Some additional thoughts relative to the issue I addressed in yesterday’s Hollywood: Go Polanski Yourself.
The most often heard argument in the defense of a rapist is that the victim of the rape “wanted it.” And the “proof” most often offered in support of that vile contention is the rape victim’s history of sexual promiscuity.
So let’s be real clear about this: Just because in the past you’ve shared your money doesn’t mean it’s now okay for anyone to rob you. That’s the reasoning behind why in a rape case the victim’s sexual history is not admissible as evidence. The law recognizes that nothing you’ve ever done of your own free will excuses another person robbing you of that will. The fact that in the past a person ate fast foods doesn’t give anyone the right to force-feed that person fast foods.
And never ever forget: Rape is not about sex. By its definition rape can only ever be about one thing: the sustained, conscious and purposeful execution of the worst kind of violence. It’s about the purely evil need of one person to control and humiliate a weaker person (and, of course, to not get caught doing it).
A rapist doesn’t get off on sex. He gets off on making his victim beg, cry, and scream in pain. Confusing rape with sex is like confusing getting pushed off a building with flying in an airplane. Don’t ever confuse rape with sex, even in jest.