The Monster of Avignon

By Nasra Hussen

For those who haven’t been following the case closely, I will lay out the facts that have been uncovered:

In September 2020, Dominique Pelicot was apprehended by security guards and later interrogated by local police for upskirting three women with his phone at a supermarket. Pelicot stated that he didn’t usually do this kind of thing and was released on bail pending investigation of his devices which included his laptop, two mobile phones and other digital equipment.

It was during this investigation that Avignon police saw that Pelicot was involved in a forum called à son insu [without her knowledge], on which members gathered to discuss or boast about having performed sexual acts on their unknowing (often drugged) partners. It was in these chats that Pelicot found like-minded men and invited them to his house to rape his wife, Gisèle Pelicot.

The investigation also found more than 20,000 images and videos of Gisèle  Pelicot. In all of them she was described as being listless and unconscious. The file containing the media is called Abus [Abuse] and was carefully maintained; within it were dates, the names of the perpetrators and the sexual acts performed. There are upwards of 80 men involved aside from Dominique Pelicot. Their ages range from 21 to 74. Only 51 men have been identified from the seized media.

The case was initially met with the usual attitudes of doubt and apathy. One of the coldest examples was from Louis Bonnet, the mayor of the town the crimes took place in. ‘After all, no one has died’, he was quick to say, shrugging off the severity of the crimes. After the case had gained significant traction and it had become clear that it was a cornerstone case, the Mayor would apologise for his comments.

Many of the defendants claim ignorance. Throughout this trial it has been suggested that Gisèle Pelicot was complicit; that she was a drug addict and/or alcoholic. In addition, due to the consistent drugging, she developed memory issues, a fact that was used against her by the defendants. 

There is doubt cast upon Gisèle Pelicot’s character despite the fact that Dominique Pelicot, in September 2024, admitted to his crimes in full. ‘I am a rapist, like the others in this room,’ Pelicot stated, referring to the 51 defendants in this case. He expressed his regrets and said ‘they all knew,’ admitting that all those that he invited to rape his wife were aware of what they had agreed to.

Instead of framing this case as a chilling example of the harm that is inflicted on women by those closest to them, public discourse has revealed a narrow defensive position taken by society: that this is the work of a monster. Dominique Pelicot has been dubbed ‘the monster of Avignon’.

The name serves as a symbol of the intense vilification of Mr Pelicot, the individual. Through creating a mythical monster of him, we create something which is presumed alien to our culture, something inhuman. We have assigned the crimes of Mr Pelicot to an otherworldly category, which requires no work of our culture to assess and change. We comfortably push it aside. Whilst this mass rape case is particularly prolific,  it is also true that nothing that can be considered alien to patriarchal culture occurred here.

This case offers an opportunity for us to see an issue wider than a set of individuals precisely because it is so prolific. There are concrete copycat cases that have been under investigation alongside this one.

For instance, Pelicot was able to convince another man to drug his own wife and film her being violated by Pelicot himself and numerous others. The French authorities have alluded to other crimes being tied to the same forum that the defendants in this case had met on. 

This is an issue that is far bigger than ‘the monster of Avignon’.

In this case alone, there are a number of men who haven’t been identified from the found media. There are those who consumed the leaked media of Gisèle Pelicot. Crucially, there are also the members of the forum/website accessed by Mr Pelicot; those who engaged in conversations about violating women and plotted to enact their fantasies.

Forums created to humiliate women are not rare on the internet. They hold a space for men to infect other men with misogynist attitudes; they allow those attitudes to grow and perpetuate cruelty towards women. This apathy toward womens' humanity and dignity is a cornerstone of patriarchal cultures. It is around us all the time.

One journalist says that the scenes inside the courtroom have been shocking. Several of the defendants have had prior accusations of domestic violence and incest. Many of them deny the accusation of rape: they say that they took Mr Pelicot's permission as consent to engage with Mrs Pelicot, as, after all, she is his wife. They state that they believed themselves to be engaging in the activities of a 'libertine' sex game.

There is a confluence of ideas and cultural baggage at play within this defense.

Marital rape remains a controversial topic within many countries in the world. In some countries it is not illegal and is defined as being different to rape; it is not punished in the same way, if at all. In much of Europe marital rape was not considered  illegal until the late 20th century: in France it became illegal to rape your spouse in 1994. Throughout much of the Pelicots’ marriage Mr Pelicot was within his rights to rape his wife if he so chose.

Though many of us know it to belong to antiquity, the idea of conjugal duty is very much alive within modern sexual relations. Research has shown that expectations of sexual intimacy and conjugal duties continue to influence modern marriages. Studies on marital satisfaction often point out how sexual expectations are deeply tied to notions of duty, with some partners feeling entitled to sex, while others feel obligated. These dynamics aren't just remnants of old religious or patriarchal beliefs, but are actively shaped by social and cultural attitudes towards marriage. Even in more egalitarian societies, these roles inform expectations about sex within marriage. Women, in particular, face pressure to fulfill conjugal duties as part of their wifely role. Men feel entitled to sexual fulfillment within a marriage/relationship. There is a subtextual understanding between men that a wife belongs to her husband sexually.

Misunderstanding consent is a defense very often used by men in court or in wider society; the ways in which men interpret consent hark back to centuries of patriarchical understandings.

‘The ‘‘passive’’ posture is generally perceived as feminine, whereas the ‘‘active’’ posture is generally perceived as masculine. Do we not say ‘‘to take’’ a woman? Or for the woman to ‘‘give herself’’? This traditional division of roles, although deeply infused with ethology, is often denounced, suspected of covering and supporting intolerable violence. The imperiousness of male desire — or of his erection — often gives him the illusion that his desire is contagious, and the man then has the impression that he can overstep female resistance being expressed purely for the sake of form: ‘‘The mouth always says no, and must say no; but there are differences in the way it is said, and this will show the true intent’’ – Rousseau

Ethology, i.e. the study of non-human animals, is used to define/explain/justify human sexual relations. Pulling from examples of animal sexual aggression and general dominion, we draw a social script for ourselves. Aside from the glaring issues that arise from this, it is clear that these patriarchal voices have cherry picked the most sexually aggressive creatures from which to draw likeness. The issue in reality is that we humans have an issue of fetishising dominion over the feminine and we justify this through ethology. There is research that shows the various ways patriarchal institutions have commodified and fetishised female submission/male dominion lead to real world harm for women. (See 1, 2, 3, 4)

Communities are created around these fetishes. Thousands come together online to discuss and exchange media with like-minded individuals. The forum that Mr Pelicot used hosted countless others. The Guardian writes that:

‘Since its founding in 2003, Coco [the website that held the forum in question] has been implicated in killings, pedophilia, homophobic attacks and sexual assaults as it evaded accountability and led law enforcement on an international manhunt. When European authorities finally shut down Coco earlier this year and arrested its founder along with other executives, the website had been cited in more than 23,000 reports of criminal activity and more than 480 victims had been involved in judicial proceedings involving the site, according to French prosecutors.’

The site itself has been shut down this year but charities and advocacy groups have warned of similar sites that have come to fill the vacuum left behind by Coco. This leaves governments with a dilemma that is as far reaching as it is threatening.

And what of the women in the lives of the men convicted in this case? Some have been present in the courtroom alongside them throughout the trial. Most are shocked and disgusted. One states that ‘I thought I was living a peaceful and fulfilling life, but I was wrong.’ She then admitted that she'll always fear that she too was raped.

However, despite the unbelievable amount of evidence, there are some partners, sisters and mothers of the defendants who remain supportive. It is common for the women who are close to a man accused of rape to be stunned and disbelieving.

According to the New Zealand Herald, the girlfriend of one defendant in this case said, ‘I think that, as a man, he decided to look elsewhere’, referring to a period when she was too busy looking after her sick mother to pay her partner sexual attention. This harks back to conjugal duty; this is an example of a woman who is so blinded by guilt over her inability to fulfill her sexual obligation that she is unable to see her partner’s monstrosity. This is backed by another woman whoo was the partner of a defendant . She said that she tried to satisfy his high libido, and complied with his insistence for sex almost every day ‘at ten at night’. She also agreed to have naked pictures taken of herself, and cried that ‘he had no reason to go look elsewhere.’ Her partner, Jerome V was found guilty of raping Gisèle Pelicot six times. Another woman stated: ‘I don't see him as a rapist. It's not him,’ expressing a familiar confusion that is present when a person who is close to you is discovered to have heinous secrets. 

Psychologically, for women who support their partners in the face of rape accusations, denial can be a defense mechanism. American psychiatrist JL Herman discusses how women may protect their partners as a way of maintaining the coherent identity of their relationship or of their partner. At times this persists even when faced with serious consequences for themselves. This is explained by emotional investment and the desire to avoid uncomfortable truths that undermine the relationship. This is in addition to the possibility that women may feel pressure to support their male partner because of societal expectations around loyalty in their role as wife or partner, or because they have internalised norms that suggest men should be exonerated or protected from accusations of rape.

Both of the viewpoints quoted express denial, which is a natural reaction to shock, but they are also reinforced by a harmful narrative. Namely, the mythical creature of the rapist that society creates to help us digest and compartmentalise the Pelicot case. It has created a narrative that obscures and subverts glaring facts. Looking at the issue directly reveals how ubiquitous and casual rape is. The cognitive dissonance of this reality being both frightening and boring (in that it lacks novelty and intrigue in the form of a fantastical monster) makes it quite difficult to accept that, yes, your friend/partner/husband is a rapist. There are people in all of our lives who have ominous intentions and engage with cruel content online. 

‘Many women, I think, resist feminism because it is an agony to be fully conscious of the brutal misogyny which permeates culture, society, and all personal relationships.’ – Andrea Dworkin

There has been a huge uptick in the amount of misogyny online and on the streets. The malicious forums and content represent a percentage of the violence perpetrated online. The overwhelming overspill has reached mainstream social media and streaming sites. With the rise of red pill content and dark cults of personality giving us revered gurus who reinforce woman-hating attitudes, we are at a troubling point in social history.

Outnumbering those peddling extremism are a great many men who fail to ring the alarm when they come across harmful content and barbaric intentions towards women. Αs this year comes to a close, in a world that is determined to punish women for meager gains towards attaining equality, we look towards 2025, when an accused rapist will take the US presidency. It is down to every individual to stay vigilant and monitor their own communities to make sure we are keeping people safe. And it is up to us to create the strong and inspiring social movements that will forever dispel with the the beliefs, norms, and forms of socialisation that make Dominique Pelicots possible.

Nasra Hussen is a writer, artist, and a member of the Interregnum collective.