Wednesday, September 15, 2010

To Love, Honor and Blame Women for Being Assaulted

[trigger warning- rape. if this discussion will upset you, please click here for a happy otter, instead.]

Sheila Wray Gregoire keeps writing articles about sexual assault, articles that place the blame squarely on the victim, no matter how much she protests that she is not blaming the victim.

Sheila, if I may call you Sheila, and trust me it's way politer than anything else I am inclined to call you, here's a little lesson in communication. If you tell me, "My new wide-screen, LCD HDTV was stolen last night!" and I reply, "Well, why did you buy one of those? Don't you know people like to steal those?" would you say, "Clearly you are not blaming me, kind woman"? No, of course you wouldn't. Because I would be blaming you.

Just like you blame women for being raped.

So far, you have asserted that women are raped because they drink:

In this California case, four teenage boys, aged between 15 and 17, invited two teenage girls, aged 14 and 15, that they had met on the street home for a drink. The girls acquiesced, got drunk, and were then sexually assaulted.

Again, they did not deserve that, and I do hope that the perpetrators face justice. But why in the world were two teenage girls going into a stranger’s home to drink?

That's right, according to Sheila, if you accept a drink, you are agreeing to be raped. You don't really "deserve" it, but what were you thinking?

How about this, Sheila, what were those boys thinking? Why in the world did they invite two teenage girls over, get them drunk and then rape them? Did you think about that? Maybe, just maybe, because everyone like you sends the message if that if a girl accepts a drink (or a ride, or a meal, or a smile) from you, she wants it. She deserves it. Stupid slut, actions have consequences (the title of Sheila's lovely post.)

Heroically, several rape survivors tried to point this out to Sheila, but Sheila just doesn't get it. I can't decide if Sheila is that stupid, that arrogant or both. She moves on to the next big cause of rape: women's behavior, because lecturing men doesn't help. She pulls a statistic out of her ass to make her point.

Look at it this way. If your goal is to reduce rape, and by lecturing boys and men you could reduce it by 5%, and by changing women's behaviour you could reduce it by another 10%, is it not still worth trying to change women's behaviour, even if it doesn't reduce the risk entirely? If we can't reduce the risk completely, should we not still be be talking about changing girls' behaviour? After all, if changing behaviour is effective (and I think staying away from drunken parties does make you safer), then isn't that worth teaching our daughters?

Sure, Sheila, except that you have no fucking idea whether or not targeting men with rape prevention messages would work or not. You have no idea whether or not staying away from drunken parties would make one safer. I specialized in drunken parties from about 17-21 and I was never raped. I have friends that never got drunk once who were. You know what would make you safe? Not encountering a rapist. Got a solution for that? (Hint: not all rapists confine themselves to drunken parties.)

So, anyway, back to valiant commenters calling Sheila on her bullshit, so Sheila takes a different tack. It does not involve blaming the rapist, oh no, this time Sheila has the solution: cleavage. Yes, kids, cleavage causes rape. And possibly Facebook.

To tackle her idea, I want you to picture yourself as the youth leader for a youth group at an amusement park. It's a big outing, and twenty youth have decided to go, and you were asked along as a parent supervisor. You have under your care three girls, all aged 14. Two are dressed in appropriate shorts and T-shirts; one has on short shorts and a bikini top, with a halter tied around it. She is showing more cleavage that you ever have.

Who are you going to be scared for? Who are you going to try to protect?

Yeah, Sheila, and while you're so worried about Miss Halter Top, an 80 year old great grandmother was dragged into the restroom and raped. Rape is far more common in countries where women are required to dress modestly (i.e., burquas, hijab, abaya, etc.) than it is in countries where women are free to dress as they please. Do you know why that is? Because the entire purpose behind such garments is to blame women for the actions of men, which leaves men with the belief that they are not responsible for their actions and hey! let's rape!

But wait, there's more!

My commenter said that modest women get raped and immodest women get raped. Again, I agree. But here's the thing: rape rarely occurs out of the blue. It usually starts with something--maybe you meet a guy, and he seems harmless enough, and you start talking or dancing. And then things go downhill.

