The tone of the coverage of the Reynhard Sinaga case. *Title edited by MNHQ*

[Dogsaresomucheasier]

Just watching tonight’s news. I do not wish to minimise the trauma suffered by the victims of Reynhard Sinaga, but I’m really struggling with the reporting of the case; even from female journalists. It seems so full of empathy and gravitas, when so many female victims go unheard.

and as you can’t control me, I’m not going to follow your “suggestion” not to bother, btw...

😂 I can’t be arsed to argue with a teenager.

And you think the comment you just made wasn’t you acting like a teenager?! 😂

To put it in more grown up terms, you have a real cheek trying to control me by”suggesting” I don’t post when you claim to take umbrage at people who appear to be trying to control what others do, TatianaLarina.

To get back to the point of when it is a good time to discuss these things, I'm one of those pesky Twitter users who will be all over reporting of rapes/murders of women and using #SayHerName for example - or remarking that it's not sex, it's rape etc etc. I do it a lot. Far too much, it's exhausting.
So that is a good time to bring up how to report, right? except the fuckers just keep on doing it. Ignoring the women, saying sex when they mean rape.
So now we have a really good example of how to report these things: too bloody right we're praising the reporting and showing the way.

Out of interest are there any Twitter posts etc suggesting that any of these make victims deserved it, the way there always are when the victim is female?

I didn’t try to control you Walkaround, I simply suggested that trying to control other people was pointless. To which you had another tantrum. You sound like my 13 year old when she was 5. Bref - ça suffit.

TatianaLarina - ignoring your attempts to patronise me off this thread, I note that you have stated that the victims in this case have a lot to thank the victims in the Worboys case for. I agree wholeheartedly. Isn’t that evidence that it is not hugely helpful to hark back to how similar cases were treated in the past and pretend they would actually have been handled or reported in that way now? Do you really think only the police and court system have learnt anything from the past and from this present case and that the media has changed nothing and, had the victims in this case been female, the media would have made disparaging remarks about the women’s drunkenness and outfits straight after their rapist had been given 30 years in prison for huge numbers of rapes and sexual assaults?

This case is a standard bearer for the appropriate treatment of serial rape cases in the future, I still don’t think it is a good case to compare closely with treatment of similar past cases. It’s another massive lesson learnt about sexual offending.

Male rape is not something society has traditionally treated more sympathetically than it has treated female rape, imvho. Society may be an apologist for many female rapes, but it is a denier of male rape being anything other than a very rare thing, normally claimed to be occurring amongst homosexual males who were “asking for it” through their risk-taking behaviour. Society has a problem with the acceptance of non-consensual sexual violence and abuse, with potentially appalling consequences for both male and female victims. It’s a good thing for men that this case has forced open that particular lid for men now, not just women.

I think the tone was absolutely right, but it also contrasts the different tone used for female victims. So far I can’t see any comments from daily mail type readers that these Male victims were ‘asking for it’ ‘why were they out on their own pissed’ type of comments

You can bet your bottom dollar that if it had not be stated clearly in court that the majority of the victims were heterosexual, that Daily Mail readers in their droves would be assuming homosexuality and risk-taking “slutty” behaviour. There is already enough vile commentary online about the rapist’s homosexuality being proof of homosexual depravity to demonstrate that.

Siring1, SIGTFY?

It is also not new to be calling for a review into the availability of GHB. It has been used to murder people (men, heaven forfend!) before, not just to rape them.

Also, to be fair, most men’s clothing choices are generally more staid than women’s, although less so in recent years. It’s hard to comment on jeans and a t-shirt. If a man had been wearing extremely short, tight shorts and a skimpy top immediately before he was raped, I would be interested to see if this went without comment in the media. It is wrong and unfair that society encourages women to be adventurous in the way they dress then punishes them for it, and discourages men from being adventurous in the way they dress because that’s seen as a marker for homosexuality.

