I spend a lot of time at work reading the news, and I find that although I remain rather unstirred and impartial about a lot of the terrible things I read, this one caught my attention.
Victim To Blame?
There are a couple of stories on google news about it, and honestly, some of the things I've read in it, bother me immensely.
"Judge Dewar listed several reasons for this misinterpretation, including that the victim and her friend were wearing tube tops, high heels and makeup; that the two had implied they might want to go skinny-dipping in a lake nearby and that the circumstances of their encounter with Mr. Rhodes and his friend were “inviting.”"
I mean really? Its the middle of the summer, its hot out, we don't live in India or Pakistan or somewhere us women need to be FULLY clothed - but somehow with drinking and flirtations, oh and the addition of heels and a tube top sans bra - means that she wanted it?
Okay, so I can't point out how many different ways of wrong this is. First off - yes, its the media, so of course they publish what they want to, to make an impact with their story - but if this is really what the judge was saying, I am confused for sexual assault rights in Canada! This is a classic case of Date Rape.
I am most confused about "what she was wearing" holding any bearing on the "invitation of sexual intercourse". If I was to wear a bikini to the beach, is that going to be taken as a valid "invitation"?
Men - remember, I don't care how drunk you are, how drunk she is, how slutty she seems, how shes dressed, if the words NO, I'm not sure, I don't want to, I don't think I can, not right now, ANYTHING with a negative come out? ITS A NO GO ZONE. Plus, wouldn't it be more fun if she came to you for it instead of you going to her?
Ladies - Be clear of what you mean when you say it. If it's someone who respects you, he won't be hurt by the words "I don't want to have sex with you". (and if you say it THAT clearly? There is nothing left to translation either.)
Better yet? Lets just all be celibate.
...just kidding.
Victim To Blame?
There are a couple of stories on google news about it, and honestly, some of the things I've read in it, bother me immensely.
"Judge Dewar listed several reasons for this misinterpretation, including that the victim and her friend were wearing tube tops, high heels and makeup; that the two had implied they might want to go skinny-dipping in a lake nearby and that the circumstances of their encounter with Mr. Rhodes and his friend were “inviting.”"
I mean really? Its the middle of the summer, its hot out, we don't live in India or Pakistan or somewhere us women need to be FULLY clothed - but somehow with drinking and flirtations, oh and the addition of heels and a tube top sans bra - means that she wanted it?
Okay, so I can't point out how many different ways of wrong this is. First off - yes, its the media, so of course they publish what they want to, to make an impact with their story - but if this is really what the judge was saying, I am confused for sexual assault rights in Canada! This is a classic case of Date Rape.
I am most confused about "what she was wearing" holding any bearing on the "invitation of sexual intercourse". If I was to wear a bikini to the beach, is that going to be taken as a valid "invitation"?
Men - remember, I don't care how drunk you are, how drunk she is, how slutty she seems, how shes dressed, if the words NO, I'm not sure, I don't want to, I don't think I can, not right now, ANYTHING with a negative come out? ITS A NO GO ZONE. Plus, wouldn't it be more fun if she came to you for it instead of you going to her?
Ladies - Be clear of what you mean when you say it. If it's someone who respects you, he won't be hurt by the words "I don't want to have sex with you". (and if you say it THAT clearly? There is nothing left to translation either.)
Better yet? Lets just all be celibate.
...just kidding.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please keep it positive!