It’s Not Sex, It’s Rape: Prostituting-A-Disabled-Child Edition

it's not sex, it's rapeI just don’t even. This is one of the worst examples I’ve seen.

Trigger warnings out the wazoo.

Today’s Age has the article by Adrian Lowe, Father prostituted disabled girl. Check out the number of times “sex” is used in this article about years of systematic rape. [Emphases are mine.]

An intellectually disabled girl was molested from the age of 11 by her father, who later prostituted her to a group of truck-driving mates, the Victorian County Court has heard. The man, a 58-year-old father of six from Kilmore, abused his daughter, now 24, for 10 years.

When she was 13, she left school on the proviso that she work for her father. He persuaded her to have sex with him by paying her between $100 and $200, the court heard yesterday.

He also molested her when he was living in Melbourne and she went to visit him.

Prosecutor Ray Gibson said the girl was 16 when her father had told her that she could make some ”quick money” if his friends had sex with her. She was reluctant to do so but her father had persisted until she agreed, he said.

She could recall at least three men who had sex with her after making arrangements with her father on at least five occasions, the court heard.

Police have only been able to identify one man who paid for sex with the daughter; he was charged with two counts of entering into an agreement of sex with a child under 18.

On two occasions, the father filmed that man having sex with his daughter. The second time, the father handed over the camera and they swapped roles.

The woman said the men had paid her between $200 and $300, and while she thought she had received all the money, she was unsure if her father had taken a cut.

Mr Gibson said the daughter had continually complained to her father that she was not a prostitute and a father should not treat a daughter in that fashion, but he had continued to present her with ”clients”. […]

The court also heard she was raped seven times by a neighbour when she was 14. […]

So it’s only actual rape-rape if it’s not your dad or his buddies doing it? Awesome, Adrian Lowe, the Age, and the court system. Love ya work.



Categories: gender & feminism, violence

5 replies

  1. FFS, how is an intellectually disabled minor “persuaded” to have sex rather than coerced?

  2. The language in this article, although not ideal, is likely to be avoiding defamation. The question is: has the father been charged with (the official legal definition of) Rape? If he’s been charged with other crimes instead (through lack of proof or whatever else) then the paper cannot say “allegedly raped”. Wording of molested or prostituted is okay as they aren’t legal definition of crimes! The paper would only be allowed to say the neighbour raped her if he has been convicted of rape already. If the neighbour hasn’t been convicted of rape, and/or the father and mate have been charged with rape, then this article is guilty of extreme bias.
    Either way, “persuaded” is extremely UGHHH, the wording of “forced” would have been much, much better.
    In terms of describing court proceedings, one can’t say raped (unless “allegedly” if charged with rape specifically), only sex (preferably emphasising the forced nature). It’s like the paper can’t say shoplifting, only took without paying, without the “allegedly” and that specific charge of stealing.
    Repeating my gf’s opinion (as a community laywer). Obviously the way the law works could do with a lot of improvement.

    What happened to this girl is what happened to a close friend, except she never saw any money. -_-

  3. I completely disagreed, calyx. If the victim was under the age of consent, any “sex” would be rape. I am so completely over hearing people say “oh but it’s legal language! Oh but he’s innocent until proven guilty!” because that’s the kind of attitude that leads to judges banning the word “rape” in their courtrooms and forcing a victim to talk about “having sex with” their rapist.
    “Having sex with” implies consent. A minor cannot consent. So it’s rape.
    On a different note, I have to love the emphasis in the first paragraph on “truck-driving mates”. Because obviously being raped at your father’s behest wouldn’t be so bad if they were well-dressed financiers or something.

  4. The article uses “molested”. I think that puts a dent in the ‘careful legal language’ angle is this case.

  5. I was…. just describing the current legalities as I understand them. QoT, I agree that it’s fucked, so does my solicitor parter, who in working with the most abused and underprivileged members of society, constantly comes up against the fact that the legal system is, well, fucked up. Jet, molested or forced sex are not legal terms in the way that rape is. It’s crazy and stupid, but that’s apparently how the current system of defamation law works. In order to try dismantling it and in criticising journalism, isn’t it better to work out what we’re fighting exactly?
    If I have the energy, I really should go find out what exactly the father has been charged with, and whether the neighbour has been convicted of rape.

%d bloggers like this: