Not the act, mind you. Just the word:
But hey—it’s her own damn fault if doodz wanted to “have sex” with her while she was unconscious and totally incapable of giving consent: “The alleged victim told police she had taken a prescribed anti-seizure medication before the party and at the party, she drank beer and smoked marijuana.” No word on whether the doodz who “had sex” with her were hopped up on anything.
Btw, victims aren’t “alleged.” Criminals are.
[H/T Jennifer Pozner.]
Shakesville 
Alleged just means there’s an allegation, not a confirmed fact. So if nobody raped her, she’s an alleged victim.
I’m not saying she wasn’t raped, however.
So if nobody raped her, she’s an alleged victim.
Technically, that is correct. But in every other crime, we don’t say “the alleged burgled man,” we say “the alleged burglar.” That we refer only to rape victims as “alleged victims” conveys an important semantic difference, and it needs to stop.
Err, I meant is a semantic difference that conveys an important philosophical difference.
Christ. Why didn’t they just go with “2 accused of date with unconsious woman?”
How would you write it to not indicate that a rape definitely transpired?
The headline should certainly be “2 accused of raping unconscious woman.”
How would you write it to not indicate that a rape definitely transpired?
Well, first of all, I wouldn’t write that fucking sentence about her having had some beer and pot in the first place. But referring to her as “the accuser” works, which is a little term I’ve picked up from every other story ever about every other as-yet-untried crime except rape.
Good point.
And it doesn’t matter if she was sleeping because she took pills or sleeping because she was tired.
Cue the rape apologists trolls in five…four…three…
Guess we’ll be testing the new server today, huh? Good.
I’ll tell you what boggles my mind. Why on earth would someone, anyone, want to have sex with a non-responsive person in the first place? Where’s the enjoyment in that?
Rape isn’t about sexual pleasure.
Well, she didn’t say “No” did she?
Jees, what do you feminists want?
*throws up a little bit in her mouth*
How fucking complicated is the idea that if a woman doesn’t/can’t consent, IT’S NOT SEX!!!
Thanks for saying it, Paul.
Rape happens because many men don’t see women as autonomous human beings. Rape happens because some men hate women, and rape is an expression of that hate.
This is why I think attacks against women need to be considered a hate or bias crime. In a society where the hatred of women is not simply permitted, but encouraged, violence against women is a hate crime.
(And I don’t mean to sound like I’m blowing off your question, Brian, that was rather blunt. I do know what you’re getting at. My apologies!)
Ah, misogynist euphemism . . .
But really, I think they could have done better here. I mean, accused? That implies that these two might be criminals, right? I thought we were innocent in this country until proven guilty. I think we should replace “accuse” with something a bit more value-neutral. Let’s change that to “2 said to have had sex with unconscious woman.”
Additionally, I think the use of the word “unconscious” makes some rather pejorative assumptions. After all, only the alleged recipient of these sexual advances can really testify as to whether or not she was actually unconscious. That just makes it her word against those of the gentlemen she says had sex with her. I think we need to modify this to more adequately describe only what can be proven, at this juncture. Let’s modify that to “unresponsive,” shall we? Or better yet, “passive.”
And really, folks might not read the whole article. From just the headline, they might not know that this woman had been drinking and smoking marijuana prior to the alleged sex. And while on medication? For shame. Let’s make sure we get that across in the headline by replacing “woman” with “drunken slut who was totally asking for it.”
There, I think that should convey the message of this article effectively and concisely.
Unless you think we should trade out, “had sex with” for “made love to.”
Assholes.
This is especially troubling in the wake of this story about a Nebraska district judge who banned the use of words and phrases like “rape” and “sexual assault” from a rape trial, forcing lawyers on both sides to substitute the word “sex” for “rape” on the grounds that the word rape might prejudice the jury.
While the presumption of innocence is important, this type of linguistic duplicity indicates to me that some people have become way too concerned with protecting the rights and dignity of rapists rather than their victims.
Unless you think we should trade out, “had sex with” for “made love to.”
“Made sweet, sweet, tender love” ought to do it.
