The fact that some rugby players are arrogant thugs should not come as a surprise

As Deborah at The Hand Mirror put it, this is why women don’t lay rape complaints. Specifically, this is why women don’t lay rape complaints against absurdly-well-paid high-profile rugby players.

Let’s play a fun game, shall we? It’s called, “let’s pick out all the fucking rape myths we can find in a single article”.

Witnesses claimed the complainant was a “sports groupie” who had been cavorting and lap-dancing with the men on the night of the alleged sexual assault.

Clearly a Filthy Slut Who Was Asking For It, because flirtatious behaviour is ALWAYS consent to sex – or, depending on how disgusting the rape apologist in question, She Shouldn’t Have Led Them On, with a side order of Men Cannot Control Themselves.

The letter claims allegations raised by a “boyfriend” were untrue – she does not have a boyfriend.

Claims = clearly Lying Because She Regrets It. “Boyfriend” in inverted commas = Because She’s Obvs A Slapper. But seriously, check out that phrasing – why she does not have a boyfriend as opposed to the man claiming to be her boyfriend is a lying asshole? Oh, right, that would involve a man being held responsible for something, and not being able to have a lovely undercurrent of She Isn’t Getting Any So Must Have Been Up For It.

She also denied knowing Sophie Lewis, the 22-year-old who sold her story about sleeping with another player under the name “Angel Barbie”.

Which is of course totally relevant to this case and not an excuse to link a rape victim with a woman who had consensual sex with possible opportunistic motives. Shorter: All Women Are Deceivers.

After the allegation was made, RFU chief executive Francis Baron said the RFU was desperate to clear the players’ names.

The assumption of “innocent until proven guilty” is certainly a wonderful thing. It would be nice if it got extended to rape complainants every now and then. Seriously, would it have been so difficult to phrase that as, “desperate to discover the truth or otherwise of the allegations because we equally don’t want innocent men slandered AND will not condone gang-rape”?

He said: “We’re in a very strange situation – with no allegations, no complaint being made – as to exactly how the name of the players can be cleared.”

Yes, because what’s important is that we assume, right off the bat, that the woman is lying and the Good Rugby Boys, who certainly don’t seem to be part of a culture of drinking, shagging, and getting away with everything For The Sake Of The Game, are the Poor Innocent Victims, who just happened to inflict sexual injury on a person to the point medics urged her to contact the police.

Also, if another news reporter blithely says, “Well, the silly woman has this irrational fear that The Media will, like, invade her life and stuff!” I’m going to smash something.

Advertisements

5 comments

  1. Iain Hall

    Just to play devils advocate, this case turns on the claims of one person against four others who tell a very different story to their accuser. Without reversing the onus of proof how could expect to secure a conviction?
    Rape cases always turn on “he said she said ” and the question of consent. You take it as an article of faith that the accusations are true but you are like me not at all privy to the actual events and if we were on a jury judging the facts of the matter we would have to put aside our immediate emotional response ( that is so evident in your post) to consider the matter on the verifiable facts and the evidence.

    [QoT: I’m sorry, Iain. I’d just love to explain the entire point of my post to you, but then you decided to play the “emotional response” card. I’m probably PMSing, amirite?]

  2. Deborah

    Because, like, Iain, she clearly consented to the injuries which were so bad that she went to hospital.

    Take your Devil’s Advocate and stuff it….

    Or just maybe, instead of leaping in to defend teh menz, apply it to their story instead.

    Gosh, I must have PMS too.

  3. Iain Hall

    Deborah,
    I am not defending anyone here but I am pointing oft the problems that would manifest in any attempt at prosecution.
    🙄

    [QoT: Oh, Iain. Again with the pretending that the vagaries of criminal prosecution have anything to do with this matter – except that this vilification of a rape victim would certainly get its turn in court as well. By all means, continue to act like this is just a simple matter of people stating different versions of events without there being any other circumstances/assumptions in play, and, I beseech you, stick an eye-rolling smiley at the end of your next comment so we all know how little you think of women who have opinions.]

  4. Iain Hall

    Ok lets look at your points in turn shall we? Just so that you can’t accuse me of just making general comments about this article.
    [QoT: Has such an accusation been made? Your comments haven’t actually address the points of the post at all to date.]

    Witnesses claimed the complainant was a “sports groupie” who had been cavorting and lap-dancing with the men on the night of the alleged sexual assault.

    Clearly a Filthy Slut Who Was Asking For It, because flirtatious behaviour is ALWAYS consent to sex – or, depending on how disgusting the rape apologist in question, She Shouldn’t Have Led Them On, with a side order of Men Cannot Control Themselves.

