But… but… but… women just don’t do that

October 20, 2011 6 Comments
By

No, this isn’t another incidence of crying rape when nothing happened, and to hell with the consequences on any man unfortunate enough to be picked up for it. This is sexual assault by a female, and for the benefit of any PC types and GROLIES who may have stumbled across this by accident and haven’t found the exit, yes you did read that correctly. Having ovaries is not some magical condition that renders someone saintly and incapable of crime or any kind of deviancy, and there are enough well known examples of sick bitches doing some pretty disgusting stuff that the point shouldn’t need to be made. Even without bringing up the Myra Hindleys of this world there are regular examples of low level female sex offenders to drive away any idea that sex offences are a male thing. It may be a less frequent type of a relatively infrequent offence, but it does happen.

A young woman got a teenage acquaintance and three of his friends drunk and had sex with some of them after a party, a court has heard.

Laura O’Donnell, 20, was today released with a suspended jail term and a community-based order after a County Court judge found that her troubled background had been responsible for her offending.

Oh, so no chance she just wanted a toy boy shag and was a bit too young herself to play Mrs Robinson? And ‘troubled background’? Even from ten thousand miles away I reckon I’ll hear the Ambush Predator’s teeth grinding when she reads that – I know these stock pleas of mitigation can be a hot button issue with JuliaM.

In sentencing, Judge Sue Pullen described the offences as “very serious and disturbing” and said the woman’s behaviour was “quite unacceptable”.
The boys, aged 12, 15, 14 and 14, were plied with alcohol on three separate occasions. The first two incidents involved one of the victims and the third, all four.
[...]
[O'Donnell] pleaded guilty to four counts of sexual penetration of a child under 16 and five counts of committing an indecent act with a child under 16.

And here we have what sounds like law written with the assumption that the perpetrator will be male. ‘Sexual penetration of a child under 16.’ Not with a child, of a child, and if Laura O’Donnell’s offences involved plain old vanilla sex, as I suspect they probably did, then she would in fact have been the penetratee.* Yes, of course penetration of various sorts can be done by a female, but I suspect this wording originally had intromission by adult males in mind, and in case there’s any doubt that garden variety sex between an adult female and a male below the age of consent counts as her penetrating him there’s this case (coincidentally heard by the same judge).

The court heard [Kimberly] Gale met the boy and his mother through their involvement in a suburban football club.
Prosecutor Susan Borg said Gale had become friends with the mother at the club and after overhearing her say she was having trouble getting him to school, Gale offered to drive him there.
For three or four weeks in March and April, Gale drove the boy to school every morning, and on at least one occasion put her hand on his leg and told him he was “hot”, Ms Borg said.
On one occasion Gale, then 23, asked the boy if he wanted to spend more time with her, and he replied “yes”. She drove him to her family’s home. The pair had sex then she drove him to school.
Two weeks later, they went to Gale’s home again on the way to school and had sex.
[...]
Gale pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual penetration of a child under 16.

That was only last November, by the way, less than a year before the O’Donnell trial and further knocking the idea that women are saintly beings and above such things just because they’re women.

There’s no question that both women committed offences in strict legal terms, and it certainly seems like they took advantage of people who might not have been boys but probably weren’t quite men either. I’m not going into a discussion of consent laws here, I’m just interested in the female offending aspect and how the law and society think about it – or, as the case may be, prefer not to think about it all that much. Despite what these two women were charged with it doesn’t sound like they did the actual penetrating, and if they had you’d expect them to have received rather heavier sentences than the two years and five months, all suspended, that O’Donnell got and the two years and two months, 16 months suspended, that Gale got. It’s not like Judge Pullen is afraid of handing down some serious time as the minimum 16 years served of a 19 year sentence she gave one knife wielding, recidivist rapist shows.** That being so I reckon we can rule out any nastier ideas that either of these women were using strap ons or anything along those lines, which as far as I can tell would make it a rape charge anyway. No, this is almost certainly vanilla sex between adult females and males under the legal age of consent, but while this would be called something else in other places – statutory rape, perhaps, or simple underage sex – the charge here sounds like it suggests male offenders as the norm rather than just a majority. And even the Graun these days concedes that the proportion of female sex offenders could be as 20% or more and you don’t have to look far to find it suggested that it could be twice that. The fairer sex probably is fairer generally, but you wouldn’t want a cop to look at a suspect and go: ‘Sarge, I’m pretty sure those are breasts – we’ve got the wrong man!’

Oh, and just for amusement let’s briefly revisit the case of Kimberley Gale just one more time.

Her lawyer, Amy Wood, told Judge Sue Pullen her client had had a difficult childhood…

That bang you just heard was an Ambush Predator going through her roof. Bwahahahahaha. :twisted:

* Out of curiosity I looked up the actual law, which seems to be Section 45 of Victoria’s 1958 Crimes Act. Interestingly, though the offence is ‘Sexual penetration of a child under 16′ the very first subsection reads: ‘A person who takes part in an act of sexual penetration with a child under the age of 16 is guilty of an indictable offence.’ It seems almost as if it was expected to be mostly men but even a half century ago someone recognised that the wording of the law needed to allow for the possibility of female offenders as well.
** No, I wouldn’t have been at all sorry either if she’d locked him up for far longer, though it was only 6 years short of the maximum for rape in Victoria, but because he’s 55 already that minimum 16 year term means he’ll be at least 71 before he can be released, and since his own behaviour made him ineligible for parole during his previous prison term he might still end up doing the full stretch and not getting out until 74. Either way, there’s a fair chance the bastard will cark it while he’s still inside even if he does genuinely reform this time.

Tags: , ,

6 Responses to But… but… but… women just don’t do that

  1. October 20, 2011 at 4:35 pm

    Thinking about that now about the strap-on, it does seem a case of who does the penetration. Going back to my own teenage, at 15, there was a 19 year old girl who didn’t seem to object to close proximity overnight in the back of a bus – did she rape me? Did the 34 year old when I was 23? Where do we draw the line on this thing?

    I’m sorry but I just can’t conceptualize the idea of women raping men unless there was penetration by a device, for the purpose of hurting. We all know the one about teenage boys and the female teacher. Never had the chance but I’d have been right into that. So would my mates. Rape?

    • October 20, 2011 at 5:00 pm

      Some form of penetration would be the norm for rape, but let’s not forget it’s also a crime of asserting dominance over the victim. If a man was abducted, tied up, brought to physical though not emotional arousal, and then a woman got on and helped herself would that be rape? Legally the answer would vary from place to place but I think I could call that rape if it was non-consensual. Of course that kind of thing probably is far more unusual than an older woman getting a young lad to give her one, or more than one, and the lack of consent is a matter of legality and perhaps later regrets rather than a genuine unwillingness to take part at the time, which seems the case with these two women here. Another interesting point is that ‘sexual penetration of a child under 16′ sounds like a wordy way of saying rape, but it appears that as well as not necessarily having to involve any sexual penetration of the child the offence is distinct from and less severe than rape. Not a wordy way of saying rape but a wordy way of saying underage sex, and which happens to sound a bit rape-y. Very odd.

      • October 20, 2011 at 5:39 pm

        Our whole sexual offences legislation is in dire need of an overhaul, but who wants to muck out that particular Augean stable?

  2. nisakiman
    October 20, 2011 at 10:18 pm

    In both cases the sentences were very light, and probably rightly so. As already said, at the age of 15 I would have been very much “up for it”, regardless of the age of the female involved.

    However, as you point out, and as evidenced by the cases in point, it’s not only the male of the species who are “up for it”.

    Soooo. What would the sentences handed down have been had the persons involved been an older man and three young teenaged girls, assuming that the girls were “up for it”, and willing participants in the affair? Two and a half years suspended? I think not.

    • October 21, 2011 at 4:04 am

      That’s a good question, and I suspect the answer may well depend on to what extent a society places women on that saintly pedestal and wants to keep thinking that such things are almost always the fault of us nasty, brutish males. Down here that may well mean another difference between states, and if certain other legal attitudes are a guide it might be that in Victoria, New South Wales and the ACT similar sentences are fairly likely while elsewhere, especially South Australia and Queensland, men might be dealt with more harshly. That Vic law I linked to allows a defence against a charge of sexual penetration of a child under 16 if the child is over 12 and the accused is no more than 2 years older. That’s not a suspended sentence there but an outright acquittal. How things are in the other states and territories I have no idea, but if I remember I might look into it.

    • Lord T
      October 21, 2011 at 2:01 pm

      Up for it.

      I think that in many of the under age rape cases we find that the girls are well up for it. Sometime pretending to be older than 16 to trick the guys who may be 16, 17, 18. Clearly children can be recognised but early teens are very difficult to identify an exact age. After all plod use them to set up traders by finding ids that look over 18 to buy booze and fags.

      Up for it isn’t an excuse then, why in this case?

United Kingdom Time

Subscribe

Email us at contact orphans of liberty [all one word] at gmail dot com

Authors

For more about these renegades, click on the name to go to a short profile:

AK Haart
Churchmouse
James Higham
JuliaM
The Quiet Man

Orphans logo


Feel free to take this for your sidebar.