I don't blame Paul Quinn, but I suggest he doesn't go out drinking till all hours in case he rapes someone
In case you're wondering who the hell Paul Quinn is, he's a National list MP who stood for Hutt South but was beaten by Trevor Mallard. He's also a specialist in Treaty of Waitangi issues and rugby boy of some repute. But that's not why he's on my blog. He's on here because last night on national television, he was asked to give his take on SlutWalk and the 'clothing choice' debate. He replied (more or less) that alcohol is a bigger risk and that women who went out drinking till all hours were putting themselves at risk.
And he's right. Anyone who drinks to incapacitation is putting themself at risk - of alcohol poisoning, serious accidents, aggressive injury, arrest for drunk and disorderly, getting robbed, etc etc blah blah.
Isn't it weird how men who 'go out drinking till all hours' are not considered to be putting themselves at risk of the above mentioned things. When someone says 'out drinking till all hours' in the context of being victimised it's always rape and it's always women. Never mind that the victimiser must also have been out 'till all hours.' I am waiting for someone to start telling men that they shouldn't go out 'drinking till all hours' because they are putting themselves at risk of raping someone. It.Just.Doesn't.Happen.
Mr Quinn also apparently followed up with something about people in short skirts at 6am. So it seems he does think that clothing has something to do with it.
What makes me sad is that this attitude is so common - I mean, I know the guy's a rugby boy and that means he's spent a lot of time in a culture that normalises rape perhaps more than any other in this country. But that's no excuse for someone who is a politician to be making comments that show he hasn't thought about this beyond "She's drunk and in a short skirt clearly she's wanting to have sex herp derp." Why can't people finish sentences? That sentence is missing the ending, the same way these sentences that blame women for their own rapes because of their dress/behaviour/sexual history always do. So what's the ending to this sentence?
"..against her will."
".. without her consent."
And if we add that ending to the victim-blaming sentences, suddenly we get a situation where it becomes very clear that the person uttering them believes that it's more ok to rape a drunk woman or one who's in a short skirt than it is to rape someone who isn't. Keep on thinking and we get back to the same old thing - apparently men can't help themselves and women are responsible for rape. If you've been drinking and you get raped ladies, it's because you put yourself at risk. The rapist didn't rape you because he's a rapist, he did it because you were drunk. If women didn't get drunk, rape wouldn't happen amirite?
Fuck that shit. Paul Quinn is not to blame for the culture that created his statements, or made them seem like 'common sense'. I do place the blame for Not.Fucking.Thinking.Before.Speaking squarely at his feet though.
So anyway, it demonstrates how relevant SlutWalk really is in this culture.
And all of this thinking about these topics has made me wonder something. You know how there are certain (many and broad) items of clothing that it's claimed are signifiers of sexual availabilty when women wear them? Short skirts, low-cut tops, etc etc blah blah. So, um, I couldn't think of any things like that for men. I can't remember ever looking at a man and seeing a particular item of clothing and thinking "Oh yeah, he's gagging for it."
So, are there any? Guys, are there any things you wear when you're out on the town to show you're available and wanting sex? Ladies, are there any things you see men wearing that make you think "Yep, he's out to get some"?
 Turns out Mr Quinn is now claiming he didn't hear the question. There's a vid. Watch it and judge for yourself.