Lamest Defense I’ve Ever Heard November 2, 2005 Lauren Oh, the ego on this guy: “My dick is too large to rape chicks.” Wishful fucking thinking. via Chaos Theory
Why are they playing with approximate plastic models in the trial… shouldn’t the jury be seeing “the full monty” since his defense is his penis?
I’ll probably get lamblasted for this but read this this morning. Your text should read, “My dick is too large to rape chicks [without signs of forced sex].” If his dick is as big as he and a doctor says, it is quite likely she would have had some signficant physical damage from a rape (at least enough to bring up at trial as proof of his guilt). There is no testimony of the sort. It has been described as an assault, not a case of they fooled around and he ignored “no” in which case she have been physically ready (and less likely to suffer vaginal tears). I don’t think it proves anything but it would raise some doubt. It seems likely that they were both drunk and she feels raped because a close friend took advantage of her. Which under Canadian law would still be rape. The article is sparce on detail but that doesn’t seem to be what she is saying. If it was an unexpected assault, it would seem that there would be more injuries.
Mark, that would probably be too humiliating and an invasion of privacy. …Only the accuser is supposed to be humiliated and embarrassed.
He said a woman who has not given birth might have discomfort or tearing if she had intercourse with a penis that size, especially if she was not sexually aroused. Because there’s never been discomfort or tearing in a rape before now.
Anne, it’s been a long time since I looked at the “best evidence rule,” and I have no idea if it’s the same in Canada, but there might be a good argument that the defendant is required to offer it for inspection, since he put it at issue. If it were a civil case and I were her attorney, I’m pretty sure that in New York, I’d be allowed to bring him to my expert and take measurements, and then call my expert to opine on its size and any implications that might have.
Anne, it’s been a long time since I looked at the “best evidence rule,” and I have no idea if it’s the same in Canada, but there might be a good argument that the defendant is required to offer it for inspection, since he put it at issue. If it were a civil case and I were her attorney, I’m pretty sure that in New York, I’d be allowed to bring him to my expert and take measurements, and then call my expert to opine on its size and any implications that might have. It would seem to me that as offering it as evidence, he would need to offer it to the crown prosecutor (as we say in Canada) for examination. Why does this remind of the song, I Lost My Penis? He can’t exactly deny the request since he offered as his defense.
The practise of law is very similar in Canada and the US, the laws vary but the rules and procedures are similar. Lucky for Americans lawyers, they don’t need to wear robes.
I suppose it could be true, but if the DNA evidence says it’s him, then it’s him. With all due apologies, most women can take in more than it might appear at first sight. Another very rude thought: will the judge try it on herself to see if she can get it in? *duck*
I think it’s time for an affirmative defense: I woke up this morning with a bad hangover And my penis was missing again. This happens all the time. It’s detachable. This comes in handy a lot of the time. I can leave it home, when I think it’s gonna get me in trouble, or I can rent it out, when I don’t need it. But now and then I go to a party, get drunk, and the next morning I can’t for the life of me remember what I did with it… Then, as I walked down Second Avenue towards St. Mark’s Place, where all those people sell used books and other junk on the street, I saw my penis lying on a blanket next to a broken toaster oven. Some guy was selling it. I had to buy it off him. He wanted twenty-two bucks, but I talked him down to seventeen. I took it home, washed it off, and put it back on. I was happy again. Complete. People sometimes tell me I should get it permanently attached, but I don’t know. Even though sometimes it’s a pain in the ass, I like having a detachable penis.
The article didn’t say what sort of physical damage the woman was putting forth as evidence. (Damn, that sounds cold! Didn’t mean it to.) Seems to me that will be a telling piece of evidence — they may not have gotten to that part yet, or might not be reporting it yet. Unless it unfolds that there was some consensual stuff going on, and then she decided she didn’t want to participate any more and he wasn’t listening. In which case I’d assume there would still be injury…. But damn! What an arrogant defense! Dude, you could have just said “I didn’t do it because I wouldn’t do that kind of thing”! Why drag the size of your dick into it? (Bets on the sex of his lawyer?)
