Ones in which because a woman might not have had the instant wherewithal to follow every specific step necessary to prove something in court where the rules are stacked against her — not only does that suddenly mean it didn’t happen, but she’s also suddenly a terrible person for not being able to figure it out on her own.

After the civil trial ended, Rose posed for pictures with jurors. The judge even wished him well, saying good luck to him with the Knicks, except when they play the Los Angeles Lakers.

The specific details of Rose’s case here were obviously important to this trial. In many ways, this whole situation from a larger standpoint isn’t even about him specifically as a bad guy. If he legit thinks she lied to extort him, fair enough. If she says she was violated, understandable.

But the tactics, method and manner of the proceedings here are important. This could have been anyone. The justice system, the same one which finds way to exonerate police officers for killing unarmed citizens, isn’t suddenly fool-proof for sexual assault.

A woman who believes she was raped confronted her accusers. The accused openly admit what they did, under the guise that if she can’t prove it was wrong, then it shouldn’t matter at all. Jury sides with men. Toxic masculinity, rape culture and patriarchy. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Khloe Kardashian talks about her new clothing line

Good American is designed to expand the body positive experience

5:30 PM“Do you have an understanding as to the word consent?”

“No. But can you tell me?”

Those were the words of New York Knicks point guard Derrick Rose when he was asked by lawyers in a June 17 deposition about the sexual assault case involving him, two friends and an ex-girlfriend. On Wednesday, Rose and company were found not liable of rape charges by a Los Angeles jury, one that featured two men and six women. The decision was another victory for toxic masculinity, rape culture and patriarchy. Why? Let’s explain.

At the most basic level, Rose and his lawyers went to the most basic of defenses to get their client cleared. All of this was done openly, playing their man card, which historically, fundamentally and in practice is designed to set a higher burden of proof on women to prove they were raped. On a basic level, that is reason for pause from a decent person’s standpoint.

Off the break, Team Rose was trying to not only out the accuser’s identity, but also paint her somehow as a sexually deviant person, another notion rooted in basic forms of misogyny that is often applied in sexual assault cases as a way of rationalizing awful behavior by men. It’s the courtroom version of “she was asking for it.”

“Of special note, plaintiff is publicly portraying herself as sexual,” lawyers argued in pretrial meetings. “The production includes photos from plaintiff’s Instagram account that are sexual in nature. In these images, plaintiff is dressed in provocative attire, is in sexually suggestive poses and is in photographs indicating that she engages in sexually charged encounters with more than one man at a time. Plaintiff’s use of Twitter and other forms of social media further belies her apparent desire for anonymity.”

This is not OK on multiple levels. Putting aside the specificity of Rose and the plaintiff right now, this has nothing to do with consent. No. 1, consent can be given or taken at any time, no matter one’s history. Period. Point being, going into this ordeal legally, Rose’s lawyers were relying on one of the biggest fallacies of rape as a way to discredit the claims. The judge immediately called B.S. on that.

More importantly of note during the deposition, Rose made a statement so shocking that it cut right to the heart of what patriarchy is all about. Unless otherwise stated, the desires of a man trump (pun intended) any civil, personal or physical rights of a woman. It should be noted that a toxicologist estimated her blood alcohol content was 0.20, which is more than double the legal limit. Follow this exchange:

Q: So they just said, ‘Hey, it’s the middle of the night. Let’s go over to plaintiff’s house’ and they never gave you a reason why they wanted to go over there?’

Rose: No, but we men. You can assume.

Q: I’m sorry?

Rose: I said we men. You can assume. Like we leaving to go over to someone’s house at 1 a.m., there’s nothing to talk about.

Q: All right. Is there  —  within what you just reviewed in those text messages — is there anything within them that would lead you to believe that plaintiff wanted to have sex with you and the other two defendants on Aug. 26, 2013?

Rose: No.

What Rose is saying is that up until the very point of actual sexual contact, all consent is presumed, assumed and given. This is rape culture. The notion that unless otherwise stated, sex is always an option on the table. It is not an opt in for you to have access to a woman’s body, she must opt out. The fact that he can’t seem to even wrap his head around that notion is precisely the kind of mindset created by toxic masculinity.

During the trial, Rose took that even further, saying that he didn’t actually think he’d done anything wrong in this situation. Which, again, is not how consent works, but is how courtrooms allow men to portray things in their favor to put a higher threshold on women to prove the truth. This is where the larger matter moves away from Rose specifically and gets into the larger problem. Never mind the fact that the NBA is apparently teaching rookies to keep used condoms.

“I took [the] claim very seriously, but a couple of things stood out immediately. The first was she didn’t go to the police. She chose to sue Rose. The second was that she waited two years to do so,” Robert Littal at BlackSportsOnline.com wrote. “I can understand that with any traumatic event it may take time to become strong enough to speak out on it, but if someone raped you and you truly wanted them to pay for their crimes, why wouldn’t you want them to be in jail?”

Littal, who reports frequently on athletes’ sex lives, went on to report that the plaintiff needed the money and thus concocted a wild story as a way to potentially draw a settlement out of Rose to make the story go away. Which, even if true, doesn’t hold water. The rule of law does not always make right, and in this case, the details of whether or not this woman was as honest as George Washington became more important than making a determination based on what both sides admitted happened.

Rose didn’t know what consent was. She was too drunk to give consent. He found a way into her home and had sex with her along with his friends. This. Was. All. Admitted. In. Court. So why did Rose walk free? In short, he’s a man. Eventually the jury felt that, because her story, she lied about all the details.

According to Deadspin: The jury initially declined to speak to reporters, but later two jurors —identifying themselves by first name only — agreed to. Jared said Jane Doe “didn’t do any of the steps to prove her own case” and “nothing added up to a correct statement.” Jared felt like Doe “was playing us,” and he believed witness Gabriel Chavez, who testified that Doe was a liar. In contrast, Jared said Rose and his friends seemed “genuine” and “honest.”

For sexual assault victims, these must be the most triggering of cases. Ones in which because a woman might not have had the instant wherewithal to follow every specific step necessary to prove something in court where the rules are stacked against her — not only does that suddenly mean it didn’t happen, but she’s also suddenly a terrible person for not being able to figure it out on her own.

After the civil trial ended, Rose posed for pictures with jurors. The judge even wished him well, saying good luck to him with the Knicks, except when they play the Los Angeles Lakers.

The specific details of Rose’s case here were obviously important to this trial. In many ways, this whole situation from a larger standpoint isn’t even about him specifically as a bad guy. If he legit thinks she lied to extort him, fair enough. If she says she was violated, understandable.

But the tactics, method and manner of the proceedings here are important. This could have been anyone. The justice system, the same one which finds way to exonerate police officers for killing unarmed citizens, isn’t suddenly fool-proof for sexual assault.

A woman who believes she was raped confronted her accusers. The accused openly admit what they did, under the guise that if she can’t prove it was wrong, then it shouldn’t matter at all. Jury sides with men. Toxic masculinity, rape culture and patriarchy. Wash, rinse, repeat.

This Jose Fernandez mural is sad, but dope

Giancarlo Stanton decided to get up for his late teammate in Brazil

5:30 PM“Do you have an understanding as to the word consent?”

“No. But can you tell me?”

Those were the words of New York Knicks point guard Derrick Rose when he was asked by lawyers in a June 17 deposition about the sexual assault case involving him, two friends and an ex-girlfriend. On Wednesday, Rose and company were found not liable of rape charges by a Los Angeles jury, one that featured two men and six women. The decision was another victory for toxic masculinity, rape culture and patriarchy. Why? Let’s explain.

At the most basic level, Rose and his lawyers went to the most basic of defenses to get their client cleared. All of this was done openly, playing their man card, which historically, fundamentally and in practice is designed to set a higher burden of proof on women to prove they were raped. On a basic level, that is reason for pause from a decent person’s standpoint.

Off the break, Team Rose was trying to not only out the accuser’s identity, but also paint her somehow as a sexually deviant person, another notion rooted in basic forms of misogyny that is often applied in sexual assault cases as a way of rationalizing awful behavior by men. It’s the courtroom version of “she was asking for it.”

“Of special note, plaintiff is publicly portraying herself as sexual,” lawyers argued in pretrial meetings. “The production includes photos from plaintiff’s Instagram account that are sexual in nature. In these images, plaintiff is dressed in provocative attire, is in sexually suggestive poses and is in photographs indicating that she engages in sexually charged encounters with more than one man at a time. Plaintiff’s use of Twitter and other forms of social media further belies her apparent desire for anonymity.”

This is not OK on multiple levels. Putting aside the specificity of Rose and the plaintiff right now, this has nothing to do with consent. No. 1, consent can be given or taken at any time, no matter one’s history. Period. Point being, going into this ordeal legally, Rose’s lawyers were relying on one of the biggest fallacies of rape as a way to discredit the claims. The judge immediately called B.S. on that.

More importantly of note during the deposition, Rose made a statement so shocking that it cut right to the heart of what patriarchy is all about. Unless otherwise stated, the desires of a man trump (pun intended) any civil, personal or physical rights of a woman. It should be noted that a toxicologist estimated her blood alcohol content was 0.20, which is more than double the legal limit. Follow this exchange:

Q: So they just said, ‘Hey, it’s the middle of the night. Let’s go over to plaintiff’s house’ and they never gave you a reason why they wanted to go over there?’

Rose: No, but we men. You can assume.

Q: I’m sorry?

Rose: I said we men. You can assume. Like we leaving to go over to someone’s house at 1 a.m., there’s nothing to talk about.

Q: All right. Is there  —  within what you just reviewed in those text messages — is there anything within them that would lead you to believe that plaintiff wanted to have sex with you and the other two defendants on Aug. 26, 2013?

Rose: No.

What Rose is saying is that up until the very point of actual sexual contact, all consent is presumed, assumed and given. This is rape culture. The notion that unless otherwise stated, sex is always an option on the table. It is not an opt in for you to have access to a woman’s body, she must opt out. The fact that he can’t seem to even wrap his head around that notion is precisely the kind of mindset created by toxic masculinity.

During the trial, Rose took that even further, saying that he didn’t actually think he’d done anything wrong in this situation. Which, again, is not how consent works, but is how courtrooms allow men to portray things in their favor to put a higher threshold on women to prove the truth. This is where the larger matter moves away from Rose specifically and gets into the larger problem. Never mind the fact that the NBA is apparently teaching rookies to keep used condoms.

“I took [the] claim very seriously, but a couple of things stood out immediately. The first was she didn’t go to the police. She chose to sue Rose. The second was that she waited two years to do so,” Robert Littal at BlackSportsOnline.com wrote. “I can understand that with any traumatic event it may take time to become strong enough to speak out on it, but if someone raped you and you truly wanted them to pay for their crimes, why wouldn’t you want them to be in jail?”

Littal, who reports frequently on athletes’ sex lives, went on to report that the plaintiff needed the money and thus concocted a wild story as a way to potentially draw a settlement out of Rose to make the story go away. Which, even if true, doesn’t hold water. The rule of law does not always make right, and in this case, the details of whether or not this woman was as honest as George Washington became more important than making a determination based on what both sides admitted happened.

Rose didn’t know what consent was. She was too drunk to give consent. He found a way into her home and had sex with her along with his friends. This. Was. All. Admitted. In. Court. So why did Rose walk free? In short, he’s a man. Eventually the jury felt that, because her story, she lied about all the details.

According to Deadspin: The jury initially declined to speak to reporters, but later two jurors —identifying themselves by first name only — agreed to. Jared said Jane Doe “didn’t do any of the steps to prove her own case” and “nothing added up to a correct statement.” Jared felt like Doe “was playing us,” and he believed witness Gabriel Chavez, who testified that Doe was a liar. In contrast, Jared said Rose and his friends seemed “genuine” and “honest.”

For sexual assault victims, these must be the most triggering of cases. Ones in which because a woman might not have had the instant wherewithal to follow every specific step necessary to prove something in court where the rules are stacked against her — not only does that suddenly mean it didn’t happen, but she’s also suddenly a terrible person for not being able to figure it out on her own.

After the civil trial ended, Rose posed for pictures with jurors. The judge even wished him well, saying good luck to him with the Knicks, except when they play the Los Angeles Lakers.

The specific details of Rose’s case here were obviously important to this trial. In many ways, this whole situation from a larger standpoint isn’t even about him specifically as a bad guy. If he legit thinks she lied to extort him, fair enough. If she says she was violated, understandable.

But the tactics, method and manner of the proceedings here are important. This could have been anyone. The justice system, the same one which finds way to exonerate police officers for killing unarmed citizens, isn’t suddenly fool-proof for sexual assault.

A woman who believes she was raped confronted her accusers. The accused openly admit what they did, under the guise that if she can’t prove it was wrong, then it shouldn’t matter at all. Jury sides with men. Toxic masculinity, rape culture and patriarchy. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Daily Dose: 10/18/16

Let’s have a discussion about what the word ‘consent’ means

5:30 PM“Do you have an understanding as to the word consent?”

“No. But can you tell me?”

Those were the words of New York Knicks point guard Derrick Rose when he was asked by lawyers in a June 17 deposition about the sexual assault case involving him, two friends and an ex-girlfriend. On Wednesday, Rose and company were found not liable of rape charges by a Los Angeles jury, one that featured two men and six women. The decision was another victory for toxic masculinity, rape culture and patriarchy. Why? Let’s explain.

At the most basic level, Rose and his lawyers went to the most basic of defenses to get their client cleared. All of this was done openly, playing their man card, which historically, fundamentally and in practice is designed to set a higher burden of proof on women to prove they were raped. On a basic level, that is reason for pause from a decent person’s standpoint.

Off the break, Team Rose was trying to not only out the accuser’s identity, but also paint her somehow as a sexually deviant person, another notion rooted in basic forms of misogyny that is often applied in sexual assault cases as a way of rationalizing awful behavior by men. It’s the courtroom version of “she was asking for it.”

“Of special note, plaintiff is publicly portraying herself as sexual,” lawyers argued in pretrial meetings. “The production includes photos from plaintiff’s Instagram account that are sexual in nature. In these images, plaintiff is dressed in provocative attire, is in sexually suggestive poses and is in photographs indicating that she engages in sexually charged encounters with more than one man at a time. Plaintiff’s use of Twitter and other forms of social media further belies her apparent desire for anonymity.”

This is not OK on multiple levels. Putting aside the specificity of Rose and the plaintiff right now, this has nothing to do with consent. No. 1, consent can be given or taken at any time, no matter one’s history. Period. Point being, going into this ordeal legally, Rose’s lawyers were relying on one of the biggest fallacies of rape as a way to discredit the claims. The judge immediately called B.S. on that.

More importantly of note during the deposition, Rose made a statement so shocking that it cut right to the heart of what patriarchy is all about. Unless otherwise stated, the desires of a man trump (pun intended) any civil, personal or physical rights of a woman. It should be noted that a toxicologist estimated her blood alcohol content was 0.20, which is more than double the legal limit. Follow this exchange:

Q: So they just said, ‘Hey, it’s the middle of the night. Let’s go over to plaintiff’s house’ and they never gave you a reason why they wanted to go over there?’

Rose: No, but we men. You can assume.

Q: I’m sorry?

Rose: I said we men. You can assume. Like we leaving to go over to someone’s house at 1 a.m., there’s nothing to talk about.

Q: All right. Is there  —  within what you just reviewed in those text messages — is there anything within them that would lead you to believe that plaintiff wanted to have sex with you and the other two defendants on Aug. 26, 2013?

Rose: No.

What Rose is saying is that up until the very point of actual sexual contact, all consent is presumed, assumed and given. This is rape culture. The notion that unless otherwise stated, sex is always an option on the table. It is not an opt in for you to have access to a woman’s body, she must opt out. The fact that he can’t seem to even wrap his head around that notion is precisely the kind of mindset created by toxic masculinity.

During the trial, Rose took that even further, saying that he didn’t actually think he’d done anything wrong in this situation. Which, again, is not how consent works, but is how courtrooms allow men to portray things in their favor to put a higher threshold on women to prove the truth. This is where the larger matter moves away from Rose specifically and gets into the larger problem. Never mind the fact that the NBA is apparently teaching rookies to keep used condoms.

“I took [the] claim very seriously, but a couple of things stood out immediately. The first was she didn’t go to the police. She chose to sue Rose. The second was that she waited two years to do so,” Robert Littal at BlackSportsOnline.com wrote. “I can understand that with any traumatic event it may take time to become strong enough to speak out on it, but if someone raped you and you truly wanted them to pay for their crimes, why wouldn’t you want them to be in jail?”

Littal, who reports frequently on athletes’ sex lives, went on to report that the plaintiff needed the money and thus concocted a wild story as a way to potentially draw a settlement out of Rose to make the story go away. Which, even if true, doesn’t hold water. The rule of law does not always make right, and in this case, the details of whether or not this woman was as honest as George Washington became more important than making a determination based on what both sides admitted happened.

Rose didn’t know what consent was. She was too drunk to give consent. He found a way into her home and had sex with her along with his friends. This. Was. All. Admitted. In. Court. So why did Rose walk free? In short, he’s a man. Eventually the jury felt that, because her story, she lied about all the details.

According to Deadspin: The jury initially declined to speak to reporters, but later two jurors —identifying themselves by first name only — agreed to. Jared said Jane Doe “didn’t do any of the steps to prove her own case” and “nothing added up to a correct statement.” Jared felt like Doe “was playing us,” and he believed witness Gabriel Chavez, who testified that Doe was a liar. In contrast, Jared said Rose and his friends seemed “genuine” and “honest.”

For sexual assault victims, these must be the most triggering of cases. Ones in which because a woman might not have had the instant wherewithal to follow every specific step necessary to prove something in court where the rules are stacked against her — not only does that suddenly mean it didn’t happen, but she’s also suddenly a terrible person for not being able to figure it out on her own.

After the civil trial ended, Rose posed for pictures with jurors. The judge even wished him well, saying good luck to him with the Knicks, except when they play the Los Angeles Lakers.

The specific details of Rose’s case here were obviously important to this trial. In many ways, this whole situation from a larger standpoint isn’t even about him specifically as a bad guy. If he legit thinks she lied to extort him, fair enough. If she says she was violated, understandable.

But the tactics, method and manner of the proceedings here are important. This could have been anyone. The justice system, the same one which finds way to exonerate police officers for killing unarmed citizens, isn’t suddenly fool-proof for sexual assault.

A woman who believes she was raped confronted her accusers. The accused openly admit what they did, under the guise that if she can’t prove it was wrong, then it shouldn’t matter at all. Jury sides with men. Toxic masculinity, rape culture and patriarchy. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Please let JaVale McGee make the Warriors

He’s legit one of the most entertaining players in the NBA

5:30 PM“Do you have an understanding as to the word consent?”

“No. But can you tell me?”

Those were the words of New York Knicks point guard Derrick Rose when he was asked by lawyers in a June 17 deposition about the sexual assault case involving him, two friends and an ex-girlfriend. On Wednesday, Rose and company were found not liable of rape charges by a Los Angeles jury, one that featured two men and six women. The decision was another victory for toxic masculinity, rape culture and patriarchy. Why? Let’s explain.

At the most basic level, Rose and his lawyers went to the most basic of defenses to get their client cleared. All of this was done openly, playing their man card, which historically, fundamentally and in practice is designed to set a higher burden of proof on women to prove they were raped. On a basic level, that is reason for pause from a decent person’s standpoint.

Off the break, Team Rose was trying to not only out the accuser’s identity, but also paint her somehow as a sexually deviant person, another notion rooted in basic forms of misogyny that is often applied in sexual assault cases as a way of rationalizing awful behavior by men. It’s the courtroom version of “she was asking for it.”

“Of special note, plaintiff is publicly portraying herself as sexual,” lawyers argued in pretrial meetings. “The production includes photos from plaintiff’s Instagram account that are sexual in nature. In these images, plaintiff is dressed in provocative attire, is in sexually suggestive poses and is in photographs indicating that she engages in sexually charged encounters with more than one man at a time. Plaintiff’s use of Twitter and other forms of social media further belies her apparent desire for anonymity.”

This is not OK on multiple levels. Putting aside the specificity of Rose and the plaintiff right now, this has nothing to do with consent. No. 1, consent can be given or taken at any time, no matter one’s history. Period. Point being, going into this ordeal legally, Rose’s lawyers were relying on one of the biggest fallacies of rape as a way to discredit the claims. The judge immediately called B.S. on that.

More importantly of note during the deposition, Rose made a statement so shocking that it cut right to the heart of what patriarchy is all about. Unless otherwise stated, the desires of a man trump (pun intended) any civil, personal or physical rights of a woman. It should be noted that a toxicologist estimated her blood alcohol content was 0.20, which is more than double the legal limit. Follow this exchange:

Q: So they just said, ‘Hey, it’s the middle of the night. Let’s go over to plaintiff’s house’ and they never gave you a reason why they wanted to go over there?’

Rose: No, but we men. You can assume.

Q: I’m sorry?

Rose: I said we men. You can assume. Like we leaving to go over to someone’s house at 1 a.m., there’s nothing to talk about.

