What Is Wrong With the World??

[hellison]

1. headline from bbcni re cervical cancer jab - "Girls urged to ABSTAIN in jab row"
why? Because its a dirty cancer you can get from SEX and obviously if you've been having sex you deserve it. Or... something.
More from the helpful FAQ here -

Colin Hart, Director of The Christian Institute, said the way to tackle the problem was not to offer injections, but to tell girls not to have under-age sex.

Ahh. So it's only *underage* sex that causes cancer. Good Girls won't get it, and thus don't need vaccinated. Well that's all clear then!

I know there are Other Issues around the vaccination and which version was chosen etc, but that's not what these people are saying. They're saying girls shouldn't be vaccinated against a potentially TERMINAL DISEASE, because then they might have sex! And we can't have that!!
Would there be the same outcry if it was discovered testicular cancer was also linked to a virus and teenage boys were offered it?

2. This article about date rape is making my head explode with WTF and RAGE. Because obviously if you go drinking with a guy who turns out not to care whether or not you're concious when he gets off on/in you, well that's YOUR fault you silly loose drunken woman. It's not like he's done anything WRONG, or should face any consequences for it! SKIN CRAWLING NOW.

SEND KITTENS PLZ. NEED HAPPY THOUGHTS.

ETA New Mistful Fic! and at lunchtime too. Couldn't have been better timed.

EDIT 2 - just to add, now the original RAGE has calmed slightly, this turned into a thought provoking discussion; a timely reminder the world isn't completley full of morons. Or at least my flist isn't ;) Thanks!

AAAAND if we can keep it civil kids, that would be good. _unhurt_, I still have crutches. And I know where you live. Keep up the ranting tho. Rants Good. CIder better. MOAR CIDER

Comments

[tyrell.livejournal.com]

That was the reaction when the vaccination was first suggested: somehow, they think that protecting these girls from a consequence of sex will cause them to have more sex. The list of ways this doesn't follow is long and humourous.

[hellison.livejournal.com]

I'd seen the reaction before, it was the way the bbc headline was worded that really got to me this time - not 'Cancer jab on offer' but 'girls urged to abstain'.

And the strong suspicion that if it was a Boy Cancer, the issue of sex wouldn't come into it at all.

Tho perception today may be slightly skewed by rage at the following article, which is making me more than a little incoherent.

[tyrell.livejournal.com]

I have an opinion regarding men, alcohol+arousal, and the danger facing women saying 'no' when both are drunk and naked in bed. It is not an opinion which I can ever type on the internets, because I will be de-friended immediately and flamed for the rest of my years.

Most of the article makes me angry. My comment on one part of it makes everyone else angry. Better not, then.

[thesme-01.livejournal.com]

[hellison.livejournal.com]

YAY KITTINGS

I may need to spend most of lunchtime at cheezburger/cuteoverload to restore brain balance.

[kelemvor.livejournal.com]

The HPV jab controversy I've seen before. Because OBVIOUSLY there are some girls who are abstaining from underage sex PURELY because they might get cervical cancer as a result, and so they'll DEFINTELY start shagging any boy with acne as soon as the sting from the needle goes away(!) Idiots.

The whole date-rape thing... Guh. That it happens makes me ashamed to be male. (I suppose it's possible for a woman to have sex with a man when he's incapacitated by alcohol, but I doubt that it would be worth the bother...) Sadly, I can't see a light in the greyness that would allow work.

[hellison.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the controversy has been about for a while, it was the headline that got me! ABSTAIN!! (curiously the almost identical bbc wales article on the same subject is just "girls to have cancer jab").

And, I wouldn't be ashamed. Men, on the whole, are great. At least the ones I know are and seem to have grasped the idea that sex with someone who's unconcious is Wrong.
What really got me angry was the idea in the article that it wasn't rape because there was no violence. Neatly missing the point that if you're passing out in toilets, not a lot of violence is required.

[kelemvor.livejournal.com]

No violence = no crime. These people need a few stiff drinks and then to spend the might in the company of someone with freewheeling moral compass...

BTW, you can add icanhascheezburger to your FList as a syndication feed, if you wish!

[lazy-hoor.livejournal.com]

That icon is just amazing. May I rob it?

