To think that a woman having fantasies about being raped is not an excuse for someone to rape them?

[BrahmsThirdRacket]

I was really shocked by this article in the Guardian

I know that it is impossible to know what really happened, but it seems extraordinary to me that a judge can use the fact that a woman shared fantasies about being raped as a reason that she should forfeit the right to a trial.

I feel that this just confirms that there is still a huge amount of prejudice against people, women in particular, with adventurous sexual tastes and views and that they are viewed as somehow 'deserving it' if something bad happens to them.

Difficult to say without evidence transcripts really.

Although I'm always nervous about judges making reference to 'morality' and 'credibility', seems awfully high and mighty.

Yanbu at all.

It is bloody awful.

I was date raped and even my Mother had a go at me for being stupid enough to be alone with a bloke. Apparently that made it partly my fault.

YANBU - what a step backwards eh?

The article says she had a fantaasy about group sex - not rape.

Fucking outrageous. And what made my blood boil was the comments saying'we don't know whether she was raped or not'... Of course not, because she wasn't allowed to take them to court! Whether she was or not is kind of irrelevant to the point which is that sharing a sexual fantasy means you cannot be a credible witness! This is misogyny, prurience and victim blaming and nothing less.

Well it doesn't give great details, they don't mention for example if there was physical evidence of force/violence.

If there wasn't then it would be a case of her word against theirs. In that case I can understand how her credibility could be shot to pieces. I'm not saying it's right, but it's obviously been decided that there's no way that the defendants can be found guilty and so they've stopped it.

It's shit, it really is, if this woman is telling the truth I feel so so so sorry for her but I can see how this might come about.

but phycho she wasn't even allowed to stand as a witness - the case was thrown out not because of lack of evidence, but because her sexual fantasies made her a non credible witness.

Good grief.

Terrfying.

Sorry Milly you are right, she it wasn't even rape she fantasised about.

Is rape the only crime where the victim gets blamed? I've never heard anyone say 'Well he parked a new BMW in a dodgy area, it's his own fault.'

Hmm well this seems to be an editorial about media reports , so a bit like chinese whispers.I would like to see transcripts

It's disgusting and shocking that this kind of thinking is seen as acceptable in 2010!

Scary - the law in Scotland is just about to be improved, so a man has to proved he reasonably beleived that the woman consented.

The conviction rate for rape is just pitiful.

We'll never know what happened as we cannot see the msn chatlog. No evidence is no evidence though. I don't like it - been raped too. But the article is by Peter Thatchell - nuf said.

We only have this "report" to go on though dont we?

She says she was raped, 5 men say that she wasnt. Why do we automatically assume that she is telling the truth and the other 5 people are lying.

Whilst I would never suggest that it was her fault, if indeed she was raped, I do think that perhaps by discussing her fantasies online with a stranger, and then travelling to his house on the premise of having sex she was extremely niave and irresponsible.

Surely it is common sense to know that if you meet someone online and then go to their home, then anything could happen unfortunately.

Don't know Peter Thatchells work but I thought he was on the side of the woman being allowed to say her piece in court so why did it sound like you thought badly of him Will?

I'm not automatically assuming anything - if there was a trial we could get a better idea so we didn't have to assume.

It's not the first time though is it. There was that case where that girl agreed to meet one bloke and when she got there 10 where waiting. They convicted two of them but they only got a couple of years IIRC there was a huge outcry.

The gist seemed to be that as she had agreed to meet one for sex then she was up for it and they couldn't really be to hard on the blokes.

She had learning difficulties and they also threw caustic soda over her.

Appalling.

Peter tatchell not thatchell. V v famous gay rights activist been around for donkeys years.

peter tatchell

not sure why the fact it was written by him is "nuff said"

Actually realised I have come across him just not in the guise of a journalist for the guradian but Imsonot I was thinking the same as you really. Don't get it

I saw this on the BBC website last week.

Even thought there are no transcripts, it is still very awful.

I remember sending the link to my close friends saying that this was just another reason why I would never make a statement like the police want me to over my ex.

Other than it being my word against his, because I do have times when I like to be dominated and held down, it does not mean that when I say no and try to push him off, it is the same thing and it is ok to carry on regardless.

But going by the Judge I had in my county court when I got my injunction granted against my ex, it would all get thrown out. Even my DV Officer agreed with me.

I mean, the Order states no contact.
XP texts "I love you xx" three times.
Judge calls them "appropriate messages"
XP says "I just wanted to tell her how I feel about her"
Judge "That is quite understandable"
AND he heavily implied that I was being malicious in my allegations in my statement as XP was acting very adult and commendably that day in court.

WTF?! FFS!

So back to OP - No, it shouldn't mean that, but I think in the eyes of many a Judge, we women are very vindictive and make a lot up and yes, we do ask for it sometimes.

Sorry - have certain experience of the man - let's just say he's not always very much into fact and reason. My opinion only. Not a fact. Should not have said it.

fair enough will!

kitty so sorry to hear yuor story.

the courts and everything are still so heavily weighted against the victims of sexual violence. women know this and it's why rape is so underreported. most people think "why bother? it's my word against his, who will believe me?" and of course they're right.

I would think very seriously about whether it was worth reporting a rape. Probably not worth it if you:

• were drinking
• were/had been in a relationship with them
• met them in a club
• had several sexual partners before
• didn't let them kick the shit out of you before they did it.

I have heard people say 'Well, it's easy to tell whether they were raped because if they were there would be injuries. If there weren't then they obviously didn't object that much.' Yeah right, like I should let someone who could easily kill me batter me senseless in order to 'prove' I didn't want to have sex with them.

Exactly Brahms.

And that is why so many get away with it