Gisele Pelicot defendants described

[theDudesmummy]

This is a depressing but instructive read. A common theme seems to be that the men claim they just didn't bother to think. And that they "didn't know" or didn't understand about the concept of consent. Is that just what they say, or a true reflection?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/23/a-soldier-a-nurse-a-lorry-driver-and-dozens-more-who-are-the-men-accused-over-and-assault-of-gisele-pelicot?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

@andIsaid This article originally from the washington post says it so much better than I ever could!
https://archive.ph/T8e0Z

I think it was this thread that I saw this case mentioned, the rugby players who gang raped a young woman in France, apologies if I've misremembered. Anyway, they've been found guilty

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14191733/Former-international-rugby-player-jailed-guilty-gang-rape-student-hotel-France.html

So many men think the purpose of women is for the sexual gratification of men... the more ndola extreme the better. I think many women find themselves in situations where they go along with things because they somehow think it is an extension of pleasure onky to find it is painful humiliating or degradating... but their partner enjoys it so they put up with it.. somehow suppressing their own feelings... finding themselves inexplicably depressed later in life.

I am shocked by the rugby players but very very glad to see they will serve prison sentences unlike the ones in northern Ireland. The lady in France woke up with critch in her vagina.. those men are animals.

Article posted today on BBC website.

If MN had a woman of the year, surely the title would belong to Gisele.

Gisèle Pelicot removes all trace of husband in France mass rape trial - BBC News

What an extraordinary woman she is

This was hard to read

Some of the men who were unidentified said in conversations with Dominique that they were also drugging their partners. "That, for me, is the most painful part of the case," Mr Bosse Platière said. "To know that there are some women out there who could still be victims of their husbands."

It's been dragged into the daylight now, it's no longer unimaginable. Something the Doctors, the Police and the women themselves can watch out for.

What I'm really struggling with about this case is not the men who did rape Gisele (I'm depressingly resigned to the fact that there are so many abusive, sexually depraved men about), but the 60% of men who turned down Dominiques offer but then did nothing to stop him. If this is representative of men generally then it scares the crap out of me as a women and a mother of a daughter.

And how many of those only turned the chief rapist down simply because they didn’t fancy Gisele, rather than because they morally disapproved?

Rape is not about attraction, it's about power.

Sexual abuse in all it's forms is about power.

HTH @WishinAndHopin

Thanks for this brand new information 🙄

I don’t know why you told me that but as it happens, I don’t agree. Many rapists will have an “ideal” type of victim as an integral part of their fantasy.

Some rapists barely even distinguish between rape and sex. They are not always seeking power over the victim, some just want sex, and have insufficient empathy to see it as any different.

Honestly the way you phrased your post @WishinAndHopin is that you were providing an assessment about the victim's attractiveness from the point of view of a a perpetrator. If you cannot actually see and understand why this is inappropriate - given the circumstances- then you may need to have a deeper think about it.

I was not “assessing her attractiveness”. It is common sense that rapists will not be attracted to every victim or every situation - or they’d be raping at every opportunity. It’s not a reflection of anyone’s attractiveness if a rapist decides a potential victim doesn’t quite fit into their depraved fantasies.

The point I was making was that the men who turned down the chief rapist may have done so because it didn’t personally appeal to them, not for ethical objections.

There are many other aspects outside of favoured victim type that could cause a rapist not to be interested in the available victim. Maybe Dominique was too intimidating. Maybe his whole set up with making them not wear a condom made them feel scared of leaving DNA evidence. Maybe they were smokers so self-excluded. Given that they were on a site called “without her knowledge” any of these are probably more likely than suddenly developing a moral compass.

I will just say I changed the wording of that post several times, and decided to add Gisele’s name in to humanise her (and took out Dominique’s as he is worthless). I had originally said something like “didn’t fancy what Dominique was offering” then “didn’t fancy the situation” and that all sounded wrong too.

In tinkering with the wording it ended up with more of a focus on “fancying Gisele” than I intended, as I lost sight of the totality of my post. I hope my last post clarified what I was trying to say, and I did not intend any insensitive wording.

We will have to disagree then. They were on a site called without her knowledge. They had no idea whatsoever if they would find her attractive. They did not care. They were going there to have sex and to rape. They backed out not because of her attractiveness, but because of something separate to that. They were on that site and then present at the door because of something that was so entirely separate to an actual live person in front of them. It was always about them and their depravities and never about her and what she was or was not according to them. She was not even human to them.

Oh cross posted. Okay, yes I understand more what you mean I think.

Read again your last post and yes, do understand more what you meant.

Not all abused go in to be abusers but there is a correlation. Others harm themselves instead with drugs, alcohol or suicide.

The wonderful psychologist Alice Miller thought the difference between those abused who became harmful to others or themselves, and those who do not, was that the latter may have had the chance to be heard by an empathetic witness.

None of this means these men are not guilty of rape or that their pasts should be mitigation for their crime.

It is worth looking at the evidence though at what massive harm is caused to the psyche of children when they suffer abuse.

Thank you, yes I think we actually agree. Sorry for miscommunicating in my original post, and for any offense caused. I should have taken more care when writing about a sensitive subject.

Sorry if I've missed a link, but do you have the source for this? It is pretty horrifying and very much suggests that it's only the legally weighted word 'rape', which makes clear that there might be consequences, that puts these men off.

Not to hand, I'm afraid. Will have a dig and see if I can remember where I found it.

That’s ok, I’ll have a Google. Thanks!

I wonder who told them all to claim sexual abuse in childhood?

And if it was the same person who told them to pretend they were afraid of the rapist Pelicot.

It shouldn’t be allowed to make a difference anyway.

Their defence attorney. Using past abuse as an excuse in court should be outlawed.

Do they all have the same one?

I'm not following this closely as I won't be able to function in society if my opinion of men gets any lower.