Letters to the Editor
-
Or else there are two standards
Because they don't give a damn about her. They only care about getting sex.
Because I am sure every woman going to a bar looking just to get laid gives a damn about the guy and does not care if she gets sex from him.
-
So how did she get drunk again?
Was it forced down her gullet? Did she walk into a drug fogged room? How is it posting pictures of yourself passed out with your panties round your ankles is good empowering fun again? Seems to me that at some point grownups have to at least pretend to act like grownups. If St. Rape Victim were to chug down a half bottle of Vodka and punch a gas station clerk, isn't she just as innocent? So yeah - I hope to see a day that being an impaired female is its own exoneration. Why not? Some mean old man made me do it.
-
Hey, you know the law is gender neutral
So, of course it's rape if a sober woman sits on a too-drunk-to-consent man's erection. And a man can accuse a woman of rape after a drunk night out if he regrets it; but I bet he's no more likely to do so than a woman who regrets a yes. This law cannot therefore be considered to favor women. It favors rape victims, period.
The law exists as a general rule to be applied to specific situations by either a jury, or if that right is waived, by a judge. Does anyone think that they do not take into account the subtleties of whether someone was "too drunk" or whether consent was or was not given? You cannot write the law to try to cover each individual situation, it would be extraordinarily clumsy to do so and inevitably miss some situations. And yes, sometimes juries and judges make mistakes; but that happens whether the law applies to rapists, burglers, murderers, or con artists.
-
@anonymous 2:01 p.m.
Seriously though - why can't modern women just say that to their dates and whatnot. Just tell them flat out "I will never ever have sex with you under any circumstances. If you touch me I will have you arrested. Let's be friends." I would be fine if those were the ground rules.
Why can't modern men just assume that women don't want to have sex with them? I mean, honestly - is it THAT much of a big deal to go home alone once in a while?
-
the problem is perception
The problem here is that a woman's (and man's) perception of what is going on, and what happened, is greatly distorted by the alcholic haze. I have personally heard several tales over the years of women accusing men of raping them while on the edge of unconsciousness unfairly; once, a man was beginning to accost a woman on a bed, a more gallant friend pushes him off, but she sees the "good" guy and later blames him; and were the case ever made legal (as she never filed charges) it would have been 2 on 1 unfairly, with the perpetrator and victim joined together against the wrong man due to her blasted, hazy memory.
The feminist distortion of the "red dress" question, and i don't mean this in a bad way like some Limbaugh-esque dittohead, is that while it's true the "red dress" doesn't mean a woman wants to be raped, what it does symbolize is a desire to evoke a sexual responce in men. After all, isn't that what makes women feel sexy? Watching men turn their heads and eye them? A woman wouldn't wear a red dress, alone, on a desert island. But you have to recognize some complicity in the reactions you willing evoke, and that's the issue all the 'con posters are skirting around; that when women go to a bar full of drunk men looking to pick up girls for sex, they're already playing with fire.
If i walk into an all black bar and start hurling racial epithets, what's going to happen? Will there be a train of defenders gazing over my broken body after getting my ass kicked about free speech and ect? When women walk into bars with skin tight clothes and get utterly plastered among guys just looking to pick up women, what's going to happen? Does this make nonconsentual sex RIGHT? Of course not. Does it make the women's behavior irresponsible? I think you could make a case that it does. If a woman walked naked through the 5th ward in Houston at 2am wearing thousands of dollars of jewelry, would what would inevitably happen to her her fault? No, but you would have to question why she would do such a thing against all reason.
Of course there is the complicated issue of illicit drugs and other measures to inebriate or drug girls into sexual submission, which makes the whole issue even more muddy.
-
Once again
This recommendation does NOT mean that it's automatically rape if the woman is drunk. It DOES mean that her inability to refuse, for whatever reason, is not an automatic green light to have sex with her. How can anyone disagree with that?
To address another scary refrain popping up here, nothing -- NOTHING -- gives a man the right to have sex with a woman without her permission. I don't care if she's a known prostitute passed out drunk and naked in a gutter at three in the morning in the bad part of town, after trying and failing to sleep with somebody else.
-
stupid drunks
People who get drunk are stupid. Avoid them, that's my motto.
-
What Harris terms
"extremely high standards for corroborating evidence" turns out to be the statement of the complaining witness ("John Doe raped me.") and ONE other piece of evidence supporting the statement (e.g. bruising, DNA, a witness saw the pair leave a bar together, his hair on her sweater, etc.). The only possible lower standard would be the statement of the woman alone. In other words, Harris wants a system in which men can be arrested, charged with rape and possibly sent to jail for many years based on NOTHING but the say-so of the woman. (Just so we're clear, the requirement of corroborating evidence is not unusual. Few criminal cases make it to a jury on nothing but the statement of a complaining witness. If I tell the police that John Doe stole my car, they're going to want some proof beyond my word for it. For example, they'll want a witness who saw him do it, they'll want to see the car in his possession, evidence he fenced it, etc.) That's the type of reasoning that gives feminism a bad name. Its naked hostility to men may escape some readers, but it's painfully obvious to others. The easier it is for women to put men behind bars, the better some feminists like it.