Rape equals rape

A school friend shared a picture on Facebook that I found very poignant. I disagreed with the action but completely agreed with the sentiment. A topless woman (certain parts whited out before being uploaded) had the words Still not asking for it written across her chest. I don’t really agree with the topless protesting part but like the effectiveness and simple truthfulness of her message. I believe that people should dress and act modestly. But regardless of a person’s actions and state of dress, be they male or female, no one ‘is asking for’ sex unless they actually, you know, actually confirm that they want to, preferably by using their voice or the sign language equivalent. Anything outside of that is rape, plain and simple, regardless of a person was flirting or half-naked or had even had sex with that person before. No equals no, an inability to say no or think clearly equals no, and rape equals rape.

The way to stop rape isn’t for potential victims, both male and female, to take preventative measures like being careful with what they wear and not walking home alone at night. It’s good to be aware of the risks of different actions and to behave accordingly. But rape is always, every single time, completely and utterly the rapist’s fault. It’s never the victim’s fault. The way to stop rape is stopping rapists. I don’t expect that the poster in the link I’m about to share will stop people raping others, partially because most rapes are by someone you know and partially because it’s not that simple. But I think it’s brilliant at pointing out just how convoluted our thinking has become if society is willing to even consider blaming a victim for something that was inflicted on them. If someone’s front door was slightly ajar because they were running to their neighbour’s house to help with something and it didn’t close properly behind them and someone snuck into their house and burgled it, would we blame the victim or the thief? We might say that the owner should take precautionary measures like shutting and locking their doors, but the thief still, of his own free will, snuck in and stole the items. Similarly, it doesn’t matter whether a woman is wearing revealing clothing or a man was fine with kissing but not with sex. The other person might be tempted by the clothes or by the stimulation but at the end of the day sex requires two people saying yes, just like giving someone your TV requires two people saying yes, and forcing sexual contact on another person is a much more serious offense than nicking a TV.

 

The poster: http://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/campaigns/10-top-tips-to-end-rape/

Friendzoning? More like friendno-ing! (Yeah, lame. I know.)

I hate the concept of ‘friendzoning’.  It is essentially complaining that someone just wants to be your friend and is not physically attracted to you. Why not just appreciate the fact that they do like you enough to want to be your friend, rather than that they don't like you the way you want them to? In my opinion, someone who complains about being friendzoned isn't really that person's friend as they're just waiting until a boy or girl is added to that friend instead of actually appreciating the platonic bond they share.

The term implies that people have the right to expect anyone they’re friends with to consider dating them at some point in time. I understand the frustration and disappointment over being friendzoned – in a platonic way, I guess it’s kind of like my friendship with my ex-friend, as I wanted a different depth and reliability of friendship than she did – but hate when people complain about it. Should my best friends and I complain that we’re not attracted to each other’s sex and so will never be together in that way? What if you’ve considered the possibility of dating that person on a theoretical level but just don’t like them? Does that count as friendzoning because from the other person’s perspective you haven’t given them ‘a chance’? If you have a boyfriend/girlfriend and you make a new friend, are you obligated to reflect on whether they'd make a good boyfriend/girlfriend instead of just being happy with the loving relationship that you're already in? Are people who complain about being friendzoned suggesting that the friendzoner should just date anyone who is their friend even if they don’t see them as potential life partners, just because no one should be relegated to the horrific role of ‘friend’? I mean, who wants to be a friend? Who even has friends?

Friends suck. Or at least, the concept of friendzoning would have us believe they do.

 

It's even more denigrating to the concept of friendship as the idea that liking someone in a romantic way is liking them as 'more than friends', when it's really just liking them 'different than friends'. Friendship is just as important as romantic interest, and I'd argue that it's more important. I want romance and a romantic relationship. I need friends and human interaction on a platonic level. I would never consider marrying a man who I would not also consider a close friend.

Rant time over.

 

So, apparently I’ve felt strongly about this for a little while, because while looking through notes on my phone I found another draft post on this topic, except on 8 January 2013 instead of May 2012. I'll include it here because it's short and makes the point about the idea of blame, although I think the above version is much more developed.

 

The concept of the friendzone irks me exceedingly (I’ve been rereading Anne of Green Gables, hence the language). Essentially, it’s just a way of saying that you have unrequired feelings for someone with whom you are friends. But whereas ‘unrequited feelings’ implies that it’s a shame, ‘friendzone’ somehow creates blame where there need not be any, suggesting that the other person not being willing or able to see you as ‘more than a friend’ is wrong. And how is it determined who is wrong in the situation? Couldn’t the person with the unrequired feelings be equally wrong? Does that mean that I was ‘friendzoned’ in year nine when I had a secret crush on a friend of mine? Was it wrong of him not to like me back, despite the fact that he had a lot of other male and female friends (and ended up coming out two or three years later)? Or was it wrong of me to like him and not tell him?

Foudroyant(e)

While looking up a word from my French textbook, I came across the word ‘foudroyant(e)’, which immediately struck me as an interesting and strangely attractive word. It's not like "inoubliable", which has history for me, or "soixante", which just sounds beautiful, but there was something about it that meant I felt that I had to find out what it means, a phrase that I am hesitant to use after my lecturer's "French and English are not the same" explanation but will still do so as I was searching for its meaning, it's just that the most basic form of that is an attempted direct translation to English.
 
Its meaning? Lightning (progress)/stunning (success)/violent (illness, poison).  The idea of the same word meaning lightning, stunning and violent (I didn’t contextualise them at first and so assumed it meant the noun and the adjectives in general) seemed fitting. After all, what is lightning but a beautiful-from-a-distance-but-crazy-scary-up-close phenomenon? It makes even more sense when contextualised – something describing speed, forceful/even aggressive impressiveness (after all, literally stunning someone would be an aggressive act) and striking out. There’s not really a point to this, except for an observation on lightning: it’s fast and it’s aggressive and it’s uniquely beautiful. The noun to which this French word does not apply is aptly described by all facets of said word's meaning. At least as far as the facets presented by my dictionary.

Edited (from notes on phone from 6 March):
I was thinking about the word foudroyant again when getting ready for bed last night and realised that my conclusion about how foudroyant aptly describes lightning is wrong for the express reason that stunning is contextualised to mean success, and so it's expressly not the literal hit-you-over-the-head-and-stun-you type, and so I was making the aforementioned mistake of comparing English and French too much. I knew that foudroyant didn't refer to stunning blows or violent in the sense of a human or action being violent, although it could refer to the rapidity of progress. I understood the word, but then took its English approximations. Linking them to the noun lightning was fine, but I then stated how foudroyant doesn't mean lightning but aptly describes it, when really it doesn't mean it but the other meanings of its English approximations aptly describe it.

Uni

I’ve started uni! I love it so far. The environment, both academic and physical, is wonderful. The two courses I’ve been to so far have been amazing. There aren’t any people in the courses (at least not in the one today) that are there when they don’t want to be. They chose that degree and those courses and they’re fully aware of the cost.

On the downside, though, uni makes me really sleepy. I was yawning repeatedly just ten minutes ago. I was planning on doing French preparation and revision tonight, as well as some other general things like finding some stuff that I packed away last year and reading, but am way too tired to attempt it now. Which is surprising because, hey, 9:20.

I might try to get two of the general things done before turning in.