(edit 3/5: check out Amelia’s very thoughtful post on the op-ed controversy)
Check out today’s Prince column on SHARE’s “Sex on a Saturday Night” skit that poses the scenario of a “girl [who] goes to a frat party, drinks too much and has sex with a guy she just met” and later wants to charge the guy with rape—actually, don’t read it, because the author then ignorantly asks, “Should the fact that she willingly got herself into an advanced state of inebriation prevent her from complaining about anything that happened to her while she was in that state?” She claims yes; the answer is obviously and emphatically, no. (Disturbingly, the columnist maintains these views after, as she admitted, a friend was raped under these circumstances!)
All people who choose to drink should be absolutely mindful of their surroundings and alcohol intake. But while people can be responsible for themselves, they cannot be responsible for others; even if the columnist’s hypothetical girl gets absolutely wasted, she is not raping herself. Sure, the girl made a risky decision, but ultimately the skit’s boy failed to get consent.
Speaking of boys, the author asks, “Why is the guy always to blame? Since the beginning of time, society has taught us that whenever a situation like this arises, the fault belongs almost entirely to the male participant.” The SHARE skit never makes the claim that the rapist is the boy simply because he’s a boy; instead, it’s the boy because he’s the one who had sex with someone who didn’t give consent. A boy, contrary to the author’s belief, also has the ability to accuse a female of rape.
I’ll leave you with a quote from an old Jezebel post (also quoted in this Equal Writes post), in which Anna North writes:
Too often, we’re asked to accept sexual assault as though it’s an act of God, something that just happens, like rain. It’s our job to carry an umbrella to avoid getting wet. But rape and other forms of assault are acts of men (and sometimes women), and we should be trying harder to stop them at the source.
32 Comments
February 22, 2010 at 7:59 am
Was this a point/counterpoint with logic, compassion and decency on the other side?
February 22, 2010 at 12:48 pm
To quote myself from this post: http://equalwrites.org/2010/01/17/thoughts-on-princetons-rape-aggression-defense-classes/#comments :
“I have often thought that many attempts to “raise awareness” about rape actually end up demeaning rape victims, and that this is the result of a too-expansive definition of rape. It is uncontroversial that a person has been raped if he or she has been a) violently coerced, despite b)having made reasonable efforts to remain safe. Something is “reasonable” in this sense so long as it is not reckless or negligent, a pretty low standard.
But some people who claim to be sympathetic to rape victims promulgate a looser definition of rape (I will not speculate as to whether this is in an attempt to muster more shocking, if less true, statistics to put on posters). This definition, which I take you to have accepted, includes cases where neither (a) or (b) holds. I will focus on (b) because it seems to be the main point of divergence.
When a person gets lung cancer, he or she become the object of our concern, our sympathy. This sympathy vanishes pretty quickly if we learn that the person so afflicted smoked cigarettes for 40 years. He or she knew the risks of smoking, and nevertheless elected, as a rational agent, to smoke. It is tragic that smoking causes cancer and that one cannot savor delicious nicotine without damaging one’s health; we can certainly imagine a better world where smoking does not cause cancer, but we have to acknowledge that this is not such a world. No one’s “right to smoke without consequences” has been violated. About the smoker we say, “Sad, but what did he expect?” Respect for the smoker as an autonomous agent requires that he be held responsible for the risky actions he undertook.
By analogy, respect for the autonomy of persons who knowingly and intentionally put themselves in a situation where they have an elevated risk of being raped requires that they be held responsible for the risky actions they undertook. An attractive, let us say sexually liberated woman who goes out to the proverbial TI dance floor, blackout drunk and with risque attire, knew or ought to have known that this is a situation where the risk of rape is elevated. She nevertheless considered the costs and benefits and decided to go. If respect for persons requires that they be held responsible for their risky behavior, then this woman should be held responsible for the outcome, unless someone will deny that she is a rational and autonomous agent.
