Asymmetrical Information

Yowza! What a great series of posts. Thanks.

To discourage people from leaving the keys in the ignition of their car is not tantamount to excusing the behavior of car thieves.

Jane, what a great post!

I have a college-aged daughter, and she finally understood that she has to live in the real world, which is like the animal world, and some men are indeed predators.

Personal safety and survival are biologic imperatives. They cannot be set aside by laws, activism, or cognitive effort. To believe otherwise is evidence of a childishness, not unlike the magical thinking engaged by second graders. Worse, to behave otherwise tempts Darwin, which is surely a losing proposition.

The extreme end of this line of thinking occurs with books like Are Men Necessary? by Maureen Dowd, or the book Adam's Curse: A Future without Men by Bryan Sykes, who "uses the structural puniness of the Y chromosome to demonstrate that men are as unnecessary biologically as they are dominant socially."

They convey the message that at best, men are irrelevant, and at worst, men are the problem, and women the solution. Feh.

Re: "To discourage people from leaving the keys in the ignition of their car is not tantamount to excusing the behavior of car thieves. "

Of course not. It is tantamount to saying: "Don't be so stupid as to leave your keys in the igntion. Someone might steal it."

Don't try to discourage car thieves -or think you'll change their behavior- by leaving the keys in the ignition. Simultaneously foolish and arrogant.

Here's a quote from the person that Jane is critiquing:

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/11/08/my-rape-story/

I'd gone out looking for sex: a division of paratroopers were camping in the village for the weekend, and I knew one of them should be willing to give me sex with no strings attached. I met a couple of likely men in the pub - they'd been drinking all evening, while I stayed completely sober because of my pregnancy - and went with them back to their camp.

Are you kidding me? A pregnant woman goes out looking for a no-strings-attached anonymous gangbang?

Either this is some kind of bizarre internet fantasy or we are dealing with one screwed-up individual.

Some of the comments in that thread are real keepers. This one in particular:

# Samantha Writes: November 8th, 2005 at 10:37 am

Thank you for telling your story, Nick.

I used to get myself into situations like this regularly and I consider myself extremely lucky I never got raped. Once when I was 17 I went off with two young men to fool around and I stipulated there would be no vagina-penis penetration.

After a time I saw from the corner of my eye that one man ‘made eyes’ at the other man carrying the meaning of , “you know what we could do, don’t you?” The other man subtly shook his head, “no”, and that’s how close I came to being gang-raped that night.

As with Nick, my sexual desire deflated fast and I asked to be taken home. I got home after a verbally abusive 10-minute car ride where every time I spoke the would-be rapist shouted at me, “Shut the fuck up, whore!”

I will never forget the look on that man’s face as he asked another man to help him rape me.

Boy, Samantha and Nick Kiddle are real pieces of work. They seek out random sex with multiple anonymous strangers...and then act surprised when some of them don't play by the Marquis of Queensberry rules!

Hint: guys willing to participate in gangbangs are generally not the most law-abiding males.

I have never understood the supposed logic behind the thought that men and women are exactly equal in every way. Because I was raised (in the 60's) by fairly conservative parents who taught me that I was as intelligent as any male, I have always felt that the belief of the intellectual inferiority of females was the real demon. Yes, the opportunities opened to women because of the feminist movement are unparalleld, yet the specter of sexual assault is always in the shadows. Even the average 15-year-old boy is already easily as large or larger than the average woman, and already has bested her in terms of upper body strength -so there is just no contest in the physical sense. This is not at all to say that every man is a rapist, but every woman must approach situations in mind that rape may be a wild card floating around. While this should not be a paranoid and paralizing fear, ignoring the possibilities might ,indeed, be interpreted as "asking for it."

Sure looks like times have changed. What constitutes "rape" is being changed radically by the feminists. "Rape" as defined when I grew up truly was a crime of violence and not sex (e.g., as described in Susan Brownmiller's book Against Our Will), but the feminists on that web site actually believe that they can engage in consensual sex and say no at any time and the male is just supposed to stop. Sorry for maybe being old-fashioned, but that's not rape to me if the guy keeps going at that point. If that is considered rape, then we need to redefine the punishments for rape, because I see a world of difference between that scenario and the old-fashioned rape as a crime of violence.

This discussion is further hampered by biology and evolution. At some point in our past, rape (defined as non-consensual sex) was common enough for women to evolve to handle it. That Scandinavian study (sorry, can't remember which country) that came out a few years ago was very interesting. Women who viewed rape scenes or violent pornography became physically stimulated even though when questioned they expressed disgust or censure over the scene. There are several conclusions to be drawn from this. First is that women evolved to become stimulated when raped for sheer survival reasons. Second is that it is natural for women to have "enjoyed" the act at some subliminal level when forcibly raped, which I imagine is why not all women report forcible rape, because they don't understand why their body should react the way it did when they were being forced. (Please understand that "enjoyed" is in quotes not because a raped woman actually enjoys rape, but because her body frequently acts like she does.)

Rape is rightfully recognized as a horrific crime, and traditionally was one of the big three that carried the death penalty (rape, murder, and kidnapping). But if rape is going to be redefined by the radical feminists, some of the punishments ought to be redefined too.

"vote libertarian and buy yourself a gun"
Good advice. But take it a step further. Get a carry permit, take classes in firearms safety, marksmanship and the law. Knowing when and how to shoot is important if you wish to stay alive and out of jail. Granted these are secondary concerns but liberals would prefer you be raped than allow you to own a firearm and protect yourself. It violates their view of society and they don't take kindly to people who espouse individual responsibility.

I consider myself a feminist. A real life ball-busting, women-are-better-than-men feminist. But women, especially young women, often don't have common sense when it comes to their bodies. Many feminists excuse that kind of behavior. I do not. I don't walk down dark alleys at night, alone. I should be able to, but I don't. I understand the risks involves. The same goes for sex. When I was in college, if I invited a boy into my dorm room, I knew there was a chance that we might have sex. I assumed the risk. Now, I happen to know how to protect myself. but if he had a knife or a gun, I could have been raped.

My fellow feminists do the women's movement a disservice by excusing stupid behavior. In the world of "shoulds," yes, I should be able to be around men and not have to think about it, but I do. I also think I should be paid $150,000 more, have a pre-war classic 7 in my parents old building for $200K and my spouse should look more like Johnny Depp. But none of those things are going to happen in my lifetime either.

On rape and guns, I talked to a young woman once who had a real love of guns. When I asked her why, she said (sporting a rather impressive 45 at the time), "A few years ago I reached the conclusion that I would much rather kill someone than be raped again."

She still engaged in firtatious activities, perhaps even "risky" bevavior, but in addition to the weaponry, she also carried an aggressive attitude that she was never going to be the victim in any exchange -- not that there would be no victims, but that it would be the other party.

Now, I'm not a predator (so he says), so I can't speak to their mindset, but I would like to think that that kind of female-aggression would warn them off, despite any hormonal temptation. At the very least, she was a reminder of the old addage, "An armed society is a polite society."

