Angry feminist rampage
OK, so I don't normally blog much about feminist issues, mainly because I feel like other people can say things better than I can. However, I can't let this one go.
From the BBC:
Woman's fantasies end rape case
Five men have been cleared of raping a woman after it emerged she had spoken online about group sex fantasies.
The 24-year-old from Liverpool claimed she was raped after visiting one of the men at his home in Bolton, after making contact on the internet.
But the trial at Preston Crown Court collapsed when computer evidence was produced showing her entertaining the prospect of group sex.
Source
To sum up: woman mentions online that she fantasises about group sex. She later invites at least one man to her home, where (as she claims) she is then raped by at least four others. When it emerges that she had had conversations about group sex online, the prosecutor declines to put forward any evidence in support of her claim, and the judge orders the jury to find the defendants not guilty.
I can't describe how angry this makes me. How is this any different to "She was wearing a short skirt, so she was asking for it?" (Not that that one's died out yet either, of course.) I was under the impression that bringing up the victim's sexual history wasn't legal any more, but it would appear I was wrong. Were the alleged rapists' sexual histories brought up, I wonder? After all, the article says that the victim met one of them on MSN. So either they met in the chat in question, meaning that he also talked with her about group sex and why wasn't that part of the equation, or they didn't, in which case the chat logs should have been irrelevant to the case.
I think the following quotes really illustrate the true colours of this one:
[The prosecutor] said: "It is right to say that there is material in the chatlogs from the complainant, who is prepared to entertain ideas of group sex with strangers, where to use her words 'her morals go out of the window'.
"This material does paint a wholly different light as far as this case is concerned.
ETA: As biting_moopie points out in the comments: the men decided to have sex with a complete stranger too, and yet nothing is said about their morals.
And:
Judge Brown told the jury: "This case depended on the complainant's credibility.
"Not to put too fine a point on it, her credibility was shot to pieces."
Just.... RAAAAAAAAAAAAGE.
As an analogy, let's say that a man was robbed or burgled, and at trial it emerged that he played Warcraft on a regular basis, and sometimes his character had, I don't know, had weapons or currency or whatever stolen by other characters (I don't play Warcraft, but you get the idea). Can you imagine a case being thrown out on that basis? Of course not; the idea is ludicrous. It would be seen as irrelevant. (For an extended version of this analogy, see The Rape of Mr Smith.) But where women's sexualities are concerned, everything is fair game. Ever had sex with this man before? It wasn't rape. Walking alone in the dark? It wasn't rape. Slutty clothes? It wasn't rape. And now, one more to add to the list: openly fantasised about it online? It wasn't rape.
Of course, I could have this completely wrong; I don't know anything about the details of this case. But neither does anyone else, because none of the other details were deemed as useful as the fact that the victim had talked about her group sex fantasies online. That fact trumps all other evidence; nothing else is relevant. She obviously wanted it. Case closed.
Sorry if this post is rambly, by the way, but I am too livid to come up with anything with more coherence. I wish I knew how to react, who to yell at about it, how to change attitudes like this, but I don't know where to start (other than by blogging about it).
ETA: The Guardian has more here. You might want to avoid the comments, unless you (like my delightful troll!) also hate women, in which case you'll find yourself in good company.
From the BBC:
Woman's fantasies end rape case
Five men have been cleared of raping a woman after it emerged she had spoken online about group sex fantasies.
The 24-year-old from Liverpool claimed she was raped after visiting one of the men at his home in Bolton, after making contact on the internet.
But the trial at Preston Crown Court collapsed when computer evidence was produced showing her entertaining the prospect of group sex.
Source
To sum up: woman mentions online that she fantasises about group sex. She later invites at least one man to her home, where (as she claims) she is then raped by at least four others. When it emerges that she had had conversations about group sex online, the prosecutor declines to put forward any evidence in support of her claim, and the judge orders the jury to find the defendants not guilty.
I can't describe how angry this makes me. How is this any different to "She was wearing a short skirt, so she was asking for it?" (Not that that one's died out yet either, of course.) I was under the impression that bringing up the victim's sexual history wasn't legal any more, but it would appear I was wrong. Were the alleged rapists' sexual histories brought up, I wonder? After all, the article says that the victim met one of them on MSN. So either they met in the chat in question, meaning that he also talked with her about group sex and why wasn't that part of the equation, or they didn't, in which case the chat logs should have been irrelevant to the case.
I think the following quotes really illustrate the true colours of this one:
[The prosecutor] said: "It is right to say that there is material in the chatlogs from the complainant, who is prepared to entertain ideas of group sex with strangers, where to use her words 'her morals go out of the window'.
"This material does paint a wholly different light as far as this case is concerned.
ETA: As biting_moopie points out in the comments: the men decided to have sex with a complete stranger too, and yet nothing is said about their morals.
And:
Judge Brown told the jury: "This case depended on the complainant's credibility.
"Not to put too fine a point on it, her credibility was shot to pieces."
Just.... RAAAAAAAAAAAAGE.
As an analogy, let's say that a man was robbed or burgled, and at trial it emerged that he played Warcraft on a regular basis, and sometimes his character had, I don't know, had weapons or currency or whatever stolen by other characters (I don't play Warcraft, but you get the idea). Can you imagine a case being thrown out on that basis? Of course not; the idea is ludicrous. It would be seen as irrelevant. (For an extended version of this analogy, see The Rape of Mr Smith.) But where women's sexualities are concerned, everything is fair game. Ever had sex with this man before? It wasn't rape. Walking alone in the dark? It wasn't rape. Slutty clothes? It wasn't rape. And now, one more to add to the list: openly fantasised about it online? It wasn't rape.
Of course, I could have this completely wrong; I don't know anything about the details of this case. But neither does anyone else, because none of the other details were deemed as useful as the fact that the victim had talked about her group sex fantasies online. That fact trumps all other evidence; nothing else is relevant. She obviously wanted it. Case closed.
Sorry if this post is rambly, by the way, but I am too livid to come up with anything with more coherence. I wish I knew how to react, who to yell at about it, how to change attitudes like this, but I don't know where to start (other than by blogging about it).
ETA: The Guardian has more here. You might want to avoid the comments, unless you (like my delightful troll!) also hate women, in which case you'll find yourself in good company.