Good conversation. And now I hope everyone's got it out of their systems and we can return to a normal 30 comment OT. keep to the Fen Causeway
Hopefully Helen will have chance to put her diary together. Ad astra per aspera
two words wide all the way down.
Is Helen Mirren right about date rape? The actress stepped into a political and social minefield when she claimed date rape should not be a matter for the courts. Paul Vallely examines an issue which raises divisive issues of women's rights and personal responsibility It might be that Helen Mirren didn't quite know what she was doing when she, casually it seemed, ventured the thought that date rape was, in some circumstances not an issue for the courts but one which needed to be worked through as part of the subtle negotiations of modern gender manners. Or it may be that the award-winning actress deliberately wandered into a political minefield out of a conviction that the pendulum has swung too far on the issue. There is, controversially, a new sense of that in the air. Dame Helen's contention was that a woman who voluntarily ended up in a man's bedroom and engaged in sexual activity - but then said no to intercourse - could not seriously expect to take that man to court on a charge of rape if he ignored her last-minute insistence that she did not want full sex. That had happened to her "a couple of times" 40 years ago when she was a budding actress. She had not reported the incidents to police because "you couldn't do that in those days". And perhaps, she suggested, that was not such a bad thing. Such views violate the current orthodoxy that, when it comes to sexual consent, no means no. Women's groups and anti-rape campaigners were infuriated by the 63-year-old's views, which, they insist, hark back to a mindset that transferred the blame for rape from the rapist to the victim, by suggesting that what a woman wears, or how she behaves, can in someway mitigate the culpability of the man who violates her. It is back to the subliminal "she was asking for it" defence.
The actress stepped into a political and social minefield when she claimed date rape should not be a matter for the courts. Paul Vallely examines an issue which raises divisive issues of women's rights and personal responsibility
It might be that Helen Mirren didn't quite know what she was doing when she, casually it seemed, ventured the thought that date rape was, in some circumstances not an issue for the courts but one which needed to be worked through as part of the subtle negotiations of modern gender manners. Or it may be that the award-winning actress deliberately wandered into a political minefield out of a conviction that the pendulum has swung too far on the issue. There is, controversially, a new sense of that in the air.
Dame Helen's contention was that a woman who voluntarily ended up in a man's bedroom and engaged in sexual activity - but then said no to intercourse - could not seriously expect to take that man to court on a charge of rape if he ignored her last-minute insistence that she did not want full sex.
That had happened to her "a couple of times" 40 years ago when she was a budding actress. She had not reported the incidents to police because "you couldn't do that in those days". And perhaps, she suggested, that was not such a bad thing.
Such views violate the current orthodoxy that, when it comes to sexual consent, no means no. Women's groups and anti-rape campaigners were infuriated by the 63-year-old's views, which, they insist, hark back to a mindset that transferred the blame for rape from the rapist to the victim, by suggesting that what a woman wears, or how she behaves, can in someway mitigate the culpability of the man who violates her. It is back to the subliminal "she was asking for it" defence.
That said, the criminal system isn't particularly good at dealing with date rape. Most of the time there isn't enough evidence for prosecution. Very often the only evidence is the statement of the accuser. Given that the standard defense is that it was consensual, what this amounts to is only a single eyewitness statement that a crime took place. You can't, or at least shouldn't be able to prosecute on that basis. (If you're having difficulty with this, imagine reporting that you saw your neighbour killing someone. The police will investigate, but if they find no evidence beyond your statement they'll drop the case. It doesn't matter how credible you are, that there is no reason for you to lie, nor the character or past acts of your neighbour.)
So in practice the way of dealing with it has to be education. Not just about date rape per se, but the whole common male mindset about sex of which date rape is only the extreme manifestation. Way too many men in this (and other) societies see sex as something they're getting out of women, rather than as a very nice mutual exchange of giving and getting pleasure.
Classic, Marek, thank you. <grin> A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
I agree with Marek that one can always stop. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
