Acquiescence

[AgeingGrace]

Not sure whether this counts as a feminist discussion, but I'm giving it a try. I mentioned on another thread that, after seeing last year's TV programme about black-cab rapist John Worboys, I realised he 'had' me, too. I rang the helpline and the police were brilliant - they confirmed my story and discussed the case as much as I wanted to.

Bizarrely, the discovery was actually helpful to me. I'd been struggling with "denial of abuse" issues so, for me, this single episode (which I barely remember) represented all the other half-remembered and anxiously dismissed incidents of abuse that kept me questioning myself. I now accept that I have been more seriously abused, and more often, than I can consciously recognise. This denial is part of the issue I wish to discuss.

John Worboys sexually assaulted upwards of 400 women: probably hundreds more. His method was always the same - a little story, a little drinky that was drugged. Now this is what bothers me: up to 700 of us accepted that drink.

We trust London cabbies, sometimes literally with our lives. Worboys abused that position of trust. But - still! A cab driver gives you a drink, and you don't smell anything fishy? I bet none of us would have smiled and said "cheers" if an illegal minicab driver had done it. Not a single one of us rang the police, or the taxi office, to say "Driver number XXXX has just done something weird."

We trusted hansom cab drivers - rightly so. But why did we allow this trust to override our common sense? We all registered that this was "odd" behaviour, so why didn't we just get the hell out of there and press Dial? What happened to our natural alarm bells?

Answering for myself, I have to assume I was so deeply programmed to TRUST A MAN IN A POSITION OF HONOUR that I had no self-preservation instincts to go with that. In my case, this is the factor that led to my putting up with abuse in many situations. I was also, as mentioned, extremely willing to forget, deny, tell myself I'd got it wrong, etc, etc. I can trace this directly to my parental background. Did all 400 of Worboy's passengers come from families like mine?

How did Worboys know which women to trick?

I asked the cop how come so many women had bought his story. He said he wished he knew that - as more & more evidence came to light, they found it hard to believe he was getting to first base as easily as he did.

As some of you know, I'm committed to helping women in abusive relationships re/gain a sense of their own right to respect and safety. Most of you know at least something about the dynamics of abuse. Many people are conditioned to consider themselves less important than others; it's common for a woman to count herself less than a man. But 400 Londoners, each with enough independence to be getting a cab on her own at night ...? That's a lot!

If self-abandonment and self-denial are THAT prevalent amongst women, then feminism has a far bigger problem than I ever suspected.

I'm not sure if anybody's able or willing to pick this up - it's more of an emotional/psychological angle than this board's usual. It's both personally and politically interesting to me - what do you think?

Yes that too.

And the fact that women blame themselves and don't acknowledge it's rape for weeks, months or years after

It is more of a practical issue than a legal point, as SuchProspects confirms. There are so many hurdles to negotiate between a crime being reported - and conviction.

In English law, there has to be enough evidence for the police to charge in the first place, but then the CPS must decide on the realistic chances of a conviction. I recall that in percentage terms, this always had to be at least a 51% chance, but it could well be higher now. Then there is the trial itself and in the event of a not-guilty plea, the jury system.

Yes, even stranger assailants have claimed that sex was consensual, but if a woman reports it soon enough so that any injuries can be examined and forensic swabs taken, there is a much better chance of a suspect's apprehension, charge, prosecution and conviction. With independent evidence, such as photographed injuries and forensic exhibits, (plus it has to be said, some disbelief that a woman would have consensual sex with a random stranger) that case is much more capable of proof.

Perhaps it's more helpful to describe the need for independent evidence to prove a crime, rather than witnesses, but as SP says, if something can be independently verified, it is understandably more capable of proof.

I do think the law change in 2003 has led to more skilled interrogation of suspects and investigation of rape generally, because of the "new" onus on gaining express consent. However, a rape trial is horribly traumatic for a victim and it is only fair for a police chaperone or family liaison officer to explain the likelihood of a prosecution or conviction in an acquaintance rape, where there is little or no corroborating evidence. The focus then moves away from justice and on to how the victim can process the trauma.

Ultimately, as much as I detest the fact that women are raped, I still couldn't endorse a justice system that convicted without more evidence, than the word of the victim.

A personal anecdote here, but I remember a police officer telling me about investigating an allegation of rape made by a white female having a secret relationship with a black male. Her family were members of a violent organisation, far-right of the BNP and all the males had convictions for racially-motivated assaults. When the relationship was discovered by her family, they violently assaulted the boyfriend but he refused to report it, because he loved this woman. The pressure on their continuing relationship was so great from the family, that she was forced by them, to allege rape.

There was no forensic evidence, no injuries and no corroborating evidence at all. When the suspect was arrested and questioned, he on the other hand, was displaying fairly grievous injuries. Only skilled intervention and interviews over several days elicited the truth and the female retracted the allegation completely. The suspect still wouldn't provide a witness statement about his assault, however.

I have often wondered what might have happened if evidence had been fabricated, or if circumstances had been different and their relationship had ended acrimoniously, leading perhaps to the female pursuing the allegation. A presumption of guilt without evidence would have possibly seen that man convicted of a crime he didn't commit.

