GOP Candidate Ken Buck's Dismissal of Rape Victim Reveals Further Evidence of a Pattern of Misogyny

"Dear ladies, if you’ve had sex before, you can't be raped! You're probably faking it anyways because you're just mad about that abortion you allegedly had. Vote for me, Ken Buck!"

No thanks, buddy.

The upcoming election has brought us some seriously sexist stuff, and it looks like the trend is continuing. GOP Senate candidate Ken Buck didn't say those exact words, but he came close. Buck is in a bit of a pickle over his refusal as a Weld County District Attorney to prosecute an obvious rape case in 2006, along with offensive comments he made about the victim.

The victim had asked a former lover over to her apartment because she was intoxicated and scared. He arrived and raped her while she, slipping in and out of consciousness, said “no” and tried pushing him away. Despite the fact that both the victim and suspect agree upon what happened and police recommended prosecution, Buck publicly called the case facts “pitiful” and claimed that, due to their consensual sexual encounters over a year prior, reasonable juries would see this as a case of "buyer’s remorse." In a private meeting with the victim, Buck lays blame squarely on her shoulders, telling her, “It would appear to me that you invited him over to have sex with him. Whether that you, at that time, were conscious enough to say yes or no … the appearance is of consent.”

Buck voices his suspicion that the woman had an ulterior motive fueled by a previous pregnancy with the suspect, which she either aborted (his story) or miscarried (her story). What's interesting to me is that Buck believes it’s entirely possible the woman fabricated a rape because she had an abortion (which she denies), yet doesn’t consider the equally-if-not-more plausible possibility that the suspect raped the victim out of revenge and resentment.

The theory that once a woman has said yes to sex, she has relinquished her right to revoke consent, is one of the most insidious and common types of victim blaming. Another is the refusal to acknowledge that it’s still rape if a woman is drunk and/or knows her attacker. Worse yet is the belief that if you don't specifically say "no" forcefully and repeatedly, you've effectively said "yes," even if you’re unconscious. And then there’s my personal favorite, the revenge fantasy: the pervasive notion that hundreds of spiteful women, drunk with feminine power, run around filing false police reports and launching an all-out legal war on dudes they consensually but regretfully boned.

Ken Buck managed to combine all of these dehumanizing fallacies into one dazzling rape apologist attack, while simultaneously blaming his Neanderthalian attitude on unsympathetic juries. It’d almost be impressive if it weren't so infuriating. It appears that, for Ken Buck, rape isn't about the actual crime, it's about the woman's ability to be a true victim.

Even though this incident occurred five years ago and Buck apparently "learned" from it (soon after, he helped implement a sexual assault team to better handle future cases), it matters in this election because the comments speak to his overarching view of women and their right to bodily autonomy. He opposes abortion even in the case of rape and incest. He initially supported Prop 62, a Personhood Amendment that would criminalize abortion and common forms of birth control. And now, it appears he believes it’s reasonable to treat "certain" survivors of sexual assault with distrust and skepticism. Can those of us who might not pass Buck's rape victim litmus test count on him to fairly represent us in office, or will voters have a case of ... buyer’s remorse?

Photo Credit: Adsworth