Trigger Warning for discussions of child pornography and child sexual abuse.

In Hobart, Australia, a family court has made a truly confounding and infuriating decision to require two girls to visit their father every other weekend, including an overnight stay — even though the father has been convicted on child pornography charges, the ruling also acknowledges the need for a lock on the girls’ bedroom door, and at least one of the girls is very much unwilling to go on such visits:

A Family Court judge in Hobart has ruled that the girls must visit their father every second weekend provided another adult is present in the home overnight.

The father involved in the case has been convicted of accessing child pornography and possessing child abuse products. He will remain on the sexual offenders register for at least another year.

But the judge has declared that it is in the best interests of the girls, aged eight and 10, that they spend time with their father, who cannot be identified.

He says there needs to be a lock on the girls’ bedroom door as the “father acts impulsively from time to time and that the children need some protection from him, especially at night”.

The mind absolutely boggles.

As some commenters have noted over at Hoyden About Town, it’s absolutely true that there’s no indication that the girls have ever made allegations of abuse against the father. (ETA: Not exactly true. See update.) Possessing child pornography is not the same as abusing one’s own children.

But I think it’s also important to explicitly note that child pornography charges should not ever be construed as “non-violent.” Possessing child pornography does not involve physically enacting abuse yourself. But child pornography involving actual children is by its very nature violent, since what is depicted in child pornography is always abuse. The creation of child pornography requires the rape of children. The ability to possess child pornography requires the rape of children. The act of watching and enjoying child pornography requires watching and enjoying the rape of children and condoning the rape of children. Possession of child pornography inherently requires violence. And while not only condoning but enjoying that violence is not necessarily evidence that one is willing to personally inflict similar violence with their own body, it is a pretty big risk factor.

And so is so-called impulsive behavior that requires little girls to lock their bedroom door every night to make sure that daddy doesn’t get in. The fact that such a requirement exists isn’t evidence that the judge considered all angles to the situation and made a nuanced decision based on all of the facts available — it’s evidence that all of the facts available showed considerable reason to believe that the girls would be unsafe around their father, and that the ruling wholly disregarded their safety by trying to present it as something open to compromise.

How is a second adult in the home at night supposed to protect against abuse? A great deal of child rapes take place with a second parent in the home, fast asleep in bed, unaware of what is being committed down the hall. Is the second adult required to stay awake all night and sit in a chair outside the girls’ room? If so, is the knowledge that it is needed supposed to make the girls feel safe? What if the girls — again, they’re 10 and 8 — forget to lock the door? What if their dad sneaks a moment with them and assures them that it’s really unnecessary? What if the lock is easy to pick or break? (Have you seen the kinds of locks that usually come on bedroom doors? They’re not exactly high security.) And who are these girls to trust and turn to for help if one of these things happens and the father does something abusive? The same adults who put them in an abusive situation to begin with?

Further, it’s impossible to argue that the decision was made with the children’s best interest in mind when (at least) one of the children disagrees with it herself.

Former magistrate Barbara Holborow is upset by the decision and says one of the girls said she did not want to visit her father.

“That view should be respected, no matter what the age of the child,” Ms Holborow said. “And unless you’re doing that, you cannot say it is in the best interests of the child.

“She doesn’t want to be there. That’s in her best interests. Don’t let her go. If she doesn’t go, unless another adult is accompanying the other child, she shouldn’t go either.”

Ms Holborow says it is not enough for the judge to place conditions on the visit and think nothing untoward will happen.

“My goodness it’s not as simple as that,” she said.

“As for the children staying over there? No. School holidays? No. Visits? Yes – a trip to the zoo or to some other entertainment, but never sleeping over at this stage of their lives.”

…

“We’re treating him as though he’s entitled to this, to visitations, but I don’t believe he is.

“I think you just need common sense. You cannot get over the statement by that little girl. She doesn’t want to be there.”

It would seem that the father has likely either done something directly to one or both of the children to make the girl uncomfortable or afraid around him, or that the girl is very reasonably afraid of him after learning that he was convicted on child pornography charges. There are of course other possibilities, but these seem the most probable. And explicitly ignoring the girl’s own autonomy and personhood simply because of her age not only puts her physical safety at risk, it’s also an emotionally abusive action in itself.

Unsurprisingly, fathers’ rights activists — who always say that they do not support abusers or unsafe situations for children — are hailing the decision as the right one:

John Abbott from the fathers’ rights group Blackshirts says the court has taken all precautions to protect the children.

“What we have here is a situation where there’s no real allegation that the court has found against the father molesting his own children,” he said.

“And we have to keep in mind that alienating children from parents is a very serious matter.”

Much more serious, it would seem, than forcing children against their will into a situation with their father so unsafe that they shouldn’t be allowed to be alone with him, and cannot sleep in their own beds without first ensuring that the door is locked.

It’s true that parental rights should be terminated with the utmost care and hesitancy. Historically and currently, the right to remove children from the homes of their parents and deny parents access to their children has been used as a misogynistic, racist, classist, ableist, homophobic and transphobic tool of oppression. And separating children from their families without due cause can itself be a highly abusive act.

