There is one thing that I don't understand about Young's attempted rape. But firstly...
I understand that rape has no prejudice against age, color, health or social status. I am also aware that oftentimes it is a crime of "possession" and "control." Even at times one of passion, or may not have any rhyme or reason at all. Although I disagree that the perpetrator necessarily hates women. I also know that all manner of women are raped regardless of their beauty, sex appeal or lack thereof.
I also know that there are opportunistic rapes. E.g., if the wrong man stumbles into the woods and happens upon a severely drunken and naked woman he will take advantage of the situation even if he wasn't previously on the prowl for intoxicated cat or had it on his mind.
My wanton curiosity is so intense that I turned my desire for self gratification to the internet and found relief in the form of many interesting sites. I took the liberty to include one of them at the end of the post. But first, secondly...
In Pavel Young's case, I don't understand what specifically interested him about Honor? She wasn't particularly attractive (so I'm told). And Young didn't particularly have any hatred or animosity for her at the time, iinm. It wasn't an opportunistic or convenient rape in the traditional sense. The opportunity and convenience of the showers was forced by Young with some stalking and painstaking research. The rape attempt on Honor was premeditated. Planned. An awful lot of expense and risk was involved with it.
So if Honor was so unattractive, and Young didn't yet have a reason to do it out of spite then what was the driving force? It isn't that Young had been isolated in some form or fashion away from women for a significant amount of time as prisoners are. It wasn't as if Young was sexually starved. If it was all about "control" then he certainly could have found a better target to intimidate and overpower -- one who is not serving in the navy who possibly may also be proficient in hand to hand combat. There had to be "something" previously alluring about Honor. But what?
If indeed it is about control and a man is going to go to the trouble of finding a weak target, stalking her, dominating and raping her, why not find an attractive mark? Or one who is at least sexually appealing. Not attractive but sexy. Are we to assume that from the neck down Honor attracted men like a homing signal and Young was simply a Pidgeon?
Yet, the gawky horse syndrome shoots down an abundance in sex appeal from the neck down. Oh where are you when I need you Joan Rivers?
Another alleged assault by a Lord. Lawdy lawd, what is it about them Lords.
The truth about rape and sexual assault is ugly – and many women know this
Another week, another misogynistic comment by a high-profile man. During an interview with a national newspaper, Lord (John) Prescott raised a decade-old accusation that he had assaulted Linda McDougall by pushing her against a wall, saying that she was “built like a bloody barn door” and that the “fucking house would have fallen down” if he had done so. There you have it. Had McDougall been considered attractive by Prescott, perhaps he might have proudly owned up to such atrocious behaviour? Not on your life – men use all kinds of justifications for sexual assault on women, ranging from “she asked for it” to “I was doing her a favour” (the implication being that no other man would want her).
Prescott, who vehemently denies the allegation, is far from the only public figure who has dared to make such remarks. Earlier this year a senior Liberal Democrat council member, Philip Drury, resigned after posting on Facebook remarks insinuating that a 21-year-old female student was too ugly to be raped. Drury’s outburst followed the woman’s claims that she had been sexually assaulted in Italy, but police there believe she made the attack up. Drury wrote: “Not sure anyone would even want to think about it looking at her lol.”
Last December, according to a report of an interview with a newspaper called Zero Hora, a Brazilian congressman, Jair Bolsonaro, said of a political opponent, Maria do Rosário Nunes, that he would not rape her “because she is not worth it, because she’s ugly, she’s not my type. I would never rape her.”
The remarks followed an accusation by Bolsonaro that Do Rosário had previously called him a rapist, which she denies, and after her speech in which she condemned human rights violations committed during the US-backed military dictatorship.
Reacting to the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case, internet users questioned whether he would have raped his accuser because of how “ugly” she is and the French media rated her attractiveness. Of all the myths about rape, one of the most damaging is that men do it because they are overcome with lust for a super-model type of woman whom they cannot resist.
But rape happens to babies, elderly women and everyone in between. And yet we routinely conflate rape and sexual assault with conventional attractiveness – and perpetuate the notion that “ugly” women don’t get raped, and that attractive men don’t need to commit rape.
I recall an incident a few years ago. I had just been on TV talking about the disgraceful number of convictions for rape in Britain. On my way home I stopped off at the bank and was immediately asked, quite confrontationally, if I was “that women just on the telly about rape”. I confirmed I was, while handing my cheque to the cashier. “You should shut your mouth,” the man continued. “What’s it got to do with you? You’re too ugly to rape.” The cashier looked shocked, saw how upset I was, and reassured me by saying: “Don’t listen to him – of course you are not!”
More recently I was in a pub with a female friend one evening, engaged in conversation, when we noticed a man hovering next to us. “What are two beautiful ladies doing on your own?” he leered, preparing to pull up a chair. When we helpfully pointed out we were actually together, ergo not alone, we quickly became “slags” followed by “lesbians”. As we left the pub we heard the charmer shout: “Fucking ugly dykes, they wouldn’t even get raped.”
is not only vile sexists who hold such views. Some women buy into this too, which is unsurprising bearing in mind the amount of rape-denial propaganda with which we are inundated. When Andrea Dworkin wrote movingly about being raped in Paris a number of prominent feminists, who certainly should have known better, said in private to me that it probably had not happened because Andrea was not the type of women men would find attractive. This is nothing short of internalised woman-hating.
When I, along with many other second-wave feminists, proudly rejected beauty products and other feminine frippery such as high heels, we were judged and vilified by men who took great offence at us not dressing to their requirements. Over the years I have become used to being told by a certain type of man, on a regular basis, that I am “unfuckable” and therefore, unrapeable. I have, however, been raped and sexually assaulted, presumably by men with their eyes closed.
Being told we are too ugly to rape is such a common experience amongst my feminist peers, that the crime writer Val McDermid and I once spent a hilarious evening mocking up a feminist rock band named “2 Ugly 2 Rape.”
And it is not only feminists who come in for such bile. Disabled women and girls are incredibly vulnerable to rape and sexual assault and yet are told they are undesirable and asexual.
Rape is a sadistic act of punishment. We are raped by men who hate us, not by those who desire us so much they have no self- control. They do it to control us and then they tell us we are mad for imagining it happened because we are not good enough for them to violate, abuse and colonise. The truth about rape and sexual assault is ugly.
)
NISHMENT
