Assault of the Mini-skirts
The phrase ‘consentual sex’ is quite possibly the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard; the fact that the necessecity ever existed for it to be invented is sickening. Sex, by its very definition, is consentual. Hence both participants display enthusiasm, and actively answer ‘yes’, when asked if they would care to engage in sexual contact. Okay, so perhaps I’m formalising the situation, let’s make it more reaslistic: before you tear off someone’s clothes, they’d agreed to it- that’s sex.
If at any time the other person said no, or indicated in any way that they were uncomfortable with the situation, you stop. I don’t care if they’ve led you on, if you’ve been married for years, or if they’d previously said ‘yes’, and neither will the …show more content…
(In the US, according to Rainn.org.) If the victim believes that they are to blame, they’re hardly likely to report the crime. Instead the innocent person is likely to withdraw from society, scarred with the thought of a person to whom they did not give consent touching them in the most intimate ways possible. Perhaps even more worrying (which is actually pretty impressive, takes a lot to beat that statisitic), is that 97% of cases reportably do not reach a conviction for the perpetator. So even if the victim musters up the courage to go to a police station, relive the experience though explaining the seequence of events, and is touched in a not particuarly pleasant fashion once more so that hospital staff may attempt to gather evidence of the crime- the chances of retribution actually being gained is slim. Why? Partly because of that attitude- that the victim had it coming. Be that through their choice of dress (short skirts, low cut tops), or profession (prostitues make a living out of sex, so they can’t be raped, right? Wrong.) somewhere along the line, the person is still seen to be parly to blame. And that’s
The phrase ‘consentual sex’ is quite possibly the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard; the fact that the necessecity ever existed for it to be invented is sickening. Sex, by its very definition, is consentual. Hence both participants display enthusiasm, and actively answer ‘yes’, when asked if they would care to engage in sexual contact. Okay, so perhaps I’m formalising the situation, let’s make it more reaslistic: before you tear off someone’s clothes, they’d agreed to it- that’s sex.
If at any time the other person said no, or indicated in any way that they were uncomfortable with the situation, you stop. I don’t care if they’ve led you on, if you’ve been married for years, or if they’d previously said ‘yes’, and neither will the …show more content…
(In the US, according to Rainn.org.) If the victim believes that they are to blame, they’re hardly likely to report the crime. Instead the innocent person is likely to withdraw from society, scarred with the thought of a person to whom they did not give consent touching them in the most intimate ways possible. Perhaps even more worrying (which is actually pretty impressive, takes a lot to beat that statisitic), is that 97% of cases reportably do not reach a conviction for the perpetator. So even if the victim musters up the courage to go to a police station, relive the experience though explaining the seequence of events, and is touched in a not particuarly pleasant fashion once more so that hospital staff may attempt to gather evidence of the crime- the chances of retribution actually being gained is slim. Why? Partly because of that attitude- that the victim had it coming. Be that through their choice of dress (short skirts, low cut tops), or profession (prostitues make a living out of sex, so they can’t be raped, right? Wrong.) somewhere along the line, the person is still seen to be parly to blame. And that’s