Letters to the Editor
-
fetboy
You answer steambadger as if you know what you're talking about, but you don't. We've had this discussion before and I understand that you believe that rape is a crime that can only be done by a man to a woman because he has a penis that can be inserted into one of her body's orifices and she doesn't. That's a coherent statement of your beliefs, but it is NOT the law. In gender-neutral jurisdictions, consent is something both partners have to give in order to have legal sex. If either is too drunk, too young, too whatever to give consent, the other person is guilty of rape. That's why Mary Kay Letourneau (sp?) went to jail and her 12-year-old boyfriend didn't. See? He had the penis, but she committed the crime. I know you don't like the gender-neutral thing, but there it is.
-
Why does everyone keep assuming . . .
that this law is about women being raped by men? The scenario described by the Anonymous earlier in which he is passed out behind a bar and some guy comes up and buggers him would apply here. Any other standard would make it possible for anyone to sexually assault anyone else they happened to find unconscious or incoherently unable to consent. This is a no brainer. Otherwise, some predator could just walk into a hospital and raped every unconscious person or drugged-to-incoherency person, male or female, that he happened to come across. Would anyone be outraged by that?
We don't allow people to do that sort of thing. Why do all the rules not apply just because you meet someone in a bar and that person happens to be drunk?
As to the person who says that everyone can control the amount that they drink, no this is not true. Some people cannot. I have worked with several alcoholics in the vocational rehabilitation field. Much of alcoholism has a physical basis. These people try and try to stop drinking and they rarely can.
You folks are so busy with red herrings -- or red dresses -- that you cannot understand the bare bones of this law.
-
@ TheSelfishGene: What is this red dress crap?
I have owned red dresses. I happen to like the color red. Are you trying to tell me that all my red dresses were fuck-me dresses? Do you equate men with the intelligence of bulls in a bullring when the matador waves the red cape? Why do you want to make men out to be so damned stupid?
-
judybird, you're contradicting yourself!
Many people go out, get drunk and sleep with someone-heck I've done it. And I've regretted it, but I have never filed rape charges. It was clear to myself, those around me and the gentleman that I took home that I knew what I was doing and though I regretted it later, it was a choice that I made...It doesn't become consensual by default because she happens to be drunk and obviously wanted it.
So let me get this straight...only two sentences AFTER you made the point that a drunken person can still consent to sex with someone, because you YOURSELF went out, got drunk, and slept with someone, and you YOURSELF recognized that even though you might have regretted it after the fact, it was a choice you made and it WASN'T rape...you then went on to argue that a drunken woman who "obviously wanted it" (meaning, reasonably, that consent was given or was at least implied based on her actions) was by definition RAPED because the man can't consider her to have consented "by default". Uhm, WTF??! Did you think through your argument before you posted it? You utterly contradicted yourself in the space of a few sentences.
Either a drunken person can give consent or can't give consent. Period. If a drunken person CAN give consent, at least under some circumstances, then it becomes a question of determining a point of drunkenness beyond which consent cannot meaningfully be obtained, and that's where the law becomes fuzzy and situations fall into a murky, gray area of different possible interpretations. But regardless, your post merely adds to this confusion, by arguing that drunken women can consent to sex with men in some situations (i.e. not rape by definition) but then simultaneously arguing that a man can't consider a drunken woman to have consented even if she "obviously wanted it" (i.e. rape is a completely subjective thing that is solely determined by the attitude of the woman after the fact, in which case how can a man fairly be considered to have ignored or overlooked issues of consent during the encounter?)
That is the entire problem surrounding the issue of drunken consent--it's entirely subjective, entirely up to the woman. If a woman gets drunk and goes home with a guy and has sex with him, then regrets it after the fact but chalks it up to a bad choice she made and considers it a learning experience, then there was no crime committed. If a woman does the exact same thing except turns her regrets into a subjective belief that she couldn't have meaningfully consented and was therefore raped, then a crime WAS committed. Can you understand why so many men cry foul over this type of argument, let alone legal changes that will codify such an unfair, confusing principle into law?
You, like too many women and feminists on this specific issue (i.e. sexual consent when intoxicants are involved) want to have your cake and eat it too. You want the woman to be fully absolved of any choices she made while intoxicated, but the man to be held fully accountable and responsible for any choices he made while intoxicated (note that I'm excluding situations where force or obvious coercion were involved, and talking only of "drunken sex" situation where there might be a legitimate debate over consent after the fact.) You want the woman's subjective perception of events after the fact to matter, but not what she was doing AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT that may have given or implied consent. The woman gets to define and redefine her terms at will, and apply her 20-20 hindsight to interpret the events in any fashion she chooses--and we're supposed to fully accept her retroactive interpretation no matter what.
What does the man get? The obvious lesson here for a man is, don't ever have sex with a woman who's been drinking AT ALL, even if she's not clearly drunk. To do so is to play Russian roulette. If you ARE so foolish as to have sex with a woman who's been drinking, then you'd better hope she has a good time and looks favorably upon the sex the next day. If she regrets it, but looks at it as two intoxicated people having messy sex that they might not have had if one or both were sober, then you're in the clear. If she regrets it but develops a more sinister take on events, then you're screwed because you've committed a crime in the eyes of the law by having sex with a drunken person. It's been codified by statute! Of course, the law doesn't recognize that a woman has committed a crime by having sex with a drunken man, whether she herself is drunk or not. The law will only apply in one direction.
Well, that sounds like fairness and equality to me! LOL How equality-minded feminists can argue such a double standard that's rooted in old-fashioned gender stereotypes, and that makes women out to be China dolls who can't be held responsible for things they've done after some liquor has passed their lips, while a man, even if falling down, puking in the bushes drunk, can be held fully accountable for all his actions while drunk, is beyond me. How is it that an intoxicated woman who "obviously wanted it" and who has sex with a guy can't really be considered to have consented because of her state of intoxication, but the man she's with who's equally intoxicated can be considered to have a full grasp on the situation, and be thinking reasonably and logically enough that he should have known she wasn't REALLY consenting even though everything she was saying and doing screamed consent? Does this make any sense?