Rape: Is She to Blame?

After reading last months Cosmopolitan I became very angry over one article I read. It was titled, 'The police didnt believe I was raped - because I was drunk.'

It later went on to say that in many cases, victim vs attacker, they almost always told the victim that there was no point in going to court because there was nothing they could do. It was her word against his. I am very strong on the view point that as soon as a person calls it rape, it is in fact rape. There are no ums-and-ers, it is a fact, she has been raped. One account from a 32 year old woman, Danielle discovered that she had been raped after a night out with her friends. The doctors and police agreed that she had been drug-raped which accounted for her blackouts and her occasional flash backs of the night. She remembered, "someone touching me , while I said, 'No', sobbing uncontrollably."

Because Danielle couldnt remember consenting, and the fact that her attacker had told an officer working on her case that it was her idea to have sex, and that she said that she did that kind of thing all time; was what caused the officers working on her case to dismiss it as consented sex and now rape, and believed the rapist over the victim. This made me feel ill. In my opinion, if Danielle said she had been raped, she had been raped.

It doesnt matter whether she was drunk, or flirted or wore provocative clothing. A woman has the choice to wear what she wants and talk to whomever she wants. A woman also has the choice to decide whether or not to have sex and if she doesn't consent and the man takes action anyway, this is rape. Plain and simple. There have been other stories in news papers with headlines such as, "Juries reject rape claims if the woman was drunk," and "Why a drunk woman may not be able to claim rape." These headlines are unjust, Danielle's case shows that she was drugged to be raped, others have their drinks spiked with any concoction of drugs to then become raped. Whether she was drinking or not shouldn't matter. This also makes the case that should a woman not drink on a night out encase she gets raped but can't claim it if she had been drinking? When womens rights are starting to become more and more equal with mens should we take a stepback and say never drink on a night out encase you are raped? When men can drink as much as they like?

Other news papers have also said that if the woman is wearing tight jeans that it cannot be rape as she would have to have pulled her jeans down and thus causing her to consent. This is completely wrong and sending out all the wrong messages to judges and juries. If a rapist can take the time to push a woman to the floor, overpower her and rape her, then in my opinion he can be bothered to spend an extra 30 seconds pulling down her tight jeans; or just ripping them.

One case near to where I live had a man rape a girl, take her clothes and left her hiding, crying, freezing cold over night in a bush to be found the next day. If this man can do this to another human being im sure he isnt going to think twice about what she was wearing.

Other reports are that if a woman flirts or wears provocative clothing that she is more likely to be raped. That she deserves it and is just seducing the men with her clothing. Again I completely disagree. Women can and should wear whatever they like. It is a way of expressing who she is and what she is about. If a woman went out without a bra and a tank top, does that automatically mean that she is wearing a sandwich board crying out, 'come rape me'? No ofcourse it doesn't so why should this stand up in court as a reason the man raped her? These are all reasons, that papers have fuelled, that are keeping rapsits out of prison and free to commit more crimes, get away with it once, more than likely to do it again in my view.

They say that more often than not is someone that you know who rapes you. Not a stranger at all, however it is only these cases that really only ever get heard. In the News of the World on the 11th October the front page headline was, 'Sheryl Gazza forced me to have sex.' The story then continued to pages 4 and 5, where another headline read, 'Gazza wanted sex 10 times a day...even if i said NO.' Sheryl said in the report that she wouldnt call it rape, as she consented at other times to sex but looking back it was a form of sexual abuse. This is another point that stands up in court and gets the rapist off of jail time.

If a person is in a long term relationship with someone, if they don't consent to sex, is it rape? My opinion flickers on this point. With the Story from the News of the World I would have to say that i do think that it is rape as she didnt consent. I would also say that if a woman doesn't consent in a short term relationship it is still rape. However I know that there are some women out there that will have a relationship with a man for who-knows how long but if it finished sourly, they cry rape, thus getting revenge upon their ex. It is for this reason that juries, judges, news papers even doubt the victim in the first place. These very few women that cry rape just as the little boy called wolf, is the reason that make people doubt victims and that helping rapists get-off scott free.

At the end of the day I will always be on the side of the woman. There is no reason for a woman to be raped, none at all. There are accusations that pose the woman as a liar and that she is just trying to bring down the man but I believe that this is in no way true, until completely proven with major evidence, I will always side with the woman. I will always believe the woman over the man and not ever will I blame the woman.

Eillen Maitland of Rape Crisis Scotland created some eye-catching posters, and an awesome website, check it out, www.thisisnotaninvitationtorapeme.co.uk