That would appear to be the case. I've been arguing in favour of people accepting responsibility for their actions. If one of those actions involves using intoxicants for the express purpose of relaxing one's inihibitions, I feel that it is deeply mitigating in one's ability to claim that their consent was not valid, in a way that being spiked or being forced into a sexual encounter is not.

So yes, I'd argue that, if you had consented to an act and that act was committed, and if you hadn't withdrawn consent, and if you had knowingly diminished your own responsibility for the meaningfulness of said consent, your recourse should be more limited than someone who had not done so.

We don't have to find an analogy that suits either of us. Things either happen in a certain way or they don't.

I work for local government, and they totally don't work it like that. People have been killed because of bad contracts and fuck all has been done. It's gross but it's true.

sure, ask away and read around too. i'm sorry for being rude - for some reason i got annoyed when you started talking about not being allowed to withdraw consent, probably because i am, always have been, and intend to carry on being, a prick tease.



Nice avoidance of what I actually meant there. Whether penetration occurs or not was fairly obviously not the issue I was referring to.



Meh, I still think it's rather absurd.

...so?



Sorry, I don't understand. I was arguing that the majority of sexual encounters generally don't involve a prior arrangement of exactly what people will and won't do. There are exceptions, which I mentioned (i.e. sex work), and which you added to (i.e. magazine hook-ups). So I don't see your point, unless you're saying that magazine hook-ups constitute the majority of all sexual encounters.

See, I'd argue that, if someone doesn't know what they're consenting to, it's their responsibility to make a judgement as to whether they should do it or not. I can see the problem with that, but I just don't like the idea of a world where people don't take any responsibility for their own safety. I don't think it should be the law's job, particularly in cases where, okay, someone may not know exactly how much it would hurt, but they'd at least have some idea.

huh? if their consent wasn't valid.. do you mean meaningful, as we've been discussing here? unless you're using 'mitigating' wrong...

but one can still be forced into a sexual encounter if one is drunk. as i said earlier, drink and drugs are involved in about a third of all aquaintance rape in the UK.

well, congratulations - you just made rape within marriage impossible again. do you see? depending on where the law draws the line, it includes or excludes certain kinds of case. i think it's nearly right at the moment in terms of how it treats men raping women, though i would like it to revert to considering unconsciousness an automatic withdrawal of consent. it will definitely change when more men's rape cases start to come through.

Oh, almost definitely. Assume I'm using any legal terms in their layman's definition, if you weren't already doing that. I just don't see why it shouldn't be taken into consideration.



I never said you couldn't be.

We've been over this way too many times.

Well no, I don't. It only works if you assume that marriage is consent. It isn't, unless one of your vows is "fuck me". But as you say, it depends where the law draws the line. All I'm really saying is that, ideologically speaking, there will be a conflict. It doesn't matter if the law doesn't have to be ideologically sound all the time.

as you pointed out earlier, all things happen under the sun. the question is which situations the law finds deserving of protection.

not around here it's not. i assure you, if i did not correctly tender a research contract, i'd be fired and the money would be respent. i don't know who you work for, but i can tell you that's true here.

ok then , to answer your original question directly, yes. any sex act that you made it clear you didn't want and were unable to resist is a sexual assault. and so it should be.

no, and the law doesn't seek to legislate for the majority either.

well, the law says it at least wants to consider it, although the fact that there's a dual burden of proof says a lot about how difficult they want to make it to convict. it's just important that it can in theory be possible.

Northamptonshire County Council. It's shit.

And I was saying that, if someone uses as vague a term as "sex", they're not making it clear what they don't want. It's open to interpretation. I don't think you're making it clear that you don't want to do something unless you say so, with the obvious exception of acts which one would not normally anticipate within that culture.


So you see the inconsistency?

Meh, as long as they make it difficult I guess I can live with that.

no. consent to sex does not automatically imply consent to any and all sex acts no natter what they are. you said earlier on 'yes i know just because someone consents to sex that doesn't mean they want to be bummed by 6 burly men'. well, the law can err either in favour of assuming consent includes consent to everything, or in favour of assuming it doesn't necessarily and is a matter to be determined case by case.

the law has to be consistent with its own history and principles, not consistent with the way things work for the majority of people outside of criminal proceedings. unless you mean something else?

yeah. as i said before, if it isn't covered in law, it isn't even possible to bring a case. for most of the situations we've discussed, i think it should be possible, but possible doesn't mean easy.

I'm saying you should have to do the latter then. I'm not in any way arguing that consent is consent to everything, but as has been said, if someone is not specific about what they mean by sex you then have to establish whether an act would reasonably considered to be covered by it, if that makes sense. Like I think most people would consider oral to be included, whereas significantly less would consider autoerotic asphyxia, flagellation etc., so it would be reasonable to assume the former and not the latter. "Most people" would have to be representative of the culture from which the people involved are coming from (i.e. if it's a BDSM, you'd have to base your judgement on what's consider acceptable or not within that culture). I think it's clear that either assuming consent is consent to everything, or that consent must always be entirely specific, is not a desireable or useful generalisation.


I'm talking about ideology, really. But thinking about it, the way our laws are written, ideology isn't a huge concern; if most of a selection of twelve people on one occasion think something should be legal, then I guess it becomes at least potentially legal, unless there's more to it that wasn't made aware of by Ally McBeal.

I'm fairly sure that we don't need to argue this from a legal perspective because the consent would not be valid. If you want to argue it from a ideological perspective then fine, but I don't want to discuss how a jury would determine what was contemplated by the victim and the perpetrator when someone says 'have sex with me while unconscious'. We just don't need to even discuss that because I don't think it would ever get that far. She can't give valid consent prior to passing out because in order for sex to be consensual both parties have to have the ability to opt out at all times.
It's not about what constitutes 'sex' in the minds of both parties, it's about the fact that after one passes out, there is no ability to say 'stop'. You don't need for someone to deviate from their definition of sex to be able to legitimately withdraw consent. You merely need to not like it anymore and want it to end.
BDSM doesn't involve two active participants?

i think sugarshot may have a point *nods*

Indeed. This sounds a bit cheesy but I must say you've shown such tremendous generosity, sensitivity and wisdom in defending me, a total stranger and then gone on to discuss the subject of rape with somebody blithely maintaining he's merely playing devil's advocate. That you can do such a great job at it despite this

[quote=araucaria
maybe because it's painful. but i'll talk about it with you, no problem. my experience: early sexual abuse, continuing until mid-teens. 3 attempted rapes in adulthood. my sister was also the victim of a violent opportunistic attempted rape. [/QUOTE]

is all but awe inspiring.
I've already PM'd you of course so maybe this will appear as if I'm only posturing on a public forum piously ... but Jesus, since I am apparently more or less to blame for this thread deteriorating in the first place I am so sorry. You said it was 'no problem' but in case it has been, I feel duty bound to convey some empathy and let you know for what little it's worth, you have my admiration. You're able to make your points so eloquently and well and are able to keep such a cool head through out.
Kudos.

An interview with Feministing editor Samhita Mukhopadhyay (28) is like a fast-paced workshop on how to be a tireless wireless feminist. Mukhopadhyay is one of six female staff members that run the blog Feministing.

The site editors and founders are motivated by their belief that young women are rarely given the opportunity to speak on their own behalf on issues that affect their lives and futures. Feministing aims to provide a platform for women to comment on and analyze these issues. Roughly 25,000 unique users per day visit the site, which gets more than 50,000 actual hits a day, according to the site's most recent data. A men's group, in response to Feministing's success, has created a mock-feminism blog site at Feministing.org. Mukhopadhyay says: "That shit just makes us more famous."

The site is no sorority house side project. It doesn't "hate" men. It doesn't have male contributors, although men frequently respond to its blogs. It prefers quick, off-the-cuff blogs and rants to fully reported news articles. Mukhopadhyay is the only woman of color among the site staff. They make money off of page ads which is typically spent on new writers or travel.

The San Francisco Chronicle in an article about feminism and First Lady Laura Bush in May 2006 called for a new, all-inclusive "Big Tent" feminism, and chided Feministing as "righteous" in stating that feminism isn't for everybody. AlterNet praised Feministing for its ability to segue flawlessly from rants on Chilean President Michelle Bachelet to reports on a skin-tightening product called "Virgin Cream."

As a feminist blogger, Mukhopadhyay's focus is on productivity and connectivity. During our interview, she huddles up with her laptop and multi-tasks. While firing off responses to my questions, she's also reading an update about an alleged gang rape at Fresno State, recommending other blog sites to me, discussing the pros and cons of polyamory versus hetero-normativity and debating the relevance of mainstream media.

