Rape in Black Rock City

12 thoughts on Rape in Black Rock City

1. Reads like every woman should keep a rape kit, so evidence can be collected at her own discretion. Also there was no evidence? What about witnesses, they know there are no witnesses without checking?

2. Reads like every woman should keep a rape kit, so evidence can be collected at her own discretion.

   The chain of custody when it comes to evidence to be used in any criminal case is extremely important. It’s not a simple matter of having a rape kit, it’s the collection, tracking, and integrity of that evidence at all times that matters.

3. Makes me shudder to think how many predators go to Burning Man because it provides such a good cover for them. The comments from the rapist’s home “camp” or whatever are particularly disturbing. “Oh boo hoo, we employed a rapist and it’s ruining our reputation.” Fuckers.

   1. Why should the camp fall victim to what the a rapist did? Also where does it say the rapist was employed by them? Wouldnt a simple DNA analysis resolve the issue?

      1. No

         In the case in the article they didn’t secure any DNA evidence to compare with (no rape kit). It was a fairly important point in the article.

      2. Why should the camp fall victim to what the a rapist did?

         What do you mean by “fall victim”? Just by being named as a place where this young woman was not safe from harm?

         Also where does it say the rapist was employed by them?

         I don’t know how things work exactly at Burning Man re volunteer vs employee status, but if he was the DJ then surely he was at least an acknowledged member of their organisation?

         Wouldnt a simple DNA analysis resolve the issue?

         Only if the rapist(s) didn’t wear a condom and a legally-acceptable rape kit was processed within a legally-acceptable period after the attack. Without DNA evidence from the victim, which the article makes clear is not available because of the lack of rape kits at Black Rock City, then there’s no DNA to analyse, is there?

         1. Burning Man camps are volunteer camps. There’s no being employed. However, camps do have a moral/ethical responsibility for their members. They’re mini-communities in a sense. A DJ would not necessarily be a member of a camp–camps with music stages may let DJs from other camps spin or they may not–but the response from the Want It lead suggested that the DJ was a member of their camp though.

            I thought the camp’s response was generally okay. The lead said the specific DJ named was vouched for at all times by witnesses and thus couldn’t have actually done it, but they fully cooperated with all searches and requests and have identified specific actions they will take next year to make their camp safer. Assuming what they’re saying is true, I’m not sure what more they could do. I don’t expect them to exile someone whose innocence appears to be vouched for.

            The main problematic thing in the camp’s response, IMHO, was that he couldn’t avoid talking about how Want It shouldn’t have been named. Since finding Yes Means Yes and reading the theories of consent culture, I’ve realized how far Burn culture has to go until we get to a consent culture. An exchange in the Yes Means Yes thread’s comments caused me to look at the survival handbook for my regional burn, and it was shocking to see how bad it was in terms of policy… particularly shocking because we’re the regional that had to confront harboring a rapist for multiple years.

      3. Why should the camp fall victim to what the a rapist did? Also where does it say the rapist was employed by them? Wouldnt a simple DNA analysis resolve the issue?

         Fuck, man, did you even read the article?

4. I know the Boston Burner scene has started up a discussion on consent issues and safety and wanting to not let the scene become a haven for predators. From what I’ve seen, the discussion is starting but is hitting a lot of pushback about how it is making the group look bad, is overblown, and is unfair to people who might be socially awkward because consent is SO HARD to understand.

   1. That’s so par for the course.

      1. Harassment and sexual violence occurs at a community event.
      2. It is identified by victims and their allies.
      3. Suggestions for eliminating or minimizing risk/increasing awareness are proposed.
      4. Shit hits the fan. Brains explode through out the community at the thought that confirming consent will somehow DESTROY THE COMMUNITY!

      Cases in point: Check out the shit-show currently playing itself out at atheist conferences, ComicCons, writer-cons, gamer-cons….

5. The comments at the YMY piece are also worth reading. Some important personal testimonials.

6. Content Note: violence against women and sexual exploitation.

   Could we have a Content Note that Clarisse Thorn is the same person who has privileged and centered the perspective of Hugo Schwyzer, known for trying to kill a woman and for using his students for sexual purposes?

Comments are currently closed.