Maybe Gates was being an arrogant jackass; I gather even in his own version of the story he did say “do you know who you’re dealing with?” or words to that effect. So fucking what? It doesn’t matter in the least how he was acting in his own home while not being guilty of any crime.

The problem, as I stated above, is that this argument is born of and reinforces the common stereotype that real rape victims report the attack immediately. This is, in fact, not always the case, but many people, including many jurors, use this and other standards based on inaccurate stereotypes to judge people, especially women, who make allegations of rape.

In reality, everyone reacts differently to rape. It’s a highly personal crime. So some people will be raped, be consumed by righteous anger, and march immediately to the police department. Maybe they will later feel shame and fear and insecurity and a loss of sense of self, or maybe they will always feel angry. But some people will be consumed with shame, will fear their attacker, or fear that they will lose their jobs or custody of their kids, or fear of the justice system itself and its requirement that victims confront their victimizers again, some will go into denial, some will become deeply depressed. Any of these emotions can keep a rape victim from initiating a criminal process against their attacker. So imagine for a moment that you have been sexually assaulted, and shame or fear or depression or denial or the overwhelming feeling of powerlessness caused by the rape hold you back from going to the police. And maybe eventually those feelings change—you got counseling, you found a new purpose in life, you found new coping mechanisms, or time simply made those feelings easier to live with. And you decide, I want to punish my attacker, I want to make sure that person never hurts anyone else. But you realize, either on your own or with the help of a lawyer, that your chances are poor. Half the time when rapes are reported an arrest is never even made, which is remarkable considering that most victims know their attackers. And now all the physical evidence is gone, the delay will be used against you in court, perhaps even the mental distress you suffered because of the rape will be used to undermine your credibility. And if your attacker is rich and famous and powerful, then everyone will know who you are and what you went through, many won’t believe you, most will side with the person who raped you, and that person and their money and their powerful allies and their expensive lawyers will monopolize the justice system and the media and public opinion, and you will be put through the agonies of a trial—facing your attacker, recounting your private shame very publicly, listening to your attacker’s defenders pick apart your life and paint you as a greedy, promiscuous, unreliable person before a national audience—for nothing.

So instead you decide to file a civil suit. There, the burden of proof is lower. Your attacker cannot be sentenced to jail in that court, but if you win a decision in your favor, especially if the attacker is famous, then everyone will know what kind of person they are, what they did. And maybe other people who could have been victims like you will stay away and be spared what you went through.

Does this seem unreasonably, unlikely, or far-fetched to you? Or does it seem like the kind of thing that could happen to even the most honest, most upright, most upstanding and reliable person?

In truth, the woman in this particular case could be the greedy liar Roethlisberger’s lawyers will probably paint her as, she could be as innocent and pure-hearted as Bambi, or she could be somewhere in between. But the lawyer knows that any of those things could be true, and he knows that juries are often strongly influenced by preconceptions like this one to which he is giving very public support. So he knows that his statement is irresponsible and unjust, and has repercussions that extend far beyond his own case. And he said it anyway. And that is fucking despicable.