Just a reminder to the wimmenz, your “NO” is really just a yes in disguise and yes, how you dress will make you rape worthy or not. Attitudes from the 50’s? Hell no, here in the 21st century we have misogyny blooming in full masculine glory, and we should rejoice! (?)
“A convicted rapist will not go to jail because a Manitoba judge says the victim sent signals that “sex was in the air” through her suggestive attire and flirtatious conduct on the night of the attack.”
Are you kidding me? But it gets better.
“Kenneth Rhodes was given a two-year conditional sentence last week which allows him to remain free in the community, in a decision likely to trigger strong debate. The Crown wanted at least three years behind bars.”
Sir…Sir! Please hold out your wrist…fetch the wet noodle. *whap* You Sir have been punished!
“Rhodes and a friend met the 26-year-old woman and her girlfriend earlier that night outside a bar under what the judge called “inviting circumstances.” Dewar specifically noted the women were wearing tube tops with no bra, high heels and plenty of makeup.
Which really means: ignore everything I say and stick your penis in my vagina.
“They made their intentions publicly known that they wanted to party,” said Dewar. He said the women spoke of going swimming in a nearby lake that night “notwithstanding the fact neither of them had a bathing suit.”
Holy Frak! These sluts were asking for it!
“The foursome left the parking lot and headed into the woods, court was told. Rhodes began making sexual advances towards the victim, who initially rejected him but later returned his kisses. Rhodes then forced himself upon the woman once they were alone.”
The frigid bitch was playing coy and obviously got what she deserved! But let’s here the longer version in Lawyerese.
“She had a very different understanding of what was in the accused’s mind than he did,” said Coggan. He said Rhodes never threatened the woman, didn’t have a weapon and was simply “insensitive to the fact (she) was not a willing participant.“
Ohhhh, now I get it. He was insensitive to that fact that he forcibly had sex with an unwilling partner. I’m guessing the screaming and the sobbing and the consistently repeated “No’s”, not to mention the struggling, suggested he should continue…
Where does one even start? How women dress determines if they are “asking for it” or not? Or perhaps the venerated idea that one “yes” cancels all the “no’s” after? It is shocking that such attitudes still rest in the minds of supposedly educated people. Consider the impact on women who have been raped:
“Lorraine Parrington, who co-ordinates the sexual assault crisis program at Klinic, a community health centre in Winnipeg, said Dewar’s remarks show there needs to be more education about how women should be treated in sexual assault cases.
‘I was appalled. I was outraged. I was disheartened.’—Lorraine Parrington, counsellor
Fewer than 10 per cent of sexual assault cases are actually reported and Parrington worries Dewar’s comments will discourage future victims from coming forward.
“I’d like to say I was shocked. Unfortunately, I’m not after doing this work for lots of years,” she said. “But I was appalled. I was outraged. I was disheartened.”
Men have to learn women can change their minds, and no, at any point in an encounter, means no, she said.
“People have a right to change their mind. If I decide that I want to be engaged in certain sexual behaviour with somebody I can do that and I’m allowed to say, ‘Stop, I don’t want to do it any more.’ That needs to be respected.”
One part of this quote really jumped out at me…I’ll repeat it:
“Men have to learn women can change their minds, and no, at any point in an encounter, means no, she said.”
You don’t say. Women as autonomous beings, not just objects for the male gaze? Get out of town. If our culture was not a rape culture men would not have to “learn” this simple little fact, it would be implicity known from sea to frakking shining sea. But no, it is most explicitly is not known, hence we get men who are “insensitive” to women’s wishes when it comes to sex, and really it must have been her fault for skinny dipping earlier and wearing high heels and a tube top.
This ruling is being appealed and had better be changed forthwith. The women of Canada are watching.




8 comments
March 3, 2011 at 5:56 pm
Bleatmop
How this judge is a judge, I don’t know. His rape apologetics make me sick. Perhaps he figures since no-one heard her scream for help that the rape must be upon her head? Or that perhaps since the rapist offered to buy her from her father that it wasn’t rape after all?
Honestly though, if it wasn’t religion addling his mind to come to this judgment, then what was it?
LikeLike
March 3, 2011 at 7:15 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Two comments:
1) The crime itself. I don’t agree with the judge’s ruling either, and I find the fact that someone got away with this to be sickening. I’m hoping it will be handled in the appeal, but that doesn’t change the fact that the act was committed and never should have happened in the first place, so there I completely agree.
2) Preventing the crime.
…I had a comment here about preventing this from happening and it got too wordy, so I’ll just post it over on my blog if you’re interested (and can repost it here if you think it’s apropos).
In the meantime, I hope this “guy” (more like rapist + terrorist) gets handled better either in the appeal, or outside the courtroom where any male family members or friends are waiting for him.
LikeLike
March 3, 2011 at 7:21 pm
Vern R. Kaine
It’s like the idiot judge in Dear Zachary, or those judges who let child molesters go with a slap (wet noodle!) on the wrist.
I wonder about verdicts like these – how can seemingly normal, educated people allow for it? I asked a lawyer-friend one time about it, and he says that some judges get so “to the letter” that they’re almost stupid. Others almost seem to hope it will go to appeals so that the laws can be changed, because they feel the current punishments aren’t enough. Huh? Of course both of these reasons, if true, are stupidly selfish and neglect who the laws are really there to protect and who’s actually seeking justice by the application of them, i.e. the victim.
Like I said in my other comment, hopefully justice comes to this guy one way or another.
LikeLike
March 3, 2011 at 7:49 pm
Titfortat
The women of Canada are watching(Arb)
As a father with a daughter I’d like to say youre not the only ones watching.
LikeLike
March 3, 2011 at 10:06 pm
The Arbourist
I did not see your comment on your blog Vern… :> Maybe send a link?
LikeLike
March 3, 2011 at 10:39 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Not fully written yet! Sorry, I guess the way I worded that made it sound like it was present-tense and not future-tense.
LikeLike
March 4, 2011 at 1:29 pm
A Layman’s View On Reducing Male Violence Against Women: Part 1 – The Problem(s) | The Rantings of Vern Rigg Kaine
[…] 4, 2011 by Vern R. Kaine| Leave a comment There was a disturbing post on a friend’s blog here where a judge seemingly let a rapist basically roam free, because on the night of his crime the […]
LikeLike
March 4, 2011 at 1:38 pm
A Layman’s View On Reducing Male Violence Against Women: Part 1 – Who’s Really In the Minority/Majority? | The Rantings of Vern Rigg Kaine
[…] 4, 2011 by Vern R. Kaine| Leave a comment There was a disturbing post on a friend’s blog here where a judge seemingly let a rapist basically roam free, because on the night of his crime the […]
LikeLike