6.5″ in girth? Surely he meant “circumference” not “diameter.” Not that 8.5″ x 2″ is particularly small, but it isn’t much above average (is it?). I’d have a hard time believing the 8.5″ x 6.5″ proportion, unless of course his friends all call him “stumpy” or “fireplug.” And I’m guessing if his, er, “member” is 6.5″ wide, sexual arousal would have very little to do with whether tearing or discomfort resulted.
But damn! What an arrogant defense! Dude, you could have just said “I didn’t do it because I wouldn’t do that kind of thing”! Why drag the size of your dick into it? (Bets on the sex of his lawyer?) It could be arrogance, desparation (if it looks like he’s going to lose) or she may have “embellished” her description of the event and this is the best way to prove it. Perhaps she described it as more violent attack when it might have been a case of ignoring “no” after they had been fooling around (maybe there wasn’t even a “no”, just buyer’s remorse – they were good friends and they were both drunk). This sounds like a he said / she said case and credibility is all you have to go on. If she misrepresented the facts, then that might give him reasonable doubt. I tend to believe that most people brought to trial are guilty. But there are sometimes mistakes made. Chances he is guilty but without all the information….
Bo, certainly that’s circumference, yielding a cylindrical diameter of over 2″. For perspective, at Toys in Babeland, diameters of dildoes range from 1.25 to 2.0, with only two offerings over 2″. The over-2″ offerings are specifically marketted to “size queens.” I’m not saying that penises larger than 8.5 long and 6.5 in circumference are not out there. Certainly, they are. But they are way out on the thin end of the standard distribution curve. Now, any assertion about what a female vagina can accomodate, unsupported by some similar empirical data about capacity, is probably horseshit. So is any assertion about lubrication in an unaroused state. (And, as pointed out above, so is the assumption that physical arousal equals consent.) There’s something insidious about saying, “he’s so big that there would be physical evidence of damage … unless either you were aroused, or you have a GIGANTIC VAGINA.” Right? Almost certainly, there’s no evidence of physical harm, otherwise this defense would actually undermine the defendant. So the claim must be that the absence of harm must stem from lubrication or atypical capacity. The complainant doesn’t want to say she was lubricating, because it carries with it the unfair assumption of arousal. And there’s a lot of cultural baggage that does along with saying, “she’s just naturally big.” Like it’s an insult or something, though it should be nothing of the kind.
Thomas, I don’t know if you got the wrong impression from my comment, or if you were expounding upon the same point. So for clarity: He’s obviously talking about diameter, and there likely wouldn’t have been “tearing” or other injury simply based upon a 2″ diameter. His “defense” highlights its own weakness, in that it depends strictly upon the points you bring out (size/lubrication), and those points are, as you stated, horribly weak. I wasn’t saying, in any shape, form, or fashion, that whether she was lubricated (or for that matter, whether she was aroused) had any bearing on the charge. Just stating that he’s not anywhere near the size that such an audacious claim would be even remotely legitimate.
There’s something insidious about saying, “he’s so big that there would be physical evidence of damage … unless either you were aroused, or you have a GIGANTIC VAGINA.” Right? I thought of this after my last post. Before it was amusing that he would pull out this claim. However, when you consider that the only way to work around this defence puts the supposed victim in a really nasty place. It doesn’t seem so amusing any more.
About the size thing… I’d bet the “girth” dimension was probably circumference. Much easier to measure if nothing else. Also, if I’m not misreading, the dimensions were for a *flaccid* penis. Erect it would much larger. On the other hand, this defense is pretty offensive. I suppose he could be making the point about tearing or whatever, but I don’t know about that. It almost sounds like, “I didn’t rape her, but if I did, she would’ve been walking funny the next day.” Also, the arousal vs. consent issue is very very salient. Not that you could convince a jury with it.
A couple of (albeit somewhat lame) points: –Women lubricate at different rates. Some of us are lubricated enough to easily have sex most of the time, as a general state. –8.5″ X 6.5″ isn’t small, but it’s not the monster he’d like us to believe it is. We’re not talking a penis of cartoonish proportions, just one that is a bit above average. –Who says he put the thing in _all the way_, anyway? Would it not “count” if it were only partway in? –And lastly, dude? I’ve seen bigger.
Bo, I’m agreeing with you. Matan, I reread the story, and it does say these dimensions are “semi-relaxed.” I really wish we knew the whole story. Is there evidence of penetration? Does he concede penetration? She apparently testified, and was not asked about the size of his penis. I speculate that the defense attorney did this as strategy: the answer could sink the client. He or she can’t ask about the physical dimensions in an open-ended way hoping that she gets it wrong, because if she gets it right, it hurts the defendant. And defense counsel definitely cannot test the “it would have hurt” theory on cross, because the answer kills them. This is how it could go if the witness is smart and if the defense attorney is foolish (and making some assumptions about the evidence): **sample Q&A, please don’t read if this is triggering** Q: Isn’t it true that this man’s penis is huge? A: Yes. Q: You have not had a baby, correct? A: Correct. Q: And you have never had anything in you the size of that man’s penis, is that right? A: Correct. Q: Were you physically aroused at the time of penetration? A: I’m not sure what you mean. Q: Well, was your vagina lublicated? A: Well, it’s a mucous membrane. It’s always somewhat lublicated. Q: Ma’am, what I’m asking you here is whether it was lubricated the way it gets when you’re about to have sex. A: No. Q: Did he do anything to lublicate his penis before entry? A: No. Not that I was aware of. I was kind of paying more attention to his giant hand pinning me to the bed. Q: Did his penis tear you when it entered? >Objection. The witness is not a doctor. Is he asking her to repeat what her hospital chart says? (Overruled. She can testify to it if she knows.) A: I think it technically didn’t tear anything, but at the time I thought it did because it hurt so much. I remember I clenched my teeth really hard and hoped I’d pass out. DONE. Conviction. Defense lawyers realize generally that they could get a dreadfully wrong answer several places in there, so they don’t ask anything the answer to which can hurt them. Therefore, no reference to the penis size, which they can put in evidence by other means, and no reference to pain, on her testimony.
Redpanda, I agree. Both vaginal capacity and lubrication vary a lot from one individual to another. And we don’t know how much of it entered. We also don’t know how big the penis really is — the reference is to what may be a semi-erect state, if I read the story right.
as I understand it (and I’m not a urologist or anything similar, so I’m going off of something I read YEARS ago), while there is a large difference in size in flaccid penises (penii?!?), apparently there is not so much so in erect ones. Just throwing that out there for the “and this was only SEMI-erect!!” argument. Fact of the matter is, the smallest erect dick you can FIND can do damage if a woman is unready or resisting penetration. I’d say this is a REALLY lame defense. I’ll be interested in seeing how it turns out….
Just throwing that out there for the “and this was only SEMI-erect!!” argument. But it’s over 8″ long and 6.5″ in circumference semi-erect. That’s already out in the thin part of the curve. It’s certainly not smaller fully erect. It is also my understanding that the bell curve is very tall and narrow for erect penis size, with the distribution tapering sharply at about 7and change in length — which makes eight-plus a rarity. And it is still a lame defense.
Thomas, in my limited experience (and, from what I’ve gathered, the experience of others as well); how do I put this delicately…hmmm…well… The ones that are bigger, flaccid? Just kind of get firm and flip upwards. The ones that are smaller, flaccid? Grow to enormous proportions. In other words, I doubt it increased THAT much in size. Either way, a lame defense. I guess I’m harping because I just can’t get over the audacity of someone not only allegedly committing rape, but then running around saying “I have a giant penis!” Yuck.
The ones that are bigger, flaccid? Just kind of get firm and flip upwards. The ones that are smaller, flaccid? Grow to enormous proportions. Not all that unusual. The proportional difference in size between the erect penis and the flaccid penis tends to be greater in men with flaccid penises at the smaller end of the spectrum. That’s why the size of the penis in the flaccid state isn’t really a dependable metric. Basically, it’s the difference between “growers” and “showers”. And yes, it’s worth repeating this this is a terrible defense.