But while the right to parent one’s own children is an incredibly important right, it’s not a right that should ever come before the safety of children. Rights are only rights until they infringe upon the rights of others. And the father’s right to parent in this case most certainly, as the ruling itself even acknowledges with all of its stipulations, infringes on the right of the girls to safety and to choose whether or not they must interact with someone who they explicitly do not wish to interact with. It does not work the other way around.

The idea that a parent’s ties to their children are more valuable than the children’s safety is one that frequently ends in abuse and trauma, and sometimes ends in even worse tragedies. I hope with everything I have, for the sake of those little girls, that I and so many others are worried over a possibility that will never materialize. In the unspeakable event that we are not, the father will be 100% responsible for his actions. But the judge will also bear some of the liability and guilt for whatever happens to those girls. And taking responsibility after the fact simply isn’t good enough.

UPDATE: This article states that there are indications of abuse allegations, namely that “the father had invited one of the girls into his bed, and had ‘demonstrated affection toward her in a way that was, in all the circumstances, inappropriate for a child of that age’.” Even worse, the court actually heard these allegations and believed them. This of course only makes the situation all the more troubling, and validates my inclination to believe that the father had done something to frighten and/or traumatize the oldest child. Thanks to Akeeyu for the link.

Trigger Warning for rape apologism and graphic descriptions of sexual violence

In Sydney, a U.S. sailor has been acquitted on charges of raping a sex worker who told him to stop — even though he admitted, in court, to using a “lock down maneuver” to pin her to the bed.

A New South Wales District Court jury cleared Petty Officer Timothy Davis, 25, of a charge of sexual intercourse without consent, with the aggravating factor of causing the woman actual bodily harm. The charge carries a sentence of up to 20 years in prison.

Davis was one of 3,000 Marines and Navy personnel on shore leave in Sydney after the amphibious assault ship USS Peleliu and guided missile destroyer USS Halsey arrived in the port in October, 2008.

The woman told the court she had protected, consensual sex with Davis at the brothel where she worked, but said he became aggressive when she told him his time was up and forced her to have unprotected sex. The jury was shown police photographs of scratches on the woman.

Davis denied forcing the woman to have sex, but admitted in court that he used a “lock down maneuver” to pin her to the bed when she said she wanted to stop. He told the court he backed off when she kicked him, though he said he muffled her mouth with his hand when she began to scream after he demanded his money back.

Could we possibly be reading this correctly? Let’s try another source:

She said he “ripped” off his condom, telling her he had paid for sex and he was going to finish it off “like a real man”.

The slight woman said he pushed her head into the pillow, started suffocating her, and had unprotected sex for 30 seconds.

The jury was shown police photos depicting scratches on the woman, who described Petty Officer Davis as an “animal” during an angry outburst at the trial.

In his evidence, the sailor – who agreed his weight was more than double the woman’s – admitted using a “lock down manoeuvre” to pin her down to the bed when she said she wanted to stop.

He said he told her he was going to “finish”, but when she kicked him away, he backed off with his hands in the air.

So, she told him to stop. And even only as far as he admits, instead of stopping as he was told, he pinned her to the bed and told her he was going to continue anyway. I repeat: against her wishes. After she told him to stop.

Which means that as far as any reasonable definition goes — hell, even working off an antiquated and misogynistic definition of rape that requires physical violence to be present — he confessed to raping her.

And yet, despite his clear admission of rape, he simultaneously claimed that it wasn’t rape — as we know, men will frequently admit to behavior that classifies as rape so long as the word rape is not actually used. The fact that he would do so in a court of law, though, is particularly shocking, exposes some extremely concerning cognitive dissonance, and most appalling of all, displays a clear belief by his defense attorney that such a tactic would succeed, and that the jury would accept that cognitive dissonance right along with him.

That belief was, of course, ultimately validated by the jury. But why? Because the victim was a sex worker, and many people believe that sex workers have no right to bodily autonomy, and therefore cannot be raped? Because she had consented to the sex up to that point, and many people believe that women who have consented to sex generally have no right to bodily autonomy, and therefore cannot revoke or renegotiate consent once it is given? Because the rape may have “only” lasted a few moments, and how could a rape — of a sex worker! who had previously consented! — possibly “count” as real rape? Because Davis is a member of the U.S. military, and therefore he doesn’t look how most people expect a rapist to look?

My best guess is that all of these forms of misogynistic prejudice played a role, most likely in the order I’ve listed them. Yet again, even a blatant confession in a court of law is not enough to earn a conviction from a jury pulled from a culture that thinks men are never to blame, and women always are.

After all, the men and their feelings are the only ones that matter:

Davis made no comment to reporters following the verdict, but his attorney, Sam Macedone, said Davis was very happy with the outcome.

“He is glad it’s over,” Macedone said. “It has been very stressful for him.”

Yes, clearly too few of us spend enough time thinking about the toll that rape accusations take on rapists.

link via $pread

Strong Trigger Warning

Sometimes these stories are just too horrible to convey in words.  The rapist in the story below (h/t Lauredhel) had a long history of sexual abuse towards his vulnerable female family members:

At the time of the offences, the man had been out of jail for a year after serving 10 years for repeatedly raping his step daughter from the time she was 10 years old.

