32% of boys and 32% of girls say it's not improper for a man to rape a woman who has had past sexual experiences.This belief plays into many people's skeptical attitudes toward rape victims. They may hide their negative assumptions behind a seemingly neutral phrase like: "We have to judge this case on its own merits."
Meaning I insist on believing that the chances that this is a false accusation is 50/50. Don't bug me with your statistics that show that the odds of a false allegation are much lower. If the victim is impure, she got what she asked for by enticing her accused rapist.
I suspect many with this attitude refuse to believe an unknown rape victim's claim until they have judged the purity of the alleged victim and the evilness of the alleged rapist. And it's that desire to judge victims' character that drives the effort to eliminate the rape shield laws.
Most who view rape victims through a harsh filter don't care how this impurity happened. Yet most of those who condemn women, don't consider boys and men with consensual past sexual experiences to be impure like their female counterparts.
Often the past male sexual experiences are seen as valuable. Without the groom's past sexual experience, it would be the blind leading the blind. So a good single man needs to have sex with bad women so he can teach his virgin bride how to comport herself in the bedroom.
Further, these people say we shouldn't do more than chastise these men and boys when they cross the line and take bad woman against their will.
Which takes me back to the often repeated disclaimer given by the victim bashers: "Real rape is never acceptable, but ...."
Technorati tags: rape crime politics sexual assault feminism women