NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/soc/men/23099

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-22 | 3.2 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!ames!sun-barr!news2me.EBay.Sun.COM!seven-up.East.Sun.COM!klingon!eisrael
From: [e-mail] (Elias Israel - SunSelect Engineering)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape?
Date: 22 Jan 1993 15:20:11 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Lines: 45
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
NNTP-Posting-Host: klingon.east.sun.com

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Joseph Albert) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>The problem is that this isn't always a safe bet. I've heard more than one
>>"authority" on rape (including the head of the Women's Rape Counseling Center
>>in D.C., whose name unfortunately escapes me) claim that a woman who realizes
>>in the morning that she probably didn't want to have sex (or wouldn't have if
>>she'd thought about it some more) has been raped.
>
>One reason the name may escape you is that there is no such thing as the
>"Women's Rape Counseling Center" in D.C.  Yes, I know it sounds good to
>appeal to the ultimate spokesperson of those you wish to discredit, but
>a little more accuracy is called for.  Your claims are simply not credible.
>Any authority on rape will tell you that if a woman is too drunk to have
>been able to give consent (eg passed out) then perpetrating intercourse
>on her body is rape.

Hey, I refuse to participate in a flame war. I was just reporting from memory
on things I'd seen. If you don't find my statement credible, well, that's for
you to work out; I've got more pressing concerns. If I got the name of the
woman's organization wrong as well as having forgotten her name, I apologize.
I saw her make the statement on television about a year ago (co-incident with
the Thomas/Hill tumult). I believe I also have an interview with her in one
of the periodicals I read, so I may be able to find a reference, if anyone cares.

And I don't think you read my posting carefully. I didn't say that men shouldn't
require consent from women too inebriated to give it. I said that some people
interpret the apparent consent of a women before the sex act to be conditional
on what she thinks about it afterward. And I wasn't trying to descredit anyone.
My only point was that even in situations where a man tries to interpret a woman's
desires and thinks that he's operating in a regime of mutual consent, he can
suddenly find that some people would interpret his actions in a much more
sinister light. I brought this up only because many people (most of them women,
but not all of them) make light of or don't understand the risks that
(perfectly ethical) men assume in this area.

Now, a better response to my posting would be to point out that if the path of
righteousness was easy, everyone could do it. I would be forced to agree that
just because ethical behaviour can be difficult or risky doesn't mean we have
any smaller obligation to be ethical. However, I would also caution that
erecting barriers to ethical behaviour won't exactly encourage its greater
currency.

Elias Israel
[e-mail]