OK, so I don't normally blog much about feminist issues, mainly because I feel like other people can say things better than I can. However, I can't let this one go.
ARGH. I share your rage. I just hate the assumption that because a woman might want a certain type of sex under controlled circumstances is seen as the same thing as her consenting to those things in ANY circumstances.
Yeah, exactly. It's no different from "Husbands can't rape their wives" and "She was dressed like that, she obviously wanted it" or any of those other tropes. It's sickening, and I hope there's a massive outcry about it.
For some reason, I almost feel as if this is...well, not necessarily an attack, per se, but retribution of some kind for a woman being open about her sexual desires and sexuality. Not the incident of the rapes, but the verdict of the defendants. A woman was gang-raped, okay, fair enough. But when it comes out that she vocalised her sexual desires, in what one would assume, consenting circumstances, it is used against her.
In fact, this whole situation to smacks of negative consequences of being open with one's sexuality and desires. Want to have sex with a man, who you mentioned you entertained the notion group sex? Get raped by his friends instead. Try to do something about it? Your own sexual desires are held against you and the friends walk off scot-free.
Also may I mention [after reading the article] the judge was male and her lawyer fucking sucked with "We take the view that it would not be appropriate to offer any evidence." Ummm, did you ask your client that?
retribution of some kind for a woman being open about her sexual desires and sexuality
Yes, absolutely. The message is, if a woman admits that she has specific sexual fantasies about group sex - fuck it, if she admits she has any sexual fantasies at all - then she should expect the consequences. If she doesn't like the outcome, well, that's her problem for saying she wanted it. (ETA: And I don't think "attack" is too strong a word, FWIW.)
And yeah - if that's the the prosecution lawyer's attitude, there's no hope. This is just fucked up in so many ways.
You weren't rambly but very coherent. Sadly, I'm not at all surprised. Well, maybe a little surprised that it was the prosectuter and not the defence who took this path. But other than that, not surprised at all.
And apparently the morals of the men don't go out the window when it emerges that they're prepared to have sex with someone they've never met.
Blogging about these things is always good and helpful. The more we talk about assault and double standards, the hard it is to ignore them.
the morals of the men don't go out the window when it emerges that they're prepared to have sex with someone they've never met
Excellent point. I can't add anything to that; it speaks for itself.
Also: ♥ and thank you. I always worry about posting this kind of thing given that most of what I say is "LOL Harry Potter" or whatever, so I'm really glad you think it's worth saying.
<3 I know what you mean, especially when posting on topics like this attracts douchebags like the one below.
And this post reminds me of something else: as a Muslim, sorry, hater of freedom, I get a lot of nonsense about how terrible it is that women are treated as second-class citizens, etc, but they will completely ignore and excuse sexism in Western societes. I'm sure if this took place in Saudi Arabia or something, everyone would be horrified.
Comments 26
RAGE.
D:
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
In fact, this whole situation to smacks of negative consequences of being open with one's sexuality and desires. Want to have sex with a man, who you mentioned you entertained the notion group sex? Get raped by his friends instead. Try to do something about it? Your own sexual desires are held against you and the friends walk off scot-free.
Also may I mention [after reading the article] the judge was male and her lawyer fucking sucked with "We take the view that it would not be appropriate to offer any evidence." Ummm, did you ask your client that?
Reply
Agreed.
Reply
Reply
Yes, absolutely. The message is, if a woman admits that she has specific sexual fantasies about group sex - fuck it, if she admits she has any sexual fantasies at all - then she should expect the consequences. If she doesn't like the outcome, well, that's her problem for saying she wanted it. (ETA: And I don't think "attack" is too strong a word, FWIW.)
And yeah - if that's the the prosecution lawyer's attitude, there's no hope. This is just fucked up in so many ways.
Reply
ARGH.
Reply
( ... )
Reply
And apparently the morals of the men don't go out the window when it emerges that they're prepared to have sex with someone they've never met.
Blogging about these things is always good and helpful. The more we talk about assault and double standards, the hard it is to ignore them.
Reply
Excellent point. I can't add anything to that; it speaks for itself.
Also: ♥ and thank you. I always worry about posting this kind of thing given that most of what I say is "LOL Harry Potter" or whatever, so I'm really glad you think it's worth saying.
Reply
And this post reminds me of something else: as a Muslim, sorry, hater of freedom, I get a lot of nonsense about how terrible it is that women are treated as second-class citizens, etc, but they will completely ignore and excuse sexism in Western societes. I'm sure if this took place in Saudi Arabia or something, everyone would be horrified.
Reply
You're completely right, of course. It's so much easier to critique other people's cultures than your own... so people do. *continues to rage*
Reply
Leave a comment