Laurie Says: Fact of the matter is, the smallest erect dick you can FIND can do damage if a woman is unready or resisting penetration. I’d say this is a REALLY lame defense. Not if there was no damage done (I’m starting to feel icky casually talking about “damage” to some woman’s vagina). If even a smaller penis could cause physical effects and this guy has a larger than average penis, if there is no damage at all there seems to at least a chance that it was at least to a point, consensual. Without knowing the specifics, it is hard to judge. Althouh probably rare, women do occassionaly lie about these things. If no evidence has been presented about pain and physical effects then either there were none or the prosecutor is not doing her job.
Even if she was aroused, what does that prove? Maybe she has a boyfriend, maybe she wanted to wait until she was married. Just because her body said yes doesn’t prove she did-I may be hungry for some fast food, but no one can force me off my diet.
I hate to divert the topic back to “size” matters, but this struck me… …the distribution tapering sharply at about 7and change in length… Seriously? I’ve apparently overestimated the average. I thought it was about 7. (feeling like I’m showing my ignorance here, but I’ve never actually considered myself a phalli-ologist)
I’ve heard repeatedly that 5 1/2 to 6 1/2 is the average. 7″ is starting toward the upper end of the curve but not extreme. 8+ is much rarer.
I read: Bhangu said the woman was traumatized when Beutling, who is 6-foot-7 and 240 pounds and who she believed was her close friend, forced himself on her. to indicate that she wasn’t a willing participant. If the evidence indicates that physical harm would have resulted from from a forced rape and there is not physical harm, we at least owe the accused a little doubt. If she testified that because she was a little drunk and got carried away with the moment but came to her senses and decided no, then his size won’t matter. If she accused him of a forced/violent rape, this might cause reasonable doubt. It is possible that he is innocent.
Even if she was aroused, what does that prove? Maybe she has a boyfriend, maybe she wanted to wait until she was married. Just because her body said yes doesn’t prove she did-I may be hungry for some fast food, but no one can force me off my diet. This is an important point, and one I was trying to figure out how to say. Physiological arousal does not equal consent, or necessarily the mental desire or will to have sex. Men get erections frequently throughout the day, but it certainly doesn’t mean they’re itching to have sex with the woman next to them.
I truly can’t believe this story inspired so many comments. I just can’t buy the big dick defense. …though I can buy it from the prosecutor in the Libby trial.
You’re giving a whole host of bright people the chance to talk about sexual matters, Lauren. No surprise to me!
Men get erections frequently throughout the day, but it certainly doesn’t mean they’re itching to have sex with the woman next to them. Yes it does.
Ok, Robert, I’m pretty sure you’re kidding, but still, I think I speak for many men here when I say… Shut the fuck up.
Ok, Robert, I’m pretty sure you’re kidding, but still, I think I speak for many men here when I say… Shut the fuck up. LOL.
I truly can’t believe this story inspired so many comments. I just can’t buy the big dick defense. …though I can buy it from the prosecutor in the Libby trial. Either that or the little dick defense (I just realised Americans spell with an ‘s’ instead of a ‘c’). My small dick turned me into the asshole I am today.
Oh God, My small dick turned me into the asshole I am today. That should have been in quotes as Libby’s defence. Although I’m sure some people around here consider me an asshole.
to indicate that she wasn’t a willing participant. If the evidence indicates that physical harm would have resulted from from a forced rape and there is not physical harm, we at least owe the accused a little doubt. Interesting that you’re eager to give a rapist the benefit of the doubt. And why does a woman have to resist to prove she was raped? Your assumptions are showing again, Eric. And they’re highly revealing.
I’m still wondering if randomliberal was indignant, or just pissed at Robert for disclosing too much info. Robert: truth to power, man! LOL
Interesting that you’re eager to give a rapist the benefit of the doubt. And why does a woman have to resist to prove she was raped? Your assumptions are showing again, Eric. And they’re highly revealing. It is odd that you cut my sentence in half, leaving the part where I specifically said, if she said no even after fooling around it would still have been rape and his size wouldn’t matter. No where did I indicate that she had to resist. In a hypothetical situation and if certain qualifiers were met, my suggesting that might be entitled to a “little” doubt doesn’t exactly make me “eager” to believe him.
