« LIFETIME APPOINTMENTS FOR JUDGES | Main | SIDEBAR »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451f6e769e200d8342de72553ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference MIXING IT UP AT SALON:

Comments

TangoMan

The problem of binge drinking in Britain is causing some awful problems and the remedies that are proposed by feminists, like creating gender specific standards in the law, are worse and this is something I covered here.

The likely reason that the police are embarking on this campaign is that it is women who claim to be victims of rape after engaging in mutually consensual sex where both parties are inebriated. Men and women, of the same size and body weight, metabolize alchohol differently. Throw out the size and weight controls, and the game of gals keeping up with the fellas in the ethos of hard drinking becames a game for the foolhardy. The feminist credo of "whatever he can do I can do better" is at the root of the problem.

If feminists want to cut down on the incidence of rape, and seeing how many favor paternalistic measures, then rather than creating a body of gender specific criminal law, they should use moral suasion to turn women away from binge drinkingl.

The Happy Feminist

The likely reason that the police are embarking on this campaign is that it is women who claim to be victims of rape after engaging in mutually consensual sex where both parties are inebriated.

Big unsupported assumption that betrays your prejudices.

I can't speak to the specific proposed legislation in either Canada or Britain, but I find it hard to believe that anyone would seriously intend to categorize as rape any sex with an intoxicated woman. I would be happy as a feminist to go on record saying that such as law is silly -- and unfeminist. As a woman, I should be free to engage in drunken sex if I choose.

I believe however that a woman CAN be too intoxicated to consent to sex. If she is passed out or doesn't know what she is doing, she has not consented and a drunken man who takes advantage of her state may be guilty of rape even if he is himself drunk. However, if HE is too drunk to know what he is doing then the State will not be able to prove that he acted "knowingly" and he will be entitled to an acquittal. This scheme also protects drunken men from being raped when they are incapable of consenting to sex.

The Happy Feminist

Men and women, of the same size and body weight, metabolize alchohol differently.

Which is why she may be unable to consent to sex at the end of the evening while his cognitive and physical functioning is just fine!

Also, I don't recall the feminist credo you mention. No one ever taught me that one. I think most women engage in binge drinking because it is fun, not to make some feminist point. Women who drink with trusted coed or all-female groups of friends (at least some of whom remain in control of their faculties) are probably relatively safe from sexual assault.

TangoMan

but I find it hard to believe that anyone would seriously intend to categorize as rape any sex with an intoxicated woman.

I don't find it hard to believe at all. OK, it's time to tread carefully here because I know that you and the Catherine McKinnon type theorists have different opinions and positions, but McKinnon was very influential in developing the theory that the Canadian legal feminists were pushing. I hope that you noted that it was actually the Canadian version of the ACLU that called bullshit on that feminist theory of law.

I would be happy as a feminist to go on record saying that such as law is silly -- and unfeminist.

I'm gladdened by your position, but other feminists have declared that effort to be feminist inspired, so which faction of feminism gets to make the definitive declaration of what is, and isn't, feminist.

Big unsupported assumption that betrays your prejudices.

A charge like this begs to be backed up. All I did was describe the legistlative effort in two common-law countries where the feminists were trying to implement differential standards that were to be parsed by sex. I take it that you think I'm prejudiced for thinking that this is advanced moonbattery, and yes, I didn't do too well at disguising my bias against assinine feminist legal theory. But what is the unsupported assumption to which you refer?

However, if HE is too drunk to know what he is doing then the State will not be able to prove that he acted "knowingly" and he will be entitled to an acquittal.

OK, I'm not a lawyer, but my layman's understanding is that intoxication is not a defense to a crime, so how could he be acquited?

The Happy Feminist

The big unsupported assumption to which I referred is quoted in italics in my prior comment.

Intoxication is not in and of itself a defense to a crime.

But virtually every crime is defined in part by the perpetrator's mental state. Thus to prove a rape I would have to prove that the defendant "knowingly" had sex with someone under circumstances constituting rape. (There are lots of different kinds of rape, but one example would be the kind of rape where I have to prove that "the defendant knowingly had sex with someone who was physically helpless to resist.") If he was drunk, he might have still have known that he was having sex with a passed-out woman. The fact that he made a decision under the influence of alcohol that he would not have made while sober doesn't get him off the hook. But if he was so drunk that he thought he was having sex with a doll and not a person, or didn't know he was having sex, or whatever, then he did not act "knowingly" and he is off the hook.

I lost a case once where the guy got off for assaulting a passed-out woman. Her little girl was a witness to the whole incident. He claimed that he didn't remember the incident due to his drunkenness and the jury concluded that he must not have known what he was doing. :(

David Thompson

but I find it hard to believe that anyone would seriously intend to categorize as rape any sex with an intoxicated woman.

Ha! You obviously didn't read this thread. For purposes of conjugation, I consider any alcohol consumption as de facto intoxication and therefore nonconsensual by definition.

Richard

David-- I read your comment you linked to, and you didn't go so far there as what you said here. Surely you don't really mean that "any" alcohol consumption invalidates consent.

The Happy Feminist

Just started reading (or skimming) the thread David. It appears to me that people like Tom Head were arguing that having sex with an intoxicated person who wouldn't have had sex otherwise may be MORALLY a rape even if not LEGALLY. This is a HUGE distinction. Just because something is legal doesn't make it okay.

Like Richard, I don't understand your second sentence either.

David Thompson

Surely you don't really mean that "any" alcohol consumption invalidates consent.

Yes I do. If you've been drinking at all, I won't touch you. I probably won't talk to you, and I may not even sit near you. You can proclaim consent as much as you like, but I won't believe you.

The Happy Feminist

That's a good policy, David.

The comments to this entry are closed.