Q: All right. Is there  —  within what you just reviewed in those text messages — is there anything within them that would lead you to believe that plaintiff wanted to have sex with you and the other two defendants on Aug. 26, 2013?

Rose: No.

What Rose is saying is that up until the very point of actual sexual contact, all consent is presumed, assumed and given. This is rape culture. The notion that unless otherwise stated, sex is always an option on the table. It is not an opt in for you to have access to a woman’s body, she must opt out. The fact that he can’t seem to even wrap his head around that notion is precisely the kind of mindset created by toxic masculinity.

During the trial, Rose took that even further, saying that he didn’t actually think he’d done anything wrong in this situation. Which, again, is not how consent works, but is how courtrooms allow men to portray things in their favor to put a higher threshold on women to prove the truth. This is where the larger matter moves away from Rose specifically and gets into the larger problem. Never mind the fact that the NBA is apparently teaching rookies to keep used condoms.

“I took [the] claim very seriously, but a couple of things stood out immediately. The first was she didn’t go to the police. She chose to sue Rose. The second was that she waited two years to do so,” Robert Littal at BlackSportsOnline.com wrote. “I can understand that with any traumatic event it may take time to become strong enough to speak out on it, but if someone raped you and you truly wanted them to pay for their crimes, why wouldn’t you want them to be in jail?”

Littal, who reports frequently on athletes’ sex lives, went on to report that the plaintiff needed the money and thus concocted a wild story as a way to potentially draw a settlement out of Rose to make the story go away. Which, even if true, doesn’t hold water. The rule of law does not always make right, and in this case, the details of whether or not this woman was as honest as George Washington became more important than making a determination based on what both sides admitted happened.

Rose didn’t know what consent was. She was too drunk to give consent. He found a way into her home and had sex with her along with his friends. This. Was. All. Admitted. In. Court. So why did Rose walk free? In short, he’s a man. Eventually the jury felt that, because her story, she lied about all the details.

According to Deadspin: The jury initially declined to speak to reporters, but later two jurors —identifying themselves by first name only — agreed to. Jared said Jane Doe “didn’t do any of the steps to prove her own case” and “nothing added up to a correct statement.” Jared felt like Doe “was playing us,” and he believed witness Gabriel Chavez, who testified that Doe was a liar. In contrast, Jared said Rose and his friends seemed “genuine” and “honest.”

For sexual assault victims, these must be the most triggering of cases. Ones in which because a woman might not have had the instant wherewithal to follow every specific step necessary to prove something in court where the rules are stacked against her — not only does that suddenly mean it didn’t happen, but she’s also suddenly a terrible person for not being able to figure it out on her own.

After the civil trial ended, Rose posed for pictures with jurors. The judge even wished him well, saying good luck to him with the Knicks, except when they play the Los Angeles Lakers.

The specific details of Rose’s case here were obviously important to this trial. In many ways, this whole situation from a larger standpoint isn’t even about him specifically as a bad guy. If he legit thinks she lied to extort him, fair enough. If she says she was violated, understandable.

But the tactics, method and manner of the proceedings here are important. This could have been anyone. The justice system, the same one which finds way to exonerate police officers for killing unarmed citizens, isn’t suddenly fool-proof for sexual assault.

A woman who believes she was raped confronted her accusers. The accused openly admit what they did, under the guise that if she can’t prove it was wrong, then it shouldn’t matter at all. Jury sides with men. Toxic masculinity, rape culture and patriarchy. Wash, rinse, repeat.

WWE wrestler tweets support of Black Lives Matter, Ava DuVernay documentary

Seth Rollins surprised everybody Monday afternoon

5:30 PM“Do you have an understanding as to the word consent?”

“No. But can you tell me?”

Those were the words of New York Knicks point guard Derrick Rose when he was asked by lawyers in a June 17 deposition about the sexual assault case involving him, two friends and an ex-girlfriend. On Wednesday, Rose and company were found not liable of rape charges by a Los Angeles jury, one that featured two men and six women. The decision was another victory for toxic masculinity, rape culture and patriarchy. Why? Let’s explain.

At the most basic level, Rose and his lawyers went to the most basic of defenses to get their client cleared. All of this was done openly, playing their man card, which historically, fundamentally and in practice is designed to set a higher burden of proof on women to prove they were raped. On a basic level, that is reason for pause from a decent person’s standpoint.

Off the break, Team Rose was trying to not only out the accuser’s identity, but also paint her somehow as a sexually deviant person, another notion rooted in basic forms of misogyny that is often applied in sexual assault cases as a way of rationalizing awful behavior by men. It’s the courtroom version of “she was asking for it.”

“Of special note, plaintiff is publicly portraying herself as sexual,” lawyers argued in pretrial meetings. “The production includes photos from plaintiff’s Instagram account that are sexual in nature. In these images, plaintiff is dressed in provocative attire, is in sexually suggestive poses and is in photographs indicating that she engages in sexually charged encounters with more than one man at a time. Plaintiff’s use of Twitter and other forms of social media further belies her apparent desire for anonymity.”

This is not OK on multiple levels. Putting aside the specificity of Rose and the plaintiff right now, this has nothing to do with consent. No. 1, consent can be given or taken at any time, no matter one’s history. Period. Point being, going into this ordeal legally, Rose’s lawyers were relying on one of the biggest fallacies of rape as a way to discredit the claims. The judge immediately called B.S. on that.

