Raped? An Immigrant or Woman of Color? Lesson of the DSK Case: Don’t Bother


Since last Friday, when the Times reported that the prosecution’s case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn was “near collapse,” people on both sides of the Atlantic have been shaking their heads sagely with an “I-told-you-so” admonition of the “rush-to-judgment” against DSK.

The truly appalling rush to judgment in this case is against the alleged victim, who claimed she was attacked while cleaning Strauss-Kahn’s room at the Sofitel. The tide turned, hard, against the housekeeper, with these damning reports from the Times:

prosecutors now do not believe much of what the accuser has told them about the circumstances or about herself . . . the accuser has repeatedly lied, one of the law enforcement officials said.

The victim, now an “accuser,” has been deemed no longer credible for the following reasons:

  • she hangs out with a pot dealer, who sometimes deposits large sums into her bank account
  • she had a conversation with that pot dealer, who is now in jail, about what could come their way (money) if DSK were convicted, and that conversation was recorded
  • she lied during the process of immigrating from Guinea

I read last Friday’s article more than once, convinced that I was missing something. 1) How is discussion of financial remuneration proof of fabrication? And why was that conversation recorded?? 2) Immigrating to the United States “legally” is hard/impossible. 3) The drug-dealer-consorting charge is so dumb that I’m not going to respond to it.

The next day we heard of another strike against the housekeeper, this one at least peripherally relevant, as it has to do with her actions after the assault:

The housekeeper admitted to prosecutors that she had lied about what happened after the encounter on the 28th floor of the hotel, the Sofitel New York. She initially said that after she had been attacked she waited in a hallway until Mr. Strauss-Kahn left the room. She now admits that after the episode, she cleaned a nearby room, then returned to Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s suite to clean there. Only after that did she report to her supervisor that she had been attacked.

The woman’s lawyer’s response to this BIG LIE—that “her decision to clean a room afterward was consistent with someone who was confused and upset”—was, I fear, barely heard above the din. Unfortunately, the housekeeper’s confusion is all too understandable, and it points to the distorting power dynamics of this case.

People do all sorts of things after trauma, mundane things like cleaning a room, before the enormity of what’s happened catches up to them. This is, on the one hand, the mind’s way of protecting itself. And in this case, the woman probably did think twice about reporting the rape (and then was afraid that this hesitation would condemn her): Would anyone believe her? Would she lose her job if she stopped cleaning Floor 28? Would she be punished for saying what happened to her?

Well, yes, she would.

After undergoing an exhaustive physical examination which corroborated her story—there was not only forensic evidence of the forced oral sex she described, but also bruising—the woman was interrogated about her immigration status and jailbird friends, and finally pronounced a “hooker” by the NY Post (she’s now suing the Post for libel).

The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that 60 percent of rapes go unreported, and this case demonstrates why. When the next housekeeper is assaulted, she can look to the way this played out for guidance. Do I want my body inspected and the “evidence” on it ignored? Do I want my conversations with friends recorded and used against me? Do I want to be accused of “turning tricks” by the New York Post? Do I want my immigration status probed? After all this, do I want to be pronounced a liar and criminal? Do I want to submit myself to this when there’s a good chance that my attacker will not serve time?

Bernard-Henri Lévy, who has supported DSK all along and is now apparently “vindicated” for this support, has this to say about his man’s treatment by authorities and the media:

This vision of Dominique Strauss-Kahn humiliated in chains, dragged lower than the gutter—this degradation of a man whose silent dignity couldn’t be touched, was not just cruel, it was pornographic. And it was at least as pornographic (because, I repeat, it’s the same thing) as attorney Kenneth Thompson’s visible glee in expounding on the state of his client’s “vagina” [sic] before the entire world.

Was DSK’s perp-walk crueler than the way that this woman’s “background” and “character” were used against her when the crime that happened in the hotel room has nothing to do with drugs or immigration (a sadly not-unusual tactic of “whoring” women who claim to have been raped)? This woman, who lied, as thousands do, in order to get into this country, gave a forceful, unwavering, and detailed account of what Dominique Strauss-Kahn did to her. This was not something she “fabricated” over time for the prosecutors, but the testimony she gave very soon after her assault, to a counselor at the hospital where she was treated (a warning, Mr. Lévy: the following account is “pornographic” and includes the word “vagina”):

As soon as the housekeeper walked in, she told the counselor, a man, “naked, with ‘white hair,'” locked the door behind her and pushed her onto the bed.

He “put his penis into her mouth briefly,” the report said. She told him to stop and tried to get away, according to the report, but he pulled her toward the bathroom. He put his hands under her clothes and touched her crotch area, the report said. After she fell to the carpeted floor, according to the report, Mr. Strauss-Kahn again forced her to perform oral sex, grabbing her by the hair and controlling her head with force.

The woman’s lawyer, Kenneth P. Thompson, has since said the housekeeper suffered bruising to her vagina during the episode.

After all this, the housekeeper, branded “a pathological liar and scam artist,” is the one in the gutter; Strauss-Kahn and his wife look none the worse for wear. After all, the gutter’s for dirty drug-dealers and African immigrants; the IMF is squeaky-clean.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

  • reality-check-checker

    Let’s examine some of this, point-by-point.

     

     

    I read last Friday’s article more than once, convinced that I was missing something. 1) How is discussion of financial remuneration proof of fabrication? And why was that conversation recorded??

    First, it was recorded because it was made to a man in prison… duh. Second, saying words to the effect of, “Don’t worry, this guy [I've just accused of attempted rape] has a lot of money. I know what I’m doing” isn’t “proof” of fabrication … but it certainly raises some eyebrows in any reasonable person. 

     

     

    No, just because she told a well-rehearsed lie to immigration officials about a previous gang-rape; lied to the IRS about her claiming a child; lied to housing officials about her income; lied to prosecutors about what she did after her contact with DSK and was untruthful with prosecutors “about a variety of additional topics concerning her history, background, present circumstances and personal relationships” … no, none of this PROVES she was lying when she says DSK tried to rape her. 

    But in America, people do not have to prove their innocence. The prosecution has to prove that they are guilty. If the prosecution can’t do that, then they go free… just like Casey Anthony did.

      

    But contrary to what you write, no one has said anything about her decision to clean a room after she was allegedly assaulted. What’s damaging is that she lied about it to prosecutors. As Linda Fairstein says, “Once she said she’s lied, and she’s lied in an official capacity, that’s kind of a red flare.”

     

    You write that the woman “has been deemed no longer credible” … but that’s another lie. The charges are still pending against DSK while the prosecution continues to investigate them. He’s merely been released on bail. All these lies are certainly a blow to her credibility, but if she was flat-out no longer credible then the charges would have been dropped. 

    The headline on this article is the biggest lie of all. “Raped? An Immigrant or Woman of Color? Lesson of the DSK Case: Don’t Bother.” Why would you want to deter immigrant or black and Hispanic women from filing rape charges? Why are playing the race card when it’s clearly the accuser’s lies, not her immigrant status or race, that has damaged her credibility? 

    Let’s remember that in this case the NYC police dragged one of the most powerful men in the world off an airplane and put him in handcuffs based mostly on the word of a hotel chambermaid.  (The semen proves that a sexual encounter took place but not that it was nonconsensual, and according to the Times, “an examination of the woman after the alleged assault did find vaginal bruising, but … it was not conclusive evidence of a forcible sexual encounter”). We owe it to both parties to keep an open mind and not rush to judgment.

  • julie-watkins

    consent. Head of the IMF shouldn’t be looking for consent from a hotel maid — “distorting power dynamics”, indeed. Anything in the maid’s past doesn’t hide that, it’s just (typical) victim-blaming. DSK shouldn’t have been engaging in sex with a servant, any more than a 26yo (or a 17yo) can have “consential” sex with a 10yo.

  • reality-check-checker

    “Distorting power dynamics”? How so? What does his being the head of the IMF have to do with it? Suggesting that he somehow coerced her to have sex by threatening to get her fired isn’t what she’s alleged and seems rather unlikely.

    Calling the maid a “victim” is akin to saying DSK is guilty…. which is not something we can say for sure at this time.

    They were only alone in the hotel room for about 20 minutes or so. I think clearly either he forced her to have sex with him, or she came onto him — either because she was prostituting herself (and maybe he refused to pay) or was trying to set her up for some reason. 

     

  • julie-watkins

    So his only defense is it was consential sex. “Distorting power dynamics” isn’t so much of her risking her job as that if she doesn’t go along,  he (like any powerful person) has lawyers who will attempt to destroy any poor person who claims rape (or other injury). And it does matter that he (was) head of the IMF. IMF likes to tell governments what they can and can’t do, and he should have had better care for his reputation, and how it impacts on his organisation. 

  • julie-watkins

    dup, please delete

  • colleen

    Why would you want to deter immigrant or black and Hispanic women from filing rape charges?

    The notion that anyone here wishes to “deter” rape victims from reporting their rapes is pathetic  spin. A criminal ‘justice’ system that presupposes rape victims are lying is actively hostile to rape victims and doubly so when the rapist is a wealthy and influential white man who thinks that the woman cleaning the toilet he has been using is a sort of human pillow mint and who has the resources to manufacture evidence and avoid prosecution. You yourself forgot to mention that the rapist lied to the police by claiming that he had diplomatic immunity when he did not. You also neglect to mention that at least one other woman (this one white and blond and quite lovely) has come forward and to say that DSK sexually assaulted her. You neglect to mention that no money exchanged hands which makes the claim that she was a prostitute even more unlikely.  Indeed your focus and that of the prosecution is on the so called credibility of the victim and not at all on the guy whose sperm was found in the victim’s clothes, person and the walls of the suite.

    Here is how this case will play out. In a couple of weeks DSK will have all charges dropped and return to France. The rape victim will be fored, have her reputation destroyed and she will be deported or imprisoned or fined. And people like you will be overjoyed that ‘justice’ prevailed.

  • colleen

    or she came onto him — either because she was prostituting herself (and maybe he refused to pay) or was trying to set her up for some reason. 

    that is ridiculous

  • rynsa

    Ms. Watkins,

    Respectfully, I have to disagree with your unfortunate analogy.  The woman in question is 32 years-old.  In comparing her to a 10 year-old child, are you not taking away her power as an individual woman?  At the very least, the “power dynamics” argument is problematic precisely because of the race-tinged condescension exhibited in your commentary.  The west would do well to not belittle women of color under the guise of standing up on their behalf.

    rynsa

  • julie-watkins

    I am sorry you disagree. Currently in the USA people only have as much rights as they can pay to protect. The woman’s race or age wasn’t a factor in my thinking, … it was that she, obviously an adult, didn’t have the means to protect herself against someone rich and powerful, so she could not meaningfully “consent”, and it’s really sleezy that DSK & his lawyers are trying to brush off how imappropiate his behavior was — whatever his unproven behavior might have been. If his sperm was detected, the behavior was unappropriate — and really, really sleazy.

  • julie-watkins

    that is ridiculous

    Yes!

  • rynsa

    “…it was that she, obviously an adult, didn’t have the means to protect herself against someone rich and powerful, so she could not meaningfully ‘consent’..”

    I’m perennially at or below the poverty line.  By your logic, I can never ‘meaningfully consent’ to sexual relations with anyone in the middle and upper classes because of some amorphous “power dynamic” that somehow cancels out my angecy as a human being.  This strikes me as deeply flawed.   

    rynsa 

  • rynsa

    Colleen,

    I think it’s inaccurate to describe this theory “ridiculous.”  I’ll grant that it may be unlikely in this particular scenario, but the general notion that a woman could solicit sexual relations with a rich man for the purpose of earning an income is not really that far offbase.  In fact, this behavior could be described as downright normal.  Ask any traveler if they’ve been approached — in a hotel no less — by prostitutes looking to make some money, some of them even posing as personnel.  I’ll think you’ll be surprised by how utterly commonplace this technique is within the global sex trade.

    rynsa

  • alar

    “she lied during the process of immigrating from Guinea”

     

    That is about the least honest way to put it without telling an outright lie.  The issue was that she had in the past  lied about rape for personal gain (immigration status in that case).  The fact that it was during immigration was just incidental.

  • colleen

    but the general notion that a woman could solicit sexual relations with a rich man for the purpose of earning an income is not really that far offbase.

    Rush Limbaugh’s wives alone support your statement. But it was this particular case we were discussing. I understand that claiming this woman is a prostitute  is the only way to explain away the actual physical evidence but the fact remains that there is no evidence that she is or has ever been a prostitute and she is suing a NY tabloid for making the claim.Conversely, there is evidence that DSK has assaulted at least one other woman.

     

  • prochoiceferret

    I’m perennially at or below the poverty line.  By your logic, I can never ‘meaningfully consent’ to sexual relations with anyone in the middle and upper classes because of some amorphous “power dynamic” that somehow cancels out my angecy as a human being.  This strikes me as deeply flawed.

    Yes, especially the part about that being “our” logic. Are you a person of color? An immigrant, perhaps undocumented? Many commenters here happen to know of such people, and the circumstances that they face in their daily lives due to systemic prejudice, discrimination, and disempowerment. If your point is that not everyone similarly situated experiences the same forms of oppression and power dynamics, then thanks, we’re way ahead of you.

  • rynsa

    “I understand that claiming this woman is a prostitute is the only way to explain away the actual physical evidence”

    Really?  First, we don’t know the fulll extent of the physical evidence.  The press has only been privy to bits and pieces of the police report.  Second, much of what we do know about that physical evidence could have come from other origins.  Unlike the majority of the mainstream press, however, I’m not going to speculate as to what that might be.  I mean, I’ve got a bruise on my inner thigh right now from a bicycle accident.  But to suggest that prostitution is the “only way” to explain it shows not only a lack of imagination on your part but a severe bias that is most likely not supported by your personal or professional expertise.  Do you work for the New York medical examiners that review the supposed victims body after the alleged sexual attack?  You’re making assumptions that have not been fully vetted yet.  It’s the definition of premature.

    I don’t understand why you (and others) are so eager to serve as judge, jury and executioner.  Is there no virtue in letting the justice system play itself out?  Are we that cynical that we mush filter our legal opinions through blog comment threads?

    rynsa

  • rynsa

    “Yes, especially the part about that being ‘our’ logic.”

    I never said that.  I said “your logic,” as in that of Ms. Julie Watkins.  I never included you or anyone else in the discussion.

    Please read more carefully.

    “If your point is that not everyone similarly situated experiences the same forms of oppression and power dynamics, then thanks, we’re way ahead of you.”

    Yes, clearly.   In fact, you’re so far “ahead of me” that you’re putting words in my mouth.  Bad form, ProChoiceFerret.  I’ll speak for myself, thank you very much.

    rynsa

  • prochoiceferret

    I never said that.  I said “your logic,” as in that of Ms. Julie Watkins.  I never included you or anyone else in the discussion.

     

    It’s like NATO around here. When you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us.

     

    Yes, clearly.   In fact, you’re so far “ahead of me” that you’re putting words in my mouth.  Bad form, ProChoiceFerret.  I’ll speak for myself, thank you very much.

     

    It would be nice if you could make meaningful contributions to this discussion for yourself, too, rather than try to score points by misstating the arguments of other commenters here. And I’m quite happy with my ferret-form, thank you very much.

  • prochoiceferret

    I don’t understand why you (and others) are so eager to serve as judge, jury and executioner.  Is there no virtue in letting the justice system play itself out?  Are we that cynical that we mush filter our legal opinions through blog comment threads?

     

    Seems you might have some choice words for Mr. reality check checker a few posts up.

  • colleen

    First, we don’t know the fulll extent of the physical evidence.

    That’s true. What we do know is that his DNA was found on her clothes, on her person and on the walls.I believe that you were the person eager to suggest and defend thenotion  that the victim was/is a prostitute despite the fact that there is NO supporting evidence to support such speculation.

