Saturday, February 4, 2012

Regretting Drunken Sex = Rape, WTF?

In a move that keeps the number of rape victims looking much higher than it really is, the FBI has redefined rape to include consensual sex while drunk that one later regrets.

Part of their new definition update is good. The old definition left out men and some variations of rape. However, the inclusion of drunken sex was a very stupid thing. They are not only referring to people who are passed out from being drunk, but also ones who are simply drunk or tipsy, saying "yes", and then regretting their choice the next day.

Here's an excerpt from the FBI's press release. Emphasis is mine.:
The revised definition includes any gender of victim or perpetrator, and includes instances in which the victim is incapable of giving consent because of temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity, including due to the influence of drugs or alcohol or because of age.

There is only one solution to this that I can see. Are the men who are having sex with drunk women not also drunk themselves? In that case, have they both raped each other? Men will have to start considering themselves raped whenever they regret sex after drinking. Goose/gander and all that. Eg: "Your Honour, if I hadn't been 3 sheets to the wind on all that beer, I'd have never had sex with such a woman as creepy/ugly/crazy/whatever as her. She took advantage of me, therefore Rape! Rape! Help me Your Honour!"

There's also another danger to the trend of calling drunkenness "mental incapacity" in regards to sex. Here's what I mean. What if a drunk man really does rape a sober woman? Will he be able to use being drunk as an excuse that he was too incapacitated to realize what he was doing? That may be a bit of a slippery slope stretch, but maybe not. It could be a very effective defence tactic in cases of real rape if drinking gets to mean that one is too incapacitated to know what they are doing in regards to sex. The new definition opens things up for this. Non-rapes could get called rapes, and real rapes could get called non-rapes.

So, to sum it up, even though the new FBI definition has a few improvements in what's counted as rape, it also now includes sex while drunk that one later regrets as being raped. This hugely inflates the claimed number of victims, since many (or most) young adults have sex with people they've been drinking with. Some of them will regret it the next day, joking to their friends about the beer goggles they wore last night before going home with so and so. Even though they don't consider themselves victims in any way, statistics gatherers must count them as rape victims from now on.

35 comments:

  1. Uh oh, chongo!
    "..incapable of giving consent because of temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity .."

    You just know that the rotten ol' MRA/Game cocksuckers are all blubbing into their watery "beer" and hugging (in a very manly way, of course).

    After all, where they're coming from, every single woman on the planet falls under the Feds' definition.

    And nearly all men, come to that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very poorly written comment.

      "cocksuckers"? "rotten"?

      Feminist, much?

      Delete
  2. Dustbubble, if they are drinking beer and hugging, let's hope it doesn't lead to any of them having sex with each other, since, well, if they're drunk = therefore rape! :D

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ahh, don't worry, they'll be Ok.
    They're finally free to channel their spirit animal.
    Insanity Wolf.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, as long as all those spirit animals are consenting, it's not rape in my books! :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. There is a strong legal lesson here:
    Stay Drunk!

    ReplyDelete
  6. My mother and one of my sisters got young men drunk as a part of their planned pregnancies. Both were rapes by today's standards.

    Anybody want to bet they are the only ones?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Michael, cheers! It's the only way to ensure one is victim and not rapist.

    Gwallan, by the new standards, those were indeed rapes if any of the men wanted to report it as such, no matter that they all consented and probably had a lot of fun. It's crazy.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @SN...

    Those two men couldn't consent. They were passed out drunk. Similar to the thirteen year old in my state whose nocturnal erection was mounted by a women. He got to pay too. His rapist was convicted and set free as they all are over here.

    I don't believe any of them had any "fun". All subsequently had parenthood and associated responsibilities forced upon them. Consider the power and control motivations involved on the part of those women. As I said I doubt they are the only ones.

    ReplyDelete
  9. If they were passed out, that's a different story. That IS rape.

    Sorry for assuming you were joking about conscious, although drunk, sex. It's even worse if the women then made them support the resulting family.

    ReplyDelete
  10. No need to apologise.

    To be honest I'm very forgiving of my mother. She was doing the only thing she could think of to escape her own rapist father. ie pregnancy equals forced marriage. Besides, I wouldn't be here otherwise. When you add in my own experience at the hands of my aunt(father's sister) when I was seven it seems I genuinely am a child of rape. It's no wonder I've had a bee in my bonnet about it all my life.

