Sex and gender at work, in bed, and on the street

Debunking common defenses of the Albert Haynesworth sex abuse allegations

April 27, 2011 - 10:30 AM
Text size Decrease Increase
Albert Haynesworth (Photo: Associated Press)

A waitress at the downtown D.C. W Hotel claims that on Feb. 13, Washington Redskins defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth sat at her table, then allegedly groped her breast without her consent. Haynesworth "tried to pay his bill by giving [the waitress] his credit card," an incident report in the case reads. "However he asked if it would be OK to stick the credit card in her blouse near her breast area. [The waitress] nodded her head yes. [Haynesworth] then placed the card into [the waitress]’s blouse then gently began sliding the card further into her left breast and then began to caress her breast.”

 Yesterday, Haynesworth was indicted by a grand jury on a charge of misdemeanor sexual abuse in the case. Debunking typical critiques of the waitress' allegations, featuring the helpful commentary of members of

POINT: She was asking for it. "Ummm she said it was ok to slip the card down her boob and admits that. But goes on to say that he then grabs and kisses her boobs? Ummm how in the hell can I take that serious? . . . This smells of bullspit to me. I'm not defending that fat pos either, I don't buy it ."

COUNTERPOINT: In fact, the the credit-card-in-the-blouse prelude underscores precisely that the waitress did not ask for a grope. The situation, as the waitress tells it, is actually a model sexual negotiation marked by a clear boundary between consent and assault. Haynesworth allegedly asks to put a credit card in the waitress's shirt; she consents. Haynesworth does not ask to grope the waitress; he allegedly does so anyway.

POINT: But she didn't tell him not to touch her boob. "She didn't tell him not to do that. She asked him to, then sues? Golddigger."

Here's what constitutes misdemeanor sexual abuse in D.C.: "Whoever engages in a sexual act or sexual contact with another person and who should have knowledge or reason to know that the act was committed without that other person's permission." In other words, the burden is on the groper to secure permission for the act, not on the victim to list off all her sexual boundaries in every possible scenario.

POINT: The waitress is just looking for cash. "It looks to me like this is just Albert getting screwed by someone looking to cash in."

COUNTERPOINT: She's not suing, yet; the District is prosecuting Haynesworth. If the waitress really wants money out of the defensive tackle, she'd be better off filing a civil claim against him, where her case would face a lower burden of proof than in criminal court.


POINT: "What self respecting waitress allows a strage brute of a man to slip a card in her bra anyway?"

COUNTERPOINT: Sexual assault cases do not hinge upon the amount of respect a victim has for herself. That said, it's not uncommon for hotel waitresses working early morning hours to experience sexual harassment from customers. Each waitress must calculate how much harassment she is willing to tolerate in order to make sufficient tips and avoid being terminated for making a fuss. Also, "brute of a man" isn't a helpful descriptor for the accused in a misdemeanor sexual abuse case. Groping is a relatively common offense, and branding suspects as monsters implies (a) that the act is rare; (b) that only certain "types" of men commit the offense, namely, large black men; and that (c) those men can't help themselves.

POINT: Albert Haynesworth is too big to not sexually assault someone. "The problem I have is look at how big the man is? Take the average woman, 5 ft 5inches tall, telling big ole Albert to put something small in her shirt? It didn't say 'put something in her pocket' it said 'put it in her shirt' . . . how could he not lightly touch a boob if she had a pocket on her boob with those mitts he's got?"

COUNTERPOINT: Courtesy of another commenter: "You're telling me that a Pro Bowl defensive tackle doesn't have the dexterity to not touch them? That's just preposterous."

Read More:


  • View all

Sort by:

  1. Real Name

    Real Name

    Apr 27, 2011 - 01:27:58 PM

    As a man with three daughters, I deplore the "she was asking for it" defense. But I don't think it's unreasonable here. She clearly invited him to break the normal boundaries. It's not his fault he didn't know what her boundaries were at that point. It's not unreasonable for him to assume an invitation to stick a credit card between her breasts was an invitation to touch them too. So he tried, then she said no--that should be an awkward situation, but not a crime. If he had continued AFTER she said no, that would be different. I think he was within the law, as quoted: "who should have knowledge or reason to know that the act was committed without that other person's permission."He clearly thought he HAD permission, and that was a reasonable thought. When you say "the burden is on the groper to secure permission for the act, not on the victim to list off all her sexual boundaries in every possible scenario" that devolves into the absurd sex codes you see on campus where you have to ask permission before every little move - "May I kiss your neck? Now can I kiss your shoulder?" Come on, that's ridiculous. Nobody likes it when men, especially spoiled athletes, get away with crimes, especially sexual assault. But we shouldn't convict them when they aren't guilty either, otherwise we're crying wolf.

    • report abuse
    • Real Name

      Real Name

      Apr 27, 2011 - 02:23:37 PM

      Just saw the details of the complaint - she says she never gave consent to put the credit card in. That's different.

      • report abuse

Post a Comment

By posting comments to content found on TBD, you agree to the terms of service.