The court heard the man, who cannot be named to protect the identity of his victims, was in a relationship with a woman from 1979 to 1983 and they had a daughter in 1982.

He left that woman to begin a relationship with the woman’s 17-year old daughter from a previous relationship.

The 17-year old already had a three-year old daughter of her own, and when the little girl was nine, years old the man began a sexual relationship with her while living at a Sunshine Coast caravan park.

He raped the girl for the first time around her tenth birthday.

The abuse continued until 1997 when the girl was about 16 years old.

He also raped another 16-year old family member in 1996.

In 1997, the man was sent to jail for a total of 35 offences and was eventually released in 2007.

Let me first get the obvious out of the way, yet again: you cannot have a “sexual relationship” with a nine-year-old child. The correct terminology, by absolute necessity, is “the man began sexually abusing her.”

Secondly, rapists who show a history of repeated and continuous sexual offenses against those to whom they are close have a high rate of offending again.  Which is why it’s a bad idea to let a child rapist convicted on 35 counts out of jail after only ten years.  Because he just might rape his daughter when he gets out.

He told authorities he would be staying at Nerangba but moved to another Coast caravan park to live with the woman he had previously been in a relationship with from 1979 to 1983.

Their intellectually disadvantaged daughter, who was born in 1982, also lived near by.

While she was not considered disabled, the court was the told the woman was “slow” because of previously being stabbed in the back of the head and due to medical conditions.

On March 29 last year, the man followed his daughter home and had sex with her.

The court heard the man believed the sex was consensual because she did not say anything.

The next day he had sex with his daughter again.

Of course, it’s worth noting that women with disabilities are raped at even higher rates than women without disabilities, particularly by those who are close to them, such as family members and caretakers.  It’s because, among many other things, we as a society often so severely marginalize people with disabilities that they have fewer recourses to seek out help, and also may fear losing the necessary services of the caretaker (and in rarer cases may be unable to actually communicate what was done at all).  In other words, the man has a history of raping his female family members, especially those in more vulnerable positions; and women with disabilities are common targets of rapists.  So the fact that no one predicted that the man would likely seek to rape his daughter and worked harder to keep him away from her is quite the travesty of justice.

And again, he didn’t “have sex” with his daughter.  He raped her.  It says as much in the headline of the story, in fact!  It’s really not that hard to use consistent and correct language.

The part that really sent the shiver down my spine though was the sentence “the man believed the sex was consensual because she did not say anything.”  For the record, I doubt that this man actually believes his own bullshit.  I think he knew perfectly well what he was doing.  The reason that it sends a shiver down my spine is because this kind of excuse is used so regularly with regards to supposedly lesser “date” rapes.  We hear it so often, this idea that women’s bodies are permanently available and consenting to male sexual advances unless spoken otherwise.  And so “she didn’t say no” is considered an excuse.

I think that a lot of people, though hardly all, would see this for what it is in this case — a way to try to pass off an actual rape as not really rape.  Maybe because the victim in question is his daughter.  Maybe because she has a disability.  Maybe because he has a history of rape.  Maybe because of all the above.

But as we can tell by the very fact that this man is going back to jail at all, more people will see it for what it is than do when it’s a man raping his date who has had a couple of drinks, or a man raping a woman who is passed out, or a man raping his girlfriend.  These supposedly “lesser” rapists, the ones who we purportedly shouldn’t be worrying as much about, use the same exact line of reasoning as this shock-inducing monster.  And the already existing history and largely accepted grounding for the excuse by those “date” rapists is what gives it enough credence to allow the monster who rapes his daughters to also utter it and expect that he might be taken seriously.

It’s all connected, folks.  Rape apologism shifts, but it’s all connected.

In any case, this man has now been sentenced to a mere 9 years, and will be eligible for parole as soon as 2012.  We’re not given the rapist’s age, but it does of course make it entirely conceivable and perhaps quite likely that he will again see the light of day.  Maybe because the judge’s hands were tied and he imposed the maximum sentence and could do no more.  Maybe because he bought the excuse in part and therefore didn’t make the sentence as harsh as it could have been.  I don’t know.  But I know that this man may in fact rape again, and that I don’t trust anyone in power to even bother trying to find a way to stop it.

Via Queen Emily comes this story out of the Northern Territory, Australia.  The government has decided to enact a law that forces anyone — from doctors to parents — to report any any sexual activity taking place among those who are under the age of 16. Because that sex is always illegal.  Regardless of consent.  Emphasis mine:

The Northern Territory Government says its Care and Protection of Children Act is all about keeping kids safe.

But the AMA is warning the act’s mandatory reporting requirements go too far and Dr Paul Bauert from the AMA’s Northern Territory branch is deeply concerned.

Until now, NT laws were similar to what operates in the other states; it was mandatory to report suspected child sexual abuse.

But now health workers must report sexual activity among under-16s to a team that includes police and staff in the Territory’s department of health and families.

