Trigger warning: This post discusses rape, rape apologism and quotes some utterly hideous examples of rape apologism.
A footballer named Ched Evans has been convicted of raping a young woman who was too drunk to give consent. What has followed is, of course, the foul chorus of rape apologism which ignites in an ugly crescendo every single fucking time. Each time this happens, the same set of tropes are trotted out as a means for somehow excusing the crime.
This is the first port of call for the rape apologist, and the prop on which all rape apologism ultimately rests. Here, rape apologists will do whatever they can to imply that the survivor somehow deserved what happened to them. Maybe they were too drunk, or wearing the wrong length of skirt. Whatever it is, apparently their actions somehow imply consent, as tweeter and repulsive shitstain @JosephWestley suggests:
In a Premier Inn with 2 footballers after a night out. Expecting tiddlywinks? And ruin a poor blokes life?!
Here, it is implied that being in a hotel room with some men is exactly the same as consent. Which it definitely isn’t.
“It wasn’t really rape”
With the survivor sufficiently blamed, it is time to move into suggesting that whatever happened, it definitely wasn’t rape. Sometimes, this can come from a risibly faux-naif pretence of not understanding the difference between non-consensual sex and rape, such as this from @jonnypotter:
Curious to find out more about the
#chedevans rape conviction. Not premeditated but locked away for 5 years for lack of consent
Now, I’m sure most of us can explain to Jonny that lack of consent is rape, and that’s how he got convicted of rape for raping someone.
As the Ched Evans case involved a woman who had drunk too much alcohol (and, is, therefore, entirely responsible for everything that happens to her), this is also seen as “definitely not rape” in the eyes of rape apologists. They consider it ludicrous to suggest that alcohol could possibly impede consent, as @IchWillNichts, who probably thinks he’s very funny, tweets:
Cops are busy tomorrow: hungover women who can’t remember how they got home will claim kidnapping against their taxi drivers.
Yes, Anthony. When drunk, the worst thing that can ever happen to you is a bit of confusion and regret.
Finally, there’s the distinction between “rape-rape” and not-actually-rape-due-to-lack-of-stranger-in-a-balaclava-leaping-out-of-a-bush. This can come in many guises, always with a hearty dash of misogyny. Sometimes, it can run concurrently with threats of violence against women, as evidenced by this thoroughly charming tweet from @BenWhitehorne:
I hope that silly tamp gets properly raped one day
I literally have no words for someone who thinks that one rape is not enough, and wants to see the job done in a way which better fits his construction of rape.
Perhaps simply blaming the survivor isn’t enough, as those awful politically correct bra-burners are making some headway in pointing out that victim blaming simply doesn’t fly in 2012. The rape apologists therefore scramble all over themselves to make out that the survivor is an evil person with evil, evil ulterior motives. The most egregious example of this comes from a team-mate of the convicted rapist, who declared that the whole thing must be due to the survivor being a “money-grabbing little tramp“. In a two-for-one special, he also offers us a hefty dose of victim-blaming and a truckload of overt misogyny:
“If ur a slag ur a slag don’t try get money from being a slag (sic) … Stupid girls… I feel sick.”
The rape apologists have ran with this rather peculiar suggestion that somehow the woman got raped for money, despite none being able to offer any sort of coherent explanation as to how rape could possibly be lucrative.
Without a leg to stand on in this respect, the rape apologists decided nonetheless to name the survivor and set up a fake twitter account where “the survivor” boasted of getting lots of money and going on a lovely holiday.
Naming the survivor is a disgusting tactic. They may claim that it’s because it’s somehow unfair that rapists get named publicly while the survivors do not, but ultimately it is down to one thing: revenge. Because they believe it is all the survivor’s fault, they believe that somehow their football-playing hero is completely innocent and it’s time for some vigilante justice. They cast themselves as heroes, crusaders for truth, rather than the nasty little abject turds that they are.