     

    Unlike the majority of the mainstream press, however, I’m not going to speculate as to what that might be.

    Good for you. Of course you were doing so in your first reply to me where you expounded on your vast knowledge of the “global sex trade” and the prevalence of young women eager to exploit  wealthy old men for money.

    I don’t understand why you (and others) are so eager to serve as judge, jury and executioner

    Perhaps you need to reread the thread you have so unsuccessfully trolled.

  • rynsa

    “It’s like NATO around here. When you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us.”

    I did not realize that this kind of mob behavior was so prevelant on Reality Check.  And, for the record, disagreeing with someone is hardly “messing” with them. 

    “It would be nice if you could make meaningful contributions to this discussion for yourself, too, rather than try to score points by misstating the arguments of other commenters here.”

    I feel that I have made “meaningful contributions.”  And I feel that you are inaccurate to say that I am “misstating the arguments of other commenters.”  Either explain yourself or cease casting aspersions out of thin air.

    rynsa

     

  • rynsa

    Based on what I’ve read, I do not feel that it is in my interests to respond to Reality Check Checker.  This person — who could also be female, by the way — strikes me as unnecessarily rude and extremely biased, an unfortunate combination of characteristics that I normally associate with my right-wing reactionary family members.  I do not identify with that particular political perversion and I do not wish to engage it; from my experience it only makes matters worse.

    My purpose here was to have a conversation with (what I at first thought were) fellow allies in the struggle for gender equality.  Clearly, however, I see that this is not a forum for respectful dialogue.  I have been directly misquoted and belittled, and for the horrible crime (evidently) of merely suggesting it may be inappropriate to describe some aspects of this Strauss-Kahn spectacle in such black-and-white terms.  Despite my many years of social justice work in service to larger progressive issues, I have been undermined by several commentors within this thread.

    Consider this my last post to you.  Despite our common political interests, I see now that many of my “allies” are incapable of critical discourse.  Just more name-calling…

    rynsa

     

  • rynsa

    Colleen,

    “I believe that you were the person eager to suggest and defend thenotion  that the victim was/is a prostitute despite the fact that there is NO supporting evidence to support such speculation.”

    You believe incorrectly.  I did not such thing.  I have no idea whether the maid is a prostitute or not.  I simply suggested that the notion that she might be a prostitute is not nearly the “ridiculous” idea some would have us belive.

    “Of course you were doing so [speculating] in your first reply to me where you expounded on your vast knowledge of the “global sex trade” and the prevalence of young women eager to exploit wealthy old men for money.”

    You are speaking hyperbolically and misrepresenting my words.  It is factually inaccurate to say that I have “vast knowledge” of the global sex trade.  I was using one very common example of a technique sex workers use to emphasize my point that it’s not improbable that the maid in this case MIGHT very well have been engaged in sex work, and that it’s overblow to dismiss that idea as “ridiculous.”  It’s not ridiculous.  It’s quite credible.  It may not be likely, as I stated earlier, but it’s a perfectly valid notion based on what we know about this field, the so-called “oldest profession in the world.”  

    This is a tame statement on my part, and entirely logical.  I’m not drawing conclusions, as you apparently have.  But you seek to undermine me simply for using my critical thinking skills.  It’s sounds, frankly, like you (and several others on this thread) have already made up their minds prior to receiving all the data.  This is the sould of my frustration with with this article: it prematurely slaps a verdict on an unfolding story.  We don’t know enough yet.  Why dirty the water with all this team-sport ideology.  

    “Perhaps you need to reread the thread you have so unsuccessfully trolled.”

    I would say the same thing to you.  Objectively speaking, I feel that I have been far more respectful and reasonable that many of the other commentors.  Even now, your responses to me drip with venom; your condescention is almost palpable.  And quite to the contrary of how I have engaged with you or others. 

    To suggest, for instance, that I am “trolling” this site is entirely inaccurate and it reflects poorly on you as a person.  I have not used expletives, I have not condescended to other posters, I have not impugned anyone’s character, and I have not made statements without supporting them with evidence.  How is this in any way troll-like behavior?

