[BRIEF NOTE] The base logic of rape

[rfmcdonald]

The unfortunate acquittal of South African politician Jacob Zuma today on charges of rape has highlighted some rather unfortunate attitudes towards women, noted earlier today in The Globe and Mail by Stephanie Nolen.

Mr. Zuma himself testified that earlier in the day [of the rape], the complainant had met with him wearing a knee-length skirt, and crossed her legs so that he could see part of her leg above the knee. Both father and daughter testified that these were obvious signs, in their culture, that she sought to have sex with him.

Mr. Zuma also testified that when he was in bed talking to the alleged victim, he could tell that she was aroused, and therefore he was obliged to have sex with her, notwithstanding their age difference, her HIV status or his wives (he is reported to have three). "In Zulu culture," he said, "you don't just leave a woman . . . she will have you arrested and say you are a rapist."

[. . . T]he bulk of working-class people responding to opinion polls or call-in radio shows, particularly those who are also ethnic Zulus, agreed with his interpretation of culture and said a young woman who wore a knee-length skirt to his house has no business alleging rape.

Operating on the basis of this unlovely logic, I suppose that I myself could grab a guy off the street and rape him, pointing out later that the stupid whore was obviously asking for it since he was (say) wearing knee-high shorts and didn't fight back. "What else could I honourably do?"

I wouldn't do this, of course, not least because I like my partners to be fully consenting. Tears and the infliction of violence don't turn me on. For those people who are interested in this for whatever reason--say, for the people who, as mawombat noted believe that women who don't wear the headscarf are inviting rape, are perhaps even fair game--the appeal of Zuma's logic is obvious.

Isn't it funny how well profound contempt for other people can work out so conveniently for oneself?