“Gangs are drawing up and disseminating lists of teenage girls whom they consider to be legitimate rape targets”
Gangs are drawing up and disseminating lists of teenage girls whom they consider to be legitimate rape targets, as sexual violence is increasingly used to spread fear and antagonise rival groups.
The so-called sket lists (sket is street slang for “sluts”) have, according to youth workers, prompted attacks so brazen that girls have been dragged from school buses and sexually assaulted. Police and charities say they have recorded an increase in the use of sexual violence by gangs, including incidents of revenge rape, where the sisters and girlfriends of rival gang members are targeted. Claire Hubberstey, interim chief executive of Safer London Foundation, a charity working with young people to reduce crime, warns that gangs are using sexual violence in the same way that they use dangerous dogs to parade their masculinity.
Scotland Yard has confirmed that sexual violence against women by gangs is now “at the top of our agenda” following initiatives that have seen gun crime fall by 17% and knife crime offences by 11.5%. Det Supt Tim Champion, from the Metropolitan police’s Operation Trident gang crime command, said: “The first thing we had to do is stop people killing each other. The focus now clearly is on women. It’s as prevalent as carrying a knife or a gun – the raping of a girl in a gang.”
Hubberstey said gang members were taking advantage of low conviction rates for rape, viewing sexual violence as a less-risky means to inflict pain on rivals or spread fear than carrying a weapon. “Criminals are clever, they know if they are caught carrying weapons they face a lengthy sentence; it’s risky carrying a gun. The use of sexual violence is the same sort of thing as having a dangerous dog; it creates fear, it’s non-traceable, and they are also taking advantage of low rape conviction rates even when there are witnesses,” she said.
I’m always a little reluctant to post these type of reports; this is rape culture, and it isn’t just young working-class/non-white men and boys in gangs who think of women as ‘deserving’ of rape, plenty of nice middle-class white boys commit rape as well. As the article goes on to say, “Sometimes they [a gang] think it will have a really detrimental effect but actually the boys are not bothered, usually it’s about punishing girls directly rather than boys by proxy.” This is about men’s sense of entitlement to the bodies of women and girls; of course, we have to remember as well, that girls who are socially disadvantaged have fewer protections from male violence, and are less likely to be seen as ‘credible’ if they do go to the police.
Following on from yesterday’s post re-blogging Deep Green Resistance’s support for Robert Jensen, here’s a quote from Jensen’s article which has led him to be ostracised by a book store/cafe/meeting place that claims to be ‘something radically different’.
Jensen’s piece is mild, calm and balanced, and the fact that he is being treated in this way just shows how powerful trans ideology is; any questioning, even in the most balanced and respectful terms, is now a thought crime.
I want to specifically quote the section of his article titled ‘ecology’ as, while the rest of the article is pretty 101 (this is an observation, not a criticism), I have not seen the ecological argument (which covers all ‘big medicine’, not just the ‘sex reassignment’ industry) spelt out so well before.
Many people, whether radical feminist or not, are critical of high-tech medicine’s manipulation of the body through the reckless use of hormones and chemicals (which rarely have been proved to be safe) or the destruction of healthy tissue to conform to arbitrary beauty standards (cosmetic surgery such as breast augmentation, nose jobs, etc.).
From this ecological approach, such medical practices are part of a deeper problem in the industrial era of our failing to understand ourselves as organisms, shaped by an evolutionary history, and part of ecosystems that impose limits on all organisms.
People are not machines, and treating the human body like a machine is inconsistent with an ecological understanding of ourselves as living beings who are part of a larger living world.
New students at Cambridge University could be offered “consent” workshops after a survey revealed more than 70 undergraduates said they had been sexually assaulted.
More than 2.000 people responded to the university’s women’s group and university newspaper, Varsity, survey.
Its authors called for “compulsory consent workshops” after 71 people reported “assault by penetration”.
The university confirmed it was discussing the workshops proposal.
