Court report implies mass rape of Giselle Pelicot was revenge by her husband because she had had an affair

I don't believe the OP posted the article other than to say 'ffs look what the judges have said, it seems a bit victim blamey'. That was my reaction when i read a similar article yesterday. And it did anger me.

There will never be a 'perfect' victim for the press, for a certain section of the public and, apparently, for some judges. To try tbf, as it had come up in the trial they possibly had to mention it in their judgement, to show it had been considered and prevent him using that to try to get his sentence reduced.

The press will use anything to try to generate a few more column inches and their readers are interested in the case. I read the articles.

I think that some women, and I've done it myself, learn about a violent or sexual crime. While still sympathising with the victim(s) and condemning the criminal(s) they try to comfort themselves by saying 'this wouldn't have happened to me, to mine because...'.

It shouldn't be in the courtroom though. Rape myths, victim blaming, what she did, didn't do, wore, didn't wear, where she went, didn't go, kiss, smiled at. They can fuck off with the lot of it. It's always the predator who's to blame.

The thing that needs highlighting very clearly is the French laws and consent. I was shocked by how many of the men who raped Giselle thought having Pelicots permission made it legal. Consent seems to be optional in French law, no wonder they have so many men SA women

I believe the OP brought up this article/topic in the context of a lot of discussion on here about the trial. I believe she posted it in the spirit of 'Look what they are saying now!' as a continuation of the discussion. It's obvious from the last sentence that she is neither agreeing with nor perpetuating the slur, just highlighting it.

A lot of awful stuff was said by the defence barristers, some of it just-about-justifiable in terms of their duty to defend their clients, some of it, outside of the courtroom, just plain indefensible, and it has been repeated in posts here, without any suggestion that the posters were condoning what was said.

For what it's worth, I think wreaking that level and duration of havoc on a woman, and a family, as revenge for an affair is so grotesquely out of proportion that it doesn't even put a dent in Dominique Pelicot's guilt and depravity, and I doubt if it will affect how Gisele Pelicot is regarded.

I agree but I believe that he got the longest sentence that the law allows. However as he's already in his 70s I very much doubt that he'll survive a 20 year prison sentence

‘Revenge’ for an affair is divorce, not mass rape.

But if one of the defendants was repeating the nonsensical excuse that D Pelicot had given him, it would be hard to keep that out of the court case.

The worrying thing is that anyone would accept that excuse as plausible, when it’s clear he’s a sexual predator with a long history of premeditated criminal behaviour, some of which predates the first of the rapes against Gisele included in this trial (the murder he is being tried for was committed in 1991, the attempted rape of a woman working as an estate agent that he has admitted to was in 1999 and his first arrest for upskirting was in 2010. He must’ve started upskirting pretty much as soon as smartphones became available).

Not only is he a serial offender, there is now strong evidence that he murdered an estate agent in 1991. He's an even nastier piece of work than we already knew.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/ebbc50ef-fa97-46c4-85b2-4934d32926e6

Archive link: https://archive.is/95G9i

Yes, it all seems very geared in favour of these men and their right to sex

At one point Pelicot said he'd done it because his wife was such a good, upstanding moral person. That doesn't sound like a man looking for revenge for an affair to me

Some one I know was murder along with her 3 children by their father. Part of his defense was that she had had an affair.
After his lawyer had brought up the affair and gave endless details to demonstrate that the affair had happened.
The judge said in his summary in very clear terms "whether or not she'd had a fair was a complete irrelevance because nothing justifies what he had done."
The same should be in this case. However I know in France they have crimes of passion as some sort of shit defense.

And Pelicot had a special bag that concealed the phone he was using to up skirt.

This man is a serial offender. Fuck all to do with his wife's affair, in my opinion.

Indeed @napody the security man was a decent man. He was so angered by seeing Pelicit upskirting he set security onto him straight away, if he'd turned a blind eye Pelicot might never have been found out.

I'm struggling to figure out your motive for posting this.
People following this 'strange case' is what has made it exceptional, and has empowered GP to hold fast against every man seeking to dismiss and discredit her.

I'm not clicking on any 'click bait' but I am keeping an eye on the headlines covering this and noticing which news sources, even in a case like this where they can't find a way to blame the woman, are still trying their luck. It's interesting to me. See my previous post- the Telegraph should be ashamed of itself.

The BBC have been pretty good, apart from the 'my husband the monster' title. One glimmer of hope was the coverage of the admirable security guard who showed what every man's reaction to DPs behaviour should have been. That's the key. Men, be more like that security guard.

Because it has to be her fault......

Several

He had an affair too

Of COURSE it's HER fault. Poor man! What choice did he have?

🙄

I don't think this should have been brought up tbh

Yes. The people in the village who were interviewed said either everyone knows these men, or knows someone who knows them.

These are just men.

Dear All Men,

There is no excuse for rape, or for recruiting other men to rape your wife.

None whatsoever.

If you are making excuses for rape, please cancel yourself.

Wise words, yes 👍

Yes, the BBC 'big case' episode also angered me by being called 'My husband: the monster' and asking 'how do we prevent another Dominique Pelicot'?

1. We can't, unless no woman is ever alone with a man ever again.
2. That's hardly the main take-home here. Were the 50-100 men 'monsters' too? Even if no Dominique Pelicot had the opportunity to abuse one woman to this extent, don't they see that men seeing women as possessions of their husbands to rape with impunity is the actual problem?

The French media had it right with 'Monsieur Tout Le Monde'. 👏 I wonder who came up with that?

Agree OP- but also sadly agree that you're inadvertently playing your part with your own 'headline'. We're all responsible for creating the discourse we want to see.

The Telegraph disgusted me- their original headline after the verdict described it as a 'wife taking REVENGE'... not seeking justice! They changed it online, not sure if it reached print like that.

And their other headline about it was speculating that Gisele and her daughter Caroline had fallen out during proceedings and were sitting apart. For fucks sake. What family would make it through that without it taking a toll.

I just keep thinking, can you IMAGINE how they would have smeared her if the crimes weren't on video?? They literally take any tiny opportunity to try and discredit and break women who try and stand up to male violence.

Given what he's been found guilty of I don't think there would be any depravity he hasn't explored.

His son is beating himself up for not doing anything when he heard his father suggest the grandchildren played doctors. Pelicot vehemently denies doing anything to the grandchildren, but now the son isn't so sure.

Pelicot has form for denial until he's banged to rights.

Read the OP's thread title and final sentence- it's very clear she's angry at the media's attempt to 'justify' Pelicot's actions.

And make the mass rape of an unconscious woman into totes normal wank fodder.