I found that photo on Facebook a while back, with the following caption:
This photo was posted on STFU, Conservatives Tumblr page last night [here]. The reason why I'm sharing it is not because of the photo itself (which is epic in it's own right), but for the comments it generated.
One person wrote, "but then again, its kind like putting a meat suit on and telling a shark not to eat you".
STFU responded (with bolded text):
We (men) are not fucking sharks!
We are not rabid animals living off of pure instinct
We are capable of rational thinking and understanding.
Just because someone is cooking food doesn't mean you're entitled to eat it.
Just because a banker is counting money doesn't mean you're being given free money.
Just because a person is naked doesn't mean you're entitled to fuck them.
You are not entitled to someone else's body just because it's exposed.
What is so fucking difficult about this concept?
Bravo.
Indeed. Also, Laura Jedeed has some
really excellent comments on rape and this image too.
Happily, the rights of women in western countries are more widely recognized and better protected today than at any other time in human history. That's a huge achievement, and part of why I'm grateful to live in modern America.
However, more progress awaits us. One example was in the news last year:
A recent court case just
exposed a barbarity in California law, namely that it's not rape to trick an unmarried woman into sleeping with you by pretending to be her boyfriend.
Julio Morales was convicted and sentenced to three years in state prison for entering an 18-year-old woman's bedroom and instigating sex with her while she was asleep after a night of drinking at a house party in 2009. According to prosecutors, it wasn't until "light coming through a crack in the bedroom door illuminated the face of the person having sex with her" that she realized Morales wasn't her boyfriend. Holy shit.
But a panel of judges overturned the conviction this week because of a law from 1872 that doesn't give women the same protections as married women because, as we all know, single women are always down for nonconsensual sex, even when they're asleep and/or purposefully tricked into the act.
The court admitted that "If the woman had been married and the man had impersonated her husband" it would be rape. But since there was no ring on her finger, it's not!
Eugene Volokh had
some comments here. I agree that
rape by fraud shouldn't be a punishable offense, except in cases of impersonation of a lover or spouse. (I'm not sure of the case of mere friends.) As Eugene says of such impersonation:
It is, thankfully, apparently a rare sort of lie; it is very far outside the normal level of dishonesty that people expect might happen in their relationships; it is one for which there is no plausible justification or mitigation; and criminalizing it is unlikely to sweep in the garden variety lies that, unfortunately, often appear in people's sexual and romantic lives.
California law obviously needs to be updated.
Here's another example. The 2012 election was replete with politicians making
ridiculous and offensive comments about rape in order to rationalize their across-the-board opposition to abortion. Most notable was Todd Akin's justification for denying abortions to women pregnant due to rape:
... from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.
Conservatives need to recognize that forced pregnancy -- not just pregnancy due to rape but any unwanted pregnancy -- is
a morally abhorrent violation of rights, not a gift from God.
Alas, the third example hits closer to home for me. In a February 2012 podcast, Leonard Peikoff said that
a man is entitled to force himself on a woman if she has a few drinks with him and then goes up to his hotel room. Thankfully, he
corrected that a few weeks later, but only in part. By a rather strange analysis, Peikoff concluded that a woman cannot withdraw consent after penetration. In reality, that means that the man can do whatever he pleases to the woman after penetration, even as she kicks and screams and yells and cries in protest. That's seriously, seriously wrong -- and dangerous too.
On a more positive note, you'll find my own views on the nature and limits of consent in sex in
this podcast. (It's a pretty lengthy discussion... about over 40 minutes.)
Ultimately, my point here is that the rights of women matter -- and they're not yet fully protected. The image at the top of this post reminds us of that. The fact that she's half-naked doesn't make her any less of a person with the absolute right to forbid another person access to her body.
That's a lesson that some people still need to learn, unfortunately.
Read more...
Tweet
Share
Stumble
Reddit
Bit.ly
