A film taints the name of a deceased female journalist by claiming she had
sex with an FBI agent to get a scoop. The filmmakers cite no evidence
for this accusation.
The act they accused would have been wrong because it would be
bribery. Giving sex as a bribe is no more legitimate than giving money as a
bribe.
The article ties this accusation with the tendency to call women
"sluts" if they depart from strict chastity and modesty such as some
repressive religions impose.
I have never called anyone a "slut" and I cannot imagine doing so. I
somehow escaped absorbing the prevailing attitudes about who can or
should have sex and when. I only became aware of those attitudes when
I was in my 20s, and they were never accompanied by any reason to
adopt it.
If "slut" means "someone who has sex too readily", then according to
my understanding, in this society men are more likely to be sluts than
women are. But the term is almost never applied to men.
If "slut" means "someone who has sex without affection", then I find
it hard to understand why people want that, but I see no reason to
criticize them for that preference.
The article mentions a Chilean song (though it isn't really a song, as
it has no melody) whose main point is to condemn the justice system's
bias against rape victims and its tendency to excuse rape.
When it accuses thugs, prosecutors and judges of this bias, it is
right.
But its chorus says, "You are the rapist." I take this to refer to
men, and being one of them, I take offense. I am no rapist. How dare
they accuse me (and every man, indiscriminately) of rape!
Falsely accusing someone of rape based on no evidence is just as
scurrilous as falsely accusing someone of using sex as a bribe based
on no evidence.