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

[failing-angel.livejournal.com]

You know these days a realistic, moderate religious view could/should/would be news...

Tho it does remind me of not being allowed a tampon machine in school because Tampons Are For Married Ladies Only
Wow, um, that's special. It also sounds like the opinion of a confirmed bachelor who has zero experience of women beyond holding the door open for them.

The Date Rape argument is a highly gnarly one, not least because of what it touches on. There are times when I think back to one or two of my 'one night stands' that were charged with alcohol, I certainly had some gaps in my memory, possibly the girl did to - but we were both conscious and capable of having sex. So if the girl regrets it, and wouldn't have done it sober (if you will - the beer goggle or coyote principles) where does that leave us?

[hellison.livejournal.com]

One of the Many Joyes of a Convent education. Using tampons apparently means you're not a virgin anymore! OH NOES!!! and thus only for After Marriage (how they didn't realise half the 6th form were already on teh pill, i'm not sure).

Date rape IS a gnarly one and not one I'd normally touch on lj, but the view in that article that it wasn't rape because he didn't beat her up just infuriated me. I think the key words in your comment there are 'concious and capable'. Which is a bit different from taking a woman home after she's *passed out* in the resturant toilet and THEN having sex.

Which is why I think it's important to start impressing on guys the message of 'Don't have Sex if it's not clear' and that 'Come into my house' does NOT mean 'come into my body', rather than impressing on women that they shouldn't drink, wear short skirts, go out after dark, go out alone, talk to strange men...

[failing-angel.livejournal.com]

the view in that article that it wasn't rape because he didn't beat her up just infuriated me
Hmmm, I read that as "no signs of force", and granted, rape does not require bruising, but I suppose that what was meant was 'there was no sign of force'.

Which is why I think it's important to start impressing on guys the message of 'Don't have Sex if it's not clear'
Agreed, but the question of clarity is possibly the issue - if I perceive you to be compos mentis (in the example given there was potentially time to sober up a bit) then do I take your word for it, or assume that you don't know what you're saying?

'Come into my house' does NOT mean 'come into my body'
Oh absolutely, invites for coffee are just that and shouldn't be taken for a come on.

I also think that the cautioning and urging to take sensible precautions has turned into creating a sense of fear (honestly, it's amazing that anyone gets to work these days - or are there just certain street corners that are chocka with rapists, knife-fiends, junkies, perverts, white slavers and chuggers waiting to ambush the first pedestrian?).
However, is it unreasonable to suggest that someone should take care and be aware of their surrounding?

[hellison.livejournal.com]

It was this part of the article that I was referring to (albeit not very clearly, reading thro red mist BAD) -

"By date rape I mean non-consensual sex, but without the threat or use of violence. Factor in aggression and it automatically becomes rape, regardless of circumstances."

Because she seems to be saying that no violence = not rape, again, bringing the blame back to the woman for being so drunk/unconcious she didn't need to be restrained. As far as I'm concerned, any non-consenual sex IS rape regardless of circumstances and I just don't get how she can argue differently.

Clarity with two drunk people is always going to be tricky, and we have all responsibility for our own safety, but if someone is so drunk they're NOT aware of their surroundings, then surely it's better NOT to have sex with them?

[failing-angel.livejournal.com]

I see where you're coming from, but re-reading the piece, I would suggest that she is in part separating out rape and date rape, which I don't think is a bad thing. If you will - unconsensual sex is bad, unconsensual sex with force, doubly so.

but if someone is so drunk they're NOT aware of their surroundings, then surely it's better NOT to have sex with them?
Again, that's the problem - I've been so drunk that I don't remember what I did the next day, but I'm given to understand that I've just seemed quite sloshed, but still aware of my surroundings. There's plenty of things I've done whilst drunk that I wouldn't sober, and indeed have regretted the next day.
I suppose part of my concern is that this might give rise to the argument of "I was drunk and so it was rape" and thus divorcing oneself from any responsibility. Please note, I mean this as being different from "I was drunk, passed out and was raped".

[hellison.livejournal.com]

Ah. Hmm. To me tho, rape itself IS a violent act, whether or not there are bruises afterwards. Even if the victim is handily unconsious, surely someone sticking parts of themselves *into your body* when you don't want them there IS violent? (not even getting to teh whole biological factors that sex you are not prepared to be having is going to be uncomfortable, if not downright painful. Unless he's a considerate rapist who brought his own lube...).

I suppose part of my concern is that this might give rise to the argument of "I was drunk and so it was rape" and thus divorcing oneself from any responsibility.
True, but how often does that actually happen? And do men not bear some repsonsibility for themselves and NOT getting themselves into that situation in the first place?
How is it different from saying "I was drunk so I didn't realise you didn't want sex" and thus divorcing oneself from any responsibility?

I do agree there is responsibility on both sides. But emphasis is *always* on the woman's responsibility. Even in the article the women concerned SAID 'i was to blame' for letting herself get into the situation. NO sense that the man was *equally* to blame for letting himself get into the same situation. and then for having sex with her.

It's going to be one that there is never a clear answer on. But (to steal a comment from elsewhere on the same topic), where are the articles urging men to be more careful? On how many men think its ok to have sex with a comatose women? On WHY they think that's ok (because they had dinner? Because she was flirting? because she invited them home? because she's there?)

None of this is directly aimed at you btw, most of it is thinking out loud (which is why I am actually enjoyining this now, rather than being ENRAGED as much, it's forcing me to think about WHY i got enraged etc).

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

How is it different from saying "I was drunk so I didn't realise you didn't want sex" and thus divorcing oneself from any responsibility?

YES. THANK YOU.

[failing-angel.livejournal.com]

To me tho, rape itself IS a violent act, whether or not there are bruises afterwards
Yeah, but surely there are different grades - as a comparison consider murder - would you view someone who killed someone else in a fight (unplanned outcome) as being the same as someone who killed in a premeditated fashion (deliberate outcome)?

"I was drunk and so it was rape" and thus divorcing oneself from any responsibility.
True, but how often does that actually happen? And do men not bear some repsonsibility for themselves and NOT getting themselves into that situation in the first place?
Now the first question I can't answer, the best option would be to review case proceedings from initial reports up to conviction - but since the records for rape cases are iffy (to put it lightly) that might be difficult to research.

How is it different from saying "I was drunk so I didn't realise you didn't want sex" and thus divorcing oneself from any responsibility?
True, up to a point. I think this would make for a very lousy defence - in the whole 'ignorance of the law being no defence' way. If you will, the former being a rewrite of a bad decision (this is assuming that last night's "Yes" becomes this morning's "No").

But emphasis is *always* on the woman's responsibility
I don't know how to answer this one easily - I think this is the point where I'd need to talk it through, over a pint or two. I don't think that the emphasis is always on the woman, but more that that's where it's vocalised as the other side is more implicit. I don't know, there are times when I wonder if I should perhaps require a signed sheet, witnessed by 2 neutral parties.

where are the articles urging men to be more careful? On how many men think its ok to have sex with a comatose women? On WHY they think that's ok (because they had dinner? Because she was flirting? because she invited them home? because she's there?)
Hmmm - the one thing I took away from the article that you cited was to do with the dangers of over-drinking. In some ways it's a bit moot as I don't go out like that these days (or rather I do, but not on the pull); but, I took it as much as a matter of caution for how things may be perceived.
With some of your other questions, I think part of it lies with the fact that the articles aren't going to challenge or investigate the received opinion - ie that it's wrong. I think the Indy piece would have been 'better' if it had been the personal experience of the person, as it stood it's just a bystander's opinion. But, even with this piece, I don't want to comment because I think there are too many blanks being put in - do we know whether the guy was reticent, but was persuaded by the woman that she was fine, how concious or drunk did she actually seem, did she get a second wind? Was she actually comatose - we don't know, all we are told is that she passed out in the toilets, how much time elapsed after she came to and they went to bed, did she drink plenty of water, coffee, eat food in the meantime? Again, I think we've too little information to judge, but enough to form an opinion.

I am actually enjoyining this now, rather than being ENRAGED as much, it's forcing me to think about WHY i got enraged etc
Ditto (although I have to admit I wasn't enraged to begin with) - I like this sort of discussion (then again, I was a member of DebSoc at Uni). It's part Devil's Advocate, part personal opinion (a word which I appear to be incapable of typing out), and part just being challenging.

[hellison.livejournal.com]

Meh, damn work getting in the way of LJ, haven't time just now to reply in full, just in response to your final point -

It is from one angle an interesting debate. This difference is for you, that's pretty much how it stays - hypothetical discussion (as you seem so far unlikely to actually be a rapist).
For us? More a daily reality.

You don't (I presume) walk around *every day* thinking "I might get accused of rape today. How do I behave to try and prevent that?".

[failing-angel.livejournal.com]

I know the feeling - with the added 'fun' of a meeting eating up more of my LJ work time.

In general you're right, I don't spend my time thinking it all the time, and I am aware that I'm talking in the abstract. As to why I don't, 2 reasons: first and foremost, I'm not really out there these days; but more importantly, I think that I act in a fairly resonsible manner, including not being too pushy (insecurity and paranoia are great for that).

You don't (I presume) walk around *every day* thinking "I might get accused of rape today. How do I behave to try and prevent that?"
I suppose that there is also the fact that I don't walk around thinking out strategies to prevent being accused of other crimes - I don't think it because I haven't trangressed.

But are you honestly walking around thinking "I might be raped today"? I can't help but try and compare this with something on a personal level, but I don't spend my day thinking about being mugged or attacked. I know that this is comparing apples to oranges, but it's the best my mind can come up with.


I don't know, I get the feeling that the conversation has got a bit muddied here, it's either one to continue face-to-face, or it needs to be tightened up.

[hellison.livejournal.com]

It did go off on a bit of a tangent there. It is a subject it can be hard to be rational about (most of my comments start off as AROEJ£IR)£FAFDEF and get calmed down after breathing lots ;p).

On the thinking about rape every day, I did a post a few years back (after a similar discussion) on how it had made me realise just *how much* of my routine behaviour is based on Staying Safe.
It's not even that I think about it conciously, it's automatic - like parking close to the exits of anywhere I'll be leaving after dark; walking with keys in hand; not walking alone at night.

I'm not saying every woman does this or thinks this way, but _unhurt_ has listed a very similar thought process in a comment elsewhere here. It's something that lurks in the back of your head.

I still disagree about there being 'grades' of rape. Whether you've been threatened, beaten, held at gunpoint, or come round to some guy having had his fun, you've still been raped.
Someone had decided that *your* body is theirs to do whatever the hell they want with and used you like a very real Real Doll because *they* felt like it. A broken jaw or bruises isn't going to change that fact.

[failing-angel.livejournal.com]

Someone had decided that *your* body is theirs to do whatever the hell they want with and used you like a very real Real Doll because *they* felt like it
But in terms of the 'case study' that we return to, I'm not sure that that's necessarily what happened, it sounds to me more akin to someone believing that the desires were the same. To my mind that is different to forcing your view on the other person.

Alas, I do have to dash now, but will be back on Sunday to eat my foot again.

Addendum aka After Cogitation aka Possibly making an ASS out of U and ME

[failing-angel.livejournal.com]

Dammit, I was thinking about this on the bus home and had some points clarified in my head. Now I've forgotten them.

As very brief fragments of what I thought about:
- with regards to your last sentence - I think that part of my attitude is connected with the presumption of guilt. This is not to disregard the point that you make about where the burden of responsibility lies [see next point].
- there are also certain codes of conduct that I would assume (see title of comment) would be adopted as decent behaviour - the thread of my comments were based on the assumption of someone appearing aware (merry rather than shitfaced if you will). I'm not talking about comatose figures (as much as anything else, what's the attraction?).
- I'm not sure I can readily articulate it, but there's also a point of treating people as responsible adults. This is where it gets tricky in assessing capability - is it right for me to decide that the woman I fancy doesn't know what's best? As a contradiction/caveat to this, obviously being unable to stand up, passing out, general impaired coherence are obviously good indicators to leave it. But, then again, this returns to my previous point - what's the attraction in sleeping with someone completely blotto?

Re: Addendum aka After Cogitation aka Possibly making an ASS out of U and ME

[hellison.livejournal.com]

sadly, as in the anecdote in the article and others elsewhere in the discussion now illustrate, there are guys who DO fi nd it attractive. Or not off-putting enough to stop.

Which is why i'd like to see more discussion of why the hell some guys DO this, not why didn't the women do x, y or z to ensure some guy WOULDN'T do it. I said it elsewhere, but it's not women's responsibilty to make men NOT be rapists. It's men's responsibility to Not Rape People.

THe problem with grey areas is that, well, they're grey. There's always context and no hard and fast answer. Other than (I would say) if you're not sure, don't have the sex. That way there's no chance of getting it wrong.

ps there is nothing worse than having composed an excellent, masterful and arguement-clinching lj post/comment on the way home then FORGETTING it all when you sit down to type ;p

Re: Addendum aka After Cogitation aka Possibly making an ASS out of U and ME

[failing-angel.livejournal.com]

Funnily enough, the anecdote is one of those points that I'd like to investigate further - we only hear one side, second-hand. It might be the truth, but it's not the complete truth. Certainly as the facts are presented it's damning, but I don't know whether the guy realised that she was as drunk as she apparently was.

I appreciate the fact that it's a man's responsibility not rape someone, but in all fairness shouldn't that be "it's also a man's responsibility"? Otherwise the burden shifts completely the other way and the emphasis (to my mind) seems to be "It's all at the feet of the men, women have no responsibility at all" which seems to me to be rendering them impotent. This may be a question of semantics, and I still don't have the luxury of sitting down for long and going through this (have to dash home this weekend, and I'm already running late).
Yes it's a man's responsibility not to rape. Equally, it's a person's responsibility not to steal, murder, commit arson etc. But we're not talking about deliberate wanton acts being carried out (at least I don't think so), this sounds more like we're talking about the idiocies being carried out, the thoughtless acts that step over into committing a crime.

Greater education about consent and greater discussion of the impacts are certainly an idea. The depressing thing is how whether those that should pay heed to this actually pay attention and take it in. That's not an excuse, merely a thought. This isn't to say we should give up, but how to convey it, that's the question.

Re the PS - yes, that's my excuse everytime ;p

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

I would suggest that she is in part separating out rape and date rape, which I don't think is a bad thing. If you will - unconsensual sex is bad, unconsensual sex with force, doubly so.

rape is sex without consent. so "date" rape is rape. if there was no consent it. was. rape.

this isn't advanced particle physics here you know!

there's no "not really rapey rape". lack of consent is what MAKES it rape. that's the DEFINITION. also, FEAR and FORCE are not quite the same thing. but, what, does the guy have to say the words "..or i'll kill you" before it's rape now? must the victim be able to show a sufficient number of bruises and lacerations?

excuse my SIMMERING RAGE but really. what the HELL?



i am so making educational flashcards or something.


p.s. you seem to be worried you might be accused of rape after drunken sexin'. maybe you should consider not getting drunk, if this keeps you awake at night? OH NO WAIT THAT WOULD BE AN UNFAIR AND RIDICULOUS RESTRICTION ON YOUR FREEDOM TO RUN YOUR LIFE AS YOU SEE FIT. unlike all the stuff women are supposed to do to avoid rape. that's quite different. they're women.

[failing-angel.livejournal.com]

rape is sex without consent. so "date" rape is rape. if there was no consent it. was. rape
Interesting, I don't recall differentiating between unconsensual sex and rape, my point was more to address the different elements. Perhaps I used a bad choice of words, in which case, mea culpa.

Still, thank you very much for your concern.

[sleetersoulfire.livejournal.com]

Whilst I don't want to bring down upon me the anger of the _unhurt_ , maybe a clearer way of phrasing it would be:

- Date rape is rape and it's a horrific, loathsome, vile thing.
- Rape with the threat of violence such as punching, stabbing, etc is worse.
- Rape with the use of violence such as punching, stabbing, etc is worse again.
- Rape culminating in murder from the use of violence is even more worserer.

The point isn't that date rape is less of a crime, in my opinion, just that the extra added shit makes it get even worse.

I come down on the side of the coin that says "Don't Fucking Rape!" rather than the side which says "Women, Know Your Limits!"