"At some point in our past, rape (defined as non-consensual sex) was common enough for women to evolve to handle it. That Scandinavian study (sorry, can't remember which country) that came out a few years ago was very interesting. Women who viewed rape scenes or violent pornography became physically stimulated even though when questioned they expressed disgust or censure over the scene"

I have always thought these and similar studies were flawed in that they equate "physically stimulated" with "positively aroused". Bad things can physcially stimulate you. You sometimes pay attention to them because you see they are dangerous and need to decide if you should take action. Becoming attentive because of possible danger is not the same as being pleasurably aroused.

I'm a fairly conservative (read: "old school") father of a 5-year old daughter. With my wife being who she is, I'd have a hard time convincing her to allow my kids to receive firearm trainging when they're old enough.

But we've already made steps to get The Girl and her 7-year old brother enrolled in martial arts classes. She already knows how to make a proper fist and how to throw a good punch (I have the bruises to prove it).

I figure if she cripples the first boy that tries to take advantage of her, the word will quickly get out.

But biology being what it is, the only ones who will be able to act on these desires will be men.

What?

Males can, and have been raped by women. The standard defense that his erection equals consent is a variation on Sebastian's statement about "equat[ing] 'physically stimulated' with 'positively aroused'." And one would imagine that nothing would prevent an agressive woman from forcing herself on another woman.

Actually interesting comment, junyo--I once came across some blogger's story on a sexual violence survivor's livejournal. He had been involved in a BDSM game with a female partner. He got squicked in the middle of it and wanted to be untied, but the female thought his protests was just part of the game and continued. (Not sure why they hadn't arranged on a safe word beforehand.) He considered himself to have been raped, IIRC, and I'd say that counts as at least nonconsensual. But then again, I wouldn't consider that to be a standard or common occurence.

I consider myself a feminist. A real life ball-busting, women-are-better-than-men feminist.

In the world of "shoulds,"...my spouse should look more like Johnny Depp.

OK...how many men reading this thought, "Thank God I'm not the poor bastard married to this woman!"?

All right...you can all put your hands down now.

I so feel sorry for men in these days...

Rape as a crime of violence is well known to us all, easily defined - but, like "torture," it's acquiring some postmodern definitions too, and they're much harder to deal with. If I tell my husband that I'm not interested, I'm too tired, for heaven's sake put that thing away, and he grins at me and does a little of this and that - is he attempting rape, or just trying to affect the outcome of what is implicitly a consensual-by-default (because we're married and theoretically open to suggestions from one another along these lines) situation? If a woman on a date implicitly or explicitly consents all the way up to the Moment of Truth, then gets cold feet OR (here's the tough part) wants a little more persuasion but doesn't know how to tell the man that without ruining the moment (I'm sick to death of magazine articles encouraging me just to tell my partner what I want him to do as if such conversation comes easily to everybody), is he attempting rape if he tries to convince her to go on with what they've started, either verbally or through physical but essentially gentle means? If he succeeds in "breaking down her resistance," which we still aren't sure of the cause of, has he committed rape, or has he just been persuasive?

How is the man to know? There appears to be a sense that ANY "no" is as emphatic as a "no" accompanied by defense wounds. If sex weren't as transactional as it's become, I imagine we'd have fewer "gray area" rapes, because the question of consent officially accompanied vows, or at least promises and commitments, on the parts of both parties, which I think predispose the participants to forgive minor breaches of - wow, getting tangled up in the verbiage here - sexual etiquette. If sex is a potential outcome of a new acquaintance, the two people involved don't have history going for them: offense is generally easier to give and to take between strangers than between friends.

Is there anyone who doubts Nick Kiddle's story? It seems rather 'off' to me. I have doubts that a pregnant girl would do something that stupid, but maybe I'm naive. It seems like reverse-trolling.

Klug,

Look at some of her other postings and her remarks in the comments section. That chick is going to do sexually what she wants to do when she wants to do it and only on her terms. Which by itself is not a bad philosophy, but in her case it comes with a lot of fuzzy-thinking baggage.

Klug,
I'd have to second you. But whatever people need to do to get attention. I'm sure the story got a fair number of hits because of these details.

I think Nick's tale is on the up-and-up. I find it interesting, though, that she says "the fear of rape [should] not be used as a justification for slut-shaming."

It seems to me that the issue here is whether putting yourself in a situation that significantly hightens the risk of rape may be used as a justification for slut-blaming. By any rational definition, the adventure she describes is entirely slutty. But I don't see any shame goin' on here, or shaming. Nor am I advocating any. It just seems that the anticipated criticisms of her behavior are of the blaming, not shaming, variety. Or maybe I'm making too much of this one point.

Once upon a time there was something called "ravishment". The term seems to have disappeared from our vocabulary, overwritten by the expansion of the use of the word rape. It is the non-violent act of seducing her against her wishes, and according to the bodice-rippers is ultimately consensual.

Since I work in a "safety net" clinic for poor, abused, unemployed, etc. I have found that if you can imagine somebody doing something, then someone has probably done it. There are pregnant women out there that do such things as troll for gang bangs.

Having worked with abused people, some are physically aroused, e.g., erections, when being raped. This is purely reflexive, but many are confused by this. Abused boys have a hard time accepting that they got an erection while being raped. They're not sure what is happening to them and are confused by what their body is doing despite how they feel. I'm sure the same can happen to women. As evidence of this, sperm is collected from animals by shoving a large vibrator up their rectum until they climax, so the same thing can happen to people whether they are willing or not.

As the father of 3 daughters, I agree with some of the previous commentors. This is not an ideal world and I worry about what will happen to them. I'm somewhat comforted by the fact that the older 2 are in karate. I hope I can talk my youngest into it as well. My wife (also a physician working at the same clinic) isn't as paranoid as me, but then I know that some men really are dirt bags. Maybe as a woman she hasn't heard the same locker room talk as I have. She only sees the public face, but I've seen the less public face of some men. Most men are decent people, but I think 10-20% are not.

Not only are we not in this utopia, we are never, ever going to be in that utopia.

Totally true, but when you try to tell it to utopians, they hate you because you're killing their dream. And it's not just their dream of getting people to adopt the sexual behaviour that bonobo monkeys are alleged to have -- it also applies to a whole range of social, economic and political fantasies.

It seems to me that Ms. Kiddle is implicitly looking for sexual standards that, undelicately, serve to remove the risk inherent in getting gang-banged by drunken paratroopers. Morally and legally, I agree that consent can be withdrawn at any time. Practically, however, that's an awfully tough standard to expect of random drunken strangers.

I'm reminded of my philosophy when riding a bike. Legally, I have the right of way against a car. Morally, no car driver should behave in a way that endangers me. Practically, I'm the one hurt most by an accident, so I'm the one who's got to work hardest to avoid it.

Even if it's not my fault, it's my problem.

I think I lost interest once that "Q Grrl" person started talking about men benefiting from a society condoning rape, or some such.

I don't know how I, as a man, could possibly respond to that, given that I am the enemy.

I'd gone out looking for sex: a division of paratroopers were camping in the village for the weekend, and I knew one of them should be willing to give me sex with no strings attached. I met a couple of likely men in the pub - they'd been drinking all evening, while I stayed completely sober because of my pregnancy - and went with them back to their camp.