[kelemvor.livejournal.com]

Go for it! The appropriate credit is on my icon page.
It also inspired this one! *Points*

[doccy.livejournal.com]

KITTEH OVERLODE!!

http://community.livejournal.com/baaaaabyanimals/3697167.html#cutid1

[hellison.livejournal.com]

KITTEEEHHH

So cute! Kittehs make everything better

[kanaalzahir.livejournal.com]

Well, I agree the date rape article was mostly stupid, but it always puzzles me when people cry out in outrage about articles advicing young women not to go home alone, drunk, late at night, in scant clothing through empty parks. Then people cry "SHE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GO NEKKID IF SHE WISHES!!!!". But no one get supset about articles about how to protect your home against theft (lock the doors, get an alarm, neighbourhood watch, leave the radio on, timers on lamps) and cries "I SHOULD BE ABLE TO LEAVE THE -ING DOOR AJAR IF I WISH!!!!!" ...?

[hellison.livejournal.com]

True, but if someone *does* break in, people don't tend to imply it was all your fault in the first place and tell you there's not point telling the police because it'll be the thief's word against yours and he'll just say you gave him the stuff anyway.

[mollydot.livejournal.com]

I've heard that, statistically, the scant clothing has nothing to do with it. I wouldn't think much of an article that said to protect your home against theft you should lock your doors, install an alarm and paint the front door blue because other colours only attract them, and what do you expect in that sort of situation anyway?

[failing-angel.livejournal.com]

Would there be the same outcry if it was discovered testicular cancer was also linked to a virus and teenage boys were offered it?
I think that might depend on whether the virus was sexually transmitted. I do recall there being noises of outrage at some news stories about condom vending machines going up in schools - but this might just be a false memory kicking in.

*Sigh* I'm not a Christian myself, but I do get tired of hearing all these so-called 'Christian' groups that stand up and bitch about underage sex - not least because it does tarnish the rest of the faith. I'm sure that there are plenty of groups out there with a realistic attitude on all this.

[hellison.livejournal.com]

Hmm good point. As I've said above somewhere, my reactions today are probably *slightly* coloured by the RAGE at the date-rape article.
Tho it does remind me of not being allowed a tampon machine in school because Tampons Are For Married Ladies Only.

And realisitic attitudes don't make for good news sadly. So it's the extremes that get the publicity.

[mollydot.livejournal.com]

It was AIDS that allowed condoms to be freely available in Ireland. Though not without complaint.

[caramel-betty.livejournal.com]

Now, I don't want to sound like a rapist (because I'm not), and I don't want to sound pro-rapist (because I'm not), and I don't want to sound like Judge Pickles saying that a girl in a short skirt is just gagging for a throbbing member to be thrust up her (because I'm not)...

A few women of my acquaintance (some friends at Uni, mostly) were incredibly heavy drinkers, possibly borderline alcoholic. However, if you weren't watching what they were drinking and/or with them often enough, you wouldn't know they were drinking that much, because they were good at holding their drink. Except... their memories were somewhat shaky. It wasn't like they were embarrassed or covering things up (because there was plenty of embarrassing stuff they could remember, and laugh about) - just sometimes they completely forgot stuff.

In such a situation, you have:
- a woman who is incredibly drunk, and possibly too drunk to give informed consent, but looks just "merry" to the naked eye
- a man who thinks "Alright darling"
- a woman who says "Okay, let's shag!"
- a man who hops on board and makes squelching noises
- a woman who remembers none of this in the morning.

I don't know what the answer to a situation like that is.

[jin-shei.livejournal.com]

Video the consent on your mobile!

*beams helpfully*

[hellison.livejournal.com]

We've all been there, done that etc, my main problem is that the focus on 'stopping rape' is all aimed at what WOMEN should/shouldn't do to avoid it.

Where is the focus on what MEN should/shouldn't do to avoid being accused of rape or, you know, actually raping someone? Where are the articles urging men NOT to sleep with unconsious women? Pointing out that just because you carry some drunk women from a taxi to her door, doesn't automatically mean you get to shag her? that sometimes, even if she *seems* willing (or isn't actively protesting), its' STILL BETTER TO NOT SHAG HER.

Why do they make women responsible for NOT making men rapists?

(heh. Rant overload. Sorry ;p)

[http://users.livejournal.com/_unhurt_/]

are these women saying they've been raped? if not, there's your answer.

YOUR answer is not to fuck people who are passing out. which apparently you don't. so you're probably ok. maybe more men should try this approach!

some men seem pretty hazy on what consent actually implies. like the woman i know who shared a room with her ex at a house party they had been invited to before they split up. a room they agreed to share as friends. she went to bed earlier than him, alone. and woke up to find him - drunk - FUCKING her. because, you know, that consent he had when they were going out was good for LIFE yo!

