That's not a solution. It's a terrible fucking idea. Such an argument doesn't move towards "gender equality", so I'd question which so-called feminists would be making it. In fact, I expect many feminists would argue that this in fact only reinforces societal stereotypes about female sexuality that they've been fighting for decades. It also has numerous loopholes that could be exploited. If a women's nipple goes into a guys mouth, has she not committed defacto "penetration"? And before you say no, please bear in mind that would lend credence to the argument that forced oral sex would also not count as penetration. It's a road I don't think anyone want's to go down.Beowulf wrote:The solution some feminists would come up with is something like the following. Declare the rape isn't non-consensual sex, but non-consensual penetration of the victim. Then the guy is a victim of sexual assault, but the woman is a victim of rape. Because guys can't get raped by women. And since rape is worse, her rapist gets punished.TheHammer wrote:Where your argument falls apart, as I alluded to above, is the fact that the so-called "rapist" would also likely be drunk. He (or she for political correctness) also said "yes" in such a state that they did not have a mental quorum. How can you then therefore classify the act as "rape" on the part of one of the individuals? In one sense you're saying that the "victim" was in such a state of mind that they could not be held accountable for their actions while drunk, yet the "offender" despite being in this same state of mind, is a "rapist" and has only themselves to blame?
No, that makes no fucking sense.
If there is any sense of justice, or equality before the law, both individuals should be accountable for their own actions. And that goes for an individual who commits actual rape (defined as truly non-consensual sex) or any other crime while under the influence. I don't excuse their behavior simply because they'd been drinking. But I don't think you benefit society by making legal acts criminal based on how a person happens to feel about it the next day.
Besides, it doesn't address the core issue regarding consent in the first place. In my mind, consent is consent. Retroactively invalidating it based on how a person feels when they sober up is a dangerous precedent to set. A fair precedent is that everyone accepts responsibility for actions they take while under the influence. We know that alcohol lowers inhibitions, and helps to "loosen us up". That is its primary purpose for consumption. when you take that first drink, you accept responsibility of the consequences that "drunk you" is going to do things that "sober you" might not.
And no, that doesn't mean its "okay" to commit crimes against people because they are drunk, so lets preemptively quash that straw man. Anything that would be rape against a sober person would be rape against a drunk one - having sex with someone who is passed out (including "out on their feet"), or against their will is still rape. But anything that would be consensual sex between two sober people, is likewise consensual sex between non-sober ones.
