Bristol Palin, Slut Walks, and Responsibility for Rape
Words have meanings. In fact, many words are carefully designed to mean very specific things. The generally accepted definition of 'rape', for example, is 'to have sex with a person without that person's consent'. That, of course, leads us to the definition of consent – 'to give assent or approval'. Most generally accepted definitions of consent include the concept that one must be awake and of sound mind to consent. Consent must be an act, not an absence of dissent.
Bristol Palin insists that while her former fiance and father of her child Levi Johnson 'stole' her virginity, it was not rape. The incident, as laid out in Ms. Palin's recent autobiography, involved Ms. Palin having enough alcohol to lose consciousness, waking up the next morning to realize that Mr. Johnson had had sex with her during the night.
Ms. Palin does not claim that she gave consent. In fact, she clearly states that she was unable to do so, both in her book and in an interview with Robin Roberts of Good Morning America. And yet, such is the way society frames sexuality in young women, especially in certain religious sub-cultures, that rather than call Levi's act by what it was – rape – she insists that she is to blame. Because she got drunk in his presence.
For many years, women, both sexual assault survivors and not, have organized marches that used to be called 'Take Back the Night' walks. The message was pretty simple. Women should not have to lock themselves up to be safe from sexual assault, but should put the onus for preventing rape where it belongs – on rapists.
In May of 2011, a comment by a Toronto police officer that if women wouldn't 'dress like sluts' they wouldn't be raped led to a re-naming and wave of new demonstrations, now called 'Slut Walks', in protest of social mores that continue to put the blame for sexual assault and rape on the victim and not on the perpetrator.
Continued on the next page
Follow Technorati