[The 10-year-old girl] was attacked in a park in South Oxfordshire by [Keith Fenn, 24] and his accomplice Darren Wright, 34, on October 14 last year. Fenn removed all her clothes and raped her, then Wright took her to his home and sexually assaulted her. Yet [Judge Julian Hall] said the case was exceptional because the "young woman" had been wearing a frilly bra and thong.Judge Hall said he faced "a moral dilemma." So instead of the life sentence that Fenn faced, he instead gave him "concurrent two-year and 18-month sentences" which will leave him "free in just weeks after spending eight months in jail awaiting sentence." Fenn's accomplice is already free after having served eight months on remand.
…The court heard that the girl regularly wore make-up, strappy tops and jeans. "It is quite clear she is a very disturbed child and a very needy child and she is a sexually precocious child. She liked to dress provocatively," the judge said. "Did she look like she was 10? Certainly not. She looked 16."
If this decision wasn't bad enough, earlier this year, Judge Hall set free another pedophile, "telling him to give his victim money 'to buy a nice new bicycle'." It's time to get Judge Hall off the fucking bench. And maybe take a look at his recent internet searches, if you catch my meaning.
In good news, the Attorney General is considering an appeal of the sentence.
What I find most interesting about this particular bit of rape apology is how it manages to incorporate so many different aspects of apologia all at once, intersecting the notion that children can consent to sex with adults with the notion that women are seductresses whom men can't stop themselves from raping with the notion that a woman who dresses "provocatively" is giving tacit consent to every man who lays eyes upon her. It's the trifecta of rape apology!
I'm going to guess that no one who lingers around these parts would bother arguing that a 10-year-old child can consent to sex, and I'm further going to guess that I don't need to restate for the hundredth time or so what total horseshit the magical, mysterious, mighty power of uncovered meatdom theory of irresistable rape is. I will, however, repeat what I've said before about the whole "provocatively dressed" argument, since that one still seems to be frustratingly operative, even around here:
That attire can be a justification for sexual abuse is a disgusting suggestion, whether we're talking about a child or an adult victim... Time and again, in arguing this issue with people, my assertion that a woman's attire does not matter has been met with an eye roll or a snort or an exhortation to admit that a woman dressed "a certain way" probably wants to get laid, as if I am being deliberately obtuse about what message is typically being sent by a short skirt and a low-cut blouse. Of course I'm not ignorant of these particular cultural cues. I am, however, intractably resistant to the notion that a woman who wants to get laid is giving explicit consent to anyone who wants to fuck her. I have this crazy notion that a woman has a choice about who gets access to her body, and that men have to respect it. Zany! It's reminiscent of the scene that all of us have seen played out in bars, clubs, in the office, on the sidewalk, and in countless films in which a provocatively dressed woman refuses the advances of a man who then angrily demands to know why she's dressed "like she wants it" if she doesn't. Naturally, she may very well want "it," but perhaps not from him. The idea appears to be that any man should do—a sentiment also built into the attitude that a provocatively dressed woman shouldn't expect to have the right to choose with whom she has sex.
That, by the way, for any ethically retarded judges who happen to be reading this post, doesn't apply to 10-year-olds. Children can't consent to sex, no matter how old they look. Fuckhead.
[H/T to Lauredhel.]