Part 3 of the Idiocy of the Article on the Registry!

I am a little late to the party on this one! I just thought I would look at the much discussed column from another perspective. Such an article exemplifies almost every common myth society has with regards to the issue of sexual violence. This peice was strategically written starting and ending with logical and respectable comments hiding the true emotional and uneducated section in the middle. Every sentence contained within the middle section is rooted in myth and a misunderstanding (or perhaps a complete lack thereof) of the definitions of the words used. This sentence, in particular:

"The college student who finds himself up on charges the night after a drunken party because a female partygoer sobered up and decided what happened between them wasn't consensual after all, is not a sex offender whose name should appear in the registry."

Essentially, what it is stating is that women are "floozies" and simply "decide" when to accuse someone of sexual assault as if it were a common pastime. Such a statement is rooted in the myth that women falsely accuse men of sexual assault all the time, when in reality false reporting for sexual assault is no different than that for any other major crime. A simple google search would have told you that!

Not only does this statement undermine women, but it also excuses the behaviors of those who would take advantage of such a situation. Additionally, it provides perpetrators with a preying ground where they won't be held accountable for their actions. Just because such an assault wasn't in a secluded back alley and alcohol was in the mix, doesn't make it any less of an assault.

"The creep who drags a woman passerby into a dark alley and rapes her, however, most definitely is."

It is hard to not laugh when you realize the complete ignorance of the author of this article. Once again, we have a statement that is based on complete myth. Most sexual assaults are committed by someone the survivor/victim knows. Essentially what is being stated is that if this so called "creep" sexually assaults someone they know in a well lit area, it would be less heinous than if they attacked someone they didn't know in a dark alley. We should all know that these "creeps" live in complete isolation with no relations to the so called "non creeps" of society.

"Clear, concise wording should be used, including a return to the use of the word "rape."Rape should not be able to hide behind the facade of sexual assault."

Time warp back to the 1980's when wives could not be raped by their husbands, only women could be victims of rape, and rape didn't include anything other than intercourse. Before Bill C-127 was passed, the rights of everyone were taken away regarding the use of the word "rape." Women could be forced to do sexual acts that did not involve intercourse and men simply could not be sexually assault.

"The rapist belongs in the registry, the teen who gropes a girl on a dare or the aforementioned intoxicated partygoer does not."

The most bothersome part of this statement is the fact that the writer is condoning sexual violence if it was done as part of a "dare." If someone was dared to go poke somebody's eye out and did so, would that not be considered assault? Then why is it any different when it involves sexual contact? It is really troublesome to think that people in our society still see nothing wrong with such behaviour. The humiliation, embarrassment and emotional impact on the survivor of such an immature act is completely disregarded.

This article articulates almost every myth around the issue of sexual violence. A couple minutes of research would have shown the author that!