johnnynotsid

Or at least think very little of them.

You see, people who blame rape at least partially on the victims operate under a few assumptions. One, that rape is about sex two, that women can drive men to rape by provoking them, and three, that rape should be something that is expected as a risk.

Examples:

"When it comes to rape the rapist is absolutely the criminal. However, girls that are drunk and dressed provocatively act like bait for a rapist. Being drunk and sexy is like walking through the ghetto covered in jewelry. Girls that are not dressed scantily and are not intoxicated have every right to complain if they are raped. Although provocatively dressed drunk girls are not the criminals, they have absolutely no right to complain if they are raped. When girls dress to get the attention of guys, getting raped is a risk they are aware of ahead of time. They know some guys are rapists and they know they might attract the attention of those rapists. The sad part is that girls continue to feel looking sexy is worth the risk."

"Rape is an appalling crime, but we need to realise the basic instinct on the man's part that drives them to commit such an act. There will never be an antidote for it, and although it is unfair on women, it will continue to happen. Women need to be aware and take steps to make sure they don't become victims. If this means dressing modestly or drinking in moderation, so be it; it is no good women's groups claiming this is unfair - that is the same as saying it's unfair to get wet in the rain because you don't have an umbrella!"

I got this from that appalling Daily Mail Study.

Okay, so now to crush those two stupid assumptions. One: Rape is about sex.

WRONG.

Rape is not about sex. It is about violence and possession. The involvement of the genitalia is just the means used to do that violence, to take control of that human being and rob them of their human dignity or free will. Rapists do not rape because they are overwhelmed with sexual desire, but because they want to rob their victim of their humanity. If rape was about sex, it wouldn't be violent, and it wouldn't be able to happen in so many situations. Anonymous rape would not exist, and rape would only happen to women who were scantily clad. But it doesn't. It happens to women who wear habits and women who wear thongs. It happens to men, too.

Two: Woman can provoke men to rape.

You see, it's the women's fault for provoking him. And this really is one of my favorite arguments because it's so well conveyed by the statement "that is the same as saying it's unfair to get wet in the rain because you don't have an umbrella!"

Because it operates under the assumption that men, like rain, are uncontrollable objects that have no free will. Men can't control their impulses. They're not like, you know, human beings. They have uncontrollable sexual feelings that they have no responsibility for (assuming that rape is about sex). Men can't be expected to control themselves when it comes to violence because they, like raindrops, can't think, can't make decisions, can't control themselves. Men are not active beings so if they're provoked, they can't be expected to actually resist anything. Of course, rain can't control if it falls, it is not an active being. The same thing goes for men. Men are filthy non-creatures that are going to rape you because that's what they do: they rape. Men rape the way rain falls and soaks. So of course it's the woman's fault if she's raped. She provoked the man to rape.



And three: Rape is to be expected.

Because rape isn't a horrible crime that no woman should have to worry about. It being our responsibility, what with men being the rape-machines they are and women being raped right and left for being sexy, we have to not only worry about rape happening to us whenever we dress a certain way, but expect it as a very likely thing. What's going to keep us from being raped? Men not acting on some primal urge to make us their possessions? HAH. Men are evil and incapable of that. Men shouldn't be expected to take responsibility for any primal urge. And the world is populated by them so DUH, rape is a very likely event. That's why every time you get dressed and go out, you should be wondering, "Will this get me raped?"

IT'S ALL OUR FAULT FOR NOT TAKING THOSE PRECAUTIONS. WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO COMPLAIN IF WE ARE RAPED IF WE DRESS SEXY OR GET HAMMERED. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A MALE HUMAN BEING AND WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO EXPECT THE LAW FROM PROTECTING US.

At least, that's the world those dudes live in.

In the real world? Rape is more of an assualt and temporary enslavement, and imprisonment or home invasion than a sex act. Rapists rape to make their victims into things, to break them, to make them les than, to rob them of all that makes them human. It's not about sexual desire, it's about sadism. It's about violence. It's the ultimate objectification. So how you dress or whether you get drunk has nothing to do with it.

Men are human beings who are perfectly capable of making decisions, even if provoked. Rapists are the ones doing the raping, they're the ones who make the decision to commit such an act, a decision they're perfectly capable of making even if their victim is naked and passed out drunk. They decide to do that to take control of a human being.

Not all men are rapists, actually, most men aren't. That's something that's actually true. They're perfectly capable of not raping a person, even if "provoked" or aroused. They can say "no." And as human beings, they should be deemed completely responsible for the things they do. If they rape someone, that's THEIR DECISION. ONE THEY ARE PERFECTLY CAPABLE OF MAKING BECAUSE THEY HAVE FREE WILL. That's what being a human being is about: free will. That's why rape is such a horrible crime because it robs a person of that. Men are actually capable of controlling themselves and being decent, self-disciplined human beings who can resist temptation.