The conspiracy theory
For some rape apologists, the outright misogyny is somewhat unpalatable, and so they take a different tack by theorising about some sort of stitch-up. In the Ched Evans case, they have fixated upon the fact that only one of the two accused footballers was convicted. Somehow, believing themselves to know more than the jury who heard all the evidence, they believe that some sort of miscarriage of justice has occurred, as suggested by Stuart Marshall:
Well,it’s a right hornets nest this one….I’ve been careful not to stigmatise the young lady in question but merely ask the question about how one guy walks,the other gets 5 ???? As for fb etc etc comments…well,I give up.THE JUDGE SAID SHE WASN’T “FIT” TO GRANT SEXUAL CONSENT.So,she’s sober one minute and it’s ok…..but then for his mate it’s not ok ? Get a life.
Often, they use the “I’m just asking these very reasonable questions” approach, though sometimes they will throw in a bit of victim blaming on top of it, like @Thomaskingsley:
To drunk to consent to
#ChedEvans yet perfectly able to let Clayton McDonald smash you? Id like to see how the courts came to that decision?
Apparently, possible consent with one man is definite consent with all men.
These tropes of rape apologism happen every time. In the Roman Polanski case, the biggest focus was on how it definitely wasn’t rape, while with the Julian Assange case, all of the above applies in sickening great dollops.
And it’s not all right. None of it is. Looking at these comments, we see rape culture laid bare, all of its feeble excuses and nasty tricks converging simply because a woman had the gall to be raped by someone popular.
54 thoughts on “The anatomy of rape apologism”
All very true, I have seen this all too many times although not quite on this scale because the rapists were not ‘celebrities’ – hell, I’ve experienced it. I’m saddened and disgusted but not shocked by the way Evans’ victim has been treated. Some people have such bizarre ways of explaining away rape – you’re 100% right when you say it’s like a conspiracy theory. The ‘anonymity’ of the internet breeds this stuff. I have reported all those who named her to the authorities, I really hope they are punished. We really need to tackle this kind of behaviour – is it any wonder victims do not come forward? The police and CPS can make all the changes in the world to better the system but if the public still hold these attitudes conviction rates for rape will never improve.
Oh absolutely. It works exactly the same on a smaller, interpersonal scale. It’s all utterly disgusting.
This is a very confusing piece and really not fair at all to women who have been raped – to mention Assange at the end is ridiculous – since he was accused of ‘not wearing a condom’ – and there are political motivations at stake here, as we all know – as for Polanski – that was also pedophilia and again, confusing to be coupled with the rape of an adult woman (no less despicable but another point entirely – as it concerned underage sex and sodomy). It’s extremely important not to place all rapes into a pot as if they are all the same – they are, believe me, quite clearly not. It’s a totally different thing to be raped say, by a doctor in a hospital, by a trusted friend who ‘accidentally’ slips his cock into a woman ‘when she’s sleeping’ and by the date-rapist who – even though one has chosen, voluntarily to invite back home, beats one half to death! To add these to the woman in Sweden who accuses Assange of ‘not wearing a condom’ – an event which lots of women, I am sure, have experienced, is insulting to women. I certainly do not wish all my experiences to be brandished with the same brush… (those are my experiences I mention above). As for the quotes about male attitudes – did you not read Helen Mirren’s opinion on rape? Have you never listed to Talk Radio? I think you’ll find women – as much as, or more than men, hold victims of rape responsible. This is why, as a woman, I am not a feminist – there is just no such thing as Sisterhood. Go read Joanna Bourke’s excellent book on Rape – it ends with how men need educating how to deal with their attitudes to women and how women are wrongly seen as ‘asking for it’ but also as ‘victims’ and ‘survivors’. Move on, please.
Ding ding! Less than an hour after the post goes up, and we’ve caught our first rape apologist. And of course it’s an Assange one.
“they are, believe me, quite clearly not”
I’d believe you better if you had anything but demonstrable ignorance and questionable composition skills to substantiate your claims.
“To add these to the woman in Sweden who accuses Assange of ‘not wearing a condom’ – an event which lots of women, I am sure, have experienced, is insulting to women.”
The bloke who tried to rape me accidentally-on-purpose lost the condom I insisted on as a condition of consenting to sex. When I rumbled that one, he moved on to something even you might recognise as attempted rape. Admittedly, I’m not a woman (although frequently read as one), but what I find “insulting” is your excuse for an argument.
All incidents of rape boil down to one thing: an intimate violation of the body without consent. So by that definition, does it matter if the rapist is a doctor, friend or otherwise “not-obviously-a-crazed-rapist-maniac” type person? Clearly not.