The obvious difference between the smoking case and the second case there is another autonomous agent involved, namely the “rapist” (in quotes because whether not this is rape is what is under dispute). So people would say that this person is to be held responsible for his actions, and I don’t disagree. My point is that the fact that the “rapist” may himself be culpable in part does not mean that the “victim” is not culpable in part. Furthermore, my argument is that a “victim” who is culpable in this way is less of a victim than a victim who is not (say, in the uncontroversial “violent stranger rape” case). There is a big enough difference between one case and the other, and between one “victim” and the other, to make the use of the same term for both inaccurate and misleading.
As for how terminology can demean or harm a classification of people, consider the case of vegetarians, vegans, and so on–the writers of the blog are no doubt much better versed in that infinite taxonomy of conspicuous non-consumption than I. I imagine that the taxonomy is so complex because people who don’t ask for eggs at Bodo’s don’t want to be grouped with people who think that eating eggs is ok but asking for bacon is too much. Eliding the difference between the groups cheapens the greater sacrifice–and thus, I hardly need to add, the greater nobility–of the vegans as compared to the mere vegetarians. I would point out that the same thing is going on with with conservative side in same-sex marriage debates, but I fear that this is the wrong blog for that comparison.
So, in conclusion, I believe that those who respect rape victims should take care to straighten out their terminology and their thoughts.”
See the rest of the comments there if you want a point/counterpoint. I leave it for you to judge who, if anyone, is without logic, compassion, or decency in that one.
February 22, 2010 at 1:08 pm
It is disgusting that you support the accusation of men as rapists, by women who don’t even remember the event. A large number of college women get drunk and have irresponsible sex. Some are so drunk they don’t remember these events. A small number of these women are utterly despicable and charge their partners with rape. Feminists support them.
Our society is still sexist. But it used to be sexist against women.
February 23, 2010 at 2:41 am
I totally agree with this statement.
February 23, 2010 at 12:19 pm
I have a question that I would like answered. If a person is responsible for their actions while drunk (drunk driving, assault, public indecency) how is giving consent while drunk any different?
February 25, 2010 at 2:37 pm
There is a huge difference in drunk driving, assault, public indecency and rape.
The first are ones that are the drunk persons fault. *They* are assaulting people or putting others in danger. When they get raped *they* are being assaulted and put in danger.
Very different. Very.
February 24, 2010 at 11:00 am
This is a response to “kl” in their claim that society is reversely sexist.
The idea that a college girl is equally to blame for a sexual encounter ignores simple biology.
For a man to have vaginal sex with a woman, an act which has the severe consequence of pregnancy for that woman, the man is the only one who needs to be aroused or interested in sex. This is true regardless of whether or not a woman is drunk. A woman does not need to be aroused, awake, or aware to “participate” in “irresponsible sex.”
Getting drunk as a woman does not mean that the woman accepts whatever happens TO her body after she gets drunk. This is essentially the argument the original article made.
I would like to imagine a world where a woman can make the same mistakes as a man, i.e., getting too drunk, and not have to assume that if she gets drunk, a logical possible end to her evening is inevitably getting raped.
The fact of the matter is, how often do men get too drunk and find themselves raped without their participation, by just lying there? How many women do this to men? The only way they could would be to anally rape them with a foreign object. While this does happen, it is not what we are talking about here, it is not the “norm” of a college freshman getting herself too drunk and waking up next to a guy she doesn’t know.
If rape is defined as sexual activity without consent, and drunkenness makes consent impossible, than the man has just raped the girl. Yes, such a definition can, in certain rare situations be abused. But what is the alternative? How would you write the laws? Any other formula would, in every situation, disadvantage the woman. The truth is that most women don’t report what is in fact rape because people like “kl” or the author are there to tell them that they asked for it. If a woman feels that she was used, she was used. If a woman feels that a comment was sexually offensive, it was offensive. If a woman feels harassed, she WAS harassed.
Or are you telling me that she didn’t or couldn’t understand the situation, that someone else, not the woman herself, has a better grasp on the circumstances, that she was too sensitive, that she invited it by letting her guard down.
