In the introduction for Chapter 10, ‘Resisting Violence Against Women’ the authors discuss the issue of rape in society as well as other violence done to women and men by other men. One particular sentence early on in the passage grabbed my attention, it was: “Recent laws such as rape shield laws, which prevent a victim’s sexual history from being used by defense attorneys, and various state reform laws have helped survivors” (504). I never realized that a woman’s sexual history could have ever been used to excuse a rapist. The idea just blows my mind. There were people that existed, that had brains and could think, that had sisters and wives and mothers, people who believed that a woman’s prior sexual history somehow made it seem like she was asking to be raped. I remember hearing things like “Oh yeah, she really gets around”, yeah but with people she wanted to! I can understand how people can be ignorant and have disgusting opinions like that, but the legal system? What if the woman was married? What if she was a child? And what was the case if a man came to court after being raped by another man? Would his prior history be taken into question? Or would he just be shamed into silence. These laws weren’t federalized until 1994 with the Violence Against Women Act. 1994!! That’s the year before I was born! The idea that there were people of the law with the believe that just because someone enjoys sex must mean that they enjoy it with anyone and everyone is barbaric. It makes me nauseous just thinking about how many rapists went free just because their victim had multiple partners in the past. I’m happy the issue is resolved, but what on earth took so long?
No comments:
Post a Comment