Did you know, guys, that if you wear tight jeans and t-shirts (especially without an undershirt!) and you've, you know, got some "stuff" going on, that you're inviting a sexual assault!? I know! What am I doing wearing my button down shirts with my pants belted up at my waist? What am I doing wearing stylishly modest sweaters and comfortable khakis when I could be inviting some action with my attire choices?
Yesterday a Manitoba judge in Thompson ruled that a "clumsy Don Juan's" interpretation that a young girl wearing a tube top was pretty much by definition ready for his freddy (That's a new one boys! I made it up maself! Ya'll can quote me!) and so he pushed forward. Sure Justice Dewar acknowledged that "this is a case of misunderstood signals and inconsiderate behaviour" (WFP, Feb 24, 2011, McIntyre A1) and that he didn't want to appear to blame the victim, but he thought that it was his job to assess her "moral blameworthiness". Which she was, apparently. Enough to keep the accused out of prison, on a one-year curfew. He'll write a letter of apology to the victim, and his name will be placed on the National sex offender's list.
So again, because of a man's perception of an invitation that did not exist, in fact because of his inability to accurately "read" a situation with a woman, he will be molly-coddled by the courts. And more women will have to manage him and his wandering ... freddy.
There is an inherent insult to men and their intelligence in this ruling. Apparently men are unable to read "sexual situations". Apparently it's not until the police arrive at the door that they are able to understand that what they've done might have been problematic, and even then they're not sure of it. Apparently men become complete numbskulls when they see a woman wearing a tube top. Apparently men, when they hear a woman say she "wants to party" only hear "lay me down on a bed of roses and whisper sweet nothings while freddy does his thing".
Well I, for one, reject this version of male social intelligence. And I wish that once and for all the courts would stop acting as if it's their business to assess "moral" anything, and start assessing how the legal code we've agreed upon applies to the case. Twenty years ago the courts said that "implied consent" is no consent at all (WFP, Feb 24, 2011, Martin A3). That's the law. Now apply it.
There's this silly book out there named something like "Men are from Mars, and Women from Venus". It would seem to say that on matters sexual, etc. we are from different planets. Of course it's only a crappy metaphor. But ultimately it's crappy metaphors like this that somehow become legitimate excuses for lousy behaviour. In fact we all live together on the same planet. We know we (we men that is) can be, and usually are, fully capable of distinguishing between implied and actual consent. We can and do know what an invitation looks and sounds like, and what it actually means. We know that just because there's an invitation to a "party" doesn't mean I get to trash the house.
No comments:
Post a Comment