Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorInnocenti, Beth
dc.contributor.authorShook, Lindsey
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-09T14:55:08Z
dc.date.available2011-10-09T14:55:08Z
dc.date.issued2010-08-31
dc.date.submitted2010
dc.identifier.otherhttp://dissertations.umi.com/ku:11022
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1808/8195
dc.description.abstractThe justices in the trial of the Prosecutor v. Kunarac were able to interrupt the rape myths that generally exist in rape trials by complicating the notion of consent. In this paper I argue that the justices de-naturalize common myths about consent by relying on the details of victim testimony and the context of the war to fill in the gaps between testimony and lived experience. Rather than allowing rape myths like "she asked for it" to explain the complicated stories of sexual violence during the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina the justices use a new definition of rape that broadens consent to allow more of the contextual details of the war and each attack to count as valid evidence.
dc.format.extent84 pages
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherUniversity of Kansas
dc.rightsThis item is protected by copyright and unless otherwise specified the copyright of this thesis/dissertation is held by the author.
dc.subjectLanguage
dc.subjectRhetoric and composition
dc.subjectWomen's studies
dc.subjectConsent
dc.subjectKunarac
dc.subjectLegal rhetoric
dc.subjectMyth
dc.subjectTrial
dc.subjectWar rape
dc.titleComplicating Consent: A Study of the Rhetorical Strategies Employed to Interrupt Rape Myths in the Prosecutor v. Kunarac
dc.typeThesis
dc.contributor.cmtememberHarris, Scott
dc.contributor.cmtememberTell, Dave
dc.thesis.degreeDisciplineCommunication Studies
dc.thesis.degreeLevelM.A.
kusw.oastatusna
kusw.oapolicyThis item does not meet KU Open Access policy criteria.
kusw.bibid7643321
dc.rights.accessrightsopenAccess


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record