I'm very, very late to comment on this, I know. Most of what needs to be said about this case has already been said: how the media coverage was incorrectly sympathetic towards the two boys, how discussions on consent should (need to) be in every sex education class, how only "yes" means "yes," and how the rape culture is apparently so pervasive that there are even differing opinions on how this case should be treated. If there is something you don't understand about my opinions, please come talk to me: I promise not to yell at you. I will try to persuade you to think as I do.
The aspect of this case that I've struggled with the most is the level to which the coverage has focused on the fact that the victim was drunk and "put herself in this situation." It was not reported in a way that just added to the facts of the case (ex. saying this occurred in Ohio is not a charged statement), but rather in a way that put blame on someone: the victim for drinking too much, her parents for letting her go to the party, her friends for letting this happen to her, whoever provided alcohol to teenagers. It was implied that since the girl deliberately impaired her reasoning, her rape was at least partially her own fault.
I do not ever drink very much. Several of the medications I take exacerbate the effects of alcohol, and I can't really drink wine without a pretty serious headache in the next couple hours. I'll nurse a beer for about 90 minutes. I've never blacked out. I do these things because I am generally terrified of not being in control of a situation, and the sensation of being even a little tipsy is not fun for me.
That entire last paragraph? Irrelevant to a sexual assault case.
The Steubenville victim, ANY victim, is no more to blame for her rape because she was drunk than a person who wears a Rolex is to blame for being robbed. This is a terrible analogy, but it serves its purpose here: in a trial for theft, no defense is going to use "but the victim was rich and obvious about it so my client just did it!" That's not how this works. It is entirely the fault of the thief, and it is entirely the fault of the rapist.
Drunkenness cannot be used as a reason for this victim's rape, or anyone's rape: if there were no rapists, she could have been as drunk as she wanted and she would still not have been raped. The question that is continually posed is "well, didn't she put herself in this position by drinking too much?" Yes, she did, but only because rapists exist and rape occurs. If this crime didn't exist, her state of inebriation couldn't create it. Alcohol consumption by a victim doesn't somehow create a rape. And in both the courts and in our understanding of sexual assault, this is the only legitimate way to consider it.
Well said.
ReplyDelete