Rape or "Rape Lite"?

There seems to be a rather odd debate going on in the press at the moment, stirred by two rather different events. The first was George Galloway's rather odd "podcast", claiming that Julian Assange was merely guilty of "sexual bad manners", in having sex with a woman without her consent. The second was the Republican Senator and best friend of Republican Vice President - Todd Akin, who claimed that women who experience "proper rape" don't get pregnant as the body shuts down the reproductive system.

The main issue Galloway seems to have is that Julian Assange was "set up". He seems to think that Sweden are a US client country and that Asssange has merely been arrested so the Swedes can deport him. This is a truly bizarre conclusion to draw. Sweden has a long and proud history of giving shelter to victims of political repression. It is also nominally neutral. Ask Gary MacKinnon where he'd rather be. The idea that the Swedes are more likely to deport Assange than us is quite franky bonkers. Unlike many people, I've lived in Sweden and I know for a fact that they take womens rights seriously. If Assange is in trouble, it is because he is accussed with a serious offence. The story that Galloway has trouble getting his head around is this. Assange had consensual sex with a woman using a condom. The next morning he had sex again, without a condom. She says that the consent was only granted to Assange as he was using a condom, therefore there was no consent. That makes it rape. When I consider such issues, I tend to draw on my own experiences. Back in the early 1980's I found myself in a position that was in some ways similar. I had split with my partner and met a female friend who was having problems with her relationship. We got drunk and ended up in bed. The next morning we woke up and after some heavy petting, were about to engage sex, when she said "sorry, I don't feel right about this". I was rather disappointed, but as far as I was concerned, that was her decision and the end of the matter. We are still friends, having made an agreement to forget about what happened. We only spoke about it once, a year after the event. She asked me "were you angry with me for saying "no". I was shocked by this. Her chief concern had been that I may have been insulted. She also said she was surprised that I'd stopped and accepted her decision without any argument. I said that as she was first and foremost a friend, I respected her decision.

I thought society had moved on a bit since the mid 1980's, where a woman would be more worried about how she was perceived than whether she should make decisions about her body and expect them to be respected. In the cold light of day, for various reasons, she had made the right decision then. Do men have a right to say "well, she was gagging for it, women always say no when they mean yes?" Of course not. I'm not perfect by any means, but it is pretty clear to me that if someone says "no" then you respect that.

Galloways argument seems to be that a violent rape by a stranger is more traumatic than a rape where consent was withdrawn. This clearly shows that Galloway doesn't understand human nature. A woman who is violently and traumatically raped by a stranger will clearly have a lot of issues to deal with. There is no way we can play this down. The issue is that a woman who withdraws consent and is then raped, whilst not having the same degree of shock, will perhaps have more issues with trust. In the long term, this could be just as damaging. Just imagine if a woman has trust issues following an event. This could colour every future relationship? The question will always be "can I really trust him". In effect, the question is along the lines of would you prefer to get cancer of have a heart attack. The two are different, but horrible in their own ways.

As to our friend, senator Akin. This is a far easier question to deal with. Presumably, Mr Akin has the scientific evidence to back up his claims, unlikely as they are? let him put his "evidence" of the reproductive evidence "shutting down" before the world. If it stacks up, whilst we may totally disagree with his view, at least he will be able to say "look, I wasn't spouting complete bollocks there is evidence". If as I suspect, there is no credible evidence whatsoever, then the voters should say "on your bike".

The bottom line with all of this is that whilst we have apologists for such behaviour, some people will see it as a green light to persist. Sadly many babies born as a consequence of rape are cases of  incestuous "in family" rapes. The statement by Senator Akin will convince some ill educated people, that rape does not produce babies. This is one green light that will have terrible consequences. We really should expect more from our civic leaders. Before they spout nonsense, they should think of what may actually happen.

In short, there is no such thing as a "friendly rape" or a "rape lite". It is all rape. It is down to the courts to decide what sentence is appropriate. I'd suggest that a heavy one is the safest outcome for all concerned. If Mr Assange has a credible defence, he will be OK. If he hasn't then he will get what he deserves

Normal service will be resumed tomorrow

Today, I am really in no frame of mind to blog about Barnet or nice things. I had to accompany a friend to Oxford Crown Court to provide some moral support today. Not being sure of exactly when the case we were attending was taking place, we sat through all the mornings business (our case was the last before the recess for lunch). The case before the case we were attending rather disturbed me. A young man was being sentenced for the rape of  a 9 year old boy. The rape occurred 10 years ago and had apparently had a devastating effect on the victim. The perpetrator was 19 at the time, with learning difficulties and a troubled home life.  As the judge heard submissions from the prosecution and the defence, we heard how the police had asked that an order be placed on the perpetrator. We then heard from the judge that he felt that it wasn't appropriate for the police to request such orders and that it should come from a lawyer. We heard from the defence of the terrible effect that incarceration would have on the perpetrator. How he would become institutionalised if he was inside for too long. We heard how he'd not been convicted of any attacks in the intervening 10 years and we heard how he'd had a job.

I have a nine year old son. How would I say someone should be sentenced for such and attack. Personally I wouldn't take the chance. I would say that raping a 9 year old boy is a lock them up and throw away the key sentence. How did the judge see it? Six years and his name on the sexual offenders register with a life ban from working with children.  Oh well, at least a few people will sleep more soundly in their beds tonight - and for the next couple of years until he's released.

Normal service will be resumed tomorrow. I just need to have a long, long shower, a large number of beers and maybe a few cigarrettes (I don't normally smoke). I need to wash every trace of that courtroom from me, kill every braincell that looked at the face of a child rapist and inhale some smoke to hide the taste of breaths of air I took which were breathed by the same monster. I drove back from Oxford with the phrase "Anal penetration of a nine year old boy" rattling around my head.  Some things are just too vile to really deal with at all. Sorry for sharing any of this.

My total contempt for Jordan

There was much talk in the papers today about Jordan and her claims that she was raped more than once by "a well known celebrity" who she refuses to name. I've always taken a very keen interest in this subject, since one of my first serious girlfriends explained to me that she "couldn't really get close to me because she'd been violently raped and had issues with men". She was a beautiful woman and an absolutely fantastic person. She just had problems in as much as she she would at times shut down emotionally with me and I couldn't get through to her at all. She'd been violently attacked by a stranger walking home from work. She had no trouble explaining all of the details, but hard as I tried, there was always a distance between us. There were plenty of reasons we split, but I'll go to my deathbed believing that the emotional damage caused by the assualt was the main problem.

What's this got to do with Katie Price? Well she claims that she was raped "several times by a celebrity". That means that there is someone she knows who she could prevent causing massive harm and hurt to other women. Someone who is a serial sex attacker and an abuser of trust. She's rich and successful. Having seen her on various shows, notably Frank Skinner talking about sex, I believe her. I believe that like my friend, her self esteem is massively damaged. It is quite clear to me that she pushed Peter Andre, who seems like a very decent guy, away for these reasons. Why else would she carry on in such a way? On the Frank Skinner show (before the Andre marriage) she behaved in a truly bizarre fashion. When Skinner tried to probe deeper, it became clear to me that she was a rather damaged person. The claims about the rape confirm all of my worst fears.

Why my contempt? She knows the bloke, she should get him locked up. Even if she fails, we'd all know who he was. If by chance she's made the story up (which I don't believe), she's even worse than I thought. We really don't need people walking the streets who ruin lives for their own pleasure.

Why the picture of Beth Ditto? Well I know Jordan has spent a fortune on cosmetic surgery and I know that the Sun newspaper thinks guys like that, and I don't really go for girls with Beth's figure, and I know Beth prefers girls to boys and I doubt she'd be pleased to hear it from me, but to be quite honest, I'd rather look at Beth than Jordan any day, because at least I see someone I have a bit of respect for as a human being. I know Beth would do the RIGHT THING. I don't look at Beth and well up with anger.