Alex Da Silva is arrested yet charges dropped [Archive]

View Full Version : Alex Da Silva is arrested yet charges dropped

mambochino

04-05-2009, 02:22 AM

http://cbs2.com/entertainment/Alex.Da.Silva.2.976407.html

DanceMentor

04-05-2009, 08:29 AM

Whoa! That's got to be a big blow to the salsa community in LA. If this proves to be true, its good that they have found out about this and put an end to it.

A little more detail in this article...
http://www.knx1070.com/Dancer-Alex-Da-Silva-Jailed-on-Suspicion-of-Sexual/4144714

englezul

04-05-2009, 09:08 AM

I think this is just part of his next ruse.

DanceMentor

04-05-2009, 10:10 AM

I think this is just part of his next ruse.

It's too bad when a talented dancer has such terrible issues, and one of the problems (besides the victims) is it casts a shadow on dancing itself, and surely hurts the community as a whole

etp777

04-05-2009, 11:52 AM

I certainly hope it's not true, but if so, definitely glad it was stopped. Also hope that if it does prove to be true, someone takes a closer look as to why previous charges were dropped.

LucyDiamond

04-05-2009, 12:02 PM

I agree etp.

samina

04-05-2009, 12:03 PM

Upsetting news. But let's also remember the basic premise of innocent-til-proven-otherwise...

barrefly

04-05-2009, 12:23 PM

Upsetting news. But let's also remember the basic premise of innocent-til-proven-otherwise...

Thankyou samina,
Apparently, (after reading some boards) there are those that feel that since he is accused, he must be guilty.

etp777

04-05-2009, 12:25 PM

definitely sam, I was very careful to say If. certainly an extremely sensitive subject in my book, so try to be careful not to let emotions override logic. :)

samina

04-05-2009, 12:47 PM

definitely sam, I was very careful to say If. certainly an extremely sensitive subject in my book, so try to be careful not to let emotions override logic. :)

Yes, I saw that... I was just making general comment. In fact, had made it much earlier in the day but for some reason it didn't "take".

I've experienced having been assumed to be guilty of something serious that I could never have done, and it is most unpleasant. It's very easy to get the energy of a "lynching jury" going, much like a hideous game of telephone gone very wrong.

There is no way to know from our removed perspectives what is behind the reports that led to Alex's arrest. It is hard enough to get to the bottom of that when one is close to a situation. And the judicial and police process is far from perfect...

samina

04-05-2009, 12:49 PM

Thankyou samina,
Apparently, (after reading some boards) there are those that feel that since he is accused, he must be guilty.
Many people adamantly believe that "where there is smoke there's fire". And it is not necessarily so.

LucyDiamond

04-05-2009, 12:52 PM

sam - you are making excellent points and I agree with you 100%!

Merrylegs

04-05-2009, 02:12 PM

Upsetting news. But let's also remember the basic premise of innocent-til-proven-otherwise...

I am very glad you said this. Tx.

04-05-2009, 02:55 PM

Wow. Very shocking news. :(

I hope for all involved that these stories are not true. :(

wooh

04-05-2009, 04:30 PM

Thankyou samina,
Apparently, (after reading some boards) there are those that feel that since he is accused, he must be guilty.

Innocent until proven guilty is all well and good, but if I had a teenage daughter, I wouldn't be leaving her alone with him.:rolleyes:

barrefly

04-07-2009, 07:24 PM

http://www.tmz.com/

TemptressToo

04-07-2009, 09:04 PM

I haven't been around for a while but popped in figuring ya'll would have the scoop. :D

flashdance

04-08-2009, 04:34 AM

I'm with Samina on this - it really worries me that in this day and age, just because someone makes and accusation it can be splashed around newspapers etc regardless... and the media generally print garbage anyway.... which ends up sensationalising everything to a point you believe what they are saying.... and this is before it has come to court.

Is it trial by a court of law or by media?

The mind boggles.

RickRS

04-08-2009, 04:43 AM

TMZ isn't that reliable of a source, but LA Times has the same story of "no charges filed" so the story is correct. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-silva8-2009apr08,0,7500902.story

The Times report that since his arrest, police say three more women have filed police reports of rape, and two more women are contemplating filing police reports. Thats seven reports of rape in the LA area, maybe two more to come and one report of sexual assualt in Scottdale, AZ from March 22. So this story isn't over.

Also, I'm with Wooh on this: would be very careful about letting this guy around any female. Being a minor celebrity can attract people looking to get some celebrity status for themselves, even with false charges, but at the same time sexual assault is seriously under-reported because the victim(s) are basically fighting against a defense of "its all a mis-understanding, it was consensual" just to get police to listen to them.

Steve Pastor

04-08-2009, 01:40 PM

jwlinson

04-09-2009, 12:29 PM

Wow. These sorts of cases are so hard to both prove and disprove...

jennyisdancing

04-09-2009, 02:29 PM

If any news organization reports that someone has been arrested, based on reports from the police, they are correctly reporting just that.

If someone IS arrested and they DON'T report it, they aren't doing their job.
(This is in general. As is usually the case in life, there are exceptions.)

If you are a citizen of this country you should know how our legal system works.
Hopefully, you would also understand the role of the media.

:notworth:

Thank you...glad someone understands this. I'm sorry that certain negligent media outlets have tainted the rep of journalism as a whole but to sum up:

1. Arrests, criminal charges and trials are public record in the U.S.
2. The 1st amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of the press, meaning the government is not allowed to control it.
3. Pundits/blogs/commentators are NOT journalists. They are paid to be entertaining and offer opinions. Journalist and reporters are required to research facts. Media companies and audiences are unfortunately blurring those lines, with very bad results.

tsb

04-10-2009, 01:44 AM

Taken from:

http://news-briefs.ew.com/2009/04/dwts-no-sexual.html

In a chilling quote to the AP, Da Silva's defense attorney, Harland Braun said that some of Da Silva's accusers "don't understand the difference between being seduced and being raped."

suggests to me that desilva not only acknowledged that he had sex with all those women, but that there's no sense of remorse about how these "liaisons" came about.

make of that what you will.

englezul

04-10-2009, 02:14 AM

Taken from:

http://news-briefs.ew.com/2009/04/dwts-no-sexual.html

suggests to me that desilva not only acknowledged that he had sex with all those women, but that there's no sense of remorse about how these "liaisons" came about.

make of that what you will.

Unless these 'liaisons' came about through physical violence, I believe morning buyers remorse hardly qualifies as 'having been raped'. I would expect that this guy is a master at knowing all the right things to say and buttons to push, but unless he physically forced himself on them I don't see any foul. And I definitely don't see why he should feel remorseful about it, after all, I expect they joined him to his place out of their own will and they were likely flattered by his attention. And let's face it, after a night out your friend tells you 'Hey I'm taking off, I'm going with this guy to his place'. What do you think is going to happen they're going to work on a 4000 pieces puzzle?

RickRS

04-10-2009, 06:58 AM

If there isn't a rape, then there isn't a reason for remorse. But then the difference between seduction and rape lies in whether or not the victim's used the words "No" or "Stop". And if there's cause to believe one is in physical jeopardy from the other, you don't even have to say the words for the act to be rape.

Of course, all of this is for the court to decide.

SDsalsaguy

04-10-2009, 10:22 AM

Preemptive Reminder: updates on what has (and gets) reported are fine, but speculation as to people's character, etc. -- on either side of this issue -- violate DF's guidelines and standards.

04-10-2009, 11:51 AM

Thank you for the reminder SalsaGuy. :)

Slightly OT - Right now myself and other leaders in the dance community are meeting and trying to resolve a major problem we are having - malicious gossip. It can be so difficult to trace the source. One thing we have learned is sometimes people aren't out to spread nasty rumors. Sometimes they just overhear speculation and repeat it as fact.

wooh

04-10-2009, 03:05 PM

Da Silva's defense attorney, Harland Braun said that some of Da Silva's accusers "don't understand the difference between being seduced and being raped."
"Some" of his accusers? Which mean "some" of them do know the difference?:rolleyes:

ChaChaMama

04-10-2009, 08:45 PM

But then the difference between seduction and rape lies in whether or not the victim's used the words "No" or "Stop". And if there's cause to believe one is in physical jeopardy from the other, you don't even have to say the words for the act to be rape.

Of course, all of this is for the court to decide.

If I might just add to the above distinction:

-It is also rape if the person is drugged or inebriated to the point where he or she cannot give meaningful consent. Someone who has been slipped a rufie or is passed out drunk is not "fair game."

-Someone who has given consent to one aspect of a "seduction" does not necessarily give consent to all aspects of a seduction. For example, a girl who consents to going up to a guy's apartment and kissing on the sofa has not necessarily given her consent to sexual intercourse, and is still well within her rights to say "No" to these further activities.

All of this has nothing necessarily to do with the specifics of the de Silva situation, to which I am not privy, but I think it is VITALLY important for this information to be out there. Sometimes people blame the victim with logic like "Well, if she didn't want to have sex with him, what did she go up to his apartment for?" Absurd.

If you are a victim, it is NOT your fault. That simple.

wooh

04-10-2009, 08:57 PM

If I might just add to the above distinction:
...
All of this has nothing necessarily to do with the specifics of the de Silva situation, to which I am not privy, but I think it is VITALLY important for this information to be out there. Sometimes people blame the victim with logic like "Well, if she didn't want to have sex with him, what did she go up to his apartment for?" Absurd.

If you are a victim, it is NOT your fault. That simple.

Thank you for that. I agree it's a message that needs to be spread.

RickRS

04-10-2009, 10:51 PM

If you are a victim, it is NOT your fault. That simple.

100%

Thanks for expanding. People can see the crime when a victim's drink is spiked with roofies. Some people can't see that taking advantage of someone who's quite drunk is the same thing. It makes no difference if victim got herself drunk, as you said, she isn't automatically "fair game".

Also, what I'm talking about here is rape in general, not about Silva. I'm not saying Silva is guility of the crimes. I don't know the facts of these cases. That is for a jury and the court to decide, if the state goes ahead with charges. I don't want a man, if innocent, victimized with false charges, just as I won't want women that have been assaulted victimized a second time by a system refusing to hear them and provide justice.

