|
November 28, 2008
Sex in the men's room -- it isn't just for gays anymore!
(And drunken sex is mutual rape!) A few days ago I wrote a post about sex in men's rooms, and among the issues I discussed were whether or not some of the men who have sex in restrooms are "straight." (I don't think they are entirely straight, although I do think many of them are bisexuals who lead heterosexual lives but who nonetheless want to enjoy homosexual sex without having to acknowledge it, which the anonymity of the restrooms facilitates.) However, when I wrote the post I was I was presupposing that when sex occurs in mens' rooms, it occurs between men. Perhaps I shouldn't have made that assumption, for I now see that a heterosexual couple (consisting of one man and one woman) were arrested for having sex in a men's room. The woman says that the incident has ruined her life: A Carroll woman who was caught having sex in the men's room at an Iowa Hawkeye football game in Minneapolis last weekend says she'd had so much wine before kickoff that she doesn't remember walking into the restroom, the man she had sex with in a stall, or when the police opened the door.I wonder whether an alcohol blackout defense or tears would have worked for Larry Craig. Somehow, I doubt it. Interestingly, the police never tested the couple's blood/alcohol levels, because it was irrelevant to the charges. Feldman, a married mother of three, has been the target of Internet jokes and prank telephone calls today. She was fired this morning from an assisted living center, where she had been an administrator.What's fascinating about this is that in many jurisdictions, a man who has sex with an intoxicated woman can be charged with rape, and in California, sentenced to 8 years in prison. In effect, drunken sex is illegal if the woman complains later: Bottom line, if a girl is intoxicated she cannot consent to sex and you could be charged with rape. It does not matter whether you knew she was intoxicated, it doesn't matter if you were intoxicated too, all that matters is that she was not in a state of mind to consent and therefore it is rape. If you get a girl drunk or high and then "get together" with her you have committed a sexual assault. Again, it doesn't matter if you are drunk or high as well. Your diminished abilities do not negate your responsibilities. A good rule to follow; if you are under the influence do not have sex.What I've never been able to understand is why a woman who has sex with a drunken man can't be charged with rape. Are the laws sexist? Or only their enforcement? Here's what the San Diego District Attorney's Office says: * Face the facts: If she's wasted, intoxicated, asleep, or unconscious, she cannot give legal consent, even if she said "yes"Why doesn't it say "if he or she's wasted"? Obviously, if a drunken man forces himself on a woman, that's rape, right? But if a drunken woman forces herself on a man, and can later demonstrate she was drunk, he'd be chargeable with rape, under the theory that because she was drunk, she could not "consent." Well, why is it that a drunken man can consent, but a drunken woman can't? Can a man consent to sex if he is drunk, but not a woman? Is this fair? Isn't it sexism? (An attorney writing in Mens News Daily about these disturbing new rape laws thinks it is, and he looks at several outrageous scenarios.) This Los Angeles Sex Crime Defense Lawyer take a broader look at the law, and says: "Having sexual intercourse with a person who is intoxicated, unconscious or asleep, and therefore unable to resist, is also rape."I guess that means man or woman. Should I be reassured? Let's try these, um accusations out and see how they look, his-and-hers style. ACCUSATION 1: "Your honor, I was so drunk I was unable to resist her. Therefore, I was raped!"ACCUSATION 2: "Your honor, I was so drunk I was unable to resist him. Therefore, I was raped!"For the life of me, I can't see these accusations being treated equally. Certainly not in light of this FAQ propounded by a public interest organization consisting of "the San Diego County District Attorney, San Diego Police Department, Sheriff, colleges, universities, the military, the Center for Community Solutions / Rape Crisis Center, and the Sexual Assault Response Team": 5. What do I risk if I have sex with a woman who is intoxicated or "wasted"?Whether the man says "yes" is of course laughably irrelevant. The rule is that men are considered to be inherently more capable of consent than women. (Similarly, men are considered to be inherently more capable of sexism than women, if indeed women are capable of sexism at all. That's because men are strong and women are victims, and if you don't agree, you're a bigot! Forgive the irony.) To return to the men's room, while both parties committed a crime by having sex in public, given the California law, I don't think the fact that the woman committed that crime would have much bearing on whether she was raped (at least in California). There's just a kneejerk tendency (reflected in the summaries of the law) to see women who have sex with men as victims of the men who have sex with them -- especially if the woman is drunk or intoxicated. Yet men -- no matter how intoxicated -- are never seen as victims of women who have sex with them, nor would an intoxicated gay man be seen as a victim of another intoxicated gay man. I don't know what the law is in Minnesota, but in California, it's pretty clear that the man could be charged with rape. (With the woman seen as the victim.) Beyond the sexism, what do you do if you're one of those nervous, timid and neurotic types (man or woman) who can only have sex when you're drunk? Is it fair for the law to declare you legally incapable of consent? What worries me is that if they wrote and enforced the law in a fair and non-sexist manner, all drunken sex would become a criminal offense. So, if you're a timid person who needs to get drunk in order to have sex, and you found another similarly oriented person, you wouldn't even be able to protect yourselves by having drunken sex together. It wouldn't be drunken sex. It would be mutual rape. And it would not matter whether you were doing it in a public men's room, or at home in your bedroom, or whether you're man and woman, or husband and wife. In theory, even the husband and wife who have drunken sex with each other could be sent to prison for eight years. I guess the Minnesota men's room couple should consider themselves lucky. posted by Eric on 11.28.08 at 08:22 PM