GM: Is the blogosphere the location for a new feminism?

Samhita Mukhopadhyay: If you are an activist and not reading blogs, you're not doing your job. [The blogosphere] is a listening audience and an active audience. It could be anyone out there; an anti-feminist from Ohio, a housewife in Illinois.

GM: Are most of your readers from the Midwest?

SM: We get a lot of response from the Midwest and Austin, Texas, but the Bay Area and New York City are our two mainstays. We hear from a lot of college students.

GM: What do you think draws people to a blog site like Feministing?

SM: Anonymity -- that's the best part about it, for most viewers who want to participate in in-depth discussions. [Anonymous] people say shit they wouldn't normally say. People chime in with very personal stories. "As a woman of color in this town...," you know, like that -- I'm sorry, I just saw an update on this 11-year-old girl who was [allegedly] raped at Fresno City College. Excuse me for a second. I've got to write about this immediately...

GM: It's almost like it's you and your computer against the world. But aren't there drawbacks to leading a feminist movement through blogs? What about face-to-face dialog?

SM: Well, this is our activism; engaging with other bloggers. But yeah, we talk all the time about whether or not we are organizing the people we talk about or if we're just computer nerds. We want to alliance-build. But is it always safe to sit behind your keyboard? No. I still don't always feel confident or safe.

GM: How so?

SM: People come to the site, read my blog and say things like "Don't get out of hand." This is still the dominant view, and there is still such a gendered power imbalance, and it's easy to get caught up in all that and think, "Well, you're right." People have told me I'll never have a journalism career. Some say my writing is unbalanced and anti-white. But it's not, not in this context. I write what I feel and what I see, through the lens of post-colonial theory.

GM: And how, through that lens, are you working to build alliances?

SM: By continuing to read and write. By going to events. I attended "Action in Media" at [the Massachusetts Institute of Technology] this spring. It made me realize how much influence Feministing has. People there knew who we were. In feminism, it's so important to be among colleagues to challenge each other and be surrounded by each other. Plus, a lot of men read my blog. That's how I get laid (laughs).

GM: I think men come to feminism in a lot of different ways. I have a friend whose idea of feminism is to let woman pay the tab at restaurants and bars.

SM: That "what can women do for me" mentality is patriarchy at work. They try to put the joke on us. Statistically, men still make more money than women. But that's not what it's all about. It's about access and power.

GM: Can you elaborate? What are some issues you are focused on right now?

SM: In politics, there is an assault on women and reproductive issues. Look at South Dakota right now and this whole "Plan B-conscience clause-pharmacy ban" thing. I get hundreds of comments daily. I've got 140 comments on drinking and self-esteem alone. I can't read through all that. But also issues like immigration, and how it's a feminist issue. It's not just about the lives of women. It's about how gender and sexism affects our lives. There's Roe vs. Wade, child molestation, rape laws, affirmative action, health care, prostitution, and retirement, like how women have no access to pensions in the UK. I'll even talk about Britney [Spears] once in a while, if it's relevant.

GM: You talk about building alliances, challenging notions of access and power and how gender and sexism play out in society. You don't need to be a feminist to actively struggle against these things. Plus, plenty of folks are quick to dismiss women who stand on a strong feminist platform. Do you consider yourself to be an unmitigated feminist?

SM: Yes. I am a feminist, because I believe that this society is inequitable because of gender, race, class and sexuality. I recognize it and actively seek to change it.

GM: Do you expect people to be on the same page with you?

SM: Feminism can be recognized in many ways. For me, it's more about what our moments of resistance are as women: a mother kicking out her deadbeat husband for not taking care of their child; women with multiple sex partners; women earning power in board rooms. Taking back. Acting back. It's complicated.

GM: Is it possible to have a united feminist movement?

SM: Those chicks who flashed their tits in the 60s largely cater to the white middle class. They often don't do enough to include women of color. I think what you see now is little clusters [of feminists] getting together on issues, like the Duke rape case. It's fragmented, but once something happens, people rally.

Gary Moskowitz is working on his Master's in Education at San Francisco State University. He thanks the Bush Administration for giving him something to complain about every day.


View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/41433/