That's right, ladies, you talked to him, didn't you? You danced with him? Well, clearly you asked for it, slut. Stop whining about it, you wanted it! Wearing that little red dress and shaking your ass, you should be ashamed!

Sheila, you make me sick.

13 comments:

  1. Ya know what's really odd? I have never, in my life, raped anyone. I've seen attractive women wearing very modest clothing and thought, "She's quite attractive. I wouldn't mind having sex with her." I've seen attractive women wearing next to know clothing and thought, "Goddamn, I would like to have sex with her."

    And yet, although the clothing may be different, the thoughts really aren't that different and the actions are not at all different.

    Why? BECAUSE I'M NOT A FUCKING RAPIST. THAT'S WHY I DON'T RAPE ANYONE. PERIOD. FULL STOP.

    If I were to rape someone it would not be her fault because I would have been the one who raped her. However, and this is something that never, ever, ever seems to get mentioned: the fact that I see an attractive woman and don't rape her isn't actually to her credit simply because my default setting is "Don't Rape."

    But do I get any credit at all from this from those dipshits who seem to think that I'm just waiting for the next opportunity to drag some unsuspecting-but-asking-for-it slut down a dark alley so she can get what she so richly deserves? No. Of course not. Because I am, apparently, not responsible for my own actions.

    Unless, of course, I'm the head of a proper Christian household, required to make all of the decisions and make sure everyone in that house is properly Christianized and whatnot.

    I lived in that world for two and a half decades and I don't actually understand how anyone inside of it thinks.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "In this California case, four teenage boys, aged between 15 and 17, invited two teenage girls, aged 14 and 15, that they had met on the street home for a drink. The girls acquiesced, got drunk, and were then sexually assaulted."

    Note the passive voice. The girls "were then sexually assaulted." As though a disembodied penis sprung forth from the aether and was responsible for the rape as opposed to, say, the teenage rapist boys who were present.

    "Again, they did not deserve that, and I do hope that the perpetrators face justice. But why in the world were two teenage girls going into a stranger’s home to drink?"

    What were they thinking?! Going to drink at someone's house like how people get to go drink at someone's house=?!?!?


    Also, let's bask in the irony of DM continuing to post after repeated requests not to. Somebody clearly doesn't understand the concept of no.

    ReplyDelete
  4. As though a disembodied penis sprung forth from the aether and was responsible for the rape

    Finally, after all these years I understand that terrible King Missile song from the '90s. In retrospect, it's still a terrible song.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well, of course DM is posting because he just LOVES to post on rape posts. Does it all the time over my way.

    As usual, I adore you Geds, and LOL at Fannie and that disembodied penis.

    PF, thanks for the Otter, which I have looked at post-fact, to aid in recovery from Sheila's mind-boggling idiocy. As usual, your spirited observations are spot on, m'dear.

    ReplyDelete
  6. As though a disembodied penis sprung forth from the aether and was responsible for the rape.

    I think Fannie just wrote Uwe Boll's next screenplay.

    And, riffing from Geds' comment, maybe I should start sending out "Thank you for not raping me!" cards instead of Christmas cards this year.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sheila says, of the young slut who wore "a bikini top, with a halter tied around it" to an amusement park:

    "She would talk the boys up in line...At one point I realized she was texting a guy that she had just stood in line with at a roller coaster. She had managed to get his number when I wasn't looking."

    OMFG, she got a boy's number, even though Sheila did her best:
    "I stuck to her like glue and started glaring at anybody who looked at her." ---The girl is not only a harlot, but a sneaky harlot.

    Shiela says "I would rather that my kids start talking to guys that they connected with through common interests or experiences…When you connect with someone because of common interests, friends, or experiences, then you know them on a certain level."

    So I guess Sheila is the sole arbiter of how and when "her girls" should meet boys, and which experiences are worth connecting over. Certainly not the experience of standing in line for a roller coaster for probably the better part of an hour, WITH HER BOOBIES HANGING OUT!!!

    The part that really burns my ass is Sheila's comment about the three girls she was supervising: "Who are you going to be scared for? Who are you going to try to protect?" (The two in t-shirts? or the one in a halter top over a bikini?)

    For fuck's sake, Sheila! I've been a parent supervisor on kids' trips, and you worry about ALL OF THEM! You try to protect ALL OF THEM!

    ReplyDelete
  8. For fuck's sake, Sheila! I've been a parent supervisor on kids' trips, and you worry about ALL OF THEM! You try to protect ALL OF THEM!

    Y'know, I'll bet she'd be shocked, SHOCKED if it ever turned out the Slutty McBikinkitop ended up being totally pure until the day she got married while one of the Prudie von Tshirters suddenly came out with a bad case of the preggers while the other one developed a reputation for giving blow jobs to any guy who comes along and having plenty of anal sex while still remaining a "technical virgin."*

    But that scenario could never, ever happen because this is Fundie Christianity, where books are only ever judged by their covers. I mean, hell, they only claim to have one book that they ever read but there's no evidence they've ever opened the damn thing...

    --

    *This is one of those things that I'd like to be able to file under the category of Urban Legend, but I've heard variations on the base story enough times from enough different sources to not be able to dismiss it completely. I very much do not get it. Quite frankly, I do not want to get it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. the only crap you will ever need from this so-called "philosopher" called massimo pigliucci

    http://chem.tufts.edu/science/pigliucci/rationally-speaking/RS2001-091.htm


    "The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it."


    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1iy39_depeche-mode-john-the-revelator_music


    JOHN THE REVELATOR!


    FAIR AND BALANCED!



    KING OF TERROR


    add comment moderation to your BS or more people will die with you...


    NO GODS AND NO POLITICS WITH THESE LITTLE IDIOTS!


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyEISfS15g4&feature=player_embedded


    plush safe he think

    http://www.christies.com/lotfinderimages/D14781/d1478164x.jpg



    http://vimeo.com/13704095


    but with recent revelations about James Randi, I think he likes DICKS!

    THE SECOND COMING!

    THE END OF ATHEISM

    FOLLOW THE WHITE RABBIT...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Smwrw4sNCxE


    THE B**BQUAKE - 911

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeblvLoVJCA&feature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpZZ2PPBzP8&feature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvSljPf9on4&feature=related

    you are going to pay the price for this….

    THE RUBBER DUCKY OF PSEUDOSCIENCE III - JAMES RANDI


    http://daddytypes.com/archive/hofman_rubber_duckie.jpg

    there is a lot of sh*t to flush!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cg2AezJo8aQ

    THE HEAD OF THE INFIDEL!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojR-XRt4rrA

    Is America burning yet?

    Maybe we need some more...

    we use the DIVINE against the ESTABLISHMENT... you?

    we do better DEMOLITIONS than you, savage...

    RENOUNCE YOUR ATHEISM AND JOIN THE SOCIALIST FAITH!

    let them know if the MDC continues more people will die...

    the WORLD TRADE CENTER PROPHECY - THE DANCE OF DEATH

    WORLD TRADE CENTER PROPHECY

    FLUSH ATHEISM!

    Actually it is a ROYAL FLUSH!!!

    Let me show you how ATHEISTS were partially responsible for 911

    These ATHEISTS NEED TO BE ON THE TERRORIST WATCH LIST!

    You don’t even have SCIENCE on your side…

    You’re a perfect example of when PHILOSOPHY becomes an ENEMY OF LIFE...

    http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2010/06/playing-mystery-card.html

    not quite samantha with her *supernatural spit*, eh?

    this isn't one of your little WORD GAMES...

    blasphemy is a DEATH SENTENCE

    you people actually BELIEVE the BS you preach!

    GOD 1 - atheists 0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQcNiD0Z3MU

    Atheists,

    you are ENEMIES OF GOD AND ARE GOING TO BE ANNIHILATED...

    Repent and turn to God or be destroyed...