So no, whilst not all rapes are the exactly alike in circumstances much like not all murders are alike, the crux of the matter (by definition of it being a rape) is ALWAYS going to be a non-consensual sexual violation. Which is inexcusable.
Violence on top of a rape is horrific, but that doesn’t make rapes that occur without violence and obvious force *less* bad.
I know it’s awful isn’t it, I thought we had this debate kicked in the 80’s…clearly we’re going backwards thanks to the snazzy marketing of high-profile or well-“supported” plaintiffs.
Ahhh, the ‘all rape is not rape’ paradox that many women seem to be throwing about since the verdict on Friday. They are different situations, but still rape. One might be aggravated by additional force, use of drugs, but then it is rape + whatever the additional crime was, not a lesser crime of rape. The fact that some other women hold this abhorrent view that victims are somehow responsible should have you running towards the feminist movement, not away from it. They have been brainwashed by misogynists into thinking that man can do no wrong, and woman had it coming.
It is soo important to hold onto this definition of rape. I need not point out but once we become too “apologist” for “different” (!) instances of rape, it is a very slippery slope that we fall down. It is an inescapable fact that is is simply *ILLOGICAL* to say that rape should be not taken seriously, and with the same degrees of seriousness, simply because there is the POSSIBILITY that the survivor is lying. Not taking an alleged criminal act of this individual nature seriously, in which the *human rights* of the subject’s body have been/may have been violated can lead to – if it didn’t exist in society already! – not taking that actual criminal act in general seriously. i.e. APOLOGISM, which is another word for excusing.
You are not only patronising and personal in your attack of this article, you are philosophically dangerous in your assumptions. I want to live in a world in which everyone takes the rights of man to behave morally towards others seriously, not one is which walking into a hotel room and drinking with people you have only just met means you are asking for – not merely “a raping” but a media-bashing too, whether you choose to remain anonymous or not. If a man was passed out drunk on the street would it be his fault if he was then robbed, was beaten up or even died by choking on his own vomit. regardless of the circumstances in which men or women may be more or less blamed for their actions, who CAN and SHOULD be definitely blamed for their subsequent actions are those who then abuse that person’s vulnerable state. We are not, or rather, we should not be, monsters. Humans should not harm others. In fact, in some instances in which a human simply ignores another human in a vulnerable stated they can actually be charged with MANSLAUGHTER, so why would it be okay to rape them and simply “get away with it” because their friend had already had sex with that individual, as if what’s good for the gander is good for the gander?
Not all women agree with the author but there is not a huge number of women who agree with you either @disappointed.
And like the others, I take real offence at your lack of supporting evidence, as well as your patronising attitude to the original author. In fact I would go as far as to say I found it rather repulsive. Jovial refuting and patronising comments is one thing, a vitriolic self-superior prose without the conventions of formal argument to back it up is entirely another.
No one can seriously believe that a man can accidentally “slip his cock into a woman”, can they?
Also, rape-rape vs. real rape, Helen Mirren, Talk Radio, and Assange?
Going for some kind of full house there.
There’s a lot wrong with what you’re saying.
To correct a factual inaccuracy, Assange was a accused of raping a women while she slept (also not wearing a condom, which she’d previously indicated was a condition of her consent). Even if he’d been wearing three condoms, that would still be rape.
Think you missed the point on one post you just criticised.
The judgement said she was UNABLE to consent, so the fact that two men are acknowledged to have had sex, where she apparently said yes to both but only one without consent (which she was unable to give), was a genuine curiosity, don’t you think?
Not having read the ruling, it’s impossible to tell why the second man was acquitted.
More importantly, you don’t know why either, and this banging on about “a curiosity” is precisely how the “Conspiracy Theory” method of rape apologism works.
With respect, I’m not sure that’s entirely fair. If there is a situation where two individuals have committed the same act but one of them walks free, it is both peculiar and very worrying. The idea that someone could be a rapist but escape conviction on a technicality is something that is a serious concern, surely.
She came back to the hotel with one and then he invited the other. It’s fairly different circumstances.
While going back to a hotel room obviously isn’t consent, if the other defendant could have genuinely believed she was lucid and it was all properly consensual, that would be enough for reasonable doubt and therefore an acquittal.
