And people wonder why I’m so pissed of all of the time.
I can’t decide which news article pissed me off more this morning. Please, help me decide. We’ve been over both of these problems before, but clearly they need to be revisited.
First up is this NY Times article:
Prosecutors plan to dismiss the case against a federal prosecutor who committed suicide in a Michigan prison after being accused of traveling there from Florida to have sex with a 5-year-old girl, the authorities said Monday.
No, I’m not pissed off either that the defendant killed himself (though that sucks) or that they are now dismissing the case (what the hell else are they going to do?). I’m pissed off at the implication that you can have sex with a five-year-old. Because you can’t. No, it’s not just wrong to have sex with a five-year-old. It’s impossible to have sex with a five-year-old. It is only possible to rape a five-year-old.
I know, difficult stuff, telling the difference between “sex” and “rape.” Both involve penis in a vagina (since gay people never have sex and straight people never have sex without intercourse, and of course it’s not really rape unless intercourse occurs because, duh, it wouldn’t really be sex!), right? What’s the difference?
Hmm, well according to the BBC, the difference is that rape happens because women drink.
Rape warning over binge drinking
Women in Northern Ireland are leaving themselves vulnerable to rape or serious sexual assault because of their binge drinking, according to a report.
. . . “This research confirms the findings of other studies in the UK, US and Australia – that alcohol is a major contributor to vulnerability to sexual assault in social situations and acquaintance rape,” Dr Hall said.
Uh, no, doctor, women drinking does not contribute to their vulnerability to rape. Being around a rapist increases women’s vulnerability to rape. You see, in college, I was drunk many times. I’ve been drunk in public, around both strangers and male friends and acquaintances. I’ve even been drunk and on a train– one time, by myself. Not black-out drunk or pass-out drunk, but definitely drunk. I was never raped. But if I had been raped, it wouldn’t have been because I made myself “vulnerable” by drinking. It would have been because there was a rapist around.
Here’s a better headline: Rapists in Northern Ireland prey on women who binge drink. And instead of the BBC calling it a “warning” to women, how about we “warn” men to not rape women — even when they’ve been drinking?
Oh, wait, that would blame men for rape. Damn. And I really thought that we were onto something, there.
So folks, which will it be? The implication that it’s possible for a man to “have sex” with a five-year-old girl, or the implication that women are raped because they’re drinking? They’re both oldies, and yet still so relevant to modern times (that’s the true sign of a classic). You be the judge.
UPDATE: My all time favorite troll-rebutalist Roy responds to Jack. Yup, it took a whole separate post. Check it out.