The Brisbane Times ran this story today, bylined Amelia Bentley. Trigger warnings for sexual violence. I’ve taken the liberty of correcting some of the victim-blaming language.
A Brisbane man who pimped out a 16-year-old schoolgirl rewarded her with chicken nuggets after she had sex with middle-aged men, a court has heard.
A Brisbane man who pimped out a 16-year-old schoolgirl rewarded her with chicken nuggets after she had sex with was raped by middle-aged men, a court has heard.
Ronald Vikrash Gander, 27, was living with his 16-year-old girlfriend in Brisbane in June 2008 when his teen lover’s school friend moved in after running away from home.
Brisbane District Court was told to pay the rent on their Brisbane unit, Gander and his girlfriend told the girl she would have to work as a prostitute. Using his credit card, Gander placed several ads in a Brisbane newspaper offering the girl’s services.
The girl, who cannot be named, had sex with men aged between 40 and 60
The girl, who cannot be named, had sex with was raped by men aged between 40 and 60
and also took part in a lesbian romp with a 25-year-old woman who responded to the advertisements.
and also took part in a lesbian romp with was raped by a 25-year-old woman who responded to the advertisements.
Crown prosecutor Patrick Power said after the girl was injured during a sex session she asked if she could stop the work but Gander’s girlfriend told her if she did they could not pay the rent and they would all be left homeless.
Crown prosecutor Patrick Power said after the girl was injured during a sex session while being raped she asked if she could stop the work they would stop forcing her into prostitution but Gander’s girlfriend told her if she did they could not pay the rent and they would all be left homeless.
The girl confessed what was happening to a school guidance counsellor and police were alerted.
The girl confessed explained what was happening to a school guidance counsellor and police were alerted.
Brisbane Times FAIL. So, so much fail. And that “confessed” zinger really puts the icing on the little-raped-slut-blaming cake.
Vomit.
[More details in the Courier Mail, which focuses more on the perp’s criminal activities and less on distorted wankfodder. They still get the “had sex” bit wrong, though.]
Categories: gender & feminism, language, media, violence
DUFC #69 
Quick Hit – To march or not to march? 
Hoyden About Town 
It’s appalling how often posts like this are required. This sort of trash deserves national exposure on Media Watch at the very least, and preferably in the wider media.
The Courier Mail also has sentencing details. His jail term will be suspended after nine months. The perp has previously done five years for financial fraud, and had been out of jail for fewer than 18 months before the offences described in this post.
I don’t publish the half of them, either.
I thought 16 was the age of consent? Therefore they cannot claim she was raped if they have no details on whether or not she gave consent.
Technically, yeah, she was being pimped out, which is bad, but still, because she is able to legally make her own decisions about her sexuality, they would not be able to state that she was raped.
Wow, that’s just..argh. Lesbian sex romp?
Wow, Nikki, what part of this story suggest free and uncoerced consent and authentic personal expressions of sexuality to you? The being trafficked into underage prostitution by a much older man under threat? Her complaints about sustaining injuries in the course of this, and her being forced to continue? The perp’s guilty plea?
How exactly do you define “consent”?
Nikki, I certainly hope that you’re not from the “you can’t rape a whore” school of thought.
Queensland Criminal Code sec 348 Meaning of consent
Looks to me that like she couldn’t have consented. And that makes it rape, under Queensland’s laws.
Deborah’s last blog post..Two wrongs = suspended sentence for rape
Or “it’s not rape unless there’s a gun to your head”.
lesbian sex romp?? why do lesbians have “sex romps” and men just have “sex”? (sort of irrelevant since as you point out none of this was ‘sex’ anyway, but, so annoying!)
echoing disbelief wrt “lesbian -romp-” especially. WTF?
daiskmeliadorn: Why, because we always do it with pillowfights and whipped cream. Our sexuality only exists for the titillation of others, of course.
“why do lesbians have “sex romps” and men just have “sex”? (sort of irrelevant since as you point out none of this was ’sex’ anyway, but, so annoying!)”
Apparently, men don’t have sex. Women/girls have sex with them.
Not only is the rape called “sex”, but the “sex” was only ever described that way, as though she was the active participant and her behaviour is the focus! The article is about a crime where she’s the victim!
I’m seeing this more and more in the media: not just “sex”, but “she had sex with” being substituted for “rape”. I don’t know how people can argue that journalists avoid the word merely to be neutral NOW. If that kind of journalism is acceptable, then just wait for this article: “SEX GIRL ALLEGES “RAPE” – A Coburg man has been charged with sexual assault after a girl had sex with him…”
Gander and his girlfriend were pimping her out, that’s how it can be said. With the threat of homelessness if she didn’t comply.
From Adelaide: two men in their early 20s receive suspended sentences and a good behaviour bond after having “unlawful sexual intercourse” with a 15-year-old girl.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,,25265862-2682,00.html
I saw that one too, Arctic Firefox. I’ve written a post about it, because I just can’t get my head around the beak’s logic.
