Rape and politics

[thir]

I think part of it is the issue that surrounds any sexual crime... whether it be rape or paedophillia or any sexual related offense, there seems to be a culture in the media that declares the plaintiff guilty before there is even a trial

Yes, but why? And it is not just the media. I have read comments of various articles as well as the articles, and for every one which says something like 'hang on, let's see what the courts say' you have about 10 that simply yell with hatred. Why such hatred for a man who nobody knows? Why this insistence that accusation = guilty? Why all these anti-sex remarks that if you have an active sexlife, you are a male pig and a rapist?

In early times of the feminist movement, women who were sexually active or even just considered a 'flirt' could never win a case accusing someone of rape. Her whole life and sex-life and way to dress and what not would be discussed, she was the acccused as well as the accused.

In this we are back to that way of thinking again: Strauss-Kahn is a rapist because he has lovers outside his marriage, is white and rich. We are back to a terribly attitude to sex in general, and to men. He is judged and condemned already.

This is not feminism. Feminism is about better chances for women, it is not about hating men, and not about hating sex. There is something completely wrong here.

and this has massive impact on juries, especially in high profile cases where a celebrity is involved. It sometimes seems as if the age old concept of sub judice does not apply to these cases and so trial by media is becoming a common occurence.

What is sub judice?

Rape is an odd one... it is very hard to prove intent as it usually ends up as one person's word against anothers (after all, how many people take witnesses with them on a date?) and those sorts of court cases rarely end well or without mess and ambiguity.

True. I do believe you shold give the woman's word a lot of word, but we cannot go to the extent of saying accusation means conviction automatically.
In the two of these cases there are so big, blatant political implications that it is just so weird that noone seems to discuss them!

On the one hand I agree that women (and men) need to be protected from this absolutely vile crime (because I am something of a feminist myself, well by marriage anyway ) and that the law needs to shake off that old fashioned view that women 'were just asking for it' (and I am pleased that this article shows this to be the case) but I am also concerned about the fact that it is now easier for women to maliciously call rape and apparently get away with it. It is swinging in the opposite direction and that is going to lead to another backlash and a swing back to the bad old days of 'she wore a short skirt ergo...'

I do not believe for a moment that very many women would do so such a thing, but in these high profile cases it must be taking into consideration.

Frankly I think we close to a sort of mob rule here - with the press as the biggest part of the mob.