|
The apathy towards victims is very unsettling but not surprising. Here in the west I think its safe to say that most r@pes that happen are date r@pes, and most rapists do not consider themselves rapists. They use anything as a sign of consent, for example from what she was wearing (remember, skinny jeans are r@pe proof) to the victim consenting to one thing means she's fair game, maybe they'll consent to a blowjob but that doesn't mean they consent to everything else, but police and a jury would take that agreeing to one thing means you agree to everything. And thats not just acts of sex, its happened that people will say "well you shouldn't have kissed him", a while ago there was an advice columnist, if anyone wants to read what she said I can probably find it, but she got a letter from someone who was ***** after going to a room alone at a party with a man, after making it clear she didn't want to have sex, and the columnists blamed her for the r@pe. Despite the fact that most r@pes happen like that, where the rapist betrays the trust of the victim, a lot of people have it in their heads that r@pe means a stranger violently attacking a woman who was never promiscuous in her life. For a lot of other people, especially women, we just can't bear the idea that we're all vulnerable, of course it only happens in those rare violent attacks, anyone foolish enough to go into that room or go on a date with such a seedy character was just stupid. It wouldn't have happened to me.
I mean, it wasn't so long ago in history that police would ask victims if they orgasmed during sex and husbands were allowed to r@pe their wives as much as they pleased, or police would ask abused women what they did to provoke their husbands, shit I bet a lot of policemen are old enough to remember that. This is one of those things were it seems like we've come a long way, and yet in 2010, we haven't come near far enough.
|