04-11-2009, 10:22 AM

Some people can't see that taking advantage of someone who's quite drunk is the same thing. It makes no difference if victim got herself drunk, as you said, she isn't automatically "fair game".

I abhor rape and steer well clear in my life of any of the situations discussed in this thread. However, being devil's advocate or a moment, here's the flip side I see to the statement above:

So if I were to get myself "quite drunk" in a bar or something, and then a girl were to persuade me to go home with her and we were to sleep together, then in the morning I could/should argue that I never would have acted that way if sober, and have her criminally charged and perhaps sent to jail -- right?

wooh

04-11-2009, 12:47 PM

I abhor rape and steer well clear in my life of any of the situations discussed in this thread. However, being devil's advocate or a moment, here's the flip side I see to the statement above:

So if I were to get myself "quite drunk" in a bar or something, and then a girl were to persuade me to go home with her and we were to sleep together, then in the morning I could/should argue that I never would have acted that way if sober, and have her criminally charged and perhaps sent to jail -- right?

Yes, you could.

englezul

04-11-2009, 02:30 PM

If I might just add to the above distinction:

-It is also rape if the person is drugged or inebriated to the point where he or she cannot give meaningful consent. Someone who has been slipped a rufie or is passed out drunk is not "fair game."

Clearly being purposely drugged with that outcome in mind is rape. Yet there is a distinction between being passed out/drugged and making decisions under the influence of alcohol. It's easy to create scenarios in which such a situation could be construed as a rape and it is also very easy to create scenarios where an accusation of rape would be out of the question. But giving a person license to claim rape after a night of drunk partying under the pretense that they weren't sober would have disastrous consequences. You are your own master when it comes to what pour down your throat and giving the universally understood difficulty in assessing what happened in a court of law 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' the best strategy for any one is PREVENTION.

Some similar discussion, don't have time now but it would be interesting to find some cases from the US.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/date-rape-acquittal-stokes-row-a-person-who-is-drunk-and-because-she-is-drunk-consents-to-an-act-which-she-would-not-when-sober-still-consents-1511857.html

If you are a victim, it is NOT your fault. That simple.

No, actually in the real world, it isn't. Not even close. Unless you're God, which I presume you're not. See, the whole concept of 'victim' is one that needs be proved beyond a shadow doubt in a court of law.

englezul

04-11-2009, 02:34 PM

Yes, you could.

Can you show any legal precedent for this Wooh? Because I not only think that you practically could not, I also think you would be likely ridiculed. While if the roles were reversed, on an accusation of rape a man would be jailed (even on a lie). In fact women coming forward and admitting to the lie after the fact were given a 'correctional sentence' equivalent to what would happen if you were found sleeping on a bench in the park with a bottle of whiskey. Had they not come forward, the men would've faced years in jail and a life-long stigma.

04-11-2009, 04:52 PM

Yes, you could.

I were to get drunk and drive my car, I would be legally responsible for my actions.

dancelvr

04-11-2009, 05:52 PM

No, actually in the real world, it isn't. Not even close. Unless you're God, which I presume you're not. See, the whole concept of 'victim' is one that needs be proved beyond a shadow doubt in a court of law.

I believe that the correct determination of guilt is 'beyond a reasonable doubt' in a criminal case, and by 'a preponderance of the evidence' in a civil case.

gte692h

04-11-2009, 05:54 PM

Taken from:

http://news-briefs.ew.com/2009/04/dwts-no-sexual.html

Da Silva's defense attorney, Harland Braun said that some of Da Silva's accusers "don't understand the difference between being seduced and being raped."

I find that lawyers words quite repulsive.

Years ago, I was violently mugged after walking home drunk from a bar a block down from campus. I figured it was safe to walk home but I was mistaken. Two individuals followed me all the back to my apartment complex, and then proceeded to break various parts of my face, and take my wallet. (I am male btw) I remember the immediate reaction of my colleagues, family, and even the police who I spoke to : "why were you out drinking?" , "what did you expect being out at 2am walking on the street" and worst of all, "you must have done something, or been upto no good to have gotten beaten up, there must be something you are not telling us"

It was a big lesson to me on what 'blaming the victim' actually means. Of course some behaviours like being drunk/alone/out late, increase the odds of being attacked, but does that excuse a crime? In a civilized society, a person walking on the street has a right to not be attacked. Doesn't matter if they are so drunk they are on all fours, or if they are sober.

So going back to this case, a woman showing up at a man's house, drunk/stupid/naive, is irrelevant. Ideally, a decent man should know what is the right thing to do. One can't say, 'she came to my bedroom/house alone, she had to know what to expect', especially if the accused invited the accusers to his house on some pretext such as "wanting to show them new clothes, or fixing his computer" (see http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-silva8-2009apr08,0,7500902.story). If that is how one convinces a person to come to their bedroom, then it is not an excuse to seduce or rape. Frankly, in an ideal world, even seduction, if done with guile and trickery, is as good as rape as far as I am concerned.

In any case, I hope justice prevails for whomever it is that is the true victim, be it the accused or the accusers.

04-11-2009, 06:40 PM

[...]

gte692h,

I agree with everything you wrote in that post.

Yet, while drunk people may be victimized -- and it is certainly not their fault if they are victimized -- not everyone who regrets an alcohol-influenced decision/action after the fact is by that fact alone actually a victim.

IMO, it's possible for a drunk person to willingly and freely do a lot of dumb stuff while drunk, without any of it being the fault and/or responsibility of any other participants in any of the behavior, even if the behavior has consequences.

I am speaking to a very narrow point, mostly from a perspective of examining personal responsibility, not focusing on rape especially nor this case in particular.

I'll probably duck out of the thread now.

englezul

04-11-2009, 06:45 PM

I believe that the correct determination of guilt is 'beyond a reasonable doubt' in a criminal case, and by 'a preponderance of the evidence' in a civil case.

I believe that is correct, yet the argument still stands.

englezul

04-11-2009, 07:23 PM

I find that lawyers words quite repulsive.

Years ago, I was violently mugged after walking home drunk from a bar a block down from campus. I figured it was safe to walk home but I was [...]

It's unfortunate all this happened to you. But by your definition we must not be living in a civilized society. However civilized or uncivilized this society really is lessons about human nature have been learned and passed on from generation to generation. That PRECISELY the reason this happened:

I remember the immediate reaction of my colleagues, family, and even the police who I spoke to : "why were you out drinking?" , "what did you expect being out at 2am walking on the street" and worst of all, "you must have done something, or been upto no good to have gotten beaten up, there must be something you are not telling us"

On the other hand you not following this common knowledge advice that, if no one else your mother, surely gave it to you (cause I know mine did) you subjected yourself WILLINGLY to a certain amount of risk. In all its unlikeliness, you did get mugged and beaten up. Blaming this on the society not being perfect and civilized is nothing short than puerile, as perhaps your muggers if could have a few complaints of their own. Maybe mugging is not really what they had in mind for themselves when they were kids. Assuming that they lived in the kind of environment and household you lived in.

A habit of attributing blame externally is exactly why A LOT of money is wasted on frivolous trials, the system is brought to its knees because of the sheer volume of work that needs be put in each case, and we still maintain this expectation that somehow despite all challenges it has to be perfect. While a government's duty, amongst other things, is to protect its citizens, your principal duty is to protect yourself. Willingly dropping that responsibility and throwing the cat in the governments, and furthermore, in society's lap, is what will give you responses like 'cry me a river'. While I acknowledge that as far as I know you in no way deserved to be physically abused, or mugged, or even verbally assaulted, contrary to DL's opinion I think you are largely responsible for getting yourself into that state where you can't ensure your own safety.

Until everybody works together, no cheating, no work-arounds, to create an equal opportunity society for anyone, none of these problems will go away. More so, in for such a radical change to take place hundreds of years and many social revolutions will have to take place, and as of right now we are not even at the stage where people all around the world benefit of the most basic human rights. Women are enslaved and mutilated, people starve to death or die of aids, children are grown up and brainwashed to believe blowing themselves up and taking 100 innocent people with them will earn them a place in paradise.

Taking a look at the big picture, these kinds of problems that are not only well known and understood in society but can very easily be prevented using common sense are, in my opinion, due to the failure of the people involved to use their nature-given brain. Just like drinking and driving for example. So quite frankly I wouldn't waste 10 minutes of my time on a story like that. So to recapitulate, unless there is evidence of physical abuse that indicates her right to say no was trespassed, or evidence that indicates she was drugged (consent was not given) or drunk to the point of passing out when consent took place, a charge like rape is absurd. Buyer's remorse amounts to 0.

SDsalsaguy

04-11-2009, 07:36 PM

Warning: everyone should be VERY careful not to attack any other DF members (no matter how subtly) as doing so is a direct violation of DF's guidelines.

04-11-2009, 10:14 PM

...contrary to DL's opinion I think you are largely responsible for getting yourself into that state where you can't ensure your own safety.

Just to reinforce the referenced opinion:

As for "[being in a] state where you [can] ensure your own safety," well, I think that's a pretty mythical state, in fact.

My original point was that being drunk doesn't automatically confer "victim" status. To be clear, neither does it imply that one cannot become a victim, even in cases where it implies (perhaps willful) ignorance of practical self-defense advice. One's alcohol consumption affects one's own thinking, not the thinking of potential attackers.

wooh

04-11-2009, 11:39 PM

englezul

04-12-2009, 12:37 AM

If one wants to ensure they aren't accused of rape, then don't have sex where it's questionable that the other person is ok with it. While it's conceivable it could happen once that the other person has "buyer's remorse" (which if I thought the other person would regret it in the morning, then I wouldn't be doing it then either, and would err on the side of caution in any case) when it comes to this particular case, I find it REALLY difficult to believe that there were this many cases where it was just regretted the next day, and the accused is actually innocent rather than just getting away due to a lack of convincing evidence.
I also find it really regrettable that there are people are so anxious to have sex that they would do so in situations where they can't be absolutely sure of the other person's consent. I can't imagine wanting to have sex so badly that I didn't care if the other person would regret it and definitely can't imagine wanting to have sex so badly that I would do so when the other person might not be absolutely willing to consent, even if they weren't inebriated. That someone selfishly thinks their right to sex is more important than another persons feelings of safety and security truly saddens me.
Do people have a responsibility to maintain their personal safety? Yes. But even if I leave my doors unlocked, it doesn't give someone the right to steal my belongings.

You might be surprised by this but people do have ... congress without committing to be in a relationship. This implies that a relationship is not established before or after the fact which means that while it may happen with the same person more than one time, it usually happens with different partners most of the times. Well, some of these partners get ideas and hope for more and when confronted with the cold hard facts that it's not going to happen they get buyers remorse. That is the issue, not that they weren't really sure they wanted to be there. They likely did, and given the social status of someone like Da Silva, they probably felt flattered. Don't tell me you find this surprising. I find

imagine wanting to have sex so badly that I would do so when the other person might not be absolutely willing to consent, even if they weren't inebriated

not to be the case at all. Have you never seen men who are exceptionally good with women? Do they look like they're trying at all? Usually they kick it in a corner somewhere or on a couch and all the women just flock around them for attention. Now without giving the guy too much credit, because I don't know him personally, I would think that with his status and very particular set of skills that earned his fame, he is no stranger to women. I would also say that he likely has many more options at the end of the night than you imagine. So I hardly believe he would act out of desperation... Based on the fact that the prosecutor has yet to push for a trial, lack of evidence of physical assault, and the very plausible fact that Silva doesn't need the stash of Axe in his bathroom cabinet, I am more inclined to believe that buyers remorse was the case when they figured out he wasn't going to settle down with them. Or maybe Da Silva is pushing it based on the very reason that knowing he has many other options, people would generally think he would not risk it like that... But will we ever know? And does it really matter? All they had to do was use common sense.

wooh

04-12-2009, 12:51 AM

All they had to do was use common sense.
:rolleyes:
All he had to use was self restraint.

wooh

04-12-2009, 01:02 AM

And btw, lest I sound like Mary Poppins, I fully realize people "have congress" without being in a relationship. But if one is going to do so, then one needs to use "common sense" and be responsible about it. That goes for both. Avoiding being overly drunk is a good idea, but doesn't release the other party from making sure the other person is truly consenting and would consent even if they were of sound mind. And if it takes tricking a woman into thinking that the one night stand will lead to a marriage proposal, then that would be a sign she's not as willing as you think, so if you want to avoid a false rape allegation (which I'm not buying is as common of an occurence due to "buyer's remorse" as you seem to be pushing), then maybe you need to be a little extra sure of the consent when you're having "congress" without being in a relationship. If you aren't sure, then there's always the option of a cold shower.

englezul

04-12-2009, 01:54 AM

:rolleyes:
All he had to use was self restraint.

What you wrote above makes no sense. Who said that he didn't? Or why should he? How do you define self restraint anyways? Being celibate? 1 once a week, twice, 20? Do you want him to have a written contract and present it to them?

And who said anything about tricking a woman into thinking that? It's about what the women hope for. That's their motivation. You'll find that guys with options are absolutely upfront about what they want, because they have nothing to lose and their reality is exactly how they want it. Not that Da Silva tells them 'come with me baby, fix my computer and I'll make you my wife'. Who said anything about drunkenness? There's no such mention in the article. Consent is consent ... if consent is not there she is either passed out, or drugged, or marks of violence are present. All three are verifiable by a blood test and a general examination. What do women say when admitting to cheating? 'It just happened'. Why is that do you think?

04-12-2009, 02:25 AM

Consent is consent ... if consent is not there she is either passed out, or drugged, or marks of violence are present. All three are verifiable by a blood test and a general examination.

That's simply not true. For example, threats of violence don't leave marks. Being drugged and/or passed out isn't necessarily verifiable in the way you describe.

(I was hoping to duck out of the thread but... oy.)

In any case I find it hard to escape Wooh's point that there are prevention-based ways to govern one's behavior so as to reduce to near zero the chances of having criminal complaints brought against one. Actually, it's so much like your point about how people should act to prevent themselves from becoming victims, that I'm surprised you don't agree.

samina

04-12-2009, 07:39 AM

Despite the turn of the thread, rape is not a crime of sex -- it's a crime of violence. It's not about being horny and unfilled...it's about someone who gets off on exerting power over another's will.

Those who rape, and those who are raped, are caught in psychological webs of power vs powerlessness...and the victimized one does have a participating psychological dynamic, otherwise she wouldn't have been attracted to and caught in a raper's "web".

englezul

04-12-2009, 09:05 AM

My argument can be generally applied and has nothing in particular to do with this case. I edited the post to remove any such references. and it got posted below (again because of the faulty login system).

SDsalsaguy

04-12-2009, 09:23 AM

Final warning: We are NOT going to speculate on what may have happened in the ADS case. If you want to discuss these ideas in the abstract, we may let that continue, but any further posts speculating about the ADS case will cause this thread to be locked.

englezul

04-12-2009, 09:57 AM

That's simply not true. For example, threats of violence don't leave marks. Being drugged and/or passed out isn't necessarily verifiable in the way you describe.

(I was hoping to duck out of the thread but... oy.)

In any case I find it hard to escape Wooh's point that there are prevention-based ways to govern one's behavior so as to reduce to near zero the chances of having criminal complaints brought against one. Actually, it's so much like your point about how people should act to prevent themselves from becoming victims, that I'm surprised you don't agree.

Actually it is verifiable. That is exactly how they verify whether a possible consent was given in a state that would make it valid. That is exactly how they verify if intercourse actually took place.

My argument was that while society is inherently flawed, it self-corrects by educating the new generations on how to avoid these flaws. My argument was that society is not perfect nor we should expect it to be and thus instead on relying on ideas such as 'in a civilized society I have the right not to be mugged' you should take seriously the advice that you receive, the guidelines that have stood the test of time. When you fail to do so you assume a risk and nobody is responsible for that other than you. But my scenario had preconditions: 1) the crime would be physical violence, mugging, rape, etc and 2) the victim was put herself in a situation where they can not ensue their safety.

Adapting it to the position of being accused of something is a gross misinterpretation, I don't know how to make this clear enough. Yes, one can definitely make sure this doesn't happen by ... not dating anyone ever. But unlike actions whose effects take place immediately (like a strike to the head) a rape claim needs to be proven. There is a procedure that MUST be followed and that is CONTROLLED and ENFORCED by the government. Bringing a charge and filing a suit do not mean anything. It the trial that establishes guilt.

So your theory is that rape can be performed by employing a technique such as 'you will do what I say and you will not oppose because otherwise I will DESTROY you' ? And an alleged victim too scared (or to stupid) to put up a fight and she willingly submitted by lack of options and for fear of being destroyed? So no violence. No marks. No alcohol. No drugs in her system. Is this your argument? How exactly do you see arriving at that outcome?

What section of the say california penal code does it fall under?

http://www.defend-me.com/california/california-penal-code-261-269.asp

And how would you prove it in a court of law without being privy to what happened? What you are doing here you are discussing the accusation from a series of pre-supposed facts. But in a court of law you start from zero, nothing. Just stories. Hopefully she did go to the police IMMEDIATELY after and got a molecular and a blood test done. And if not ... tough break. Which again brings you to my post from yesterday.

wooh

04-12-2009, 11:51 AM

wooh

04-12-2009, 11:56 AM

Actually it is verifiable. That is exactly how they verify whether a possible consent was given in a state that would make it valid. That is exactly how they verify if intercourse actually took place.

So instead of holding me down with brute force, he just holds a gun to my head. If I don't show up at the hospital with a gun shot wound, I wasn't raped?

englezul

04-12-2009, 12:20 PM

So instead of holding me down with brute force, he just holds a gun to my head. If I don't show up at the hospital with a gun shot wound, I wasn't raped?

Hahaha. I was really expecting a scenario requiring a much more clever utilization of the law than this. Assuming he or she threatened you at gun point it would be rape. Consent is not valid, regardless if it was explicitly given or not, regardless of ANYTHING ELSE that happened that night. The signs of intercourse can be detected by the lab work. The obviousness of this scenario does not warrant any discussion really as a report of being raped at gunpoint will have the police cars surround the alleged offender's house in a matter of minutes. I don't think a prosecutor will EVER have an issue with pushing for a trial in such an event.

wooh

04-12-2009, 12:31 PM

Hahaha. I was really expecting a scenario requiring a much more clever utilization of the law than this. Assuming he or she threatened you at gun point it would be rape. Consent is not valid, regardless if it was explicitly given or not, regardless of ANYTHING ELSE that happened that night. The signs of intercourse can be detected by the lab work. The obviousness of this scenario does not warrant any discussion really as a report of being raped at gunpoint will have the police cars surround the alleged offender's house in a matter of minutes. I don't think a prosecutor will EVER have an issue with pushing for a trial in such an event.

Where's the evidence that you seem to think ALWAYS exists if a rape really occurred? It's not like he's going to give me the gun that's registered in his name to take to the police station with me. Sure intercourse occurred, but intercourse occurred with my husband and me before I went out of town, and that's not proof my husband raped me. Besides, we go to court, firearm toting rapist is just going to say it's a game that I asked him to play.
It's ALWAYS he said/she said. It's just sometimes there's more physical evidence to make one story more convincing. But even though CSI would like us to think there's always a microscopic piece of physical evidence that tells the entire story with 100% certainty, there's often not much to go on except the he said/she said. And just because there's not proof doesn't mean that rape didn't occur.

englezul

04-12-2009, 12:36 PM

engelzul-
Please clarify if I'm interpreting what you're saying correctly, as what I'm hearing is this:
There are criminals, and I'm 100% responsible for protecting myself against them. So since there are rapists out there, and if I'm walking down the street at night alone, and get raped, well instead of them being responsible, I'm responsible because I should have walked in a group. There are burglars out there, and if I don't invest in a security system, then I'm to blame for believing my house shouldn't be broken into whether or not I have a security system.
I'm hearing a vibe of "You can't blame the criminal, they can't help themselves." I feel like in your world, if I want to avoid being raped, then I'll have to lock myself in my house (with a security system) otherwise I'm somehow asking for it because the rapists are out there and it's my job to avoid them, not their job to not commit a crime.

I'll be glad to clarify. You are interpreting myself 100% incorrectly. What I am saying is take care of yourself to the best of your ability and be proactive in avoiding any kind of dangerous scenario. I am also saying that if you do not care much for doing so, the government intervention WILL NOT TURN BACK TIME, the offenders might or might nor be punished, but the trauma will stay with you forever. This is common sense advice that not only parents give their children all the time, but is also the thing that is mentioned as the most reliable self defense technique in all self-defense classes.

Additionally, at a practical and philosophical level, in the entire universe of people and governments, and protection organs, nobody cares (or should care) about your safety more than you do (should), therefore you should really do the above and try to stay out of trouble as much as you get. Somehow walking drunk on the streets at 3 am in the night, alone, taking out cash doesn't strike me as one having fulfilled his or her part of the deal which is why the police and those involved in the example aforementioned in this thread reacted (rightfully IMO) in the way they did.

I must have been very inarticulate before if I didn't make this clear enough, I can only hope this time around I did a better job.

englezul

04-12-2009, 12:36 PM

Where's the evidence that you seem to think ALWAYS exists if a rape really occurred? It's not like he's going to give me the gun that's registered in his name to take to the police station with me. Sure intercourse occurred, but intercourse occurred with my husband and me before I went out of town, and that's not proof my husband raped me. Besides, we go to court, firearm toting rapist is just going to say it's a game that I asked him to play.
It's ALWAYS he said/she said. It's just sometimes there's more physical evidence to make one story more convincing. But even though CSI would like us to think there's always a microscopic piece of physical evidence that tells the entire story with 100% certainty, there's often not much to go on except the he said/she said. And just because there's not proof doesn't mean that rape didn't occur.

The evidence is inside of you dear Wooh. It's not called a molecular test for nothing. The test proves intercourse took place. The rape has to be PROVEN in the court of law. If you think an accusation of 'my husband held me at gun point with an imaginary weapon that he produced on the spot and cannot be retrieved' or an explanation like 'yeah, she wanted me to rape her at gun point' would give grief to any lawyer, that's certainly your prerogative. In reality the interrogation techniques used not by the trained police officers, but by the lawyers as well can tackle scenarios much more complex than that.

[Add]
The fact that on some occasions the rape CANNOT be proved, despite the fact that it really happened, is more of a reason to re-read my previous posts about assuming personal responsibility for one's safety.

barrefly

04-12-2009, 01:27 PM

Alex is innocent. (..at least, until proven otherwise). There seems to be too much speculation in some of the posts, as well as subjective opinions that have nothing to do with the facts.

Larinda McRaven

04-12-2009, 02:11 PM

Correct barrefly, which is why we are insisting that this thread not be speculative of the events and situation in question.

wooh

04-12-2009, 04:33 PM

barrefly

04-12-2009, 06:35 PM

engelzul, thanks for your clarification. And I do agree with you that it is important to do what we can to protect ourselves from harm, because obviously, once the harm is done, no amount of "justice" can undo it. I just feel it is VERY important to watch out when we encourage young women to take practical steps to keep themselves safe, that we don't blame the victim in doing so. It doesn't matter how stupid someone is, it doesn't give anybody the right to attack them. And in blaming the victim, (when victims are prone to blame themselves anyway), we lower the chances they'll report the crime. And we victimize them yet again. A person may do something stupid that puts them unintentionally in the wrong place at the wrong time, but that is a far cry from "asking for it."

One must also understand that the accused may be the victim as well.
A good example of this is the movie "Oleanna", staring William H. Macy.
(A chilling movie, even though it is fiction).
Another is the young men in the Duke LeCrosse incident.
And let's not us forget Sen. Ted Stevens.

I am more confident an alledged rape victim would have a greater success of getting public support as I would that the innocent accused would. Proving a case in a court of law is another thing. Unfortunatly, if Alex is indeed, truly innocent....his career is already, and considerably, at threat. In a sense....such accussed is a victim of rape from public sentiment.

ChaChaMama

04-12-2009, 10:40 PM

Clearly being purposely drugged with that outcome in mind is rape. Yet there is a distinction between being passed out/drugged and making decisions under the influence of alcohol. It's easy to create scenarios in which such a situation could be construed as a rape and it is also very easy to create scenarios where an accusation of rape would be out of the question. But giving a person license to claim rape after a night of drunk partying under the pretense that they weren't sober would have disastrous consequences. You are your own master when it comes to what pour down your throat and giving the universally understood difficulty in assessing what happened in a court of law 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' the best strategy for any one is PREVENTION.

NOTE: The comments I am about to make have nothing to do with the Alex de Silva case per se, but only serve to provide some further rape information and education.

1) There have been rapes where the victim is PASSED OUT DRUNK and the rapist then says that he does not see what was wrong with having sex with her drunk, passed out body. After all, she didn't say "No."

I am not sure why the above poster leaps quickly to the conclusion that I am talking about situations where someone does something while inebriated that he or she might regret. That is not what I am talking about at all. Let me be explicit: I am talking about situations where a person cannot give meaningful consent because they are too drunk to know what is going on.

2) There are other situations in which a person cannot give meaningful consent.
-Young children cannot give meaningful consent. A student of mine was victimized at the age of 6.

-The severely retarded also may not be able to give meaningful consent. In a landmark case in my original home state of New Jersey, a mentally retarded girl with an IQ of 64 was gang raped by several boys with a baseball bat and a broomstick, and they argued that she consented, or even lured them into it. They lost.

-People in comas and semi-vegetative states cannot give consent. And yes, as disgusting as it is, there have been rapes of people in such situations.

3) There is not always conclusive physical evidence of rape. Rape can involve the insertion of various foreign objections, so fluids and hairs are not always present. While there are often signs of physical force and trauma, this is not always the case, nor is it always conclusive. (There have in the past been defendants who have argued that the victim wanted rough sex.)

4) One comment above seemed to imply that some people are more likely to be raped because of something in their psychological make-up. As someone who knows quite a few people who have been raped, I do not buy this argument at all.

I know young women who were raped by male friends they thought they could trust. I know a young woman who was raped by one of her friends' father while playing at her house at 12 or 13 years old. These girls weren't "doing anything stupid," if we want to buy into the idea that you can cause your own rape (which I don't). They were doing normal, everyday things, like doing homework with a lab partner, or watching a DVD, or flipping through magazines with a female friend while her father was home.

Again, and to be clear, none of the above has anything to do with the specifics of the ADS case. I know, however, that there may be people who read this board for whom this topic resonates. There may be people in your life who were raped, and you may not even know it. It is a very under-reported crime.

If you were raped, it is not your fault. Please know that.

englezul

04-12-2009, 11:20 PM

I am not sure why the above poster leaps quickly to the conclusion that I am talking about situations where someone does something while inebriated that he or she might regret. That is not what I am talking about at all. Let me be explicit: I am talking about situations where a person cannot give meaningful consent because they are too drunk to know what is going on.

Discussions focus from very general cases, encompassing the totality of scenarios belonging to a category (i.e. rape) to a particular set of cases. There was nothing in this discussion to allude to special cases such as people with disabilities, children, etc. In our case, prior to your intervention, we were focused on situations involving normal, healthy adults subjected to no source of impairment other than alcohol or possibly seduction and were discussing controversial scenarios that may occur in this setting. Blatantly obvious rape scenarios such as those involving drugging the victim or the victim being passed out are agreed upon by everybody. I don't think anyone has any particular interest in discussing them. Your intervention caused a regression so to speak to a higher level of abstraction and, in the context of our discussion at that moment, it was a step back, not forward, a non sequitur.

So is your last reply, IMO, as nobody has questioned the validity of any of those scenarios. In fact if you go to the excerpt regarding rape from the penal code of California (for your convenience: http://www.defend-me.com/california/california-penal-code-261-269.asp) you will find that those scenarios you listed below fall under the main bullet points. No controversy. No difficulty in acknowledging the rape under those circumstances. Nobody was talking about them. We can all agree on those.

In fact it wasn't claimed anywhere the victim is to blame for the rape. The personal responsibility is about something else not about the exoneration of the crime or those that committed it.

On the fact that it is under-reported...I am aware of that, but whose fault is it? The crime is the way it is, it is subject to controversy and inquiry, there have been many cases in which women lied about it without a drop of remorse, and the fact that the alleged victims are reluctant to come out just adds to the problem. So until we have a direct line with some omniscient presence justice will not prevail in 100% of cases. But it will do its best.

SDsalsaguy

04-13-2009, 12:16 AM

I entirely disagree englezul and think CCM's post is one of the most cogent and most important in this thread.

More importantly (at least as far as DF is concerned) she has as much of a right to discuss whatever elements of the topic she wants as does anyone else, which means that you do not have the right to decide for the community what constitutes a "regression" or "step backward."

Despite the attempts of the staff to let this important topic be discussed, any additonal posts of this nature--by anyone--will result in at least the temporary closure of this thread.

wooh

04-13-2009, 01:02 AM

I entirely disagree englezul and think CCM's post is one of the most cogent and most important in this thread.

100% agree with this. Speaking of percentages, I believe that CCM's posts are 100% spot on.

Albanaich

04-13-2009, 04:42 AM

The problem with rape and sex generally is that is not a simple black and white issue, its all grey. In some ways its rather like the debate we have about leading.

Just as there all sorts of combination of wimpy and strong leads and follows, with all the complexities of lightness, power, decision and hesitation - so it is in sexual relationships.

What combination works for one person does not work for another - or, and this is where it gets complicated, what may be acceptable under some circumstances may not be under others.

What seems like a good dance partner when you are both drunk might not be when you are sober.

There are women who like to be dominated in the bedroom, just as there are follows who like a physically strong lead. Similarly a heavy lead that works with one woman might be totally unacceptable to a follow who prefers the lightest, most sensitive of touches.

The trick of course is to be sensitive and aware of what you are dealing with - but that doesn't always happen on either the dance floor of the bedroom.

If you get a sprained wrist doing Lindy was it because you were dancing with a partner who is heavy forceful lead or was it because you had a few glasses of wine and your timing was out?

If after a few drinks you end up in the bedroom, alone, with a known womaniser and sex ensures - is that your fault or his.

Sometimes I think there should be crime like 'causing sex by irresponsible behaviour' that is somewhere below rape on the scale of things.

samina

04-13-2009, 07:48 AM

I wouldn't agree that a dance analogy applies to rape scenarios at all...a woman is on the dance floor by choice, whatever the adjustments that must be made for the dance to work. Again, rape is not about sex or a dance between the sexes, it's about violence and power.

In addition, liking to be "dominated" in the bedroom has not a thing to do with rape...one involves consent and the other does not.

ChaChaMama

04-13-2009, 07:55 AM

Englezul, I am

-a 4+ year member of this forum
-a full professor with tenure
-the daughter of a judge
-a 6 year cast member of "The Vagina Monologues," with extensive knowledge of what does and does not constitute rape.

I would appreciate being talked to with the same respect I would hope you would extend to any member of this community.

You are quite right that I am trying to steer away from discussing the specifics of the ADS onto a greater plane of abstraction. That is because I believe that is exactly what we have been asked to do by the moderators of this forum.

I did feel that several posts had touched exactly on the issue of "meaningful consent" and on the alleged grey area between seduction and rape. From the public comments of ADS's lawyer (see post #23), it seems likely that this will be part of the defense strategy, if this case in fact comes to trial. I take exception to ADS's lawyer's implication that many women cannot make the distinction between seduction and rape. But I also believe it is FAR TOO EARLY to know if the case will be brought to trial, and if rape vs. seduction even is the central issue. Remember, the only person who has spoken publicly is a lawyer for the accused!

There were also assertions made in this thread that there is always physical evidence which can determine whether a rape has taken place (see post #48 ) and I know that not to be the case, so I was trying to clarify that issue (agreeing with the very articulate DL).

Albanaich, I'm afraid I must disagree with your assertion in post #68 that "The problem with rape and sex generally is that it is not a simple black and white issue, it's all grey." Sure, there are occasional grey cases. Unfortunately, in many cases, it is quite black and white, but the perpetrator did not accept "No!" or "Stop it!"

There are indeed women who "like to be dominated in the bedroom." That does not, however, mean that they like NON-CONSENSUAL sex. There is a huge distinction here. The organized kinky community actually has established safety protocols so that even people who like being beaten up, tied up, dominated have a meaningful way to say "No." (Edited to add: while I was typing my post, samina made a very similar point extremely well in the post just above mine.)

Back in post #32, DL brought up the topic of whether men can be victimized (by women). They can, but the most common form of men being sexually victimized is by other men. Male-on-male rape is also an extremely underreported crime, and just as tragic.

fascination

04-13-2009, 07:59 AM

well said CCM

Albanaich

04-13-2009, 10:32 AM

I would like it explained to me how you dominate someone 'with their consent'

It's like the famous scene (which is all to common) which Ayn Rand described as 'rape by invitation'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4R6rMdELtM

samina

04-13-2009, 10:39 AM

I would like it explained to me how you dominate someone 'with their consent'

In a consensual relationship, it is a *game*. Both parties play the game and play out their roles. Same goes for dancing.

What this thread is about is not a game.

SDsalsaguy

04-13-2009, 10:52 AM

In a consensual relationship, it is a *game*. Both parties play the game and play out their roles. Same goes for dancing.

What this thread is about is not a game.
Exactly. Consent (or the lack of it) is the key here.

RickRS

04-13-2009, 12:14 PM

Exactly. Consent (or the lack of it) is the key here.

Going back to the situation I suggested earlier where a victim was "very drunk" (my words), understand that it goes to the issue of consent. A woman that is drunk to the point of passing out can't give consent, so there is no question, that if taken advantage of, she was raped.

But one can be so drunk that consent isn't possible without being drunk to point of passing out. Example would be college party binge drinking: girls getting so drunk they can't stand or sit and, while still conscious, are completely uncapable of stopping an attack. This shouldn't be confused with the idea that I think a few beers and legally drunk means the woman can claim she was uncapable and thereby raped even if she expressed consent at the time of the act. That isn't the same situation.

In between these extremes of legally drunk and unconsciousness, of course, puts one in a grey area in which the court would have to determine if consent was possible or not.

And going to the drunk driving issue, the extremely drunk women are still libable for their actions against others: if they drive in this condition, they have committed a crime (DUI). This is very different from others action against the drunk woman (sexual assault).

wooh

04-13-2009, 01:19 PM

And going to the drunk driving issue, the extremely drunk women are still libable for their actions against others: if they drive in this condition, they have committed a crime (DUI). This is very different from others action against the drunk woman (sexual assault).

Yes, if we want to talk DUI, then woman who gets drunk and drives is liable for running into me. However, her being drunk does not give ME the right to run into her and claim it was her fault.

samina

04-13-2009, 01:21 PM

Yes, if we want to talk DUI, then woman who gets drunk and drives is liable for running into me. However, her being drunk does not give ME the right to run into her and claim it was her fault.

good analogy

04-13-2009, 01:35 PM

...
But one can be so drunk that consent isn't possible without being drunk to point of passing out. Example would be college party binge drinking: girls getting so drunk they can't stand or sit and, while still conscious, are completely uncapable of stopping an attack. This shouldn't be confused with the idea that I think a few beers and legally drunk means the woman can claim she was uncapable and thereby raped even if she expressed consent at the time of the act. That isn't the same situation.
...

I agree with that and with the rest of your post.

From a standpoint of giving practical self-defense advice, I think many of us would advise girls not to get blotto, particularly not while among strangers. Many of us in fact would consider that advice common sense, and might think it irresponsible or even stupid to behave otherwise. When confronted with the tragedy of a rape that already occurred in such circumstances, we might think to ourselves, "It was so avoidable, and now nothing can undo it." I think saying this much is somewhat in line with englezul's comments. However, I must add that our thinking might be right or wrong, depending on various particulars; but certainly would be colored by the Monday-morning quarterback's ability to opine on a bad outcome in retrospect.

However *no matter what*, it's the rapist who bears responsibility for carrying out a rape, or the mugger who bears responsibility for carrying out a mugging, or what have you. Nobody exhibits perfect behavior for prevention/avoidance all the time. Predators who prey upon those who exhibit moments of weakness/vulnerability, are fully culpable for their own actions.

Should people be educated and encouraged to behave in ways that help them to be more aware and in control of their personal safety? Yes, not because it has anything to do with where fault should be assigned if a bad thing transipires, but because avoiding bad things is better than being able to blame somebody for bad things. If people fail to behave in those ways, is it their fault when bad things are inflicted upon them by others? No, definitely not; but not being at fault is a far less ideal outcome than avoiding the bad things in the first place.

Is it possible to achieve such ideal behavior that all bad things can be avoided/prevented? Certainly not. Even when people are as careful as can be -- even when they are obsessively so -- others may still inflict harm upon them. And, it is such a hard line to draw, between what simply *seems* irresponsible to observers after the fact -- or us lot talking in highly general terms -- and what might be a reasonable or at least apparently harmless choice at the time it is made. This is all the more reason to be very clear that attackers *alone* bear the responsibility for their attacks.

SDsalsaguy

04-13-2009, 01:38 PM

englezul

04-13-2009, 01:50 PM

Englezul, I am

-a 4+ year member of this forum
-a full professor with tenure
-the daughter of a judge
-a 6 year cast member of "The Vagina Monologues," with extensive knowledge of what does and does not constitute rape.

I would appreciate being talked to with the same respect I would hope you would extend to any member of this community.

You are quite right that I am trying to steer away from discussing the specifics of the ADS onto a greater plane of abstraction. That is because I believe that is exactly what we have been asked to do by the moderators of this forum.

I am not contesting the respect you should be given, the extent of your knowledge, or your achievements in life.

From the way you formulated your reply it was to be understood that you took the specifics of our conversation and extrapolated from there to make an implication that we or I or the person you replied to do not fully understand the implications of rape or that you understood them better. My observation was strictly that such an implication is principally wrong because you did not take into consideration our original assumptions. To add why I got that idea is because the chronology of the posts suggested it.

As it can be deducted from my post we can all agree that those scenarios apply, I repeat I wanted to clarify the nature of the discussion that prompted your response.

I do not see why you find it offensive that I critique that particular intervention and identify it (as I have shown it to be) a non-sequitur. The right to critique an idea and not a person is exactly what intellectualism promotes to encourage a free exchange of ideas. Your reply to me asked for respect and I do respect you regardless of whether you are a tenured professor or not, yet I maintain the right to disagree with your opinions when I have reason to believe they are not founded. I will reply to your appeal to authority with one of my own: I too come from a background of intellectuals, both my grandparents were judges, one of them was previously the general prosecutor of a state of 20+ million people. My uncles work all in the law and business department and my father is an accomplished engineer while my mother is an accomplished teacher. I am not a lemon myself and while I do not have your experience I tend to think my accomplishments are well above the average for my young age. To summarize, I too grew up in an environment where knowledge and thinking was valued. Yet as you can probably agree, neither my appeal to authority nor yours is adds much to the thread when the premise of our discussion was in writing and the actual penal code of California was referenced as a bearing. Besides we weren't specifically talking about ADS.

I am sorry criticizing your feedback was offensive to you, specifically when I explained why I felt the need to do it, and why it applies. But if we can't critique anyone and for any justifiable reason anymore without offending someone, we should light a candle because public discourse is on its death bed. If I did it wrongly please suggest how could I do disagree with you while making it clear that I am disagreeing with what you say not who you are. In the end, I hope this will not be misconstrued as a personal attack.

englezul

04-13-2009, 01:51 PM

ChaChaMama

04-13-2009, 02:12 PM

SDsalsaguy

04-13-2009, 02:16 PM

Re-read my comments form post #66 englezul. My comments, as CCM has just had to repeat for you:
....you do not have the right to decide for the community what constitutes a "regression" or "step backward."