More importantly of note during the deposition, Rose made a statement so shocking that it cut right to the heart of what patriarchy is all about. Unless otherwise stated, the desires of a man trump (pun intended) any civil, personal or physical rights of a woman. It should be noted that a toxicologist estimated her blood alcohol content was 0.20, which is more than double the legal limit. Follow this exchange:

Q: So they just said, ‘Hey, it’s the middle of the night. Let’s go over to plaintiff’s house’ and they never gave you a reason why they wanted to go over there?’

Rose: No, but we men. You can assume.

Q: I’m sorry?

Rose: I said we men. You can assume. Like we leaving to go over to someone’s house at 1 a.m., there’s nothing to talk about.

Q: All right. Is there  —  within what you just reviewed in those text messages — is there anything within them that would lead you to believe that plaintiff wanted to have sex with you and the other two defendants on Aug. 26, 2013?

Rose: No.

What Rose is saying is that up until the very point of actual sexual contact, all consent is presumed, assumed and given. This is rape culture. The notion that unless otherwise stated, sex is always an option on the table. It is not an opt in for you to have access to a woman’s body, she must opt out. The fact that he can’t seem to even wrap his head around that notion is precisely the kind of mindset created by toxic masculinity.

During the trial, Rose took that even further, saying that he didn’t actually think he’d done anything wrong in this situation. Which, again, is not how consent works, but is how courtrooms allow men to portray things in their favor to put a higher threshold on women to prove the truth. This is where the larger matter moves away from Rose specifically and gets into the larger problem. Never mind the fact that the NBA is apparently teaching rookies to keep used condoms.

“I took [the] claim very seriously, but a couple of things stood out immediately. The first was she didn’t go to the police. She chose to sue Rose. The second was that she waited two years to do so,” Robert Littal at BlackSportsOnline.com wrote. “I can understand that with any traumatic event it may take time to become strong enough to speak out on it, but if someone raped you and you truly wanted them to pay for their crimes, why wouldn’t you want them to be in jail?”

Littal, who reports frequently on athletes’ sex lives, went on to report that the plaintiff needed the money and thus concocted a wild story as a way to potentially draw a settlement out of Rose to make the story go away. Which, even if true, doesn’t hold water. The rule of law does not always make right, and in this case, the details of whether or not this woman was as honest as George Washington became more important than making a determination based on what both sides admitted happened.

Rose didn’t know what consent was. She was too drunk to give consent. He found a way into her home and had sex with her along with his friends. This. Was. All. Admitted. In. Court. So why did Rose walk free? In short, he’s a man. Eventually the jury felt that, because her story, she lied about all the details.

According to Deadspin: The jury initially declined to speak to reporters, but later two jurors —identifying themselves by first name only — agreed to. Jared said Jane Doe “didn’t do any of the steps to prove her own case” and “nothing added up to a correct statement.” Jared felt like Doe “was playing us,” and he believed witness Gabriel Chavez, who testified that Doe was a liar. In contrast, Jared said Rose and his friends seemed “genuine” and “honest.”

For sexual assault victims, these must be the most triggering of cases. Ones in which because a woman might not have had the instant wherewithal to follow every specific step necessary to prove something in court where the rules are stacked against her — not only does that suddenly mean it didn’t happen, but she’s also suddenly a terrible person for not being able to figure it out on her own.

After the civil trial ended, Rose posed for pictures with jurors. The judge even wished him well, saying good luck to him with the Knicks, except when they play the Los Angeles Lakers.

The specific details of Rose’s case here were obviously important to this trial. In many ways, this whole situation from a larger standpoint isn’t even about him specifically as a bad guy. If he legit thinks she lied to extort him, fair enough. If she says she was violated, understandable.

But the tactics, method and manner of the proceedings here are important. This could have been anyone. The justice system, the same one which finds way to exonerate police officers for killing unarmed citizens, isn’t suddenly fool-proof for sexual assault.

A woman who believes she was raped confronted her accusers. The accused openly admit what they did, under the guise that if she can’t prove it was wrong, then it shouldn’t matter at all. Jury sides with men. Toxic masculinity, rape culture and patriarchy. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Adrian Gonzalez does not appear to be a Donald Trump fan

The Los Angeles Dodgers first baseman refused to stay at Trump’s hotel on team trip

5:30 PM“Do you have an understanding as to the word consent?”

“No. But can you tell me?”

Those were the words of New York Knicks point guard Derrick Rose when he was asked by lawyers in a June 17 deposition about the sexual assault case involving him, two friends and an ex-girlfriend. On Wednesday, Rose and company were found not liable of rape charges by a Los Angeles jury, one that featured two men and six women. The decision was another victory for toxic masculinity, rape culture and patriarchy. Why? Let’s explain.

At the most basic level, Rose and his lawyers went to the most basic of defenses to get their client cleared. All of this was done openly, playing their man card, which historically, fundamentally and in practice is designed to set a higher burden of proof on women to prove they were raped. On a basic level, that is reason for pause from a decent person’s standpoint.

Off the break, Team Rose was trying to not only out the accuser’s identity, but also paint her somehow as a sexually deviant person, another notion rooted in basic forms of misogyny that is often applied in sexual assault cases as a way of rationalizing awful behavior by men. It’s the courtroom version of “she was asking for it.”

“Of special note, plaintiff is publicly portraying herself as sexual,” lawyers argued in pretrial meetings. “The production includes photos from plaintiff’s Instagram account that are sexual in nature. In these images, plaintiff is dressed in provocative attire, is in sexually suggestive poses and is in photographs indicating that she engages in sexually charged encounters with more than one man at a time. Plaintiff’s use of Twitter and other forms of social media further belies her apparent desire for anonymity.”

This is not OK on multiple levels. Putting aside the specificity of Rose and the plaintiff right now, this has nothing to do with consent. No. 1, consent can be given or taken at any time, no matter one’s history. Period. Point being, going into this ordeal legally, Rose’s lawyers were relying on one of the biggest fallacies of rape as a way to discredit the claims. The judge immediately called B.S. on that.

More importantly of note during the deposition, Rose made a statement so shocking that it cut right to the heart of what patriarchy is all about. Unless otherwise stated, the desires of a man trump (pun intended) any civil, personal or physical rights of a woman. It should be noted that a toxicologist estimated her blood alcohol content was 0.20, which is more than double the legal limit. Follow this exchange:

Q: So they just said, ‘Hey, it’s the middle of the night. Let’s go over to plaintiff’s house’ and they never gave you a reason why they wanted to go over there?’

Rose: No, but we men. You can assume.

Q: I’m sorry?

Rose: I said we men. You can assume. Like we leaving to go over to someone’s house at 1 a.m., there’s nothing to talk about.

Q: All right. Is there  —  within what you just reviewed in those text messages — is there anything within them that would lead you to believe that plaintiff wanted to have sex with you and the other two defendants on Aug. 26, 2013?

Rose: No.

What Rose is saying is that up until the very point of actual sexual contact, all consent is presumed, assumed and given. This is rape culture. The notion that unless otherwise stated, sex is always an option on the table. It is not an opt in for you to have access to a woman’s body, she must opt out. The fact that he can’t seem to even wrap his head around that notion is precisely the kind of mindset created by toxic masculinity.

During the trial, Rose took that even further, saying that he didn’t actually think he’d done anything wrong in this situation. Which, again, is not how consent works, but is how courtrooms allow men to portray things in their favor to put a higher threshold on women to prove the truth. This is where the larger matter moves away from Rose specifically and gets into the larger problem. Never mind the fact that the NBA is apparently teaching rookies to keep used condoms.

“I took [the] claim very seriously, but a couple of things stood out immediately. The first was she didn’t go to the police. She chose to sue Rose. The second was that she waited two years to do so,” Robert Littal at BlackSportsOnline.com wrote. “I can understand that with any traumatic event it may take time to become strong enough to speak out on it, but if someone raped you and you truly wanted them to pay for their crimes, why wouldn’t you want them to be in jail?”

Littal, who reports frequently on athletes’ sex lives, went on to report that the plaintiff needed the money and thus concocted a wild story as a way to potentially draw a settlement out of Rose to make the story go away. Which, even if true, doesn’t hold water. The rule of law does not always make right, and in this case, the details of whether or not this woman was as honest as George Washington became more important than making a determination based on what both sides admitted happened.

Rose didn’t know what consent was. She was too drunk to give consent. He found a way into her home and had sex with her along with his friends. This. Was. All. Admitted. In. Court. So why did Rose walk free? In short, he’s a man. Eventually the jury felt that, because her story, she lied about all the details.

According to Deadspin: The jury initially declined to speak to reporters, but later two jurors —identifying themselves by first name only — agreed to. Jared said Jane Doe “didn’t do any of the steps to prove her own case” and “nothing added up to a correct statement.” Jared felt like Doe “was playing us,” and he believed witness Gabriel Chavez, who testified that Doe was a liar. In contrast, Jared said Rose and his friends seemed “genuine” and “honest.”

For sexual assault victims, these must be the most triggering of cases. Ones in which because a woman might not have had the instant wherewithal to follow every specific step necessary to prove something in court where the rules are stacked against her — not only does that suddenly mean it didn’t happen, but she’s also suddenly a terrible person for not being able to figure it out on her own.

After the civil trial ended, Rose posed for pictures with jurors. The judge even wished him well, saying good luck to him with the Knicks, except when they play the Los Angeles Lakers.

The specific details of Rose’s case here were obviously important to this trial. In many ways, this whole situation from a larger standpoint isn’t even about him specifically as a bad guy. If he legit thinks she lied to extort him, fair enough. If she says she was violated, understandable.

But the tactics, method and manner of the proceedings here are important. This could have been anyone. The justice system, the same one which finds way to exonerate police officers for killing unarmed citizens, isn’t suddenly fool-proof for sexual assault.

A woman who believes she was raped confronted her accusers. The accused openly admit what they did, under the guise that if she can’t prove it was wrong, then it shouldn’t matter at all. Jury sides with men. Toxic masculinity, rape culture and patriarchy. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Daily Dose: 10/17/16

The clown foolishness is completely out of hand

5:30 PM“Do you have an understanding as to the word consent?”

“No. But can you tell me?”

Those were the words of New York Knicks point guard Derrick Rose when he was asked by lawyers in a June 17 deposition about the sexual assault case involving him, two friends and an ex-girlfriend. On Wednesday, Rose and company were found not liable of rape charges by a Los Angeles jury, one that featured two men and six women. The decision was another victory for toxic masculinity, rape culture and patriarchy. Why? Let’s explain.