Well, I can’t speak for the readership. But when I get an erection in the context of a woman’s presence, it is generally because on at least one level, I want to have sex with that woman. That level is often the “this is my stupid cock” level, but it’s part of me.
Well, I can’t speak for the readership. But when I get an erection in the context of a woman’s presence, it is generally because on at least one level, I want to have sex with that woman. That level is often the “this is my stupid cock” level, but it’s part of me. You’re getting at the point I was trying to make, but that I may not have made clearly. The key phrase is “on at least one level”. Sure, the presence of a particular woman might trigger physiological arousal, but that in of itself doesn’t mean that you’re going to say yes to sex with that woman, even if, for argument’s sake, she were to offer you the opportunity. You’re still capable of refusing. Perhaps I’m wrong on this, but it’s my understanding that it’s possible for a woman to show some signs of physiological arousal even in the context of a rape. That response does not mean she is consenting to sex.
I’m pretty sure that whatever level that is, it’s not the level at which a woman gives or withholds consent to have sex. Have you given the slightest consideration to the implications of what you’re saying here?
Robert, in my professional life, I’m in the presence of women for most of my day. When I get erections, usually it’s because I’m thinking about sex — but frequently not with any of the women in my presence. In fact, I’m often fantasizing about my wife. I’m not saying that this is your experience, or that it should be. I’m saying my lived experience is a counterexample to your generalization. There may be others.
I’m pretty sure that whatever level that is, it’s not the level at which a woman gives or withholds consent to have sex. I am not a woman. Have you given the slightest consideration to the implications of what you’re saying here? Generally I encode exactly what I want to say in what I write. Simpler that way. Someone wrote that men get hard-ons all the time, but it doesn’t mean we want to bang the person we’re looking at. Actually, it often does. Although not always, as noted by our wife-fantasizing demurrer. Whether or not this applies to women is outside the scope of what I wrote. I just addressed an analogy which I don’t think holds up.
Generally I encode exactly what I want to say in what I write. Simpler that way. No, sweetheart, sometimes you encode things that you don’t mean to say. Here, you’ve encoded your privilege. You take for granted that there’s a “level” at which you want to have sex and get a hard-on, and then there’s actually having sex, and the thing that determines whether you get from point A to point B is your will, as well as the willingness of your potential partner. You can be sure that you will never find yourself in a witness box, standing in front of a bunch of strangers and a person who has violated you, trying to explain that the difference between the “level” on which you were aroused and the actual act of consent. But all women can imagine that, because we face the reality or the possibility of rape. What’s wrong with the analogy isn’t that male arousal is different from female arousal. It’s that you can be pretty sure that nobody will ever point to your arousal as a justification for having raped you.
Robert, in your last comment, you made a subtle but material alteration to the argument. You just said: but it doesn’t mean we want to bang the person we’re looking at. Actually, it often does. What you originally contradicted was this: Men get erections frequently throughout the day, but it certainly doesn’t mean they’re itching to have sex with the woman next to them. While I often fantasize about someone other than the people in my presence (say, in a meeting, staring at my notepad), I rarely stare at one person and fantasize about another. In any event, your fallback to the word “often” is the critical concession. With that substantial modification, your statement may be generally true. However, Linnaeus was correct in comment 33 even without the last sentence. One can be physically aroused and not consent. In fact, one can desire sex with another through an entire evening, and decide at the last minute not to engage in it. Consent is a matter of higher brain function. People may not be entirely creatures of reason, but we are creatures that reason.
Sally, I’m dreadfully sorry that my personal experience isn’t completely compatible with your privilege narrative, but I think your privilege narrative is basically flawed and of essentially zero utility in conducting analysis or discussion. If you want to have an extensive discussion of the logical errors intrinsic to the privilege model of power dynamics, drop me a note in email; this thread has derailed enough already, donchathink?
