Victim ‘had sex with her captor willingly’
And this is where we have a conversation about how exceedingly few fucking people in the world actually understand what rape is — and about how cops are some of the worst rape-deniers.
I’d say more, but pieces of my head seem to be scattered all over the room . . . and once I collect them all, I do believe there’s a fetal position with my name on it.
{ 10 comments }
Despite the fact that standard contract law makes it simple to void a contract based on any form of coercion – not just physical force, but threats or blackmail (and of course fraudulent representations) – people keep on describing sex due to coercion which doesn’t involve physical overpowering as “voluntary”. What bullshit.
“She admitted that she had had sex with him and that she had done that voluntarily. She had been given books by him to read, could listen to the radio and was given videos to see. When asked if there were any accomplices she said: `I do not know any names.”‘
Said by “the first person to interview Kampusch at the police station, said: “I only really asked her three questions – whether she had had sex with her kidnapper, how it is that after all this time she seemed to be so educated and whether there were accomplices.”
Oh my fucking GOD!!!! Really? Are these the FIRST three questions you ask of someone who has been kidnapped, raped, tortured, brainwashed…..?”
That is as far as I can get before my own head explodes….
Jesus, Mary, Joseph and all the Goddamn Saints…..Jesus
I think Law and Order SVU did an episode based on this, and I thought they did a pretty good job acknowledging the complexities of a victim’s feelings for/about her captor. Of course, this being a Law and Order there were some twists and turns, etc, and some major differences between the story and the real case, but it was essentially the same circumstances (basement, length of captivity, and such). The episode is “Infiltrated” from season 8.
I know it seems weird to bring that up, but Law & Order (both the original and SVU, although I don’t think the third one does this so much) has a history of doing episodes that bring attention to not just a particular case but a bigger issue. For example, an old episode of the original L&O was the first place I ever heard of FGM. And a few years ago an episode of SVU dealt with the disastrous consequences of a Crisis Pregnancy Center lying to a girl seeking an abortion. And more recently, L&O did an episode that mentioned several aspects of the disgraceful treatment of veterans returning from Iraq. They generally do a good job with them, so hopefully people who watch them will develop a more nuanced way of looking at things when they get so badly mis-reported in the press. (*crosses fingers*)
Melissa – yeah, I noticed that too. What a stupid first question. I understand the question about accomplices being of major importance right away (so they can be rounded up before they make a run for it) but the other two are just bizarre. They sound a little accusatory, you know? Definitely the kind of questions best left to mental health professionals and counselors. Not the police. I mean, she was kidnapped, it’s not like they really needed her to make a statement about the sexual aspect so they could arrest him. Christ.
Thanks for the link to the article. I was able to send off a letter of complaint to NZ before my head exploded.
Completely unbelievable that any one would consider this a news story, rather than a scandal and a violation of the victim’s privacy.
Not wanting to get the s**t beat out of you, again (according to the back story) can hardly be considered consent.
Sorry, can’t form coherent comment. I have pieces to gather
I’m prefacing this; yes this was a horrible crime, yes this girl was raped and beaten, yes this “news story” is an incredibley unwarrented invasion of privacy. But I don’t think the “had sex with” instead of “rape” in this story is all that awful. They used “had sex with” in quoutes, or with “willingly” in quotes in front of it. The first three questions that she was asked were dumb and insensitive and pointless at the time, but using “had sex” instead of “rape” there makes sense too, since she considered the sex consensual, she wouldn’t have said she was raped. This is longer than I meant, long story short- this story is awful, the use of ‘had sex with’ less so.
I’m upset not as much about the “had sex” bit (though I’ve certanily expressed my feelings on this issue before and am not pleased about it), but the word “willingly” is the most problematic part.
Many women take a long time to realize that what happened to them was rape. Many people do not understand what rape is — that “consent” under duress is not consent. The victim may have said that the sex was “willing,” but seeing as how she was being held hostage for eight years, kept in a soundproof steel box without windows, repeatedly injured, raped and threatened, she simply could not give any form of meaningful consent. It’s an outrage that this shit leaked, and an even bigger outrage that they’re framing it like this. No one is bothering to clarify that rape conducted under duress is still rape, god only knows if anyone tried to explain this to her, and the police are repeating this bullshit as though it’s the truth. The quotes are not from her — they’re from the cops, the same cops who called her rape admitting to having sex with her captor, as though she somehow did something wrong.
Too busy shaking my head in angry bewilderment to comment!
So let me see if I’ve got this straight – a teenage girl is being held captive and in fear for her life and opts not to fight when her captor demands sex. That’s not consent, it’s a survival maneuver.
My gods, under those circumstances, if he told her to say “Please fuck me, you stallion” and she did so, it still isn’t consent.
Comments on this entry are closed.