    YOU HAVE NO CHOICE...

    my interpretation of the STATUE FIRE... it symbolizes the SPIRITUAL DEATH of atheism...

    http://www.salon.com/news/2010/06/15/us_lightning_strikes_jesus_statue

    http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/6/16/1276680110544/The-King-of-Kings-statue--005.jpg

    http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2010-06/54332292.jpg

    http://friendlyatheist.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/butterjesus-1.jpg

    PRINCESS DI IS WEARING A NEW DRESS!

    http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/speechesandarticles/a_speech_by_hrh_the_prince_of_wales_titled_islam_and_the_env_252516346.html
    ______________________________
    http://skepticblog.org/2010/04/06/would-i-ever-pray-for-a-miracle/

    Shermer, I WANT TO SEE YOU BEG FOR A MIRACLE...
    ___________________
    we do like your music Lady Gaga, but...

    The B**BQUAKE - 911

    Let me show you the FATE OF TRAITORS...

    http://www.loiterink.com/photos/products/182_3424_500x500.jpg

    they are incapable of telling the difference between SCIENTIFIC *FACT* AND
    RELIGIOUS AND PHILOSOPHICAL *TRUTH*... FATAL ERROR!

    THE BOOBQUAKE - 911!

    http://dissidentphilosophy.lifediscussion.net/philosophy-f1/the-boobquake-911-t1310.htm

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Sheila." Someone actually named their daughter that? (I hate that term. Given my geographical positioning, I hear it a lot).

    " Rape is far more common in countries where women are required to dress modestly (i.e., burquas, hijab, abaya, etc.) than it is in countries where women are free to dress as they please."
    This really needs to be advertised more widely. I was quite affected by a paragraph from... damn, now I can't remember the name of the book... written by a woman who grew up in Saudi and came to America, and was "shocked" to be treated like a normal human being when she was simply walking around a western city. Imagine being shocked not to be pushed about, shouted at or insulted by strangers.

    "I stuck to her like glue and started glaring at anybody who looked at her."
    As rediculous as this is, the mental image is hilarious.

    "Oh look, shes attractive. Oh hey, the older women with her group is looking at m-"
    *DEATH GLARE*
    "Arrararargghhhh..." [falls on the ground twitching]

    Finally, how anyone dresses should be a matter of personal preference. I hate how the fundies have grabbed and warped the meaning of the word "modest:" there's a difference between fundie modest ("cover up because sex is sinful and otherwise your asking for it") and my personal definition ("cover up because you think of your body as 'private', and take care who you allow to see it" (I'm not a fan of shorts, and I'd hate to be seen without a shirt, even though it's acceptable for guys)). Maybe that definition is wrong, but it's the one I apply to my overly-shy self so I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't acknowledge that it has some impact on the way I percieve others.

    I personally quite like girls wearing modest/casual clothing, but that's not because of "purity" or any other rubbish: it's because a) I notice eyes and facial features before I notice body-shape and b) I associate modest clothes with an introverted, "shy" personality, which I in turn associate with intelligence. (I realise those are broad stereotypes, but when we're talking about superficial things like appearance and first-impressions and subconsious preferences implanted by the prevailing zeitgeist, sometimes stereotypes and assumptions are the only thing you've got to work with, at least until you learn more about the other person)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Quasar - yeah, "Sheila" is a name in America.

    PF
    I think Fannie just wrote Uwe Boll's next screenplay.

    Well, technically, there is apparently a Japanese videogame like that. (I find that particular guy to be the most annoying reviewer ever, but it gives you screenviews of the NSFW game in action.)

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Quasar - yeah, "Sheila" is a name in America."

    And that's the culture with the biggest nuclear arsenal on the planet?

    We're screwed. [hides under a table]

    ReplyDelete
  13. where did my comment go? it was here last night! and it's not even "removed" like DM's are... strange.

    DAMN THE BLOGSPOT!

    ReplyDelete

Comments are for you guys, not for me. Say what you will. Don't feel compelled to stay on topic, I enjoy it when comments enter Tangentville or veer off into Non Sequitur Town. Just keep it polite, okay?

I am attempting to use blogger's new comment spam feature. If you don't immediately see your comment, it is being held in spam, I will get it out next time I check the filter. Unless you are Dennis Markuze, in which case you're never seeing your comment.

Creative Commons License
Forever in Hell by Personal Failure is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at foreverinhell.blogspot.com.