More Perpetuation of the "Grey Rape" Myth. . .

This article absolutely disgusts me.

Check out these rape apologist gems:

Maybe if she was sober she would never have chosen to sleep with that guy. Maybe he coaxed her into it. But on those terms, is it okay for the girl to then cry rape?

(Emphasis mine)

The article comes complete with rape apologist terminology, apparently. Here's a newsflash for this author: If you're drunk, you can't legally consent. So yes, legally, she can "cry rape". I don't understand why people are so eager to dismiss the terrible behavior of men.

Although this passage here is certainly the kicker as far as every rape apologist tactic known to humankind is concerned. I think the author of this article manages to fit every single one of them in here. Check it out:

Let me paint you another picture. At a frat party, there is a girl scantily clad in a mini skirt (so short, by the way, you can almost see the bottom of her ass), and a tank top with a plunging neckline. She is downing, and subsequently refilling her solow cup of jungle juice. She then picks out a brother who she wants to be her so-called “project” of the night. The two engage in flirtatious conversation and touching. Both are drunk, and it is obvious that she wants him. After an hour of being all over each other he asks her if she wants to “see his room” and she follows him upstairs. They begin to get down to business and in about a minute they are both naked on the frat boy’s bed. He asks if she wants to “you know” and she says “yes.” After he has successfully found and put on a condom he climbs on top of her and the right when he is at the cusp, she changes her mind and says drunkenly “actually…” But being so caught up in the moment, he disregards this as momentary insanity on her part and enters her anyway. Who is really to blame in this situation? Yes, the guy should have stopped when she said no, but didn’t she vehemently send the message that sex was what she wanted? I mean, she even showed up to the party looking like pure sex, so who is really at fault?

Let's see.

1) Only slutty girls get raped
2) If you consumed alcohol it was your fault
3) Men just can't control themselves
4) If you flirt with someone, you have a responsibility to fuck them.

I don't think she missed any of them. There is one vile rape apologist tactic after the next there. I also love the "Yeah, he should have stopped, BUT SHE WAS SUCH A SLUT!".

There are some probably some who are reading this article, thinking that I am siding with the male rapists. Let me preempt those thoughts by saying it is never okay for a guy to make any girl do ANYTHING she does not want to do. A guy should never force a girl to even kiss him. But by the same token, we as girls should not lead a guy to believe that he is going to get more then we are willing to give. We should also not get so drunk off our asses that we cannot make the decision to stop. There is a very fine line in these incidents, and they often become blurry when you mix in alcohol and drugs.

I don't understand why women are held accountable for what men perceive to be our meaning. Why do men get to define what certain "signals" mean? And then get to hold women accountable for those definitions through the use of sexual assault? It's absolute bullshit.

So let me reiterate one more time. There is no such thing as "grey rape". If a woman does not give enthusiastic consent, no matter how she was dressed, how much she had to drink, how much she flirted, where she went with a man, where she was, who she was with, etc., IT'S RAPE. The end.

Protect Your Valuables, Ladies!

I am so tired of men comparing women's bodies with jewelry or money or cars and whatnot. My vagina is not a fucking car, assholes.

When our houses are burgled, we're hardly more likely than rape victims to see the intruder end up behind bars. So what do we do? We fit locks to our doors and windows. We keep our valuables out of sight.

Why do we still think of rape as a property crime? Yes, a woman's body is her property, but it's not something you can throw in a lock box or something, despite the brilliant suggestion of one Wanda Sykes.

Imagine is someone said that about men's asses. Don't want to get ass-raped, well, you better put a lock on that shit. Keep it out of sight! Don't let anyone know that you have an ass! If people know you have an ass, well, you're gonna get raped and you should have taken more precautions. I mean, people lock up their houses, so you should lock up your asshole, too. Because, you know, you can lock up boy parts.

This is not the 1800s. People really should realize that rape is an ASSAULT. That's why they call it sexual assault, people. It's not a property crime. It's not stealing something from a home. It's assaulting someone. It is violating a person's BODY.

Some of the comments are almost worse.

"Why shouldn't they be advised that to get themselves into a drunken stupor in the company of a frisky male could carry risks?"
Come, come David. It's their right, don't you know. Responsibility is soooo 1950s and misogynist.

Putting different standards on women simply because they have vaginas that men want to put things into without permission of the owner isn't responsibility, at least not on the person who should be held responsible. I'm not one to promote heavy drinking, but if a woman gets drunk, the onus to not be raped is not on her. It never was. Men have the right and the ability to get drunk and go to hotel rooms without the prospect of being raped, so why is it that women have a "responsibility" to adhere to a different standard? Yeah, is it smart? Probably. Is it just? Not at all. Acknowledging one without acknowledging the other is ridiculous, and it IS misogynistic. If men were held more accountable for their actions rather than inhibiting what women are allowed to do without being blamed for being assaulted because of it, perhaps rape as a crime would decrease.

It's just ridiculous. There's nothing responsible about turning rape back into a property crime when it's actually violent assault. And yeah, it is from the fifties to do such a thing. The 1850s.

Comment if you have the patience to deal with these types.

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.