One of the many things I find remarkable about this story is that the woman avoids risk in one sense - staying sober because of her pregnancy. Yet at the same time, she takes risk by deliberately putting herself in a situation that could get her and her baby hurt or killed. Interesting priorities. Glad she's not my mom.

Well she’s going with paratroopers, disciplined members of our esteemed armed forces. She should be as safe with them as children with Catholic priests.

(And let's hope that we don't develop compensating political philosophies to "redistribute" sex to the less privileged).

See: prostitution

--Sexual encounters would be handled with negotiation, --

So what's her going price??

I think I lost interest once that "Q Grrl" person started talking about men benefiting from a society condoning rape, or some such.

Yeah. Don't you just love the way they blame *all* men for the actions of rapists? Totally neglecting the fact that the people who *stop* sexual violence are almost entirely men: husbands, cops, judges, etc.

This is the kind of thing these women are taught nowadays in college...it's a weird mishmash of victimology and verbal aggression.

Straight men's testosterone levels drop by about half upon marriage. Those levels do not drop for co-habitation, presumably because the woman has not made the official commitment toward fidelity and biologically, the man's body somehow knows this.

You could view marriage's biological purpose as the trapping of excess, destructive testosterone within a stable form.

Mariage - there's your best and most realistic solution to the threat of sexual aggression.

I'm actually kind of disturbed by Nick's posting. Specifically, she points out that she was sober while the paratroopers in question were drunk. She specifically went with them to have sex. Switch genders for a second. Now, any male under 40 will tell you what that is considered these days: statutory rape.
Sorry, Nick, you raped them before they even thought of doing anything untoward to you.

Bertram: Not for nothing, but I don't think that these paratroopers were from the US.

That means women are going to have to take action to protect themselves. If you don't want to stop engaging in risky behaviour, then vote libertarian and buy yourself a gun.

"Pro-choice" does not extend to the right of a woman to choose whether or not to own and/or carry a gun for self-protection (especially without governmental notification and consent). Because women should not be allowed to make some choices.

Maybe I am reading too much into this. Rex writes:

"but the feminists on that web site actually believe that they can engage in consensual sex and say no at any time and the male is just supposed to stop."

The last time I checked, the guy had exactly the same, although seldom exercised, right. I can easily imagine a woman voluntarily entering into an encounter with a view toward traditional foreplay and coitus and a man insisting on acts that are outside the woman's intent. Rex, are you saying she doesn't have a right to say no and that if she is forced to continue, the law affords no remedy?

MKT,

To me, "engage in consensual sex" does not mean engage in consensual foreplay, etc., but rather actual intercourse. After reading the comments on that web site, I seriously believe that a lot of those gals think that they have the right to change their mind after intercourse has begun and the male is supposed to just stop. I don't think that's realistic. And while I'll concede that they have the moral right to change their minds, even during intercourse, I don't think they have the legal right; in other words, I don't see the male as committing a criminal act if he continues at that point. The punishment should be ostracization (a/k/a "the cold shoulder"), but not prison.

Now I'm not talking about what if the gal thinks it's person A and discovers that it's person B during sex; that's clearly covered by the consent doctrine--she gave consent to person A, but not to person B, so once she discovers the deception, she knows she is being raped and has the right to demand a halt to the proceedings. And if she doesn't discover the deception until after they both finish, it's still rape.

It reminds me of a question I always wanted to ask the campus feminist types back when they would put on "Take Back the Night" rallies (and never did because I am a fraidy cat): "Back? When did you ever have it?"

“don’t just stick your head in the sand and claim that it’s all society’s fault.”

Great post. I quoted you. Thanks!

After reading the comments on that web site, I seriously believe that a lot of those gals think that they have the right to change their mind after intercourse has begun and the male is supposed to just stop.

Really, think about this. To the guys out there: You're in a reasonably happy stable sexual relationship. You're having sex, consensual, fully desired by both parties. Your girlfriend, wife, whatever, in the midst of the sex, yelps "Ow, ow, muscle cramp -- get off me, I've got a charley horse. You've got to stop so I can massage it." She's withdrawn consent in the middle of sex. (This is a situation I've been in -- not just an imaginary thought experiment). Would you ignore her and keep going? Would it be a significant hardship to stop?

Now, I can certainly visualize circumstances in which it might take a little while to successfully communicate the withdrawal of consent; I can't imagine a decent man, once that communication was made, either refusing to stop the sex, or perceiving having to stop as a significant hardship.

If you agree with me on that (You're having sex with your partner, she starts yelping in pain, stopping is neither impossible nor particularly burdensome) then what makes it unrealistic to suppose that a man could, and should, do the same thing regardless of the reason for the woman's withdrawal of consent?

LizardBreath,

Two points:

(1) In the situation you described,it is clear that the stopping will be only temporary until the immediate problem is alleviated, or at least, that there will be continuing opportunities in the future. I wish I knew exactly why that makes a difference, but it does. Maybe someone else can articulate the reasons better.

(2) If your partner didn't stop, do you think that it constitues the crime of rape, or merely deserving of the cold shoulder treatment?

One thing that bothers me about that web site is that the gals designate every situation in which they change their mind and their partner doesn't stop as being criminal rape. I disagree.

Rex writes, " And if she doesn't discover the deception until after they both finish, it's still rape." Agreed.

In re Rex's comments, his intuition is certainly a common one, but respectfully I have to disagree with him. If I invite someone into my home, whether a friend or a stranger, I reserve the right to revoke that invitiation and tell that person to leave at any time. I may be a jerk to tell them to leave, and it may be inconvenient for them, but if they decline to do so, I will consider it trespassing. If I were female, I would expect the same reasoning to apply to my bed.

the feminists on that web site actually believe that they can engage in consensual sex and say no at any time and the male is just supposed to stop.

As do I, as a male. I'm not an animal. I am not controlled by my penis. I wouldn't like stopping after certain points, but I am capable of it. What I would think of a woman who stopped me well into the process depends a great deal on the circumstances. Did she get scared of something, or was she just leading me on?

And furthermore, how often does this happen? Some women love to tease, I guess. But it isn't all that hard to spot these women and avoid them if it's a problem for you. Where are women likely to draw a line? Having been married for years, I have little to go on as to "what's going on." But geez, isn't this a straw man?

Rex-

So, you agree that it's neither impossible or onerous for a man to stop sexual intercourse when a woman withdraws consent, you believe that women "have the moral right to change their minds, even during intercourse", but you do not feel that men have any obligation to respect that moral right unless offered the promise of more nookie in the future.

You, sir, are a piece of work.

And Dr. Jay -- of course it's a straw man. The idea of someone whimsically deciding to withdraw consent during intercourse is possible, I guess, but pretty damn unlikely. The factual situation being discussed on Alas, A Blog was a woman who consented to sex with a condom, and withdrew her consent when a condom wasn't available -- not a particularly unreasonable position.

If I tell my husband that I'm not interested, I'm too tired, for heaven's sake put that thing away, and he grins at me and does a little of this and that - is he attempting rape, or just trying to affect the outcome of what is implicitly a consensual-by-default (because we're married and theoretically open to suggestions from one another along these lines) situation?

This is a really valuable scenario, I'm glad you posted it.

