Tinder, Misogyny and Victim-Blaming: A Rant!

 Let's start this blog by expressing a simple fact: I hate dating sites.

Yes, I know half the world seems to be meeting online, these days.  And yes, I know not everyone on dating sites is a socially crippled weirdo (heck, I've been on plenty of dating sites and I consider myself to be at least semi-normal).  But I've had enough bad experiences on the likes of OK Cupid, Plenty of Fish and Tinder to be... Shall we say, less than enthused about dating sites.

In fact, I even made a video in which I shared some of my horror stories:

Check it out, I promise it's funny.

Still, ever since I escaped an abusive relationship, I've been living in a world of unrelenting singledom and, to be frank, I'm bored of that.  I miss having someone to share things with.  I miss cuddles and kisses and more than just cuddles and kisses.  I miss having a date to bring to events (on the rare occasions on which I actually get invited to "events").

Sure, there are definite bonuses to being single, too: the whole duvet to myself, much less potential heartache in store and so on, but for a while now, I've been "looking" to meet someone.

I tried Ok Cupid (hated it).  I tried Plenty of Fish (hated it).  And then, after much persuasion from family members, I tried Tinder (guess how I feel about it?!).

Despite the general dislike I have for basically every dating site or app I've ever used in my life, I decided to stick at Tinder for a while, given that it was handy having the app in my pocket and nobody can message you unless you've already matched with them, so I figured that might weed out the idiots (spoiler: it doesn't).

And so, on Friday night, I decided to do a spot of - what I up until now, only very privately referred to as - "window shopping."  I fired up Tinder and started swiping through profiles.  I came to one that featured a guy called Az (yep, we're naming and shaming in this blog).  He referred to himself as a surgeon, who specialises in cosmetic procedures.  He was fairly attractive and his photos made him seem interesting (as much as static pictures ever can, anyway).  So, I swiped right and, funnily enough, it came up on my screen that we were a match.  Hooray!

Now, one of the many (many) problems I have with Tinder, is that messages seem to be frequently ignored - perhaps it's just me and my innate unlovability, but basically, when you match with someone, you're asked whether you want to message them, or keep swiping.  More often than not, I choose to message someone and...  I never hear back.  These are people who looked at my pictures and the information in my profile and thought "yeah, okay" and yet, when I message them, they seem to suddenly become repulsed.

CHEERS FOR THE CONFIDENCE BOOST, GUYS!

So, in this case, I decided I'd wait a while, before I messaged.  I figured I'd take some time to think about what to say, seeing as "hey, how's it going?" has almost never elicited a response and nor has actually referencing something they've talked about in their profile.

Anyway, fast forward two or three hours and my phone suddenly buzzed with a message from the aforementioned Az.  It said simply: "Hi. xxxxxxx"

Now, I won't lie to you, dear reader.  I actually said aloud: "Bloody hell, go easy on the kisses, mate."

Oh, if only being excessive with written kisses had been this guy's only problem...

I responded, saying hi and asking how he was.  He replied with the words:

"I had to swipe right, because I adore busty women.   I think you might be busty, sorry to be direct, but I can tell."

Now, I'm no Pamela Anderson, but I have boobs.  They're a decent size.  But, seeing as Tinder is rather notorious for being little more than a hook-up app (and that wasn't the reason I was using it) I made sure that when I chose my profile pictures, none of them were too revealing, in terms of cleavage.  In fact, there's really only a glimpse of cleavage in one picture, out of five uploaded, and it's not my main profile picture.

Still, I figured that maybe this guy was just trying to be complimentary, albeit not in the most gentlemanly manner, so I replied: "Thanks?!"

It was at this point that things went downhill, pretty speedily.

His reply asked: "You are though, aren't you?  I can tell.  I am a cosmetic surgeon.  I can take a flat chested woman up to a FF.  You're not flat-chested, but you're nowhere near an E cup.  I really like bigger boobs and I can make them bigger.  I think we should meet."

Just as a casual reminder, in case you'd forgotten: This guy was a total stranger to me.  This was his idea of an appropriate conversation-starter.  He was basically saying: "I've been looking at your pictures to see if your boobs are big enough.  I'm capable of improving your body to fit my standard of beauty."

I told him no, I didn't want to meet a total stranger who was weirdly obsessive about my bra size.

He carried on ranting about "improving" me and reminding me how much he loves enormous breasts, as though at some point, I was supposed to shrug and say: "Oh, well.  If you really love them, I guess you can enlarge mine."