Well we even have the law questioning the underwear female victims wear. Doubt make victims get torn apart over such issues.
The fact remains that when the victims are female, a hell of a lot of nasty viscous people put all the emphasis on the victim. This simply has not happened here.
Where are all the cries of “ what was he doing willingly going back to the mans house! He obviously wanted sex. Why was the victim out at night? Why did he go with this guy willingly, he is obviously a slut. Does he usually behave like that?
Why was he in such a shit hole and not at home in his dressing gown and slippers. Was he pissed? Well then he deserves it!”

You cannot get away from the sheer mysoginy which women and girls are subjected to on a daily basis.
Certain people are more sympathetic to male victims because they believe that males should be free to roam about and do as they please. When it’s a female victim they put the blame on the victim.

This is what this thread is about.
Rape is not about sex. It is about control.
All the legal profession need educating and all juries need instruction about this before they are allowed to pass verdict.
I’m sick and tired of hearing about clothing etc etc. It’s bloody irrelevant!!!!!!
I’ve been the victim of mysoginistic attacks, and most of the time I was wearing quite boring, non flattering clothing, always flat shoes.

People are missed off with the double standards. It’s unacceptable.

@MNHQ so now the OP is allowed to alter the title AND their initial post? Because what I am reading now is not what the OP posted originally and makes a nonsense of all the posters who replied to her original post at the beginning of this thread

The OP says exactly what it said at the beginning. The title has been altered, because it made no sense.

And it only makes the early posts look nonsense because it showcases that they replied to the thread title without reading the opening post.

In other news: people who post on the internet, having only read the headline, often look silly later. More news at 11.

A number of posters were also putting words into the OPs ‘mouth’ in their posts

Which would also strongly add to the impression that the original wording had changed (Whether it has or hasn’t)

Indeed they were. They're all down on my spreadshit . But it's rather shit if people are going to excuse them at the OP's expense.

This is why we can't have nice things: people who refuse to read more than one sentence at a time, and the people who excuse it.

The same thought crossed my mind when I saw the reports.
Let’s hope that this case marks a new tone in the reporting of rape by the media.
All victims of rape deserve respect and understanding.

But it's rather shit if people are going to excuse them at the OP's expense

I completely agree

I agree, emilybrontescorsett, that rape is about control, not sex. I also agree someone’s choice of underwear is irrelevant to that. Society is not good at accepting that, though - it will see it as sex first, dominance and control after. That’s why homosexual men tend to get the same sort of treatment as women. Homosexual men are not supposed to be free to roam about as they please. Heterosexual men are not supposed to be vulnerable - or to want sex with men. Women are supposed to need protection. Everyone must stay in their box. Heterosexual men are not supposed to be at risk from rape. Homosexual men and women are. Heterosexual men are not supposed to complain of rape - they are supposed to pretend to themselves it didn’t happen, couldn’t happen, shouldn’t have happened. Women are supposed to make sure they protect themselves from predatory males, but once they have ever said yes to sex, then it’s all about sex, it’s not about control. It’s deeply screwed up. Make the rapist a homosexual, and society’s desire to demonise him will be even greater than its desire to demonise his heterosexual victims.

I still think in this case, as we are talking only about the reporting, not the investigation or conduct of the trials, that if there had been a reporting restriction until after 4 successful trials, multiple rape convictions and a 30 year sentence, that the media would not have been commenting disparagingly about the victims’ clothes and drunkenness in its initial reporting even if the victims were women. Maybe I’m over-optimistic, but I really think that would just be too sickening, even for the Daily Mail.

Walkaround I think that you are right, the reporting restrictions did play a part. We have, in effect, skipped over the worst part of rape trial coverage.

I sometimes think that part of the trouble is that newspapers and journalists set their course early on when they report on the defence's victim-blaming claims for the salaciousness quotient, and then they never dare publicly backtrack, whatever happens, never mind change their language.

Bref - ça suffit.
Moi? I'll be finished when I'm finished thanks.

Re the reporting restrictions, i think that has had a lot to do with it and that's why I'm hoping that now the reporting on the trial has been done, the sentence passed and the rapist is in jail, the media leave the victims alone. Some of them, of course, might want to talk and that's also ok, as long as it's on their terms.

It will be interesting to see what happens if the police request for other victims to step forward what happens if there is another trial. Would a judge be able to apply reporting restrictions?