Comments on: Oh, anonymous commenters!

By: Jen

Jen — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 22:50:02 +0000

Aspasia,

I think the argument was more like, “She’s a dancer and bartender; therefore, it is consensual.. because, those women always give it up?” Still as offensive.

By: Charlie

Charlie — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 13:15:32 +0000

That commenter didn’t really ping my troll-dar, but rather it sounded like a failed attempt at sarcasm, i.e. the litany of genuine complaints that women have vs. his inability to get laid as an object of derision.

As to the rape shield law, it is just about ironclad in PA, with the only exception being the issue of consent and prior relations of the two people in particular- she must have wanted it because she used to want it before. But that is limited and specific, and even then judges are very cautious even then about letting it get too far from the specific circumstances. The complainant’s sexual history with other persons is COMPLETELY out of bounds.

By: SnowdropExplodes

SnowdropExplodes — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 12:57:51 +0000

On rape shield laws, this from the UK probably takes the biscuit, but not in a good way:

Judges admit they get round law designed to protect women in rape trials

In short, yes, we have a rape shield law, but the judges don’t respect it.

By: RenegadeEvolution

RenegadeEvolution — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 05:24:01 +0000

The god-emperor of Rome is amused by these “logical men”…

By: Aspasia

Aspasia — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 04:13:42 +0000

The defense attorney tried to insinuate that salsa dancers deserve to be raped? Are you frakin’ serious? So what about ballerinas? Skipping about in tutus that leave NOTHING to the imagination? And always showing how flexible they are with their arabesques and such? They are always being lifted into the air by men so {sarcasm alert} obviously they like to be manhandled. Or gymnasts? Tangueras? Belly dancers? *calms down* Where does the insanity end?

By: Jen

Jen — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 00:32:58 +0000

Just checked. There’s a case which states the Rape Shield Law trumps any past conviction laws (i.e., can impeach a witness with any felony / moral turpitude convictions). Never thought Georgia would so progressive (though as a defense attorney, I say Boo!).

I have a friend who recently tried a Rape case (as a prosecutor) and the defense attorney kept mentioning the fact that she was some sort of salsa dancer. The mind boggles. My judge would have kicked my ass if I had pulled a stunt like that.

By: Amber

Amber — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 23:46:15 +0000

Yes! And Jill just blogged about NY’s law yesterday. Basically, they have a “rape shield” law, but it has a pretty nasty caveat wrt past prostitution convictions.

This is a good idea for something practical to organize around. Hmm, the ol’ brain wheels are turning…

By: Jen

Jen — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:23:32 +0000

Idea.

Maybe feminist bloggers (or really any activist) can push for changes in states that allow for such irrelevant evidence in rape trials.

See O.C.G.A. Â§ 24-2-3(a):

In any prosecution for [sexual crimes], evidence relating to the past sexual behavior of the complaining witness shall not be admissible. For the purposes of this Code section, evidence of past sexual behavior includes, but is not limited to, evidence of the complaining witness’s marital history, mode of dress, general reputation for promiscuity, nonchastity, or sexual mores contrary to the community standards.

I’ve taken out some parts, but what’s left is in the code. Of course, in your version you can take out “contrary to community standards.”

By: Aspasia

Aspasia — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:21:42 +0000

Oh GODDESS! I frakin’ hate comments like that! So, a man getting made fun of for not getting laid is JUST LIKE a woman being shamed for 1. being raped and 2. having her sexual past displayed for public consumption after being raped. Oh yeah. Same thing. Oy. Vey.