This is a guest blog submitted by sleepyhead.Oscar winner Helen Mirren (The Queen), has confirmed that she was date
raped and used cocaine repeatedly when she was younger.
In an interview with
Britain's GQ Magazine, Mirren said that women should not take a man to
court after a date rape; instead they should
deal with it together. Her definition of rape is when the couple
has already engaged in sexual behavior and the woman says "no" at the
last minute. I think many would disagree with her statement, and she's been taking a lot of flak for her comments.
According
to the Justice Department, date rape is a touchy subject because of
laws that allow media to publish names of the victims. Many do not
report or take their assailants to court because they would have to go
through becoming a victim a second time, scrutinized by the public and
media.
I think Helen Mirren was simply saying that women
shouldn't take men to court because it won't do any good; it will only
smudge their reputations and plaster their faces as rape victims. Her
words were taken out of context by the media and made it sound like as
if she is rationalizing date rape. As a rape victim herself, I think
she had a pretty good perspective on what a woman should or should not
do.
Do you agree with Helen? Should date rape go unreported because it will further embarrass the victim? How do you define date rape?
Comments (32)
@mommygirls@xanga - Agreed, it's unfair to work someone up, making them think they're going to get some, and then say no at the last minute and call it rape. It's like aggrivated assault, really. And while it's not right, it ISN'T putting a roofie in someone's martini and dragging their passed out body to your hotel room to doodle with.
Maybe it is the law and the culture over there that shapes her opinion, as well as her experiences. Here it is illegal for the media to reveal the name of the victim unless they give their consent. I would advise against telling women not to go to the police, because that compounds the shame they feel and that nobody will help them. But my case is different. I was raped, and I went to the police. However, the police didn't do squat to the man who did it, and said because of the conflicting accounts of what happened, the only thing I could do was get restraining order. I've since moved and have no intention of moving back.
i think that the issue of when is the right time to say "no" is not as simple as people want to make it out to be.
imagine being in that position where you're making out with someone, other acts are involved, and things move along very quickly, which can easily happen. you may not have time to say "no" until the last minute, it may not even register right away where such acts are leading to. while it's not optimal and i don't recommend someone put themselves in this position, let's not pretend that we're all perfect and we could never find ourselves faced with this dilemma. it can very easily happen.
even though it's hard to stop, we all have free will (even men), even when faced with powerful sexual energy. the bottom line is that no is no regardless of when it's said, and if a guy decides not to listen and go ahead and do it anyway, that's still rape. the choice was still his to make to do what is right morally and under the law or make the wrong choice.
to me, this is under the same category of excusing men for rape if women dress provocatively..."oh the woman brought it on herself and the man couldn't control his urges." whatever, it's a crock of bull. there is no talking it out once that line between legality and criminality is crossed. we need to get away from the "blaming the victim" mentality and look at such crimes for what they are, placing the blame with the rapist where it belongs.
"No means no" isn't just a fun, catchy slogan.
If at ANY point EITHER partner says "no" and/or "stop" then you MUST stop. Otherwise, in my opinion and in the definition of several sexual assault policies, it is constituted as rape regardless of whether drugs/alcohol was involved or whether penetration occurred prior to the 'no'.
No MEANS No.
I think Mirren's view is just really old-fashioned. It's like what might happen decades ago in Asia, where the girl's parents drags her over to confront the rapist and get him to marry her to avoid a public scandal.
I also don't think that someone's being raped or having whatever else happen to her necessarily means that she knows best what any woman "should or should not do [in that situation]".
i think even if society is going to be stupid and ridicule the woman, it is a good idea for her to turn in the guy, because it is what he deserves, and it may possibly prevent him from hurting or raping anyone else. however, i think every situation is different and it is entirely up to the woman.
I think officially it's basically you already know the guy and he rapes you, which does cover Helen's definition. I think she's pretty right there, just coz the law is in place does not mean it is effective and neither does it mean it is the best solution to a problem because of resources etc.
but then again, take him to court if he's not properly remorseful or something, try to get justice the official way if u can't do it yourself
(go legal studies and some lecture we had in yr 10 =P)