Thursday, 30 June 2011

How Feminism Hates Women

Part Two: Unwanted Sex vs. Rape

From Wikipedia:

Actus reus, sometimes called the external element or the objective element of a crime, is the Latin term for the "guilty act" which, when proved beyond a reasonable doubt in combination with the mens rea, "guilty mind", produces criminal liability in the common law-based criminal law jurisdictions of Canada, Australia, India, Pakistan, New Zealand, England, Ireland and the United States.
Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind". In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind be also guilty".

Okay, so let's pretend we're talking about me, and what we're talking about is me crashing my car into another vehicle, killing the driver. The act of crashing my car into his and killing him is the actus reus, and let's say that this fact is not in dispute. Once it has been established that I did indeed crash my car into another and kill the driver, an investigation will be done (I would hope!), and the attendant circumstances examined, and it will only then be determined whether I have committed a crime.

Let's say I undergo a breath test and am found to be legally impaired. In this case, I will be found to have the mens rea of recklessness--I engaged in conduct a law-abiding person would have refrained from, and that conduct resulted in a foreseeable death. I may be charged with a variety of crimes, based on my degree of inebriation and other circumstances--drunk driving causing death, vehicular manslaughter, reckless indifference homicide, etc.

Let's say I live in a jurisdiction where it's still legal to use a cell phone while driving, and I was on the phone when I crashed into him. If it can be determined I was paying more attention to my phone than the road, I will be found to have the mens rea of negligence--that is, a reasonable person would have been able to foresee the danger of my behavior and the harm it might cause. I will probably be charged with manslaughter.

Let's say I drove through an intersection where a stop sign had been stolen or knocked over by vandals. If there was a wrongdoer in this case, it was certainly not me, and I have committed no crime.

Or let's say the other driver ran the stop sign. In this case, I have also done nothing wrong, and have committed no crime.

Or let's say I drove over a nail which blew my tire, and I could not regain control of my car in time to avoid the accident. Again, I have done nothing criminal.

Let's say I saw that the other driver was my ex-husband, and I floored the gas pedal, slamming my car into his before backing up and ramming his vehicle repeatedly until the jaws of life couldn't extricate him from the mangled wreckage. Not that I would ever want to do something like that *coughcough*, but in that case I would be found to have acted purposefully and wilfully to cause my ex's death. And that, my friends, would be capital murder.

So here we have a bunch of different scenarios, all with the exact same terrible result for the victim, all of which differ in their degree of criminal culpability. Only two of these scenarios would qualify as murder, and in three I have committed no crime at all.

So here we have the crux: any situation in which one person kills another is a homicide, but not all homicides are crimes, and not all criminal homicides are considered murder. Whether a homicide is considered murder or not, depends entirely on mens rea--the "guilty mind".

I have often asserted in my arguments online that just because someone feels they have been wronged or harmed by another, this does NOT necessarily mean a crime was committed against them. And by extension, a man should never be considered to have raped a woman if he did not have the necessary mens rea--that is, if he did not actually realize he was raping her.

I am often told in response that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but ignorance of the law has very little to do with mens rea. In the case of rape, mens rea is not a question of whether someone knows that forcing an unwilling woman to have sex is rape, it is a question of whether someone is aware they are forcing an unwilling woman to have sex.

But how could a person not know they are forcing an unwilling woman? How could anyone not realize that a woman who isn't consenting is not consenting?

Well, how about if you're naked in bed, engaging in the preliminaries of sex, for which said woman seems enthusiastic, and at no point during the festivities does the woman ask you to stop? 

Early anti-rape campaigns focused on a phrase I could really get behind: "No means no." But things have morphed a little since then, into an attitude of, "Anything but an enthusiastic and oft-repeated 'yes' means no."

I have been cautioned by so many people on feminist boards about how very very important it is for a man to check in frequently with his partner, that many women simply don't have the wherewithal to say "no" if they change their minds, but that this does not mean they are consenting. That women have been known to freeze up and the first sign a man might have that he's raped her is the sound of her quietly sobbing after the fact. Oddly, I hear very little talk about how very very important it is for a woman to actually have the maturity to say "no" if, indeed, she means "no", before she climbs naked into a man's bed, however. She, apparently, has no responsibility toward her partner, to prevent him from inadvertently doing something he'd likely feel terrible about afterward. 

Considering how differently women are wont to behave during sex, it is unreasonable to expect a man to conclude that loud moaning, say, can be translated as "please stop", or that a lack of loud moaning can be translated as "please stop", or that twisting and writhing can be translated as "please stop", or that a lack of twisting and writhing can be translated as "please stop", or that a grimace can be translated as "please stop", or that the lack of a grimace can be translated as "please stop", etc.

So here we have a woman who has changed her mind, and is counting on her body's signals and her facial expressions to convey this message to her partner, who may have never engaged her in sexual activity before. Because she lacks the wherewithal to actually tell him to stop, and believes he should just...well, he should just be able to tell. The man is on top of her, arguably holding her down, but in his mind he's just holding her tightly the way his other partners liked him to do.

That the sex was, indeed unwanted, is a fact not in dispute. The feelings of the woman may include violation, trauma, fear, anger, and a deep sense of having been wronged. These feelings are in no way invalid.

However, for the crime of rape to have occurred requires both actus reus (the act of unwanted sex itself) and mens rea (some form of criminal or guilty mind or intent). For the above scenario to be rape, and a crime, the rapist would have to KNOW that he was subjecting the woman to unwanted sex. And if the first clear sign that she'd changed her mind is her quiet sobbing after the fact, well...this is unfortunate, and a terrible situation (both for the woman, who may well be traumatized, and for the man who unintentionally traumatized her) but it isn't a crime. It is NOT RAPE.

And this is one major issue I have with data on rape presented in studies like Ms. Magazine's infamous "1 in 4" survey. Because those studies conflate "unwanted sex" the actus reus that constitutes only half of a crime, with "rape", something that requires both the actus reus of unwanted sex AND mens rea

Claiming that 1 in 4 college women are victims of rape or attempted rape based on one-sided accounts that conform to specific sexual scenarios is analogous to publishing a report on how many capital murders occurred in the US in a given year, and including accidental homicides, manslaughters, homicides where the killer was mentally incompetent, self-defence killings, negligent homicides, and second degree murders in your tally.

The Ms. study did give mens rea a "nod", if you will, by asking respondents who'd been subjected to unwanted sex to contextualize what they believed had happened to them. A full 49% of respondents characterized what had happened as "miscommunication". This would make the unwanted sex in those cases an unfortunate, but not criminal, act. In those respondents' opinions, the perpetrators did not have the required mens rea to have committed rape, because they were unaware that the respondents were unwilling. And perhaps, being there at the time, the respondents were more in a position to assess the behavior and motivations of their "attackers" than the surveyors were.

However, the author of the study disregarded these interpretations and applied the term "rape" or "attempted rape" to every incident of unwanted sex where some degree of force was used, such as holding a woman down. And this might be reasonable, if not for the typical mechanics of sex, which often involve, well...a man holding someone whilst simultaneously being on top of them.

Ahh, you might say, but in the Ms. study, about half of the findings of rape and attempted rape involved alcohol or drugs, "administered" to the woman before sex. Here again, I have some issues. Because in the dating and hook-up scenes on campuses, there's a lot of booze consumed by women, often gleefully provided by young men hoping to grease the wheels of sex. I have some serious doubts as to whether these young men are holding women down and pouring liquor down their unwilling throats. I also have a hard time seeing scores of sober young men pressuring women to drink in the hopes that they will become incoherent and sloppy enough as to be unaware of her surroundings and unable to resist, much less participate in the anticipated sex.

So we have college parties where everyone--male or female--is drinking like mad, all looking to shed their inhibitions, have a great time and maybe hook up with someone.

And while providing a woman with enough free beer to drop a rhino may be self-serving on the part of the young men involved and in no way entitles them to sex, I can't help but think that if these women are somehow unaware that alcohol consumption lowers inhibitions (even sexual ones *gasp!*), and that consuming enormous quantities may lead them to consent to things they would never do while sober, they probably do not belong in college in the first place.

So let's explore the role of alcohol in the crime of rape. Let's be true to the criminal code and say one's own willful intoxication is no defence, and let's be totally wacky and hold both genders to an equal standard of accountability.

Young man pours young woman several beers. Young man is unabashed in his motive to get said woman buzzed enough that her judgment will be impaired and he may get lucky as a result. Said woman drinks those beers looking to get wasted, because getting wasted doesn't just feel good--it frees her up to do things that she wouldn't while sober, but that she kinda sorta wants to do sometimes and might just do if not for those pesky inhibitions.

So let's say she's drunk but coherent, and he is equally drunk but coherent, and both of them willingly engage in sex. In the morning, she rolls over and realizes she just fucked Ron Jeremy's less suave cousin, and she can hardly even remember how it happened. She's lying there, thinking, "OMG, he got me drunk on purpose so he could take advantage of me--that's RAPE!"

Well, yes it is. Sort of. If one can wrap one's head around the idea that pouring a woman a few beers is the precipitating act proving an intent to commit rape, rather than a generous application of socio-sexual lubricant. I mean, it's not like he slipped her a date-rape drug. He gave her alcohol, which she willingly drank. If his intention when pouring her those beers was to get her so wasted that her level of intoxication would "seal the deal" and guarantee sex, whether she wanted it or not, then yeah. Rape. But if his intention was to grease the wheels in the hope that she might climb onto his lap and engage in consensual sex with him, has he really done anything wrong? Because at that point, we would have to conclude that any man who buys a woman he desires a few drinks has the intent to rape, don't we? Again, it's all about mens rea--the guilty mind.

However, even if we conclude that any consensual sex while falling-down drunk is rape, we must consider the corollary of drunk driving. Charging a sober man with rape because a woman consented to have sex with him while she was drunk would be analogous to holding the sober driver at fault in a collision with a drunk driver.

And if they're both drunk? Though a legal argument may be made that she was too drunk to be capable of consent, well, so was he, wasn't he? And though a legal argument may be made that a criminal's willful intoxication is no defence for having committed a crime...if we are to keep to our completely nutty theme of holding both parties to the same standard of accountability, both parties would be rapists under the law, and both would be accessories to the other's perpetration of rape. 

This much should be clear. If intoxication vitiates consent but does not eliminate criminal culpability, then even enthusiastic, consensual drunk sex is a crime--one which two people participated in. If one's own willful intoxication is no defence...well, if she said "yes" while drunk, she participated in the commission of a crime, and is an accessory. Hell, one could argue that her consuming enough alcohol to become so drunk that her inhibitions would be lowered was an act of intent to become an accessory to rape.

Regardless of who feels more harmed by the situation, when both parties are drunk, both parties are equally culpable. Charging a traumatized woman with rape and accessory to rape would be no more unjust than charging a man with the same, even if both had the required mens rea to commit the crime of having sex while too intoxicated to consent. 

And this is where the alcohol/drug rape definition departs from reality. Because if we are to criminalize drunk sex, both parties should be charged even if both are pleased with the outcome the next morning, since consent must occur contemporaneously with the sexual acts performed--neither advance consent nor consent after-the-fact are in any way defensible legal concepts. And if one cannot legally consent to sex while drunk, then one cannot legally consent to sex while drunk. 

And if the woman was drunk and consented, and the man was NOT drunk? Her drunken "yes" still technically makes her an accessory to a criminal act. By consenting to sex while drunk, she was engaging and participating in criminal activity, and her own willful intoxication is no defence.

A crime is a crime is a crime, even if no one was harmed by it, right? And the only way to avoid criminalizing the act of ANYONE saying "yes" while drunk is to hold both genders to the same standard of accountability for their decisions while drunk. 

That is, to maintain the definition of rape as the conscious, intentional and willful forcing of sex on a clearly non-consenting person. 

And if that is the only rational definition of rape that can possibly be enforced without applying differing standards of legal culpability and differing standards of conduct on people solely based on what reproductive parts they have, then when it comes to rape as a crime, it is ALL ABOUT mens rea. In which case, incidents of unwanted sex based on a woman's consumption of alcohol/drugs or specific scenarios that do not take into account the intent of the "attacker", cannot be described as rape.

Just like a car accident can't be called murder solely because someone died, not every incident of unwanted sex can be characterized as rape. 

Yet we do this constantly. When it comes to rape and rape alone, the legal requirement of mens rea as one half of the definition of a crime is utterly ignored, by feminists, by "experts" and, increasingly, by the law--but only when it comes to women and victimhood. And why? To protect women from their own decisions, from their lack of honesty and maturity, and from the consequences of their own irresponsible behavior.

In other words, reduce them to the level of children under the law, incapable of behaving responsibly or standing by their own choices and actions--whether it is a choice to fuck while drunk or the decision to engage in sexual activity while emotionally incapable of uttering the word "no". 

How on earth can this not be seen as misogynistic? 

34 comments:

  1. You sort of lost me somewhere. I'll try to reframe and this might end up rehashing:

    You argue that both parties should be treated as equals. However being drunk, as i understand it, does not lead to punishments for the victim of a crime. It does however does not defend one from commmitting a crime (ex DUI)

    So the way I was led to believe, the man, whether drunk or not (or especially if not drunk), to have sex with an intoxicated woman can be construed as rape because she is not in any position to properly consent. If both are drunk, then 1) she is not able to consent AND 2) the male rapist (in this scenario) is still accountable for actions.

    I like the mens rea argument. I really do. But either because the courts have twisted things or because it is a proper reading of the law, my understanding is that the woman is not able to properly consent while being intoxicated, and thus sex is analogous to say, statutory rape.

    I may be off somewhere in my analysis and welcome a correction, but that is the way i've understood intoxication and sex, and i am okay with this. Now if it is shown that the 'women who is intoxicated has no responsibility' is just some feminist attempt to shirk responsibility (the woman had a clear mind prior to drinking, for example), then i would probably just throw my post here out the window.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, why then is a man somehow ABLE to consent to sex while drunk? Is it because women are stupid, or irresponsible?

    Moreover, if drunk sex is a crime, and if both parties were drunk and consented, then both are guilty of rape, and both are accessories to the other's perpetration of rape. They both had intent to participate in an illegal act (accessory, since without consent the sex, presumably, would not have occurred, or would have been a different act--forcible rape), and both had intent to have sex when the other party could not consent.

    Your assessment of the situation presumes that only women are incapable of making decisions about sex while intoxicated, while men are not only capable of making decisions about sex for themselves while intoxicated, but responsible for making decisions about sex for the woman.

    That's kind of paternalistic, actually, to assume a man is more capable of exercising judgment while drunk.

    Of course, this all depends on rape being defined as nonconsensual sexual intercourse, rather than dependent on the perpetrator having a penis. Oddly, studies have shown a higher percentage of women than men (15%) have either used drugs or alcohol to get sex from an unwilling man, or tried, so it's not as if women are angels in this regard.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This article is just so true... in a world where there is no gendered roles, expectations, power differentials, biases etc. Unfortunately, ours is no such world. Then why not take more of the realities of the life into account rather than depending and systematizing a sort of 'ideal' judgment, that responds to the needs of the 'ideal' world.

    One could start with asking the questions: Where did 'actus reus' and 'means rea' came into our discourse? Who invented these concepts? Did men an women actually contributed to the creation and application of such concepts? Etc... Could be a little helpful if one tries to break the limits of the allegedly objective legal thinking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "This article is just so true... in a world where there is no gendered roles, expectations, power differentials, biases etc. Unfortunately, ours is no such world."

      ThisThisThisThisThisThisThis

      Delete
  4. This is exactly the same argument I have been trying to make for fucking years. Good shit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have also been making this argument for years. I am going to favorite it so I don't have to say it myself. Well written-strong argument.

      Delete
  5. The Ethics of Care sums up feminism pretty well, in my opinion. There's a presumption of maleficence on the part of the man because it's generally known (but not widely espoused) that women are typically physically less capable of defending themselves than men. A feminist would probably argue that instead of an "impartial" form of justice (much like how car accidents are viewed where cars are wholly independent of their operators), investigations of rape would inherently require partiality in favor of women. At least in the sense that a woman is probably telling the truth about it in the first place. I mean, feminism isn't egalitarianism. The problem with feminism isn't the the partiality thing though. It's that partiality requires familiarity with the situation and the people involved. There seems to be a bit of a divide in this thinking when people start involving statistics when making judgement. Also, I really liked this post! Found it on disinfo.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "At least in the sense that a woman is probably telling the truth about it in the first place"

      This is as good an assumption as the sentiment that, all men are probably rapists(or at least that they should be treated as such)

      Delete
  6. Bravo! Extremely clear, well-written, and thorough. I wish more people thought like you.

    I especially liked how you were bold enough to expose some of the very erroneous false virtues in this society which masquerade as "goodness" though perpetuate many problems and keep truth hidden.

    As you pointed out very effectively, many of these ideologies which reign as champions in our society under the guises of titles such as feminism, justice, deterrents, equality, and so on, are anything but whatever flag they are waving.

    I agree that these things can't be overlooked. We can't become lazy as a society. I feel this is exactly what has happened. Using intelligence and looking into the depth of matters requires the arduous task of using our minds intelligently instead of just falling back on convenient beliefs and blanket statements which cause harm to people because we can't be bothered with looking into the complexity of a matter. What exacerbates this phenomenon even more, is that the lazy way of thinking is most popular and therefore many times held as sacred and defended by the moral majority of any given day. Critical and intelligent thinkers are then ostracized or even ridiculed because they create an uncomfortableness with the sleep-walking masses.

    But if we want true justice and if we are really serious and sincere about changing some of these woes of society, then we have to be willing to look into these matters at a deeper level.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "However, for the crime of rape to have occurred requires both actus reus (the act of unwanted sex itself) and mens rea (some form of criminal or guilty mind or intent). For the above scenario to be rape, and a crime, the rapist would have to KNOW that he was subjecting the woman to unwanted sex."
    Because it's illegal to sleep with a woman who can't give consent (or what is considered legal consent, sound of mind etc), all he would have to know is that: "he was subjecting a woman that couldn't give (sober etc) consent to sex". I don't see the problem with that at all, and I think this basic misunderstanding hollows out the case you're trying to make.

    "Unwanted Sex vs. Rape" - imo, this distinction is outrageous, and I don't think the best discussion paralleling a car crash with rape could change my mind haha.
    And before anyone starts throwing insults like 'feminist' at me, yeah, I am one, in the meaning that the word holds in the dictionary, but possibly not the one this article assumes? Feminism simply means equality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, feminism has been perverted for years into something that hurts women more than helps them. It's not about equality.

      If it was, the author is right: if a woman woke up hungover and decided the drunken sex the night before was rape, both should be considered victims, both rapists, and both accessories. THAT would be equality.

      And legal arguments are often made equating disparaging situations. I personally would have gone for murder, but I know why the author didn't- murder has too many choices. 1st, 2nd, or 3rd degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, or legally sanctioned (as in self defense). She didn't because the truth is that unwanted sex has as many shades of grey as does murder.

      Delete
    2. Essentially, a lot of this is based on the idea that sex is something a MAN does TO a woman, rather than an activity they both engage in together.

      If sex is a mutual activity, then a woman would, theoretically, be every bit as capable of raping a man as vice-versa (setting aside issues of physical strength, as the type of 'ambiguous' situations we're talking about here typically don't involve brute force, but - allegedly - taking advantage of a person whose decision-making faculties are impaired).

      If sex is an activity where the man is presumed to be active and the woman passive, on the other hand, then sex is something a man does TO a woman. He is the actor, the initiator, and hence the one who bears ultimate responsibility for whatever occurs.

      In a consensual sexual encounter, the presumption by most feminists would no doubt be that sex is a mutual activity. In a situation involving force, threat, or coercion, on the other hand, the opposite would be the case. The problem is with these ambiguous situations - situations where a man may not be aware that the woman he's with is not consenting to the activity. Situations where the woman, based on the extent to which she remains in charge of her faculties, may not consider what is happening to be rape until reflecting on it later. For that matter, both parties may be drunk and in no state of mind to consider all these subtleties.

      Delete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. And if they're both drunk? Though a legal argument may be made that she was too drunk to be capable of consent, well, so was he, wasn't he?

    This doesn't make sense. It would always be the men's initiative in this inebriated scenario. You're also kind of saying a drunk guy can't rape which is weird. Female rape is in my opinion something fictional and invented to fit the PC narrative of fairness but it's not real. I'm probably stepping on a politically correct button but I have to tell you as a man the idea of female rape sounds totally fine and that's not a cheap joke!

    Overall I do agree with the sentiment of personal responsibility . I'm sure there are lots of cases where the state takes a patronizing position and its disempowering, but I think with the above quote you're trying to give women equality in a scenario where they don't have it out of wishful thinking. Why not recognize female vulnerability? I don't want to live in an ideological world that ignores it because feminists don't want to allow that any inequality exists and start legislating for an 'ideal' world. It would mean letting rape happen to fit an ideology in the above scenario.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I have to tell you as a man the idea of female rape sounds totally fine and that's not a cheap joke!"

      clearly you haven't actually been through it. it's not like you imagine it, where it's this awesome woman who is going to give you awesome sex and who's actually going to give a crap about how you feel about it.

      "You're also kind of saying a drunk guy can't rape which is weird."
      of course a drunk guy can rape. the point she was making is that IF we absolve women of responsibility for their own actions when they are drunk, then it isn't any different to absolve men of responsibility when they're drunk. it was a rhetorical comparison.

      Delete
  10. You guys aren't really positing that only men initiate sex, are you? Because I could tell you some stories...

    ReplyDelete
  11. "This article is just so true... in a world where there is no gendered roles, expectations, power differentials, biases etc. Unfortunately, ours is no such world."

    I am sorry. But definition of unfair world is that there is differentials and biases. So why protect the one in this place? Because in world what we want to have genderrole is not important but womans rights are more important than male ones?

    I claim that equality means destructing every one this kind of differences. If womens are treated "more bad", then there is just "more changing things". So destructing this kind of things is not against equality, it is definetly changint things toward equality.

    This may be hard if you are hardwired that every gender is equal and gender is irrelevant and in same time you think only through consepts like "woman" and "men"...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Absolutely excellent article. Pity it's over the head of several commenters.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Rape is the only crime I know of in this society wherein, ultimately, how the victim feels about it winds up being the definition of whether the crime even happened. Even with assault and battery, there are sometimes blurry lines (two drunks in a bar start in on each other), the law will technically allow that both can be guilty of a crime.

    I do know these things are not always as the horror stories we hear. Now this is a "friend of a friend" story here, so you'll have to trust me, but I can tell you his name, his wife's name, which police department he worked for, etc. so this isn't urban legend... there was a case in New York he told me he was witness to where the angry parents of a young girl demanded that a boy she'd had sex with be arrested for statutory rape, and they hauled him in and questioned him and got his specifics, then brought both sets of parents into the room and said, "you know technically under the law, both these kids are guilty of statutory rape... now, who wants to press charges here?" Needless to say, the parents of the girl backed off and no one pressed any charges.

    So you know, common sense doesn't -always- fly out the window in the legal system.

    It would sem to me--radical thought I know--that we should treat rape as a form of aggravated assault & battery somewhat more serious than everyday assault and battery but not light years more serious, and leave it there, and that yes we should hold women to exactly the same standards. That would be equitable, but it can't happen in a world where we men are still treated as the ones responsible for sex and women the ones who are merely recipients of it. I mean, how coddling and demeaning toward women is that?

    ReplyDelete
  14. It's almost funny how some women -in a desperate attempt to appear somewhat cool and sophisticated- trash feminism, despite the fact that they are educated, have jobs, the partner of their choice and as many children as they want - or no children at all, property in their name, money in their pockets, can go out without the obligatory companionship of their father or brother and so on so forth.
    I call these women 'female misogynists'. Women that haven't been able to form a personality of their own and they still try to please men.
    Anyway, on topic.
    1. Men and women have different attitude towards sex.
    2. Rape is NOT an act of sexual frustration, is an act of dominance, self entitlement, a ritual of submission.
    3. Men almost ALWAYS orgasm, women- no.
    4. Men have been made to take great pride in their sexual conquests, women have been made to feel ashamed. Language itself shows this, a man who sleeps around is being called a 'player', a 'lothario', a'womaniser' , a 'ladies man'. A woman who sleeps around is being called a 'wh*re', a 'sl*t', a 'sl*pper' etc .
    5. Men's reproductive organs are external, women's are internal. They accept something inside their bodies.
    6. Women are being made to take pride in their virginity, men are ashamed for it, it is no secret that many times the father himself will take his teenage son into a brothel in order to lose his virginity.
    So, in order to introduce equality in clearly unequal social bias we have to consider all of the above.
    A man who has a drunken one night stand with someone who wouldn't in a normal situation won't think much of it. A woman who has a one night stand with someone who wouldn't in a normal situation feels violated.
    An intoxicated woman who has sex and hasn't given consent has been raped and violated , regardless of the state of the man. If that man was NOT drunk then it's a clear case, no questions asked. If the man was also intoxicated then it won't change the fact that she has been violated but it might soften the blow as she might feel that it was a mistake and she wasn't being taken advantage.
    So, stop playing with words and technicalities and look at the actual facts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm going to try addressing your points one by one.

      1 - Isn't really a point that adds anything to the argument one way or the other without clarification.

      2 - Two points. Let's assume the guy was so drunk that he perceived consent that wasn't there. If that does match the points you've made then it would be true that consensual sex is also an act of dominance self entitlement and a ritual of submission as from his viewpoint it was just consensual sex. If his actions are not those of dominance self entitlement and a ritual of submisssion. Then either your definition of the psychological causes of rape are wrong, or he did not rape her.

      And secondly. Psychological factors don't really have a place in a discussion of what legally constitutes rape (for the most part).

      3 - What the fuck has orgasm got to do with it. If a woman is sexually assaulted and she has an orgasm as a result it doesn't stop it being sexual assault.

      4 -What have societies perceptions of the sexually promiscuous got to do with the rape law?

      5 - And? Unconsensual sex is unconsensual sex. If a man had been given rohipnol and viagra and then a woman had sex with him would the fact that he went inside her make it any less a sexual assault.

      6 - Again societies expectations when it come to sex have absolutely nothing to do with sex being consensual or not.

      Delete
    2. Whether you like it or not women have different attitude towards sex than men. Women aren't the ones buying porn magazines, visiting strip clubs or brothels. Most men can have it anywhere, anytime with anyone without thinking twice.
      Psychological factors and social bias have everything to do with how the two genders view sex. Men are not made to feel ashamed for the sexuality (i'm not talking about gays ) whereas females do. You can disagree all you want , it won't change a thing.
      I mentioned orgasm because pleasure is the reason why we have sex, a man has nothing to lose, he's gonna come anyway. I didn't mention involuntarily orgasm and it's irrelevant to the subject.
      How many women do you know that have raped a man by feeding him sleeping pills and viagra ? Get real and stop playing with words just to prove your 'point'.

      Delete
    3. Ah, "misogynist" the word that feminism fanatics use to try to shame others into silence. Works very well in their echo chambers, but it's rather funny to see how they react when the other part doesn't care about being labeled that way.

      Delete
  15. >>And why? To protect women from their own decisions, from their lack of honesty and maturity, and from the consequences of their own irresponsible behavior...reduce them to the level of children under the law, incapable of behaving responsibly or standing by their own choices and actions--whether it is a choice to fuck while drunk or the decision to engage in sexual activity while emotionally incapable of uttering the word "no".
    How on earth can this not be seen as misogynistic?<<

    THANK YOU! I've tried to make this argument more than once... feminists HATE it because... well I'm not sure exactly, I tend to have this logical fault where I don't understand illogical things. But I think it's that they don't know what to say, other than the usual "It's NEVER the victim's fault! Ever!" If that is the case, it is so for all crime...but that would just sound preposterous. The cherry-picking mentality of feminist dogma is analogous to that of religious dogma.

    Let's say my laptop gets a virus, whose fault is it? Surely I am not immune to being held accountable 100% of the time. And going back to the ever-so-radical concept of intent as inherent in a perpetrator, as being necessary to determine one a perpetrator in the first place: Sometimes viruses are transmitted without the knowledge of the distributors, such as on many freeware sites (a place like CNET, e.g.)They don't intentionally put malware in their downloads. So it's not my fault I went to download something and got attacked! The feminist rebuttal is likely to be something like (as it was in a similar analogy I'd made in argument once) "but you chose to download that"; "well maybe next time you should learn to protect yourself from things like that, you chose to take that risk." WOW. Does none of that apply to rape? Or any other crime, for that matter? Especially when you have someone who is rabidly following radical feminist idealogy, telling you you should keep your webcam covered when you're not using it, because you can get hacked through your webcam... but what the fuck? Instead of telling people "don't infect people with malware", you're oppressing my freedom of expression!

    Seeing that some people have the balls to actually write such things about rape in spite of current madness in the legal system, I've been inspired to do the same...I think next time I am told something like "cover your webcam when you're not using it" in the context of an implication that roughly translates to "otherwise, don't cry to me when you get hacked" ...I will reply "keep your vagina and tits covered when you're not using them, otherwise don't cry to me when some dude gets you intoxicated and you end up fucking him and regretting what you can barely remember."

    Speaking of memory... that's another thing. If someone was so piss-drunk they could not consent b/c they were not coherent enough to make proper judgment...how in hell were they also not profoundly memory impaired and hence unable to be trusted for a reliable account of the events of the night before? When do we ever trust inebriated testimony? Certainly not when it's coming from the defendent!

    If we want to talk about violation, while we're at it, let's extend the definition of rape to mean any violation of mind, body, emotion, psyche... in whichc case, a hell of a lot of women are mental, emotional, etc. rapists! It's rampant! Men hardly ever will say "no" when a woman is playing non-consensual manipulative mindfuckery on him... psychological and emotional abuse are perhaps at least as traumatic as physical and sexual abuse, if not worse... (Now say this to a feminist and sit back and enjoy the show as they tell you that that dilutes the definition of rape far too much and no one will take rape seriously if you were to expand the definition that far. LOL!!)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, and seek help for the issues you have with women.

      Delete
    2. And here's the 2nd shaming tactic. If "misogynist" doesn't cut it, then accuse the other party of having issues with women.

      Now Dylan only has to accuse someone of being bitter because they can't get any girl/woman to like them, and we'll have the winning trifecta!

      Delete
    3. And maybe he'll thrown in a little virgin shaming for flavoring

      Delete
  16. Amazing post. You've articulated for more eloquently that I could have my exact thoughts on the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This is an amazing article. I grew up with early sexual education, strong views about gender roles, and the idea that women are just as capable as men. It always seemed like I was a feminist too, but once I grew up that label only applied to women who vilified men, thought high heels subjugated women, and lacked any sense of humor.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "I have often asserted in my arguments online that just because someone feels they have been wronged or harmed by another, this does NOT necessarily mean a crime was committed against them. And by extension, a man should never be considered to have raped a woman if he did not have the necessary mens rea--that is, if he did not actually realize he was raping her."

    In your example with the car crash you accurately stated that for CERTAIN crimes to have been committed there needs to be the intent to commit that crime. Such as in the case of murder one. However without intent proved, the person is often still charged with manslaughter.

    In your comparison to rape, if it isn't rape what is it then? A crime can still occur without intent just not certain crimes.

    Why is rape a crime that needs intent rather than a crime like manslaughter that does not require that?

    I also wanted to address this-

    "Well, why then is a man somehow ABLE to consent to sex while drunk? Is it because women are stupid, or irresponsible? "

    I think that there is a line of intoxication that everyone can recognise as a no go area. For example If you initiate sex with a woman then realise she is so drunk that she is fading in and out of consciousness during the act, most people I assume would think it best at that time to stop intercourse.

    Most people on both sides of the gender war divide would also agree that if a woman has had two glasses of wine with dinner there isn't any issue with her ability to consent.

    So where is the line in between these two points and who gets to decide where that line should be?

    In regards to your concern in regards to men not being viewed under law as vulnerable to rape (or even unwilling sex without intent!) while intoxicated I think I can offer some ideas.

    Alcohol is used as way to incapacitate women to the point where sexual assault can be carried out, this is quite common in sexual assaults actually, more common than roofies. (bombarding a man with alcohol in order to rape him is not as likely to be a winning strategy, for reasons of physiology).

    That is a start for a discussion.



    ReplyDelete
  19. If you want to know about Nikita Roy independent Delhi escorts and want to assure yourself to hire Nikita Roy independent escorts in Delhi then just log on here http://nikitaroy.escortfiles.com/.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I agree with you when you say: I have been cautioned by so many people on feminist boards about how very very important it is for a man to check in frequently with his partner, that many women simply don't have the wherewithal to say "no" if they change their minds, but that this does not mean they are consenting. That women have been known to freeze up and the first sign a man might have that he's raped her is the sound of her quietly sobbing after the fact. Oddly, I hear very little talk about how very very important it is for a woman to actually have the maturity to say "no" if, indeed, she means "no", before she climbs naked into a man's bed, however. She, apparently, has no responsibility toward her partner, to prevent him from inadvertently doing something he'd likely feel terrible about afterward. "

    I didn't read all of it its so long, but what I really started realizing in college is that women are coddled as if they are children. Its always the man's fault if she gets fucked without wanting sex (or she thinks she doesn't, or she did want it but changed her mind) etc. But if you go to a bar, get drunk, and then go to the frathouse and drink and take drinks from the frat house -- DONT YOU AT SOME POINT HAVE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOURSELF? I mean, if you walk out into the road you get hit by a car so people don't do it. And if they do it, and get hit by a car, yeah sometimes its the driver's fault for not looking but sometimes its the pedestrian's fault for recklessness. That doesn't seem to apply to women, they "can't" be reckless, they have to be coddled little children, which perpetuates the idea that women are children that must be cared for.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Feminism is nothing more but a refitting of the old nonsense that women are stupid, childish, inferior, entitled, and irrational...

    Grow up feminism. Please, for all our sakes stop acting like children:

    http://imageshack.com/a/img713/5453/qf0l.jpg

    http://imageshack.com/a/img827/4808/x7v3.jpg

    http://imageshack.com/a/img845/6330/j6c9.jpg

    http://imageshack.com/a/img513/2751/o3sf.png

    http://imageshack.com/a/img534/6871/yhra.png

    Remember, if a man thinks you CAN take responsibility for your choices in a world where the reality is that women are told by patriarchy and feminism that they CAN'T take responsibility for their choices... you're endangering everyone.

    ReplyDelete

Commenting policy:

All comments are welcome here. I refuse to censor points of view that differ from my own.

I recognize that I may be challenging the deep-seated beliefs of some people, and perhaps stirring up emotions in others. However, I would ask:

- if you care to respond to anything that I have said, please do not simply link to or quote some statistic. Do not simply regurgitate things you have been told are true. Think about what I am saying. Respond with an argument. Offer something from your personal observations, and explain to me how you feel your statistic is connected to your experience.

- If you wish to be part of a discussion, try not to dismiss what I or a another commenter says out of hand. Yes, that means that some lines of thought or ideologies may not stand up to scrutiny (perhaps even my own).

- Remember, ad hominem attacks diminish everyone involved. If you want to criticize anything, do so passionately and directly - but debate is about attacking ideas, not people.

Have at you!