For Evans, coming along later, there wouldn’t be quite the same possibility for doubt. The acquittal of the other guy does sort of seem to feed into the what-did-you-expect narrative unfortunately, but it’s still ludicrous to suggest the case was exactly the same for both therefore slag compo morning regrets conspiracy.
One of the things the rape apologists focussing on the “it all looks very fishy that one man got acquitted and the other didn’t” scenario seem to have overlooked is that the standard in criminal trials is “proof beyond reasonable doubt”.
That is, if a jury thinks that someone probably didn’t consent to sex but can’t be sure they’re supposed to acquit the accused.
As a result, the only conclusion we can possibly draw from the acquittal of Clayton McDonald is that he should consider himself very lucky.
I completely agree with the above responses. McDonald was just really lucky. The jury must look at the mental state of the accused (mens rea), the law on which is quite complicated. Basically he must have believed that she reasonable consented to sex. Whether a belief is reasonable is determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps the accused has taken to ascertain whether the victim consents.
Obviously the jury thought that he had reasonable belief that she consented and had taken steps to ascertain consent (given the video footage of her approaching him, getting in cab etc – which yes also perpetuates some rapes myths) or at least the jury had a reasonable doubt that he did not reasonably believe that she consented to sex. Whereas it was probably harder for them to accept that Ched Evans had such a belief or even took steps to ascertain whether she consented given that he arrived after she was in the hotel with McDonald (and was probably feeling the effects of the alcohol more then), the room was dark, he snuck out the fire escape etc.
The verdicts are therefore consistent.
But yes, none of us have actually heard the evidence so why can’t we just accept the verdict of the jury who did hear all of it? These conspiracy theories are, as the writer correctly identifies, just another more subtle form of rape apologism.
Is it at all worth considering that there should be another term for some forms of non-consensual sex? Like the way we don’t use “murder” for all unlawful killings. Some are “manslaughter”. I wouldn’t be considered a “murder apologist” for suggesting that perhaps a drunk man who started a fight with another drunk man and ended up killing him should not be considered guilty of the same crime as someone who coldly and meticulously planned an assassination. So I hope I won’t be considered a “rape apologist” for suggesting that while all rapes are abhorrent, perhaps some are more abhorrent than others.
It’s not at all worth considering.
Abhorrent to who? Not abhorrent to the person who was raped, because the harm isn’t considered. Abhorrent to the rapist? Abhorrent to society?
You’re effectively saying that some kinds of women – middle class, married, virginal, and so on, deserve more protection than other kinds – working class, independent, those who drink alcohol. Should rape by a stranger within the home be punished more than rape by a stranger while out jogging? What about rape while working at a “masculine” job – truck driving, prison guarding? What about a drunk lesbian – was she bringing it on herself by not sleeping with men at all?
It is more abhorrent to society when women who do some things and behave and dress in some ways are raped, yes. It shouldn’t be that way.
I’d be really interested in your proposed terms. Whore rape and virgin rape, perhaps? Rape and slut-tampering? Please don’t hold back on my account.
Not at all worth considering? No room for nuance, at all? No difference between the woman-hating psychopath with a clinical predatory approach, and the drunk horny guy on a night out who’s met someone slightly drunker than he is and exercises poor judgement? Do you hold the same view on the murder/manslaughter distinction? Is a guy who gets drunk, starts a fight with another drunk guy,punches him once and kills him morally indistinguishable from Anders Breivik?
I think it’s disingenuous of you to say that I am distinguishing between women based on their class or sexuality. I’ve said nothing that would suggest that.
The point is the social consequences of both. The social consequences of the current approach are that we live in a rape culture and that there are a massive number of rapes with few ever appearing before court. Most women live in fear of rape. As a woman, if you are raped, it is extremely likely that society will decide, through the justice system, that no crime has been committed and that effectively it is your fault.
Murder rates are relatively low in the UK and have been decreasing for some time. Rape statistics are contentious, but there is no evidence of the same for rape.
The effects of what you propose discriminate on the basis of class, sexuality, and so on. In a court, intent matters. In the real world, not so much.
No, I don’t. Ultimately rape is rape is rape. While circumstances will clearly differ between cases, it doesn’t mean that one is less of a rape than another. During sentencing a judge has the opportunity to provide a penalty in terms of imprisonment up to and including a life sentence IIRC – and this is the area where the details of the offence will come into play. A particularly sadistic offence will be given a more severe punishment – but ultimately, and rightly, it is the same offence that is being punished.
Derek, the law DOES take into account the actual perpetrator because to be convicted of rape the accused must have not reasonably believed that the victim consented to sex. The law ALSO takes into account the actual perpetrator in sentencing – a more violent rape (eg: rape combined with being strangled or stabbed or something) could lead to a longer sentence. So yes, if Evans had been completely drunk or whatever or committed other violent acts while raping her then maybe that would be a factor (in his favour or against). But that does change the fact that it is RAPE or the effect of that rape on the victim.
And it CERTAINLY doesn’t mean that some non-consensual sex should be called rape-rape and other forms of non-consensual sex something else.
I don’t know about the Assange thing. He hasn’t actually been convicted of anything yet.
To be honest, I’m enough of a conspiracy theorist to think it’s likely that the case is totally tainted by the fact that every single government in the entire world wants him hung, drawn and quartered.
I don’t think I’m a rape appologist in wanting somebody who has effectively sent a turd to every government in the world to actually have their trial (even if it’s blatantly going to have some kangaroos in the jury) before we call them a rapist.
“No difference between the woman-hating psychopath with a clinical predatory approach, and the drunk horny guy on a night out who’s met someone slightly drunker than he is and exercises poor judgement?”
Not to the person who’s been raped. But why would you worry about the victim of rape when you could conduct a “nuanced” analysis of the judgement calls of the rapist? After all, it’s important that we fully understand the rapist’s motivations – otherwise we risk being unfair to the poor judgement-impaired rapist whose life is in danger of being ruined by the rape he committed.
I understand that for the victim, the motivation or the mental state of the perpetrator is not that significant. This is no different from the murder/manslaughter scenario. If you are told that your son or daughter has been unlawfully killed, it’s only of secondary concern what sort of person ruined your life.
But what you say ironically is absolutely true: “it’s important that we fully understand the rapist’s motivations – otherwise we risk being unfair”. Justice requires knowing all the facts and taking them into account. The mental state of the perpetrator is one of these facts.
So what constitutes a crime comes down to whether a man has a reasonable expectation of sex? This is what is often tested in court. Do you think that’s fair?
As you said above, in a court intent matters. The severity of the crime is based, not just on the damage done to the victim, but on the intent of the accused. I’m not sure what you mean by a “reasonable expectation” of sex. If you mean a right to sex, then of course there’s no such thing. But if you mean whether the court should take into account the events that led up to the alleged rape – including the behaviour of the alleged victim – then of course they should.
But the mental state of the rapist is very often that they don’t even turn their mind to whether the person is consenting or not. They are just interested in their own sexual gratification. The law takes into account the mental state of the accused to the extent that they reasonably (or not) believe that the victim consented to sex. I really don’t see why you still think that rape accused need more account taken of their mental state than that. And given the low rates of rape convictions, I hardly say the justice system is stacked in favour of the victim here. Honestly, I can’t even believe I am even arguing with you on this.
Can’t believe I wasted so much time reading this tosh… 😦 what utter nonsense, can I have my 10mins back please?? Have you suffered rape? Is that the problem here? Your article seems to have a big fuck off brush and quite of a lot of tar to paint everyone with who has an opinion on the particular case or the subject of “rape” itself. Oh & Assange??? PMSL That wasn’t serious was it???? You really don’t have a clue [smh]. And by disagreeing with your points, I’ll automatically be adjudged to be a quote “rape apologist”? LOL Get a grip…
Like Islamaphobia, your “rape apologsts” term is a complete nonsense and unhelpful, particularly in debating the issues. I could expand but the article really isn’t that great or deserving of constructive criticism going by the tone and slant of the material..
It took you ten minutes to read a short piece?
‘Multiple exclamation marks,’ he went on, shaking his head, ‘are a sure sign of a diseased mind.’ — Noted Islamofeminist Terry Pratchett
“You don’t have a clue” and “Get a grip” aren’t actual reasons why you think this article is off-base, by the way. They’re just the noises desperate people make online whilst flailing their arms about.