[http://users.livejournal.com/_unhurt_/]

holy --

foolishly i read the article. the poor woman she talks about - raped by some shithole fuckwallet and blaming herself? because fucking a passed out woman = her fault for making herself vulnerable!

p.s. i assume i can apply this to men i meet, yes? wait till they pass out then do them in the ass with the biggest dildo i can find! no-one will be able to prove they didn't consent, right? i mean, maybe they DID want it when they were drunk? some guys like that. maybe they acted like they wanted it. i was drunk too, your honour! and anyway, really, they shouldn't have MADE THEMSELVES SO VULNERABLE the dirty sluts! and we were flirting earlier so clearly they were up for sex. (also apparently if you're drunk it's less bad when stuff happens to you? so i guess i'll be mugging some drunk folk tonight! they won't even care i betcha!)

yeah. only no. because that's a disgusting and criminal and fucked up idea. so why is it different for women? beuller. beuller. anyone? (only, i know the answer. men neeeed sexxxxx. women don't understaaaaand. it's so hard to stoooooop. whine whine fucking WHINE about how holding the notion that i am the only damn person who gets to control access to my own body and that this trumps some guy's drunken wish to get off using it = crazy crazy feminazi talk.)

drinking till you pass out may not be big or clever, but guess what? i don't CARE why you're semi/un-conscious. it STILL DOES NOT MAKE IT OKAY TO FUCK YOU WHEN YOU CAN'T GIVE CONSENT. WHAT PART OF THIS IS SO COMPLICATED? DO I NEED TO START CARRYING A SIGN? HANDING OUT LEAFLETS? it's certainly less reckless than getting so drunk you can't TELL if someone is able to give consent. but of course, anything that restricts men's freedom to get pissed and screw*, that's wrong and evil! women, know your limits! stay inside and sip shandy OR ELSE. and get raped while sober by your colleague/neighbour/friend/boyfriend. and THEN get lectured on what you could have done to prevent it. it's a win-win situation! in ASSHOLE WORLD.)



*i have honest-to-god had a guy i know and sometimes LIKE in RL tell me that the idea that people should maybe make sure their partner is sober enought to know what they're doing is stupid because he would never have gotten laid at university if he'd had to take that approach. it's nice to know that his priorities are in place! getting laid > not raping people. clearly.

i LOVE the universe today. love. it.

[hellison.livejournal.com]

I told you not to read it :p

That's pretty much what happened to my head yesterday.

And silly silly unhurt, it is obviously OUR RESPONSIBILITY to make sure those poor men don't rape us. It's not THEIR fault! they were DRUNK, and surely you can't be blamed for anything that happens when you were dru... oh wait.

(world stupid. don't think there is pub tonight. Sofa, cider and STABBING THE GODDAM HELL OUT OF THINGS on teh mud. STABSTABSTABSTABSTABSTAB)

[sleetersoulfire.livejournal.com]

There are several arguments around this topic that just kill me.

* What if I have sex with someone who regrets it?

How many people, honestly, would call the police and get all of that attention over a regret? Who would go through the examinations and interviews over a regret? No. Fucking. One. Argument closed, stupid point.

* What if I'm drunk and she's drunk and regrets it in the morning?

Firstly, who made you get drunk? You did. Everything after that point is also your choice and a result of your choices.

Also see the answer to the first point.

* What? Am I expected to get written consent with two neutral observers before I have sex?

If you're unsure enough for it to go that far DON'T HAVE SEX! Seriously. Not having sex should be the default position. It's easier for a start. Witness the not having sex happening all the time without any special preparations.

If there is uncertainty then clear that uncertainty up before whipping it out and putting it where it doesn't belong.

Here's a tip, if you're racking your brains for a nice juicy grey area to support your ludicrous point, then my answer is don't have sex. Not just with that person. Just don't have sex. If you're expending effort to argue against a very simple premise - don't have sex in a situation where you're not sure consent has been given - then your genes need to be removed from the pool. Use the time you save not having sex to work towards a Darwin Award.

You ask if you should move this to the bedroom, she says yes. You go. You sit next to her and she leans in for a kiss, you kiss. She takes her top off, maybe sits in your lap and puts her boobs in your face, you try to act like a grown up and not shout "Yippee!" Things start to get heavy and you take off her trousers, she giggles as she slides the condom on you (those things... who fails to laugh at them? ;). You start to have sex and she frowns and looks uncomfortable, YOU STOP. You take a few steps back (maybe not physical steps away, that might be weird, although it might also be reasonable, but you certainly get off her and and ask what's wrong). If you don't then, to me, you are raping her from that point on.

But hey, I have the belief that a woman can say no, or even imply it, even during sex and it means no and carries as much weight as if she'd said no before you even started to speak to her and your actions after that point are rape just as much as they would be if you dragged that woman out back and fucked her in the alley. It's a crazy, topsy-turvy point of view, I know, but hey, I'm crazy like that.