A world where letting your guard down opens you up to assault if you are a woman is a world where a woman has to constantly be aware of and in protection of her body. It’s a world where you feel every gaze, notice every advance, fear walking home alone. It’s a world where you are constantly reminded of your inferiority because assholes like kl think that by “not remembering the event” you have consented. Because your body is men’s body, because you never have sole possession of yourself and your identity.
Bullshit our society is sexist against women. Where the hell do you get off?
February 25, 2010 at 2:34 pm
gee that must be why 1 out of 6 women are the survivors of rape or attempted rape in their lifetime. But I guess it’s those evil rape survivors who are sexist right?
February 25, 2010 at 2:35 pm
“But it used to be sexist against women.”
This statement is so incredibly wrong, it’s not even funny. If we weren’t still incredibly misogynistic why are there still so many people who think that a woman doesn’t deserve control over her body (early term abortion)? Why must the woman in magazines and commercials be perfect – always touched up and dressed up and makeuped? Why is it always the woman’s fault when she gets raped? Why is it always the woman’s responsibility (and only hers) to not drink, not dress showing the least bit of clothes, not walk alone, not walk in the dark, ect? Because this society and patriarchal and misogynistic. To deny it is to continue the problem.
Is there no sexism against men? No. There is. But is the majority of sexism against women? An overwhelming yes.
Getting drunk does not imply consent. It implies consent of getting drunk. Not of having sex with whoever around her decides that it’s okay to take advantage of her. Getting drunk lowers thought process and inhibitions, but whether or not she is drunk, if there is a rapist around, she is in danger of being raped. Because a rapist is around.
February 27, 2010 at 3:58 pm
That is true. However, getting drunk does not absolve one of responsibility for one’s actions nor does it render it impossible for a person to make decisions. So if a drunk person decides to have sex with someone due to lowered inhibitions prompted by intoxication, that does not mean the person was raped. That means the person made a poor decision that the person would not have made had the person not been drunk. That was the point of the Prince column. Being drunk does not necessarily mean one cannot make decisions, and just because one regrets those decisions or cannot recall making them does not mean the other person is a rapist.
February 27, 2010 at 5:41 pm
Reply to Toysoldier:
“However, getting drunk does not absolve one of responsibility for one’s actions nor does it render it impossible for a person to make decisions.”
True. But seeing how often people don’t recall what they did while drunk and seeing how…loose (in inhibitions) they are, “agreeing” to something like sex, doesn’t equal consent.
I will say, that if both people are drunk, you can’t really charge either one with rape. But if a sober person has sex with a drunk one, that is rape. The sober person should well know that being drunk makes people loose, silly, different from who they really are, and if they decide to take advantage of that and have sex with the drunk person, it is rape.
“That was the point of the Prince column. ”
As the column gives us such gems as: “She knew what would happen if she started drinking.” (No. She knew she would get drunk, she did not know someone would rape her.) and “Therefore, the girl willingly got herself into a state in which she could not act rationally.” (But that does not mean she did willingly gave her body up for anyone to use.) and “Why is the guy always to blame?” (Please. When has the guy ever been to blame? It’s certainly not the majority of the time.) and “We live in times when sexual discrimination has, more or less, disappeared from our society.” (Not true, not matter how far under a rock you crawl), I find it hard to believe the article was really about responsibility when drunk rather than more putting even more blame on rape victims.
If that was the intent of the article, it was wildly misused and very badly written.
Rapists rape because that is what they do. And if they think it’s easier to get away with this by raping drunk women, then that is what they will do. If someone respects someone else so little that they would have sex with them when the other person is not capable of making good and rational and sober decisions, it is rape, especially if the person would have said no when sober.
A sober person having sex with a drunk person is rape.
February 22, 2010 at 5:45 pm
To Multitudinous, God-Omnipresent Coral Insects:
By your argument, just being beautiful and young would be enough to put oneself at risk. This is the age-old argument that a woman should be responsible for “provoking” rape. Rape is never provoked. It is a conscious, reward-oriented behavior that violates a person’s fundamental integrity.
February 22, 2010 at 10:27 pm
Melanie,
You’re right, being beautiful and young *would* be enough to put oneself at risk–if, that is, right-thinking feminists had not so clearly established, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that rape is about power and not sex, in which case there is no reason that the young and beautiful would be differentially targeted. Even so, being young and being beautiful are not behaviors; you can’t be recklessly young or negligently beautiful. What I argue differentiates “rape victims” from rape victims is that the former and not the latter have acted negligently and in so doing have knowing exposed themselves to greater danger.
(And after all, only the most foolhardy of college women could engage in such risky behaviors after hearing about the–literally–incredible statistics entities like SHARE have to offer. True, the fact that college girls haven’t changed their behavior after hearing about these numbers might say something about the accuracy of the numbers–or at least it would if you respected these women as intelligent agents capable of evaluating and acting upon new information.)
I’m not sure that rape could never be provoked, but set that aside. By claiming that rape is “conscious, reward oriented” behavior I presume you mean to grant the putative rapist some degree of agency and responsibility–qualities which you withhold from women. A strange position for a feminist to take but regrettably not an uncommon one.
February 25, 2010 at 2:49 pm
It doesn’t matter what the victim does. If there is a rapist around, they are in danger of being raped. Why? Because there is a rapist around. That is the only reason. End of story. The end.
Rapists rape. That’s what they do. Whether their victim is drunk, sober, young, old, smart, dumb, slutty, prudish, aware, oblivious, strong, weak, pretty, ugly, or anything in between, that is what rapists do. They rape people.
And that responsibility falls solely on the rapist. *Not* the victim. Not anyone else. Just the rapist, who made the decision to rape.
“And after all, only the most foolhardy of college women could engage in such risky behaviors after hearing about the–literally–incredible statistics entities like SHARE have to offer.”
Why is it the victim’s responsibility to not get raped? Why isn’t it the rapists responsibility to not rape?
Like I already said, it doesn’t matter what the victim is doing, what they are dressed like, or where they are at, if there is a rapist around they are in danger of being raped. And that is not their fault. That is the rapists fault for being a rapist.
“I’m not sure that rape could never be provoked, but set that aside.”
If a rapist is going to rape, the rapist is going to rape. No matter who pushes hir, if zie want to rape, they will.
“By claiming that rape is “conscious, reward oriented” behavior I presume you mean to grant the putative rapist some degree of agency and responsibility–qualities which you withhold from women. A strange position for a feminist to take but regrettably not an uncommon one.”
Why is it strange that a feminist (one who works towards equality of all the different genders) would want the person responsible for their actions to take responsibility for their actions and to take accountability for what they’ve done? It’s strange that victims get blamed and rapists get praised. But sadly, it’s very common.
I’ve said it enough, but I feel I must repeat it.
It Does Not Matter What the Victim Does, if There is a Rapist Around, the Victim is in Danger, because if the Rapist Wants to Rape, Zie Will.
February 22, 2010 at 5:58 pm
alcohol is one of the msot amazing subtances known. It’s incredible how it causes blame to slide off males and stick irrevocably to females. “It’s not his fault, he was drunk!” “It’s her fault! She was drunk!” Incredible substance.
February 23, 2010 at 12:29 am
The Prince op-ed also ignores the fact that offenders are a minority of the population that commit a majority of the crimes. It is not simply a “mistake” that any innocent “boy” can make. This depiction is simply not true. Sexual assault is often intentional, and it is often a repeated offense. Over the course of four years, a single offender can assault multiple victims.
Furthermore, nothing constitutes consent EXCEPT for explicit consent. Examples of behaviors that do not constitute consent:
Wearing a short skirt
Nudity (and we all know that assault can, and does, happen when clothes are being worn)
Dancing
Drinking
The act of searching for a sexual partner
Kissing
The act of going on a “date”
Certain behaviors are attributed to sexual ritual by certain conservative views of sex and sexuality, but such a ritualization of social behaviors is arbitrary. Therefore, engaging in these behaviors does not constitute consent. In other words, just because some social behaviors would arouse certain people who have arbitrarily confused these behaviors as indicators of precursive consent to sexual acts, this is simply not the case. Poor semiotic social systems cannot be confused with explicit consent.