Given that you are married, and have been together for quite a while, you appear to have negotiated nonverbally to the effect that "I'm tired" means he's allowed to do some things but not others.

In particular, he's allowed to try to persuade you, and make you not feel tired. "I'm tired" does not mean "leave me alone". "Put that thing away" does not mean "don't touch me". So really, there isn't as much ambiguity in this as you might think.

And I'd be willing to bet that he has a pretty good idea of when and where he's allowed to touch you also.

LizardBreath,

Look again at what I wrote. I didn't say that men have no obligation; what I said was that I don't think that it is criminal rape. Would a failure to stop damage the relationship? Sure it would! But I don't think it's criminal.

And I'm not discussing a strawman, here, but am discussing the attitude of most of the posters and commenters on that web site. Read the web site and tell me if you disagree or not that that would be their attitude.

Rex,

Let's say the woman in question doesn't just say no.

Let's say she tries to push you off of her, Is it still not rape?

Let's say she starts screaming, telling you you're hurting her, and threatening to call the police, Still not rape?

Let's say she's crying, flailing wildly to defend herself, doing everything she can to defend herself. Still not rape?

By the standard you've set forth, as long as there has been consnsual penetration at the outset, no it isn't. No offense, but you either need to rethink your standard or get some serious professional help.

Most people here think that Rex is wrong. Everyone except Rex, I think. Not that there is no sense to his POV, but that when you look at the possibilities, his reasoning doesn't hold up. Can we stop trying to convince Rex now?

If I invite someone into my home, whether a friend or a stranger, I reserve the right to revoke that invitiation and tell that person to leave at any time. I may be a jerk to tell them to leave, and it may be inconvenient for them, but if they decline to do so, I will consider it trespassing. If I were female, I would expect the same reasoning to apply to my bed.

This is why analogies should be used carefully. If people tended to enter a pleasurable, hormone-driven, seizure-like state shortly after entering your house (and if in fact it was their primary reason for even accepting the invitation, awkward as it otherwise would be) you might find it a lot harder to get them to leave after inviting them inside. Especially by means of "reason."

There is no such thing as "reason" in between the bedsheets. The increasing tendency to view sex as a recreational toy, rather than an intimate union, leads to a lot of useless and stupid thinking on the topic. Noteably, it is not a two-partner game where either partner can set down his or her paddle/racket/pawns/whatever and walk away at will. Neither of two partially or fully naked people, grappling each other, are in a good position to do that. Even if one has a change of mind, sexual hormones are very slow to answer to reason.

Would you allow yourself to be dangled over a cliff by a person you didn't know and trust to do it safely? Would you even get near the cliff alone with a person without getting to know them first at some level deeper than 'casual acquaintance'? If so, you're a lot more likely to have regrets later, no matter what the other party's legal/moral culpability is in the matter.

I think Rex actually has a point or two to make along those lines, but his interloctors are far too busy engaging in sloppy arguments, premised around worse-case scenarios, to see what it is.

When you read Nick Kiddle's bio and posts, it's obvious s/he's got enough issues to fill a magazine rack. She calls her gender "a strange gray area," yet she's "due to become a single mother in November." No father is mentioned, of course, but it's OK because Nick "intend(s) to raise the child the genuinely traditional way - with the help of my entire tribe." Right. Sure. Hope you're saving up some serious lettuce for the kid's therapy, Nick.

Oh, and she has the tendency to go out looking for sex (while pregnant, yet) from strange drunken men, only to get cheesed off when the bastard's idea of sex doesn't precisely fit Nick's parameters. I guess when you begin with the thesis that all men are evil rapists, you can justify just about anything.

The moral of the story, one I had to learn time and again before I met my wife: fellas, leave the crazy ones alone.

But don't just stick your head in the sand and claim that it's all society's fault, so you're not going to do anything until society takes care of the problem.

The problem with that is if everyone agrees that women must take personal responsibility for avoiding rape, then society gradually veers back over to "the woman asked for it" attitude. There's always going to be substantial pressure in the "it's the woman's fault" direction. Without a pressure in the opposite direction, social mores will shift.

It's the same reason that the fight for women's equality wasn't largely won by women who simply believed in equality. The "radicals" are why there is a middle ground.

For what its worth, most neighbourhoods that are fighting crime problems have a similar problem. As long people recognize reality that you cannot walk the streets at night, and are responsible enough not to do so, the crime continues ad infinitum. Does walking the streets at night end the problem? Of course not, but it *is* a prerequisite. In this case, the will to act to prevent crime only comes when people are outraged that they are unsafe performing acts that they believe *should* be safe.

It's the same reason that the fight for women's equality wasn't largely won by women who simply believed in equality. The "radicals" are why there is a middle ground.

By that reasoning, the reason there is a middle ground is also the extremists on the other side of the argument. No offense, Tom, but I don't think most reasonable people would credit male cheauvenists with the presence of moderation in the feminist community. Or Bull Connor with moderation in the Civl Rights movement.

By and large, my experience on that matter differs sharply. Extremists tend to discredit their moderate allies through association.

There is no such thing as "reason" in between the bedsheets. The increasing tendency to view sex as a recreational toy, rather than an intimate union, leads to a lot of useless and stupid thinking on the topic. Noteably, it is not a two-partner game where either partner can set down his or her paddle/racket/pawns/whatever and walk away at will. Neither of two partially or fully naked people, grappling each other, are in a good position to do that. Even if one has a change of mind, sexual hormones are very slow to answer to reason.

Once again, I call bullshit. Any normal man could and would stop in the middle of consensual sex if his partner got a muscle cramp and started yelping in pain. Given that fact, claiming that a man can't be expected to stop sexual activity on withdrawal of consent cannot be sustained on the grounds that it's too difficult or it's impossible for him to stop.

If you want to make the argument that it's not wrong for a man in that situation to continue sexual activity despite a withdrawal of consent, you have to argue that the man is entitled to override the woman's non-consent. Go ahead and make that argument if you like, and if you feel comfortable doing it, but don't claim that stopping would be difficult or impossible -- it is patently untrue.

Yes, Liz, in a world where everyone is sober, intelligent, reasonable, mature and has masters degrees from the Andrea Dworkin school of gender equity training, every man would stop the instant the woman said so. Let me know if you ever see such a world. (On second thought, don't.)

LizardBreath,

At great risk to my self esteem, I'll say it once again: wrong, yes, but not criminal.

RMc -- I'm arguing with the poster I quoted, and specifically with the text I quoted. You can say, if you like, that those are circumstances under which many men would be tempted to forcibly override a woman's withdrawal of consent and thus rape her, and that it would be unsurprising if such a thing happened. Great -- make that argument if you want to. Just don't bolster it (as the poster I quoted did, but you haven't yet) by claiming that it would be difficult or impossible for a man in that position not to do so.

Rex-

wrong, yes, but not criminal.

Why not?

If my wife had a cramp in the middle of sex and started screaming with pain, I'd stop. But:

1. At a certain point, it might take a LOT of screaming to get my attention, or rather it would have when I was younger. Of course, then I'm probably just a few seconds from stopping anyhow...