Failure to do so could result in a fine of up to around $20,000. And it is not just doctors who will have to report.

“This applies to everybody,” Dr Bauert said. “Parents, brothers and sisters, mates.”

The legislation has been in place for months but it was only late last week that the Northern Territory Health Department told staff to comply.

They were told to report anyone under 16 who is sexually active, even if that person’s sexual partner is also under 16 or of the same age, and regardless of consent.

“Any person who has sexual intercourse with someone under the age of 16 is guilty of a crime and liable to imprisonment for 16 years,” Dr Bauert said.

Yes, you read all of that correctly.  Teenagers who have sex with each other are now facing potential imprisonment of up to 16 years.  The thing is, we’re not even talking about where statutory rape laws ought to draw the line, and whether or not there should be “Romeo and Juliet” clauses, etc.

No, we’re talking about the possibility of two consenting 15-year-olds facing jail time for “raping” each other.  Way to trivialize actual fucking rape.  And we’re talking about parents facing huge fines if they know about that sexual activity and don’t report their own children.  And we’re talking doctors who can’t give out factual and needed sexual health care without having to report their patients to the police.

We’re also talking about racial oppression.  For those of you who aren’t up on Australian politics and society, what you need to know is that the Northern Territory has a relatively high population (at least percentage wise) of Aboriginal or Indigenous Australians.  And like in virtually any country that has been colonized, those Aboriginal people face a huge amount of social oppression and coercion, and as a result, high rates of unemployment, violent crime, drug and alcohol abuse, and so on.

The Australian government has a history of enacting horrific measures against Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory in the name of supposedly “cracking down on child sexual abuse.”  In 2007, they instituted a ban on alcohol and pornography, and required mandatory health checks on children.  They further reminded us of how supposedly past the whole colonization thing they are when they sent the military into Aboriginal communities for the same “reason.” Needless to say, these supposed efforts did nothing to combat child abuse, but did do a hell of a lot of damage.

This newest law seems to apply to all residents of the Northern Territory, but looking at the history there, it doesn’t take a huge leap of logic to figure out that this law “combating child sexual abuse” is actually aimed at the Aboriginal population.  It’s pretty obvious which teens in particular they think are abusive by the very nature of  having sexual urges.

I have asked more than once how exactly we expect teens to know how to recognize abuse when we constantly tell them their bodies are not theirs to begin with — and not only when they frequently don’t know they have a right to say “no,” but also don’t know that they have a right to say “yes.”  BFP rightfully takes a step further than that with regards to this case:

How do we learn, engage in, and trust ourselves to build a healthy fabulous sexuality when from the time we reach reproductive age, the nation/state literally owns the first and final say as to what happens to our bodies? How do we learn to say “no” or “yes” when the nation/state insists on doing it for us?

It’s bad enough that we tell teens their bodies belong to their parents.  It’s a whole new issue though when the government passes laws saying the bodies essentially belong to them.  And unsurprisingly, the government is claiming the rights to those specific bodies that it has long believed and acted as though belonged to them to begin with.

For public health reasons — you know, teens being unable to take birth control pills or honestly answer the question “are you sexually active?” — the Australian Medical Association strongly opposes this new law, and is hoping they can persuade the Northern Territory to change it.  I’m a couple of weeks behind on reporting this story, but searches haven’t turned up any more recent information.  Here’s indeed to hoping that the laws are not only changed, but that in an even further long shot, these assholes get kicked out of office and are replaced with those who really care about child abuse rather than just furthering racial oppression.

You might have seen the extremely offensive and sexist Australian Jim Beam ad series last year at Hoyden About Town.

The Neighbours shows naked women sunbathing outside in their backyard, with men peeping on them.  The Girlfriend shows a doormat of a woman explaining how she likes when men neglect her.  The Tragedy shows a very attractive woman explaining how she’s sexually attracted to other women.

In all of these, the title of the ad is stated with the word “the” highly emphasized in order to indicate that a phrase like “the girlfriend” means “the ultimate, world’s best girlfriend.” And of course, what could be a bigger tragedy than a woman whose sexuality doesn’t revolve around men?

Now, Jim Beam is holding a video remake contest, where they encourage their “fans” to make their own versions of the commercials.  Obviously, with the ads so offensive in the first place, this was always going to be a disaster. But one particular remake of the Girlfriend is especially appalling.

The original ad:

And, the remake:

Get it? Because what’s better than a woman who doesn’t have any desires or feelings of her own, but only exists for men’s sexual pleasure without pesky little nuisances like consent getting in the way?

Thank fucking god I don’t drink bourbon.  Though, interestingly, I certainly could use a drink.  Perhaps this was their real marketing strategy all along?

Thanks to Jenny for the link.

Queensland Attorney-General Kerry Shine has defended the common practice of letting rapists out on the street with no jail time at all by saying that some rapes just aren’t all that serious.

New figures showed 23 out of 172 people sentenced over rape or attempted rape during the past financial year avoided prison time.

Mr Shine defended the court system and said there were different levels of rapes.

“You have to look at the various circumstance of each case,” Mr Shine told ABC Radio.