04-13-2009, 02:18 PM

Should people be educated and encouraged to behave in ways that help them to be more aware and in control of their personal safety? Yes, not because it has anything to do with where fault should be assigned if a bad thing transipires, but because avoiding bad things is better than being able to blame somebody for bad things. If people fail to behave in those ways, is it their fault when bad things are inflicted upon them by others? No, definitely not; but not being at fault is a far less ideal outcome than avoiding the bad things in the first place.

Is it possible to achieve such ideal behavior that all bad things can be avoided/prevented? Certainly not. ... This is all the more reason to be very clear that attackers *alone* bear the responsibility for their attacks.

I mean also to add Wooh's point, that much of the same logic may be applied on the part of one who may be accused of wrongdoing. Is it possible to be falsely accused? Yes. Is it possible to act in such a way as to make it less likely that one will be falsely accused? Yes. Is it better to avoid, than to be faced with, a false accusation, regardless of whether one is in any way at fault? Yes. Might we call someone irresponsible/stupid for behaving in a way that brings forth a false accusation? We might, and might be right or wrong to do so. Would such behavior make a falsely accused person guilty? Certainly not.

englezul

04-13-2009, 03:22 PM

Englezul--I am very much in favor of the free exchange of ideas. I engage in such every single day of my life. I also think public debate is best done in a spirit of mutual respect. You wrote, with regard to the examples I brought up:

What you meant was that YOU did not have any particular interest in discussing them. Others seem to have felt differently. You said that I am not God (something which I never for a minute pretended to be) and that I do not have superior knowledge. I'll concede that, readily! (I have a perspective, garnered from my life experiences, just as you have yours.) Similarly, you are not everyone on this forum. You are not in a position to say that there isn't a single person on DF that has an interest in discussing a particular example or set of examples.

In your most recent post, you claim that you identified and demonstrated my post was a non-sequitur. I think what you in fact did was prove that you perceived it to be a non-sequitur. Others understood it differently.

I welcome and embrace an exchange of opinions, but I find it a bit off-putting when you claim an authority to speak for everyone on DF as you dismissively say my ideas are off topic. That's not really engaging with my ideas; it's attempting to delineate the boundaries of the discussion.

What happens is that in real time a discussion follows a certain stream of ideas that are successive and make sense in that particular order. In a non-real time environment like this forum, people tend to communicate in a similar way despite the limitations of the medium.

Please notice that up until 15 hours ago, when you posted (the exact time stamp is not shown on this forum) all discussion and posts written by me, RickRS, wooh, DL, and gts692h were more or less revolving around the idea of consent in the scenario of an allegation of rape where two adults were involved, they consensually proceeded to one's place, and in the morning everything took a turn for the worse.

Please notice that you also contributed to that incipient discussion two days ago (again no better time stamp). Meanwhile until your next contribution, that of last night, there have been 34 more posts, that brought the topic towards the scenario I specified above and debated issues that stemmed from it.

Last night, you posted a long message expanding on your initial contribution, but the discussion was not centred around those parameters anymore. You certainly can't blame me for being utterly confused as to where exactly your post was connecting with the existing/active discussion. So in effect, I suggest very respectfully that it was not me who wanted to establish boundaries for this discussion, but that you wanted to resume the discussion from where it was when you left off. If myself, DL, wooh, etc. were sitting around a coffee table and talking about this I would not suddenly make an observation meant to be taken in the context of what was discussed 2 hours before. So with that I mind I think I correctly appreciated the situation as a non-sequitur. That the your point was valid, that some people might have been interested in it, I do not have an issue with any of that. But you did not post it individually, or replied to somebody else. You replied directly to a post of mine which was obviously centred around the scenario I stated in previous post today, and restated in this post. [I am being grossly redundant here, but I want to express this very clearly].

Please take a look at your reply. You quote me as saying:

Clearly being purposely drugged with that outcome in mind is rape. Yet there is a distinction between being passed out/drugged and making decisions under the influence of alcohol. It's easy to create scenarios in which such a situation could be construed as a rape and it is also very easy to create scenarios where an accusation of rape would be out of the question. But giving a person license to claim rape after a night of drunk partying under the pretense that they weren't sober would have disastrous consequences.

Your reply to my point by saying that children, people with mental disabilities, and people in semi-vegetative states cannot give consent. Tell me how this valuably relates with the scenario you have me describing in the quote, other than by being generally (one step back from my zooming in) applicable. This is why I say regression. I didn't mean it to be offensive I simply don't know how else to clearly explain the idea.

I mentioned this in my reply to you yesterday that I agreed with you on thos points, I included the link to the California penal code. I also specified that all those cases are rather clearly described. But I also reminded you that since you replied directly to my comment your reply should fit in its context. Therefore the non-sequitur.

To summarize, I am arguing that the the non-sequitur was not meant as an insult but as a recognition that your post last night was

1) not in the context of the current discussion since
*you did not post independently but you replied directly to me
*this implies you are referring to the discussion I was actively involved in
*at the time but ignored its premise

2) not even in the context of the scenario you yourself quoted me describing.

I think I am very clear about why the confusion arose and why the non-sequitur applies. If we still disagree on this, I guess have to agree to disagree.

SDsalsaguy believes I am making claims about your opinion not being important or trying to make rules here. I can assure you it is absolutely not the case. All I am asking is that if you reply directly a message of mine, please take in account the assumptions that accompany my post and that I often describe if not in that post, in those that preceded it. That message has to be taken in context so that another member who reads your post but has not been following the discussion does not get the wrong idea about what I claim. This is all I want and all I need to be happy. I don't believe it is too much to ask especially in a dialogue of this matter. It is likely the second most important principle after attack the ideas and not their authors in a dialogue.

kayak

04-13-2009, 04:33 PM

I mean also to add Wooh's point, that much of the same logic may be applied on the part of one who may be accused of wrongdoing. Is it possible to be falsely accused? Yes. Is it possible to act in such a way as to make it less likely that one will be falsely accused? Yes. Is it better to avoid, than to be faced with, a false accusation, regardless of whether one is in any way at fault? Yes. Might we call someone irresponsible/stupid for behaving in a way that brings forth a false accusation? We might, and might be right or wrong to do so. Would such behavior make a falsely accused person guilty? Certainly not.

This seems like pretty good advice. Just as ladies need to take some care to avoid bad situations, guys can take care to avoid the potential of reversed situations.

04-13-2009, 05:16 PM

englezul

04-13-2009, 05:27 PM

I don't really want to be part of this side discussion, but I'll say briefly for the record that actually I thought CCM's comments fit in pretty well with the general discussion and some of the points that I was trying to make. Please don't cite me in support of a position to the contrary.

Your desire not to be a part of a discussion that took place has been noted.

SDsalsaguy

04-13-2009, 05:43 PM

Your desire not to be a part of a discussion that took place has been noted.
That is not what DL said! The comment was not to assume that you were speaking for anyone but yourself when disagreeing with CCM or the appropriateness of her comments to the conversation.

englezul

04-13-2009, 05:53 PM

That is not what DL said! The comment was not to assume that you were speaking for anyone but yourself when disagreeing with CCM or the appropriateness of her comments to the conversation.

The involvement of DL in my argument was the minor extent that he posted between time where CCM made her first post and the time she made her second to which my reply was addressed.

I also summarized my claims. They are written in the first person and I make no assumptions about what anyone else thought or found useful or not.

RickRS

04-13-2009, 06:59 PM

Please notice that up until 15 hours ago, when you posted (the exact time stamp is not shown on this forum) all discussion and posts written by me, RickRS, wooh, DL, and gts692h were more or less revolving around the idea of consent in the scenario of an allegation of rape where two adults were involved, they consensually proceeded to one's place, and in the morning everything took a turn for the worse.

The involvement of DL in my argument was the minor extent that he posted between time where CCM made her first post and the time she made her second to which my reply was addressed.

I also summarized my claims. They are written in the first person and I make no assumptions about what anyone else thought or found useful or not.

Dutily noted. But do note that I didn't see myself as involved in a discussion revolving around things between consenting adults and one of those involved having second thoughts the morning after. The discussion I was in involved serious crimes against women.

ChaChaMama

04-13-2009, 07:55 PM

Dutily noted. But do note that I didn't see myself as involved in a discussion revolving around things between consenting adults and one of those involved having second thoughts the morning after. The discussion I was in involved serious crimes against women.

That was the one I thought I was involved in too.

I felt that wooh, RickRS, and DL welcomed me to the table (to use englezul's metaphor) and seemed to see the relevance of my comments.

I like an inclusive conversation and do not presume to tell people that they may or may not participate in a thread.

This conversation has rapidly become a case of the juice NOT being worth the squeeze for me. I was interested in talking about rape, not getting into a tangent about whether my comments are germane.

I will invest the limited time I have to devote to this board on other threads.

CCM

englezul

04-13-2009, 08:02 PM

Dutily noted. But do note that I didn't see myself as involved in a discussion revolving around things between consenting adults and one of those involved having second thoughts the morning after. The discussion I was in involved serious crimes against women.

RickRS. This is what you, with your own hand (and click of a mouse) selected and quoted:

[...]revolving around the idea of consent in the scenario of an allegation of rape where two adults were involved, they consensually proceeded to one's place, and in the morning everything took a turn for the worse.

Where exactly in there it says 'consenting adults'? It says they consented to go to one's place and the discussion revolves on whether they consented to have intercourse. I have not written one message, or one half a message, or 1 letter about any scenario that assumes or implied what you said.

This is the theatre of the absurd.

englezul

04-13-2009, 08:10 PM

That was the one I thought I was involved in too.

I felt that wooh, RickRS, and DL welcomed me to the table (to use englezul's metaphor) and seemed to see the relevance of my comments.

I like an inclusive conversation and do not presume to tell people that they may or may not participate in a thread.

This conversation has rapidly become a case of the juice NOT being worth the squeeze for me. I was interested in talking about rape, not getting into a tangent about whether my comments are germane.