February 23, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Assuming for the sake of argument that these behaviors are “sexual rituals”, I don’t see how their being arbitrary (if they are) is the reason that they are invalid. Rituals by definition are “arbitrary” practices that have some determinate meaning for a given group of people: for the Japanese, bowing shows respect, for Americans flipping someone off shows hostility. So I don’t see anything incoherent about maintaining that some practice, say stripping in front of someone, could, within a certain group, signify consent to sexual activity.
Now whether college campuses are such groups is another question–no doubt you would say they are not. But I would point out that if you accept the diversity of “sexual rituals” (and as a feminist you probably do), i.e. that different practices can mean different things to different groups, then you would also need to entertain the possibility that a practice which does not signify consent in some group *does* signify consent in another group. For example, in the 19th century stripping could well have indicated consent, whereas in some modern colleges it might not. Or maybe it does; and how do you propose to figure out which it is? By decree? The actual behavior at colleges, if it supports any conclusion, supports the conclusion that stripping or something like that does indicate consent.
Unless you’re willing to endorse some form of cross-cultural absolutism, the list you made above is at best in need of qualification and at worst quite meaningless.
February 23, 2010 at 2:41 pm
“The actual behavior at colleges…supports the conclusion that stripping or something like that does indicate consent.”
“Stripping.” Hm.
Multitudinous, I should be able to walk down a dark alleyway drunk, alone and completely naked at 3 am and not expect anyone to sexually assault me, attack me, steal from me, or hurt me. That may not be the reality, but there is no argument to say that my nudity or state of being alone invites someone to do what they’d like with me.
“Stripping or something like that.”
Let’s look at Halloween. Many college girls drink and dress in the skimpiest of outfits. Lingerie is considered a costume. If I decide to dress up as a Playboy bunny and dance with friends, this is the equivalent of me coherently saying “yes” to someone who wants to have sex with me?
What else is “like” stripping? What if a guy walks in on me changing in my room? Oops, I’m naked. Of course that means I want to have sex with him. Or if it happens to you – you’re naked when you shower, correct? You had to strip to get that way. What if a guy/girl walks in on you and has sex with you? Oh, silly me. You WANTED it because you were naked. Er, you had stripped. Of course.
Just because your argument is couched in correct grammar and complete sentences does not mean that it is a smart or well-founded one.
February 23, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Katherine,
In your post you look at the least important sentence in my post—one that is in no way necessary for my argument. Your analysis consists of taking that sentence out of context, massaging it to suit your purpose, and on top of it all misreading it entirely. I’m sure you wouldn’t try these tactics in a paper, both because intellectual honesty forbids it and because your teacher would punish it (although I haven’t taken an Identity Studies class, so maybe it’s different in those). Why do it here? Surely if my argument is so fallacious it should be easy to refute me head on with reasoning.
Your quotation of me omitted the important words “if it supports any conclusion”. Right away this phrase makes it clear that I’m not claiming something to be a fact, but rather merely conjecturing about what might be the case. But really there’s no need to even address your selective quotation, because the whole stripping thing was a hypothetical example, not an argument or even a piece of an argument. The point was that it is possible for action X in one culture to indicate consent and for action X in another culture not to indicate consent. Stripping was just the first action that came to mind to illustrate this idea—thus the “something like that” attached to it.
This argument from relativism, which I make not because I’m a relativist but because I think that you, plural, are, supports your rather surprising claim that “my nudity or state of being alone invites someone to do what they’d like with me.” Oh wait, what you actually said was that “*there is no argument that* my nudity….”? My bad. In that case, since my argument is such an argument as you deny the possibility of, your claim is false.
You offer no argument for why you “should” be able to what you say you should be able to do, while acknowledging that is not a reality. “Should” you be able to eat bacon without getting fat? “Should” you be able to jump off a cliff without falling? “Should” you be able to punch people with impunity? etc.
