It was all the typical "slutty women lie" garbage. Then I saw this:
What you FORGET is that 99% of the time, when she says RAPE she means that she had consenting sex which she later REGRETTED. The other 1% of the time she was acting like a slut and asking for it.I don't know what will happen to this particular case, but I do know that those who have branded this case a hoax have branded themselves through their words. And it's a very ugly brand. Most of them are craftier than this man and make sure to state that "of course, I'm 100% against all real rapes." And they will say they are communicating with reason, maturity and class while those who don't agree with them are frothing over with emotion.
I don't believe them any more than they believe most women who report being raped.
The justification I've seen for these attitudes goes something like this (composite of many people's statements):
If a woman puts herself in a position where she can easily be raped then it isn't right to prosecute her alleged rapist because she deliberately chose to be rapable. You wouldn't enter a zoo enclosure with a grizzly bear and then blame the bear for mauling you, would you?The problem with this argument is that men are not grizzly bears and women aren't hunks of meat. Rather than this being an enlightenment about how women falsely accuse men of rape, it is an enlightenment about how men justify rape while refusing to own the label.
Many girls and women do just that and then are surprised when they are "raped" and the prosecutor refuses to take their case seriously.
What happened wasn't pretty, but they are only victims of their own stupidity. Like the grizzly bear, men will do what comes naturally. We shouldn't punish them for that. But that's what will happen when the laws are too liberal with the definition of rape.
These too-general rape laws let foolish girls and women abuse the law by crying rape and then unfairly punishes men who would never go out and rape some innocent girl or woman.
Whenever one of these girls or women reports being raped, it causes men who saw her put herself in danger to be skeptical whenever any woman claims to be really raped. How do we know that this unknown female didn't also offer herself up like a tasty morsel in the bear's den?
If going out partying or hanging out with healthy men is followed by the obvious results then any allegation of rape is a false one. If women don't acknowledge this then they will lose because the real rapists will be hard to find among all those men wrongly accused of rape.
I've even seen this sort of statement with the admission that the man was once false accused of rape (though his fake victim who regretted the sex the next day didn't go to the cops). This is convincing, but to me it's convincing of rape.
The other flaw in the grizzly bear risk analogy is that while we might not blame the bear, that animal will most likely be killed. Same goes for cougars who eat joggers. We may not blame the cougar, but it will be hunted down and either killed or locked up forever.
Do these men really want to be treated exactly like we treat man-eating grizzly bears and wild cats? Somehow I doubt that's the solution they are looking for. They want to be able to take those stupid women with no fear and no consequences to them.
Note: Please don't forget that April 5, 2007 is Blog Against Sexual Violence Day. Click on the logo to find out more about how you can join this effort.
Technorati tags: rape crime politics sexual violence sexual assault feminism