#slanegirl and why this isn't about female sexual desire

The #slanegirl hashtag refers to photographs of a teenage girl performing oral sex on at least two men in the audience of the Eminem concert at Slane Castle in Ireland. I do not know the exact details since it's hard to shift through the rumours, of which there are many, and I do not want to accidentally come across the images. I do believe that photographing anyone without their consent is wrong: I don't care if this is a child skipping in puddles, a celebrity picking their nose or Prince Harry naked. Taking photos without consent and then distributing them is unacceptable and feeds into bullying culture, particularly since most of the images shared without consent are of people in embarrassing situations.

This situation isn't just the sharing of embarrassing photos: it's sexual violence. Sharing photos of people engaged in sex, even if they are in public venue, is sexual violence. I don't care if that isn't the position of the law. It's what the law should be.  The distribution of images of sex without the full consent of all participants is sexual violence.

The fact that the photos are of a teenage girl makes this crime child sexual abuse since a teenager cannot legally consent to sex with an adult nor can they consent to their images being shared publicly. If it were images of an adult woman performing a sex act, it would still be a case of sexual violence. This is without investigating the issue of consent due to substance misuse or the fact that these images have been shared online.

Every single person who has shared or retweeted these images has committed sexual violence. The people who first put the images online deserve to be prosecuted, as does every single  person who has shared them including the people who claimed to be sharing them to demonstrate their "moral outrage" at the images being placed online. 

I hope every single person who has helped to repeatedly sexually violate this young girl gets prosecuted and ends up with a criminal record. 

That said, I am equally concerned about the positive discussions of the article #Slanegirl and the shaming of female desire on Twitter.* The article claims to be a challenge to the shaming of female sexuality but that's not quite what is happening in the piece. Ignoring the deliberate misrepresentation of radical feminist discourse of female sexuality**, which is disgraceful, the piece assumes that the young girl was an active participant in the act. As yet, we have no confirmation of this 'fact'. In fact current media reports put the young girl below the age of consent which would make this a story of child sexual abuse. It doesn't matter if the young girl was an active participant, the fact that adult men were involved makes this a crime. The Irish Independent is also suggesting that the young girl was sexually assaulted at the concert in an attack separate to that which is seen in the photos uploaded. This is a story of the sexual violation of a young girl. It is not the time to 'celebrate' female sexual desire.

Shaming women for enjoying sex is misogyny. It is about reinforcing patriarchal control of women's bodies and creating a dichotomy of good and bad women. However, whether or not individual women enjoy specific sexual acts cannot be separated from a political analysis of the treatment of women as a class. The bodies of women and children are objectified and pornified daily. Suggesting that adult men using the body of a teenage girl for their sexual gratification is something we should celebrate as an example of female sexual desire completely decontextualises sexual violence. It ignores the reality of women's lives and it belittles the pain this young girl is experiencing due to the abuse. It is rape culture.

Teenagers exploring their sexuality together is a different situation to adult men preying on young teenage girls. It is a constant in our culture and it occurs daily. The only difference now is that the authorities seem to be taking the abuse seriously. This is not to say that teenagers engaged in public sexual acts aren't problematic but that this situation involving a young child is not a celebration of female sexual desire. It's just another story of the abuse of a young girl by men and those who seek to minimise the responsibility of sexually abusive men.

This is rape culture.

A child has been sexually violated. Repeatedly. 

It is not a story of female sexual desire. This is a story of sexual violence.

* The comments underneath the article are a disgusting display of male violence, misogyny and the shaming of women. 

*This particular blogger has an obsession with radical feminism and has been caught on numerous occasions making outright lies about radical feminist theory. 

Read More

White Male Commits Sex Crime but We Should Feel Sorry For Him:

A male teacher at a Sidney high school has been arrested for filming up the skirts of several of his female students as well women at the local train station.  

Yet, according to the principal of the high school where Robert Emmett taught, we are supposed to feel compassion for Emmett and his family. Not the women Emmett sexually assaulted by taking sexual photographs without permission but the man who committed the offence. We are supposed to have sympathy for the "emotional devastation" Emmett feels at being arrested for illegally filming at least 3 of his teenage students. 

