08/20/2012 04:46 EDT | Updated 10/20/2012 05:12 EDT

You've Been Raped? Well, We'll See About That

So a left-wing nut British MP and Republican Representative from Missouri walk into a bar...

Rep. Todd Akin and the garrulous George Galloway would certainly do well to have a drink together one of these nights. Regardless of the fact they both exist on opposite ends of the political spectrum, their backwards, dangerous, women-hating views on rape are eerily similar.

Over the weekend, as we've all heard, Akin claimed that in the case of "legitimate rape the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." Now, beyond sounding like the statement of someone who not only failed the most rudimentary levels of biology, but also is incapable of reading rape and pregnancy statistics, this statement effectively takes the term "rape" and seeks to politicize it. There is no such thing as "legitimate rape;" those who use the term are probably the same ones who argue that she deserved it if her skirt was cut above the knee. Yet, it is this type of dangerous language which has found its way into the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (and yes, you guessed it, the "next president of the United States" Paul Ryan was a co-sponsor, so one can have an idea of the mentality behind the act). But rather than be "legitimate," the rape must be "forceful."

But isn't every rape -- sexual intercourse without consent -- forceful in of itself? Or in order for it to be forceful, according to the signatories of the act, must the rapist have a gun in his possession, or must the woman's screams reach a certain decibel level? There used to be a time when rape was considered just that, rape, but now, it seems with the recent religious fanaticism surrounding the abortion issue -- the biggest reason for why the word "rape" is being amended -- there are certain rapes which are a-okay, and others which are a no-no as far as medical treatment goes.

Akin seeks to abolish abortion altogether, arguing that even in cases of rape, it is the rapist who must be punished, not the child. But what about the woman? Is she meant to be punished by carrying this hate-child? The birth of a child is meant to be a joyous occasion, but how can it be when the father is in prison and a rapist? How does one explain to the child when he asks, "Where do babies come from?"

"Well, when a man and a woman love each other very much, they make a baby."

"Did you love my daddy?"

"Oh, honey, God no. He just put a gun to my head."

But across the pond, things don't seem to be faring much better. Earlier today, George Galloway came under attack for his comments vis-à-vis Julian Assange and the reasons for the British wishing to extradite him to Sweden where he is facing accusation of rape.

According to the Press TV puppet, the two women's accusations that they were raped simply do not hold up to scrutiny. One of them claimed that she awoke in the middle of the night -- after having had sex with Assange earlier in the evening -- to the Australian man inside of her. But Galloway argues that this is just fine and dandy: "I mean, not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion. Some people believe that when you go to bed with somebody, take off your clothes, and have sex with them and then fall asleep, you're already in the sex game with them." According to Galloway, not asking for consent isn't rape; it's just "bad sexual etiquette."

And after all, it makes sense, doesn't it? If she said "yes" once, that's a guarantee that she will say yes forever; a sort of Church of Scientology one-time contract that binds you to the sexual perversions of a man for a billion years. That such a thing could even be uttered is frankly flabbergasting; it's a full-fledged attempt to demean a woman's choice, suggesting that once those legs are open, they're open for good.

But then again, this is George Galloway, and this is the case of Julian Assange. If there was ever to be an accused rapist Galloway would support, it would be this one for his political convictions. Had this been anyone else, it is almost quite certain that the crude MP wouldn't have opened his trap and uttered those hateful words which attempt to muddy the quite-clear definition of "rape" in order to lend Assange some political validity.

It is truly a distressing thing when something as hateful and soul-crushing as rape is quickly turned on its head for political gain. But if there's one thing that these two stories have taught us is that it's not one's political allegiances that determine his views on the issue, but rather, one's sense of character. It is something that is lacking in both Galloway and Akin. The only difference between the two is that while the former has been a staple of all things ridiculous, a true man bellowing on the street corner, Akin is not a island, but rather, part of a segment of the GOP which seeks to drive women's rights into the ground, and begin the incredibly eerie process of judging whether one of the greatest acts of violence against another human being can be considered "legitimate," or does not pass a certain list of requirements, as if it were nothing more than applying for a job.