OK. This pisses me off:

Court reverses rape conviction because disabled victim didn’t prove she resisted, demands evidence of “biting, kicking” thkpr.gs/QPCbHK

— ThinkProgress (@thinkprogress) October 3, 2012

This was the victim in question:

n a 4-3 ruling Tuesday afternoon, the Connecticut State Supreme Court overturned the sexual assault conviction of a man who had sex with a woman who “has severe cerebral palsy, has the intellectual functional equivalent of a 3-year-old and cannot verbally communicate.” The Court held that, because Connecticut statutes define physical incapacity for the purpose of sexual assault as “unconscious or for any other reason… physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an act,” the defendant could not be convicted if there was any chance that the victim could have communicated her lack of consent. Since the victim in this case was capable of “biting, kicking, scratching, screeching, groaning or gesturing,” the Court ruled that that victim could have communicated lack of consent despite her serious mental deficiencies.”

So despite the fact that she’s severely disabled and unable to communicate, AND has the mental capacity of a 3-year old, meaning she wouldn’t have understood what was happening to her, somehow her rape wasn’t legitimate because she didn’t bite or kick or fight back enough?

What. The. FUCK.

We have some seriously fucked up standards in this country if a disabled woman’s rapist is set free because she didn’t resist enough.