How about a world of no?!

In the end, after four further breast-obsessed messages in quick succession, I sent him a response, telling him that as someone who was bullied at school for not quite fitting society's ideal of what beauty is, the very last person I would ever be interested in, would be someone whose opening gambit was to tell me he's assessed my body and decided what changes need to be made.  I told him - in words more polite than he deserved, to be honest - that next time he matches with a woman, he might want to consider changing his opening chat to something more along the lines of: "Hello, how are you?" rather than "you're nowhere near an E cup, but don't worry, I can fix that!"

 I made it very clear that I wasn't even remotely interested and then I reported him for inappropriate messages.  Because as far as I'm concerned, repeatedly contacting a stranger about the size of her breasts is inappropriate.

The following morning, having checked the messages, to ensure it just wasn't some weird dream, I went off on a *bit* of a rant about it on Twitter.

It went on for over 25 tweets.  It was an EPIC rant.

Now, just as Tinder is notorious for being full of guys only after one thing, so Twitter is notorious for being full of trolls.  So, I was quite relieved when I received a lot of nice replies from people.  Some simply said they were sorry for what I'd experienced.  Some shared their own bad dating site stories.  There was no judgement.

Until...

...Along came a Mr L. Meadows.  And yes, again, I'm naming and shaming, because as a woman who has experienced too much of this crap online, I am sick to the back teeth of men like Az and L. Meadows and I feel like their behaviour needs calling out.

Mr Meadows very kindly decided the problem wasn't with the man who had sent me inappropriate messages.  It was with me, for having been on Tinder in the first place.  He told me:

"The Internet is the haven of socially inept people.  Don't go on a dating site and then complain because you met one of them!"

Does that sound familiar, to anyone?  Because it did, to me.  It reminded me of the kind of victim-blaming rubbish that women who are abused, assaulted or raped have thrown in their direction, time and time again.

"If he abused you, why didn't you just leave?" Or "But what were you wearing?  And had you been drinking?  Were you walking alone?"

Essentially, what L. Meadows was telling me, was that I was responsible for what had been said to me, because I made the mistake of using a dating site in the first place.  Never mind that an enormous percentage of couples meet online, these days.  Never mind that I've spoken to several nice people, online over the years.  What happened to me - having my body assessed by a stranger who repeatedly continued to talk about my breast size, long after I'd asked him to stop - was my own fault.

Now, me being me, I decided to respond.  Because I hate myself, or something, I don't even know...

I told him that no, not everyone using dating sites - or indeed the internet in general - is a socially inept, nasty piece of work and that I wasn't about to generalise in the rather petty way he seemed to want to.  Nor was I about to blame myself for the actions of another person, just because I made the decision to download Tinder in the first place.  I didn't invite comments on my body from a vile stranger.  He made the decision to send them.  And he made the decision to continue sending them after I'd told him I wasn't interested and I didn't like his obsession with my boobs.  That makes him the one in the wrong here, not me.

L. Meadows didn't like this argument.  Presumedly, because it was logically sound and if there's one thing trolls hate, it's logic.

He told me that "a trickle of nice people" doesn't change the fact that most dating sites are full of idiots and I should've known as much.

Now, sure.  If you watched the video I posted way back in this rant, you'll know that I've encountered more than my fair share of weirdos on dating sites.  I've also encountered many, many internet trolls on websites such as Twitter.

But beyond that, I've met friends online.  I've discovered and become part of a community who helped support me after an abusive relationship.  I've found fellow small YouTubers, who I chat to about video-making and growing our channels.  I've seen both sides of the internet - good and bad.  And I highlighted this to L. Meadows.

Clearly, reasoned debate isn't his strong point.   I say this, because he decided that, if I was making reasonable comments that he was struggling to pick apart, he'd have to try harder to troll me.

So, he started stalking my timeline, to find something - anything - to attack me with.

I mean, I'd feel sorry for him for clearly having no life, but... 

...I choose not to, because he chooses to be an ass.

Now, one of the women who responded to my ridiculously long Twitter rant had told me she would have wanted to say something nasty back to the so-called surgeon on Tinder.  I replied:

"I very nearly told him: "I could offer you a penis enlargement, but it seems you're already a massive dick..." ;-)"

Many LOLs were had at how incredibly witty I was, ho ho, ha ha etc.

But one person wasn't laughing.  

L. Meadows wasn't laughing.  

He was furious.