This is especially troubling in the wake of this story about a Nebraska district judge who banned the use of words and phrases like “rape” and “sexual assault” from a rape trial
Uh huh. Jeff blogged about that here. I was thinking about that story when I said the word will soon be eradicated…
Wish I hadn’t followed the link and read the comment thread there, in which one commenter defends a fellow victim-blamer with the following:
[name of commenter] did not blame the victim for what the man did. He spotted the problem which is getting to blackout stage (and pass-out stage) around an untrustworthy crowd.
It’s amazing how much that Not Blaming The Victim example above looks and sounds *exactly* like Blaming The Victim to me.
Marijuana didn’t make that girl pass out. It may have made her incrementally sleepier, but the alcohol is what got her raped.
Wow, selective chemical condemnation! And yet more victim-blaming.
I would say that it was not alcohol, nor any other substance, that got the victim raped. Opportunistic asshole bastard rapists were the cause of her being raped.
Whatever unwise choices the young woman may have made, *none* of them amounted to an invitation to rape. Passing out in public – for whatever reason – does *not* make someone’s body a public commodity to be used at will!
Worse, to dwell on the woman’s behavioral choices distracts from the behavioral choices that *actually* caused the rape to occur: the behavioral choices of the rapists themselves. Yet *those* behaviors are barely even mentioned.
It’s almost as if there’s an unspoken assumption that ‘gee, she passed out around strangers, of course someone is gonna take the opportunity to screw her!’ as though it’s a normal, natural, expected consequence of the situation. Business as usual. The very idea of how blase our society is about this makes me so fucking angry I can barely stand it.
But hey, at least it’s not Darfur, right?
*eyeroll*
Uh huh. Jeff blogged about that here. I was thinking about that story when I said the word will soon be eradicated…
Ah. That makes sense.
It’s almost as if there’s an unspoken assumption that ‘gee, she passed out around strangers, of course someone is gonna take the opportunity to screw her!’ as though it’s a normal, natural, expected consequence of the situation.
There is. And it’s almost always straight conservative men who assume it.
You know…the self-proclaimed moral paragons of our society?
There is. And it’s almost always straight conservative men who assume it.
You know…the self-proclaimed moral paragons of our society?
Sheesh. No wonder assholes like Doug Giles are overbearing domineering pricks obsessed with ‘protecting’ their daughters… they’re convinced all men are scum, since they know what *they* would do, given the opportunity, so they want to make damn sure they control the circumstances to try to deny such an opportunity to anyone else. Rather than, y’know, teaching people mutual respect and self-determination and other sissy liberal stuff.
Technically, that is correct. But in every other crime, we don’t say “the alleged burgled man,” we say “the alleged burglar.” That we refer only to rape victims as “alleged victims”
Wow, I hate to admit it but I never even noticed that before.
As staunchly feminist as I am, there is so much about this topic I didn’t really get before, Liss. Thanks for posting on it.
It’s obviously rape, because if she was unconscious, she couldn’t have eaten the dinner they bought her first. I mean, duh.
Why do women go out at all? Our mere presence in the world gives others the right to rape us. Excuse me, have “sex” with us. I have breasts and a vagina, therefore, unless I put a fucking chastity belt on and a spiked bra, I am asking to get raped.
Maybe if I were knocked unconscious in a car accident I might get raped. I mean, I chose to be in a vehicle that might crash, and I chose to be on a road where there are strangers. And some of those strangers are probably untrustworthy. I must be asking for it.
Brain-donating rape apologists need to stfu!
I have breasts and a vagina, therefore, unless I put a fucking chastity belt on and a spiked bra, I am asking to get raped.
This is why I can’t imagine why there would be any controversy about the use of the anti-rape condom, Rapex.
I mean if common law rape requires “utmost resistance” that sure as hell qualifies in my mind.
Also, then vagina dentata could be cease being an irrational fear for men, and start being a real one.
I thought you were joking about such a thing existing, blustockingsrs. Then I found this http://www.rapestop.net/
I honestly don’t know what to think.
Years ago,they designed a “rape-poof” skirt,a skirt with an undetachable,robust pantie sewn in.It was not very successful,as few men were willing to wear it…
::banghead::
And people wonder why I wanna get the hell offa this Gods forsaken rock…..
Pingback: Soon, Rape Won’t Exist At All—Not the Act, Mind You; Just the Word at Shakesville
Pingback: Soon, Rape Won’t Exist at All—Not the Act, Mind You; Just the Word at Shakesville