    Was she behaving in the manner suggested or not is the question that we should be asking and did she actually say no to anything? Despite your rant here this goes to the heart of the problem with any rape accusation. If she did not consent and she told the men in no uncertain terms that this was the case then it certainly was rape. But if she played sex games with them and did not tell them to stop it was not rape. Even if she felt bad about her actions later.
    [QoT: Thank you, Iain, thank you so very much, for completely vindicating my post. A woman’s behaviour is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter. If any man had sex with her, without her consent … it’s rape. It doesn’t matter where she works, how much she drank, what she was wearing, what “signals” she was sending. Seriously, “playing sex games”? This isn’t Letters To Penthouse, this is “medics urged her to go to the police”.]

    The letter claims allegations raised by a “boyfriend” were untrue – she does not have a boyfriend.

    Claims = clearly Lying Because She Regrets It. “Boyfriend” in inverted commas = Because She’s Obvs A Slapper. But seriously, check out that phrasing – why she does not have a boyfriend as opposed to the man claiming to be her boyfriend is a lying asshole? Oh, right, that would involve a man being held responsible for something, and not being able to have a lovely undercurrent of She Isn’t Getting Any So Must Have Been Up For It.

    Define”Boyfriend”, But you miss the point that the author of the letter is a lawyer and very mindful of the laws of defamation.
    [QoT: Laws of defamation? So either the media, who made up the “boyfriend”, or the man who lied about being the “boyfriend”, are … what? Going to sue for being rightfully called liars?”]

    She also denied knowing Sophie Lewis, the 22-year-old who sold her story about sleeping with another player under the name “Angel Barbie”.

    Which is of course totally relevant to this case and not an excuse to link a rape victim with a woman who had consensual sex with possible opportunistic motives. Shorter: All Women Are Deceivers.

    This certainly sounds like the lawyer is trying to undermine exactly the sort of suggestion that you are mocking here , by denying it before it is raised elsewhere.
    [QoT: At what point have I taken issue with the matter of the lawyer’s letter? Iain, the entire POINT is to do with media portrayal of rape victims. I wasn’t aware that would need spelling out.]

    After the allegation was made, RFU chief executive Francis Baron said the RFU was desperate to clear the players’ names.

    The assumption of “innocent until proven guilty” is certainly a wonderful thing. It would be nice if it got extended to rape complainants every now and then. Seriously, would it have been so difficult to phrase that as, “desperate to discover the truth or otherwise of the allegations because we equally don’t want innocent men slandered AND will not condone gang-rape”?

    The point is that this woman is not a rape complainant she has not lodged any complaint with the police she has instead made a public allegation. of criminal behaviour by these men. And anyone who makes an accusation of criminal behaviour by others can not expect to have their claims to just be accepted with out challenge.

    He said: “We’re in a very strange situation – with no allegations, no complaint being made – as to exactly how the name of the players can be cleared.”

    Yes, because what’s important is that we assume, right off the bat, that the woman is lying and the Good Rugby Boys, who certainly don’t seem to be part of a culture of drinking, shagging, and getting away with everything For The Sake Of The Game, are the Poor Innocent Victims, who just happened to inflict sexual injury on a person to the point medics urged her to contact the police.

    Sadly you are doing exactly what you complain about is being done to this woman here: you are falling back upon the negative stereotype of football players and their subculture as a reason to deem them guilty. The facts of the matter is that this woman has made an allegation that is slanderous, yet she does not back it up by making a formal complaint to the police and she has gone public with it, anyone so accused is entitled to say put up or shut up.
    [QoT: “Slanderous” = “false”. Now who’s making assumptions?]

    Your post is little more that an example of misandery and an assault upon the presumption of innocence. You decry the trotting out of old well worn tropes about women who claim to have been raped, when no such things have been explicitly claimed about this women at all, yet you are guilty of exactly this sin when it comes to the men she accused, assuming that they are thugs because they are rugby players.
    [QoT: I think I have a BINGO! Misandry? The familiar rallying cry of a man who wants the right to call a woman a slut who was asking for it.]

    Finally you erroneously assume that because I am a man that I am willing to defend rapists, nothing could be further from the truth, rape is a terrible crime but like all crimes that have serious consequences it remains essential that any allegations should be tested in the courts. You and angry feminists of your ilk would blithely diminish or remove the presumption of innocence for men accused of rape indifferent to the fact that this would lead to many injustices and false accusations.
    [QoT: Oh, this is the BEST BIT, honestly. I don’t give a damn about your biological sex or assigned gender, Iain. I think you’re a rape apologist because you’re a rape apologist. You’re still clinging to this notion that rape allegations, especially rape allegations against “celebrity” figures, exists in a happy, value-free vacuum. Angry feminist? And proud.]

  5. Pingback: Fuck rugby culture « Ideologically Impure