Most favored rapist status

[BainsBane]

It occurred to me than some accused sexual assailants enjoy most favored rapist status on this site. The obvious examples are Julian Assange and Woody Allen. Another case is James Winston, Heisman Trophy winner, who was not prosecuted despite DNA evidence, a medical exam that showed vaginal tearing and severe bruising, and the examining physician's determination that the victim had been raped. A dozen or two members insisted he too was innocent.

Those are the cases I recall by name. I thought others here might share cases they remember where people made a point of defending an accused rapist.

Lastly, I'd like to know whether you think it's a case of famous guys getting a break, or that this community, like the country in general, always believes accused rapists over victims? Certainly some accused assailants attract more defenders than usual. For some reason Woody Allen seems to be enjoying more support even than Julian Assange, and clearly far more than James Winston. So I wonder if it's a matter of some men being above the law, that people can't believe that men they admire would do such a thing, or that there is a default position of innocent until proven guilty that sexual assailants enjoy here that those accused of perpetrating other crimes do not? Or is there some other explanation? Lastly, why? Why is it that being accused of child molestation or rape elevates a person's standing above other accused perpetrators, like the guy in Florida who killed the teenager who was playing loud music?

Here I feel compelled to post a few caveats. Of course everyone is innocent until proven guilty in our justice system. That, however, does not govern discussion on DU. Nor does it explain why the "innocent until proven guilty" argument is always made for rapists but seldom for those accused of other crimes, and never for women accused of making false rape accusations. I have never seen anyone come into Weird News and say "that woman accused of injecting poop in her husband's I.V. is innocent until proven guilty." Nor have they said "Those McDonalds employees accused of selling Heroin in the Happy Meals are innocent until proven guilty." Cheney, Bush or Christie are not innocent until proven guilty. They are, according to DUers, guilty. So why should accused rapists be held in higher esteem than elected officials?

Final caveat: Of course some accused persons are innocent. Trials determine legal guilt; discussion boards do not.

[DonCoquixote]

1. The only point about Assange

Is that he is the target of not just the press, but a government (namely ours, sadly) which has the resources and skill to tell lies. Woody Allen may be a celebrity, but he does not have the CIA after him (yet.)

That being said, I do think that Assange does not deserve a halo. Yes, he did break the news (though Chelsea Manning deserves more credit, she is the one that risked getting executed, and oh yes, you know there would be crowds cheering that), but a good deed here does not give you a license to rape. The sad fact is, we do tend to offer the right to treat women like shit as some sort of reward for heroes, be they Tiger Woods, Julian Assange, and oh yes, Bill Clinton.

[BainsBane]

2. Yeah, I'm kind of baffled by Allen in particular

and surprised he has more support even than Assange. I get that people admire Wikileaks, though I don't think that should make him immune from abiding by the Swedish arrest warrant. The Allen admiration, I do not get. He's a Hollywood director, and an overrated one IMO.

Bill Clinton. I know there were allegations by Republicans he had raped someone. I guess I had in my mind that yes, he is a philanderer but I never followed details of the allegations to know if there were any credible claims of assault. Tiger Woods isn't accused of raping anyone. He cheated on his wife. There are light years between a philanderer and a rapist and especially a pedophile. The first may be a personal moral failing, but it is not an illegal violation of another person. I think it important to not conflate them.

[DonCoquixote]

3. point made

as I doubt bill or tiger would rape. However, the point I was trying to make is that if you do something that makes people happy, you are awarded a "right to treat women like shit pass" by this country. It is why the term "trophy wife" has become common. In the most kind analysis of Woody Allen, he turned his 21 year old stepdaughter into a trophy wife. What is sad is, if he had, let's say, divorced his current wife for let's say, a young Scarlett Johanssen, he would be getting raves.

[Squinch]

14. Absolutely true.

To me this seems like people living vicariously through him. He got to do these things that they wish they could do, and he is lauded. They think that's just great.

Sick.

[7962]

4. You're right. Especially the "celebrity" or "athlete" designation. And you do see it on DU a lot.

Not just assaulting women, but many other subjects as well. Its OK for certain politicians or commentators to say ANYTHING about the right wing because, well, he/she is one of OURS, and the right really IS a bad bunch, etc. Not just DU, but many groups. Bill Clinton had several claims of improper behavior against women, yet for the most part women's groups stayed silent because he was one of "theirs". Michael Vick gets out of jail and gets a big contract. And he didnt "make a mistake", he ran a terrible criminal enterprise for years. Its a long list of pro athletes who have gotten the "pass" you mention.
Woody Allen? I've never understood why everyone fawns over this guy. Look at how many defend Roman Polanski.
I've always tried to look at anything by a politician that may be a "gray area" and ask myself, what would I be saying if Bush, et al, did this? Because if it bothers me when THEY do it, it should bother me when MY guy does it too.

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. Great Post ...

I especially was drawn to this:

Of course everyone is innocent until proven guilty in our justice system. That, however, does not govern discussion on DU. Nor does it explain why the "innocent until proven guilty" argument is always made for rapists but seldom for those accused of other crimes, and never for women accused of making false rape accusations.

As it applies to just about every "lack of prosecution" discussion, here at DU ... the Banks/Holder discussions come, immediately, to mind.

Great Post.

[BainsBane]

6. Bankers are a great example

I'll have to borrow that one.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

7. Face it, Baines = some people are just more -privileged- than other people.

[Walk away]

8. I haven't noticed that many DUers are defending Woody Allen...

it's just a few posters but they are vehement and highly argumentative. They will reply to anyone who posts in favor of the victim and try to beat them down with the "facts" from some bull shit article they keep posting links to.

The two most strident almost seem as if they have some kind of creepy, personal connection to Allen. One of them accused me of letting my "hatred of men" influence the way I felt about it. It's so weird because I don't dislike men and I have never written any post even suggesting that I do.

So I am thinking that the pro rapists and pro pedophiles are part of that anti feminist dustup that was going on here for a few weeks. I didn't get involved by posting but it seemed pretty harsh.

[BainsBane]

12. "hating men"

Is the common charge waged against feminists. Think about what they are saying. You are concerned about child abuse. Other have had that charge waged in discussions of adult rape. How are rape and pedophilia inherent in men? They are not. They are behaviors of sexual predators. In making the charges of hating men in response to concerns of rape, they reveal their own dark and ugly conception of what it means to be a man.


Some of those speaking out for Allen are the ones who always defend any accused rapist. Yet it appears to me that he enjoys more support than other accused rapists, even Julian Assange. I'm thinking of Ida Brigg's thread in particular.

[nomorenomore08]

17. "It's just a few posters but they are vehement and highly argumentative."

I've noticed this so many times, but for whatever reason it seems worse RE: gender issues. I've gone a few rounds with some of them, but the discussion is rarely very productive, no matter how civil I try to be. And they'll always complain about being unfairly characterized, but they're usually the first to throw out ridiculous strawmen which have little or no resemblance to reality.

[cinnabonbon]

9. Maybe we should make a masterlist of rape apologia

So we can have an easy post to link to whenever people claim it's not a problem.

As far as I'm concerned, it's just their natural response to protect whoever has the most power in the situation. Defending the one who is vulnerable is scary, after all.

And I have to say I love your two last paragraphs. Especially this line:

Nor does it explain why the "innocent until proven guilty" argument is always made for rapists but seldom for those accused of other crimes, and never for women accused of making false rape accusations.

[ismnotwasm]

19. Rape apology bingo?

[cinnabonbon]

20. That is brilliant! nt

[redqueen]

10. It's very enlightening when you consider what types of discussions get derailed with that bullshit.

Rape culture in action. It is never a surprise to see the usernames of those who engage in perpetuating it.

[BainsBane]

11. Yes, some are entirely predictable

but in the Allen case there are some I've never seen take that position before.

[Squinch]

13. Great post. Thanks for stating the position in one OP, because so many are

twisting it and coming back to the inevitables: you hate men, guilty till proven innocent, prudes want to control how adults have sex. None of which have anything to do with the discussion at hand.

Very well said.

[BainsBane]

15. OMG, are they really raising the 'prude" argument?

Are we prudes for opposing child rape? If true, that needs to be alerted on and those people need to be banned.

[Squinch]

16. Oh, yeah.

[BainsBane]

18. PM me the names

please.