How dare I make such a disgusting statement?!  How dare I complain about what this guy had said to me, when my language was just as bad, if not worse?!  I wasn't the victim, I was the bad guy in all this!!  Not only did he actually tell me that my joke made me the bad person in the situation, he also began subtweeting about me to his (fairly small) smattering of followers:

"What's good for the gander is also good for the goose!  Try to remember that ladies, when slagging off men."

"If you are going to bitch about someone else's language, first make sure your's is above reproach."

Yes, he wrote "your's."  And he's an author.

There's a downside to the ease with which Amazon allows people to self-publish, clearly...  Although, he does at least refer to himself as a "wretched writer" on his Twitter bio.  I guess he's warning his readers in advance...

I'm not even sorry.

Basically, this misogynistic murderer of grammar was telling me that "if a man made that joke, you'd be up in arms about it."  But he was saying it to a woman who had very recently had a man TALK ABOUT WANTING TO ENLARGE HER BREASTS AND HE WAS BEING SERIOUS.  The joke response - which I never sent to Az on Tinder - was not even in the same postcode of wrongness as the actual messages I received.  My decision to laugh off the incident with an off-the-cuff remark which Ass Az never saw, was not even remotely the same as sending a complete stranger a message about their body and what improvements I'd like to make to it.  To equate the two was utter stupidity.  To have made me the bad guy was just blatant misogyny.

Both.  It was both.

I actually told him - quite seriously - that, were I the sort of human who considered it appropriate to send messages about intimate parts of a stranger's body after they've asked me to stop, I would consider it to be fully deserved, if a man made a joke like that about me ("I'd suggest a breast enlargement, but she's clearly already a massive tit" - boom-tish).  I also reminded him that the idiot on Tinder who caused my upset in the first place had ACTUALLY sent me the messages, whereas I never sent this reply to him, I merely made a joke to someone else about it.

But L. Meadows was adamant that I was just as bad.  I should hold myself "equally accountable," because I made this joke "on a public forum."

Oh, dear.  Bad me.  I tweeted something about someone who doesn't know my surname and therefore will never see it.  I tweeted a joke about something I could have chosen to say in response to  offensive messages, having first made clear that I actually sent a firm, but polite response to the person in question.  I made a joke in response to some fairly vile messages, which I had already mentioned, had brought back memories of being horrendously bullied as a teen.  I tried to be humorous in the face of something that had genuinely disturbed and angered me.

I am an abhorrent human and must be stopped.

Of course, like with all trolls, pointing out any of this was useless.  And, like all petty little bullies, L. Meadows resorted to telling me: "at least I don't have to troll Tinder for dates."

No, sweet-cheeks.  You just troll women on Twitter for sh*ts and giggles.  Which of us is sadder?!

This whole incident - the actual vile messages and this idiot's response to them - highlights something we really have to tackle, online.  There is, as one Twitter friend put it earlier, a "kid in a sweet shop attitude" that some men have, when using social media or dating sites.  It's as though they're presented with these women that they can message and, considering that the women are behind a screen, rather than sitting in front of them, they feel they can say anything they like.  And of course, if they don't get the response they're after, there are plenty more women to go and harass, until they do.

Because, just what was Az the "surgeon" hoping for?  A woman low on body confidence, who would agree to meeting, so he could "size her up for surgery"?!  The scariest thing about it, is that isn't beyond the realms of possibility.  And, should some woman be conned by Az, and end up having her boobs groped by someone who possibly doesn't have a medical qualification to his name, she'd then be blamed for the whole thing by men like L. Meadows.  Because the internet is full of weirdos and she should have known better.

As I said in my ridiculously long Twitter rant, we need decent men - of which, thankfully, I know many - to be speaking out against this stuff.  To be saying: "no, sending those messages wasn't even remotely appropriate.  It was sexist and offensive."

We need the good guys to call out the bad ones.  To say: "hang on, why are you blaming her, instead of the guy who actually carried on talking about her breasts after she'd explicitly asked him to stop?!  Why are you trying to suggest that making a joke about a situation she found horribly uncomfortable, makes her as bad as the guy who caused her to feel that way in the first place?!"

Unfortunately, until more of them do speak out, this is only going to continue.  Because no matter how many women speak out against it, there will always be an L. Meadows to come along and tell her she's wrong and it's all her fault and she's just as bad as the man was.  Whether it's genuine lack of intelligence, actual misogyny or just a complete failure to understand a situation before commenting on it, there will always be someone who chooses to reduce a woman's experience and find a way to blame her for it.  