Finally, my arguments are not good because they’re expressed in such finely crafted prose. They’re good because they address in a reasonable way the best arguments of the other side.
February 25, 2010 at 2:55 pm
“For example, in the 19th century stripping could well have indicated consent, whereas in some modern colleges it might not.”
It doesn’t matter what society thinks implies consent. Unless a person is sober (and therefore capable of thinking for themselves) and explicitly tells you “Yes. We can have sex,” and at no point says “No. Let’s stop,” having sex with them – Is Rape.
“The actual behavior at colleges, if it supports any conclusion, supports the conclusion that stripping or something like that does indicate consent.”
That behavior Means Rape. Unless explicit, stated consent is given and is not taken away, It Is Rape.
Whether society wants to acknowledge this or not (because that would mean having to respect women as people), Rape is Rape. And it Is rape if No Consent is Given or if Consent is Taken Away.
February 23, 2010 at 1:22 am
First of all, the Prince article is actually one of the best articles I’ve read on this subject.
Second of all, I love the fact that you attempt to attack the article without having actually read it. The column was actually not about the damn play that freshmen are forced to watch at Princeton, but about drunk sex situations in general. Your attempt to try to attack her argument using the play is flawed: the situation in Sex on a Saturday Night was much more black and white than such situations are in real life. Quite frankly, situations involving alcohol are often gray areas, and the current state of affairs gives women an inordinate amount of power: all a woman has to do is decide at some point in the near future that she was assaulted, even if it was entirely consensual at the time, and a man has virtually no legal defense against that unless there where witnesses present. For example, I had a good friend at another school who was charged with sexual assault because a girl who was drunk started aggressively dancing with him, and, despite the fact that he finally refused her advances after a while, she would have gotten him expelled if it wasn’t for luck intervening on his part.
February 24, 2010 at 4:55 am
Rape is not a gray area. Too often I think people siding with the “poor, defenseless boys” are the one who WANT to make it into a gray area.
“all a woman has to do is decide at some point in the near future that she was assaulted”
Yes, ALL the woman has to do is DECIDE she was raped. They she may DECIDE she wants to go through a long, grueling, humiliating trial where strangers/lawyers will try to bring up everything/anything from her past and call her a slut in front of everyone she knows. Her life will be disrupted for years going through court. This may or may not lead to an actual prosecution of the rapist.
Oh and let’s not forget about the fact that a man forced himself inside her body without her consent. But I guess it’s her fault, right? Since she was so drunk/passed out.
Yes…I love the logic of people like you.
1. There is a passed out woman.
2. There is a man who had sex with that unconscious or nearly-unconscious woman.
He did all the “work” and she did nothing at all but…
Must be the woman’s fault!
People like you truly sicken me.
February 25, 2010 at 3:03 pm
“Quite frankly, situations involving alcohol are often gray areas”
It’s only a gray area because misogynists continue to feel the need and right to deny women the right to be in control of what happens to their body.
“the current state of affairs gives women an inordinate amount of power: all a woman has to do is decide at some point in the near future that she was assaulted, even if it was entirely consensual at the time, and a man has virtually no legal defense against that unless there where witnesses present”
You must be joking? Have you done any research on rape cases besides your friends cases? When rapes are finally reported, the victims (very commonly women) are questioned, doubted, blamed, demeaned, and degraded. And then, in the vast majority of cases, they are deemed b-words who falsely reported the rape and the rapist (most commonly men) gets off scott free. He is pitied for what happened to him, apologized to, stuck up for, and believed.
Women {victims} are given no power at all. They are looked down upon and told what they should be doing and when they should be doing, otherwise they deserved to be raped.
Men {rapists} are given all the power.
February 23, 2010 at 4:48 pm
L, you’ve been posting about this article, accusing people of not reading it, etc,etc. I’m assuming that you are defending the author’s watery argument and rest assured. Both you and the author have weak arguments. You present a horrible example in presenting your weak argument. Both you and the author are weak.
March 2, 2010 at 3:19 pm
I tried to read through the comments (on *this* page!) and I just can’t do it anymore. What sick people you all are, Multitudinous, L, kl.
