One Female's View on the Greitens Report
I've been reading and thinking about the Greitens Report tonight. To be fair, I had no idea who Greitens is, but it was thrust into my hands with instructions to: "read this and let me know what you think" - and so I read it, and, after realising it was one that I had to think very carefully about, I spent a good hour or more re-reading it.
You have Witness 1, Greitens' supposed victim, a hairdresser at the salon he frequented, who was strongly attracted to him, as far as the report reads.
Following Greitens making a move on her, she became more curious, and agreed to meet him in his house whilst his wife was away. When she got there, he had her dress up, then consensually blindfolded her and taped her hands to the pull-up rings in his basement gym.
At this point, Witness 1 says she was intrigued by what was happening. It was only when he spat water into her mouth that she became uncomfortable with the situation... but she didn't ask him to stop.
And when Witness 1 asked Greitens to stop, he stopped. Then she gave him a blow job because she felt it was the only way he'd let her leave. She says, ambiguosly, "it felt like consent, but no, I didn't want to do it".
It reads like a scene from 50 Shades of Grey (I'm assuming; it's not as if I'd ever read or watch that kind of trash - I just write it for a living sometimes). You do feel sympathy for the victim reading her story, and that something took place that was wrong somehow.
Then if you continue reading, the whole thing gets even stranger:
✿ A couple of salon visits later, Witness 1 consensually kissed him.
✿ Then she went to his house again, and they had consensual oral sex.
✿ Then she went to his house again, and, whilst in bed, Greitens got a bit jealous when she told him that she had slept with her ex-husband; slapping her round the face, but not in a way that hurt or left any marks.
✿ Then she went to his house again and she got upset when Greitens slapped her ass and pushed her to the ground from the doggy position.
The main controversy about the entire thing is Witness 1's claim that she thinks a photograph was taken during the first encounter whilst she was blindfolded, and that Greitens threatened to blackmail her with it. There is no proof or evidence of this photograph ever having being taken. Even if there were evidence that the photo existed, Witness 1 says that Greitens told her he had deleted it by the afternoon, and no harm came of it. From Greitens side, he denies ever having taken a photo.
Which leads me to the somewhat unpopular conclusion that Greitens just misread the signals. With so many women sold on the stereotype of Christian Grey - constantly reinforced by women's magazines and other mass media - perhaps Greitens believed that's what women actually wanted. It was a chance for him to explore that side of himself outside of his marriage, and he thought Witness 1 would be willing to play along.
Just how many girls would be willing to play along in that situation, I do not know. I believe what most girls want during their first sexual encounter with a man is extended foreplay and attention to detail. They want some reassurance that, even if a relationship isn't on the cards, it has meaning for both parties involved. Whereas verbal humiliation and light bondage isn't something that most of my female friends would go for during a first encounter, I also know a few who'd be thrilled by it, (and a few more who'd insist on it).
Witness 1 had said if it had been a normal sexual encounter in the basement, she would have been a willing participant - and that seems to be the crux of the matter. Greitens wanted sex with a woman who wanted to have sex with him. His crime seems to be wanting a darker shade of sex than his alleged victim had anticipated, and they ended up never having sex anyway.
---
Other recent articles on my blog:
» SSRIs & why I handed in my gun
» Happy 18th Birthday, David Hogg. Here are your best bits!