I'm tired of victim-blaming.  I'm tired of having my responses to negative situations being scrutinised by men who feel the need to paint me as the bad guy at any cost.  And, after yesterday, for the time being at least, I'm sick and tired of dating sites.

We all know the real love of my life is food, anyway...

Dear Henriette Reker - An Open Letter

Mayor of Cologne, Henriette Reker.

Photo credit: Oliver Berg/AP

Some of you may not have heard about the dreadful attacks in Cologne over New Year, in which scores of women were sexually abused, mugged and, in one case, raped.  Police in Germany have spoken about "a new dimension in crime," voicing fears that the gang of men behind the staggering attacks had planned and organised their actions in advance.

Clearly, the actions of those men were abhorrent.  Obviously, the blame for what took place on a night where countless women were merely out celebrating the New Year, lies squarely on the shoulders of those men.

But the Mayor of Cologne, Henriette Reker, has made comments which are all too depressingly familiar in the wake of such incidents.  Rather than lay blame at the feet of the despicable attackers, her tactic was to advise women on how to better prevent it from happening in the first place.  As though any of those attacked on New Year's Eve somehow brought it on themselves.  I'm tired of banging on about the same bloody subject.  The only person to blame for rape is the rapist.  With that in mind, I have a few words for Ms Reker...

Dear Ms Reker,

On New Year's Eve, dozens of women went out in your city, to celebrate the turn of the New Year.  Those women were harassed, abused, groped, mugged and, in one case, raped.  The centre of your city has since been declared a "no-go zone" for women.  My question to you is this: HOW, in a modern, democratic country, can you even think of using such terminology?  How have we found ourselves in a position in which one sex is effectively warned off an area of the city, due to the behaviour of the other?  Or, to put it another way: why are you suggesting ways that women can "prevent" themselves from being attacked, rather than simply promising to find and prosecute the attackers themselves?

Before I go on, let me try to look upon your words in a calm, rational manner.  You're the Mayor of a city in which around 90 women were assaulted on a night out, last week.  Having experienced an attack yourself, of course you are interested in female self-protection as well as prevention.  It seems that you simply want the women living in or visiting your city to watch out for one another as well as themselves.  That's understandable.

BUT - and it's one heck of a 'but' - the fact is, it should not be down to women to avoid certain areas, or follow a frankly insulting "Code of Conduct," in order to prevent sexual attacks in your city.  It's not the potential victim's responsibility to prevent her own assault.  It's your responsibility - and that of your fellow local government officials and police force - to ensure that sexual assault is taken seriously and that those guilty of it are found and prosecuted.  It's your responsibility to crack down on violent crime against women.

Telling women to ensure that they stand "more than an arm's length" away from strangers in a bustling city, on one of the busiest nights of the year is frankly laughable.  Have you ever tried walking through a crowd like that?  You also tell females to "stick together in groups," but have you actually read any of the accounts given by women who were attacked that night?  Because I have and the majority of those women were in groups.  The fact is that they were outnumbered by their attackers, who worked to isolate their victims (as is so often the case in these situations).  

You've gone on to mention the carnivals taking place in Cologne city centre next month, warning women about the "potential dangers of drunken events."  Where is your warning to the men intent on carrying out attacks on those women?  Where is the promise of heightened police presence and of harsh consequences for any wannabe rapist/attacker?  Why are you addressing the victims (and possible future victims), rather than speaking directly to the perpetrators of such disgusting crimes?

I can appreciate that, with the police and victims describing the men who carried out these sickening attacks as being of North African or Arab appearance, you are probably concerned about heightening racial tensions, seeing as Germany has taken in so many refugees.  But condemning the actions of these men is not the same as condemning all refugees or immigrants and only an idiot would make a blanket judgement based on the actions of this group.  Calling out the behaviour of a sex-attacker as wrong does not make you racist.  You're allowed to say that what these men did was disgusting and you should.  Instead, you're merely giving women a set of "rules" to follow, as though doing so will magically prevent further attacks, whilst suggesting that you need to provide a "better explanation" to immigrants to your country, in order to "prevent confusion as to what constitutes happy behaviour."  Is it just me, or is that insulting to both the vast majority of immigrants who almost certainly are aware that raping, groping and mugging women is wrong, as well as to the women who've suffered such attacks?  It's equivalent to "there, there, these people just don't know any better."