The only people I have any sympathy for are the women and teenage girls that Emmett sexually assaulted and his children who have to live with the knowledge of their father's crimes.

Frankly, if a teacher at my children's school was arrested for such a crime and the principal was wittering on about the "emotional devastation" of the perpetrator, I would be removing them from the school immediately.

A principal who absolves a male member of staff of personal responsibility for sexual violence is not a man who deserves to keep his job, nor is he a man who should be trusted around teenage girls. 

I have to wonder about what the principal believes is acceptable behaviour with female pupils if he is so willing to ignore the safety of his female students.

Read More

A 13 year old girl is a "Sexual Predator" because she was sexually assaulted.

This is the point we have arrived at: a 13 year old child is sexually assaulted by an adult male and the judge and prosecutor both hold the child responsible for being sexually assaulted. According to Court New UK, the judge labelled the child a "sexual predator" who "egged on" her abuser. Neil Wilson, who is 41 years old, pled guilty and received a suspended sentence despite sexually assaulting a child and being found in possession of extreme pornographic images depicting both child sexual abuse and bestiality.

A 41 year old man gets a suspended sentence for assaulting a child and she gets labelled a sexual predator.

Anyone who doubts there is a war on women in our culture is suffering from a terminal case of cognitive dissonance. 

Everyday Victim Blaming have started a petition here. Below is the text:

Yesterday, a man walked free from Snaresbrook Crown Court despite pleading guilty to ‘sexual activity with a child’ after the prosecutor Robert Colover and judge Nigel Peters described the thirteen year-old victim as a “sexual predator”. 

I'm a survivor of childhood sexual abuse. I could have been that 13 year old girl who the judge and prosecutor descrbed as 'predatory'. Now, I work with other women who have survived similar experiences. I have seen first hand how this kind of victim blaming prevents women from coming forward and protects men who commit these crimes. 

It’s unacceptable that the Crown Prosecutor - the person who this young girl was relying on to help get her justice - used this kind of language in court. It’s a sad fact that this kind of attitude is commonplace within society and the legal establishment. We need to make a stand and send a clear message: It’s never the child’s fault. 

I’m calling on the Crown Prosecution Service to look at the language used by Robert Colover and meet urgently with our organisation and other groups working with victims of rape and sexual assault to ensure this never happens again.

Please sign and share this petition. We need to stand up and protect our children from the violent sexual predators who abuse them and the men support sexual predators by minimising personal responsibility.

If you think a 13 year old child is somehow responsible for their sexual abuse, then you are as guilty as the men who perpetrated the violence. You help support a rape culture which dehumanises women and children. You help make it easier for children and women to be sexually abused.

This case doesn't just demonstrate the guilt of Neil Wilson. It demonstrates the complicity of the Crown Prosecution Services and the judge in the continuing sexual abuse of the child.

You can make a formal complaint about the low crown court sentence here and a formal judicial complaint here.

POSTSCRIPT: Since i wrote this piece, the Attorney General has agreed to review this case for an unduly lenient sentence. The CPS has also announced that they will not be using this particular prosecuting attorney for any cases involving sexual violence pending a review. There also appears to be a judicial review of the actions of the judge as well.

The feminist activism of Everyday Victim Blaming project is directly responsible for this outcome. They lobbied for the national press to notice this miscarriage of justice. They started the petition at change.org and it was supporters of EVB who complained to the Attorney General and CPS. This is a victory for feminism, not that you would notice in the mainstream press who are busy congratulating themselves and David Cameron for doing absolutely nothing.

Read More

Gradient Lair on Rape Culture

I very rarely reblog preferring instead to link directly to the blogs I admire. I think it's important to read women's words where they were originally published. This is a personal choice based on my political understanding of cultural femicide. I have chosen to reblog the image below from Gradient Lair because she is a prolific writer and I don't want this brief piece lost within the rest of her excellent writing [and if you aren't familiar with her blog, you really should take some time to read it].

Rape Culture, The Internet and Privacy

• Canadian underage girl: "Someone is posting nude photos of me on the internet. This is dissemination of child pornography and is causing me to be harassed in school!"
• Cops: "Sorry, it's the internet! There's no way to track them!"
• Midwest football players: "Someone leaked a video of us gang-raping a teenage girl! This invasion of privacy caused us to have to take responsibility for our actions!"
• Cops: "Don't worry, sons! We've tracked their IP and are demanding a 10-year sentence for their egregious crime!"

Read More

Why I want Boudicca on the £10 #banknote.

Well, to be completely honest, I've never actually had an opinion on who should be on the #banknotes since I have never actually noticed who was on them. But, that's the beauty of feminism: we aren't the Borg. Feminism is full of brilliant and inspiring women who question everything. We need campaigns like #banknotes and Everyday Victim Blaming and the Name Equality Campaign as much as we need Rape Crisis, Women's Aid and Women Under Siege. 

So, why my nitpicking over which woman gets to be on the £10 note?

I'm a huge Jane Austen fan and until last night I was perfectly happy with Austen. She's a brilliant writer: funny and snarky. She also published under her own name, which remains pretty fabulous. I only changed my mind after seeing the sheer amount of misogynistic abuse and one rape threat that feminist campaigner Caroline Criado Perez received for her campaign to ensure that a woman remained on English banknotes.

I want Boudicca to serve as a symbol of what happens to women when they question the Patriarchy: Boudicca was flogged and her daughters raped for questioning the right of the Roman Empire, an emblem of male violence and patriarchal control. 

Jane Austen remains one of my favourite authors but I want Boudicca to serve as a Fuck You to all the men who insulted and threatened Caroline yesterday. I want Boudicca to serve as a reminder to all the men who stood up for Caroline that this isn't a one-off. Male violence, and the threat thereof, is constant. 

We all need a reminder of what is at stake for women who question the Patriarchy.

Read More

Shock: Male Journalist Spread Myths about Domestic Violence

Damian Gee has been convicted of assault because he chose to punch his partner in the face and then he threatened to kill her with a knife.

Damian Gee assaulted his partner because she ended their relationship because Gee had an affair. He turned up at her residence at 3 in the morning, uninvited and assaulted his partner because she ended their relationship.

Yet, Neil Hunter of the Northern Echo, wrote an article claiming that the “cheating boyfriend attacked his partner during showdown talks”. I’m not sure how turning up at 3 in the morning, whilst intoxicated and without invitation constitutes “showdown talks” but ignoring that piece of victim blaming, Hunter also points out that Gee was having an affair with the victim’s sister. Not only is the victim responsible for Hunter showing up without invitation, she is also responsible for Gee choosing to have sex with her sister. Hunter has clearly been watching Jeremy Kyle to understand the full dynamics of victim-blaming.

Hunter’s lack of understanding of domestic violence is quite obvious. Hunter suggests it’s “bizarre” that Gee accused his partner of cheating on him before assaulting him. This is classic emotional abuse and controlling behaviour as exhibited by abusive men. Frankly, anyone with access to google could discover that this behaviour is “bizarre”; it’s the normal behaviour of abusive men.

Hunter, demonstrating a further complete lack of awareness of domestic violence, ended the article with this tidbit:

Mr Mochrie said initial accusations of rape and false imprisonment - later dropped by the prosecution - had caused him trouble in jail.

"It is not over just because the prosecution decides to discontinue the case. It has tarnished his reputation in the community." “

Mochrie, Gee’s defence attorney, is worried about the reputation of an abusive man. And, Hunter buys this without mentioning how rare “false” accusations of rape really are or why the prosecution would choose to drop charges of rape and false imprisonment. Here’s a hint for Hunter, it’s unlikely because the charges were “false”. Statistically speaking, it’s much more likely because accusations of rape are rarely brought before the court and when they are, rapists are frequently not convicted. It’s also likely the victim chose not to pursue the charges.

Neil Hunter could really do with researching myths about rape and domestic violence so he doesn’t write such victim-blaming twaddle again.

The only person responsible in this case is Damian Gee. 

Read More

This is Rape Culture

I came across this poster via Everyday Victim Blaming. It gave me the rage.

This is rape culture. It isn't funny. It isn't clever and it is not the fault of the man who drank too much.

Anyone who thinks it's acceptable to do this to someone who is vulnerable, and then film it is an arsehat. It is bullying behaviour and is what underpins rape culture. There is a reason that the two budding 'filmmakers' are women. If it had been men, we would have recognised that the unconscious person in the bathtub is vulnerable to rape. This ad only inverts the traditional victim-blaming. It encourages the belief that all rape victims are responsible for being victims. It also implies women are as likely to commit sexual violence as men which isn't true.

We need to ban these images. They serve only to harm victims.

Read More

Dear Cannes Film Festival, Roman Polanski is a Child Rapist.

 Dear Cannes Film Festival,

Roman Polanski is a child rapist.

I know I've written this exact same letter before, although last time it was to the British Film Institute. I'm sure you are bored of hearing this. I'm certainly finding writing this over and over and over again somewhat tedious but people seem to be struggling with this issue. Still.

So, for the record, Roman Polanski is a convicted child rapist who is also a fugitive from justice.

It doesn't matter how many "good" films he makes, or how many stupid people make excuses for him because he's an "artiste", Roman Polanski will always be a convicted child rapist.

Roman Polanski gave a 13 year old a quaalude in champagne and then vaginally, orally and anally raped her.

I know Polanski has trouble understanding the fact that raping children is a despicable crime for which he should still be in prison. After all, there are no end of rape apologists telling him that it was completely okay for him to rape a child [see: the entire audience the night he won the Oscar for the Pianist].

There is a reason he's blithering on about equality for women being a bad thing and the birth control pill "ruining romance". Polanski does not want to take responsibility for the child he was convicted of raping nor does he want anyone to question the clearly illegal sexual relationship he had with Natassja Kinski when she was only 15 years old.

Every single person who pays to see Polanski's films is supporting rape culture.

Every single actor who appears in a Polanski film is supporting rape culture.

Every single organisation that gives Polanski awards for his films is supporting rape culture.

Every single person who uses the word "historical" to refer to Polanski's rape conviction is supporting rape culture.

Every journalist who does not mention Polanski's conviction for rape is supporting rape culture.

Roman Polanski is a child rapist who fled from California because he did not want to go to prison.

Roman Polanski gave a 13 year old a quaalude in champagne and then vaginally, orally and anally raped her.

He should be in prison; not receiving awards at your Festival.

Louise Pennington

Read More

Posted in #celebrityculture, #rapeculture, Child Rape, Male Violence Against Women, Misogyny, Rape Culture, Roman Polanski, Violence against Women, War on Women | No comments

Nick Ross: Not all Rape is Rape (with trigger warnings)

Nick Ross, creator of the BBC's Crimewatch, has written a book about Crime. I have never actually seen Crimewatch and I was not familiar with Nick Ross until I read his article in the Daily Mail today. Ross' Wikipedia page implies his research skills and knowledge are impeccable, yet he's written an article for the Daily Mail which is basically a list of myths about violence against women. The entire article blames women for being victims of male violence. 

What the DM article demonstrates is that Ross hates feminists. Every single "fact" about violence against women that Ross tries to debunk is used to demonise feminists. Apparently, feminists paint women as "victims" of male violence and that it's feminists fault women are frequently victimised by men because we do not hold women accountable for the violence perpetrated against them. 

Ross deliberately misunderstands research into domestic violence to imply that women are as likely as men to commit DV and ignores the research into "gaslighting". He also blames women for lashing out at a violent partner. Ross conveniently neglects to mention that the "research" which "proves" that women commit domestic violence as frequently as men has been disproven because it is deeply flawed.  That "research" was based on frequency of reporting of domestic violence. If we were to look at it simplistically based only on that criteria then women do commit domestic violence as frequently as men. This research ignores two very basic issues: 1) women frequently experience domestic violence 30-40 times before reporting; and 2) the issue of gaslighting. Gaslighting is emotionally abusive behaviour wherein the male partner harasses their, usually female, partner into lashing out physically. The male partner then has "evidence" that his female partner is as abusive as he is. This "evidence" is used to control and belittle the female partner further, especially if their are children involved. That is domestic violence. It is not evidence that women are as violent as men; it is evidence of the myriad of ways in which men are violent.