I will invest the limited time I have to devote to this board on other threads.

CCM

You have alleged that in my assessment of your opinion, I have wronged you. I explained my position and you keep replying and are still accusatory. Yet you have yet to directly address the reason for this conflict or rebuke any of my claims. The point is, this flip-flop-ing around is wasteful of my time too. We all have a finite amount of time.

Larinda McRaven

04-13-2009, 08:54 PM

Sounds like "Who's on First" at this point. Can we drop who said what and get back on topic please...

Otherwise this thread will degenerate in to nothing but a few people pointing the finger at why what they said was not what they meant or what someone else heard... ad inifinitum.

tsb

04-14-2009, 06:24 AM

Alex is innocent. (..at least, until proven otherwise). There seems to be too much speculation in some of the posts, as well as subjective opinions that have nothing to do with the facts.

actually, it's "presumed" innocent until proven guilty IIRC. yet the verdict is not "innocent" but rather, "not guilty"; there was evidence sufficient to bind the case over for trial but for some reason prosecution unable to bear the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. in this case he was accused, but it was deemed that there was insufficient evidence to charge him. the point is a question of semantics. where is reggie (the salsa lawyer) when we need him?

it occurs to me that in any case when sufficient time has lapsed as to prevent doing a rape kit or taking blood samples to analyze for presence of drugs, it is virtually impossible to convict anyone of rape based strictly on victim testimony.
===========
as for why victims choose not to press charges, another factor that doesn't seem to be mentioned is that the process of a trial often leads to even greater intrusion on the part of the defense because the defense often resorts to tactics geared towards discrediting the testimony of the victim.
===========
finally, speaking as someone who has first hand knowledge of the swing/lindy/blues, ballroom, and salsa scenes *here in LA* (and have actually taken classes with alex and observed him at various times, BTW) i would like to point out that the salsa world is a very different animal here in comparison to other genres to which the majority of the posters in this particular thread seem to belong, (i used to be a regular at sportsmans back in the day, been to stevens, el floridita, mama juanas, the mayan, the granada, monsoon, the rumba room, the conga room before it became busby's, etc.)

it's my take that in general, you are going to see more sketchy/pervy behavior in the LA salsa world than in swing or ballroom.

part of is that salsa is latin-centric; the higher the percentage of the participants who identify with the values associated with latin culture, the more likely that the expectations of male behavior will differ; dancing in white bread republican OC is going to be different than dancing at a place downtown like the mayan. another factor is that almost all the popular salsa venues are clubs that sell alcohol and nobody becomes more courteous with the consumption of alcohol. finally, in salsa venues you can often find a significant percentage of people who are either "street" dancers, or in general people who've never set foot inside a formal dance studio where most social dancers are exposed to the concepts of dance etiquette, who also tend to identify with latin culture.

i should probably also mention that the ballroom, swing/lindy and salsa worlds in LA do not experience much cross pollination; each group has its unique set of demographics, and while there may be some crossover, such as someone from another genre showing up at a lindy venue, etc. they'll be easy to spot since they won't know lindy and will stick to ECS, and eventually the advanced lindy dancers will avoid them. (racial profiling is something i used to experience from time to time in the salsa world; being asian, i had latinas turn me down because they automatically assumed i couldn't be an advanced lead. eventually, they'd see me dancing with someone else and hope i'd ask again - and i'd ask all their friends instead! childish, i know, yet still gratifying!)

the point is, were a female friend or family member to go out dancing alone, i'd be most concerned if she were going salsa dancing vs. ballroom or swing, and within the salsa world, less concerned if she were going to a studio like the granada where enio cordoba enforces a dress code as well as dance etiquette vs. a club like the mayan (where ADS teaches IIRC) that caters to a different demographic.

barrefly

04-14-2009, 02:07 PM

actually, it's "presumed" innocent until proven guilty IIRC. yet the verdict is not "innocent" but rather, "not guilty"; there was evidence sufficient to bind the case over for trial but for some reason prosecution unable to bear the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. in this case he was accused, but it was deemed that there was insufficient evidence to charge him. the point is a question of semantics. where is reggie (the salsa lawyer) when we need him?

it occurs to me that in any case when sufficient time has lapsed as to prevent doing a rape kit or taking blood samples to analyze for presence of drugs, it is virtually impossible to convict anyone of rape based strictly on victim testimony.
===========
as for why victims choose not to press charges, another factor that doesn't seem to be mentioned is that the process of a trial often leads to even greater intrusion on the part of the defense because the defense often resorts to tactics geared towards discrediting the testimony of the victim.
===========
finally, speaking as someone who has first hand knowledge of the swing/lindy/blues, ballroom, and salsa scenes *here in LA* (and have actually taken classes with alex and observed him at various times, BTW) i would like to point out that the salsa world is a very different animal here in comparison to other genres to which the majority of the posters in this particular thread seem to belong, (i used to be a regular at sportsmans back in the day, been to stevens, el floridita, mama juanas, the mayan, the granada, monsoon, the rumba room, the conga room before it became busby's, etc.)

it's my take that in general, you are going to see more sketchy/pervy behavior in the LA salsa world than in swing or ballroom.

part of is that salsa is latin-centric; the higher the percentage of the participants who identify with the values associated with latin culture, the more likely that the expectations of male behavior will differ; dancing in white bread republican OC is going to be different than dancing at a place downtown like the mayan. another factor is that almost all the popular salsa venues are clubs that sell alcohol and nobody becomes more courteous with the consumption of alcohol. finally, in salsa venues you can often find a significant percentage of people who are either "street" dancers, or in general people who've never set foot inside a formal dance studio where most social dancers are exposed to the concepts of dance etiquette, who also tend to identify with latin culture.

i should probably also mention that the ballroom, swing/lindy and salsa worlds in LA do not experience much cross pollination; each group has its unique set of demographics, and while there may be some crossover, such as someone from another genre showing up at a lindy venue, etc. they'll be easy to spot since they won't know lindy and will stick to ECS, and eventually the advanced lindy dancers will avoid them. (racial profiling is something i used to experience from time to time in the salsa world; being asian, i had latinas turn me down because they automatically assumed i couldn't be an advanced lead. eventually, they'd see me dancing with someone else and hope i'd ask again - and i'd ask all their friends instead! childish, i know, yet still gratifying!)

the point is, were a female friend or family member to go out dancing alone, i'd be most concerned if she were going salsa dancing vs. ballroom or swing, and within the salsa world, less concerned if she were going to a studio like the granada where enio cordoba enforces a dress code as well as dance etiquette vs. a club like the mayan (where ADS teaches IIRC) that caters to a different demographic.

tsb, For all intents and purposes, an individual "is" innocent...and should be presumed, by law, to be so, until a court of law decides otherwise.
Semantics is not an issue here.

The topic of this thread is about Alex and his recent arrest, yet charges were not made and he was released. (At least, that's what the title lead me to beleive).

By the way tsb, I disagree with you on so many points...and will leave it at that.

If you know who my daughter is, you will know how well she knows Alex, as well our knowledge of the Swing world. (Having danced and competed with the Schwimmer's studio). I would just prefer to keep my posts on topic.

CyberKnight

07-02-2009, 02:31 AM

What if…

The Story of Alex da Silva

By Edie, The Salsa FREAK!! Click here for German translation - compliments of Jochen from Berlin

What if…
What if you went on a few dates with someone from a small town and after the third date, they asked to borrow several thousand dollars from you?
What if…
…they threaten to file rape charges against you if you refused to loan them the money?
What if…
…they followed through with rape charges against you without your knowledge?
What if…
…a couple years later, the exact same thing happened again with another person from the same small town as the first?
What if…
… news of unproven “rape charges” against you started spreading all over the internet like wildfire?
What would you do? What could you do? How can you stop the speed of Internet news?
Have you ever heard the saying, “No matter how thin you slice it, there are always two sides to every story.” ?
This is the story that no one heard - that somehow never reached the world internet online waves. This is the story of what could happen to YOU. It could happen to ANYONE – especially if you are famous and in the limelight - in ANY business, not just entertainment.
This is the story of world famous choreographer / performer Alex da Silva. So far, what the entire world has been told is just one side of the story – especially online. What about the other side of the story? Why didn't the news agencies ever mention his side of the story? The internet and news agencies only told one side of the story – Alex the rapist. Two days later, all the charges were dropped and he went back to good ‘ole Alex – but did anyone neither care nor even dare talk about THAT?

Everyone loves dirty laundry. If the accused comes clean, the news drops the story faster than a bad habit. NOTHING is said, mentioned, nor reported… silence. Conversations stop and news agencies pretend it never happened. And what about the lingering stories all over the internet? They stay on the servers for weeks, months, and even years. Dropped charges, false accusations, and false imprisonment never accompany the initial stories told. Embellished ongoing accusations and rumors continue to spread online for years to come.

This is the story of Alex da Silva; World Famous Choreographer, performer, and instructor. Alex was chosen to choreograph and work with dancers and producers on the popular television show “So You Think You Can Dance”. He is one of the most successful Salsa dancer / performer in the industry. His residence is surrounded by some of the most famous Hollywood movie stars in Los Angeles. Films, movies, and television is commonplace for him as he has not only appeared on various television commercials and movies but has also trained some of the most famous movie stars in the world. He has several international competition titles under his belt, and since the early 80's (over twenty years) has taught Salsa to some of the best competitive dancers in the world. Love him or hate him, like it or not, Alex da Silva has earned his rank as one of the most prominent and famous Salsa dancers in the world.

Why, why, WHY???

I found it interesting, that his bail was posted at 3.8 million dollars – higher than OJ Simpson's case. Why?
I found it interesting that ALL the charges were immediately dropped on his first and only court date – but that fact was never announced in the news, nor online… Why?
I found it interesting that Alex never paid a single cent of bail money – but that fact was never published online … Why?
That is why I was not surprised when all the charges were dropped and he was released with no fines nor charges.
“Edie, it was all about the money” he said.

Here is his story…

Edie,TSF
So Alex. What happened?

