Julian Assange, Feminism, and Rape: the Debate Over Sex, Rape, and Consent.

NiceGuysSTFU · 2010-12-23T19:34:09+00:00

Really take issue with "unvictimlike behavior." Who the fuck is she or anyone else to say what is and is not appropriate behavior for someone who may have been assaulted?

Ma99ie · 2010-12-23T07:34:46+00:00

That is an awesomely reasoned piece. Why is it that the best MRA communicators happen to be women?

thetrollking · 2010-12-23T08:35:17+00:00

This was good.

Some feminists are not amused. MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann decided to suspend his Twitter account after being slammed as a "rape apologist" for tweets expressing skepticism about the charges. In The Washington Post, Jessica Valenti, a star of the feminist blogosphere, has lashed out at what she considers distorted accounts of the case while offering her own highly selective summary of the facts. Valenti thinks the real problem is "our country's overly narrow understanding of sexual assault," which falls woefully short of Sweden's far better standards.

And what is this "narrow understanding"? According to a feminist lawyer quoted by Valenti, "we're deeply wedded to the notion of rape as forcible" instead of focusing on consent. Actually, sexual intercourse without consent is virtually always a part of the legal definition of rape. But typically, American law also requires force or threat of force—though, as a result of feminist advocacy, some states have moved toward a strict construction of "no means no" so that, if a woman says no and the man doesn't stop, he can be found guilty of sexual assault even if she submits without being physically subdued or threatened with violence.

Valenti also laments that American law is mired in the archaic notion that once consensual penetration has occurred, the woman has no standing as a victim if she withdraws her consent and the man proceeds against her wishes. As evidence of just how archaic the American mindset is, she asserts that in 2007, Maryland's Court of Special Appeals not only upheld this doctrine but also explained in its ruling that "anything after the initial 'deflowering' of a woman couldn't be rape because 'the damage was done' to her virginity," and that the injured party wasn't even the woman herself but the "responsible male"—father or husband.

It seems unbelievable that any U.S. court would use such reasoning in the 21st Century. And, in fact, it didn't: Valenti's quotes are from a passage in which the court describes (but certainly doesn't endorse) historical attitudes toward rape. The court did rule that rape is not committed when consent is given and later withdrawn, but solely on the grounds that this interpretation was rooted in legal tradition and should be changed through legislative action, not judicial mandate.

Considering that the writer is a feminist it's interesting to see her take other feminists, the more rabid ones, to task. I still disagree with her though. I think rape should be defined in a way that the victim should be expected to fight back. WTF does it say about rape as a crime if people are all too willing to sit back and let it pass?

Title	Julian Assange, Feminism, and Rape: the Debate Over Sex, Rape, and Consent.
Author	Username8888
Upvotes	7
Comments	5
Date	December 23, 2010 7:21 AM UTC (15 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/eqbpn/julian_assange_feminism_and_rape_the_debate_over/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/julian-assange-feminism-and-rape-the-debate-over.1045004 https://theredarchive.com/post/1045004

Comments