Reading the Britblog roundup guest hosted by Philobiblion this week, there are several articles on the worrying Amnesty Report on British attitudes to rape. Unsurprisingly, this has also been a topic of conversation amongst some of my friends, and, well, I've already chosen my nomination for next weeks round up.
It's from a friends personal journal, normally the source of frivolity and light hearted banter. Not today however. You see, she, like Rachel has also, in the past, been the victim of a rapist. And she wants to do something about it. Specifically, she's read the Amnesty report, and finds it's questions to be biased and leading, and the media reports have blown the numbers up out of proportion to the actual answers. Doesn't mean there isn't a worrying number of people who do still blame the woman when she's raped (or the man, for that matter, it does happen). However, that's not her main concern. Her real concern are the separate, but linked reports, of the court case involving the drunken girl and the security guard.
Now, when I first heard about this, I agreed with the verdict. She was drunk, and didn't even remember the event, it only came out it had happened because he admitted to it. He said it was consensual, she didn't know one way or the other, case closed. However, I've been persuaded that it shouldn't be. Yes, under current law, he's innocent. But why? She was so drunk her friends were worried about her. So drunk that she needed to be carried home. So drunk she didn't know what she was doing. We're not talking 'just failed the breathalyser, give me a break officer' drunk here, we're talking 'unable to look after herself properly' drunk. So drunk, in fact, that she's unable to give consent to anything. Is that right?
Is it right that a sober man can have sex with someone unable to think for themselves and not face any consequences? If it was Rohipnol, then no. But if it's alcohol? Debi thinks the law should be changed. She's persuaded me of her case. Now I want to get others to join in, or, if you do disagree, explain why, and give reasons we can try to answer. I find rape to be the most reprehensible of crimes, and I find the attitudes of certain sectors within society to be, well, wrong. No means no, but yes should not be the assumed state.
Any takers?
8 comments:
Not actually talking about drinking along; I've mentioned that in discussion with Debi already, it's when one is sober, or at least in control of their senses. As an anonymous commenter says on her comments:
if one of them is sober, then they're taking advantage of the reduced mentality capacity of their partner and are in fact committing a crime by doing so
Essentially, the difficulty in acheiving convictions is my main concern, rape law I think needs an overhaul.
Both were my initial concerns, she's already answered them, but I'll copy them here:
Maybe we're confuses on what 'that state of drunkenness' is? My definition is near paralytic, unable to stand, kind of state, as demonstrated by the woman in question not being able to make it to her own room, kind of thing. At that point she's pretty much passive, and anything that occure happned to her, if you get my meaning. Certainly unable to state consent.
Um, yeah.
Course, I liken it to being just under the age of consent. A fifteen year old is not considered capable of consenting to sex, yet is considered capable of being held respinsible for punching a pregnant barmaid.
But mostly, a person who's in control enough of their motor and mental fucntions to punch anyone, isn't exactly at the stage of drunkenness I'm talking about here. Maybe we're confuses on what 'that state of drunkenness' is? My definition is near paralytic, unable to stand, kind of state, as demonstrated by the woman in question not being able to make it to her own room, kind of thing. At that point she's pretty much passive, and anything that occure happned to her, if you get my meaning. Certainly unable to state consent.
Um, yeah.
Course, I liken it to being just under the age of consent. A fifteen year old is not considered capable of consenting to sex, yet is considered capable of being held respinsible for punching a pregnant barmaid.
But mostly, a person who's in control enough of their motor and mental fucntions to punch anyone, isn't exactly at the stage of drunkenness I'm talking about here.
Alcohol reduces inhibitions - which is why we use it in social situations. It is very true that people will have sex with someone whilst under the influence of alcohol; that they would not dream of when sober - and this does apply to men as well as women. Few people would consider this rape.
The court case as I understand it was dismissed for lack of evidence. If the woman can no remember anything about the incidence then how can she be sure she did not give her consent. The case point is “drunken consent is still consent”
Date rape drugs are different in that they remove the capacity for someone to give consent, and are given by another person with this intention.
My problem is that maybe I meet a person in a club, we are both drunk, we go have sex, then I am charged with rape the next day because when she wakes up in the morning she decides there is no way she would have shagged me consensually.
What happens when the feeling is mutual?
Are we both charged with rape?
Again, we're not talking if both are drunk equally; see my comment on her post, only if one is inebriated the other is sober.
In my opinion, the guy in the drunken consnet case should have known it was wrong at the time, she was obviously incapable by everyone's testimony.
He was let off through lack of evidence, but should we accept that this is right? She hadn't consented in a functioning way, she was unable to stand. That's not right by any description.
Why does the analogy of locking your car when you leave it only apply in the case of a woman being raped by a man? If a man went to a bar, got blind drunk and was taken home by a sober security guard who then proceeded to subject him to a consentual buggering that the drunkard has no recollection of, would you (or the courts) still throw out the case and implicitly blame the victim for "allowing" the situation to occur?
Mmm. In this case, how drunk was she? She was feeling ill, fine. We've all felt that we need to have a hurl, but would still be in a position to say "no" to sex.
Memory retention is also important. I get massive blank spaces, even when only slightly pissed (I do slightly blame a couple of years of heavy E usage as well, though!).
All of this shows that you should have, at all times, an awareness of risk. Getting totally paralytic is deliberately placing yourself at severe risk. Although, I happen to think that it's a bit shoddy that one of her (female) friends (assuming that she has any) couldn't be arsed to take her home.
A thing that also gets me: why is this possible rape, i.e. one that is possibly non-consensual but also non-violent, deemed worse than, for instance, a friend of mine being kicked shitless, and having his jaw broken in 5 places and his face bones smashed in 8 other places? Why is it that people are so exercised about this "rape"?
DK
Rachel North pointed me over here. It's a difficult question, because our justice system is based, quite rightly on 'innocent until proven guilty' and one gets, as your contributing commenters about have, in to the 'how drunk is too drunk' question.
I have an interest in this, as you can see here. I'll put up a post linking to both you and Innerbrat tomorrow.
In high school we studied tort law. This is the law governing contracts. Under tort law, you CANNOT make a contract with someone who is drunk, as they do not have the mental capacity to understand the full implications of the contract they are signing. Same as with a minor. A drunk is considered to have the mental capacity of a minor.
Consent to me is very similar to a contract. Why is there debate? What we need to change is not the law, but the way we think about these situations.
Real men don't rape. Real men help a disabled (drunken) woman home and ensure her safety. They do not try to 'get some' because she's an easy target. If for some reason she DOES come on to him, he can make a date for another day. That way, when he shows up for the date and she wonders why he's there, he can rest assured he's just saved his a$$ from a rape charge.
Of course, there's not many real men out there. Real men stop their friends and other men from raping women. They let them know it's wrong. Here's an amazing link to that topic: http://www.workersliberty.org/node/5302
As to two people getting drunk together. Two words: communication skills.
Seriously, in the day and age of AIDS, herpes, heck, even syphilis is still around...if you feel things are going somewhere, talk about it BEFORE she has that third or fourth drink (if only to find out if you need to make a pit stop for condoms). Unless she's a really big woman, 3 or 4 should be the borderline to when a woman is getting too drunk to give consent.
Perhaps there's some hindsight guilt making this question come up? I say learn from your experiences and move on. Learn and grow is all we can do. That and lead by example.
And remember.
ONLY MEN CAN STOP RAPE
Post a Comment