Amazon

NOTICE

If you'd like to republish any of my articles, you are welcome to do so. Please add a link to the original post on my blog.

Tuesday, 8 March 2016

A Tale of Inequality: Sex, Rape, Alcohol, Anonymity



In the UK there is a two-lane system of law: one for women and one for men. And guess which is the faster, broader, more comfortable lane to travel in.

Last August an unnamed middle-aged top woman lawyer had a business lunch with a male colleague, suggested by her, followed by a "long boozy afternoon" together.

The pair were then seen outside the very busy Waterloo Station, in London, during rush hour. "She was said to have been against the wall with her knickers around her ankles." The man, a senior City lawyer named Graeme Stening, was "allegedly exposed and touching himself – and the woman – in an intimate fashion."

They were arrested and spent the night in a cell in a South London police station.

The following morning, Stening denied any wrongdoing and was charged with outraging public decency by engaging in a sexual act during broad daylight. The woman, a QC (Queen's Counsel, namely an especially eminent lawyer) and high-profile barrister, accepted a police caution for the same offence as the man.

Six weeks later the QC changed her story, and said that she should never have accepted the caution because she had, in reality, been the victim of a sexual assault. That claim guaranteed her anonymity for life, while Stening, as the defendant, has had his name splashed all over the papers.
Six weeks later, after apparently returning to the same police officer who gave her the caution, the woman said she was intending to make an application to have the caution quashed, claiming she was unwell at the time of the incident.

The [Daily Mail newspaper] source said: ‘Instead of asking her what on earth she was playing at, and why she didn’t say that before accepting the caution, the officer took it up and phoned Graeme – leaving a message with a member of staff at his work. It’s all maximising embarrassment to him. He was told he would be arrested if he didn’t go for a “voluntary” interview about it.’
So, after getting totally drunk and having sex, she claimed she had been sexually assaulted so that, as a "victim", her identity would not be disclosed, her reputation would not be trashed and she would not risk jeopardising her brilliant career. A man cannot have that "opportunity" open to him to protect his name.

We have here another of the many absurdities of the victimhood ideology and culture: women, as pre-labelled "victims", have the privilege of getting plastered and claiming they were raped, men don't. But these women can decide to become unconscious through stratospheric alcohol consumption, and they were conscious when they made that decision. Also: why can't the same thing be said of a man? That a woman sexually assaulted him because he was too drunk to be able to give consent?

Why should a man not be allowed to sue a woman because she had sex with him when he was too drunk to give consent? Erection is not a sign of consent, for it is a reflex and therefore not a voluntary reaction.

Violence is not claimed to have occurred in these cases of alleged "rape" when the woman was under the influence, because obviously violence was not necessary. So, if there was no resistance, the disparity in physical strength between the sexes - which is anyway general but not universal, true in most cases but not in all - cannot be adduced as an excuse for such unequal treatment of men and women.

To prevent these travesties of justice from happening, the law should be changed so that either both accuser and defendant in sexual crime cases are protected by anonymity or neither is.

Similarly, either both men and women can use being drunk while having sex as grounds for a rape claim or neither can.




2 comments: