this is why i shouldn't read the newspaper in the morning

[harborshore]

Trigger warning for discussion of rape of a 13-year old girl. I am so fucking furious and disgusted by the sheer-i don't even know. I have to write it down somewhere or i can't work. FYI, this is why Assange's assertion that our rape laws/trials are unfair upset me so much. Because no, fuck you, they're awful. Especially the lower court.



A girl, 13, and a boy, 16, are having consensual sex and meet 4 or 5 times to do so. So far so good. Then he asks if she wants to do anal sex. She says no. He forces her. She says no repeatedly. The absence of her consent is corroborated by chat transcripts from before and after (also she reported him). And. Yet. The court told her she should have resisted more and so he was sentenced for sexual molestation, which carries less prison time (so very little). ETA: JUST KIDDING! 110 hours of community service, no prison time. FUCK YOU SWEDISH COURT SYSTEM. What the fuck. I mean what. AUGH.

Comments

[eledhwenlin]

Dude. WTF. :(

[harborshore.livejournal.com]

See the ETA. It's worse than I thought! I HATE my country sometimes.

[mrsquizzical.livejournal.com]

:*(

[harborshore.livejournal.com]

Rape culture. *gnashes teeth*

[extemporally.livejournal.com]

:( :( :( :( that is truly and shittily appalling.

[harborshore.livejournal.com]

Ah, see the ETA, it's worse than I thought. I hate my country so much sometimes.

[anoneknewmoose.livejournal.com]

UGHHHHHHHHHHHHH THAT IS SO DISGUSTING. I'm sorry bb. *hugs*

[harborshore.livejournal.com]

I AM SO UNBELIEVABLY ANGRY ABOUT THIS. There will be an appeal, I can almost guarantee it, but omg. Fucking seriously. (This is also what comes of not having a consent-based rape law.)

[redbrickrose.livejournal.com]

What the fuck? That's so disgusting.

[harborshore.livejournal.com]

PRETTY MUCH.

[fallintosilence.livejournal.com]

"She should have resisted more," seriously? UGH, what complete bullshit. The girl is thirteen. That's so horrific. :(

[harborshore.livejournal.com]

That is indeed what the court said. WAY TO VICTIM-BLAME, ASSHOLES. I'm so mad.

[harborshore.livejournal.com]

Tell me about it. It's--in Swedish law, rape is defined as someone either by force or by threat penetrating someone against their will or making them do another sexual act that is comparable with penetrative sex. (I actually think, to my non-legal trained mind, that this case fits, because she did tell him to stop repeatedly and he kept going and that counts, based on precedent, as force.) Alternatively, it's defined as someone taking advantage of a victim's defenseless state (like being asleep or very very drunk) to do the same thing. This is why Amnesty issues complaints about our rape laws. This is also actually an improvement (ARGH), because it used to state that the victim had to be put in a defenseless state, which led to some enormously upsetting acquittals.

So, no, not consent-based. Which, argh. It makes me so mad. And yes, the act itself is of course an act of force--I feel like that kind of definition is part of what makes us think of real rapes as the really violent stranger-in-the-woods ones--and people say legal definitions don't impact our perceptions.