2. Loud screaming isn't her normal behavior during sex, and after 28 years I certainly know that. But I have heard stories of women who shout "no, no, no" while climaxing (and would be very upset if the man stopped right then) so I can't see misunderstandings in this particular situation as justifying criminal charges.

Once again, I call bullshit.

And I call for higher standards of language in debate. Odds either of us will get what we call for just by calling it?

Any normal man could and would stop in the middle of consensual sex if his partner got a muscle cramp and started yelping in pain.

Sure. I didn't argue that. But again, you're resorting to an unusual, worst-case scenario to defend the entire point, which just muddles things.

Given that fact, claiming that a man can't be expected to stop sexual activity on withdrawal of consent cannot be sustained on the grounds that it's too difficult or it's impossible for him to stop.

I didn't say impossible. As for the rest, since your argument is relying entirely on an extreme situation, it's not too surprising that you see your conclusions in black-and-white terms. That doesn't make them more broadly applicable to a grayscale world, though.

If you want to make the argument that it's not wrong for a man in that situation to continue sexual activity despite a withdrawal of consent, you have to argue that the man is entitled to override the woman's non-consent.

That doesn't resemble what I said and, at best, it misrepresents what Rex said.

Go ahead and make that argument if you like, and if you feel comfortable doing it, but don't claim that stopping would be difficult or impossible -- it is patently untrue.

Leave a little fodder for the ox's use, please.

Jane wrote:
I'm a big fan of feminist blog Alas, A Blog, though our politics are pretty far apart.

Thanks! I like your blog too. We should do a radio show together sometime. :-)

Someone else wrote:
But whatever people need to do to get attention. I'm sure the story got a fair number of hits because of these details.

Some people care that much about getting hits, but "Alas a Blog" simply isn't like that. I think if you read "Alas" regularly, you'd realize that we don't have to pull stunts to get our readers, any more than Jane does.

Regarding the value of radical feminism:

Even on this blog - which has a much less "feminist" readership than "Alas" does - the majority of comment-writers seem to agree that even after consenting to sex, and even in the middle of coitus, either person has the right to say "stop right now, no more," and the other person would be morally obligated to stop.

20 years ago, that was an incredibly radical view, held mainly by radical feminists. Today, it's a mainstream view. There's a lot I disagree with in radical feminism, but I think it's still been amazingly successful at changing our culture, and for the better.

wrong, yes, but not criminal.

Why not?

While I think LizardBreath's type is impervious to reason, there an obvious reason *why not*...because lots of women don't *really* want you to stop when they say "no". There are all different kinds of no. A whispered no is very, very different from a shouted "NO". And if the guy backs off from a whispered no, there's a good likelihood that this was actually a test.

Gregg Easterbrook had the right POV on this:

http://www.tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=832

In contemporary society, the problem may turn on the language women use if they decide they want to leave. "No" doesn't cut it, unless it's a top-of-the-lungs "NO!" However often theorists assert that the single word "no" is all that's required--"what part of 'no' don't you understand," etc.--the reality of human interaction is that "no" does not always mean no. Maybe half the sex in world history has followed an initial "no," or more than one "no." (Whether such sex is regretted later, or simply not much fun, is irrelevant to the rape debate.) What ends up as consensual sex, however unsatisfying, often begins with the woman saying "no."

Because men know this--because in the real world "no" does not always mean no--speaking the word "no" is not the ideal way to communicate to a man that what is happening has changed from persuasion, or pressure, to compulsion. Men not only want sex, the male mindset holds that overcoming the woman's "no" is part of manliness. Few men will rape if that's what they think they are doing. Many try to push past "no" and tell themselves that what they are doing is manly persuasion of the naturally hesitant female. "Had we but world enough, and time/this coyness, lady, were no crime:" Andrew Marvel, circa 1650.

There has to be a better way than the word "no" to communicate to the man that he has crossed the line, and that better way must be widely agreed upon. Here's my proposal: If the line is crossed, women should say, "This is rape!"

The statement is clear, unambiguous, and can't possibly mean "not now, but maybe after more wine," which is what men often think the first "no" means. Saying, "This is rape!" won't stop the hardened criminal rapist, who already has decided to commit a crime. This phrase should work on the majority of men who are not criminals. Just hearing the word "rape" in this context would give chills to the majority of men who are not criminals. If this phrase were promoted and widely understood to mean that the woman was changing the situation from age-old male-female play into a legal event, there could be no confusing it with the "no" that might become a "yes."

Of course, that's a little bit too realistic for the really ideological feminist types. Rex, keep up the good fight...

I get the impression that "the really ideological feminist types" don't believe that a woman can say yes and actually mean it...

Liz,

Sorry, I just don't have the time to elaborate on this right now. As a starting point, let me just observe that there are many behaviors that range from being insensitive to rude to morally wrong (and I'm not pigeonholing the actions under discussion as any of those by saying this) that don't rise to the level of what society wants to punish as criminal conduct.

A decent discussion would start with the history of jurisprudence and crime and go on to what makes up a crime (act or intent or both, etc.) and then, once we have a common background in what we are talking about, we could get to the specifics of whether or not the actions under discussion should be a crime. Maybe in some future society they will be, but I don't think we're there yet, and some of the other posters have given reasons why that might not be good idea in today's society.

But I think we'll have to leave that discussion for another time.

p.s. Good to see you posting comments on this site again. It's been awhile.

Ampersand,

No offense, but I've heard your particular position vis-a-vis radical feminism held out quite a few times. Unfortunately, none of those times have I heard someone back up that particular argument with any evidence. Would you care to give me any? Remember, we're only talking about the mid-80's here. It just doesn't seem consistent with the views that virtually anyone I've talked to on the subject.

Ampersand:

the majority of comment-writers seem to agree that even after consenting to sex, and even in the middle of coitus, either person has the right to say "stop right now, no more," and the other person would be morally obligated to stop.

20 years ago, that was an incredibly radical view, held mainly by radical feminists. Today, it's a mainstream view. There's a lot I disagree with in radical feminism, but I think it's still been amazingly successful at changing our culture, and for the better.

I agree with Bill. I remember discussions on this issue from mid-1970s in which the view you're describing was accepted as uncontroversial. And my friends and I were a bunch of drug-addled lowlifes. The idea that this enlightened view is recent, or that we owe it to radical feminism (just getting off the ground in the mid-1970s) strikes me as wishful thinking on your part.

Hmm, in regard to the question of what constitutes rape. In my view there is a small grey area in the withdrawl of consent after sex was started consensually. Having taken several seconds to process even potentially life saving commands (STOP, a car is coming) I can see that withdrawing consent has a similar and possibly longer response interval. The introduction of alcohol probably also lengthens this interval. In addition, because of the longer response interval and the previous consent, the withdrawl of consent needs to be as unabmiguous as possible. Nick's hand preventing penetration was quite unambiguous, and gave the man the several seconds mental processing time. I still do not think her actions were wise, but he likely knew without a doubt that consent had been withdrawn. 2 things in my mind would strengthen this case if he admitted them.
1. He deliberately removed the condom, knowing her objections, but hoping that she would not notice or not care at that stage.
2. He admitted he could have stopped, but did not because the earlier consent entitled him to finish.

I also find the comments in this article that seem to say that only women have this blame game and fear for their safety a complete crock. As the wife of a policeman, I know that they have given advice to men like: "It was not a smart thing to flash that muh cash in this neighborhood. Please help us protect you by not putting yourself in such a dangerous situation."

As to the idea that men are not as concious of their safety as women, that may be true more often than not, but in my experience is hardly at the level to be considered a truism. At least the men in my life have taken more precautions for safety than I ususally do. My husband who is large, strong, has multiple black belts and a cop, is probably one of the least likely people on earth to come out the loser in a violent encounter. He also spends more time assessing the risk of any action from walking to his car to sitting in a friend's house than anyone I know. He also spends more time and energy preparing for those violent encounters should they occur. (The multiple black belts were not by chance) Some of this is simply knowing how bad people can be to each other since he encounters more of that than most of us, but the stereotype that only women must take extraordinary measures to protect themselves is patently false in my experience. In geneneral, the men should protect themselves more.

Remember, we're only talking about the mid-80's here.

I'm sorry, but are you suggesting that radical feminism didn't exist before the mid-1980s? If so, you're very much mistaken. And if not, why would we only be talking about the mid-80s?

Regarding what good radical feminism has done, I think that a nationwide network of battered women's shelters is a good thing (although not as good as if battery didn't exist at all). Some studies have found that as battered women's shelters became more prevalent, the rate of husbands being murdered went down in the states that had more shelters, and that's a good thing. I think the now-common understanding of acquaintance rape as "real" rape - and the law enforcement and research resources that have gone into fighting rape - is a positive development. I think the idea of lesbian families as "real" families is a good thing. I think the legal redefinition of rape in most states, including the elimination of the marriage exemption, is a positive development. I think the idea that sexual harassment is wrong is a positive development. I think the family leave act is a positive thing.

More generally, the entire view of what gender means has gone through a radical alteration. Most of us can't even imagine opening up a paper and seeing "jobs for women" and "jobs for men" sections in the classifieds.

Maybe all those changes would have happened without the essential work of radical feminists from the early 70s through the present; but it doesn't seem likely to me.

And Intellectual Pariah, with all due respect, I think you're mistaken. Radical feminism was just getting off the ground in the mid to late 60s, a decade earlier than you're claiming. For example, Shulamith Firestone's first radical feminist writings were in print by the late 60s - surely you're not saying her work wasn't part of radical feminism! By the mid 70s radical feminism was as large a national movement as it would ever be, and intellectuals were already making complex distinctions between socialist and radical feminism and wondering where everything went wrong (for instance, "Trashing" by Jo Freeman).

The movement to provide shelters for battered women has very little to do with feminism, radical or otherwise. The oldest shelter, Chiswick Women's Aid in London, was started by Erin Pizzey, an anti-feminist who's been the target of considerable harrassment and violent attacks from radical feminists.

The role of feminism in the shelters has been to hijack them from their original purposes, which included helping women gain insight into their choice of violent partners, toward general purpose man-bashing societies in which women are infantilized and held harmless from their agency and their choices.

Radical feminism is locked-in to a systematic re-writing of history, and this is a good example of it.

Ampersand,

With all due respect, my unenlightened working-class friends accepted 30 years ago a notion that you say was still considered radical feminism 20 years ago.

I don't think we really disagree about the history of radical feminism. Sure, it emerged in 1960s, but it had its broades cultural impact in the mid-1970s. My druggie friends weren't channeling Shulamith Firestone, you can be sure of that. Any remaining specks of decency they had (and some of them did become bad guys) were probably relics of their early 1960s Sunday School lessons. :-)

The oldest shelter, Chiswick Women's Aid in London, was started by Erin Pizzey...

Haven House in California was founded in 1964, seven years before Pizzey co-founded CWA in Britain. So which of us is re-writing history?

In the USA, the vast majority of the volunteers and professionals who have built up the shelter system have been radical feminists. Out of the tens of thousands of feminists who have participated in this project, of course I don't agree with every one; and nothing created by mortal humans is perfect. But on the whole I think the shelter system is something feminism can rightly be proud of, which does an awful lot of difficult work helping people in dire need.

I'd say most of the workplace improvements for women have been the work of moderate rather than radical feminists. The rape crisis centers and battered women's shelters are something the radicals can take credit for. Just to be querulous and unpleasant, I'll point out there's an element of "negative gemeinschaft" here. That's the phenomenon - pervasive in the 1970s far left - in which the more strident and intolerant members of a group tend to repell or ostracize the more moderate element. At any rate, that's the account my trotskyite friend gave me of her involvement in rape crisis centers in Toronto in the late 1980s.

Still, there are worse things than strident and intolerant, IMO. They got things done, and it's to their credit.

There's no doubt that radical feminists - Del Martin and Sheila Kuehl being the most notorious examples - jumped on the domestic violence bandwagon very early, just after the first set of shelters opened in the early 70s. They saw, quite correctly, that "the battered wife" provided them with emblematic evidence supporting their long-term goal, the recognition of lesbian marriage, and also with a source of funding for a dedicated corps of lesbian lobbyists and political activists.

But this use of the shelter movement has undermined the goal of its founders, making women safer in their homes. In "Violent Betrayal: Partner Abuse in Lesbian Relationships" Claire Renzetti shows that shelters are largely ineffective for battered lesbians because of the high probability that their batterer works there.

So here's the problem: radical feminists don't really want to reduce the violence in male/female relationships because they feel these relationships are necessarily harmful to women and inextricably full of violence, overt or covert. So their shelters do nothing to help violence-prone women deal with their tendencies toward violence and in fact release them back into the world in a more vulnerable condition than when they took them in.

This Nick story is a case in point. She picks up a couple of guys in a bar, gets them all liquored-up, and then claims to be frightened that they won't be able to exercise self-control when her whims change.

Duh.

Is this chick demented, or what? Rape laws say that women can't give informed consent after a couple of beers. Why assume that men are capable of perfect self-control in same condition?

First of all, Richard, it's not true that the law says a woman who has drank a couple of beers is raped if she has consensual sex. That claim is the invention of anti-feminists and conservatives, but it has nothing to do with how real-life rape laws function in the real-life justice system.

Second of all, Nick didn't change her mind (although she certainly would have had the right to). Nick said all along that using condoms was a condition of sex; it was one of the men, who initially agreed to this condition but then tried to go ahead without a condom, that changed his mind.

California Penal Code section 261, definition of rape, includes this condition: (3) Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused.

This isn't a fabrication, it's the law.

In most people, Richard, two beers hardly rise to the level of "prevented from resisting." Most people with two beers in them are quite capable of saying "stop that," or of pushing against someone, or any of a hundred other things that constitute "resisting."

If someone really is so knocked out by just two beers that they are "prevented from resisting" - so drunk that they can't push away, can't form the words "no, stop that," or do anything else that can be called "resisting" - then yes, having sex with them can and should be seen as rape. But that's hardly the situation the guy Nick picked up was in.

Fine, Ampersand. Richard should re-write post to read "Rape laws say that women can't give informed consent when they are intoxicated to the point of being 'deaf to reason'." According to Nick, that's how drunk her would-be rapist was. Crazy girl.

Or are you saying the law requires the women to be virtually passed-out as opposed to pie-eyed?

The assumption built-in to this rape law is that women don't want to have sex unless they clearly indicate otherwise, with a clear and sober mind. So if a woman is drunk and she jumps a guy and essentially forces him to have sex with her, she can still claim to be a rape victim the next day. No specific blood alcohol level is listed. She simply has to show that she lacked the capacity to resist the omnipresent sexual cravings that permeate patriarchal society.

It's not clear to me that Nick knew that the two guys she picked up for a three-way were sober enough to know what was going on. She certainly seems to have been in doubt about it.

That being the case, it's abundantly clear that she thought she was putting herself in a dangerous setting, so that's probably what turns her on.

Perhaps that what this whole "patriarchal oppression" fantasy is all about - sort of a refined version of the rape fantasies that the bodice-rippers are so full of.

If someone really is so knocked out by just two beers that they are "prevented from resisting" - so drunk that they can't push away, can't form the words "no, stop that," or do anything else that can be called "resisting" - then yes, having sex with them can and should be seen as rape. But that's hardly the situation the guy Nick picked up was in.

Whether they were "capable of resisting" isn't the issue. The reason sex with a drunk person is rape isn't because drunk people can't resist -- it is because drunk people can't CONSENT. That's why having sex with a 13-year-old is rape, even if the thirteen-year-old is begging for sex; thirteen year olds are not legally capable of consent. Neither are people who are so drunk as to be incapable of reason -- which Nick says the man in question was.

Men have been sent to prison for "rape" for the act of having sex with a woman who was conscious and seemingly willing, but drunk or high.

debt and bill consolidation

Ampersand,

And if not, why would we only be talking about the mid-80s?

Umm...because now less the 20 years ago you cited puts us in the mid-80s. Next question?

Really, I'm not being snarky here (at least intentionally). The view that women are allowed to change their mind about sex seems like it is pretty longstanding and pretty commonly held by people hostile to feminism, let alone radical feminism. Even filtering out any rosiness of memory that some of us may be having on the issue, current empirical observation argues against you. If your argument were accurate, we'd expect to see more hostility to your view among older men than younger men. My impression is that the trend largely works the other way. We would expect to see this view more widely accepted in environments where radical feminism is more common. But that doesn't really seem to be the case. The data really does argue against you here.

Richard Bennett,

I kind of played with the entire intoxicated idea myself. It strikes me that, as I said earlier, Nick might be guilty of statutory rape.

The reason sex with a drunk person is rape isn't because drunk people can't resist -- it is because drunk people can't CONSENT.

What state's laws are you talking about here? I'm not aware of any state where it's illegal to have uncoerced sex with a conscious person under the influence of alcohol.

Men have been sent to prison for "rape" for the act of having sex with a woman who was conscious and seemingly willing, but drunk or high.

Really? When and who?

California Penal Code section 261, definition of rape, includes this condition: (3) Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused.

"Prevented from resisting by any intoxicating substance" does not, either in English or in California law, mean willing to have sex but under the influence of alcohol.

Actually it does.

You see, the argument goes like this: "I would have resisted, but the Ecstasy made me horny. Therefore it was rape."

Got it?

I have to disagree, Lizard. Anyone who is so intoxicated that he would commit a rape which he would not (or so Nick implies) commit while sober is presumably too intoxicated to give meaningful consent. IIRC, while I was in college two fraternity brothers were prosecuted for having sex with a girl who was conscious, willing, but far too intoxicated to give consent. They got expelled, did time in prison, and to this day presumably still have a felony on their record, and are required to register as sex offenders.

And my, question being only partially snarky) is should Nick be tried and perhaps similarly punished to the two frat brothers. I mean she makes pretty clear in her post that these soldiers were prety much sh*t-faced. I don't see how one can say it isn't rape iff (if and only if) the perpetrator is a woman.

Wow. I feel the need to note the assumptions baked into many comments that "paratroopers" (whom I presume to be military men of some advanced status) can be expected to exhibit worse behavior than most men. My prejudice is to expect the _best_ of behavior from this class of young men (consensual sex, even in a group, is not bad behavior in my mind). I'm not sure the protagonist had this in mind, but it's certainly possible.

Who would you choose to hold your wallet or walk your daughter home, a drunken non-trainee 19 year old military man or a drunken 19 year old frat boy/auto mechanic/sk8er d00d???

IIRC, while I was in college two fraternity brothers were prosecuted for having sex with a girl who was conscious, willing, but far too intoxicated to give consent. They got expelled, did time in prison, and to this day presumably still have a felony on their record, and are required to register as sex offenders.

Did this get any news coverage? I'd think it would.

When you say willing, do you mean that their defense was that they believed her to be willing, or that she testified to having been willing? In short, this sounds awfully unlikely. It could have happened, but I'd have expected it to be a cause celeb at the time.

You see, the argument goes like this: "I would have resisted, but the Ecstasy made me horny. Therefore it was rape."

Can you show me anything relating to this argument ever having been made by a prosecutor, anywhere?

I'll change my mind in the face of evidence, but what you're saying is contrary to everything I've ever read about the law of rape.

LizardBreath, the feminist movement lead a drive to re-write rape laws to include spousal rape and date rape, and in the process changed the standard from "forced penetration" to "sex without consent", where consent is deemed impossible in cases of mental impairment. Here's a blurb from one feminist web site:

Another factor in the reluctance of the criminal justice system to pursue acquaintance rape cases is that alcohol is often involved. One study found that 75 percent (75%) of the males and 50 percent (50%) of the females involved in college campus acquaintance rapes had been drinking when the sexual assault occurred (Bohmer & Parrot, 1993). Social standards condemn individuals for getting drunk and place blame on them when they are raped while drinking any alcohol, regardless of whether they were intoxicated at the time of the assault. In reality, whether the victim is drinking or not, the simple act of saying "no" means just that -- no consent has been given. If the victim is intoxicated, then there can be no capacity to consent. However, the voluntary intoxication of an offender cannot be used as a legal defense for committing the crime of sexual assault.

Finding a specific trial where this standard was applied is next to impossible because it's so commonplace it's not news.

In reality, whether the victim is drinking or not, the simple act of saying "no" means just that -- no consent has been given.

Doesn't so much sound like they're talking about willing drunken participants here, does it?

LizardBreath, next line: "If the victim is intoxicated, then there can be no capacity to consent." I can't say I've seen anyone convicted of this, but it's part of the standard orientation at a college now (at mine, at least) to point out that if the girl is drunk, you're committing rape. Even if you're drunk too.

Which always makes me wonder, do they really think that 50% of the students at my college are rape victims? This does, I think, account for the statistic that half of college rape victims wouldn't describe what occurred as rape (e.g cite"Of the women who were raped, only 25% described it as rape"; pdf cite "For the 86 incidents categorized as a completed rape,
46.5 percent (n = 40) of the women answered “yes,” 48.8 percent (n = 42)
answered “no,” and 4.7 percent (n = 4) answered “don’t know.”").

Here's a recent news story about a rapist convicted of using drugs and alcohol to deprive several apparently willing victims of the capacity to consent.

It's a shocking and heinous crime, I assure you.

If the victim is intoxicated, then there can be no capacity to consent." I can't say I've seen anyone convicted of this, but it's part of the standard orientation at a college now (at mine, at least) to point out that if the girl is drunk, you're committing rape. Even if you're drunk too.

I don't doubt that this is de facto accurate. But, can one of the lawyers here clue me in: Why would the law view the man's actions as rape, but not the woman's? This doesn't strike me as purely hypothetical. I've met plenty of women who can drink your average guy under the table. I also know plenty of guys who've had "beartrap mornings" (i.e. the guy would be willing to chew off his arm to get away) that sound like they could well have resulted from just this sort of thing. If it's going to be illegal for men to do this sort of thing (and yes, it should be.), why is the same behavior somehow okay for women?

Bennett- Any reason you linked to a story about statutory rape involving sex with minors as if it were relevant? Of course sex with apparently consenting but underage partners is treated as a crime; that doesn't have any relevance to the current discussion of intoxication.

So, no one has a thing to show that there is a jurisdiction in the country where sex with a willing adult partner has been punished as rape because the partner was intoxicated but not incapacitated. Thanks. That's what I'd thought.

Bill, they say it's illegal for women to have sex with drunk guys too. But as I understand it, if both parties are drunk, they assume the guy's responsible. I could be wrong about that last, though.

I do know that they say that having sex with a drunk girl is rape.

"They" who? Unless there's some evidence that anyone has ever prosecuted a man or a woman on the basis of having had sex with a willing but intoxicated adult partner, sex with a willing but intoxicated adult partner is not rape.

The language that people have been quoting goes to the problem of an unwilling victim who is unable to resist effectively because of intoxication. It does not criminalize sex with a willing partner.

Jadagul,

I don't doubt that, on a de facto basis, they do assign guilt to the man. Of course, it may be the case that this relies, to some extent on men simply not filing counteraction.

Lizardbreath,

There's plenty of info on the web verifying Jadagul's claim. Moreover, I can verify being told the same thing by my college administration going back to the late '80s.

Yeah. I don't know that I can show that it's legally accurate, but I know that my college administration thinks it's legally accurate, and so did the policeman who gave us our talk on not sexually assaulting other students at orientation.

When I get back from class I'll see if I can dig out a quote from out student policy book.

Jadagul--

Your student policy book is going to tell you "things the college wants you not to do", like, say, have sex while intoxicated. Your college is not a legislature, nor is it a prosecutor's office.

You all (Bill, Jane, Jadagul, Bennett) are making a strong claim about the state of the law -- that it is criminal to have sex with a willing, albeit intoxicated partner. While 50 states is a lot of different jurisdictions, so nothing's impossible, I am pretty darn certain that you're wrong about the law in every state in the US. If you want to convince me otherwise, show me one (just one) prosecution, anywhere in the US, on this basis.

Okay Lizardbreath,

I didn't really want to bother searching the entire web for cases. Nonetheless, I think we have a fairly reliable source with the California Office of the Attorney General's Registerable Sex Offenses site (http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/registration/offenses.htm). It was the first hit on Google. Do a simple edit-find for "intoxicated".

Lizard, the boys were old enough to consent, but intoxicated. This is exactly what you asked for, so stop the lying.

Can you prove your assertions about rape laws with a single example?

I didn't think so.

Richard: If you're talking about this story, I don't see any mention of the boys' ages, but she was charged with 9 counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, so I suspect they were all below the age of consent.

"Minor" is defined differently in delinquency law than in sexual consent law, Pariah. Generally it's 18 in the former case and 16 in the latter, and while the ages of the boys weren't given they sound like high school aged.

the ages of the boys weren't given

If this is the support for your argument that cases involving willing but intoxicated adult participants happen all the time, I'm unimpressed.

Don't know whether convictions happen a lot, LizardBreath (wow, I feel really uncivil typing that), but rape is defined that way in a lot of cases. I suspect it's sort of like an eighteen-year-old boy sleeping with his seventeen-year-old girlfriend in a state where the age of consent is eighteen: technically illegal, but doesn't get a prosecution unless there's something else going on.

LizardBreath,

Look, you asked for evidence. Now, you've got Richard Bennett's case cite and my link to the the CA Attorney General's office. At a certain point, arguing in good faith requires you provide some reason that we are wrong in our assertion. If you need still more evidence, check out http://www.hjpmlaw.com/CM/FSDP/PracticeCenter/Criminal-Law/Sex-Offenses.asp?focus=topic&id=1.
or even
http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/opinion/13161986.htm
Ever hear of date rape. A very large portion of them are precisely this.

Look, you asked for evidence. Now, you've got Richard Bennett's case cite and my link to the the CA Attorney General's office.

But neither of them supports what you're saying. Look at the article you linked from philly.com. The first line is:

RECENTLY, two young men were acquitted of raping a young woman in a La Salle dorm.

The next line is:

All three were intoxicated, all three had been engaging in sexual horseplay and all three ended up in a courtroom because the lethal combination of alcohol and idiocy propelled them into some very risky behavior.

If the law were the way you describe it, they would have been convicted -- it was established that the woman was intoxicated, and you've been claiming that that alone supports a rape conviction. But they were acquitted, because the jury believed that she was willing, (or believed that the men believed she was willing) and sex with a willing although intoxicated adult is not legally rape. This story doesn't support your version of the law, it contradicts it.

From your other link, I assume the language you're talking about is this:

Although laws vary by state, generally, a victim intoxicated by alcohol or a "date-rape" drug is incapable of giving legal consent.

The inclusion of "a 'date-rape' drug" in that sentence gives the context necessary to make sense of it -- this isn't talking about someone who's intoxicated in the sense of having their judgment clouded by having had some drinks, this is talking about someone who is incapacitated to the point of being unable to defend themselves. For example, look at the relevant section of the California Penal Code. It doesn't say anything along the lines of 'under the influence of alcohol or drugs', it says "Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating
or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance". That doesn't describe a willing drunk, it describes someone who is trying to resist but can't because they're incapacitated.

Now, think about this reasonably for a bit. You all are outraged that the law (as you believe) criminalizes sex with willing but intoxicated adult partners. You think it's unjust and unreasonable. You're right about the injustice -- if I thought you had the law straight I'd agree with you, and so would almost anyone else. The thought of someone going to jail as a rapist because he'd had sex with a willing woman who had had a couple of drinks is outrageous; people would be marching in the streets over it.

So, if it would be so outrageous, and if it had ever happened, why can't you find a single report in the media of it ever having happened. You've come up with a story about a woman getting minor boys drunk and sexually abusing them, and a story about two men being acquitted despite the fact that they had sex with an intoxicated woman, and some summaries of the law that use the word 'intoxicated' but that you're misinterpreting. Don't you think it's a little weird that you can't find a single news report of a man being convicted as a rapist for having sex with a willing, intoxicated, adult woman? Doesn't it make you suspect that it's because no such conviction has ever happened?

Okay, we are making a big muddy mess of something that's real clear and simple.

No. Means. NO!!!

That's it.

Wow. Thanks for that, Norah. Cleared everything right up.

Comments are Closed.