Sorry to butt in, I know snowdarkred will have some ace points to make when she's out of exam hell, but I thought I'd just come back on a few points because this issue is one which I feel quite strongly about. (Feel free to entirely ignore!)
First of all, I don't doubt that you're extremely nice! *g* It's just that those articles which say it is the female's fault, even slightly, seem to me to defy logic and law entirely. The implication, in this instance, is that due to the alcohol the woman had consumed, she made a call that turned out to be a bad idea: she went into a room, alone, with a guy, putting herself in the position that if he did try to push her into sex, it would be difficult to fight back physically or to stop him. But she also said, repeatedly, that she did not want to have sex, and he repeatedly assured her that would not happen. And then he had sex with her anyway. Yes, she was in a vulnerable position that could have been prevented if her inhibitions hadn't been lowered by alcohol, but in no way does that give him the right to rape her. It in no way makes it her fault. There is no legal limit on how much alcohol a person is allowed to consume unless they are getting behind the wheel of a car. She did not commit a crime by drinking; he committed a crime by sexually assaulting her.
I do acknowledge that there is danger in those situations, and that these kind of things happen all too often and that is why women are advised to drink sensibly and to try to stay aware so that they don't put themselves at risk. But that risk, that left alone with a vulnerable woman, a man may rape her, is not in any way the fault of a rape victim. That risk is presented entirely by the rapist. In the same way, even without drinking, if a woman is in a situation, alone with a man, where she promises sex and then withdraws her promise suddenly, he still does not have the right to violate her body. The rape is still his fault, because he chooses to rape her. Nobody asks to be raped.
I do think that as you pointed out, Amy Dickinson has been jumped on a little regarding her advice to get the rapist involved: she never directly tells the woman to confront him herself. And she does confirm, rightly, that the woman is a victim. Unfortunately, what she also does is place blame on the victim, as though she should take responsibility for preventing her rapist's crime. She said no. The man committed a crime. The responsibility for the crime is entirely his: it shouldn't be natural that a man is a rapist and a woman's job is not to allow herself to be raped.
I hope that explains my point-of-view, and maybe makes it a little clearer why this article outrages me, and others, so much. :-)
no subject
First of all, I don't doubt that you're extremely nice! *g* It's just that those articles which say it is the female's fault, even slightly, seem to me to defy logic and law entirely. The implication, in this instance, is that due to the alcohol the woman had consumed, she made a call that turned out to be a bad idea: she went into a room, alone, with a guy, putting herself in the position that if he did try to push her into sex, it would be difficult to fight back physically or to stop him. But she also said, repeatedly, that she did not want to have sex, and he repeatedly assured her that would not happen. And then he had sex with her anyway. Yes, she was in a vulnerable position that could have been prevented if her inhibitions hadn't been lowered by alcohol, but in no way does that give him the right to rape her. It in no way makes it her fault. There is no legal limit on how much alcohol a person is allowed to consume unless they are getting behind the wheel of a car. She did not commit a crime by drinking; he committed a crime by sexually assaulting her.
I do acknowledge that there is danger in those situations, and that these kind of things happen all too often and that is why women are advised to drink sensibly and to try to stay aware so that they don't put themselves at risk. But that risk, that left alone with a vulnerable woman, a man may rape her, is not in any way the fault of a rape victim. That risk is presented entirely by the rapist. In the same way, even without drinking, if a woman is in a situation, alone with a man, where she promises sex and then withdraws her promise suddenly, he still does not have the right to violate her body. The rape is still his fault, because he chooses to rape her. Nobody asks to be raped.
I do think that as you pointed out, Amy Dickinson has been jumped on a little regarding her advice to get the rapist involved: she never directly tells the woman to confront him herself. And she does confirm, rightly, that the woman is a victim. Unfortunately, what she also does is place blame on the victim, as though she should take responsibility for preventing her rapist's crime. She said no. The man committed a crime. The responsibility for the crime is entirely his: it shouldn't be natural that a man is a rapist and a woman's job is not to allow herself to be raped.
I hope that explains my point-of-view, and maybe makes it a little clearer why this article outrages me, and others, so much. :-)