I agree that CST is on target, but I certainly believe the victim’s occupation was part of why the jury felt free to ignore the fact that the rapist testified to committing the crime when they decided to acquit him.

[Acknowledging what CST just said; so I know that this isn't disagreement with them]

In Cara’s original post, I characterised the jury as accomplices. And in a case like this, where the man testified to committing the crime (of course without actually using the r-word, which for some reason makes it ok, wtf?), I can’t think of any other way to see them for acquitting him. I view them in the same light as those who spectated at the rape in Richmond.

Sorry about that, and thanks for understanding what I meant despite my phrasing it badly. As I was reading this, it brought up a lot of memories of things that have happened to me and to other women I know, and it was the sheer number of memories that was “striking” to me. I mentioned it only for the purpose of discussing the bit I quoted about how this case would be viewed if the woman had not been engaged in sex work at the time, but I do see how I could have been clearer. I did not mean to imply that sex workers are a separate class from women nor was I trying to suggest that disparaging attitudes toward sex workers had no bearing on this case.

On the whole I have found it difficult to comment on this matter as I find it so deeply upsetting. I think that CST’s take on the conception of male sexuality is correct, however I do think that the notion that a sex worker ‘can’t be raped’ is at play here, and it is disturbing and upsetting in the extreme.

Just a gentle word as well: I’m fairly sure you didn’t mean it like this CST, however, I’m not sure why it should be *striking* that “sex worker” could be replaced with “woman”. I think you meant it in terms of the commentary being delivered, and the attitudes of misogyny behind them meaning that the misogyny would be there regardless of whether the story was about a sex worker or not, it’s just that I found myself kind of blanching at that sentence since there’s often, elsewhere an implication that a female sex worker is not a ‘normal woman’.

I’m not sure that’s true. Several times while reading this story (and links), I was struck by how easily “sex worker” could be replaced with “woman”. There’s a myth of male sexuality as an unstoppable force at play here (not to mention the expectation for women to be accommodating). My guess is that a “normal” woman who invited a man up to her room for sex but decided that she was done before he was and was then coerced until he decided he was finished would not be looked at much better than this sex worker was.

the Court of Appeals of Rome issued a sentence declaring that the rape of a sex worker is less punishable than the rape of a woman that does not choose to be a prostitute.

an Italian man of 31 years old kidnapped, robbed and raped a Romanian prostitute. … charged with kidnapping, sexual violence and robbery, and was condemned to seven years imprisonment. the Court of Appeals of Rome on October 18th reduced his jail time from seven to three years and four months.

The main idea behind this decision was that sex workers by choosing to “work on the street,renounce their physical and moral integrity.” The physical, moral and legal offences to a prostitute cannot be considered equal to that of woman who is “not a prostitute” and, therefore, the crime in question should be judged in light of these attenuating circumstances.

It is clear from this perspective adopted by the Court that women must conform to the attitudes/behaviours that are morally accepted by society. Failing to do so, they run the risk of being punished (by being raped). This means that men can feel empowered to violate women’s autonomy and not respect the rights of sex-workers because sex workers have neither social nor legal legitimacy. This sentence, thus, implies different punishments for two kinds of rape. There are rapes of “series A” which have to be strongly punished, and then there are those of “series B” which require less punishment because the victim’s moral transgression or behavior encourages sexual violence.

—
I took note of that when I read it – not only because it totally sucks, but because I also read this post , published around the same time, also about Italy, also about sex workers, also purporting to “care” about women. Pretty obvious to me which of those two people actually cares about the lives of women.

orlando, I can’t get my head around the jury’s thinking either.

Mindy, I too would be angry and frightened yet unsurprised.