    I have great respect for my parents. Both are enormously intelligent individuals whose potential and futures were stifled by the actions of my maternal grandfather.

    I spent most of my life as a radical feminist until about a decade ago when my doctor convinced me that I needed to unlearn my hatred of men. In part I dealt with it by aiming all that hatred directly at that grandfather. He deserves it for the harm he did to so many. His actions have caused pain and suffering over three generations.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm glad you've found a way to deal with it. I think I would not have been able to forgive some of them as you have.

    Also, congrats on leaving the radfem crowd, where they seem to sweep anything bad done by women under the rug.

    ReplyDelete
  12. All drunk driving accidents caused by women shall now be caused by men. Women are just too frail and child-like to be responsible their own stupid choices.

    ReplyDelete
  13. If women want to claim a sexual loss of agency, when men don't for the same level of blood alcohol, then the limits must also be made lower for women driving after drinking.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Maybe I read the fragment you posted wrong, but I think it means if for example the victim was intoxicated to the point of blacking out? I've been with friends who have been so drunk they've asked to leave them alone with a man they barely know. I never do and the next day they don't even remember that happening, sometimes they don't even remember the man.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Physical incapacity would be the passing out type, but they are including the rather vague "temporary mental incapacity", and by doing that, they've opened the door to next day regret being called rape.

    In these latest numbers, they included women who do NOT think of themselves as victims in any way, since they know full well they consented at the time. The stats gatherers counted those women as rape victims anyways.

    The women themselves merely felt that drinking added to their attraction to the person, and that they would not have been attracted if sober. Consent is not the issue here - they DID consent, yet they are calling it rape anyways.

    What I want to know, is how are the men accused of these pseudos-rapes, not 'victims' themselves? Were they not drinking as well, making themselves a 'victim' too?

    Stupid radfems don't realize that with this change to the law, now men could start accusing women of rape after drunken sex.

    And even worse, actual real rapists can now use drinking as an excuse to rape, since the drinking caused them a "temporary mental incapacity" when it comes to understanding consent.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Just realized that you said blacking out, not passing out. With that one, I would still say it's consent. She's conscious to consent, but will forget much the next day. Mind you, if she kept doing it and was also *regretting* it each time, then maybe she needs to look at her drinking habits.

    If she's not regretting it though, then despite her obvious drinking problem, it's her life, including her choice whether or not to finding sex partners when blotto drunk.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I think you've overlooked a few things here, the most important of which is they still only include forced penetration as rape, not forced envelopment. Thus, women cannot rape men unless they are being pegged or in other way pentrating the man.

    So that, at least partly, explains how they can hold a double standard in terms of rape counting when both parties are drunk. Was the man penetrated? No? (in the vast majority of cases. I could just see a woman pegging a man claiming she was so drunk ..I never would have pegged him if he didn't take advantage of me!) Then you weren't raped.

    Of course WELL BEFORE this change in the methodology of rape counting was done, some states, like, if I recall correctly (might be the wrong state but I'm too lazy to look it up) already had laws wherein a male who was drunk , having sex with a drunk female was considered a rapist. Remember,just because you are drunk, that's not an excuse to rape! Or so the saying goes, men being held responsible while women are given a free pass.

    It comes back to women's lack of physical and moral agency (except acting as judges of men.), except where it would benefit women to have it. For more on this meme, check out the blog "genderratic" over the past month.

    Clarence

    ReplyDelete
  18. http://teenadvice.about.com/od/daterape/a/daterapeguysfyi_2.htm

    Quoted:
    "So let’s recap quickly:

    Not stopping when she is indicating that she wants you to stop, be it with words, actions or both, is rape. If she seems hesitant don’t try to convince her to give in, just stop!
    Just because a girl has had sex with you in the past does not mean she has consented to having sex with you whenever you want it. Forcing the issue could result in you being charged with rape.
    Just because a girl is your girlfriend does not mean she owes you sex on demand. Push it when she doesn’t want it and you could be charged with rape.
    If you get a girl drunk or high and then get together with her you have committed a sexual assault. If you do this and then have sex with her it is rape.
    If you do not get a girl drunk or high but you know she is when you have sex you have committed rape.
    If you are unaware that a girl is drunk or high and you have sex with her you could be charged with rape.
    Even if you too are drunk or high when you have sex with a girl who is drunk or high you could be charged with rape. It is not a sufficient defense to say, “I was wasted too!” "


    Actually, I think legally, indeed, I'm sure in MOST STATES this list is wrong, but I don't know where to go to get it changed. There's a 'mens rea' factor in all cases except statutory rape (which really pisses me off in the relatively rare but nonetheless real (I've read of some of them)cases where some guys life was ruined cuz some girl who looked older and was in a club with faux ID and often its the parent or a bad luck arrest (open container!) that brings the prosecution ..well, you get the point), there's also the fact that in the vast majority of states right now being tipsy still doesn't count as rape, no matter how the FBI chooses to define it for statistical purposes.

    By the way, the state I was thinking of in my past post was Michigan. I also know that Britain was considering a similar law about drunken sex a few years ago - I was reading an article about it recently, but the article was a few years old - I don't know if it passed.

    Clarence

    ReplyDelete
  19. "they still only include forced penetration as rape, not forced envelopment"

    Is there a way that it could be argued so that 'forced penetration' includes 'forced to penetrate'? The penetration is forced due to no consent, but it seems to me that either could force that penetration.

    "Remember,just because you are drunk, that's not an excuse to rape! Or so the saying goes, men being held responsible while women are given a free pass."

    That's a huge double standard. Drunk women are said to have no agency or ability to understand consent, so even when they consent, it's called rape. But drunk men are said to be able to understand whether or not a woman is consenting.

    I'm subscribed to Genderratic, but my memory sucks, so I'll have to go take a reminder look. :)

    Now, as for that daterape site you quoted, it sounds like they are conflating harassment (which is bad) with actual rape (which is much worse). They say "Forcing the issue could result in you being charged with rape." I always thought that it was forcing the SEX that could result, etc. Forcing the issue sounds like the man is verbally bugging the woman to change her mind. Although both are bad things, harassment and rape are two different things, the latter being far worse and quite violently criminal.

    I think if I were a young (or old!) guy in the singles, pick-up scene, if I had to hang out in a bar, I'd only hit on the various designated drivers, and even then, make them take a breathalizer and pass with 0.0 alcohol before being allowed into my bed. Oh yeah, maybe also a written consent contract! :D

    ReplyDelete
  20. A contract?
    Wouldn't save you, unless you could somehow structure to say that consent cannot be withdrawn once the act has started, lets assume the act in question being vagina/penile sex. Still, since "withdrawal of consent" rape cases are pretty rare (so far)it would do you some good for "initial consent" and most of the other things that get people rape charges.

    It can get worse. Canada has a law (which I saw on GirlWritesWhat's drunken sex thread on the Good Men Project blog by the poster Typhonblue) where you can't prearrange consent. It has to be active consent throughout every single stage of the sexual act and it doesn't even matter what the "victim" thinks.

    As for your idea about arguing that "forced to penetrate" equals "forced penetration" good luck, I don't think that one will go anywhere. As you probably know Great Britain's laws concerning rape which contain similar language and basically deny the existence of most male rape victims (being "forced to penetrate", eg gun at your head if you don't put it in me , conflates to a lesser type of sexual assault there).

    Of course male rape victims are often denied in other ways as well.
    Here's a link to male child support cases. In one case, the man was passed out drunk, the woman climbed on top and had her way with an unconscious man, and not only was she not prosecuted for a sex crime, but he had to pay for the kid that resulted.

    http://www.childsupportguidelines.com/articles/art199903.html

    The woman who wrote that article, if you look her up, is one of the most powerful and eminently qualified family court lawyers (and she focuses on child support apparently) in the country. I just love the very last part where she talks about how men have "RIGHTS and responsibilities" while basically saying that no matter how someone gets your sperm you are responsible. It is to laugh or cry :(

    Seriously do you still think this is in any way a "patriarchy"?

    Clarence

    ReplyDelete
  21. I apologize for not proofreading my posts, and thus making them ugly and maybe hard to read. I see a few sentences I didn't even complete correctly. I'm not very good at typing fast if I don't remember to correct myself.