    None the less, I will stop replying.  Believe it or not, I am a progressive ally.  As I explained to another poster, I came here in the hopes of having an honest discussion on this Strauss-Kahn matter, to help me clear my thinking.  But what I found was a rude team (someone actually analogized it to NATO — amazing!) of angry so-and-sos hell-bent on marginalizing anyone with even the slightest disagreement.  How is this right?  It’s not… it’s not right.  I should be treated with more respect than this.  The world of ideas has more than just two colors, you know.

    Goodbye forever.

    rynsa

  • colleen

    I was using one very common example of a technique sex workers use to emphasize my point that it’s not improbable that the maid in this case MIGHT very well have been engaged in sex work, and that it’s overblow to dismiss that idea as “ridiculous.”  It’s not ridiculous.  It’s quite credible.  It may not be likely, as I stated earlier, but it’s a perfectly valid notion based on what we know about this field, the so-called “oldest profession in the world.” 

    I think we’re all aware that sex workers service johns in hotel rooms. Hotel maids, however, do not routinely do so. Indeed such practices are discouraged in the many hotels I have stayed in. Perhaps your experiences are different.

    We were, however, speaking of one particular case and one particular woman. There is no evidence that  any money exchanged hands and no evidence that this woman is or has ever been a sex worker. There is, however, evidence that the accused rapist has assaulted women in the past .You have never responded to the actual evidence and now seem primarily interested in making this about yourself. I am not interested.

    I feel that I have been far more respectful and reasonable that many of the other commentors.

    I strongly disagree.

    Believe it or not, I am a progressive ally.

    I do not believe this.

     

  • rebellious-grrl

    Well said! I love your ferret-form. Much love for PCF!

  • rebellious-grrl

    rynsa, no one is forcing you to be here. If you don’t like it go away. No hurt feelings if you don’t like us. 

  • rynsa

    rebellious grrl,

    I’ve never met you.  How can I not like you?  What I don’t like is when people cast aspersions, misrepresent my perspectives (to the point of literally changing the words that I wrote), and then call me names.  It’s incredibly callous and rude, and it doesn’t serve anyone.

    But to your point about leaving, yes, I will, certainly.  This is clearly no place for rational discourse. 

    rynsa

  • colleen

    But to your point about leaving, yes, I will, certainly. 

    when?

  • crowepps

    Not soon enough — interesting how some people are a total waste of column inches.

     

    Sure do appreciate the recurring meme of “it’s not unreasonable to just make something up because it MIGHT be possible and then speculate about it”.  Shoot, it’s possible the woman, who is after all a FOREIGNER is working at the hotel solely to collect vital national secrets and sell them to the Chinese.  It’s POSSIBLE the woman, who is after all a mother, is working at the hotel in hopes of persuading one of the rich guests to adopt her son and send him to college.  Golly it’s POSSIBLE the woman is actually an carnivorous alien, working at the hotel because it’s a high turnover place and nobody will catch on to her habit of making meals out of the guests after they have paid their bills, checked out and are presumed to have left town.

     

    Just spent a couple days exchanging posts about Rebeccapocalypse with someone who insisted everything Rebecca Watson said was suspect because she was an “accuser”.  Is “accuser” the new favorite word in right-wing misogyny land?  When a woman complains she’s an ACCUSER and we all know what kind of people THEY are.

     

    Couple very depressing court cases:

    Student expelled from school for reporting she was raped

    http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/07/37943.htm

     

    Woman jailed for reporting she was raped

    http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/07/37942.htm

    Note that in this case she was in her own home.   

    “Officers responding to the scene discovered plaintiff lying nude on her back with her feet and hands tied to the four corners of her bed. A plastic bag covered her head. Officers also noted the presence of a large contusion on the side of plaintiff’s head. Plaintiff truthfully advised investigators that she had been in the shower when an unknown assailant wearing a ski mask struck her twice on the head with a heavy object, dragged her to her bed, tied her down and raped her. After her assailant left the scene, plaintiff was able to work her cell phone out from under her pillow and to dial 911.”

    But she has a mental illness, and even though her counselor supported the truth of her account, the officer felt she was making it up “for attention”, and so arrested her and threw her in jail for 2 days, without her medication, after which she attempted suicide.

     

    “If a woman is raped and wants abortion to be an option, she has to report the crime to the police.”   Right.  I wouldn’t trust this idiot to correctly handle looking for my missing cat.

  • ack

     I was using one very common example of a technique sex workers use to emphasize my point that it’s not improbable that the maid in this case MIGHT very well have been engaged in sex work, and that it’s overblow to dismiss that idea as “ridiculous.”  It’s not ridiculous.  It’s quite credible.  It may not be likely, as I stated earlier, but it’s a perfectly valid notion based on what we know about this field, the so-called “oldest profession in the world.”  

     

    Hi Rynsa,

     

    Ordinarily, I would google something like this, but I’m not so comfortable googling “hotel maid sex work.” I don’t think that would end well. Can you explain more about where you’ve heard stories like this? I know that a LOT of hotel maids are trafficked, but from what I’ve heard, it’s labor trafficking. They’re not paid fair wages, they get their pay docked regularly, etc… And prostituted women are a regular feature of all hotels, but I’ve read/heard that it’s more common for the john to go through the bartender and ask for some “company,” and then they specify what kind of woman or girl they’re interested in paying to have sex with.

     

    You might also find this post helpful in recontextualizing the media circus surrounding the case:

    http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/07/01/there-are-no-perfect-accusers/

     

     

  • crowepps

    http://blog.lawinfo.com/2011/07/07/dsks-alleged-victim-sues-new-york-post/

     

    Or perhaps she’s part of DSK’s ‘defense team’, getting paid to push the idea it’s perfectly ordinary for rich Frenchmen to come to New York and use ordinary looking hotel maids as handy sex objects and all hotel maids are probably whores.

     

    Or perhaps she’s just one of those revolting ProLife rape apologists who are just SURE that every woman who is raped deserves it.

     

    I’ve got to say, though, I am getting really, REALLY tired of people plucking a concept from 101 Porn Plots About Evil Women, asserting it “might” apply to the present case, and then insisting its “reasonable” to derail the discussion to whether it could be true.  Personally, my mind isn’t a sewer, I don’t think all poor women are immoral sluts, and I’m getting pretty tired of them insisting on showing us all just how filthy theirs are. 

  • colleen

    Personally, my mind isn’t a sewer, I don’t think all poor women are immoral sluts, and I’m getting pretty tired of them insisting on showing us all just how filthy theirs are.

     

    There really is very little  distance between US ‘culture’ in 2011  and the next Inquisition. Or the preceding Inquisitions, for that matter. Take the crowds at the Anthony trial, add religious justification and misogyny and there you are.

     

  • arekushieru

    Yeah, it’s sad how easily someone who is cheaply paid, an immigrant and struggling to support herself might want to prostitute herself (although, whether she did or not is completely irrelevant, as several commenters have already tried to explain to Rynsa, without avail…).  Although, perhaps you are ignoring this because it might force you to take another look at the ‘distorted power dynamics’?  It would be typical of right-wing conservatards such as yourself.

  • arekushieru

    Mob mentality?  I think you’re confusing friends with a mob.  Or are you just projecting your one-person mob mentality on others?

  • carolrhill814

    All of these reasons has no bearing on the fact that she was raped but of course it will because he has power and he wouldn’t do anything wrong would he?

    Women I don’t care where the rape happened of who did it don’t have a chance to get have the charge stick because women are the lower class of people no matter the age so none of this surprises me NONE of it.

    To me I think the law should change from rape to manslaughter because once a woman or a man is raped they are no longer the same person as they were before the rape they look the same but they aren’t I know because I was there and still am I am not the person I was before the rape not at all in so many ways I can’t count.

    Remember the laws in NEW YORK have changed for the worse they don’t arrest a person for rape unless they used a knife or gun on the rape victim they consider it to be misdemenior (sp) and they don’t even arrest or even write up any paperwork so nothing really surprises me not in the least.