They absolutely do not need to introduce different terms for rape. The courts do this by sentencing RAPISTS based on mitigating/aggravating factors. The difference is that you can kill someone without real intent to kill, you cannot accidentally rape someone. It does not happen. Rape is sex without consent, that’s it. It’s no bruises, it’s not a knife against the throat, it’s not being dragged down an alley. It is sex without consent. If a man fails to obtain true consent then he is a rapist. That’s it.
It would be wholly offensive to those people who have been raped to say “well, actually, he never meant (??) to force sex upon you, basically you got too drunk so the poor guy thought that you lying there barely conscious meant that you wanted him to put his penis inside you so no matter if you feel raped, you actually weren’t.”
They absolutely do not need to introduce different terms for rape. The courts do this by sentencing RAPISTS based on mitigating/aggravating factors. The difference is that you can kill someone without real intent to kill, you cannot accidentally rape someone – it does not happen. Rape is sex without consent – It’s not bruises, it’s not screaming and shouting, it’s not a knife against the throat, it’s not being dragged down an alley. It is sex without consent. If a man fails to obtain true consent then he is a rapist. That’s it.
It would be wholly offensive to those people who have been raped to say “well, actually, he never meant (??) to force sex upon you, basically you got too drunk so the poor guy thought that you lying there barely conscious meant that you wanted him to put his penis inside you so no matter if you feel raped, you actually weren’t.”
“Without a leg to stand on in this respect, the rape apologists decided nonetheless to name the survivor and set up a fake twitter account where “the survivor” boasted of getting lots of money and going on a lovely holiday.”
It wasn’t a fake account, it was a real person tweeting about what they would do if they won the lottery, which would have been obvious to the person who took the screenshot and kept it for 5 months, who probably knows the account holder and saw an opportunity to attack their reputation.
Thanks for clearing this up. Ugh. What a horrible thing to do.
This blog entry ought to be part of the national curriculum
The thing I felt most disturbed by was the decision of some of the apologists to try and expose the victim’s identity. Very frightening indeed.
Good post, but so depressing.
How are people so utterly cretinous as to not comprehend CONSENT!? It’s very very simple,
If I consent to you opening my purse and taking a tenner, it’s a loan.
But if I do not consent because I am too drunk to do so or because you never asked then it is theft. Geddit!?
If you steal money from someone’s purse, you’re a bad person.
Now let’s swap purse for knickers, if you go into someone’s knickers without consent, it’s assault. If you go into someone’s house without consent it’s breaking and entering.
If you punch an unconscious person in the face, it’s assault, if you then stick your pathetic little weener in an orifice , it’s rape.
I can’t believe some of the comments on twitter regarding the Chad Evans rape conviction. This guy raped the girl for because he thought he was entitled. Him and the men involved in this incident are despicable, they would rather abuse and watch the abuse of a girl who was too drunk to help herself because they thought they could get away with it.
I’m not too sure about the inclusion of Assange either, because he hasn’t been found guilty, and the circumstances of the accusation, as they’ve been reported, are suspiciously political.
However, the criticism in this blog post is not really about Assange, but is aimed at those who say that what he’s been accused of “isn’t really rape”.
Saying that a crime is “just a bit of fun” or “not really that serious” is not a defence, nor should it be.
Good job on this article! It saddens me there are so many people out there shunning this poor girl. My gosh , can you for one minute put yourself in her place waking up knowing you have been violated? These men are stupid!!!! Sloppy seconds not knowing or caring who has diseases or not and willing to take all risks? That disgusts me. One of these days these men will rape the wrong person and really get a surprise when they get an STD! This girl has to go get checked for everything under the sun now. Sick human beings.
you would think that footballers and figures in the public eye would learn! the amount of times that trials like this come up. if the girl is drunk, regardless of what your dick is telling you to do, put her in a taxi and send her home.
instead, things like this do happen and you get the blind following the outright dumb-witted. supporters who as you said, will support anything that their hero says or does. the whole, “I know ****** and he would NEVER do anything like that”. rapists and murderers don’t walk around with tags on them. wives of murderers can live for years being non-the-wiser and yet some people fail to believe that their football hero may have thought with his cock instead of his head.
they also don’t seem to take a minute to think about how the victim will be feeling. screw the guy, he fucked up his own career himself. you don’t just sleep with a girl cos your friend just has and she’s there ready for you and too drunk to object. well done for fucking up your own life, but don’t take this girl down with you too. she has done NOTHING wrong.
it outrages me time and time again how many people side with the guilty. they also tend to forget that not all details are released in the press and that, due to anonymity, the victims story is rarely actually told properly, its more fabrications based loosely upon what the media understand to be true.