    Clarence

    ReplyDelete
  22. Don't worry too much about proofreading. I understood everything fine and didn't notice anything wrong. :)

    I didn't know about that law against pre-arrangement. I guess it conflicts with the revokeable consent at any point laws.

    The feminists who cry 'patriarchy' don't know what the fuck they're talking about. The only true remaining patriarchies are countries that are run theocratically, since that's where you find no rights for women. Here, in 'western' countries, we HAVE our legal freedoms (some details on both sides need improving though). Since there is no actual theocratic anti-female laws here, the feminists instead fight vague concepts that they've decided exist, like western patriarchy, objectification, sexualizing, etc. Note that those last two are thought crimes, and the first, western patriarchy, is non-existent.

    I think that all planned children should really have a contract done up by their parents regarding their financial and physical care.

    As for unplanned or tricked-into pregnancies, I have what I think is a possible solution. First, no man will have to pay any paternity ever in the event of such a pregnancy. However, he also won't have rights to the child if she chooses to have it and not name him on the birth certificate. On her part, she has a choice. If she wants the kid and is financially able to, she can stay home and raise the kid. If she doesn't want it or can't afford it, have an abortion OR acknowledge that she'll have to do one of those (sounds awful to me) superwoman double job roles of working AND trying to raise a kid singlehanded. That might sound like I'm advising women who can't afford to have kids, and who are not in a contractual arrangement with the father for their support, to have an abortion, and I am. But they don't have to. They still have the choice to do that exhausting single mother with job life. They just can't use getting preggers as a job anymore, taking in money from the fathers for every kid they have.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I know I'm commenting on an oldish post, but I just read the following Guardian article, and immediately thought of your blog: Clegg to launch sex abuse campaign.

    "The adverts are aimed at 13-18-year-olds and feature a teenage girl being coerced into sex by a boy as a party goes on downstairs. The girl says 'I don't want to', but the boy persists. A double of the boy then appears, watching the scene from behind an invisible wall. The viewer is asked, 'If you could see yourself, would you see rape?'. The adverts will run for a month on youth TV channels, starting on Monday night, during programmes such as E4's Skins."

    I haven't seen the ad, but I'm willing to bet that the girl is free to leave and rejoin the party downstairs. My prediction might be wrong, but somehow I doubt it.

    I'm fully in favour of young people being properly taught about sex and their rights as human beings, but, from the article, this sounds much more like gender feminist propaganda.

    If I was a YouTuber, perhaps (if my prediction's right) I'd edit the ad to ask the question: why isn't the girl choosing to go downstairs and rejoin the party when she's free to do so?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Rather than rape, that would be harassment at most, if she's free to leave. There are far too many people conflating peer pressure with actual rape.

    Also, if this is happening a lot, maybe it's time that the girls were taught by their parents and schools not to be so fucking afraid of being impolite or hurting others feelings that they won't even walk away from situations they don't like being in.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I've found the ad on YouTube: Teenage rape prevention advert. I lost the bet. She does want to rejoin the party, and attempts to do so, but he physically stops her. I see rape - in that ad.

    I still won't be at all surprised if radical and gender feminists still try to conflate peer pressure with rape, etc. Ambiguous words, like "pressure", can all too easily be used to try to change the meaning of the ad, conflating a woman's responsibility for her own decisions, such as whether or not to consent to sex, with the misogynistic, victim-blaming idea that women should be held responsible for getting raped.

    The ad seems clear, but the discussions around it could get very muddy.

    ReplyDelete
  26. If he's physically preventing her from leaving, then at best that's assault, and at worst (if she's not able to fight away from him), rape. Real rape, not pseudo-rape (like sex that was consensual but later regretted would be).

    ReplyDelete
  27. If she doesn't consent and he knows it, it's rape.

    I disagree with the requirement that if she can fight him off, she has to do so if she doesn't consent. It may be difficult to prove that it was rape in court, but that's not the same as consent.

    If, instead, she was free to leave, free to walk away, and could reasonably be expected to know it, and she chose to stay and chose to submit to sex instead of leaving, I agree that it would not be rape, but consensual sex. Pressure that can be walked away from is not the same as physical force preventing someone from leaving.

    Once he's physically stopping her from leaving when she's trying to leave, he knows she doesn't consent. That's enough for sex to be rape. If, once she'd being illegally held, by physical force, against her will, she surrenders and submits to sex, that's not consent. She knows he's prepared to use physical force in pursuit of sex, because he's already doing so to keep her there against her will. It's unreasonable to expect her to risk greater violence and injury in defence of her right to withhold consent.

    If, instead, she was free to leave and could reasonably be expected to know it, she chose to stay, and chose to consent to sex when pressured but not forced, then I agree it would not be rape.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The Law around rape and consent is a farce. How many young men are facing years in prison as a result of nothing more than drunken sex. How many people can say they have never had sex whilst being under the influence of alcohol???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep, drunken sex does not equal passed out unconscious sex. And I would add, if he was drinking too, then why wasn't she also charged with rape?

      More and more cabs are getting videos installed and catching women threatening to yell rape if they don't give them a free ride. Seems to be a common thing that happens to cab drivers.

      Delete
  29. Your mother is a fucking cunt, Gwallan. And so are you for making excuses for her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're the one being a cunt at the moment. Let him deal with things his own way.

      Delete
  30. Hi, I haven't read the other comments but I'd like to add something here as it is important to me.

    I feel that there is a big trend at the moment to complain that these laws (which we also have in the UK) are simply a waste of time and simply allow people who "regret" what they consented to afterwards to cry rape when it's not justified.

    The problem is that the laws are made to protect people who really HAVE been taken advantage of, and the hurt feelings afterwards and the damage that can be done to someone's life can be very real indeed. I don't think that people are seriously suggesting that every trivial instance of morning-after regrets will justify allegations of rape. However, for everyone's safety and peace of mind it is a good thing if people in general learn to respect the fact that people who are drunk or on drugs should be left alone.

    Most trivial incidents are just that - trivial. If they ever did reach a court a conviction would be unlikely. But there really are situations which simply should not happen - and extending rape laws to cover situations where someone was drunk (or drugged) closes a loophole that has existed for years. It is no longer acceptable to blame rape on the fact the victim was drunk.

    There are all sorts of situations where drunken sex is unfair and consent would clearly be invalid. There are times people deliberately get someone blind drunk just so they can have sex with them. There are people who deliberately target someone who is clearly already very drunk, knowing they will be easily influenced at best.

    I contend that there simply are NOT large numbers of men in prison at the moment for "regret" sex. Rape is notoriously hard to prosecute. This is hysteria and paranoia. Yes probably there are quite a few drama queens out there who think that there is no difference themselves, and they need to get their heads straight too.

    A hell of a lot of things have happened to me in my life. I'm 41 (F) and have been raped or sexually assaulted on different occasions. Every situation is unique. Of course there are plenty of grey areas. Not all these things are equal - some really are much worse than others. It annoys me as much (or more) than anyone to see people making a huge fuss about minor incidents. But please don't forget these laws exist to protect people who have been subjected to serious assaults that otherwise would have gone unpunished. You really CAN be too wasted to give valid consent. Often that may be only ONE factor in the scenario which ADDS UP to a picture of rape.

    Again, I repeat it closes a legal loophole where someone could claim that consent was given, even though it was obvious at the time that the situation was grossly unfair. The law in the UK at least takes into account "reasonable belief" so it is unlikely really that genuine mistakes and misunderstandings will be successfully prosecuted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unless someone is passed out, they are still making their own decisions regarding consenting to sex.

      Would you say that a drunk man has been taken advantage of by an also drunk woman? If you have different rules apply when the sexes are reversed in a situation, then it needs further examining by you. Why is it not the same for both sexes?

      This pseudo-rape claim of what is simply regretting beer-goggle sex (I had sex with THAT ugly guy? OMG!!! The beer made him look better last night) is used to screw with stats as well, making rapes sound a lot more common than they are.

      Survey questions ask if the woman has ever had sex after drinking (they don't ask if the man she's with has also been drinking). Then, even though most women who say yes they've had sex while drunk, also say they've NOT been raped, the surveyors always counted it as a rape anyways. Read the methodology of the famous "1 in 4" survey done by Ms Magazine many years ago. Despite being a horribly flawed pseudo-research study, that '1 in 4' gets quoted all over the place.

      Delete