When Supreme Court judges don't need intelligence

I’ve been mulling over an article I read a few days ago reporting that the Italian Supreme Court has ruled that sex crimes against non-virgins are not as serious. I kept waiting, hoping, I suppose, to see some sort of retraction – an early April Fool’s joke perhaps, and it hasn’t come.

Now I know scores of people have been talking about this, in fact are quite incensed about this, and rightly so. I suppose it is a utopian dream, but I am still waiting for the day when the world acknowledges that any sort of sexual contact with a woman without her permission is never, under any condition, acceptable. I don’t care if a woman is standing before a man naked, asking him to fuck her like an animal – if she says no when he approaches her that should be the end of the story. Yet accused men have had their lawyers, sometimes successfully, argue that “she was asking for it, she was teasing me, it shouldn’t be ok for a woman to do that and not expect me to have sex with her”, and somehow judges and juries in their infinite lack of wisdom seem to respond to such things with a sententious “well then” and suddenly the sex offender is getting off with just a slap on the wrist (no pun intended). While I’ll admit that no, it really isn’t ok for a woman to tease and tease and then say no, that doesn’t serve as justification to have sex with her against her will.

The court ruled in favor of a man in his forties, identified only as Marco T., who forced his 14-year old stepdaughter to have oral sex with him after she refused intercourse.

The man, who has been sentenced to three years and four months in jail, lodged an appeal arguing that the fact that his stepdaughter had had sex with men before should have been taken into consideration during his trial as a mitigating factor.

The supreme court agreed, saying that because of her previous sexual experiences, the victim's "personality, from a sexual point of view, is much more developed than what would be normally expected of a girl of her age".

"It is therefore fair to argue that (the damage for the victim) would be lower" if the abused girl was not a virgin, Italian news agencies quoted the court as saying.

This means the man could now be handed a lighter sentence.

This court’s decision throws Italy back into the Stone Ages as far as women’s rights are concerned. It is hard to believe that a court of law could make a rational decision stating that if a 14-year old girl is more mature sexually than other girls her age, any type of sexual predation is less damaging to her. Excuse me? Being forced to give fellatio (to a stepfather, no less) is less damaging because the girl has had sex before? Is there crack smoking involved in this court’s decision making process? Can they honestly say that a woman who has had a few sexual partners is less damaged by a violent rape than a woman who is a virgin?

I’ll tell you what. I’m assuming that most of these judges have had sex before (although I doubt any woman would have sex with them now). Now, lets say someone (woman or man, doesn’t really make a difference) forcibly shoves something up their asses against their will. Now can they come back to the court and tell us that it isn’t as damaging to them because their wives stick their fingers in their assholes now and then? Think about that for a minute, and tell me it doesn't suck.

Sex is a very personal thing. To think for one minute that “being used to sex” makes a rape less “damaging” takes the thinking ability of someone barely evolved from an ape.

Italy needs to work hard to get some new folks on their court. And god forbid any woman in Italy gets sexually assaulted in the next few years.