Published In
Dalhousie Law Journal
Document Type
Working Paper
Publication Date
2025
Subjects
criminal law, sexual assault, credibility, discrimination
Abstract
As sexual assault laws evolved to be expressed in sex-neutral language, so too have arguments relating to myths and stereotypes in the context of sexual offences. This article evaluates the argument that myths and stereotypes, traditionally a reflection of systemic discrimination against female complainants in rape trials, also operate against male accused. Understood correctly, this trend repackages anti-feminist backlash to early equality reform efforts, ultimately working to revive the belief that women’s accusations of sexual assault are often false. The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R v Kruk affirms that this historical context matters when it comes to claims of stereotyping in sexual assault cases. While there is reason to be alive to the issue of stereotyping the accused—as in cases of racism or homophobia—those seeking to bring evidence of myths and stereotypes should not rely on the formal equality argument that what applies to the “goose” applies equally to the “gander.”
Citation Details
J. Benedet, "Sauce for the Gander: The False Symmetry of Myths and Stereotypes Against the Accused in Sexual Assault Trials" Dalhousie Law Journal [forthcoming in 2026].