No matter whether it was consensual but under an arbitrary age limit set by society or consensual but without a condom- those things are RAPE and therefore equal to being held at knifepoint for weeks and forced to mount a broken bottle. There is literally no difference between the three.
They are exactly the same, you silly misogynists! Get it through your logic-using heads that emotion rules the day. Words only mean whatever we need them to mean to exact vengeance for our upset feelings! There is no such thing as rule of law, unless we re-define the laws!
Oh, and “asking logical questions” is on the list of woman hating male entitlement rape culture supporting actions, so you can’t resort to that low down dirty tactic. It makes us THINK and FEEL things and thats icky!
I mean come on, there are literally THOUSANDS of reasons to go to a room alone with a horny guy, and then go back to that room for a second round, that do not imply consent.
I could list them, but I don’t feel like it.
Oh and if a woman cannot remember something, and says she thinks her drink was spiked, that means she was RAPED. It is a fact. The logical leap there is filled up by emotion- but there is no harm in condemning the logical step between willingly going back and consent.
The twitter comments are skin-crawlingly vile. A jury listened to all the evidence and convicted a man of rape. There is no conspiracy, unless you have a crippling insecurity regarding women which, due to your inflated ego and smallness as a person, is expressed through idiotic/angry/patronising misogyny.
Attitudes need to be challenged and changed, because it seems to be endemic. Accepting a drink, wearing something short, going to a hotel room – none of these things mean “You can have sex with me”. Why isn’t that obvious?
Rape is rape. There is no excuse.
[comment approved because it’s a textbook example of several instances of rape apologism. See which ones you can spot through the puzzling grammar!]
“Victim blaming doesn’t fly in 2012” – No but as the victim found out & as is apparent from the barrage unleashed on Twitter as a result including her NAME afterwards? IF people speak out against Victim blaming as they did here? The LEVEL of such blame & venom against her is now? Just raised by several notches – I can’t remember BEFORE this another case where a body of several individuals went out Deliberately & BROKE the law AIMING to smear the victim but sadly? I fear it WON’T be the last.
As to WHY? I think THAT? Is the fault of the Case itself – Put simply? She accused TWO men of R*ping her in Exactly the SAME circumstances yet? One (the footballer obviously) WAS convicted & the other? Was NOT. I think the question to be asked there? Is WHY did that happen & the fact it did not recieve & Still HASN’T got a satisfactory answer either under normal logic never MIND English law? Has a LOT to do with WHY there was enough space &/or leeway seen by the disgusting mob who launched their venom & fury on the victim in this case. In short? The law concerning r*pe? Has a LOT of grey areas & gaps in it Especially here in England & those seeking to (& sadly succeeding to some extent by the tone & extent of some of the barrages that woman’s recieved that I’ve read) undermine, raise doubt against or just defame & damage the conviction? Have the scope they need BECAUSE of said gaps.
Of course the Trouble with all this is? That R*pe is a fiendishly hard area of law to legislate on & always will be & cases like the recent one of Kirsty Sowden (Also in the UK) jailed for making False Rape allegations? Show that the debate isn’t entirely One-sided. The nature of English Law allowing Rape SUSPECTS to be NAMED in public BEFORE they are convicted & which allows (or DID until Twitter anyway as the Evans case shows) anonmity for Victims? And thus peoples LIVES to be ruined IF they are innocent as happened in the Sowden case? Well if you ask ME? That (almost certainly deliberate IMO) imbalance in favour of one side over the other? Has a hell of a lot to answer for as well & then some but as with the rest of the law covering R*pe? It’s not an area that’s likely to be solved for a long while. In truth? It’s a problem to be sorted out to the satisfaction of all sides anytime soon if ever as the fact remains that with such a crime & the law surrounding it? Whatever is decided? Someone will always end up hurt or angry at an injustice of some sort. Sadly it seems that this always will be the case & it’s not likely to change anytime soon…………..