Using my Unholy Powers and Devastating Legal Mind…

Posted: November 4, 2010 in Rants, Sexism, Slut Shaming & Whorephobia, The Hardline According to Ren

ha.  hahahahaahha.

I shall now take down the stupidest defense for rape….ever.

“The She’s A Slut Defense”

I need no unholy powers or devastating legal skills for this one.

Ahem. As a general rule, it is assumed that if one is a slut, they like sex  Possibly with lots of people.  However, lots of people may not include Mr.X.  So, if Mr.X has sex with Slut Y when she did NOTwant it with him- thats rape.  However, Mr.X and his lawyers will then drag Slut Y’s sexual history into it- the media too….but, in a world that was rational or sane, Slut Y’s sexual history would work in her favor….

What?  Quit giving me that look.  I’m RIGHT here…wanna know why?

Because if Slut Y is, you know, a slut, and all these numerous seedy and shocking trysts of hers can be shown in a court of law- its should be an huge indicator of something:  Slut Y is often, as they say (cough) on “the Jersey Shore”, “DTF”.  It means she has, of her own will and everything, had lots of sex.  Which MEANS, if she is accusing Mr. X of raping her…he probably did.  She’s prolly being dang serious, because it was NOT just another notch on the belt one night stand blah blah blah.  Slut Y, who is generally good with and has fun with the whole sex thing- and has a rep for it- is saying NO, It Wasn’t Like That, I was Not DTF (even if I usually am), there is something wrong here…because, yeah, I might say yes a lot- hell, my rep and all these other people say so- but to Mr. X?  I said NO.  I’ve said yes to Jim, and Mike, and George, and Artie, I’ve said yes to Jose, and Fred and Carl and Hank.  I’ve said yes to Dave and Stan and Mitch….but to Mr. X, I said no. 

An uncommon occurance. 

Slut Y’s m.o. and history of yes should work in her favor, because when Slut Y says no…well hell, there has got to be a reason, her no is (via witness statements!) not a common thing…so when she does say no???

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, consider that.

The Prosecution Rests….

  1. rootietoot says:

    And Mr. X’s argument is “she said yes to everyone else, how could she possibly say no to me, look at me, I’m a Stud Horse. Everyone other woman wants me, so she must as well.” phphpt. Or “she was wearing a short skirt and a tight shirt, of course she wanted it.” or “she made (some sort of nebulous and unverifiable) gestures that led me on”

    Now, I think there are women who tease. I think there are men who interpret teasing as a signal that the woman is willing. There are also men who can’t tell the difference between teasing (and flirting) and a genuine come-on. It would seem that it is in man’s best interest to assume “no” until the woman says “yes”. It also seems that it would be in the woman’s best interest to be aware of the effect her behavior is having on the the man, especially if she doesn’t know the man and how he’s likely to respond. Maybe I’ll get yelled at for victim blaming there, but you don’t poke a dog with a stick if you don’t know the dog. Maybe one day all men will behave predictably and in a gentlemanly manner toward women, but we aren’t there yet.

  2. Gaina says:

    Elementary my dear Ren, makes perfect sense to me.

    I can’t even begin to unravel the entirely fucked-up logic behind delving into the victims’ sexual history (and/or choice of dress) as an accepted response when someone states – in no uncertain terms – that they have been voilated .

  3. Sheniver says:

    It made perfect sense to me. Not sure if that’s a good thing or not?

  4. Lord Sodit says:

    What’s a ‘slut’ anyway? Most people except a few churchgoers would probably think of sexual promiscuity as only one part of whole range of “Who gives a shit?” attitudes to everything and everybody. Somebody like that might be very careless about the same sort of shitheads they knock around with but if she doesn’t feel like at and he does, she’s likely to put up a fight about it – and for a promiscuous woman that’s going to be unusual!#

    The only exception I can see is the borderline case that happens when anybody falls in with a crowd that’s out of their depth, too drunk to know what’s really going on and everybody else is up for it so they’re just assumed to part of the same ‘fun crowd’ when they’re not. In that case, showing it wasn’t her usual style might support her.

    I can’t say I’ve ever understood the attraction of sex with somebody that doesn’t want it. Even if she is just plain indifferent to get it over with or says she wants it but might as well be a blow-up doll, that’s a mighty turn-off.

    I find it very interesting that the only people who’ve argued ferociously that I must be some sort of pervert for feeling that way and as long as there’s something that can vaguely be called ‘consent’ (like a lack of actual objection) it’s perfectly normal to want sex knowing the other isn’t interested – those people call themselves ‘feminists’. I guess that’s the ‘feminist’ image of Big Bad Men stomping all over poor little women!

  5. Personally, I wouldn’t give a rat’s ass if a woman had sex willingly with one person or the entire Washington Redskins footbal team. If she said NO, and the guy took it from her anyway, it’s still rape.

    As long as she can prove direct physical injury and direct coercion, her sexual history shouldn’t even be of concern. Only rape defenders and stupid dipshits (or sex-haters) would attempt to play that card.

    Besides..why not bring in HIS sexual history, then?? If he has a history of assaulting and coercively hittting on women, why should she get all the blame??


    • Ren says:

      AK, there are no qualifaications to my sumation.

      • OK, I may need to rephrase myself.

        I never said that there shoud be any qualifications whatsoever. If a woman was physically assaulted sexually, it is rape. If a man violates her against her will, it is rape. Even if she initialy says “Yes”, but then changes her mind and changes to :No”, if he continues against her will, it is rape. Full. Freakin’. Stop.

        My point was that the “but she’s a SLUT!!: defense has no legitimacy for me, and that anyone using that defense to defend rape is nothing short of a woman hater and sexual fascist.

        Sorry for the confusion.


  6. Roy Kay says:

    I do think history can matter – but only if it’s a history of making a lot of accusations. Then you have to wonder about the veracity of someone who seems to accuse a lot of people of rape.

    But for a slut as a slut? I totally concur with the prosecution.

  7. Xena says:

    This is why it’s always good for a girl to do some damage to prove her no means no. “She’s a slut” means shit when the lady has what’s left of the rapist’s bloody chewed off stump of a nose in her pocket. “Yeah, officer. Here’s some DNA evidence for you.” And no pointing to the wrong guy in the lineup. How could anybody mistake the noseless creep for anybody but the noseless creep?

  8. Caroline says:

    Bravo 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s