A jury has found Linda Marie Naggs, a professional dancer, not guilty of raping a man at a bachelor party.
Ms. Naggs, who uses the stage name Tiffany, was hired by the plaintiff to perform an X-rated show called "Anal" at his friend's bachelor party. Naggs' lawyer, Paul Higham, says that after the groom opted out of taking part in the performance, the plaintiff of his own free will got naked on all fours. The plaintiff then allowed lubricant to be smeared on his rear while Tiffany stood behind him with a pink dildo strapped to her waist. Higham describes the man's actions as "a bit like playing chicken with moving cars,'' and has suggested that he placed himself in close proximity to the dildo for a reason.
What happened next is a matter of some debate. The alleged victim told the court that he urged Tiffany not to put the strap-on into his anus, and was shocked when she did anyway.
This is the part that puzzles me. Here he was, naked on all fours in front of a woman wearing a strap-on dildo, yet he was supposedly asking her at that moment not to penetrate him. I don't know if the guy was whole-heartedly into what he was doing or not, but at the very least he was conflicted, or he wouldn't have found himself in that position.
The prosecutor in the case, Kieran Gilligan, said that when the plaintiff raised concerns as to where she might put the sex toy, Ms. Naggs replied "Not a problem, relax, it's only fun, I won't go there," but did go there anyway. Gilligan said Naggs described the incident as a joke, but urged the jury to find her guilty. "He never consented to any penetration and she intentionally penetrated him and this is rape and you ought to find her guilty,'' said the prosecutor.
After less than a day of deliberation, the jury found Ms. Naggs, a working mother, and a dancer for the last thirteen years, not guilty. She wept as the verdict was read, and her lawyer thanked the jury on her behalf for the attention they gave to the case.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
DiBi
Charlene Keeler
cjackbOnOpen
couch tornado
Don Rich
President Barack Obama
Salon.com
Comments
Perhaps there were other extenuating circumstances.
Nana; Aussies do get a little wild it seems. You'd do better sticking to ice cream socials in Kansas:)
Natalie, as i said to Walter, I'm not sure what information the jury had that we don't, but a verdict is a verdict. And your new avatar is delightful, but then the camera seems to love you.
And Trey; pretty much.
What is the world coming to?
Great post
Emma, I believe you're right; the man's brain didn't seem to be a key player in this incident.
Buffy, good question. When a man can't get naked on all fours and present his lubricated rear to a pink strap-on without things like this taking place, it leads one to question the direction our society's headed:P
And Tai; "hmmm" about sums up my thoughts as well.
OESheepdog; you should write for the Daily Show.
Mtam, I actually HAVE seen similar goings-on at frat parties, and nary an eyebrow was raised.
And Barbra; it does make you wonder what other outcome he might have been expecting.
Raman, you left out "fucktard realized his friends were all watching."
Michael, as I understand it kangaroos have an aversion to wearing strap-ons.
And Nana, do you and the FFAers mate with the pigs before or after you roast them?
This has the makings of a great reality show. Anyone?
Grif; this does have reality show written all over it. Something like "So You Think You Can Save Your Ass From This Dancer." There'd be a panel of drunks who's job is to decide if penetration was achieved or not, and a proctologist standing by for any emergencies.
I feel the stripper should've been charged with rape.
Well, we can only debate whether the jury followed best practices, but going forward, and after spending time thinking out of the box, I've made it an action item to take the time and indicate that I agree with you.
For the upteenth millionth time, nearly 3/4s of female rape victims never go to the police. Of those who do, fewer than half of the rapes get prosecuted. Of those which get prosecuted, only a fraction lead to conviction.
So what exactly do you think women are getting away with?
In this case, a man took off his clothes, got on all fours, allowed his anus to be lubed by a woman wearing a dildo and charged her with rape. The police did prosecute and it did go to a jury. After that, AND the testimony of those who were there, the jury did not feel that they could convict this woman.
By all means, if you flew to Australia, sat on the jury and know something we don't, please report on it. Until that happens, we can only assume that the circumstances plus the testimony of the witnesses convinced the jury that this woman did not rape the plaintiff. If there was truly a rape going on, I would think the plaintiff's friends at the party - who witnessed the whole thing - would have given some very strong testimony about this and would have been able to sway a jury.
It's hard for me to imagine that a group of his buddies who witnessed this would not have been aware that he was being raped. Or, if they were aware that he was being raped, they then chose not to help him. Or still, they watched a rape, chose to do nothing, and the lot of them were still unable to convince a jury that he had been raped.
This doesn't sound like a "he said, she said". It sounds more like a "he said but several other witnesses including his friends said otherwise."
In the meantime, please let us know if you find any other women hiding under your bed or in your closets who are secretly trying to get payback on men. As you know, they're everywhere.
I'm going to wonder that if it was a woman who had the exact same thing happen, if the police would have even bothered filing a report and tried to seek prosecution.
I don't know how Australian law works, but in North America if he was drunk that DEFINITELY makes it rape; legally, you're not allowed to fuck someone who is drunk because their drunkenness means they are not able to give consent. (I certainly don't agree with this categorically, but if you want to hear my thoughts on that subject in all its nuanced glory you can read the post I wrote awhile ago.)
Yes, he was a drunk asshat, but you know how drunk people work. Can't you see the wheels turning in his inebriated brain? "Hahahaha, I'm naked on all fours!! Oh, man, and I'm smearing lube on my asshole!! This is hilarious! I'm so scandalous!! This is gonna make for some great pictures! Hope no one posts them on Facebook! Wait, you're going to WHAT?? Are you KIDDING ME?? No way, I don't want to be penetrated, I was acting stupid and treating this like a joke!!" How different is that situation, really, from a drunk woman who goes home with a guy, makes out for a little bit, removes some clothing, maybe exchanges oral sex with the guy, but specifically states she doesn't want penetration? Does she "deserve" to be penetrated against her will even though she'd removed clothes and done things that demonstrated she was interested in some sort of sexual activity? No? Then why the fuck does this guy?
And Jessabelle, as I mentioned to Jon, the jury has already rendered a verdict of not guilty on this. Do you think it's possible that they had information which you and I don't? I do. This incident occurred at a bachelor party; there were plenty of witnesses, witnesses who's testimony was likely weighed by them before they rendered their verdict.
But juries also get it wrong, especially in rape cases when consent may have been blurry. I wasn't there, I don't know all the facts, and thus I don't know how I feel about the case. Part of me says it's better to be cautious and not convict someone who may be innocent; part of me says that juries fuck up often due to personal biases and unfounded stereotypes, and one of those stereotypes MAY be that men can't get raped.
Additionally, legally speaking (and this does not necessarily conform to what's "right," as we all know), IF this guy was in fact drunk then it WAS rape, legally, since he was not thinking rationally and thus not able to give consent. Again, I don't know how Australian law deals with this, but since most industrialized countries require sobriety in order for consent to be legal I would assume it's true for Australia as well. The fact that a jury or a judge would disregard the legal implications of his being intoxicated is an indication that perhaps the ruling wasn't very legally sound. But as you said, who knows? Not us.
I personally think that people are responsible for their actions no matter how drunk or sober they are, but if this had happened to a woman I would be disturbed and sad for the (possible) rape victim. The fact that this happened to a dude doesn't change the way I feel.
And Jessabelle; well said. I actually spent a fair amount of time looking for more details on this case but didn't have much luck. That being so, it comes down to whether one thinks the jury's verdict was the proper one. Sometimes they get it right; sometimes they don't. There's one thing though that's undeniable; we live in a andro-centric culture where as often as not the victims of rape, the vast majority of whom are women, are figuratively put on trial themselves for what happened to them. "What was she doing there to begin with?" "Well she shouldn't have been dressed like that." "It's known that she had sex with another man the same evening." "Well, isn't she just a slut anyway?" I realize the law is very cut and dry about what constitutes rape, but unfortunately our society, despite the progress that's been made, is still riddled with hypocrisy and double standards.
If the gender roles had been reversed, would the verdict have been any different? I doubt if it would have. It would all come down to whether consent was given or not, and if the prosecutor couldn't prove that it wasn't, even with all those witnesses, then there probably wasn't much of a case to begin with, whether the plaintiff was male or female.
For you to assume that this was rape and that the jury got it wrong, you have to assume all of these things:
1. That not one of his friends (who were all watching the performance) was aware that he was being raped. This seems extremely unlikely. People tend to cry out or fight back when being raped. It appears as though this person did neither, in spite of the fact no weapons were involved.
2. That of all his friends who watched this and were aware he was being raped, not one could be bothered to intervene. Some friends, unwilling to fight off an unarmed woman in order to save their buddy.
3. That all of his friends who wathced this, were aware that he was being raped and chose not to intervene, not one could give a testimony to convince a jury that he was indeed a victim of rape.
Seriously, don't you think this is a bit far-fetched?
Absolutely no one is arguing that no doesn't mean no. I whole-heartedly agree that one has the right to say no at any point during sex and if sex is continued, it is rape. That doesn't appear to be the case in this example.
The double-standard here is that a case with so many holes in it actually got prosecuted, obviously by people with an agenda to see a woman prosecuted of raping a man rather than the other way around.
Imagine if you would, a woman at a party in front of several of her friends took off her clothes for an "act" called "fuck", spread her legs, allowed herself to be lubed and then said: "It was rape because I was told nothing would happen. Of all of my friends who watched this happen, they were all either completely unaware I was being raped or chose to do absolutely nothing to help. Also, they would be absolutely unable to convince a jury I was raped as they were either unaware or unconcerned with my being raped. Of all the witnesses, I'm the only one who thinks I was raped though I bet if I cried out that I needed help someone would have intervened."
Not only would this never see the light of day in a courtroom but it would also probably be laughed out of a police station. That's the only double-standard in this whole case.
Your bias is showing.
1. Based on the limited information provided, we’re unable to correctly posit the actions of the man’s friends during and after the alleged rape. It’s possible that they were all drunk or that they were unaware of the extent of the man’s inebriation or his professed denials of entry.
2. Also, we’re not exactly sure the extent of the sodomization. My reading of the story posted by Drew was that the man was sodimized once, not repeatedly. After the sodomoization, his friends may have acted or he may have acted. Again, without more information, we’re really not able to infer anything.
3. More information from other news sites claims that the man that was allegedly raped reacted negatively after penetration and that Ms. Naggs behaved violent towards her supposed victim (1). The brother of the best man indicated that it happened quickly enough that no one was aware of the extent of the sodomy (2) and that’s why they didn’t react in line with your suppositions. And, Ms. Naggs inserted the dildo forcefully enough to allegedly cause damage to the man (3).
I think it’s pretty clear here that your own biases against Men are coloring how you perceive those of us that do not agree with the Jury’s decision. I’m willing to cut you some slack because I’ve got enough anger against Hearing people to understand why some women feel rage at Men, but there’s no need to be vicious in this discussion.
(1) http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24311879-421,00.html
(2) http://www.news.com.au/story/0,,25861719-1243,00.html
(3) http://www.news.com.au/story/0,,25857253-421,00.html
On a final note: I've regretted having sex after the fact. I've also had very vigorous sex which has left me sore and bleeding which I've regretted later. Once I did stop someone after I had agreed to sex because he was rougher than I liked and was hurting me. None of this means that I was raped.
...and to shed more vagueness (can one shed vagueness?) on the matter, if he was being raped, why didn't he just get up or leave once she began the deed?
...also, it seems almost like a publicity stunt on his part because seriously, what guy wants to make something like that public?
...and as Drew implied, if a room full of your buddies were witnesses and you STILL can't get a conviction, well...
Fins and Renaissance Lady; your take on this pretty much mirrors my own. It comes down to this; the case went to trial. The jury acquitted Ms. Naggs. The prosecution lost either because they were incompetent, or, what seems more likely to me, they just didn't have that good of a case to begin with. As I stated above, I doubt the verdict would have been different if the gender roles had been reversed. There are people who for whatever reason will second guess the verdict all day long, and that's fine, but it won't change my opinion that if the guy didn't want that kind of sex he shouldn't have hired a stripper with a strap-on then presented his ass to her.
In case of a transgendered or transitioning victim I will be careful to ask first how she/he/it wishes to be addressed.
"I don't mate with swine, cooked or raw. That's what the chickens are for."
I was in no way implying that chicken fucking is socially acceptable, or even that much fun. In my defense however, it needs to be stated unequivocally that neither I or the birds in question were drunk at the time, and the intercourse we engaged in was fully consensual, inasmuch as consent can be obtained from dead, processed poultry carcasses. That will be all.
And Noah; you are indeed a paragon of sensitivity and enlightenment. Do you think you could counsel Nanatehay out of his food-fucking fetish?
Noah, he's all yours.
There was no real force used here, no threat of violence or blackmail. It sounds like she did a pretty rotten and kind of disturbing thing to the guy, but calling this "rape" minimizes and steals power from that horrible word. I guess this is why in the US we have so many "degrees" of sexual assault.
I am unfamiliar with Australian law, but in the US this would never be tried as a "rape." It would probably be tried as a third degree sexual assault or something. After all, the plaintiff (hereafter referred to as the "fucktard" stuck was pretty much waving his lubed asshole in front of a loaded dildo. What did the fucktard think was going to happen? Whatever he expected, the quick one-shot the fucktard got from this woman he had hired to perform lewd sexual acts is sure as hell not a "rape."
Wuss!! In Fargo, we're manly men, no lube!!!
:)
No pretty much always means no Trig, but it's not clear from reading the articles what the plaintiff really said. What is certain is that he didn't show much common sense at the bachelor party.
Who was the judge? Thurston Howell III?
The bailiff? Maryann or Ginger? The exper witness? The Professor?
I'm not a lawyer or a judge nor do I play either one on TV, so I can't rule, but it does sounds like rape. If I'm with a girl and we are about to get it on (meaning, we are naked) and she says, "Stop" and I don't; it can easily be considered rape.
And Trudge; I couldn't get the "Gilligan's Island" imagery out of my head either:)
And Lonnie, juries do sometimes get it wrong, there's no denying. Just as with OJ though, if we're going to be a society based on law, we accept their verdicts whether we agree with them or not. In this case, I happen to agree with it, and I still stand by my thesis that the guy's a fucktard.
I've been following RenaissanceLady for some time as an unregistered reader and definitely felt a kinship. I do feel you went a little overboard minimizing male rapists' punishments, however. Everyone, everywhere has agreed for the past 20-30 years raping a female is wrong (except rapists of course). Men get on the predator lists and suffer in numerous ways after even acquittals. Surely you know the same can't be said of female attackers who often draw supporters and the “sad gender games” continue.
There will be equal rights when we support each instance of a crime (not saying this stripper was guilty!) against a man, & not waiting until somehow the subliminal level of crimes against men becomes "about even" for society to starts caring. On the contrary, it begins with each crime against a man and against a woman. All of them. Every time. Equal justice under the law (and in the media) is a very important step toward the respects we want for each other. And as far as "about even" - just look a little harder and you'll see men's privilege's aren't as great as most women appear to suppose (I can't believe any woman really believe that), nor are their lives as easy, carefree, and burden-free as someone without a hard-working father and brother must have conceived based on outside "sources." Look no further than divorce "victories" and other courtroom privileges, and we should stop seeking MORE despite our survival instinct. There are bigger fish to fry and goals: equal respect, fewer crimes.
I didn't intend to say ~There will be equal rights when we support each instance of a crime against a man and against a woman~ but rather prosecute, and as a society rebuke, criminal acts and physical violence.
Really? So if you get wet it's not rape?
Flawed logic here.
Dalivus, his position has little to do with it, though I do find it amusing. Sorry if that bothers you. Here's what it comes down to though; rape is wrong, whether committed by a man or a woman and, regardless of what Alysse or you or anyone else thinks, I know that. This case was treated seriously by the authorities, which it should have been. Ms. Naggs was accused of rape and tried for it. The jury found her innocent. My opinion, and that's all it is of course, is that they rendered the correct verdict. Second-guess the jury all you like, accuse me of being in favor of men being raped or whatever it is you're accusing me of all you like; that's your right, and that's why they call this Open Salon.
Ghost Writer, you're right; a little vitriol jazzes up a thread quite nicely doesn't it?
And Noah; as I understand it, the VADFBPA is being held up by the powerful lobby for Strippers In Favor Of Sodomizing Hapless Drunks (SIFOSHD).
If it was merely interesting and you agree that WE all don't have sufficient facts, how did you come to agree with the verdict outside of using personal prejudice?
I've been hoping you'd say something to "rectify" your position (I'm not very good a jokes but I'm trying) because I don't like to see unevenness called in evenness. If you "lean" away from men and give benefit of doubt, even if small, toward women, I'm not saying that's necessarily bad in the absence of facts, but by all means just say that.
Life's easy as an under-the-radar hater, right? If you ever find a decent man, you can't stay under the radar. Your poison will slip out if you don't totally see it and cure it. I work with your type from time to time, we all have, and I’ve had to let them go. Not for their prejudices, but because their performance shows misplaced assertiveness, albeit no pilfering of office supplies. Their destructive thinking comes out when I'm trying to make us creative. There's just no hiding it. It's a nicer world when you play nice and show respect to all victims. Men need fairness advocates. Ever considered it? Fair productivity standards, firmness when they mess up at work, access to dream-building, management when caring for their families (rotating them off of shift work, etc), and taking them seriously when they feel wronged. The principle is the same as helping anyone. It takes you beyond your own problems and simultaneously heals. You not only more easily see men's flaws and are less threatened by them, but you become as useful complement rather than a black hole.
Would that be rape?
I woulda hit that!
R
I think that particular pastime would lose a lot of its appeal if it were played with parked cars. I mean, who would lose? The driver who took the first bathroom break?