Ok, here’s a few things about being a rape apologist. I’m considering a more comprehensive post on the topic, that would call for a significant amount of research. Which I might do, or might just find a good article and link to it.
Being a rape apologist doesn’t mean liking the idea of rape, it means supporting ideas that enable rape. If your view of what counts as rape is flawed, or you are too dogmatic about the “proper” way for a victim to respond to their assault, you can enable rape without intending to. Here are a few things to think about- Google is your friend if you want to do some more research or understand in more detail why someone fired the “rape apologist” label at you.
First- If you believe that there is non-rape non-consensual sex, you’re a rape apologist. Sex without valid consent is rape. End of story.
Second- If you believe that consent given under duress or diminished capacity is valid, you are a rape apologist.
Third- If you excuse rape by saying the victim deserved it, you are a rape apologist. The victim never deserves it, no matter how drunk, no matter how provocatively dressed, no matter how shitty a person they are.
Fourth- If you think victims should either shut up or go to the police, and don’t allow them other options, you are a rape apologist. There is a middle ground, and many reasons for a victim to prefer that middle ground to the extremes.
Fifth- If you think that evidence sufficient for conviction should be presented upon every report of rape under any context, you are a rape apologist.
There are more things I could discuss, like a bit on the phenomena of rape victims not understanding that they were raped, but I wanted to make this quick and focused mostly on the more recent stupidity I’ve seen.