At the most basic level, Rose and his lawyers went to the most basic of defenses to get their client cleared. All of this was done openly, playing their man card, which historically, fundamentally and in practice is designed to set a higher burden of proof on women to prove they were raped. On a basic level, that is reason for pause from a decent person’s standpoint.

Off the break, Team Rose was trying to not only out the accuser’s identity, but also paint her somehow as a sexually deviant person, another notion rooted in basic forms of misogyny that is often applied in sexual assault cases as a way of rationalizing awful behavior by men. It’s the courtroom version of “she was asking for it.”

“Of special note, plaintiff is publicly portraying herself as sexual,” lawyers argued in pretrial meetings. “The production includes photos from plaintiff’s Instagram account that are sexual in nature. In these images, plaintiff is dressed in provocative attire, is in sexually suggestive poses and is in photographs indicating that she engages in sexually charged encounters with more than one man at a time. Plaintiff’s use of Twitter and other forms of social media further belies her apparent desire for anonymity.”

This is not OK on multiple levels. Putting aside the specificity of Rose and the plaintiff right now, this has nothing to do with consent. No. 1, consent can be given or taken at any time, no matter one’s history. Period. Point being, going into this ordeal legally, Rose’s lawyers were relying on one of the biggest fallacies of rape as a way to discredit the claims. The judge immediately called B.S. on that.

More importantly of note during the deposition, Rose made a statement so shocking that it cut right to the heart of what patriarchy is all about. Unless otherwise stated, the desires of a man trump (pun intended) any civil, personal or physical rights of a woman. It should be noted that a toxicologist estimated her blood alcohol content was 0.20, which is more than double the legal limit. Follow this exchange:

Q: So they just said, ‘Hey, it’s the middle of the night. Let’s go over to plaintiff’s house’ and they never gave you a reason why they wanted to go over there?’

Rose: No, but we men. You can assume.

Q: I’m sorry?

Rose: I said we men. You can assume. Like we leaving to go over to someone’s house at 1 a.m., there’s nothing to talk about.

Q: All right. Is there  —  within what you just reviewed in those text messages — is there anything within them that would lead you to believe that plaintiff wanted to have sex with you and the other two defendants on Aug. 26, 2013?

Rose: No.

What Rose is saying is that up until the very point of actual sexual contact, all consent is presumed, assumed and given. This is rape culture. The notion that unless otherwise stated, sex is always an option on the table. It is not an opt in for you to have access to a woman’s body, she must opt out. The fact that he can’t seem to even wrap his head around that notion is precisely the kind of mindset created by toxic masculinity.

During the trial, Rose took that even further, saying that he didn’t actually think he’d done anything wrong in this situation. Which, again, is not how consent works, but is how courtrooms allow men to portray things in their favor to put a higher threshold on women to prove the truth. This is where the larger matter moves away from Rose specifically and gets into the larger problem. Never mind the fact that the NBA is apparently teaching rookies to keep used condoms.

“I took [the] claim very seriously, but a couple of things stood out immediately. The first was she didn’t go to the police. She chose to sue Rose. The second was that she waited two years to do so,” Robert Littal at BlackSportsOnline.com wrote. “I can understand that with any traumatic event it may take time to become strong enough to speak out on it, but if someone raped you and you truly wanted them to pay for their crimes, why wouldn’t you want them to be in jail?”

Littal, who reports frequently on athletes’ sex lives, went on to report that the plaintiff needed the money and thus concocted a wild story as a way to potentially draw a settlement out of Rose to make the story go away. Which, even if true, doesn’t hold water. The rule of law does not always make right, and in this case, the details of whether or not this woman was as honest as George Washington became more important than making a determination based on what both sides admitted happened.

Rose didn’t know what consent was. She was too drunk to give consent. He found a way into her home and had sex with her along with his friends. This. Was. All. Admitted. In. Court. So why did Rose walk free? In short, he’s a man. Eventually the jury felt that, because her story, she lied about all the details.

According to Deadspin: The jury initially declined to speak to reporters, but later two jurors —identifying themselves by first name only — agreed to. Jared said Jane Doe “didn’t do any of the steps to prove her own case” and “nothing added up to a correct statement.” Jared felt like Doe “was playing us,” and he believed witness Gabriel Chavez, who testified that Doe was a liar. In contrast, Jared said Rose and his friends seemed “genuine” and “honest.”

For sexual assault victims, these must be the most triggering of cases. Ones in which because a woman might not have had the instant wherewithal to follow every specific step necessary to prove something in court where the rules are stacked against her — not only does that suddenly mean it didn’t happen, but she’s also suddenly a terrible person for not being able to figure it out on her own.

After the civil trial ended, Rose posed for pictures with jurors. The judge even wished him well, saying good luck to him with the Knicks, except when they play the Los Angeles Lakers.

The specific details of Rose’s case here were obviously important to this trial. In many ways, this whole situation from a larger standpoint isn’t even about him specifically as a bad guy. If he legit thinks she lied to extort him, fair enough. If she says she was violated, understandable.

But the tactics, method and manner of the proceedings here are important. This could have been anyone. The justice system, the same one which finds way to exonerate police officers for killing unarmed citizens, isn’t suddenly fool-proof for sexual assault.

A woman who believes she was raped confronted her accusers. The accused openly admit what they did, under the guise that if she can’t prove it was wrong, then it shouldn’t matter at all. Jury sides with men. Toxic masculinity, rape culture and patriarchy. Wash, rinse, repeat.