I made a post on this subject last year called Rape Victims Need to Take Responsibility. It is in no way meant to be taken seriously. It was inspired by an argument I had with another person who said basically the exact same thing that I wrote in my blog post. I thought it was laughable that anyone could seriously believe that saying rape victims need to take responsibility is not the same as blaming them, and that comparing a rape victim to a drunk driver was a good analogy. I was a little worried after I posted it, but felt that most people should be able to get the humor. But then I read this. Surprisingly, there’s not much debate going on in the comment section. So to clarify things, I’m going to give my honest insight into these ridiculous arguments that continue to blame the victim and perpetrate the idea that it’s ok to rape someone if they have been drinking.
The first thing she writes about is different scenarios involving car crashes. I’m not going to bother quoting them, and you can read the full article in the link above. I will comment on that however since it’s the second time I’ve seen someone bring up drunk driving when debating about rape. They are not comparable. If you’re drunk and you get into a car accident then yes, you are responsible for any damage that occurs. This is not the same as getting drunk, passing out, and getting raped. You are only responsible for your own actions. Not the actions of others, and no matter how dumb your previous actions might have been, that does not excuse someone from committing a crime against you.
“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.”
The first sentence is true, but I’d like to see anyone charged with rape come up with the defense that there was no mens rea and therefore he can not be guilty of rape. If you don’t know what the law is on that matter, I’ll give you a clue. It wouldn’t work. Like murder, there are different degrees of rape. Intent has something to do with what degree a person is charged with, but no matter what the intent is or whether the person knew they were committing a crime, that person can still be charged and prosecuted.
“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.”
I have a hard time seeing it too, and most men probably aren’t thinking of forcing alcohol down a woman’s throat in order to rape them later. But..
“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.”
I think any woman knows that alcohol lowers inhibitions if they’ve drank before. The problem isn’t when inhibitions are lowered, it’s when the woman has gotten so drunk she can’t speak coherently, has trouble walking, or is passed out. It’s then that she is unable to consent to sex and anyone who has sex with her is then guilty of rape.
It would be nice if all women were told about the dangers of getting too drunk, if women were told that rape isn’t just something that occurs in a dark alley with a stranger, that women knew what their limits were when drinking even before they’ve had their first experience doing it, that women knew that getting extremely drunk may lead to rape even if they’re with friends, and that all women even knew that it’s rape if someone has sex with them while they’re passed out, but this isn’t a perfect world. Sometimes the women really don’t know any better, and even when they do, it still doesn’t excuse someone raping them.
“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!”"
Does anyone else actually think if someone is coherent, then they should still be able to remember what happened the next day? Personally I find it highly unlikely.
“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?”
I know there’s a few rare people out there that can get really drunk on even just one beer, but most people are going to be mildly buzzed at best after having a few beers. In no way does buying a woman a few drinks mean there is intent to rape her. Hell, even buying a woman more than just a few doesn’t necessarily mean that. However does it make a difference if he gives her a date rape drug or if she willingly drinks alcohol? No. Does it make a difference if he thinks he’s getting consensual sex when it really isn’t? No.
This is where the writer seems to be confusing consensual sex and rape.
“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.”
Again, I must point out what a horrible analogy that is. A sober driver is of course not at fault (although it really depends on the circumstances) if an accident occurs. A sober person who rapes someone who can not legally consent is committing a crime and therefore responsible. How hard is this to understand?
“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 defense 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 is the only part where she makes a decent point. If both parties were extremely drunk, then who is the rapist? It would be extremely hard to figure out who initiated what in that scenario. However, it is more typical of the woman being extremely drunk, and the male if he has been drinking, less so and is the person who initiates it.
What I don’t understand is that she wants to call rape victims an accessory to their own rape, which she continues to talk about for a few paragraphs. Maybe she forgot about her mens rea argument? This is just silly. It would be similar to saying a woman is an accessory to her own rape because she went for a walk on her own at night.
“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.”
Seriously? What the fuck?
“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”. ”
Or in other words, blame the victim and think they’re responsible for another person’s actions. Again I say what the fuck. Who in their right mind would believe this garbage? I know rapists would love to read someone putting the blame on the victim as much as possible, but other than them?
Sadly, rape of any kind can be difficult to prove. If you have sex with a woman who is obviously too drunk to consent, you may or may not be accused. Even with an accusation, it’s hard to tell if you would be convicted of anything because the courts are messed up when it comes to rape. Men are found guilty even with little to no evidence, and men are found not guilty even with more than enough evidence to get a guilty verdict. It’s hard to know what will happen. It’s best to just stay on the safe side. If you’re interested in having sex with someone, but they’ve have more than a few drinks and are having difficulty even forming a coherent sentence… best to stay away until they’ve sobered up. It’s not the end of the world if you don’t get laid one night.