Comments
The problem is, the law says does not require anyone to be passed out, only to be incapable of consent. I think you're right about penetration in terms of common sense, but although penetration must occur, rape is not defined as necessarily having to be done by the penetrator. Section 263 CPC: The essential guilt of rape consists in the outrage to the person and feelings of the victim of the rape. Any sexual penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the crime.Similarly, if a woman has sex with a minor boy, that he penetrated her (and she consented) is irrelevant. She is the rapist. Incredible as it may sound, men have reported being raped by women, even though the women were penetrated. An account here: http://jameslandrith.com/content/view/3148/79/ The law does not limit consent to "consent to be penetrated" -- and this can get especially tricky with oral sex, where the "active" partner is techically often (though not always) the one who is penetrated by the "passive" partner. So, if a drunken woman orally copulates with a man, the law would see her as having been raped. But if a woman orally copulates with a drunken man, there would be penetration, but the law would not see the man as having been raped. This cannot be explained away by saying that a man inherently gives consent by having an erection, as men can have erections in their sleep, or when intoxicated. Under such circumstances, I suppose a woman who has sex with a sleeping husband could also be a rapist. I realize this sounds crazy, but I think the laws are asking for it by defining rape as sex while intoxicated. I think we could all agree that having sex with a totally unconscious person would be rape, but OTOH common sense suggests that a person who goes home with someone, gets drunk with that person, and climbs into bed and then has sexual relations with that person was NOT raped. (Even if there is regret the next day.) Eric Scheie · November 28, 2008 10:03 PM I agree with you about the laws defining sex while intoxicated as rape. I don't have a problem with adult/minor sex being rape either, as long as we're not calling 18 year olds minors. I think I have a problem with 17 year olds too. At what age does one gain the ability to give informed consent? Should that be different for males and females? Females are taking a bigger risk, physically. I'm not even sure an 18 year old girl fully understands the life-long side-effects of birth control methods. It gets messy doesn't it? What is the relationship between the law and common sense? (not entirely kidding) Donna B. · November 28, 2008 11:31 PM No, Donna. One doesn't have to be penetrated in order for rape to occur. If a man is passed out, and a woman has sex with him without his consent, then she is guilty of raping him, in spite of frat-boy jokes to the contrary. bmmg39 · November 29, 2008 12:52 PM After seeing man after man abused by the system by broadening the definition of "rape" further and further, the libertarian in me is starting to push me towards not making any difference between rape and assault and battery. I know that rape carries psychological damage beyond being simply beaten up, but few people seem to want to acknowledge how screwed up our society is getting by making sex an actual weapon in the hands of some women. Phelp · November 30, 2008 01:28 PM A number of years back, I read a report about a young man who was tied up in a bed (I believe he may have been intoxicated or drunk at the time, but I can't remember) by two women who raped him. When brought to trial, the judge threw out his complaint by saying, essentially, because he was sexually aroused, no rape had happened, even though he clearly told them he did not want to have sex with them. I remember at the time thinking what a ridiculous ruling that was, because a man isn't in complete control of his level of arousal, but he can still exert self-control and resist following his impulses. It was clear the women behaved against his will and consent, and should have been charged with raping him. SK · December 3, 2008 11:07 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
December 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2008
November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
shadows rock at the park
National Geographic Does Pot Perspective Where Science Gets Down To Business Ant Farmers No Little Screw Ups Will Be Rewarded Real men hate beer, hide in caves, and plot the murder of women and children! Dying To Punish White People USMC Rules For Gunfighting Fool me once...
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I think consent here has to mean consent to be penetrated. Yes, I know that's a bit crude, but it is the essential difference. A passed out drunk male certainly can be raped under that definition, but by a woman? Harassed, perhaps abused, but not raped.
Alcohol blood level is irrelevant to a charge of indecent conduct.