The gatekeepers of sex.

Note that the situation that prompted this woman's blog entry quoted below was not between strangers, but acquaintances. It involved a 'friendly cuddle' that turned sexual on the part of the man in the situation. With that, on to the story...

According to one woman who's blog I have read:

"In our culture we raise women with this belief that they are the gatekeepers of sex. It is our responsibility at all times to hold the gates shut, and it's a man's role to try to storm the gates. The problem is that when a man forces himself on a woman, she feels like it's her fault for not holding the gates tighter. It's her fault for not screaming. It's her fault for not getting up and running away. It's her fault for not hitting him. It's her fault for "giving in" to the insistent pressure. But it isn't. The fault is SOLELY with the person putting the pressure on in the first place."


Here we have someone mixing ideas to get the message she feels comfortable with, which is: "I am not responsible for things that happen to me; I have no way of responding to the world around me; someone else is necessary to tell me what to do in any given situation."

Oh, please. This person complains in another section of this blog entry that society is raising women in outdated sexist roles, and yet uses similar outdated arguments as to why a woman, as the weaker, need-a-man-to-take-care-of-me creature, can't take responsibility for herself.

Everyone is the "gatekeeper" of their own sexuality, men included. If you don't want to have sex with someone, and they force themselves on you,

*then it becomes your job*

to scream, kick, run, bite, scratch, punch, stab, shoot, bend, fold and mutilate the threat. It is not a woman/man's fault that someone is forcing themselves on the woman/man sexually; the decision to act out sexual advances is the responsibility of the person acting them out; that should be blatantly obvious. It *is* the responsibility of the receiver of unwanted attentions, however, to do something about it.

If you just sit there, passively allowing someone to do sexual things to you, how will the person who is giving you the unwanted affections going to know that you don't want them to do it? If you say no, you have to sound like you mean it, because too many people play the "hard to get" game, which always includes a few playful "no"s, until they finally end up having intercourse.

So, yes, it is her fault for not screaming. It is her fault for not getting up and running away, or for not hitting him, and especially for "giving in". Not because society says that she should hold the gates tighter, not because saying "no" somehow caused the unwanted sexual advances, but because she is solely responsible for her own security in this situation.

If she is not responsible for her own security, then who is? Her mommy? Daddy? Older brother? The Government? Channel 5's Action News Team?

The person putting on the pressure? They may be responsible for being an asshole, but if that person constantly puts moves on you, until you finally give in, then *hint hint, you just consented*; through sheer annoyance perhaps, but consented none the less. How are they the authors of your lack of responsibility and accountability? Needless to say there is a long, conflicting, bizarre story behind the above quoted statement, but I don't have permission to post the full situation and comments.

Suffice it to say that the knee-jerk reaction by most commentators on the blog in question was that this is a case of (date) rape. Perhaps I'm stirring the pot, but as an acquaintance of mine said many, many years ago:

"You can't rape the willing".