We live in a world in which victim-blaming is all-too-common.  Much too frequently, when a woman is raped, we hear people asking questions such as:

• "What was she wearing?"
• "Had she been drinking?"
• "Did she kiss the guy or lead him on?"
• "Was she walking on her own, late at night?"

The purpose of these questions seems to be to find a reason for the attack suffered by the victim.  It's as though we can casually explain away a rape if we can somehow find that the victim brought it on herself.  The truth of the matter is that the answers to all of those questions don't matter one bit.  If a person is attacked, they are not responsible for it - the attacker is.

By coming up with a "Code of Conduct" for the women living in or visiting your city, you are, perhaps unwittingly, contributing to a culture of victim-blaming that desperately needs to be stamped out.  It's absolutely fine and understandable to want women to look out for one another and to report crime when they see it.  It's not fine or understandable that a member of local government's go-to response to a mass sex-attack against women is to make up rules for the women to follow, in order to stop themselves being attacked in future, rather than focusing on the perpetrators of the attack as being responsible.

You want women to ensure that they keep strangers at arm's length, in the middle of a carnival atmosphere, where literally thousands of people are gathered to celebrate.  You want women to remain in tight-knit groups, in an atmosphere where many of those groups were overpowered by larger numbers of attackers, determined to mug, harass and assault women.  Can you see how you're completely missing the point, with your "advice"?!

When 90 women are attacked on your streets, the answer is not look for ways that those women could have better prevented what happened.  It's to find, prosecute and condemn those attackers for what they did.  They are responsible.  To seemingly make half-hearted excuses and lay the responsibility for preventing further attacks on the shoulders of women shows me that, unfortunately, you're standing much more than an arm's length away from logic.

The ONLY Person to Blame For Rape is The Rapist.

Photo credit: Rape Crisis Scotland.

I wrote a blog about rape less than a month ago, after a man in a position of enormous power within the legal system, decided to put forward his frankly grotesque view that a woman dressed a certain way and on a night out, may be subtly to blame for being raped, should that happen.  It depresses me that within just a few weeks, here I am again.  Same subject, but this time, different continent.

Today, I read a news story about the fatal gang rape of a woman in Delhi.  A BBC documentary is being made about the rape case and the impact it's had in India and indeed, the world.  It goes without saying that there is a huge trigger warning for the news story I read, which can be found here.  It's also fair to say that I should offer a trigger warning for this blog, as I will be quoting from that article from this point onwards.

The makers of the BBC documentary interviewed one of the men convicted for the attack.  During the interview, he made some statements about rape that didn't just make me feel a little uncomfortable.  They made me disgusted.  Because nowhere, in any part of the world, regardless of cultural differences, should we be accepting statements like the ones I am about to respond to, here.  And yet the man interviewed, Mukesh Singh, made his comments freely and no doubt will hold on to his conviction that he is correct until such time as a date for his execution is set.  And the truly frightening thing is that there are still people out there - in India and closer to home - who agree with him.

With that in mind, I spent a while trying to decide what form this blog should take.  In the end, I decided the simplest is often the best.  And so, I will be quoting from Mukesh Singh's interview (in bold) and responding to each comment in turn.  Here goes...

"A decent girl won't roam around at nine o'clock at night."

The victim, known as "Jyoti," was on a bus, travelling home with a male friend, having been to see a film at the cinema.  She wasn't "roaming around."  She wasn't doing anything wrong.  All she was doing was heading home from a perfectly innocent night out.  A group of men chose to attack and rape her.  Their decision had nothing to do with whether Jyoti was a "decent" girl (whatever that means).  She gave them no reason to think ill of her.  They simply made the choice to rape her, causing her such horrific injuries that she died two weeks later.  That's all on them.

"A girl is far more responsible for rape than a boy."

No.  She really isn't.  Jyoti was travelling home on a bus with a friend.  "Boys" decided, for no reason other than that she was a woman, daring to be outside of the house, to attack her, even inserting iron bars into her, causing catastrophic internal injuries.  Jyoti was not in any way responsible for their decision to rape her.  No woman is ever responsible for being raped.  We talk about women dressing provocatively, going out late at night and getting drunk as though that makes them walking targets for rape, when we should be talking about why attackers make the choice to rape in the first place.  Because it is - like all forms of abuse - a choice.  The implication that a woman brings about her own rape by wearing a short dress, or walking home alone at night is frankly offensive to men, as it assumes that if they come across a woman dressed like that, or alone in a dark place, their default setting is to want to rape her.  That's simply not true of a massive majority of decent men out there!  It's time we changed the conversation.  We need to drop the "where was she?  What was she wearing?" line of questioning and stop placing blame on the victim.  

"Housework and housekeeping is for girls, not roaming in discos and bars at night, doing the wrong things, wearing the wrong clothes."

Define "wrong."  Because it sounds like a pretty subjective viewpoint, to me.  For example, I think it's "wrong" to be a rapist.  So do most decent human beings.

Granted, I'm talking about a different culture to the one I live in, but it also depresses me enormously to see women relegated to the role of housekeeper, like this.  That's all we're good for; cleaning, cooking, raising the kids...?  

That viewpoint is so out of date, it's growing mould.  And of course, once again, placing blame on the deceased victim for having the audacity to be outside at night, wearing clothes deemed "wrong" by her attackers, is a convenient way to remove their own responsibility for what they did.  But try as they might, the fact remains:  A girl got on a bus.  She did nothing wrong.  They attacked and raped her.  The responsibility is all on them.  

"About 20% of girls are good."

Care to provide the evidence to back up this claim, Mr Singh?  Thought not...

"When being raped, she shouldn't fight back.  She should just be silent and allow the rape."

Yes, you read that right.  If someone wants to rape a woman, she should just be silent and let them get on with it.  Because we have no worth, clearly.  We should shut up and let men do whatever they like.

Women who are raped are often too terrified to fight back.  Often shock renders them completely still/numb and as much as they may desperately want to, they find themselves unable to fight their attacker.  When a woman does manage to fight back, she's doing so because she doesn't want to be raped!!  She's giving you a very, very clear signal that she wants you to stop.  So it's hardly surprising that a man convicted of rape would find such a fight-back inconvenient; he doesn't like the word "no."

This statement also led to Singh accusing the victim of being responsible for her male friend being beaten up by the gang of rapists, when he tried to defend her.  Again, no.  A gang of men made the choice to rape Jyoti in the first place.  When her friend came to her aid, they decided to beat him.  None of these were decisions Jyoti made.  The blame is not on her.

Incredibly, Singh goes on to suggest that if he and his fellow rapists are executed, more rape victims will end up being murdered.  He claims that rapists won't simply leave girls after they've raped them, now, but will kill them in order to avoid being found out.  And Singh seems to feel that he and his fellow rapists did the decent thing, by not leaving Jyoti dead at the scene...

Singh's defence lawyers were also interviewed for the documentary and appeared to be in agreement that a woman being out at night in the company of a man had "disgraced herself."  One, shockingly, claimed: "We have the best culture.  In our culture, there is no place for a woman."

Of course, what he means is: "There's no place for a woman besides doing the housework, because that - and sexual availability (whether expressed or not) - is all a woman is good for."

Pictured:  That misogynistic point of view.

Recently, a person has been contacting me over and over via an account I co-run on Twitter, following a debate on consent.  They want to know whether I agree that women should be taught to protect themselves from rape.  Because of the pushy nature of the questioning, I've ceased engaging with this person, but I'll clarify here:

Teaching young people - not just women - basic safety is common sense.  However, that safety advice should never be seen as guidance for preventing rape.  Girls should never be told that if they dress a certain way, drink too much or walk home alone, that they're inviting rape.  The responsibility for rape lies solely with the rapist.  It's a choice they make.  

Talking about how to avoid rape, with the best intentions, suggests that women can somehow prevent it.  The awful truth is that we often can't.  Women can be raped at home by their partners.  They can be raped at work or social events by people they know.  We have to step away from the idea that rape is something that happens to drunk girls in dark alleyways, at the hands of total strangers.  The conversation we need to be having is about consent and that anything less than freely given, informed consent should be a big stop-sign, when it comes to sex.  We need to be talking about respect and boundaries.  We need to be tackling the actual root problem - the rapists - not the excuses they give for their actions.

I'll end this blog with a quote from Jyoti's mother.  Speaking about the rape and murder of her daughter, she said:

"Whenever there's (a rape), the girl is blamed.  She should not go out...or wear such clothes.  It's the boys who should be accused and asked why they do this."

Got it in one.  

*The documentary, Storyville - India's Daughter, is due to air on BBC 4 at 10pm on Sunday 8th March.

Rape Apologists Have NO Place In Positions of Power

I was having a nice Saturday morning, I really was.  The sun was out, I had a new flavour of Pop Tart to try and I'd had that most treasured of things that I miss during the working week - a lie in.

