I think this is a pretty clearly written article about the discourse that surrounds sexual assult

[dzurlady]

Trigger warning: article discusses discourse about sexual assault and who is responsible.

From It takes two, Emily Maguire, November 20, 2010, the Sydney Morning Herald.

If you pay attention to the arguments used in most discussions of heterosexual consent, it is clear that many people understand the relationship between sexually active men and women as an adversarial one. Men fight for sex; women defend against it.

[...]

If you think of sexual negotiation as a battle between a man (who wants it) and a woman (who does not), the idea that certain female behaviours encourage or excuse sexual assault becomes easier to understand. If she was serious about ''winning'' (that is, not having sex) then she would not get drunk, wear a tight dress, flirt, agree to go back to a man's room etc. Engaging in any of these behaviours is like turning up at a battle weaponless.

Suddenly, Peter ''Spida'' Everitt's defence of Collingwood players accused of sexual assault - a tweet in which he told girls they should learn that ''at 3am when you are blind drunk and you decide to go home with a guy it's not for a cup of Milo'' - makes sense. Walking into your adversary's lair in the middle of the night while debilitated by alcohol is asking for defeat. You cannot expect mercy from your would-be conqueror. This dark, misandrist view is often described as ''commonsense''. It is just ''being realistic'' to assume that men are either so weak they cannot stop themselves from raping a vulnerable woman, or so cruel that they will insist on sexually conquering an unwilling woman who was silly enough to trust them.

Parents and teachers of boys - does this not infuriate you, this speaking of men like they are sociopaths who cannot help but rape or manipulate in pursuit of selfish pleasure? Parents and teachers of girls - do your hearts not break at these warnings to girls to be constantly fearful and vigilant?