because almost everything I catch wind of makes me pretty fucking angry.
Here‘s the latest perpetrator. A court has cleared a group of men of rape, after it was revealed that the victim… well, I suppose I’m not allowed to call her a victim now… complainant then, had mentioned a fantasy about having group sex over an internet conversation.
So, here’s how this goes as far as I can tell from the BBC article (which has the most information out of the coverage I’ve seen, all the others just seem to be rewrites of this). Woman in Liverpool and man in Bolton meet over the internet. She talks about a fantasy of hers about having group sex. They agree to meet up, and she later admits that she was willing to have sex with him at the time. When they met up, he has his mates around and they all have sex. She alleges that it’s gangrape but I suppose we can’t know for sure.
Now, there are a couple of ways you can read this, I suppose. It could be that in the conversation, she consented to having the group sex with this guy and his friends on this day that they were meeting up, but you’d think that whichever reporter was at the trial wouldn’t deem it newsworthy in that case, the story becomes “rape alleged, turns out it wasn’t rape”. And if somehow they did consider that newsworthy, you’d think they’d mention that she gave consent, rather than all this business about fantasies. That reading doesn’t really make sense to me.
The other way, and the way that seems more plausible to me from the reading of the article, is that she had mentioned that she liked the idea of having group sex, and the prosecution has used that fantasy to assassinate her character. This seems to be backed up by the statements. 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.
If I’m right about that, then I’m disgusted. They may as well be saying “she’s basically admitted she’s a bit of a slut, so she probably enjoyed it, the dirty bitch.” And I also have other problems with this story, why the hell did the BBC think it appropriate to refer to this woman as “rape woman”? Even the Telegraph had a less offensive headline on this story than the BBC, instead deciding to call the story “Men cleared of rape after online chat on group sex revealed”.
Just to be clear in case someone doesn’t get it, mentioning a fantasy about having group sex is not the same thing as consenting to it. Plenty of people like to have normal one-on-one sex. That does not mean that if someone comes over and shags them, it’s not rape.
Now don’t get me wrong, I know that the case would probably have got down to their word against hers, and that the vast majority of rape charges do not bring a guilty verdict. I have no idea how to fix that situation, and I’m not saying that if the case went on they would have reached a guilty verdict. But throwing the case out on the basis of a fantasy that she mentioned, before any evidence has been heard, is surely unacceptable.