KC Johnson has a fascinating post about the idea that drunken sex constitutes “rape.” Excerpt:
Broadening what constitutes sexual assault by redefining consent has been a principal goal of “activists”—who have worked with sympathetic faculty and (increasingly) the OCR. The McLeod case at Duke is a particular obvious example of how the new standards might function: two students were drinking and had sex, after which the university concluded that the male student, Lewis McLeod, had committed sexual assault because the accuser could not give consent. Why? Dean Sue Wasiolek explained: Even when both students consumed alcohol, “assuming it is a male and female, it is the responsibility in the case of the male to gain consent before proceeding with sex.”
I’ve complained about this ridiculous trend before, not only because it trivializes rape, but because its log rests on an inherently sexist standard under which only men can be guilty of rape in cases of drunken sex.
Only men have sexual “responsibility” — even when they are drunk.
Got that?
Women are helpless creatures, and men have all the responsibility.
This is feminism? God, what a joke these people are.
What I would like to know is this. If we take the Dean of Duke at her word and assume that it is always the man’s responsibility to gain consent, then what about drunken lesbian sex? I guess whether drunken lesbian sex is more culpable than drunken sex between two men is a question for the theorists to ponder. Maybe someone can help me parse this out.
Is their thinking based on the idea that one partner (the male or I guess the functional equivalent) is necessarily “active” while the other is passive? Who is “active” and who is “passive” in cases of oral sex? What is volition? If having sex while drunken person is rape, then what are the implications to consent in general? (This makes me wonder whether, in the minds of leftists, prostitutes can consent to having sex for money. Or is the payment of money a form of coercion which renders it “rape”?)
Anyone who thinks the left favors sexual freedom is an absolute fool.
Comments
4 responses to ““it is the responsibility in the case of the male””
Hi Eric,
In answer to your question about paying prostitutes, your speculation is correct. Paying them is considered a form of coercion.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/dec/11/gender.socialexclusion
http://annafrisina.com/70/70/
And not just prostitutes. In April of 1989 the Oregon Attorney General said, “the exchange of money made this choice involuntary, and rendered the contract unenforceable.” What contract was he talking about? A contract for a surrogate pregnancy. And no, he wasn’t a Dem. He was GOP.
It’s amazing how often the RadFem Left and the Religious Right cross paths. I don’t think that the RadFems had latched onto the meme of “money as coercion” for another 6 years.
Maggie McNeill, a former prostitute, has mentioned the absurdity of comparing consensual, monetarily compensated sex with the violence of rape. And as one who has experienced both, I think she probably has a decent grasp on the topic.
She also linked to a poster that had 3 grown women dressed like pre-adolescents with the caption,
FEMINISM: The Radical Notion that we should treat Grown Women like Children.
Francisco’s speech may outlive the novel.
Iowahawk said it best in a tweet from May of this year:
If I understand college administrators correctly, colleges are hotbeds of racism and rape that everyone should be able to attend.
https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/465953998730969089?refsrc=email
[…] to commenter Randy for the heads up. And thanks to Eric who’s email got me to have another look at the post […]