Ross makes some bland statements about the differentiation in sentencing between men and women for crimes without taking into account the gendered construction of crime which does give women harsher punishments than men. He does point out that women are more likely to receive harsher sentences for sex crimes than men are but he neglects to point out that women are more likely to be incarcerated than men for their first crime. Men are frequently incarcerated for crimes of violence whilst women are incarcerated for crimes which are the consequence of severe abuse, substance misuse, poverty and male violence. Women receive custodial sentences for shoplifting at much higher rates than men.

The entire article is deeply offensive and wrong but it is the section on rape which is truly appalling. This is what Ross says about rape: 

Rape is one of the most violating crimes. Victims tend to feel dirty, embarrassed, racked with revulsion and self-blame, and, since it almost always involves a male assailant, rape is one of the defining issues for radical feminism. But have the red mists of politics and emotion clouded reality here? 

Rape victims were once treated appallingly, as though it was all their fault, but have we now gone too far the other way? Many of the victims seem to think we have. The main argument of my book is this: we can aggravate crime by tempting fate, and we curb it by playing safe. 

We have come to acknowledge it is foolish to leave laptops on the back seat of a car. We would laugh at a bank that stored sacks of cash by the front door. We would be aghast if an airport badly skimped on its security measures. 

Our forebears might be astonished at how safe women are today given what throughout history would have been regarded as incitement. Not even in the licentious days of Charles II in the 17th Century was it acceptable for women to dress as provocatively as they have done in Western culture since the 1960s.

Equally they would be baffled that girls are mostly unescorted, stay out late, often get profoundly drunk and sometimes openly kiss, grope or go to bed with one-night stands. 

No amount of temptation can excuse rape, or any other crime. On that point ‘slutwalk’ demonstrators [those reacting against a Canadian policeman whose advised women to ‘avoid dressing as sluts’ if they did not want to be harassed] are obviously correct. Yet for some it is heresy to suggest that victims should ever be held responsible at all.

Apparently, women are responsible for being raped for just being in possession of a vagina in public. After all, the suggestion that we hold individuals responsible for having their laptops stolen if left on the front seat of the car is the same as women making themselves vulnerable to rape by going out in public in clothes. It is women's fault for getting raped by wearing "provocative clothes". Men can't possibly be expected to control themselves when they see a woman in a skirt. One has to wonder what babies wear which is "provocative"? Or, elderly women? Or, women in jeans? 

Ross also ignores the fact that the vast majority of women are raped by men they know. How are women supposed to avoid being raped by their husbands? Fathers? Boyfriends? Employers? How are women supposed to avoid being raped in their own homes? Statistically, women are much safer completely intoxicated at 3 in the morning in a town centre than they are in their own homes. But, we don't talk about that: instead we focus on the women who are raped by strangers and then blame the women for being "provocative". 

Not content with blaming women for being raped, Ross goes on to discourage women from reporting rapes within their relationships:

Bear in mind that some of the allegations are made weeks or even years after the event took place, and the average rape case takes nearly two years to come to trial. When cases do go to court, 55 per cent result in a conviction. 

Could it be that court proceedings are not always the best way of dealing with what happens in relationships? If that is the case, could it be that women (and men who are raped) are generally acting wisely if they choose not to take that route?

Perhaps, I am confused but I am fairly sure rape in a relationship is as illegal as rape by a stranger. But, Ross wants women to forgo reporting their violent partners. Men's lives and reputations are, as ever, more important than the bodily integrity and safety of women. Would Ross suggest that children not report being raped by their fathers; after all, these constitute relationships too. God forbid, we actually hold men legally responsible for their own actions.

Ross continues his victim-blaming by attacking women involved in prostitution. Now, it is true that some women are involved in the sex industry through choice but these women are not statistically representative of women who are prostituted and trafficked. Many of the women who are prostituted are first prostituted as children. Many have histories of sexual abuse and are substance misusers. Poverty is a huge indicator of women's vulnerability to sexual exploitation. Not all women who are prostitutes are victims of sexual exploitation but for every Belle du Jour, there are literally hundreds of teenage girls and boys being trafficked across cities, the UK and the world. To pretend otherwise is to ignore the realities of the lives of thousands of women and children across the UK.

Ross is quite clear though: it is feminists, especially radical feminists, fault women think they are victims. If women didn't think they were victims, then they wouldn't be victimised. Women are at least partially responsible for being victims of domestic violence and rape. Men who rape are "provoked".

Men are not responsible for the violence they commit because women shouldn't make themselves vulnerable to crime.

Welcome to the Capitalist-Patriarchy: where the lives of women and children are irrelevant.


This is the full DM article. I have reproduced it in its entirety so that you do not have to click on the DM site and increase their advertising revenue:

It's heresy, I know. But not all women are victims. And not all rape is rape: It is a view that will outrage many, but Crimewatch creator NICK ROSS insists it is a debate we must not flinch from

Despite a century of feminism, and perhaps partly because of it, women are still mostly portrayed as weak when it comes to the issue of crime. It is 80 years since cinema audiences first thrilled to King Kong abducting the hapless blonde Ann Darrow – her only defence was her beauty.

Even now, much of the news and comment about women and crime tends to smack of sexism and stereotyping – some of it promoted by radical campaigners who are perversely keen to depict the sisterhood as ready victims.

So how much of women’s portrayal in crime stories is fair, or even true? For example, is domestic violence as one-sided as it seems? Is prostitution mostly victimisation, or emancipation? And why, if equality is a goal, do women get much shorter sentences than men for similar offences? Or, paradoxically, if they cross the Rubicon into sex crime, why are they reviled much more than men?

Why, all things considered, do women suffer far less deliberate injury than men. And what about rape? It is plainly objectionable to reproach a victim for her own misfortune – so why do so many women do it? It is common knowledge spiked drinks are a potent menace, but is it a modern myth?

These are all important questions that any sceptic ought to pose. Yet while challenges to orthodoxy were once scorned because of appalling chauvinism, they now risk the wrath of feminists.

Take domestic violence, for example. It is almost universally portrayed as though the perpetrators are men. Indeed, in 1989 the Canadian Journal Of Behavioural Science published the results of a survey that was celebrated as a classic exposé of ‘battered wives’, and was taken up as proof of typical male perfidy.

However, two years later the Journal acknowledged a different side to the story after the data had been re-analysed. While 10.8 per cent of the men surveyed had pushed, grabbed or thrown objects at their spouses, 12.4 per cent of women had done so too. And although 2.5 per cent of men used serious violence, so did 4.7 per cent of women.

Marilyn Kwong, who carried out the new analysis, also examined eight other studies and found the pattern was universal. Inconvenient facts had been cut out.

Feminism did a vital job putting domestic violence on the agenda – most police officers now take it seriously, and in some force areas it represents one in six emergency responses. Yet the success of feminism and its flattery by mainstream authority meant that for decades professional interventions assumed that men were always the aggressors, and if women were violent, they must have been acting in self-defence.

It is widely claimed that one woman in four is subjected to domestic violence, though depending on the source, that figure might include minor physical assault, feeling afraid or suffering mild psychological abuse – and any of this at some stage in their lives.

If three-quarters of women went through life without ever once fearing some form of mental or physical attack, however inconsequential, that would be more surprising.

Many reports also ignored the thought that women can be violent to men. Erin Pizzey, the feminist who, in 1971, founded one of the world’s first women’s refuges, has been trying ever since to set the record straight.

She once wrote: ‘I will never forget one woman, who was staying in my refuge, telling me in chilling tones, “Knives are a great leveller”... The truth is that much of the violence takes place in squalid, tortured relationships, often involving drink and drugs, where both partners are guilty of verbal and physical assault.’

In Britain, a large Home Office survey in 1995 found that 4.2 per cent of men said they had been physically assaulted or injured by their partner within the previous year – precisely the same figure as for women. When 15 years of British findings were put together in 2012, they told an essentially consistent story: between 30 and 40 per cent of those assaulted were men and they suffered a quarter of all the attacks.

Although in many cases neither men nor women reported injury or emotional effects, about one in ten in both genders had suffered bleeding or broken bones, and three per cent of men and two per cent of women had later attempted suicide.

The same thing was found in a health survey in New Zealand.

