|
This thread seemed to be a little unreal to me, so I asked my sister for her take on the question. Wow, I got an irate blast back from her but not exactly what I was expecting. She said that she was sick of all the irresponsible winging of this and countless other stories of a similar nature. Her position was that women needed to grow up and deal with the reality that the world does not operate under PC rules and everyone, regardless of gender, needs to take responsibility for their own actions. She pointed out that this story really pushed the limits of believability but that several factors should be examined if one really wanted to take this seriously. First, it is not exactly a closely held secret that 16 year old girls can and routinely do look, act, and present a totally believable appearance of being very much older. Unless the fraternity demands proof of age someone could easily pass for "legal". Second, while no means no, no one should rely on this as positive protection from base instincts in circumstances that invite trouble. Take responsibility for yourself and avoid situations where trouble could be expected to happen. Also, being "drunk" is likewise not a legal defense for your actions. It is very possible that one could be well oiled and appear to be fully in command. While ignorance of actual age is not a defense as regards stat. rape the "reasonable man" approach can be a major mitigating factor. If the girl can be shown to demonstrate the poise, sophistication, and appearance of a much older woman the court can consider what the proverbial reasonable man would believe in all honesty. She referred to the Errol Flynn rape case heard in the California Superior Ct, County of LA, in 1943. Her basic annoyance is the attitude that no means no is viewed as a magic defense against anything bad happening to anyone no matter how contributory that persons actions. She believes that it is demeaning to women to maintain the attitude that the responsibility lies on the male to operate under artificial rules of PC conduct in a real and potentially dangerous situation while excusing the female any provocation so long as she just says no at any point in the proceedings. Her argument is that a woman must take full responsibility for all her actions or be relegated to the status of "the poor little thing that was taken advantage of by the big bad man". Her position is don't go voluntarily in harm's way, don't borrow trouble, be aware of circumstances, be aware of your ability (or inability) to tolerate alcohol, choose your actions (and companions) wisely and dont winge if your skirts are not clean, but if after taking full responsibility for your own actions something inappropriate still happens then nail the sob's hide to the jail house door.
I am impressed by her stance, and a bit surprised by her anger on the subject. Any thoughts on her reaction?
|