Sorry Stewie, I don't agree that dishonesty is 'sexual violence'. This was consensual sex between two adults. According to news reports across the board, it took place mere minutes after the two people met on the street. I think for the woman to claim she was looking for a 'serious romantic relationship' is disingenuous, and for him (married, two young children) to be on the pick-up and pretend to be something he wasn't (maybe - the defence claims he never claimed to be anything he wasn't, and the 'misunderstanding' came about because of his nickname. Who knows?) is sleazy, to say the least. Neither of them come out well.
But to cry rape? It's unbelieveable. This case would have been thrown out of a UK court. It's also offensive to women and men who have been genuinely raped. The additional element of blatant racism makes the case even more repugnant, and is what's getting the attention*, but to be honest, it's bad enough that someone can be convicted and jailed on rape charges (rather than, say, fraud, for which there is a precedent) merely for giving the impression they were more serious about a relationship than they were. Both adults, both capable of making adult choices. I mean, this sort of scenario is hardly unusual, is it?
- and to quote the judge on the case, this is what she said on summing up: "If she had not thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious relationship, she would not have co-operated.
"The court is obliged to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price - the sanctity of their bodies and souls."
'Co-operated' - is that an appropriate way of describing sex between adults? Nice. Pretty paternalistic towards the role of the woman in sex (the judge, btw, is a woman herself.). Am torn between wailing and laughing at the rest of the language the judge uses - 'innocent victims', 'sanctity of bodies and souls'. FFS.