So, I am doing this report on rape. The project involves an analysis of the judgements for the last few years to track a trend in the decisions.
As women, we all know about how 'safe' cops can make us feel. And then they came out in public (ummm) and revealed themselves in a way they had never done before. It was splashed all over the newspaper and became a hot topic on the internet.
But all this did not come a shock to me. We have been battling this mindset for very long now. What has actually shocked me is the mindset of the legal system. Lawyers blatantly arguing about how a 16 year could not be raped because she is 'habitual to sexual intercourse'and thus a 'girl of easy virtue' and judges reducing sentences of convicts on the ground that an 18 year old could not be mature enough to know about the implications of having sex with a minor.
Rape is a crime. And the legal system is in place to protect the rights of the victim. But when did this happen? When did the victim become the one who was on trial?
We live in a patriarchal and misogynistic society. But shouldn't we draw the line somewhere? When do we learn that a crime is a crime is a crime and it makes no difference whether the victim is a virgin or a sex worker.
"If a shopkeeper is selling a vegetable for Rs. 100 and someone comes along and pays Rs. 50 for that vegetable and takes it and runs away, its called stealing. Similarly, if a woman agrees to sex for an X amount and the man pays less, it is rape", said a very well known activist to me. And it really is that simple. Consent under fraud is no consent.
But to explain this to the archaic people 'running' legal system, is impossible.
And then there is ever popular argument of the character of the woman. We live in 2012! Woman have sex before marriage. Does that mean that we all want to be raped? And why does a man's character not come into question? Why does the victim have to go through weird medical examinations of checking how many fingers can be inserted into her vagina and whether she is habitual to sexual intercourse while the sexual history of the accused is never discussed?
A rape victim is asked questions like whether is orgasmed during the rape! I mean a question like that is perversive at so many different levels! To start with, someone please tell our lawyers and judges that rape is not a sexual act, it is a crime of violence. Its not about the sexual act. Its about a man violating a woman's body. Its not about a penis entering a vagina, its a 'person' forcing another against her will.
The more I read these judgements, the more I get disgusted. This is not how is supposed to be. This was never how it was supposed to be. I was suppose to be able to walk freely on the roads not looking behind by back every 2 mins or squirming every time a man walks past me.
As women, we all know about how 'safe' cops can make us feel. And then they came out in public (ummm) and revealed themselves in a way they had never done before. It was splashed all over the newspaper and became a hot topic on the internet.
But all this did not come a shock to me. We have been battling this mindset for very long now. What has actually shocked me is the mindset of the legal system. Lawyers blatantly arguing about how a 16 year could not be raped because she is 'habitual to sexual intercourse'and thus a 'girl of easy virtue' and judges reducing sentences of convicts on the ground that an 18 year old could not be mature enough to know about the implications of having sex with a minor.
Rape is a crime. And the legal system is in place to protect the rights of the victim. But when did this happen? When did the victim become the one who was on trial?
We live in a patriarchal and misogynistic society. But shouldn't we draw the line somewhere? When do we learn that a crime is a crime is a crime and it makes no difference whether the victim is a virgin or a sex worker.
"If a shopkeeper is selling a vegetable for Rs. 100 and someone comes along and pays Rs. 50 for that vegetable and takes it and runs away, its called stealing. Similarly, if a woman agrees to sex for an X amount and the man pays less, it is rape", said a very well known activist to me. And it really is that simple. Consent under fraud is no consent.
But to explain this to the archaic people 'running' legal system, is impossible.
And then there is ever popular argument of the character of the woman. We live in 2012! Woman have sex before marriage. Does that mean that we all want to be raped? And why does a man's character not come into question? Why does the victim have to go through weird medical examinations of checking how many fingers can be inserted into her vagina and whether she is habitual to sexual intercourse while the sexual history of the accused is never discussed?
A rape victim is asked questions like whether is orgasmed during the rape! I mean a question like that is perversive at so many different levels! To start with, someone please tell our lawyers and judges that rape is not a sexual act, it is a crime of violence. Its not about the sexual act. Its about a man violating a woman's body. Its not about a penis entering a vagina, its a 'person' forcing another against her will.
The more I read these judgements, the more I get disgusted. This is not how is supposed to be. This was never how it was supposed to be. I was suppose to be able to walk freely on the roads not looking behind by back every 2 mins or squirming every time a man walks past me.