Friday, August 15, 2008

Don't blind-drunk men who rape bear ANY responsibility for what happens?

I know, I know. It's the Daily Mail. But still...
After the witness describes her ordeal, defence counsel triumphantly produces CCTV of the victim having a drink - or two or three - with the accused, or being too drunk to remember what happened to them.
I don't see why this is an argument against women drinking as much as it is an argument against men drinking. Basically what this ass is saying is that when men and women get together and drink, well then it's no surprise that the man will overstep his bounds and rape the woman.
Women always retain the right to say no whatever condition they are in.
But if they have been drinking, they may not be able to make that clear to someone stronger than them who doesn't wish to hear it.
Emphasis mine.

I would agree that women always retain the right to say no whatever condition they are in. I would also add that women always have the right to have their 'no' taken seriously whatever condition they are in. And doing otherwise is - hello - rape.

Remember, rape isn't just something that 'happens' to women who drink. Rape is something that men do to women, and I will grant that maybe it's more likely to happen when drinking occurs. If men are more likely to rape women in a situation where drinking occurs, then shouldn't the men stop drinking?

I will say this again, because it bears repeating. Women are not gatekeepers of sex as a resource. Women are participants in what should be a mutual act. Men shouldn't just want their sexual partners to not-say-no. They should want their partners to actively say yes. Anything otherwise is bullshit entitlement, and should rightly be scorned.

Note: Just realized that The Curvature already said exactly what I did, except 10x better.

No comments:

Post a Comment