Tuesday, April 17, 2007

So About The Duke Rape Case. . .

I'm late on this one because I'm a lazy blogger who's been stressed out. Plus, well, the whole deal has just disgusted me so much that I haven't really wanted to touch it.

However, I've recently been having a conversation with a *ahem* young man (trying to be nice here) who is hell bent on making everyone demonize this woman because "She lied" and "ruined the Lacrosse players lives", etc. etc. etc.

My problem right now is that what this guy is saying is par for the course now that the men have been released. OF COURSE she's a lying slut who tried to ruin the lives of three poor upper-middle class white jocks.

I also love how the story has changed. Now there absolutely is not a shred of evidence in the case and never was. She didn't get a rape kit done, there was no testimony from hospital officials stating that it seemed like a rape occurred, no torn fingernails in the bathroom, etc. etc. She's a lying whore because there was no DNA evidence!

However, what this rape apologist that I've been speaking with doesn't seem to realize is that this Duke rape case is basically every rape case except without the media attention. A rape victim USUALLY doesn't have DNA evidence. She might even change her story sometimes because she was probably fucked up after being raped. Her case might be handled badly by a DA. It may not be handled at all!

Does any of that mean that she's a liar? Does taking a shower after being raped mean that it never happened? In misogynist land, apparently so.

And that's all I have to say about that.

2 comments:

Richard Aubrey said...

The individual in question is insisting a rape didn't happen.
How does that equate with apologizing for rape?
By the time you wrote the post, consderably more evidence against even the possibility of rape existed.
How is pointing to that evidence apologizing for rape?
Using that logic, you would be apologizing for false accusations of rape, which I presume you are not doing.

Megan said...

He's a rape apologist because he completely ignores the fact that there is evidence that could show that she was raped whether it's conclusive or not. he'd rather call her a liar and go on and on about the innocence of these poor rich privileged white boys and the horrid nature of the black whore who lied about them.

However, the person that I posted this about was thoroughly convinced that a rape did NOT happen and disparaged the woman because of that. I am merely stating that the idea that there is absolutely no evidence of a rape in the Duke case is a ridiculously untrue one. I didn't say they were rapists, and I didn't say they weren't, so no, I wouldn't be apologizing for false accusations.