“Some rapes can be of minor effect on the victim. Some circumstances can be of minor, some can be of major, damage to the victim. They do vary in intensity from time to time.

“For example, a digital rape is a technical rape but that is far less serious than an aggravated form of rape.”

His comments sparked outrage among talkback callers and victims of sexual crime support groups.

You know, I’m almost almost thrilled that someone non-feminist has actually acknowledged that my rapes were in fact, you know, rape.  That is, until in the same breath it’s referred to as mere “technical rape” that does not deserve real punishment, even when a conviction is obtained.

Thank you, Mr. Shine, for letting me and countless other women know that our rapes are so “minor” as to be almost insignificant.  If only I’d been so properly informed, I could have stopped being traumatized a long time ago.  After all, who gets so upset over mere technicalities?

The problem is that this attitude is far too prevalent.  I’ve seen and suffered it first hand. We’re not looking at a fluke, or a single bad egg.  We’re looking at one huge system of rape apologism and misogynist excuses.  And with this guy literally being in charge of criminal prosecutions in the state, to say this is a “system” can’t be even remotely construed as exaggeration.

And the question here is, who decides what is “minor,” what is “technical”?  Who decides whether a victim is traumatized enough to warrant proper sentencing for the rapist, and who is to say that the next victim of that same rapist let back out on the street will not be more deeply affected?  What kind of male entitlement does Shine have to feel to think that he has the right interpret women’s experiences in this way?  Would this only be “technical,” Mr. Shine?  Is this why a gang rape of a 10-year-old girl in your state was not met with justice?  Why does a woman (or girl) have to fall completely to pieces before a grave violation of her body and autonomy is taken with any sense of seriousness?

The Premier of the state, Anna Bligh, has called out Shine on his bullshit, and he has since apologized for his statements.  But unfortunately — and it’s important we don’t overlook this –  his comments were much more than “insensitive.”  They’re deeply triggering, for a start.  And they’re also highly indicative of how women and rapists are being treated by the legal system.  Sadly, it’s not a phenomenon restricted only to Queensland.

h/t Lauredhel’s Twitter feed

From Australian newspaper the Daily Telegraph:

WHEN constable Tyrone Stacey heard that a man in custody, Garrick Jacobson, was romantically involved with a woman known by police to be transgender, he assumed Jacobson was aware his girlfriend used to be male, a court heard yesterday.

“Oh, you mean the tranny?” Stacey asked after Jacobson said his girlfriend’s name was Brigitte Fell.

But Jacobson was confused.

“What do you mean?” he asked.

This was the crucial moment on September 24, 2006, when Stacey realised he had made “a genuine and honest mistake” in divulging personal information about Ms Fell to her lover of three weeks, barrister Joe Klarica told Downing Centre Local Court.

To ensure they were talking about the same person, Stacey then accessed the police database, printed out a mug shot of Ms Fell and showed it to Jacobson “in the hope that it was a different person”.

But Crown Prosecutor Sheridan Goodwin argued that Stacey and his colleague Brendan Ritson used the information to “humiliate and embarrass” Jacobson, who had been detained after stealing a case of beer.

She said Ritson taunted Jacobson, telling him: “You’re r. . .ing a bloke . . . see it’s a man.” The court heard just hours after he was released on bail, Jacobson broke into Fell’s home and assaulted her after yelling: “You didn’t tell me you were actually a man . . . I’m going to smash you.”

1. Why is everyone only talking about the “humiliation” suffered by Jacobson and not what was suffered by the woman whose privacy was actually violated, and who was in fact put into danger as a result? (Oh, right, she’s trans, and clearly the “humiliation” of a cis man finding out his girlfriend is trans is much more noteworthy and prosecutable than the danger and violation suffered by the woman in question.)

2. What charges, exactly, is Jacobson facing? Because it says pretty clearly in the article here that he assaulted Fell and in fact broke into her home, but nothing is noted about how he is being prosecuted for those crimes. I’m afraid to find out whether the Daily Telegraph just didn’t think that part was worth mentioning, or if it actually turns out that the poor victim Jacobson isn’t being prosecuted for his violence at all.

I’ve been asked by several people at this point to comment on the case of of an Australian female stripper who allegedly raped a man during a bachelor’s party through use of a strap on dildo.  I’m not sure what exactly those people were expecting, but here we go.

A FEMALE stripper whispered into the ear of the best man at a Melbourne bucks night, “Don’t worry, only you and I know”, after she allegedly raped him in front of his cheering mates.

Stripper Linda Naggs also allegedly told the man — who cannot be identified for legal reasons — that she did not mean to penetrate him with a sex toy during her show and that it was “only a joke”.

Ms Naggs yesterday pleaded not guilty to one count of rape after being committed to stand trial, following the party at a rented bayside suburb house on September 23 last year. Documents tendered to the Melbourne Magistrates Court reveal the best man told police he felt violated and that his “manhood had dropped a bit” since the alleged rape.

The man said he took part in Ms Naggs’s strip show after his mates called his name and egged him on.

He told police Ms Naggs took his top off, pushed down his jeans and asked him to “get down on all fours” before she strapped on a dildo.