About 77% of respondents also said they had experienced some form of sexual harassment with about 46% saying they had experienced “unwelcome pinching, groping or sexual touching”.
The “Cambridge Speaks Out” survey looked into the “prevalence of sexual violence, stalking and physical violence amongst all students currently studying at Cambridge University”.
About two thirds of respondents were female and one third were male.
The president of the prestigious Oxford Union has been arrested and questioned by police on suspicion of rape and attempted rape
Ben Sullivan, 21, who is studying history and politics at Christ Church College, Oxford, was arrested early on Wednesday . He was released the same afternoon on bail until 18 June.
It is understood that the allegations relate to one of rape reported to have taken place in January 2013, and one of attempted rape reported to have taken place in April 2013.
Sullivan, a third year student, was elected unopposed to the position of president last autumn.
He has been at the centre of recent controversy at the university after a student news website claimed he had been a member of an exclusive drinking society within his college known as the Banter Squadron.
He was embroiled in a bitter row with the website, The Oxford Tab, which accused him of trying to prevent it reporting his membership of the club and trying to get the Oxford Union to fund legal action against the site.
Part of the narrative of rape culture is not just the claim that rape is rare and unusual (so unusual in fact, that apologists think false allegations of rape are more common than rape itself), but also that rape is only committed by ‘outlier’ man, ‘bad men’, the implication being that these are men who were raised badly (which has the added benefit of facilitating the bashing of poor and/or single mothers). Oxbridge (for my non-UK readers this is a shorthand like ‘Ivy League’ for the top two Universities in the UK, Oxford and Cambridge) has a very high intake of students who were educated at public (ie fee charging) schools, and who are middle and upper class; ie, by mainstream standards, they were ‘raised properly’. Rape culture is the fact that ‘nice middle class white boys’ commit sexual violence just as much as any other group of men.
Also, the men educated at these Universities are the politicians, lawyers, doctors and business leaders of the future, they are going to have direct and indirect power and control over the lives of women and girls.
My personal life has become rather hectic at the moment (nothing bad has happened, but I’m not giving out TMI on the interwebs), so I will not be responding to any comments for a while. All comments are moderated, posts have been scheduled in advance. I will not be checking the email account either.
Shock horror! Guardian Comment is Free actually publishes something that is critical of the sex industry!
Unfortunately, they are toeing the ‘sex work’ line, which is effectively begging the question and taking the partisan line that submitting to unwanted sex is, under certain circumstances, merely ‘work’.
In Love for Sale, the feminist is the enemy of the prostitute, denying her free choices, thwarting her imperatives and daubing her with the mantle of victimhood. Feminists, a prostitute in a Dutch window tells Everett, makes her “feel small”. Despite the Liverpool streetwalker insisting, “We are not doing it because we love it”; despite a male prostitute reporting that eight of his colleagues had committed suicide in the previous 18 months because of “loneliness” and “crystal”; despite visiting the Bois de Boulogne, where his prostitute friend was murdered in 1998 (“She wanted to marry you,” a mutual friend tells him as they wander through the trees), Everett can only romanticise, and sometimes trivialise. An escort agency has a list of dodgy clients on the wall. “Jonny 12 (rough)” is one such. “Sounds my type,” says Everett. He adores the transgressive; even so, he supports legalisation. He thinks it is the only way.
The effects of legalisation so far are likewise obvious; Der Spiegel published a comprehensive account of the impact of legalisation in Germany last year. The law is a shield for pimps and traffickers, who flock to the safe areas with penniless girls from eastern Europe. Prices are driven ever downwards; mega-brothels offer all the sex an inadequate lover can desire for €70 (£58), which leads to queues outside the doors of exhausted women. Here, then, are monetised gangbangs approved by the state.