Alex:
In 2003 I met this woman at the Mayan nightclub on a Saturday night. We danced a bit and she wanted to hang out for the rest of the weekend. She came over to my house at 10am, had breakfast, lunch, then we went dancing again, and then went to movies. She left my house at 3am. After that I left town, came back, and was too busy to call her. She started calling me but our conversations became strange. Then she asked for $20,000.

Naturally I refused to give her any money –Blackmail is in not an option! Two weeks later she accused me of rape. Of course I denied everything, and next an undercover detective began to inquire about my personal life. He came to all my classes, and monitored my house. After the accusations were dropped, we had a talk and he warned me about who I get involved with. If you are in the limelight, there are a lot of women out there that will definitely try to get money from you in any way possible.

I can't account for 2004 and 2005. Those accusations turned out to be false as well.

Six years later in 2009, I met another person from the same small town on the island, (possibly a friend of the first). We met at the Edge dance studio and later met at the Mayan, and we had consensual sex on three separate occasions. Then on my birthday, she asked to borrow $5000 . I told her that “...we do not have that kind of relationship.” On Saturday, which is the day after my birthday, she came to my class. I made an announcement that it was my birthday all weekend and that I will be performing a Salsa show that night at the Hollywood Park Casino. She told me she wanted to come over and “be my birthday present.”

She came over and started acting really strange. So on this day all these things began to accumulate; like "Can I borrow $5000?".... She asked who I was seeing and finally after saying she was my birthday present, she changed her mind and we did not do what we usually do, if you know what I mean. So that was the end of our liaison. Then she accused me of raping her. I am so lucky we did not have sex that day. She thought I would settle out of court like basket ball player Cobey Bryant did.

When I was in jail over the weekend, my bail was set at 3.8 million dollars - higher than all 30 guys put together with me in that cell. It was a bail set higher than Michael Jackson’s bail. The police never took my passport, my driver’s license - nothing. I was in jail for only three days.

I was arrested on Saturday and I was out on Tuesday. The same day as my court date. I did not even see the judge due to insufficient evidence.

Edie,TSF:
So what is the status of your case now?

Alex:
There is no case..

Edie,TSF:
People are concerned about the charges if you raping a "minor"... can you explain that?

Alex:
There was never charge of a rape of a minor – at all. Someone that didn't like me must have started that rumor. This story was not in any of the news nor newspapers. There are a lot of haters in this world. There are people who like me, and hate me. Once the hater’s fire starts, it’s copycat all over the internet – the rumors just seem to spread and get worse.

One of the girls that accused me of rape sent me a text message just a few days ago, "Alex, how are you? I hope everything is going well with you." I saved it and informed my attorney.. Would you send your “rapist” a pleasant text message?

Edie,TSF
Did you know these women for many years prior to their accusations?

Alex:
Not at all. I just met them, one asked me to show them around LA since it was her first time to the city. The other came and took my class.

Edie,TSF
Were they U.S. citizens?

Alex:
Yes.

Edie,TSF
Why do you think women pry on you like this?

Alex:
I meet a lot of women, but I never thought this would happen to me. I only see this kind of stuff in movies. Once I was arrested, I kept thinking, “Wow this is not happening... how am I in here with all these real criminals?” A lot of women will say good things about me. There are a lot of haters in the Salsa scene. Most of the haters are men. After I did the show "Mr. Smooth", every guy wanted to be me, or hated me even more.

Edie,TSF
How has this affected your relationship with your dance partner Alien?

Alex:
It brought us even closer together because she knows what kind of person I am.

For two months prior to my nightmare, we had a rocky time in our relationship so we took a break. During all the madness I told her everything. She loves me even more for opening up and telling her the truth. What happened to me could have happened to anyone. I was the one with the nightmare.

Edie,TSF
Are you going to change the way you approach students/women/ etc?

Alex:
Yes. I think I will exercise more caution and qualify the people I teach. I still would like to offer privacy to my students. This is the best way to teach one on one. I will scrutinize my new students in the future. I can't change my whole life because of two bad apples.

I know the truth, and I don't even know who the others are, it's all a bunch of lies, and people just want to bring me down. If something like that really happened, then they should have gone to the police that night, or the same day, but it was never that way. I have too much to lose. I don't need that type of thing in my life. Edie, you see me all over the world, you see how people react to men like us. I'm not bad looking, I'm definitely not desperate, and when you're a high-profile person, the news and EVERYONE will know about it.

Edie,TSF
To what extent has this damaged your career? Have you been asked to leave the So you Think You Can Dance show?

Alex:
I spoke to the producers of the show. They like me and will be hiring me back if not this year, then the next. It's about the Fox network. To work for them is very difficult. Yes, my name is tarnished, but I will clear my name again. The truth will come out.

Edie,TSF
What do you plan on doing to reverse the damages, if they can be?

Alex:
We are taking steps, but all that is under wraps at the moment. My head is up, and I will never look down nor look behind. I will always keep moving and looking forward because I know the truth in my heart. Some of the women who tried to accuse me of this know the truth as well.

Edie,TSF
What have you learned about your friends in this business?

Alex:
In times like these, you really know who your friends are. I had a lot of support from people whom I thought were my enemies. They came up to me and told me they were glad to see me. I didn't know what to expect. When you go to online web forums, you don't know who wrote what. When I shake someone's hand I always look into their eyes, and see if they are genuine. When they aren’t, those are the ones you have to worry about. The internet is explosive, within a matter of seconds information flies all over the world. Good or bad. When it’s bad, it’s magnified one hundred times worse than it really is.

Edie,TSF:
If you had a chance to un-do the past, what would you have done differently?

Alex:
I will never get involved with people like that again.

Edie,TSF
What did you learn from this? What has this taught you?

Alex:
I have to think twice about trusting people in life. I found out who my friends are from all of this. I wouldn't have wished this on my worst enemy. This was the real deal. I was in there with real criminals, and I was innocent.

Edie,TSF:
What are some of your goals for the future?

Alex:
I'm a dancer, and I love to dance, and I am never going to stop dancing. My new Salsa show with my dance partner and others will be a satire of the situation that happened to me. Once you see the story on stage, it will it make you think, and blow your mind.

Alex and his dance partner Alien will premier their new Salsa show at the Key Club on Sunset Blvd in West Hollywood June 24, 2009. The event is called Carnaval. Then he is off to Hamurg Germany for the Hamburg Salsa Congress in Europe, July 15th - 20th, 2009.

lacubs

08-18-2009, 09:07 PM

A former choreographer for "So You Think You Can Dance" was arrested again for allegedly sexually assaulting four women -- but this time he's actually being charged with a crime ... or eight, to be exact. Cops say Alex Da Silva was arrested this morning at his North Hollywood home, after the District Attorney filed an arrest warrant charging him with eight felony counts of assault. That includes four counts of forcible rape, two counts of assault with intent to commit rape and two counts of sexual penetration by a foreign object. The D.A. says the alleged assaults occurred between August 2002 and March 2009. The four alleged victims were between the ages of 20 and 26 and were all dancers or aspiring dancers who say they met Alex through his dance instruction classes. Alex was arrested for pretty much the same thing back in April, but prosecutors declined to press charges -- saying further investigation was needed to move forward. Alex is being held on $6.2 million bail. http://www.tmz.com/2009/08/18/so-you-think-you-can-dance-star-charged-with-rape-alex-da-silva/

wonderwoman

08-18-2009, 09:12 PM

Oy. I tend to find it hard to believe a pro dancer would compromise his career and livelihood that way.... but what are you going to do? A jury is more likely to believe the female in this type of case than the accused male. Just my two cents.

SDsalsaguy

08-18-2009, 10:00 PM

As always when dealing with (as of yet) unsubstantiated allegations, we suggest that everyone to be careful with their comments .

DancingMommy

08-18-2009, 10:08 PM

Thank you for that. I agree it's a message that needs to be spread.

I agree. Regardless of da Silva's guilt or innocence. Because while this thread is about his specific situation, the fact remains that many many women (and some men!) never report sexual assault that happens to them.

/soapbox

Larinda McRaven

08-18-2009, 10:09 PM

Oy. I tend to find it hard to believe a pro dancer would compromise his career and livelihood that way....

Not commenting on this case by any means... but just because someone is a professional of well repute does NOT in any way imply that their personal life is perfect and that they are not prone to making very very poor decisions, even in the direct spotlight. (politicians, doctors, actors...)

RickRS

08-19-2009, 11:16 AM

Unfortunately for Alex, the story continues.

Alex has been arrested once again, Tuesday morning, and formal charges have been filed:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-briefs19-2009aug19,0,6962836.story?page=2

wonderwoman

08-22-2009, 01:41 PM

I agree. Regardless of da Silva's guilt or innocence. Because while this thread is about his specific situation, the fact remains that many many women (and some men!) never report sexual assault that happens to them.

/soapbox

And the opposite is true whether anyone wants to admit it or not.

ChaChaMama

08-22-2009, 08:38 PM

And the opposite is true whether anyone wants to admit it or not.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the opposite." Do you mean men not reporting rapes? I'm sure that is true! According to the National Crime Victims Report, 10% of sexual assault/rape victims are men. Many men are raped in prison and I think we can be fairly certain it is underreported. There is a lot of shame involved in reporting this crime. (There shouldn't be, but there is.) The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 is trying to gather accurate statistical information on this subject. Men are also raped outside of prison settings, both by men and by women. The incidence is lower than for women, but still horrifying. I do know a man who was raped in a college dorm, and he did not report it to the authorities.

If you mean women falsely accusing men of rape, sure, it happens. But statistically, there are a tiny number of falsely reported rapes, and large numbers of unreported rapes. The pernicious belief that if a crime isn't witnessed, it's just "He said, she said" and either side is equally likely to be telling the truth ignores the enormous courage it takes to come forward with a rape allegation, the shame associated with the crime, the fear of not being believed, the fear of repercussions.

Here are some sites with information:

http://www.rainn.org/statistics

http://www.rainn.org/news-room/rainn-press/2006-National-Crime-Victimization-Survey-Results

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/183781.pdf
(See esp. page 46-7)

http://www.vday.org/take-action/violence-against-women/rape