Thursday, April 23, 2009

Commendable Lectures On Rape Prevention

I am posting this rejected comment from Daniel which he left on my post "Preventing Rape By Intoxication" because it pretends to be something it is not:

The action mentioned in the blog is commendable.

A word of caution though. The law is only intended to help women too drunk to give consent, not those who make a regrettable decision to give consent as a consequence of being drunk.

The recent acquittal of Peter Bacon in Great Britain is a good example of the latter.

Daniel's comment contradicts itself. His weak support for preventing people from committing rape by intoxication is only there to give him a springboard for his real agenda. Notice that preventing rape by intoxication isn't imperative, it is merely, "commendable."

Commendable is when I hold the door open for someone. If this commendable action isn't done nobody is harmed.

By cautioning me, he is claiming that I and many others who speak up against rape don't know the difference between rape and genuinely consensual sexual interactions. Yet a frequent defense for this type of rape is that the rapist misunderstood the other person's lack of consent or misunderstood the other person's state of consciousness.

A frequent response to the undeniable fact that a girl or woman did not consent is: "Knowing she didn't consent isn't enough evidence to convict. The jury needs to know that he knew she didn't consent or was unable to consent."

This alleged confusion is why girls and women are frequently lectured to make their lack of consent absolutely clear and to never ever pass out in mixed company. Boys and men who don't understand genuine legal consent are seemingly everywhere.

If defense attorneys dismiss a fully conscious rape victim's, "No," as not being clear enough communication because of the alleged tone of that, "No," then certainly a rape victim's intoxication will be even less clear to those who begin their interaction by assuming consent is present and requiring the other person to disprove the assumed consent.

So why isn't Daniel giving similar cautions to those who dismiss allegations of rape by intoxication as nothing more than drunk sex? Why don't we see comments from men like Daniel on articles lamenting false allegations of rape by intoxication? They would look like this:

The action mentioned in the blog is commendable.

A word of caution though. The law is only intended to help men who actually got legal consent from the alleged rape victim, not those who make a regrettable decision to proceed when the other person is vulnerable as a consequence of being drunk.

The recent acquittal of Peter Bacon in Great Britain is a good example of why the latter is so important. If he waited until that woman was in a state of consciousness where she could undeniably give legal consent and could remember consenting he wouldn't have been accused or tried.

The reason we don't see this second type of caution from men like Daniel is that he views women as much more likely to try to pass their action off as something it is not when sexual consent becomes a legal issue.

This is the meme behind this type of caution: Men take responsibility for their sexual actions, but women do not.

Yet not even Daniel could credibly deny that men who rape women are going to deny the truth of what they did because they don't want to take responsibility for their sexual actions. Men who commit rape through intoxication and who are rightfully accused will make the false accusation that their rape victims were clearly capable of giving legal consent, actually did so and later regretted doing so.

So there is no factual basis for Daniel's original caution and that caution clearly serves rapists' desire to escape legal responsibility for their crimes. In the end Daniel is the one who is need of being cautioned about who the law is intended to help and who needs to be educated about the difference between rape and and consensual sex.


Bookmark and Share
posted by Marcella Chester @ 8:43 AM   1 comments links to this post


At April 23, 2009 1:08 PM, Blogger JENNIFER DREW said...

The woman who Peter Bacon was acquitted of raping was in fact intoxicated when she alleged Bacon had raped her.

This means she was incapable of giving consent because she was drunk. Commonly overlooked are the actions of the alleged male rapist(s) wherein they are not questioned as to what steps they took to ensure the victim was 'consenting' or agreeing to being sexually penetrated by the man.

Given intoxication in itself means an individual is incapable of responding in a rational manner it should be a presumption that intoxication by consuming alcohol either voluntarily or involuntarily does not mean a person automatically gives 'consent.'

Here in the UK it is illegal for an individual to drive if they have consumed more than a set number of alcoholic units, yet women are widely perceived as always being a constant state of 'sexually consenting' irrespective of their physical and mental state.

It is a case of women are held responsible for their sexual actions but men are never held responsible for their sexual actions/behaviour.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home