Letters to the Editor
-
fetboy
you need to get laid.
-
To Anonymous December 19, 2007 10:33 PM
I have translated and passed on your message to my wife. Whether or not I am to get laid is 100% her decision.
BTW, I have noticed that when I am kind, caring, charming, witty, and supportive of my wife, she usually gives me an indication of "yes." But when she gives me an indication of "yes," she still always makes me "work" for it first.
-
More to Anonymous on December 19, 2007 10:33 PM
And I am a man that take pride in my "work," and never complains about the "work" that is required of me.
-
Low standards!
I'm amazed at how low the standards of some of the men who post here. Their desire to defend the right to behave in a really scummy way, and then say, Gosh, I didn't know she was drunk/well under the age of consent.
Let's look at the facts, if you don't know the woman well, you are almost certainly meeting her in a public place, where there are witnesses who can testify as to whether or not she looked too drunk/too young. So, all you have to have is the judgement of an average guy. If you're way too plastered to know what judgement is, not to mention consent, don't have sex (and don't drive).
Trouble comes when guys start thinking, yeah, she looks a little drunk/young but I might get away with it. If he doesn't, guess what? Not many women will have much sympathy for him and the jury might not either.
So, either raise your standards or start thinking realistically about the circumstances in which these situations occur.
-
@ Anonymous 7:35
I hope to live to see the day
Where a drunk woman is exonerated for everything
Drunk driving
Vehicular homicide
Assault
Murder
I'm just going to say it. You are an idiot. Getting yourself drunk--in a woman's mind--is not equal to inviting sex, believe it or not. If you can't tell the difference between someone who actively does something wrong, and someone who passively has something wrong done to him/her, you deserve to be caught up by a law like this (rightly or wrongly, I don't even care). I agree with the poster who said, "get her number." Is getting laid really so important that you really don't care whether she actually wants it or not?
Whether it gets abused or not, we need this law. It is extremely traumatizing to have your body penetrated against your will. It is one of the most traumatizing things that can happen to a person, even if you're drunk. It has to be understood, in an absolute, no exceptions, kind of way.
Of course, any woman who would abuse this law, because she regretted her actions, is seriously fucked up. Men, it might cost you some sexual opportunities with a truly easy woman, but I recommend taking the high road here.
Ladies, please don't get drunk, alone, in public. As you can see from the responses to this article, lots of men still think it's totally unfair for you to say "no" when you've been drinking and flirting with them all night. They think they have a right to sex after such a display, and just because you're barely conscious, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to do stick it in you. You could get raped by one of them, and that would really, really suck.
-
@fetboy
I think you and I are on the same page. I was referring to a poster that said, basically, "How come I am held responsible for DWI, but drunken women are victims if they get raped?" (and my post was an attempt at saying "Duh" politely).
-
Definition on non-consent
I think what many posters are concerned about (and some seem to have overread) is this part of the definition: "[...] where the victim was so intoxicated by consuming drink or drugs they lacked the capacity to give consent."
That seems to cover a scenario where a woman goes out and gets drunk, then tells some guy "lets do it" and proceeds to take him to court the next day. It also covers the scenario where a woman kisses and cuddles with a guy while drunk, falls asleep and he proceeds to have sex with he while she's passed out.
I think almost everybody would agree that the second case is rape, but there seem to be differing opinions on the first case. I'd prefer if the responsibility for your actions remains with yourself, even if you get drunk - after all as an adult you should be able to decide for yourself if you want to get intoxicated or not. Blaming men for that (and regardless of the gender-neutrality, that seems to be the usual case) seems unfair. Particularly so, because this is standard behaviour for so many people (men and women alike) - they go out to get intoxicated precisely because they want to lose their inhibitions.
I personally never had sex with a drunk, but I still think this definition isn't fair. If you are an adult you can usually control whether you get stinking drunk, and then that should be your own fault. To clarify: if someone forces another to drink, slips them drugs without their knowledge or rapes them while you they are passed out: throw the bastards in jail. If they agree to sex while drunk, they should deal with their regrets themselves.
-
Fehboy says:
"Answer: If the man's dick got inside of the incoherently drunk woman, then he raped her. If the woman's dildo got into the ass of the incoherently drunk man, then she raped him."
So if a man is incoherently drunk - but manages an erection - and a sober woman sits upon that inchoherent and non-consenting erection - HE'S the rapist?
Glad you're not a cop, a judge or sitting on a jury...
-
The specifics of 'yes' or 'no'
Just to follow up on that last poster, after reading the .pdf file linked in the article, I think the question isn't so much whether sex with a drunk person is automatically rape. I think the clarification is whether a *lack of express refusal* constitutes consent. Currently, unless you prove that you explicitly told the guy you did not want to sleep with him, corroborated by witnesses, he cannot be convicted of rape. If you were too drunk (or asleep) to say no, even if you didn't say yes either, well, too bad. The new recommendations say that, just because she didn't say no, doesn't mean she meant yes.
Not sure if I'm explaining this clearly, but it's whether lack of refusal means consent, or lack of consent means refusal.