Chapter 3. Victim Blaming and Rape Apology

Before we proceed, we must make one thing quite clear.

The “victim blaming” fallacy is used all the time, and it’s priceless in its very shamelessness.

Every time we prove, with the documents and the “victim’s” own statements, that there was no rape, we are called rape apologists.

Every time we prove, with the documents and the “victim’s” own statements, that she was a false accuser, every time we catch her lying; every time we quote the documented truth, every time we expose the contradictions and inconsistencies in her statements,  this is called blaming the victim.

Let’s abstract from rape for a moment: it holds morbid fascination for too many people and totally precludes them from thinking straight. Let’s have another example.

If someone gets assaulted and robbed of his money on his way home at night, it’s a crime. If we say, “you shouldn’t have been going home so late” or “you shouldn’t have been carrying this amount of money when alone and drunk”, this is blaming the victim. However true all our “shouldn’t have” may be, they do not change the situation: the crime was committed. No number of quite rightful “should(n’t) have”s will change the bare obvious fact: it was assault and robbery, and the man who committed it was an assaulter and a robber.

If, however, we prove that the man in question was not robbed, but lost his money, wasted it or gave it away – it is not blaming the victim. It is proving that he was not a victim of assault or robbery.

If, moreover, we see that the man is accusing someone of assault and robbery while we can prove that he lost his money, wasted it or gave it away (to that very man he is trying to accuse now) – our proving this is not blaming the victim, either. It is exposing the man as a false accuser. No amount of demagogy can turn a false accuser into a “victim”.

Clear now? If you can’t apply my example to rape cases, I’ll chew it for you. Blaming is saying: “you are guilty of your own rape”. It’s an unfair and a disgusting thing to say, because, no matter how provocative someone’s behavior is, nobody has the right to rape, it’s a hideous crime against a human being. But it only applies when rape took place. When there has been no rape, there’s no rape victim and no rapist. Showing the truth of the case and proving it with facts is not rape apology: it’s proving no rape took place, thus the false accuser can’t by any twist of logic be considered a “victim”. The only victim in a false rape accusation is the falsely accused.

Telling the truth about the false accuser is not “blaming the victim”. Truth can’t be “blaming” at all: only those who are afraid of truth constantly reinvent this myth. If the accuser had clear consciousness about the case, she wouldn’t be afraid of the truth. And she wouldn’t have to lie.

But Geimer is afraid of the truth! Just ask yourself: why? Why would she hold back this and distort that? What is her purpose in endeavoring to hide the crucial facts or to mislead you with direct lies? We have already seen and we will shortly see that she lies continuously, about things major or minor – but there are no minor lies in this case. They all serve the same purpose: to lead you astray, away from the simple fact that she and her mother are false rape accusers guilty of a setup.

Look, for example, at this piece of demagogy she provides:

There is a certain kind of religious mind-set that believes girls who get raped deserve it. If you were morally sound, God would protect you from rape. And therefore, you must be as guilty to have been a rape victim as the rapist was to rape you.
As a society we’re constantly giving young girls tips on how to stay safe: don’t go out late at night, dress modestly, don’t go out alone, don’t drink, and don’t have premarital sex. While I certainly understand why we tell women these things, and even think we can make certain commonsense choices that keep us from having sexual experiences we’ll regret, we can’t send the message that when something as grotesque as a rape happens, you deserved it.

The general statements she makes here are themselves 100% correct: no, it’s not right to blame the victim. No, there’s no justification of rape. No, a rape victim is not guilty. But saying all this, and gaining your agreement with this obvious position, she at the same time ensures that you apply this to her own case. But it is not in any way applicable because there was no rape.

I spy a lawyer’s touch there. It must have been Silver who ingeniously thought of the trick of saying all the right things and then pretending they are applicable, only to jerk the rug from under the opponents’ feet.

Luckily, not all his opponents are as brainless as Silver and Cie had hoped.

And they really had hoped you, my reader, are brainless. Look what they do:

This is not to say the tactic of blaming the victim in a rape case was anything new. Quite the contrary: Even with forensic evidence of sexual activity, the defense tries to manipulate the issue to a he said/she said case, and often attacks the credibility and morality of the victim. Fortunately, two years earlier, California state senator Alan Robbins introduced and passed the Robbins Rape Evidence Law, which prohibited rape defendants from introducing as evidence at trial the sexual histories of their victims.

I hope you remember that the only “forensic evidence” was a sterile man’s semen on her panties? That medical examination failed to find any, even the smallest, trace of any intercourse? It’s all in the documents; Silver/Newman/Geimer go beyond plain old lying now – they are just hypnotizing you into forgetting everything that you know, everything that is documented. No, with the absence of any evidence except forged, this case was a he said/she said case, and in these cases the credibility of the accuser becomes crucial.

When faced with all the documents, the only argument my opponents have ever come up with was, “She couldn’t possibly have given consent, she was only thirteen!” That is where her past sex history becomes important. Not to show that she was “immoral”, not to “blame” her -  but to make everyone understand that yes, she could have given consent, and her consent was quite informed, because she had given it before (she would also give it a countless number of times with numerous partners before she turned fifteen, let alone 18 - without anyone considering it rape; kiss goodbye to another fallacy, namely “it was rape because she was a minor”).

Every time we prove a point, they start shouting “blaming the victim!” I’ll repeat it as many times as it takes people to finally understand: exposing a false accuser is not blaming the victim. There’s no rape victim where there’s no rape. And no truth can harm an innocent.

No comments: