Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
TinaS1
Published Letters: 780 Editor's Choice: 21
to a very low sort of sophmoric dicing and parsing.
You can always tell who is losing when this starts to happen. Namely, the people doing it.
You have nothing better to say? This proves my point then.
Oh, and what about my question? Without that all-important justification of being drunk, under what other circumstances does "gray rape" exist?
Come on, don't disappoint me.
don't put my tongue in your mouth? You wish, loser. Your Freudian slip is showing.
Anyway, after talking yourself in circles and tying yourself in knots you end up dragging drugs and alcohol into it again and again. This is your crutch, your get-out-of-rape free card.
The mess like your letter below is the reason women must insist and keep on insisting that "grey rape" is a myth. Your letter shows that you have no idea what you are talking about and not the smallest clue about what the experience of sex is like for a woman.
We know very clearly whether we want it or not, and whether we were forced to or not. And YOU need to accept that we know our own minds (repeat that to yourself; it's important), and also you need to accept that beating, forcing, threatening, bullying and coercing women into sex is never, never okay.
In your mind some bullying and coercion is "negotiation". No, it's not. Men have one duty and that is to keep their slimy paws off us until specifically and clearly invited to lay them on. If you have a problem with that, or don't feel that you are going to get enough sex from willing women, then you know what? That is just TOO FUCKING BAD.
Girl too drunk to give consent? Don't fuck her. If you do, it's rape. Clear, simple, no gray area. There's no excuse for not getting a woman's specific consent before having sex with her.
If the man is that drunk, then he is reneging on his responsibility and no different from someone who gets into a bar fight and cuts someone with a bottle or drives drunk and kills somebody. Inebriation is not an excuse for violence under the law as others have pointed out. I'm done now.
It's very simple, and attempts to cloud the issue are attempts to legitimatize rape under some circumstances. I find that appalling, and don't know how you sleep at night.
the rape apologists are confusing two different things deliberately.
The issue in rape is non-consent regardless of condition, not drunken consent. Drunken consent is a different issue.
The argument of rape apologists is that a drunk "no" is not a "no" because the girl is not capable of following through on the "no" or insisting on protecting herself. She may, for example, allow herself to be led into a bedroom. Bingo! Sex with her is then okay.
This is 100% rape.
Drunken consent is icky but different. Interestingly, if the girl says it was rape and it goes to trial, the law may also classify this as rape. If I am very drunk and try to give someone $100, he can be arrested for theft if he takes it. Inebriation renders consent invalid. So the best and most definitely legal thing all around is for guys not to try to coax drunk girls into having sex with them.
Sorry Amerigo and Brightstar. I know that sort of slams the last door of hope shut for you, but them's the breaks.
if the girl is too drunk to say either "yes" or "no" or is passed out, that too is clearly rape.
The woman has to be sober enough to give unqualified consent. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.
hope the fellow who wrote this over at Feministing is willing to forgive my cribbing of his very excellent comment, written about this precise same editorial:
"What bugs me is the standard that the absence of clearly communicated non-consent is good enough. To me, that standard presupposes that women are always ready for sex, that everything is on the table unless and until she says "no".
How on earth could that be? Why are women required to take things off the table instead of choosing to put them on it? By making enthusiastic consent the standard you change sex from being opt-out to being opt-in, you acknowledge that women want to have sex, and you say that it's ok for them to want sex -- more than ok, even; you say it's the only right way for sex to happen."
Thanks to "Faustus" for that :)
the wickedwench writes:
"The biggest problem with this whole rape-denying gray-rape bullshit is that the law (and society) assumes that a woman means yes until she says no. It is assumed that she is available for whatever her "partner" wants to do until she has to defend herself. Which is why the whole issue of impairment gets so dangerous. And as someone mentioned previously, a CONTRACT isn't binding if a person was impaired; why don't we treat WOMEN the same way?"
Gee, Amerigo and Brightstar, where'd you go?
I think the Houseplant is trying for one of those stars, too.
However, we do not encourage vegetation here. No red star for you, Johnny!
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
