Monday, November 21, 2005

Asking for it?

More data out on the appaling way that rape is still viewed and treated in this country. We are supposed to be enjoying the liberties of the 21st century and the first world. Still 25% of people believe women are at least partly responsible for their own rapes. I think if I meet someone with that kind of attitude it is partly their own fault when I hit them really hard in the face...


Andrew said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Cruella said...

The implication of your remark is that women may not be literally "asking for it" but may still be "partly to blame". I find that nauseating. Please don't bother posting on here if that is your repugnant attitude.

If on the other hand you are all keen to have a chat about grammar when the issue in hand is rape, then again I find that pretty disgusting. So please don't bother posting on here again. Thanks.

Winter said...

I found this story so disheartening that I couldn't even manage a decent post on the subject.

Cruella said...

I don't understand the distinction between being responsible and being to blame. My dictionary defines blame as "The state of being responsible for a fault or error; culpability". Women, regardless of their dress sense or state of drunkenness are not in any way to blame, or responsible for their rapes.

Now if you wanted to point out that drunk, scantily-clad women get raped more often than those sober and in sombre dress, I haven't seen any data on the subject, you may or may not be right. The correct response to such information would be to increase policing in areas where women are likely to drink or be less modestly dressed.

No woman is responsible for her own rape. Ever.

Cruella said...

Not quite. No-one rapes in self-defence. No-one rapes when they were only intending to commit the lesser crime of sexual assault... The difference between first degree murder and second degree murder (manslaughter) is NEVER to do with what the victim is wearing or has had to drink. But your honour, he was wearing a Man U short and I support Arsenal... not going to hold any water.

The notion of provocation in cases of murder is irrelevant when the perpetrator has the option of walking away. Provocation (though they don't in practice use that term very much) is to do with believing the victim intended to cause you harm. Quick she's got a knife, rape her... I can't see how that would ever happen.

And provocation in the murder/manslaughter situation is also not about the victim being in a situation where the crime of murder is statistically more common. Your honour, he was in Hackney, so I shot him... won't get you much leniency.

Rape and murder are different crimes, and the justice system has been set up to deal with them differently. Sadly in one cae the justice system is failing the public repeatedly.

Cruella said...

I still don't accept that women bear any responsibility for rape.

There may be cases in which it is arguable whether or not actual rape has taken place, arguable whether consent was given and how that consent was understood by both parites. But rape is having sex with a woman without her consent. When that happens it's the man who does it who is solely and wholely to blame.

I agree that we should be wary of absolutism in general. The definition of rape, as I understand it, mean an absolute is justified in this case.

Murder means someone has died as a result of some else's actions. That's true in all cases. Rape is when someone who has not consented is forced to have sex. If that happens to you, it is not in any way your fault and we should seriously question the values of a society that even considers the possibility that it might be.

Furthermore, looking at my more recent post and cases coming up, I do find it quite scary that we continue to scrutinise the "morality" of women all the time, based on anything and everything from their dress and behaviour to drinking habits.

What about the men who, though they technically haven't committed rape, take advantage of women who are drunk or incapacitated. Who set out deliberately to get women drunk with the intent of co-ercing them into consent. Men who behave intimidatingly, who get drunk themselves and cause a nuisance. Who by their drunkenness and unpleasant intentions increase their own likelihood of committing rape, assault, muggings, theft and murder.

Looking at the recent case in Aberystwyth, I was disgusted to read about a guy who after offering to help a woman home, ended up co-ercing her into sex in a corridor. Even if she consented (and there's no evidence to suggest she did), isn't this guy horrible and reprehensible?

But instead as ever it is women who are the focus of the unpleasant scrutiny.

Cruella said...

That's what I'm here for! Cheers.