at November 16, 2005 12:58 PMHere is the touching story of a woman who when pregnant, went off with two drunk strangers to have no-string-attached sex and feels terrible that one of them tried to have sex with her without putting a condom on. Any person who has tried to respond in comments about how risky it is to go off with drunk strangers has been rebuffed with “victim-blamer!” inspite of almost all of them bending over backwards to make sure that they say they are NOT in fact blaming the victim, but are trying to tell her how she can better handle certain situations. Implied in most of the righteously offended’s outrageous comments is that since you are asking a woman who is most likely to be a victim to be a little more careful, you are being all mean and oppressive to the matriarchy. The way I see it, if someone wants to rape, you can ask him to pretty please not to do it, but [s]he is going to do it anyways. It is not going to stop anything - till we live in a utopia where all men and women refuse to have non-consensual sex, what is wrong with asking a woman to be a little more careful?
Compare and contrast this hideously self-indulgent thought process to actual situations people live in where they could be gang-raped for being of the wrong caste, paraded naked because of stupid rumors and sexually harrassed to suicide in many cases in the name of eve-teasing. These are women who face real problems where the victim has absolutely no blame and is being victimized for the simple fact of being who she is. I find it very hard to sympathize with someone who knowingly puts herself in a stupid (yes, I said it - it was a stupid thing to do) situation when there are other real victims to be empathized with. File this under one more reason why I feel sick of a lot of Western-style feminism.
Just to add a little bit more to the topic, I am not saying I never put myself at risk. I have been incredibly naive and stupid at a younger age and did some extremely silly things just so I can gain acceptance of someone or to even just keep someone with me. That doesn’t mean I look back and say it was all my fault - I don’t blame myself for the stupid things while at the same time have gained enough from those experiences that I am not going to repeat that stupidity again.
I will possibly explain more and provide more links when I am not as tired or jet-lagged.
Posted by shanti at November 14, 2005 4:03 PMTrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.realwomenonline.com/scgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/3324
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sense or nonsense?:
Compare and contrast this hideously self-indulgent thought process to actual situations people live in where they could be gang-raped for being of the wrong caste, paraded naked because of stupid rumors and sexually harrassed to suicide in many cases in the name of eve-teasing.
I have a problem with this. Just because one problem is bigger than the other does not mean the lesser one does not matter at all - it is still a problem. (Have posted more on the Desipundit link to this post.)
Posted by: Aditya at November 16, 2005 12:49 PM
Aditya, my complaint is that when feminists try to take up cudgels for every kind of silliness in the world, they are not taken seriously anymore and do a great disservice to people who actually need some help.
Second of all, I find not much of a “problem” that the author faced considering she did escape pretty unscathed. I prefer to reserve my sympathy towards those who don’t even have a choice to say “No”.
Posted by: shanti at November 16, 2005 12:58 PM
One rape is not more traumatic than the other.
No is not just a word. It is a plea, an assertion. Something that is a joke in India and world over anyway. I can think of countless movies in which dolled heroines are going No No No and the hero still pumps her like she’s a bike tyre.
Your sympathy is conditional to whether or not the vulnerability is actually vulnerability or foolishness. I hope you never sit on a rape Tribunal.
Posted by: Anon at November 17, 2005 9:07 AM
One thing at a time - Nick was NOT raped. She admits as much herself, so there really is nothing to sympathize about.
IF she were raped and if I were a juror on the case, I would definitely find her rapist guilty as heck while ending my statement with a little bit of advice to Nick to be a little more careful with her choices next time.
This has got nothing to do with “No” or whatever. My problem was with someone going out with drunk strangers and expecting them to be responsible enough to act on a “No”. A stranger cannot exactly be relied to take your “No” and accept it, leave alone a drunk one.
Posted by: shanti at November 17, 2005 9:32 AM
I’ve replied on the desipundit post, because I’d rather keep the discussion on a single page. Anyway, I’d only commented here because I wasn’t sure if you’d read that one.
Posted by: Aditya at November 17, 2005 11:16 AM
I am just wondering how the trial would have gone if this woman(Nick) had complained of Rape. What is the mechanism to establish whether it is consensual or not. The statement made after 24 hours is not enough.
May be there is a need for a polygraph, narcoananalysis test.
The second question is: what kind of a jail sentence this so called rapist would be handed to, where the consent changed from Yes to No right in the middle of the act ? Is it 10 years in prison, is it hanging, lynching, stoning to death or is it 2 years in prison ?
These stupid men indeed took a great risk. They should have better signed a pre-sex agreement with this female inline with pre-nuptial agreement to safeguard themselves. But men will never change after all they are overconfident fools.
Posted by: Sumanth at November 18, 2005 1:13 PM
shanti, what happened to your post on arranged marriages?
Posted by: shef at November 23, 2005 11:37 PM