"plus it has to be said, some disbelief that a woman would have consensual sex with a random stranger)"

this makes me because women's sexuality is so controlled and repressed by society, leading to the idea that most "good, decent" women would never have sex with a stranger, and because of this , and only this , it is more likely that a woman who was raped by a stranger will be believed when she says the sex was non-consensual

I wonder what The Establishment would make of the fact that women do have consensual sex with random strangers.

Also, the age-old notion of white woman reporting the black man as a rapist is the overriding theme of To Kill a MockingBird. (I really hate that book)

WHite women have often been used as pawns by the patriarchy to vilify black men, and it saddens me to see that it is still going on in its various forms today.

HerBex yes, you're absolutely correct. Some robberies are conducted without violence and it is more of an implied threat. Others are perpetrated with accompanying violence. Then there are "handbag/wallet/phone snatches". All are often described under the umbrella heading of "muggings", but the effect on victims and the penalties on conviction, are very different. Hence my request for clarification, so that we were all working to the same definition.

I agree wholeheartedly Sakura. I find it ethically uncomfortable to acknowledge a bitter truth that the belief that women won't have sex with strangers, can nevertheless help with a rape conviction.

And yes, I'm always reminded of that book (and film) when I remember that story, but if it helps, it was from the early nineties (the Stephen Lawrence murder era) and I perhaps naively hope that it wouldn't happen so much now. I do remember feeling very relieved that the police officer telling the story had persevered and was supported by his senior officers, even in that era of policing.

How does that tie in with the fact that juries often seem to believe that women will have sex with men in the most bizarre situations, in order to avoid convicting a man of rape?

There was that dreadful case on here recently where a MNers daughter's rapist was found not guilty because the jury chose to believe that this young woman had persuaded a stranger to have anal sex in an alleyway with her.

There was another one where a young woman on the way to work in the morning was raped and the jury found it perfectly reasonable to thnk that this woman had decided to break her normal morning routine to have sex with a stranger behind some bins or some such ludicrous idea.

All of this seems to assert that women are up for sex all the time with pretty much anyone anywhere. Not that women won't have sex with strangers at all.

"How does that tie in with the fact that juries often seem to believe that women will have sex with men in the most bizarre situations, in order to avoid convicting a man of rape?"- SardineQueen

I'm not exactly sure but I think this is perfect timing for this quote I read today on a blog called femonade

"You know, this stuff is very thinky isnt it? I have been ruminating over it all day. I think its tough to get my head around the idea that men don?t seem to get where babies come from, and have regarded vaginas as fucksheaths, and women as castrated men for millenia. But they kind of regard women as baby factories, at the same time.

What I have come up with is this: I think they think both things are true. And there?s nothing more likely to make you batshit loony toons than believing two or more contradictory things, at the same time"

so I don't think that women who actually have been stranger raped are more likely to be believed, more that this is the reason that stranger rape is regarded as the only type of rape that can exist.

which is unethical, because the basis for not being able to discredit her is the patriarchal idea that women don't have sex with random strangers

dittany Thu 17-Feb-11 08:30:39

Also talking about a woman as a "female" - not very respectful.

_

What would you prefer a Woman to be called dittany?

I mean, when you think about it, what is the difference between being raped by someone you know and someone you don't. None.

So you're denying a Womans right to call another Woman a Female?

Being offended is another choice dictated to you by your lack of choice then.

Message understood.

Dittany I have seen you write that you wouldn't necessarily advise women to report a rape. WRT the police being fair, pointing out to a woman that there is an unrealistic chance of prosecution if there is no independent evidence, I see no difference. I have made my own stance on this quite clear, whereas yours seems rather obtuse.

I have said that like other crimes, if it is a situation where it is one person's word against another and there is no independent evidence, a prosecution is unlikly to succeed. Like SuchProspects said, this would seem a fairly obvious assertion. I have also said that ethically, I couldn't support convictions based entirely on the word of the victim.

If there is independent evidence, then of course the prosecution could and should proceed. It would be brilliant if more prosecutions did occur, in my view.

But are you saying that in the absence of any corroborating evidence, people should be convicted on the word of the victim? Your own stance on this would be helpful to the discussion.

I wasn't aware that the term "female" was offensive to you - I also used the term "male" which doesn't seem to have caused similar offence.

My own knowledge and experience comes from what is in the public domain and is also based on my work over many years. I have run my own company for many years, working with various organisations in a consultancy capacity. That work has brought me into contact with lots of police forces, CPS branches, the Home Office and schools. Those organisations seem relevant to this thread, but my work is pretty diverse.

Lenin I'm glad that the senior police officer did say that and he can only speak from his personal experience, in his own force. The story my contact referred to happened in about 1993.

Regarding the "sex with strangers" correlation to rape convictions, I agree that this is entirely connected with society's flawed notions of female sexuality. Whether a woman will have sex with strangers, shouldn't even come into the equation, in my view. It would never be even considered about men.

what do you make of acquiescence invision?

sakura Thu 17-Feb-11 10:23:42
what do you make of acquiescence invision?

Is there a particular reason why you ask me that?