I agree wholeheartedly.

WTF? You want me to TALK to my kid?

I don't know if i like this.

Unfortunately, that Canadian judge is not the only douchebag giving us a bad name:

Fortunately, that idiotic statement gave birth to Slut Walk Toronto. There will also be satellite walks for those who cannot attend in Toronto. I think this could be a great way to protest against both slut-shaming and victim blaming!!!

These kind of comments from police and judges do make me ponder.
Does that mean that by people should avoid using nudist beaches to avoid rape/assault? Silly.

The slut-shaming cycle ends here, kids.

Ooh good call. Wish I had known about that group, I'd have linked to it in the article.

While I do agree with the general statement, I don't think this is a good example. As I read the story there is no proof against the facts lying like this: She went with him into the woods and was okay with kissing and foreplay but then decided that she does not really want this ... however since he was so much bigger and stronger and overall seamed aggressive she was to afraid to say that clear and unmistakably, much less decided to physically resist.
And since in cases of rape the burden of proof lies on the accused he was sentenced guilty because he should have read her mind (well probably he could have read her body language and scared looks if he hadn't been a drunk, dumb fool but that should not be punishable), or should not have looked so aggressive, that she is afraid of stopping it during the foreplay.

And to the defense of the judge's words: If the victim does not unmistakably say that she does not want to, the "rapist" has to judge from other sources, whether she is condensing. And both, the victim's closes and her prior behavior play a role in this.
Now, if "she had it coming, dressing like this" was the only thing the judge said about it, this would be a bad judgment but that part takes 5 seconds to say and a good juristic opinion takes like 3 to 5 minutes and I guess he said something in the remaining 2 Minutes 55 to put that into context.


As far as my opinion goes, here I have no gender bias, I would have the same opinion if a man was saying he was raped, because he was afraid to tell a woman / other man that he does not want to and -if necessary- to defend himself. (just that I never heard a case like that)

I have no problem with any clothes, I like looking at good looking women in sexy clothes, I'm just saying, if your closes seam "Fuck me", and you don't want to, you have to shout "No! Stop!" even louder. I see no Slut-Shaming there.

This. I am so sick of people acting as though the impaired judgement of being drunk is an excuse for vastly inappropriate & destructive behaviour.

You know what? I've gotten really hammered before. And yet I have never raped or sexually assaulted someone, I've never killed anybody, and I've never said racist stuff. (And I've been fucking wasted.) All three are behaviours routinely chalked up to "being drunk". NO. Being a rapist makes you a rapist, not being drunk.

Sorry, I was metaphorically. I'm not very good at this.

And even if you say I still fit the description although the only difference I make between the genders here is that I speak about cases of women actually and men only theoretically, I do not say: "It's less criminal to rape slutty dressing people" or something.
I just say that simply because someone says that slutty clothes play a role in the fair level of the punishment in some cases, this is no general statement that "It's less criminal to rape slutty dressing people".

I know, I take my trust in humanity and "in doubt for the accused" very far here but I don't want to think of this in probabilities but possibilities. As a support, the linked news even says: "He said Rhodes never threatened the woman, didn't have a weapon..."
Given enough alcohol in her blood and enough darkness in the forest at night and a late enough decision on her part not to want sex, maybe that does not even need too much stupidity.
As a further support, the only mentioned injury was to the knee. Maybe I overestimate my ability of imagination but I guess if I got raped I would have far worse injuries and the attacker would not dream about pleading that he did not realize that I do not want. But maybe I'm to much ignorant to the differences of the genders here.

Well, the judge sentenced him guilty (do they have criminal law or common law in Canada?), so it was probably at least punishable negligent. But this makes this rape a lot different from other cases of rape where the victim tried to defend itself or the crime was committed with so much planing and insidiousness that it had no chance. And I think 2 years on probation, 1 year house arrest, that is definitely enough punishment for a negligent crime by someone who has never committed a crime before (*check* well, at least this Canadian sex offender registry is not public).
But I'm such a heartless person, who thinks that punishment should not depend on the victim at all and if it prevents further crimes as good as a higher sentence it should always be the lowest possible sentence because everything else is just revenge and no justice.