It could be that well-meant laws are poorly enforced, or that many prostitutes are incapable, for complex reasons, of true autonomy. Can we imagine women with a glut of choices choosing this? There are, of course, exceptions, and these exceptions want legalisation. No one can drive a law through these murky areas and unpick paid-for sex from contempt for women. In Sweden, for instance, where the punter is criminalised, the trade just moves elsewhere. But in Germany the testimony is the stuff of nightmare, of capitalism run mad to its inevitable dusk. The utopia of self-employed happy prostitutes serenely paying their taxes never materialised; instead, legislation conjured hell.
Gold neatly dismantles Rupert Everett: “Everett is obviously a romantic who romanticises what he finds because he is drawn to what his interviewee Russell Brand calls “maligned outsiders”. At one point he compares prostitution to his own profession, although it is hard to imagine a co-star placing a penis in his mouth, or anus, and giving him money.” This is an upper-class, white, male Hollywood star having his ‘naughty fun‘ at others’ expense; and isn’t it funny how ‘speaking for sex workers’ stops being a problem when the speaker says what the sex industry advocates want?
Paedophiles will be handed the same treatment as terrorists under a crackdown on child abuse to be included in the Queen’s speech.
David Cameron said he wanted to close a loophole that allows sexual predators to produce and possess “manuals” giving tips on how to identify victims, groom them, and evade capture.
In future, they will face the same kind of sanctions as extremists who download guides to bomb-making.
If only sexual violence against adults would be taken this seriously too; but then that would mean acknowledging how much of mainstream culture and normal het ‘romance’ is actually rape culture too.
I found this poster a while ago on tumbler:
It was re-blogged positively on the ‘sex worker problems’ tumbler.
Survival Sex Worker
a person who works in the sex industry who can’t access the right to refuse sex work
Unfortunately, I have not been able to find any alternative images that show the rest of the poster.
I meant to write about it in more depth, but I was reminded of it by two articles I read in the Guardian today.
Putting aside the obfuscatory language (“can’t access the right to refuse” = can’t say no), under any other circumstances, a person in a situation where they can’t say no to sex is a victim of rape. But here, because money has changed hands, it’s not rape, it’s ‘survival sex work’. My previous understanding of ‘survival sex work’ or survival prostitution, was people prostituting in order to get their next meal, or a roof over their head for the night, ie, to avoid immediate starvation or harm from environmental exposure.
The above definition re-labels any kind of forced prostitution, including trafficking and sex slavery, as ‘survival sex work’, and thereby conveniently erases the traffickers, the pimps and the johns.
The first article I read today was this one, on the Japanese army’s ‘comfort women’ during World War II. Under the above definition, these women were not victims of male, military violence, they were ‘survival sex workers’ and the institutions and individuals who abused them disappear.
The second article was this one, about the testimony of a man who was abused in an Australian religious institution as a boy, he is quoted as saying (that because of the lack of food): “I would do anything and let anyone do anything to me, just for a feed.” By the above definition, he was not a victim of abuse but a ‘survival sex worker’ (or, rather, a ‘juvenile survival sex worker’), exchanging ‘sex work’ for food, and the men who abused him have disappeared.
Whenever I hear someone say ‘sex workers want xyz’ I always wonder under what circumstances the question was asked.
Ask a woman working on the street whether she would prefer to be in a brothel and she may well say yes (on the other hand, she may have worked in brothels already, and found it so abusive the streets seem safer), because she’s thinking about how she’s going to get through the next 24 hours.
Ask the same woman if she would like long term help with drug-addiction, homelessness, lack of education/work skills, physical and mental health issues, she may well say yes to that as well.
Sex industry advocates/researchers/etc often have nothing more to offer than free cups of coffee, clean needles, condoms, lubricant, and harm reduction ‘advice’ on the best way to be penetrated when you are already in pain from being penetrated multiple times already.
If the people asking the question aren’t actually offering you any real alternatives, when the tacit statement underlying the question is ‘given that you are going to be in prostitution for the rest of your life’ what else are you going to say?
Also, given the victim-hating hostility that comes from many sex industry advocates, and even academics – calling victims liars, trying to intimidate and discredit them – what woman would speak up about it if she did feel like a victim?