Not that most men would confess how they were injured. Women are twice as likely as their male partners to confide in a professional, five times more likely to tell a doctor or a nurse, and three times as likely to go to the police.

None of this diminishes the horror of domestic abuse, especially when it is repeated, severe and one-sided. Women do tend to come off worst, and a small proportion of them suffer relentlessly. However, we should not underestimate the extent of mutual aggression that takes place within the hurly-burly of human discord. Nor should we forget the extent of emotional bullying, where the wounds don’t show. So let us turn to the other crime with which women are almost exclusively identified as victims: rape.

As far as we can tell, about four per cent of British women are raped at some point in their lives, some repeatedly. About 0.6 per cent of women (and 0.1 per cent of men) are victims of rapes and other serious sexual assaults each year.

Rape is one of the most violating crimes. Victims tend to feel dirty, embarrassed, racked with revulsion and self-blame, and, since it almost always involves a male assailant, rape is one of the defining issues for radical feminism. But have the red mists of politics and emotion clouded reality here?

Rape victims were once treated appallingly, as though it was all their fault, but have we now gone too far the other way? Many of the victims seem to think we have. The main argument of my book is this: we can aggravate crime by tempting fate, and we curb it by playing safe.

We have come to acknowledge it is foolish to leave laptops on the back seat of a car. We would laugh at a bank that stored sacks of cash by the front door. We would be aghast if an airport badly skimped on its security measures.

Our forebears might be astonished at how safe women are today given what throughout history would have been regarded as incitement. Not even in the licentious days of Charles II in the 17th Century was it acceptable for women to dress as provocatively as they have done in Western culture since the 1960s.

Equally they would be baffled that girls are mostly unescorted, stay out late, often get profoundly drunk and sometimes openly kiss, grope or go to bed with one-night stands.

No amount of temptation can excuse rape, or any other crime. On that point ‘slutwalk’ demonstrators [those reacting against a Canadian policeman whose advised women to ‘avoid dressing as sluts’ if they did not want to be harassed] are obviously correct. Yet for some it is heresy to suggest that victims should ever be held responsible at all.

There was an outcry when our Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority cut recompense to rape victims who had ‘contributed’ to their plight through ‘excessive’ drinking. The decision had to be reversed. But for any other crime, compensation can be reduced according to ‘the conduct of the applicant before, during or after the incident’.

There was another outcry in 2011 when Ken Clarke, the then Justice Secretary, was urged to resign by Labour leader Ed Miliband for using the words ‘serious rape’.

The transcript of the interview makes it clear that Clarke meant aggravated rape, but it has become sacrilege to suggest that there can be any gradation: rape is rape.

The real experts, the victims, know otherwise. Half of all women who have had penetrative sex unwillingly do not think they were raped, and this proportion rises strongly when the assault involves a boyfriend, or if the woman is drunk or high on drugs: they led him on, they went too far, it wasn’t forcible, they didn’t make themselves clear... For them, rape isn’t always rape and, however upsetting, they feel it is a long way removed from being systematically violated or snatched off the street.

Such stranger attacks – the sort most often reported by the newspapers – make up only a small proportion of rapes that women divulge through surveys.

The assumption is that any woman who chooses not to pursue a claim is being let down by the State or is acting irrationally. But could it be that she is right? What if she feels partly responsible for what happened? What if she realises there is no evidence other than her word against his? What if her life is bound up with that of her assailant? What if she feels humiliated as well as violated?

Should she be expected to disclose all this in public and then put her life on hold for the greater good? Do we want a justice system that overrides the victims’ sense of what is in their own best interests, or one that, in order to accommodate them, ceases to be just?

It’s little wonder that, despite the fact that reporting rates have soared, fewer than 20 per cent of rape victims go to the police. When they do, about a sixth of complaints are rejected (rightly or wrongly) by police as implausible; a third are abandoned for lack of evidence; and a third are dropped because the complainant withdraws.

Bear in mind that some of the allegations are made weeks or even years after the event took place, and the average rape case takes nearly two years to come to trial. When cases do go to court, 55 per cent result in a conviction.

Could it be that court proceedings are not always the best way of dealing with what happens in relationships? If that is the case, could it be that women (and men who are raped) are generally acting wisely if they choose not to take that route?