March 4, 2010 at 12:23 am
“she is not raping herself. Sure, the girl made a risky decision, but ultimately the skit’s boy failed to get consent.”
This is the problem with your argument. The writer of the article is arguing that it should count as consent if the girl is drunk. The girl chose to get drunk. She knew she might agree to something she would regret when she was sober. Why is it the boy’s fault if she chose to get drunk and as a result agreed to sex?
We seem to be assuming here that it is rape if a girl says it is okay to have sex. As far as I am aware, rape means forcing someone to have sex. I don’t see how anyone here was forced to have sex.
You might argue that it’s unfortunate that there is this culture that encourages people to drink, a culture potentially promulgated by boys, and that boys take advantage of this culture for free sex. I personally think that if rape really happens so often at the eating clubs, Princeton University should be held criminally accountable for having allowed the eating clubs to continue to existing up to this day. But people still have the choice not to drink. I don’t. I know lots of girls who don’t.
March 4, 2010 at 3:22 pm
I was wrestling with this whole thought process a lot about six months ago.
girl and boy get blackout drunk at mutual friend’s party. Have sex. They hang out the next day in a group, friendly. Five months later, girl hits heavy depression and as part of recovery process terms this rape. Confronts boy a few months later, he didn’t know/remember if they had had sex.
extraneous factors
girl and girl’s friend think they ingested some kind of drug with their alcohol that made them black-out harder and sooner
girl had never had sex before
girl was on her period
girl does not remember a four to five hour expanse of time, that apparently included meeting boy, dancing, making out, and going to an isolated location with boy.
girl does remember a blurry moment in time that indicates boy and girl had unprotected sex.
I would agree that alcohol creates gray areas. If I consent to sex while drunk, then I will stand by that decision sober. What if I can’t remember whether or not I consented? Given the particulars (first time, probable unknown drug interaction, menstruating, sense of disorientation) I lean towards I did not consent. I call it rape.
I did not report and I will not charge, I’m way too confused myself.
If a girl has less confusion about whether or not she consented, and can more confidently call it rape, then I think the appropriate action is to report it as such.
March 4, 2010 at 4:47 pm
Well I liked the article and the main point which I think allot of ppl are missing. The fact of the matter is it’s perfectly legal to drink alchohol, not be drunk and have sex with someone after both parties consent to it. Ppl mix sex and alchohol all the time without any problems and it’s perfectly legal too as long as done in moderation. You can drink one glass of wine at dinner, be completly sober 3 hours later and then consent to sex and you certainly haven’t been rape. Now if a girl is unconscious drunk and is sexually assaulted it’s clearly rape. However a couple of drunk ppl both consenting to sex and having it isn’t rape or at best it’s a rape they both commited. Also one person taking advantage of someone who is drunk and having sex while it’s clear they can’t consent is rape as well. The problem is it has to be clear to the person that the other person can’t consent for it to be rape. It’s not always clear who is drunk and who isn’t .I’ve known plenty of alcholics who can function perfectly fine and look normal, but are drinking vodka with their morning coffee and are drunk by noon without looking intoxicated. Or as an example if a woman decided one night to take a roofie before she went out and then met a guy asked him if he wanted to have sex, then had sex with him it wouldn’t be rape. Someone can be drunk, high, intoxicated or on other halucigens or drugs without obvious signs. If in such cases someone consents to sex and a normal person couldn’t reasnably tell you were dunk, high, or otherwise intoxicated it’s not rape. Consent can’t just be in someone’s head or what you might think afterwards of a decision or it’s meaningless. Now the gray area and where you get allot of argument is what’s reasnable. You run into a random girl at a bar falling down drunk at 1am, it’s pretty obvious she can’t consent to sex no matter what she says. You run into a girl at a party at 9pm whose happy talkative and seems like they’re midly intoxicated, but not at all drunk you guys go home talk it over and decide to have sex. Even if that woman was drunk I wouldn’t find it reasnable that anyone could logically figure that out. You run into three woman at a bar and one had one glass of wine that night, another is drinking water and is high on cocaine, while a third is an alcholic whose been drinking for five hours. At times it’s certainly posible that their is really no way from the outside to tell which woman is intoxicated. Especially if even after asking them they lie about it and specifically consent to sex. In cases like that it’s certainly not rape, bad decision making perhaps, but not rape. Gray areas are also hard when both parties are intoxicated. Some of the posters seem to have some misguided idea that men can’t be intoxicated and get erections, but that’s hardly the case. In fact I’ve known many alcholics who have sex all the time while intoxicated or high. Also consider the case of two gay men or two gay women having sex while drunk. If the erection argument made any sense who takes advantage of who in such cases. The fact that both men had erections or both women were aroused Ppl of doesn’t mean a rape couldn’t have taken place. Both sexes are perfectly capable of orgams while intoxicated. Still I’m not sure I get the logic of labeling something rape when two ppl are both drunk and verbally and physically consent to sex to each other. Although I do see why some of those cases go to trial. That’s the kind of thing you’d have to look at allot of the details to see who if anyone is culpable. I think looking at it from a male female viewpoint clouds ppl’s thinking on the issue. Consider this what if we had two gay men who got drunk, verbally consented to each other had sex with orgams and then accused each other of rape the next day. Should we charge them both? Or two gay women? Should we charge them both with rape? If both ppl are drunk or high and “verbally consenting” to sex the idea of calling it rape seems somewhat questionable even in most regular male/female cases let alone homosexual ones.
March 4, 2010 at 7:49 pm
I can see some comments here insisting that Rape is Rape as long as a woman decides it is so.
Somehow, I disagree with such a flippant, all-encompassing statement. While it IS true, that women have a right to say no, one must also account for the responsibility that every person must play in a situation. There is no clear-cut answer, and applying an equation such as Rape = Woman_says_it_is doesn’t quite cut it.
For instance, a girl dresses up in a skimpy outfit or walks around stark naked at 3am. She imbibes on alcohol and engages in flirtations. She encourages the attention and initiates some fondling. The next morning, she wakes up next to a stranger and cries rape because she doesn’t fully recall what happened when she was high on alcohol. Many women will agree that it IS rape – because she cannot consent rationally when she is drunk. However, she for most part, sent out what I would term as “mating signals” to the opposite sex. The male partner did not misread her signals – she sent it loud and clear. The only problem is that she doesn’t remember giving consent. This is certainly a gray area, contrary to some arguments here that it still IS rape.
This is entirely different from a situation where a woman was attacked or forced. It is also different from a situation whereby a woman was out drinking with her friends, passed out and wakes up raped.
What I am trying to point out is this: Yes it is true that no woman asks to be physically violated. But to apply this and completely disregard her behaviour, which may be contrary to her own accusations, is irresponsible on the part of the commenter. These are the gray areas that I an trying to point out. Here, every situation (or case) should be assessed as it is – without prejudice towards the accused or the accuser and certainly without reference to other rhetorical cases that are immaterial to the current one. And certainly, the argument should more than just Rape = Woman_says_it_is. After all, every man (and woman) is innocent until proven guilty.
March 5, 2010 at 3:13 am
I would like to suggest, for the record, that if you are too drunk to remember consenting, you are too drunk to consent.
March 14, 2010 at 11:26 pm
How does the guy know that if he too is too drunk to consent?
Basically, all drunken sex is wrong?
June 15, 2010 at 2:16 pm
“Sure, the girl made a risky decision, but ultimately the skit’s boy failed to get consent.”
Question: Are we taking the girl’s word for it? Because if I wanted to accuse someone of rape, it’s very easy to say that the boy didn’t ask for my consent. And being the victim, I would be believed. Also, let’s not forget that the girl was drunk off her ass, to put it crudely. Even if she had consented, would she even remember, assuming that she was too drunk to know what’s happening in the first place (having sex with a stranger proves this). Unless it can be proven that it was rape (and there are ways to do this of course), she has no right to accuse a guy of raping her just because she didn’t remember most of what happened.