Two wrongs = suspended sentence for rape
No, sorry, guys. I wasn’t implying that she wasn’t forced to have sex at all; it’s terrible what has happened to her, I’d be crazy to deny that.
What I meant was that the paper could not yell “rape!” because clearly they did not have the specific claim that she was. I don’t know the specifics. The media doesn’t like to claim rape or abuses if they cannot be 110% sure of it. Clearly they hadn’t done their research into the legal definition of “consent” and didn’t want to risk being sued by anyone.
Our sexuality only exists for the titillation of others, of course.
Neh, it’s because “lesbian” is an adjective, innit. There are no actual lesbians, just lesbian acts. All women are actually bisexual.
I’ve got various weaselling and apologist posts starting to pile up in mod, but I’m not going to publish them. Read the comments policy, folks, and read some previous threads on this topic.
ETA: I’ll publish them if there are a mountain of hoydenizens wanting to read them and wrangle with them, and none wanting them to remain moderated. But if you decide that this post/thread is triggering ebloodynough already, that’s fine.
Take Our Poll
Nikki: The age of consent for non commercial sex is 16. For commercial sex it’s 18 across Australia.
hexy’s last blog post..So You Think You Can Dance Australia, and why my fellow Australians shit me to tears
Thanks, hexy – it was my mistake to assume that was common knowledge.
daiskmeliadorn: Why, because we always do it with pillowfights and whipped cream. Our sexuality only exists for the titillation of others, of course.
YOU MEAN KATY PERRY LIED TO ME????
God I hate these kinds of articles. And yet again, they’ve been CONVICTED, for fuck’s sake, but I know so well that at least half the apologist comments that haven’t been posted will make some attempt at the “legal terminology” bullshit defence.
And even if she had been 18, it still would have been rape, because she was forced to do it (see Deborah’s comment above).
“…after running away from home.”
That could be a relevant fact also.
hannah’s dad: spot on. We’re not told the details, but there’s a fair chance her home life was not a good one, and this could make her particularly vulnerable. (And therefore in need of _more_ protection from the law, not less, as is sometimes argued by rape apologists.)
Beppie: Absolutely.
hexy’s last blog post..So You Think You Can Dance Australia, and why my fellow Australians shit me to tears
I read this too and gagged on the language. Some people are just rubbish, and this bloke is one of them. I mean the one who wrote the article.
M-H’s last blog post..Paint! Roof!
Amelia Bentley wrote the article and Daniel Sankey is the editor of the paper, you can let them know what you think at their contact page
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/contact/
What a rotten piece of work, trivialising her exploitation and abuse by calling it a ‘sex romp’ and making sensationalistic headlines about chicken nuggets.
It makes me sick.
This is sick
Also sick: the only actual jail sentence given in this whole thread was for bloody financial fraud.
$$$$ > women in the eyes of the law, apparently.
Thanks for the contact page details Y. Definitely need some feedback mechanisms in place here. Unfortunately, journalists seem to measure the quality of their stories only by the eyeball numbers they generate.
When I read stories like this I go into the mode of an idealist and wish for the existence of an industry where there are serious consequences for crap like this – immediate feedback mechanisms from the public and some sort of lowered ranking and profit for the paper.
It’s also rather telling that the headline here was “Pimp Paid Child Prostitute in Chicken Nuggets”.
Forced child prostitution: not interested.
Chicken nuggets: why that’s a wacky human interest story!
Agree with Dan’s comment – with all the exploitation and hurt going on in this story could the chicken nuggets be any less relevant to the content? I suspect “chicken nuggets” was put in the title of the article for the sake of very cheap laughs for the readers. Vile.
The “chicken nuggets” thing is, I think, also really dehumanizing and demeaning of the victim – it’s not, “Total Bastard Forced Child Into Prostitution For Food”, it’s “that stupid girl! She doesn’t understand how she could’ve been making REAL money standing on streetcorners! That guy’s so clever, he only paid her in junk food! LOL!”
I must now go cleanse my keyboard after typing that.
I wasn’t implying that she wasn’t forced to have sex at all
Sorry for the conclusion-jumping.
I don’t think it was much of a jump, SunlessNick, given this:
Uh, yea. “Technically”. “Technically”?! Not, say, “Actually”?
On the surface, this is a convincing argument. It’s the same reaction I had both to this and to much of the other “raped by elves” stuff I’ve seen in the archives here. The thing is that if you take a step back you realise that this is completely ludicrious.
To take a completely random example, on the BBC news website at the moment, there is an article about the theft of some pigs. The description of the crime is: “More than 500 pigs have been stolen from a farm in south Staffordshire”. The newspaper isn’t worried about being sued in case it turns out the pigs went missing of their own accord. If we applied the “no specific legal terminology” rule to thefts, this article would have to read “500 pigs walked off of a farm in Staffordshire”.
The difference between rape and theft is that if 500 pigs go missing, everybody accepts that a crime has been committed, the only question is by whom. It’s only in the case of rape that we take “presumption of innocence” to mean “presumption that a crime has not taken place at all.”
Dan Hemmens, great explanation.