“I would define rape as having any kind of sexual relationship with someone apart from or against her or his consent.”

Sarah Moon writes here about complementarianism’s ‘ugly relationship with rape.’ She poses two questions of us bad people, and they are as follows — first, how do we define rape? And secondly, what do we propose to do about it?

Okay. I would define rape as having any kind of sexual relationship with someone apart from or against her or his consent. So far, so good, probably, but she then objects to our recognition of the possibility of varying degrees of foolishness on the part of the victim, and she interprets this recognition as somehow meaning ‘when they say they are against rape they don’t mean all rape.’
Douglas Wilson

4 Comments

  1. Douglas J. Wilson, you are a twit. A pompous twit. That is all. Oh, wait, you are a jerk, too. A pompous jerk. That is all. Oh, wait, you are a creep. A pompous creep. That is all. Oh, wait, you are a jackass. A pompous jackass cult leader. That is all.

  2. It’s the usual Wilson sleight of hand. He waves around “foolishness” (which normal, caring people would refer to as naivete, innocence, lack of guile, trust) as a red herring; meanwhile, we don’t notice that he completely exonerates the rapist, because, you see, there was foolishness involved.

    Such an odd and convenient oversight: patriarchal culture, where men are uniquely qualified to be responsible for everything, but a shocking lack of discourse about ultimate personal responsibility for men, particularly regarding sex.

ComBox

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *