2009-02-20 13:37 | No means no, jackass.
Back to what I was on about an age ago. That being, Twisty is awesome. Today's evidence is where she posts about consent. The entire post is what win is, but I will excerpt a portion just for you:
There are rules about what sort of woman can even attempt to make the "I said no" argument in court. Women who typically are not eligible to opt out of consent include: women who drink in bars, women who walk alone, women who walk at night, women who use drugs, women belonging to certain castes, women who dress a certain way, women who don't dress a certain way, women who are married to men, women who have had multiple sex partners, women who may have said yes last month, women who may have said yes at the beginning but who, three minutes in, found it disagreeable and changed to "no," women who didn't fight back hard enough, women who didn't tell anyone or report it right away, women whose physical similarity to pornulated women aroused the defendant, women whose behavior at the party aroused the defendant, teens with a "reputation," and prostituted women.
She goes on to discuss (a) a news item about a 13-year-old who was raped by her instructor, and how vile and appalling it is that the article author put quote marks around "rape", (b) the problem with consent as it stands, and (c) her bona-fide solution for it.
This is precisely why I love reading I Blame The Patriarchy. The language is precise and the concepts are amazing. I am ever in hearts with folk what can put words to ideas in such a fashion, since I so often have problems with it.
Tags: consent, news, rape, source:ibtp
One Response to “No means no, jackass.”
This seems wrong on the law (broadly).
I just discussed that excerpt with Heather. It strikes me as completely inaccurate in terms of US law (which reflects my instincts too). It was definitely more accurate 200 years ago, maybe more accurate 40 years ago and maybe more or less accurate depending on the State. Heather, who did research in this field, says it may reflect things like jury, prosecutor, and police bias – things that are not 'rules' that dictate what is 'allowed' but do have real consequences, but are much more 'informal' then a 'formalized'.
Anyway, I think the use of language is sloppy.
(Heather: "It's very much a sociologists language")