This brings us to another vexatious issue: drug-rape. Fears about women swooning from spiked drinks became so widespread that several TV soaps, the BBC and newspapers warned about the growing menace. The publicity turned Rohypnol – a previously obscure pre-anaesthetic sedative – into a household name.

There was always an implausibility about widespread drug-facilitated rape. For one thing, every assailant would need to control the dosage of a dangerous medication to allow extraction of the victim from her social setting without complaint or alarm from her friends.

In any case, the evidence is vanishingly thin. The UK’s Forensic Science Service tested samples from more than 1,000 women who complained of being sexually assaulted after being given drugs surreptitiously – and found most of the women were drunk.

In 98 per cent of cases, there was no evidence of drugs other than self-administered alcohol, sometimes with cannabis and cocaine. This is in line with other studies both in the UK and the United States.

Critics suggest evidence was missed because samples were not taken early enough, and that the media reinforces the impression that such drugs are almost undetectable. Not so: some of the studies were on samples taken within hours, and anyway, some of the metabolites of hypnotics can be detected for days or even weeks.

Perhaps the drug-rape story has such a grip on our collective imagination because it fits so well with the time-honoured horror story: that of the insensible woman at the mercy of the wicked male.

Prostitution is another issue where women tend to be portrayed as victims. Those who work in the sex trade tend to be scandalised by this patronising view. Females are as capable as men of making decisions on whether to work in an office, a factory or a knocking shop. But the view persists that they are fragile creatures who have been trafficked and set to work under duress.

There have been claims over recent years about a white slave trade – thousands of naive girls from abroad being smuggled into Britain and forced to work as prostitutes. Small brothels that had more or less endured for many years suddenly faced crackdowns from local authorities and police.

Government spokesmen were widely quoted saying that of 80,000 working girls in Britain, ‘the majority are under control from traffickers, pimps or brothel owners’.

The Home Secretary leapt into action and an extraordinary law was introduced. Instead of targeting the supposed pimps, Section 14 of the Policing And Crime Act 2009 targeted the clients. It placed the onus on them to prove their innocence, even though the Bar Council, which represents barristers in England and Wales, warned that the measure was unenforceable.

So where had the statistics for prostitutes come from, and how could anyone know that most of them were sex slaves?

Due to the furtive nature of the industry, the only number available – 80,000 – had been extrapolated from a small survey compiled 20 years previously by Hilary Kinnell, a health outreach worker in Birmingham. She later described the constant quotation of the figure as ‘bizarre’.

As for the alarming idea that ‘the majority’ of the women were trapped by violent pimps – a figure of 80 per cent was cited by a former Minister – that really does seem to have been invented.

Nonetheless, Scotland Yard set up a dedicated Human Exploitation and Organised Crime Unit (SCD9) to tackle it. Officers estimated that 30,000 women were working as escorts or from flats and brothels, of whom 2,600 were definitely trafficked. How did they know? They asked about 250 of the women and generalised from the results. Of 210 who came from abroad, fewer than 20 indicated they were not working entirely of their own volition.

Leaving aside the statistical stretching required, how meaningful are the results? If you were an illegal immigrant, if you may have to go to court and if your mother might find out, what would you say when asked if you were duped or under duress? It would hardly be surprising to say yes.

Perhaps the proof of the pudding is what happened next. One series of 822 raids found only 11 victims who asked for police help. Two intelligence-led sweeps involving 55 forces found 250 people who might have been trafficked.

Meanwhile, the predicted surge in victims at the time of the Olympics failed to materialise.

In fact, the most reliable figure we have for people brought to Britain on false pretences and exploited for sexual purposes is not ‘80 per cent’ of 80,000 but a tiny fraction.

It’s no wonder that Hilary Kinnell, the woman who first tried to quantify prostitution in modern Britain, has become utterly cheesed off. She protests her original figure was no more than a guess, and that the trafficking scare that followed was based on wild exaggeration.

In crime, as in everything else, women are stronger and more capable of making their own decisions or running their own lives than we allow. In sex, as in so much else, almost everything we’re told about crime is wrong.

Powered by Linky Tools
Click here to enter your link and view this Linky Tools list...

Read More