Then I made the mistake of browsing the news on my phone.  And I saw this:

The full link to this article is here.  Massive, massive trigger warning for obvious reasons.

For those of you who can't bring yourselves to read the story in full (and I don't blame you), I'll summarise:  Barrister David Osborne has suggested that where alcohol is involved in a rape case (if a woman says her consent was coerced through the deliberate use of alcohol, for example, or perhaps that she was drunk when she encountered her attacker and doesn't recall giving consent at all), then the men standing accused have a "complete defence" and the case should be dropped.

In a blog odiously titled "SHE WAS GAGGING FOR IT," David Osborne goes on to insist that most men accused of rape are cleared because the jury don't believe a word the victim says and he argues against the idea that our first and foremost reaction to a rape allegation should be to believe the victim.  When asked how he would leave women protected by law, in light of his views, Osborne suggests:

"The protection in law that they have got seems to me to be twofold.  Number one, don't go out in the first place,  Or number two, if you do go out, don't get rat-arsed (slang for drunk, for my non UK readers).  If you do go out and get rat-arsed, I'm sorry, you're asking for trouble.  You've seen the news sequences of girls who, regardless of the weather, have their backsides sticking out of their dresses and their tits hanging out of the same dress.  Wandering around the streets, staggering around and then wondering at the end of all that why somebody has, if you like, taken advantage of them...in those circumstances, I don't for the life of me see why the law should be slanted...towards the victim and therefore against the accused.  I don't call them victims.

I've advised my own daughter, although thank God, she doesn't trollop around the streets half naked and under the influence...I've said you've got to bear in mind that walking the streets, provocatively dressed, can, in some circumstances, be an invitation to a red-blooded bloke.

I tell you what would drop the rape statistics, would be if girls covered up, dressed appropriately and stopped drinking themselves legless."

Emergency puppy photo, in a bid to bring down my blood pressure before we continue...

Let's make this very clear, shall we?  This man is a BARRISTER.  He practises law in our nation's courts.  And his first view towards a rape case is that if there was alcohol involved, the victim should not be believed.  I firmly believe that there is no place for people like this in positions of power.

There's literally so much wrong with that bloody awful quote of his that I don't know where to start.  Ironically, I'd really like a drink...

Actually, I do know where to start: with the facts.  Alcohol is known to impair decision-making.  It is known to lower inhibitions and make us more likely to do things we later regret.  However, it can also render someone unconscious and therefore unable to consent or fight off an unwanted advance.  It can be used to deliberately coerce or manipulate someone who was previously unwilling. 

In his appalling tirade, David Osborne makes it clear that he believes that women who "cry rape" after having had sex whilst drunk actually did consent to the sex, but then regretted it later.  It's at this point that anyone with an ounce of common sense and a lack of hatred for women (don't even try to argue that Osborne is anything but a misogynist) can untangle his nasty little knotted argument.

And we can even do it with a simple picture.

Let's think about how many rape cases go unreported every year, by victims who are aware of how difficult it is to secure a conviction.  They know that in rape cases - almost certainly more so than in any other kind of criminal case - there is a strong chance that they won't be believed.  And why?  Because of men like David Osborne.  Men in positions of power, who suggest that things such as the victim's clothing, their choice of path home and the amount they had to drink somehow takes away from their status as the wronged person.  They must have asked for it.  They must, to quote Osborne, have been "gagging for it."  The thought of reliving their ordeal, only to be accused of leading the rapist on, or of putting themselves at risk purely by having the audacity to go out in a dress and enjoy a few drinks, leaves many rape victims unwilling to go to the police.

Now let's think about how many false accusations of rape are made every year.  In 2013, the Crown Prosecution Service released their findings, having looked into prosecutions for rape and domestic abuse over the period of January 2011 - May 2012.  They compared this with the number of prosecutions for false allegations of rape.  In the entire test period, whilst 5,651 people were prosecuted for rape, only 35 were prosecuted for making false rape allegations.  According to the research, a "significant number" of these false allegations were made by children, young people, or those with mental health problems.  In other words, very vulnerable members of society.  Kier Starmer QC, Director of Public Prosecutions, confirmed at the time: "From the cases we have analysed, the indication is that it is...extremely rare that a suspect deliberately makes a false accusation of rape or domestic violence purely out of malice."  He went on to make the vital distinction that: "The mere fact that in some cases someone did not pursue a complaint, or retracted it, is not of itself evidence that it was false."

Credit to Rape Crisis Scotland.

It really shouldn't be hard to imagine why false rape allegations are nowhere near as common as some people believe them to be.  It's not as simple as just telling a lie, after all.  It's a lie you have to consistently tell to several police officers and specially trained Sexual Offences Liaison Officers.  It's a lie that will only get as far as a court room if those police officers believe that there is enough evidence and it's in the public interest to pursue a prosecution.  If they do take it to court, it's a lie you might well have to tell in front of a judge, a jury and the person you're falsely accusing (unless you give evidence by video screen).  It's a lie you'll have to consistently keep up, whilst having your character questioned by the accused's defence team.  It's a lie you'll have to stick to, whilst being subjected to an attack on what you were wearing, whether you'd had anything to drink and how loose your morals are perceived to be.  It's a lie you'll have to tell over and over, knowing full well that far too many people are judging you rather than the accused.  How many women does David Osborne believe would truly want to put themselves through all of that, simply because they regret a drunken "quickie?"  As the above research concludes, the number is incredibly small.

And so we move from the facts on false allegations, to the facts on the law.  A law which David Osborne insists he'd like to see amended...

By law, sex without consent is rape.  Consent gained through coercion via manipulation or alcohol is rape.  Sex with a person who is unable to give full consent, due to the effects of alcohol or drugs is rape.  

David Osborne seems convinced that in every rape case where there is alcohol involved, the woman has, at some point, fully consented for sexual activity to take place and simply changed her mind afterwards.  But as we have seen above, false allegations of rape are rare (current statistics for the UK range from 3-8% of rape allegations turning out to be false).  If we are in a position wherein a man - with all of the privileges that alone bestows him, without even taking into account his white skin and upper middle class ranking - can stand as a practitioner of the law and announce that rape victims who'd been drinking at the time of their attack should not be believed, then we are in a sad state of affairs indeed.

A sad state of affairs which only gets sadder when we read the "advice" David Osborne gives women in order to prevent rape.  The same tired, lazy, set of arguments we've heard time and time again, which places full responsibility for preventing rape on the shoulders of women and which suggests that poor "red-blooded blokes" just can't help themselves.  I find this grossly offensive as a woman, but I'd find it equally despicable were I a man being told that my natural instinct is to rape.

• Don't get drunk, girls.  If you get drunk, you'll do something you might regret.
• Don't wear a revealing outfit.  If you do, men won't be able to help themselves.
• Travel in groups.  That way potential rapists might be put off and will look for someone on her own, instead.

Not a single one of these arguments puts even the slightest bit of blame on the person who actually commits the crime.  The responsibility is heaped onto the shoulders of the raped, rather than the rapist.  Not only is this attitude misogynistic and reeks of rape apology, but it's ignoring the very fact that a huge number of women are raped by men they know (around 90%, according to Rape Crisis), with the attacks taking place in their own homes, workplaces or other settings in which they previously felt safe.  Rape does NOT only occur on nights out.  It does NOT only happen to young, provocatively dressed women.  Rape, as David Osborne should really know, given he works in the legal profession, is NOT an act of sex, it is an act of violence/control.

It also intrigues me as to what excuses David Osborne would make in order to place blame on a male victim of rape.  Whilst the vast majority of rape victims are women, men and boys can be and unfortunately are raped and it's no less devastating for them when it happens.  So, Mr Osborne, how about them?  Were they drunk and therefore "gagging for it?"  Perhaps they were wearing a tight-fitted t-shirt, or snug jeans that left little to the imagination?  Because if women are to blame for their own sexual assaults, then surely by extension, so are men? Or is rape apology something you reserve exclusively for us ladies...?

David Osborne, in his vile blog, talks about ways we could reduce rape statistics in this country.  The answer is simple: 

 Teach rapists not to rape.

That - and that alone - is how we'll reduce statistics on rape.  We need to educate society that no means no.  That a person incapacitated through drink cannot give free, clear consent.  And that victims of rape are not responsible for what was done to them, regardless of what they were wearing, or whether they were drinking.  That rape victims should never be judged or shamed.

Rape is the shameful act.  And rape apology is shameful, too.

Rape Crisis: England & Wales Freephone: 08088 02 99 99 (operational 12-2:30pm and 7-9:30pm daily)

Rape Crisis Scotland Freephone: 08088 01 03 02 (line operational 6pm-midnight daily)

RAINN (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network - USA) 1.800.656.HOPE