And that's why we shouldn't look at rape as an almost certainty. The world is not a rainstorm. Human beings should expect to be respected as human beings and to see others as such. We should expect men not to be rapists, not the other way around.  Rape is a hideous crime that should be unthinkable. We shouldn't expect that to happen and act like it's rain because that's just another way of accepting it. And rape should not be accepted. It should be fought. See, there's this thing called human rights, you know, rights you have simply by virtue of being human, and if they're violated, justice should be served. You can't ask to have them taken away, or give them away, or risk losing them. You can't stop being human. And if they're violated, it's the fault of the violater.

You can't blame a victim. A victim is by definition someone who is harmed or made to suffer. MADE TO SUFFER.

IT'S NEVER A VICTIMS FAULT.

I love how rape apologists talk about how women should "take responsibility" but when you suggest that maybe the rapist should be forced to take responsibility for, you know, RAPING a person, that's just dismissed. The person who ACTS should take responsibility for their actions, not the person who is harmed by another's actions. You can't rape yourself.

I guess my point is that the whole idea that women are to blame essentially dehumanizes men in the way rapists seek to dehumanize their victims. Basically the message that victim-blamers give is that "Men are rapists. Deal with it, bitch."

Katy Perry  recently sent shock waves through the blog world by announcing that she plans on going celibate for a year. Perry reportedly said that there would be, "No kissing anyone. Just my cat, Kitty Purry." JAY KAY, GUYS...

People who constantly feel the need to talk shit about other people, or say things that are just plain stupid simply for the shock value.

Even in cases where maybe someone said something about some person, but then apologized, and the person who was slighted still feels the need to slag the other person off at every opportunity?

There are several celebs who do this, usually around the time they are releasing an album or movie. And it's an obvious cry for attention. Whenever this happens, I feel the insane urge to blog about them and call them out on their bullshit. But the problem is that I know why they do it: They do it to get attention.

See, that's the problem with this sort of thing. Whenever some person does something stupid or annoying or ridiculous, they're usually doing it for attention. Of course, everyone wants attention some time. There's nothing wrong with that. It's natural. But the fact is that a lot of people, particularly people in the spotlight tend to take it way too far. And you want to call them out, say something, voice your opinion about it.

But the catch of it is that by saying something, you give that person the attention they crave. They usually don't care if the attention is bad or good, they just want the recognition. So when you go out and criticize them, you're giving them the attention they crave, essentially rewarding and encouraging them in their behavior.

But then again, sometimes you feel the need to say something, because if we let bullshit pass by without comment, what example are we setting? That it's okay to pull this kind of shit? That they can get away with it?

How do we speak up without rewarding attention-seeking bullshit?

This is strange.

I've been posting on this site for years actively. I go three weeks with barely a peep.

AND SUDDENLY I'M THE SIXTH MOST VIEWED USER ON THIS SITE????

HOW?

I can't remember the last time I went this long without posting.

Sorry guys, I've been so preoccupied lately with a bunch of things-- end of semester, new schedule, inauguration hysteria (I live in DC so you can imagine). I also felt a little, I don't know, less in touch around here lately? It seems a whole ton of my old friends on here have either changed or disappeared. Which from me is a bit rich, I know.

But it has been crazy, I know. All I can really say for myself is that I've caught up on something I haven't had much time for lately-- recreational reading. Once you're in High School, there is very little time for it, and the only books you read for fun are old ones you've read a million times. I used to to be a book-aholic, but over the last couple of years it's been different. I'm trying to reassume my old good habit of reading a lot. I'm going through a Russian Literature and Chuck Palahniuk phase right now. Jeff Linsay too, though I'm only reading his stuff because I love the show so much and trust me, the show is a hundred times better than the books. I say this as a person who hates TV and love books.

*sigh*

I miss you guys.

Tpday was the anniversary of Roe V. Wade, so about a quarter of the school was in DC today on the "March for Life". I of course did not go, and the whole day was a blur of study halls since a lot of the teachers were gone. But it was pretty sweet. We watched Singin in the Rain in Acting class and did basically nothing in English (we had a sub). We're studying Milton and Donne right now, who I don''t partidularly enjoy, especially not after doing Macbeth. I fucking love that play. I've never been the biggest fan of Shakespeare but man, did I love this one.

On a sad note, I'm no longer in my old English class with my firend Shalimar. I also no longer have my beloved Sociology class.

The inauguration was pretty interesting. It's kind of disconcerting to see the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court forget the words of the Constitution.

BUT BUSH IS OUT, OBAMA IS IN.

I feel so refreshed. There's just somehing so.... I don't know, refreshing about now being able to say "The President" without rolling your eyes or cringing".


Anyways, soon I'll be on here again blowing smoke about some social issue. In the mean time, lots of love.