General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Something I find troubling in the rape prevention discussion at DU [View all]Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)That's ridiculous, but here's the difference: if a wealthy man in a fancy suit and waving around a wad of bills gets drunk out of his mind at a bar, and then staggers off down the street, where he is set upon by a gang of ruffians and beaten and robbed, everyone will tell him he was stupid - but no one will let the muggers go free because he was too stupid to follow simple safety guidelines.
If a woman gets drunk out of her mind (or roofied) and passes out, the man who rapes her will claim that she consented simply because she showed up, and therefore he should be set free. And quite often he is. It's already happening in the Steubenville case, where the victim was CLEARLY unable to consent, and yet the defense lawyers are insisting that she did. We even had a poster right here on DU state that she has a "past" and therefore it's going to be hard to get a conviction. Imagine that, if you will - a 16-year old girl has a "past", and therefore the chips will fall where they may. Too bad for her, she shouldn't have left her house and allowed herself to be roofied. We all know girls with a "past" will do these things. Sarcasm.
I don't know if people get the full scope of how maddening this is, so telling women to observe simple safety tips as if that'll solve the problem is just so fucking tiring.