Saturday, May 21, 2011

Maybe I am being clueless but...

[Dominique Strauss-Kahn and some other rich, important banker asshole. He is the one on the right but does it matter?]

The rape allegations against Dominique Strauss-Kahn are puzzling. On the one hand, given a contest between a poor immigrant maid and a powerful wealthy banker, it is hard not to side with the maid. But there are problems with her story.

From the May 17th Telegraph --
The maid alleges that when she arrived to clean the IMF managing director's suite at noon on Saturday, he locked her inside, attempted to rape her and forced her to give him oral sex.
How is that possible? How would one lock a hotel room door from the inside such that one could not get out? Hotel doors lock from the inside to keep intruders out, but are designed for quick and easy exit in case of fire. If anyone reading this has ever seen a hotel door that worked any other way I will be glad to be corrected, but I haven't seen one nor do I expect to.

If she was able to repel his attempt to rape her, she was willing and able to resist by force. There is no allegation of coercion with a weapon or threat of one, only of force. If she could keep him out of her vagina, how could she not keep him out of her mouth?

If the maid did not want Dominique Strauss-Kahn's penis in her mouth and she was not so intimidated as to be afraid to resist, why would she not just have kept her jaw closed? Or once inside, not have bitten his penis and bitten it hard?

Her husband's description of the maid, though affectionate, makes her sound plain, obese, and unstable. As Strauss-Kahn showed by raising a million in cash for bail on short notice, he could lay his hands on plenty of money. New York has no end of hookers and it is a certainty that a rich, smart, connected guy like Strauss-Kahn could have had no end of women in his room with a phone call, every one of them more attractive than the African maid.

It is conventional to say that rape is a crime of violence rather than one of sexual desire. Which makes sense here. Nothing about the maid was more attractive than any one of the high-priced hookers Strauss-Kahn could easily have afforded. So it wasn't a sex crime. It was a crime of violence plain and simple. Which is to say that for the maid's accusation to be true, Strauss-Kahn would have to have a screw loose.

Conversely, for Strauss-Kahn's denial to be true, either the accusation is an attempt at blackmail, or the maid is the one with a screw loose.

This is beginning to have a something of the odor of the poor innocent woman who was raped by the Duke lacrosse team in 2006 . Except she wasn't. In the end the prosecutor in that case was disbarred for concealing exonerating evidence and the woman went to jail.

And the 1987 Tawana Brawley case in which a poor woman from the slums was raped and abused by New York police officers, smeared with dog shit, and kidnapped inside a large canvas sack. Except she wasn't. Forensic evidence demonstrated that every allegation she made was false. The Reverend Al Sharpton adopted her cause but never apologized or retracted when she was proven a liar. The prosecutor he smeared in the press sued for defamation and got a judgment of $345,000 against him.

The underlying problem is that treating a woman's word as sacrosanct gives crazy and malicious women too much power to destroy whomever they don't like by false allegations. But treating a woman's word as something to be ignored or dismissed gives men a carte blanche to rape women and get away with it. There seems to be no balanced way to do it. The world is full of liars and head cases and there is no reliable way to deal with them. The legal system tends to lynch the poor and hand out hereditary 'Get Out of Jail Free' cards to the rich.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn is an international banker and a leader of the Socialist Party of France, and a candidate to run against the current President, Nicholas Sarkozy, in 2012. It is not too much to suppose that a socialist international banker would make some powerful enemies. Nor is it too much to suppose that a prospective candidate for President might be subject to dirty tricks by the regime. Or by friends of the regime.

It is not unreasonable to suppose that the Socialists would have won the Presidency in 2005 if their candidate had not been the inept but stunningly beautiful Segolene Royal. Nor unreasonable to suppose that the Socialists would have an excellent chance against the increasingly unpopular Nicholas Sarkozy if their candidate in 2012 were an experienced world banker like Strauss-Kahn. One does not have to be John LeCarre to suspect a plot here.

It is not clear what is going on in the case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn, except that it is not what we are being told.

No comments:

Post a Comment