The best man said he asked Ms Naggs not to penetrate him and that the stripper replied, “Not a problem, relax, it’s only fun, I won’t go there”, but she did it anyway.

My immediate observation is that if the same circumstances existed with genders reversed, we probably wouldn’t even be hearing about this case at all.  But the media loves a story where a woman — the prettier, the better — is the perpetrator of violence against men. They love it both because it’s so significantly less likely to happen and therefore of interest, and because their sharp focus on the case can exaggerate the social perception of the rate at which such instances of violence are committed.

But nothing in that observation is intended to indicate that this case is less serious than any other rape case.  It’s not. Instead, it’s a simple comment how I often see cases of rapes perpetrated against men and women treated differently by society and the media.

For example, the case of a woman who pulled down her pants and got on all fours in front of a naked man with an erection would almost certainly never make it to court in the event of a rape in those circumstances and would be publicly mocked if tried. Instead of this, I can see myself writing a post on why a judge or perhaps even police force was wrong to abandon it as entirely not prosecutable.  The victim-blaming would be so thick that you could wade through it.

I do think that this case is believed to be prosecutable because of the offense that society takes at the very idea of a man being anally penetrated.  This offense is understandably exaggerated when that penetration occurs by force.  And this woman used a (presumably) plastic object.  It’s so unnatural.  Whereas a woman being forcibly penetrated by a man . . . well, what’s the big deal, sexually penetrating women in various orifices is what they’re for, after all.  Simply put, there are different social values shaping the lenses through which people see this rape as opposed to many others.  Just like female rape victims vary on the rapeable scale, many fewer people assume that a man in such an exposed position was “asking for it” than would if it was a woman.  Because penetration is seen as something that men are supposed to do, not receive.  And for that bizarre reason, people generally perceive a straight man as less likely to consent to anal penetration in front of a crowd of people than a woman — and think that for a woman, it would be less of a big deal.

But none of that is to say that the man in this case is not experiencing victim-blaming or mockery. He absolutely is.  (Oh look, here’s an example.)  That blaming and mocking just occurs somewhat differently.  And from the majority of the many articles I’ve read on the subject, it seems to occur significantly less openly in the media.  There are few overly victim-blaming comments, a lack of references to the alleged rape as “sex,” and so far a lack of instances where the word rape is put into scare-quotes.

And yet, as I said, there is shaming. There are plenty of issues with the coverage — like the extended descriptions of the party, the attempts to make it all seem very sexy, and the constant referring to Linda Naggs as “the stripper.” Lots and lots of trivialization. Indeed, it was a remarkably familiar small section of the original Australian article I linked to that convinced me to write about the case at all.  This bit right here.

Defence lawyer Geoffrey Steward told the court the witness testimonies had inconsistencies, including the evidence given by the best man.

He said no jury in Victoria would find Ms Naggs guilty.

“This is an allegation that clearly arises from the most unusual circumstances … it’s an allegation that involves the time frame of about one second,” Mr Steward said.

“It is my submission that no jury could convict this woman on this count.”

Any of that ringing a bell with you? You see, in this case, the victim isn’t to blame for the rape because of his own actions.  It’s just that the rape was so short that it didn’t count.  What’s a teensy weensy little second (or five or ten)?  It was over just like that!

I’ll tell you what it is.  Without consent, it is rape.  Regardless of gender. Regardless of time frame.  And this is pretty clearly the “it wasn’t really rape” defense.

My point after all of this is yet again that rape apologism shifts.  It shifts for different reasons.  And often, it’s all very contradictory.  This is because rape culture has no Karl Rove, no public relations spokesperson.  Usually the talking points are there ready and waiting, but then something relatively unusual happens and there’s chaos in the ranks.  Many do indeed see, as described above, a man as a more sympathetic victim as compared to a woman and rape suddenly becomes a big deal.  Many see allure in pushing aside rates of male violence against women in order to point with exaggeration to the much, much lower rate of female violence against men.  Focusing on this case while ignoring all others is a form of rape apologism all on its own.  But these are the people who want to let rape culture thrive by covering it up.

Others want only to publicly reinforce it.  In this case, rape culture is not so much reinforced by explicitly defending the male right to rape, since there’s no need for it — cognitive dissonance, as described above, means that a society which calls this rape would likely not make the connection to rape in cases with reversed genders — but by upholding other social understandings of masculinity.  Men aren’t “supposed” to be penetrated, but they also aren’t supposed to be victimized.  Particularly by beautiful women.  Particularly by a sexual act.  In this case, dangerous understandings of masculinity are being upheld not by directly protecting male violence but by rejecting “feminized” victimization — and thereby reinforcing gendered understandings of the world where male violence is considered acceptable.  And here, it’s also being done at the expense of men, their safety and their rights.

Rape apologism shifts as it needs to.  And it may become less immediately clear to us.  But it doesn’t go away.

Sydney Australia celebrated its 30th Gay Mardi Gras last night! The Mardi Gras Parade is quite the huge event, and draws up to half a million people, both residents and tourists, each year. It is, without a doubt, one of the largest LGBT pride events in the world. The original 1978 march took place when homosexuality was illegal and resulted in police violence. Now, it’s one of the city’s biggest tourism draws.

I went one year while living in Australia — 2003, I believe. It is quite the blast. The floats in the parade mock everything imaginable, particularly those who would like to see them go away, like the Australian government and Catholic Church. They also promote social justice. This year, they focused largely on same-sex marriage rights and the environmental crisis. Oh, and they also had Rupert Everett lead the parade and a float with 250 men dressed up as Aussie pop star and gay icon Kylie Minogue. And I can only assume that the shirtless Dykes on Bikes made their usual appearance.

Of course, the Christian groups like to whine every year about the existence of the parade, and handful turn out to hand out pamphlets. But they don’t get a lot of airtime. The religious fundies have a lot less political power in Australia than in the U.S. I remember being awed and thrilled every year by the open promotion and acceptance of the event by the mainstream media and the dismissive (or outright lack of) attention given to those who want the event stopped.

Is this partially motivated by the huge amount of money that the event brings in for the city? Of course. Does it mean that Australia is some kind of hugely-accepting gay haven? Absolutely not — I ran into a lot of homophobia myself, particularly regarding one professor at uni who was openly gay, proud and, as he liked to say, camp (he was also brilliant, the best teacher I’ve ever had in my life, and a big reason why I’m a feminist). But the fact remains that we’re many years away from this kind of general public acceptance of sexual pride and flamboyance in the U.S.

So happy 30th, Mardi Gras! Did anyone reading this attend? If so, let us know about it in the comments!

(Thanks to Patrick for the head’s up.)

A man in London has just been arrested on charges of drugging and raping women he picked up in his taxi cab. Though there are countless published stories about the case, the information is exceedingly limited in all of them. Here is the gist:

Up to 35 women may have been drugged and raped by a London taxi driver, police said on Monday.

Thirty women have come forward after a man was arrested last Friday in southeast London on suspicion of rape.

Police were initially investigating five attacks in which victims were picked up in a black cab near Oxford Street, King’s Road or London Bridge.

The suspect is accused of attacking his passengers after offering them spiked glasses of champagne which he said were to help him celebrate a lottery win.

The most recent reported attack took place on February 5 after a 33-year-old woman was picked up near London Bridge Station.

“Every case is being linked,” a Scotland Yard spokesman said.

Knowing full well that the Mirror is about as far from a reputable news source as you can get (don’t worry, the facts are the same in every story), I chose to use their article particularly because of the confounding nature of the first sentence. “Up to 35 women.” Well, 35 women in total have come forward. And instead of reaching what I would deem to be the logical conclusion — that if 35 have already come forward, just think of how many others there are — the Mirror has apparently determined that when 35 women come forward with rape allegations, that’s the definitive total, and at least a few have to be liars.

It’s funny, because it seems to be a theme recently. No, not just calling rape victims liars, since that’s pretty much a theme of living in the world as a woman. I’m talking about women being raped in cabs — and then having it implied that they are liars or to blame for the assaults.

No, really, it’s pretty astonishing. You’d think that would be a pretty niche victim-blaming market. But it’s not. In fact, it’s a recent phenomenon that spans at least 4 continents.

You see, I read the above story yesterday, and wanted to find it again today. I used the Google News search engine, and in a simple strategy I often employ, typed in two words that A. feature prominently in the story and B. are unlikely to turn up stories other than what I’m looking for. In this case, I chose “taxi rape.” And I was in for quite a surprise, because a hell of a lot came up in addition the the UK case.

Here’s the oldest story — about three weeks old — coming out of Australia:

The lawyer for a taxi driver linked to three alleged rapes by DNA technology has told a Sydney court two of the alleged victims were prostitutes.

Thrity-six-year-old Hassan Nagi is accused of sexually assaulting three women in his cab in Sydney between 2003 and 2007.

In his bail application at Central Local Court today, lawyer Clive Stern SC said the alleged victims in 2006 and 2007 were prostitutes and there had been a dispute over the taxi fare after consensual sex.

Mr Stern said the woman complained in the first matter because she was late to meet her boyfriend.

He accused prosecutor Kate Chater of misleading the court and said the defendant was not a cab driver in 2003.

Ms Chater opposed bail, saying the allegations were serious. She said the third alleged victim had been detained and raped repeatedly.

She denied the women were prostitutes but described one as a massage therapist.

Ah. See, here we’ve got a defense attorney going with a double-barreled approach. First of all, rape victims are vindictive liars. Secondly, sex workers are vindictive liars who can’t be raped — when talking about a prostitute, we call it “theft of services,” after all. Basically, with this genius strategy, it’s not even possible for the man to have raped these women. He says didn’t do it, and the women are just trying to ruin the poor guy’s life over the fact that he made one of them late to meet her boyfriend. Women do that kind of shit all the time, especially women who sell sex, what with our hatred of men and the great propensity in our society for the public to automatically believe any woman who says she has been raped without question. And back to the whole sex worker aspect, even if he did rape them — which he didn’t! — he couldn’t have. Because they’re sex workers. The sex must have been consensual.

No, seriously, give Stern a hand for that one. And while you’re standing, save a moment for the police:

The taxi driver was arrested and charged on Wednesday last week after a seven-month investigation by a special police strike force.

Police say the DNA technology used to link the alleged rape cases could lead to further charges.

They have defended their decision not to tell the public about the alleged sex attacks, saying three rapes in four years did not provide a sufficient link to indicate there was a predator.

Well that makes sense. There wasn’t enough evidence to suggest that there was a predator. Which is why they mounted a seven-month special investigation that was likely rather expensive. Don’t get me wrong — I’m thrilled and very genuinely surprised, sadly enough, that they went through the trouble at all. But I’d also really like it if they’d bother to say what the hell they mean, which is one of two things: “of course we knew there was a predator, but didn’t feel that women had the right to know, especially when we probably couldn’t catch the guy unless he raped again” or “of course we knew there was a predator, but two of the victims might have been sex workers, so it wasn’t really important.” Sure, it’s not pretty — which is why they should have gone through the effort to make sure it wasn’t true.

Next up, we have a story about a man in NY who posed as a cab driver and sexually assaulted at least two women in one night.

A man posing as a livery cab driver sexually assaulted an exotic dancer and another woman he picked up a half-hour apart outside a strip club, police said.

Both women remembered the license plate on Torkieh Sadagheh’s Lincoln Town Car, a popular livery cab model, leading to his arrest Sunday on rape and attempted-rape charges, police said.

Several other women who said they had been attacked on their cab rides home were looking at police lineups that could possibly lead to more charges against Sadagheh, police said.

Thankfully, they caught the guy — because both women remembered the license plate number and made reports. But we’re still getting totally classy headlines like this: “Driver charged in sex attacks on 2 women, including exotic dancer.” Hmm. Is anyone else suddenly thinking about headlines like “Man stabbed hooker!” and “Murdered Prostitute Found in Hotel Room!”? You know, it’s not that she deserved it, but did we mention her job and “personal behavior”? That’s some ugly and unnecessary shit, Newsday.

And finally, the last story, out of South Africa. This one may be the most horrific. A woman was physically and sexually assaulted by a gang of male taxi drivers because she was wearing a mini skirt (trigger warning). And though the article claims that the public is outraged, the quotes tell a different story.

The ANC Women’s League called on the department of transport and safety to act. “We call upon the police and metro police to declare Noord Street a hot spot and provide police contact points in this area and a 24-hour visible patrol,” said spokesperson Nomvula Mokonyane.

This was in response to the humiliation on Sunday of Nwabisa Ngcukana (25), when taxi drivers and hawkers at the rank tore off her clothes to cheers from a crowd who said she was being taught a lesson for wearing a miniskirt.

Taxi drivers allegedly put their fingers in her private parts while others poured alcohol over her head and called her names.

Gauteng transport minister Ignatius Jacobs on Tuesday condemned the abuse of the woman and the alleged indecent assault. He called for the leadership of the taxi industry to intervene and work with taxi commuters in exposing the people involved in such acts of indecency.

“This unacceptable practice must stop with immediate effect. It is also the duty of all law-abiding members of taxi associations to work with the police service in protecting women from such misbehaviours,” Jacobs said.

A number of people interviewed on Tuesday at the taxi rank felt women should not expose their body by wearing miniskirts.

A taxi driver named Phineas said that by wearing miniskirts, women abuse men by being “half-naked”. He blamed lawmakers for the “sad state” of dressing among young women. “Before 1994, women wore clothes neatly and properly; now they say they have rights.”

Ebby Phakula of Meadowlands said women should not wear miniskirts as this arouses men and leads to rape and other crimes against women. “I will never allow my children to wear those skimpy skirts; I will never pay for such skirts,” he said.

[. . .]

An elderly woman, who did not want to be named for fear of attack, said women should be taught to dress properly. “The way women dress today provokes men.”

She said women are culturally not allowed to expose their body, especially from the waist downward. “They should wear like this,” pointing to her long skirts that reached her ankles.

Indeed, Phineas. Can’t we go back to the good old days when women didn’t try to say that they had a right to not face the constant threat of physical and sexual harm? And when no one gave you dirty looks just because you publicly raped a woman and/or cheered while others did? Uppity bitches.

For fuck’s sake. I’d ask what the hell the world has come to if I wasn’t profoundly aware that it hasn’t “come to” anything — this, apparently, is how the world is. (And as the MRAs might suggest, that’s why we should shut up and learn to live with it.) The only “new” aspect I’m seeing here is the recurring role of taxi driver as rapist. It’s not entirely original, but it also doesn’t seem to generally come up so frequently.

I would like to say, for the record, that the title is somewhat facetious. I don’t want women to be afraid to live their lives freely, and that involves being able to get around town and not constantly looking over you’re shoulder and wondering if every cab driver is a rapist. What I am saying, though, is that the bizarre mountain of cases here, to use extreme understatement, is rather disconcerting. And beyond my horrified awe, I haven’t got the slightest clue how to react.