Perhaps the strictness of journalism ethics has gone out the window, but there are some things that are just plain inexcusable when it comes to reporting via the written word. It has seemingly become more commonplace these days for journalists to report rape as “having sex with” instead of what it really is — rape. In the latest example of this inexcusable misrepresentation, a 42-year-old Delaware woman, Rachel Holt, was looking to have her prison sentence reduced following her rape of a 13-year-old. The journalist in the article still stated, “for having sex with a 13-year-old student.” (http://www.wboc.com/story/24846745/del-panel-denies-commutation-in-teacher-sex-case)
Let’s get this clear — an adult cannot “have sex” with a minor. Rape is rape. Rape by any other name is minimizing the grotesqueness of the crime. It would be like calling murder “engaged in a physical altercation that led to one’s death.” Did Jeffrey Dahmer go to jail for “a physical altercation that led to death”? I don’t think so. Likewise, Rachel Holt didn’t go to jail for “having sex” — she went to jail for raping a 13-year-old.
Is there something wrong with today’s culture that we’re at the point we’ve become rape apologists? After all, we have states allowing rapists to sue for custody of the children they fathered from their violent crime. Perhaps some of the writers of these articles don’t want to call the rape of a 13-year-old what it is because they’ve had some sort of sick fantasy of sexualizing minors as well and don’t want to admit that the thoughts they’ve had, if acted out, would be rape. It wouldn’t surprise me if some of these writers are actually thinking in the back of their minds, “Where were teachers like that when I went to school?”
It’s time to get your head screwed on straight, America!
Enigma Underground's American Live Wire 
Rape is NOT “Having Sex”
Posted: February 28, 2014 in Communications, General CommentaryTags: Delaware, journalism, Rachel Holt, rape, sexual abuse
Perhaps the strictness of journalism ethics has gone out the window, but there are some things that are just plain inexcusable when it comes to reporting via the written word. It has seemingly become more commonplace these days for journalists to report rape as “having sex with” instead of what it really is — rape. In the latest example of this inexcusable misrepresentation, a 42-year-old Delaware woman, Rachel Holt, was looking to have her prison sentence reduced following her rape of a 13-year-old. The journalist in the article still stated, “for having sex with a 13-year-old student.” (http://www.wboc.com/story/24846745/del-panel-denies-commutation-in-teacher-sex-case)
Let’s get this clear — an adult cannot “have sex” with a minor. Rape is rape. Rape by any other name is minimizing the grotesqueness of the crime. It would be like calling murder “engaged in a physical altercation that led to one’s death.” Did Jeffrey Dahmer go to jail for “a physical altercation that led to death”? I don’t think so. Likewise, Rachel Holt didn’t go to jail for “having sex” — she went to jail for raping a 13-year-old.
Is there something wrong with today’s culture that we’re at the point we’ve become rape apologists? After all, we have states allowing rapists to sue for custody of the children they fathered from their violent crime. Perhaps some of the writers of these articles don’t want to call the rape of a 13-year-old what it is because they’ve had some sort of sick fantasy of sexualizing minors as well and don’t want to admit that the thoughts they’ve had, if acted out, would be rape. It wouldn’t surprise me if some of these writers are actually thinking in the back of their minds, “Where were teachers like that when I went to school?”
It’s time to get your head screwed on straight, America!
Share this:
Related