Rose doesn’t sound concerned, either.
Chris Herring of The Wall Street Journal:
Maybe Rose said he believes he did nothing wrong because he did nothing wrong. Maybe Rose said he believes he did nothing wrong because he’s lying.
Or maybe Rose said he believes he did nothing wrong because he doesn’t understand he did something wrong.
That’s the sad possibility of this case and countless others. People sometimes rape because they don’t understand consent.
Having sex with someone too drunk to give proper consent is rape. Doing a sexual act to someone who consented to sex but not that specific act is rape.
Rose should be concerned. The evidence against him is compelling, and it could lead to civil and criminal penalties. He should also be concerned whether he properly understands the line between rape and consent. You don’t know what you don’t know, and I hope Rose – even if he already already possessed a clear understanding of rape and consent – and everyone else uses this as an opportunity to thoughtfully examine what is and isn’t consensual. It’s important information to hold, because ignorance of what’s rape does not justify rape.
This isn’t an issue to brush aside for something as trivial as basketball.