In a trial that has ignited rage across France, Ms. Gisèle Pelicot has accused over fifty men of raping her while she lay unconscious after being drugged by her husband.
And the worst part? Those men might get away scot-free.
Mr. Dominique Pelicot, 71, is accused of secretly drugging and raping his wife, Ms. Pelicot, 72, while she was unconscious. Ms. Pelicot has also alleged that, between 2011 and 2020, Mr. Pelicot invited more than 50 men to join him in the assaults.
Ms. Pelicot was completely unaware of her husband’s behavior until police discovered video footage of the rapes on his computer.
The outrage erupting from the trial does not stem merely from Mr. Pelicot’s heinous acts nor from the willful compliance of his accomplices. It comes also from the fact that, despite the irrefutable video evidence, those accomplices might not be convicted of rape. But why? The Pelicot trial reveals an ugly truth: historically, the French judicial system has gravely mishandled cases of rape.
In the United States, the law defines rape as “penetration, no matter how slight…without the consent of the victim.” The only circumstance in which sexual intercourse does not constitute rape is if both parties consent to the act.
But in France, rape is defined as “sexual penetration committed against another person by violence, constraint, threat, or surprise.” The defense is asserting that because the men didn’t use “violence, constraint, threat, or surprise” against Ms. Pelicot, they cannot be convicted of rape, despite the fact that she did not explicitly consent to sex.
During a 2023 European Union conference, France was one of the few member states that refused to change its definition of rape, shooting down the principle that “Only Yes Means Yes.” France claimed that the proposed definition was not in line with the Istanbul Convention, a standing agreement in which the country had partaken.
But this justification is deeply insufficient, especially when one considers how challenging it is to take legal action against a rapist: according to France 24, less than 1% of rape complaints actually result in a conviction.
Though this article might seem like a broken record after Mike Domitrz’s all-school lecture on consent, we must realize that hearing about the importance of consent so much is a privilege.
While it seems intuitive for us to view sexual consent as the line that separates rape from legal sexual activity, the normalization of that understanding is incredibly recent and varies from region to region, even now.
Why is sexual consent so important? The answer is simple—whether or not a gun is held to your head doesn’t make the difference between sex and rape.
Rape isn’t rape because it includes physical coercion but because it violates the right people have to control their bodies.
Rape isn’t an atrocity solely because it might be “violent, constraining, threatening, or surprising” but because it objectifies and thus degrades survivors. Rapists treat their victims as less than human— and it is that fact that makes the crime so horrible.
Ultimately, Ms. Pelicot’s trial is terrifying not only because it shows that these horrific acts still exist in society but also because it highlights how dehumanizing and incompetent the French judicial system is.
Ms. Pelicot has sat in court watching videos of herself being raped because, she says, she has a “determination to change things.”
And she’s right: the French judicial system must change. Not only because Ms. Pelicot deserves to receive justice or because the offenders must be punished, but because it will send a message to the world: that sexual consent is the line that should define rape.
If not, the consequence is Gisèle Pelicot.
