This last part about spiked drinks is the most revealing. If you are female and you drink, you have no right to legal protection. And the ethics and methods of the rapist don't matter.
Juries are reluctant to convict men of rape in cases where the alleged victim has been drinking, research published today suggests.
They appear to believe that it is reasonable for a man to assume that a woman’s silence amounts to consent, even if it is due to her intoxication. Even if a woman’s drink has been spiked, they are reluctant to find a defendant guilty of rape.
If you are male and you use alcohol or other "social" drugs to help you take girls and women who you couldn't have without those substances, you have plenty of jurors in your corner. Sure they may not always approve of you, but their disapproval of your victim far outweighs their opinion of what you have done.
With these attitudes men can go out every night of the week with the intention of taking girls and women who don't want them and the most those men are likely to suffer is an annoying rape trial. But maybe even then men can get revenge if their rape victims are charged with a crime for falsely claiming to be a rape victim.
Don't all girls and women know that drinking alcohol is the same as signing a blank check that any man can cash?
I wonder if this assumption that drunkenness is a blank check means that taking your car keys and your keys from you without a fight means that you consented to give your car away. Somehow I doubt that would be a viable defense on the charges of grand theft auto.
Not only does this attitude impact rape cases, it impacts the frequency of rape. These jurors are communicating that whenever a girl or woman takes a drink she can be raped and they won't care enough to do anything about it.
Even when a woman had unknowingly consumed a spiked drink, juries were reluctant to convict defendants of rape, unless they were convinced that the drink had been spiked with the specific intention of sexual assault, as opposed to "loosening up" a reluctant partner.Giving alcohol or drugs to someone to "loosen them up" is giving alcohol or drugs to someone with the specific intention to commit sexual assault. But by calling it "loosening up" the man planning rape can rationalize that the alcohol allows her the freedom to have him do to her what she really wants him to do.
If people who excuse the rape and the sexual exploitation of girls and women under the influence dropped their rationalizations it would cause them see how pervasive sexual assault really is and it would cause them see how many so-called good men have committed rape.
Believing the myth that all rapists are obvious monsters is less disturbing. Unfortunately, it allows men like this to claim they did nothing illegal:
A WARWICKSHIRE man used his mobile phone to film two women as he sexually assaulted them in their sleep, a court heard. Charles Bowen, of Northumberland Road, Leamington, has denied the rape of one of the women, a 19-year-old, at a party at a large country house. He also denies a charge of sexually assaulting another woman a week before.Apparently, sleep also nullifies the need for consent.
Once this sort of behavior becomes normalized and identified as being the victim's fault it becomes easier for rapists to justify raping girls and women who aren't drinking and who aren't sleeping.
Rape must be nipped in the bud, not allowed to flourish until it becomes so horrendous that the rapist shifts from being a normal man into someone who must be locked up for life.
Technorati tags: rape crime politics sexual violence sexual assault feminism