If you want to have an extensive discussion of the logical errors intrinsic to the privilege model of power dynamics, drop me a note in email; this thread has derailed enough already, donchathink? Eh. I might be inclined to email you for tips on being a condescending asshole and putting the little ladies in their place, but I think I’ll pass on the logic lessons. This is a thread about a guy whose defense in a rape case is that the woman must have been physically aroused, and you can’t understand why it’s offensive that you, a person who does not live with the constant threat of rape, casually noted that “on some level” when you’re aroused you want to have sex. I’m thinking that if you don’t understand the problem with that statement, you’re not the brightest. And I’m lucky that I have lots of really smart people in my life from whom I can learn when I’m in the mood to bother my pretty little head about things like logic.
This is a thread about a guy whose defense in a rape case is that the woman must have been physically aroused, and you can’t understand why it’s offensive that you, a person who does not live with the constant threat of rape, casually noted that “on some level” when you’re aroused you want to have sex. I won’t address any condesention on his part. That is between the two of you. In this context, the statement about being ready means willing is an inappropriate statement, which under different circumstances wouldn’t be surprising from a man. Men and women are different in their sexual choices. I don’t think he was trying to make a particular point on the discussion at hand, but rather didn’t make a good choice in where he made it. As a man, if I was single and I am not, I can’t imagine many circumstances where sex when available would be turned down. Women are more particular. As a woman once said told me, it is different when the action happens inside of you. Men are the real sluts, unless their is a compelling reason where our brains say no, we’ll are addicted to doing it.
As a man, if I was single and I am not, I can’t imagine many circumstances where sex when available would be turned down. Then your imagination is rather limited. As a not-unattractive single woman, I was very shocked to find out that not every single, heterosexual male was ready to sleep with me just because I offered. we at least owe the accused a little doubt As has been pointed out above, if he is putting his penis size at issue, then (at least under US law, and I doubt it’s different in Canada) the prosecution is allowed to refute that evidence. For example, showing that larger penises don’t get all that much bigger when erect, or that the defendant’s erect penis was not so inhumanly huge that he couldn’t possibly have raped the victim without a level of damage that is not present.
As a man, if I was single and I am not, I can’t imagine many circumstances where sex when available would be turned down. So if a large sixty-year-old woman with bad sinuses, a bad perm, and a penchant for leisure sweats wanted to ride you hard and put you away wet, you’d be all for it? Because my aunt’s single. And I know an adorable leather butch with the cleanest back-and-sides you’ve ever seen. She could top you all night long. Do you like chin hair on women? I’m pretty sure she’s poly. When men picture this scenario, they’re never thinking of women who are unattractive to them for whatever reason. Women, on the other hand, have actual experience with crude offers, and they know that all kinds of men make them.
This is a thread about a guy whose defense in a rape case is that the woman must have been physically aroused, and you can’t understand why it’s offensive that you, a person who does not live with the constant threat of rape, casually noted that “on some level” when you’re aroused you want to have sex. There’s also the issue that in a lot of cases, “arousal,” at least in terms of lubrication, is a physical reaction to violent penetration. Self-defense. Either that, or I’m “aroused” on some level when my gynecologist cranks the speculum apart. So this doesn’t translate to arousal on any level, even the level Robert was describing. And there’s the issue of “body betrayal.” Rape victims occasionally feel aroused and sometimes even orgasm during rape. It has nothing do with their enjoyment on any level or with the level of pain, fear, or physical trauma the victim also experiences–it’s a physical reaction to physical stimulation. This makes the experience even more traumatic for victims who already have a hard time convincing themselves that they didn’t deserve or ask for what happened to them.
And I know an adorable leather butch with the cleanest back-and-sides you’ve ever seen. She could top you all night long. Hmmmm. Does she like m/f couples?
>I truly can’t believe this story inspired so many comments. I just can’t buy the big dick defense. I can, Lauren. Many men are obsessed with their organs and keep rulers next to their monitors. As for the big dick defense, I can’t buy it either. Saying that someone is a big dick is usually a prosecutor’s tactic. 😀 I am so shameful…. Seriously, I suspect the judge is considering all the evidence including DNA samples and medical reports. That penis — well, she’s probably put it on her desk for an amusing paperweight.