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

[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.

[hellison.livejournal.com]

I think what angered me most about it was the theory that while they agreed the sex in the example given was definitely non-consensual, it WASN'T rape because there was no violence. Which is totally missing the point that if she was that knocked out by drink, he didn't *need* to be violent.

Tho I do take their point that he was possibly so drunk he didn't realise what he was doing either. HOWEVER surely that makes him just as much 'at fault' for letting himself get so drunk he couldn't tell the difference between yes/no/unconsious? He has just as much responsibility for his actions as she does. Why does she have to bear the blame for being too drunk to say no, rather than him for being too drunk to understand that this is not a good thing to do?