“a prop in their homoerotic performance”?

The trial in Steubenville, Ohio of high school football players for rape has caught my attention because it raises issues about feminist sexism (a politically incorrect oxymoron) which seem to go largely unexplored. Two male minors, aged 16 and 17, are accused of raping a 16 year old female, who was allegedly too drunk to consent to sex.  So drunk that according to one activist (who seems to be missing the irony), she ceased to be a person, and instead became a “prop” — in a homoerotic performance:

A YouTube video of an intoxicated student at the party mocking the alleged victim – he claimed she had been “so raped” that night – was made public by members of the hacker group Anonymous.

“The girl was so dehumanized by the perpetrators that she is no longer a real person,” said anti-sexism activist Jackson Katz. “She’s a prop in their homoerotic performance.”

The conduct which is described graphically in a number of articles was so out of control that as I read about it, it struck me that all of the kids involved were so shitfaced drunk that none of them were making rational decisions.  Whether it rises to the status of rape under Ohio law is a question for the jury. But were I defending the boys, I would try to introduce as much evidence of their intoxication as I could. I would also argue that if we assume all parties were drunk, that it constitutes sexism to declare that only the girl was incapable of consenting to sex.  That is not the way society sees things, though. Males are presumed to always be capable of consenting to sex if they have sex. The very act implies consent for a male.

Why? Is that because only the male penetrates, and penetration necessarily equals consent? Penetration is active, while being penetrated is passive? What about oral sex? Is that not a form of actively being penetrated via deliberate envelopment? By what logic is only a drunken female deemed unable to consent to that, while the drunken male is always deemed to have consented?  And why would the same logic not apply if a woman (drunk or sober) throws herself onto a drunken male?

I’ve discussed this issue repeatedly, and there’s an interesting yahoo discussion here with the question phrased this way:

Can a man be too drunk to consent to sex with another man, and would that be considered rape?

Looked at that way, people can understand the problems in assigning blame. But suppose we phrase it this way?

Can a man be too drunk to consent to sex with a woman, and would that be considered rape?

Putting aside the activist snark about the football players’ conduct being “homoerotic” in nature (which might itself be an interesting defense, for the boys could claim that they were forced into “unnatural” and non-consensual intercourse by their fellow teammates), I cannot see why the above question isn’t a valid one. Because if the players were too drunk to consent, and the girl was too drunk to consent, then wouldn’t that mean there was no consent at all?

When there is mutual sex without consent, by what rational standard must one of the parties be adjudged a criminal? Does “guilt” depend simply on which party happens to be male?

If it does, is that not sexism?


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

18 responses to ““a prop in their homoerotic performance”?”

  1. JustMe Avatar
    JustMe

    Indeed reproductive rights follow this model as well. Women have full decision making authority in pregnancy even when the father is her husband. Legally, he has no say. The courts and/or society have determined that she bears an unequal burden.

    I am quite certain that anyone who is so intoxicated as to be passed out cannot consent. Similarly anyone who has been drinking copious amounts of alcohol likewise has impaired judgment but is still responsible for their behavior as in drunk driving.

    There was an instance when I was in college when a guy and a girl went to a party, both got drunk and had sex. The next morning neither of them remembered anything but the used condom told the story. She, and her roommates, began making accusations of rape. In the end the whole thing blew over but I wonder what the law would have said.

  2. let.it.burn Avatar
    let.it.burn

    Too drunk to not be raped.
    Not too drunk to rape.

    The narrative:

    man = bad
    women = good.

    *ALWAYS*

  3. Kathy Kinsley Avatar
    Kathy Kinsley

    “When there is mutual sex without consent, by what rational standard must one of the parties be adjudged a criminal? Does “guilt” depend simply on which party happens to be male?

    If it does, is that not sexism?”

    Yes, it does. And yes, it most definitely is.

  4. TheAJ Avatar
    TheAJ

    Can a man be too drunk to consent to sex with another man, and would that be considered rape?

    http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/11/brian_downing_alabama_fan_guil.html#incart_river_default

    Yes, for example, when a man is unconscious. This is supposedly the argument with this lady, that she was immobile and could not consent, and was literally being dragged around. The boys say she was making her own decisions and was no coerced. Of course each party will say that.

    When there is mutual sex without consent, by what rational standard must one of the parties be adjudged a criminal? Does “guilt” depend simply on which party happens to be male?</I.

    Already explained the rational standard, and as the details of the case, show, consciousness and control of actions is obviously the standard being held here. If the girl says yes that is different from someone holding her head and nodding it up and down.

    By the way, the teabagging incident I linked to, 2 years in jail . . . I saw that atleast twice in college with guys doing it to passed out drunk guys. Its all in good fun (supposedly) between friends but yes, its still sexual assault and the only thing you can hope for is that your buddy laughs it off instead of pressing charges.

    Anyways, while obvious you want to deflect the conversation from silly issues like rape and sexual assault and toward more important discussion of how mean feminists are. I mean, ignore some really bad allegations of rape (lets continue the theme of football

    http://www.salon.com/2013/01/17/notre_dames_double_standard/

    http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004147460_rbstevens270.html)

    and focus on the fact really all a girl has to do is scream rape and that's it, 100% conviction rate! Its so easy!

    I suppose for every allegation of rape we should produce a quotable quote from a wacky feminist, you know, just to show that it goes both ways.

  5. Kathy Kinsley Avatar
    Kathy Kinsley

    But, you know, it does. Yeah, I’m a traitor to the female sex. So sue me.

    Men can be raped – even by women. And have been. ESPECIALLY if you consider that getting someone drunk is rape. (I don’t – I consider it stupidity.)

  6. Frank Avatar
    Frank

    Carry it one step more. In their drunken state they strangle the girl. Is it then rape and murder, or rape and manslaughter, or did the little tramp get what she deserved?

    No one invites rape, or murder, by definition. At worst she was careless, but in no way was she a willing participant in her own rape. Hang the little pricks.

  7. Frank Avatar
    Frank

    Here is an example of a guy high on meth who raped a 14 y/o high school girl. Maybe she was a willing participant in her own strangulation?
    Sorry, but I have no sympathy for men who get drunk or high on drugs and commit crimes of passion that result in rape or worse.
    http://www.redding.com/news/2013/mar/12/new-evidence-revealed-red-bluff-teens-death/

  8. Frank Avatar
    Frank

    Apples and oranges. I suppose some consideration should be given considering the ages of the “rapists” at 16 & 17. It’s not the person who penetrates, but the person who acts that determines the rape, it seems to me. And that could be either sex.

  9. […] of my favorite blogs, Classical Values, is addressing a question about sexism and the law, specifically, if a man and woman get piss drunk and go at it with each other, why does the man get […]

  10. Eric Scheie Avatar

    Frank I am not defending these particular boys, and I don’t know the details. I have a more general question about the nature of sex between two drunken parties.

    Is drunken sex rape? If so, in a case of mutual drunken sex, why would there only be one rapist?

  11. Frank Avatar
    Frank

    Eric your general question is muddied by the ages of the participants in the example. A 16 y/o girl can’t give consent where I live. It is always statutory rape. But it is a fair question to ask if drunken sex between willing adults is rape. I don’t think so.
    To be safe I think it wise to confine having sex with the same sex. And I’ve spent a lifetime practicing safe sex 🙂

  12. lelnet Avatar
    lelnet

    Yes. It’s sexist. It’s also the state of American law. The only safe strategy is:

    1. Don’t have sex with someone who’s drunk.
    2. Don’t get so drunk you’re not in control of your own actions…or at least, don’t do it when you’re with other people.

    It’s really only men who’ll be _legally_ punished for breaking either of these rules, but the truth is that they’re pretty good rules for both sides.

  13. A Critic Avatar
    A Critic

    I do believe there is a great deal of evidence the girl was passed out or close to it. The boys were mobile, talking, etc.

    If you were so drunk that you were just about passed out…and a drunk guy had sex with you…was that rape?

  14. Eric Scheie Avatar

    If you were so drunk that you were just about passed out…and a drunk guy had sex with you…was that rape?

    That would depend on whether the drunk had the mindset of a rapist. If he knowingly and intentionally had sex with the knowledge that the other drunk was unable to consent, then that would be rape. (If, OTOH, he was too drunk to understand that the other drunk was too drunk to consent, then I think the crucial element of intent is missing.)

    What I’m most curious about is the entirely predictable scenario of two people getting shitfaced drunk together and then having sex. Assume both drank the same amount of alcohol and both were legally drunk. If neither one was sober enough to consent to sex, then what happened?

    The analogy to drunk driving does not work for me, because there are well-established laws prohibiting drunken driving, but there is no law I know of prohibiting drunken sex per se. Should there be?

    This also has implications for the issue of consenting adults. Is it possible to consent to drunken sex? Or does the alcohol make consent impossible? If it does, then perhaps drunken sex is already illegal — and more illegal than drunken driving. After all, drunk drivers are not treated as rapists.

  15. Eric Scheie Avatar

    Additionally, I think it has to be borne in mind that if alcohol renders a person incapable of consent, then it would not be a defense even if the person actually did consent. Under this scenario, if a woman says, “Make love to me!” when she is drunk, and a man does as she requests, he then becomes a “rapist.”

    Am I alone in thinking that this defines rape down, and is at odds with reality?

  16. Will Avatar
    Will

    And the verdict is in: three young people are each guilty of varying degrees of “young and stupid”. Males will now face some incarceration and a life sentence of stigma while the somewhat shamed female gains victim credentials should she ever desire a political career.

    I’m not saying these young men shouldn’t be punished. I am wondering to what degree the victim who awoke after her abuse and digital penetration “rape” with no memory or discernible aftereffects of the event is suffering. I am sure she has both suffered and been uplifted, by the huge exposure of the case, and the usual internet Godlings who instantly assess guilt and innocence and dispense verbal justice.
    She may truly be traumatized but she at least has a good chance to quit “young and stupid” and move on; the convicted sex offenders, not so much.

  17. Will Avatar
    Will

    Apparently some locals have decided the victim is to blame for the entire cascade of harsh consequences stemming from so many students and adults either ignoring or engaging in utterly stupid behavior. No adults had a clue what was happening at the weekend parties ???

  18. Eric Scheie Avatar

    The issue in the Steubenville case is further complicated by the fact that these kids were of the legal age of consent for sex, but well below the legal age of consent for alcohol.

    So this question does not apply to the girl in question, but when an adult deliberately gets shitfaced drunk in a sexual setting under circumstances in which he knows he will be unable to control himself, can that not be seen as a form of implied consent? Certainly, if a guy did that at a gay bathhouse, few would take seriously his complaint the next day that because he had been too drunk to consent to sex, that he was raped. Maybe I’m out of touch with today’s world, but when I was young, it was common sense that if you got drunk and went home with someone, you were implicitly consenting to sex — not a long discussion of German impressionism or something. Aren’t circumstances relevant?

    (Again, I’m not saying the girl in Steubenville did the equivalent of that…)

    This is not new, of course, and I don’t mean to reinvent the wheel. Camille Paglia already did a better job of it anyway:

    http://gos.sbc.edu/p/paglia.html