"Woman cries rape" case highlights double standard in male and female sexuality
By Kelly BourdetJanuary 26th, 2011, 3:00 pmComments (17)
The double standards by which we judge men and women's sexual activity/promiscuity are especially apparent in the language used during the court case of the chief executive of Conwy council, Byron Davies. In March of 2010 Davies, fifty-two, met a twenty-six-year-old woman at a local bar and went home with her. They had sex and she later brought charges that she was too drunk to consent.
Davies stated that the one-night stand was regrettable and "not very gentlemanly" and claimed that the woman was "pushy" and specifically targeted him for sex due to his position. But then, conversely, claimed, "She virtually had her arm twisted by her husband to make a complaint." So, the woman here is either a pushy opportunist or she's a weakling coerced into legal action by another man.
David Williams, defending, said that the case against his client collapsed entirely when the complainant got in the defendant's car:
What on earth is she doing going home with him at that time? She has indulged, sadly, in a sordid one-night stand with a man who is much older than her.
So the one-night stand is "not very gentlemanly" when a man refers to his own actions, but it's "sordid" when we're describing the actions of a woman? And, the woman claimed that she was too intoxicated to consent to sex, wouldn't that lead us to believe that her judgment was also impaired when she got into his car? Last time I checked, accepting a ride from a man late at night was not a contract for a sexual encounter.
I don't have an opinion as to whether or not this man is guilty, but the language employed by the defense offers a glimpse into the ways we still view women and their sexual choices: through the lens of slutdom.
Commentarium (17 Comments)
Is Byron Davies married? Because this implies that that his behaviour as a single man, having a harmless one night stand is indeed un-gentlemanly. However her beaking the vows and sanctity of her marriage is indeed quite sordid. So I don't really buy the angle which you are describing. I also somewhat take umbrage with the statement that she cannot be a complex enough woman and personality to be both sexually demanding and aggressive, while at the same time sober and in the confines of her home and marriage to be guilted into making charges against the councilman. It seems pretty damn plausible to me.
This is the stupidest article ever. It's his defense attorney--what do you expect?
"lens of slutdom" ... will you ever go away?
If anything, the fact that this case even got to trial is a sad reflection on the fact that women are perceived as perpetual victims and not capable of making their own decisions. As for your intellectually lukewarm assessment of the difference between "sordid" and "ungentlemanly" well...as The Baltimoron so succinctly put it: "It's his defense attorney-what do you expect?".
Try intellectual honesty next time as opposed to your society-is-misogyny-colored glasses...you might like it.
In reply to: "if anything, the fact that this case even got to trial is a sad reflection on the fact that women are perceived as perpetual victims and not capable of making their own decisions." This case went to trial because the woman accused Davies of raping her. It has nothing to do with perceived victimhood.
What I'm interested in is not the fact that the defense attorney used the most effective means of defending his client, but the fact that, because of preconceived notions around women's sexuality, the most effective means became exploiting the gender stereotype of a "drunk, slutty woman."
She was drinking. She was forward. She accepted a ride from a strange man. I guess she was asking for it, huh?
I'd like to have a discussion about intoxication negating a person's consent. Certainly being passed out would indicate no consent, but I think it's absurd that we apparently need to administer a breathalyzer test before sex to ensure we've gained proper consent. What defines "too intoxicated?" What if both participants are drunk? Did they rape each other?
BrianT nailed it...if he is single, than yes poor judgement, unlike she, the married one with legal obligations as well as supposed moral obligations. If you act like a whore, you are a probably a whore male or female
Apparently, Davies is divorced or separated -- he thanks his children for their support but does not mention a wife.
I don't know UK law, but if it's similar to US law, then rape is a "specific intent" crime. Thus, it's not rape simply because the woman did not consent or because she was incapable of consent.; it is a defense that the defendant reasonably believed the complainant was consenting. You'll note the prosecutor made the point that "[I]t should have been obvious to the defendant that she was not in a state to consent." We can't know on what basis the jury decided, but it could simply be that they found Davies reasonably believed the woman was consenting.
MARRIED woman gets sloshed, gets in some old guys car, goes home with him, gets caught and desperately screams rape so her husband won't ditch her ass. Shame on anyone for viewing her through the "lens of slutdom"! Monsters!
I agree with your general opinion about double standards, but you picked a piss-poor excuse to bring it up.
at common law in the u.s. (which, generally speaking, is not applicable), rape is non consensual sexual intercourse, no matter how slight, with a woman who is not the actor's wife.
That's weird... I've never heard of a defence attorney making the alleged victim into a villain. Odd.
This might not have been the greatest example and there's no way of knowing the specifics of the evening but from the facts presented, its clear that the defense did fall back on the prevalence of the societal "double standard". You can bicker about how inadequate this article is at conveying that or you can acknowledge that it exist and some women don't receive justice because of it. We all deserve a judicial system that works. And if its easily swayed by gender discrimination, its seriously flawed. Whore or not.
Wives can be raped, too.
@AWP, at common law, a man could not rape his wife. That's changed with the Model Penal Code and in many (and perhaps all -- I'm not sure) states at this point.
What double standard are we talking about here? The double standard that women don't get a fair shake because they are accused of being sluts, or the double standard that men always want sex but women don't? If a man told this same story, that he was too drunk to consent despite acting like he "wanted it," he'd be laughed out of the courtroom. Of course he wanted it! He's a guy. But a woman claims rape despite her actions, and she actually has a case. Are we to assume that every rape charge is valid? That women are incapable of "crying rape?" If we can't explore that possibility, we are, in effect, saying that every woman's claim of rape should be enough to convict her alleged perpetrator. Since there is no way to get inside her head, the only thing anyone has to go on is her behavior. Are we supposed to drug test, breathalyze, and do a full psychological evaluation on every woman we meet in order to verify consent? Why is verifying consent only the man's responsibility? It's because of the double standard that men always want sex and women "agree" to it. Why can't her actions serve as evidence she was inviting sex? It would if it was a guy in her position...
In reply to: "if anything, the fact that this case even got to trial is a sad reflection on the fact that women are perceived as perpetual victims and not capable of making their own decisions." This case went to trial because the woman accused Davies of raping her. It has nothing to do with perceived victimhood.
Interesting...because the first paragraph you wrote there says she brought charges that "...she was too drunk to consent.". Which I guess MUST be equivalent to rape, since everyone knows this happens to women all the time and men should know better...even when the women state their intent and get in the car.
The fact that a woman can admit to willingly going home with a man to have sex and still bring charges against that man for rape because "she was too drunk" and he should have known not to take advantage of her is a fairly strong indicator that women are still perceived as incapable of taking responsibility (presumably due to their perceived inferiority, no?).
It's gross that some laws allow for women to be perceived as lacking the ability or responsibility for their own decisions. Sexist even.
This is bullshit:
"women are perceived as perpetual victims and not capable of making their own decisions"
Neither men nor women can make good decisions while drunk, duh, it's why we don't let people drive while drunk. We don't try to convince them that they can make their own decisions and drive drunk anyway.
Now you say something