I apologize in advance for this post. Not for the opinions it expresses, but because it’s light on femdom and mostly me ranting. However, I figure it’s my blog, and I’m entitled to the occasional self-indulgence now and again.
A couple of weeks ago I covered the story of Stoya and her accusation of rape against her former partner James Deen. Since then multiple other women have come forward with more accusations of consent violation (I believe 8 is the current count) and porn companies have cut their ties with him. In general the response has been very supportive of Stoya.
Unfortunately, there’s one particular comment that regularly gets trotted out in these conversations that drives me nuts. It’s the one that declares he’s innocent until proven guilty and that we shouldn’t be making a judgement until he has had his chance to defend himself in court. Phrases like ‘vigilante justice’ and ‘social media witch hunt’ often get cited. What’s particularly galling is that these people often seem to assume that they’re occupying the moral high ground. Everyone else is picking sides but they’re claiming a higher position and upholding the standards of justice and fairness that are the hallmarks of a civilized society. That attitude is, quite frankly, total horseshit.
In this situation there are only three possible positions. You can choose to disengage from the debate, skip the articles on it and venture no opinion. You can choose to believe James. You can choose to believe Stoya. That’s it. End of options. Saying that he is innocent until proven guilty is to say by default you believe him over Stoya (and all the other women). You could equally choose to believe Stoya until he can prove otherwise. The former position is not automatically a neutral or morally superior one. Yes, it sucks that it’s his word against hers (and hers and hers and…). It would be great to have solid irrefutable proof of what happened. But unfortunately life sometimes gives you shitty options to choose between. So suck it up.
Assuming innocence until proven otherwise is great if we’re talking about jailing someone, but it’s a hopeless way to try and navigate through life. If a friend comes to me and says his partner violated his consent I don’t get the luxury of saying – “Well I’m sorry to hear that. And maybe it’s true, but obviously it’s not proven. Why don’t we get 12 of our friends together and let’s see if you can prove it to them beyond reasonable doubt? Then I’ll be able to take it seriously.”
I’m not saying we should automatically believe all accusations regardless of context or the individuals involved. Or that Deen should be jailed based on a twitter poll. Or even that you have to believe Stoya (although that’s my position). Just don’t try and pretend that putting the burden of proof entirely on the accuser is the morally superior position. Life isn’t black and white, and isn’t conducted in a courtroom.
I’m not really sure what image should accompany this kind of post. I guess a powerful Amazonian warrior works as well as anything, so here you go. This is by SurenProPhotography.
Innocent until proven guilty applies to the state. It’s to protect Deen from being locked up on flimsy evidence, and it’s a good rule. Better 100 guilty go free than 1 innocent go to jail, and all of that.
It doesn’t apply to ordinary people, who are free to think whatever they want, based on what they know. What I know is that 8 women are telling the same story. 8 women.