Redefining rape

My point is, when a sexual interaction is equal, consent is not needed and does not occur because there is no transgression to be redeemed. Call it sex.

The likelihood of me meeting my perfectly equal doppelgänger down to the same sex, race, birth day, class, income and disabilities is let’s say 1 in a billion. But if I meet such a woman, apparently I can just pounce on her and have sex without it being considered rape? I don’t see how consent is ever not needed.

I notice gender identity is on there. I did see something stating a TW could never be accused of raping someone as they are more marginalised and therefore as this cuckoo seems to argue, it would never be rape as rape is a crime of power.

I was in a conversation about increasing prosecution rates. We were pondering 'reckless inattention to consent' to try and address those cases where men 'accidentally' have sex with someone who hasn't consented, but mysteriously failed to realise the lack of consent.

But anything with Rachel McKinnon involved is bad news. Unless leopards have got stripy when I wasn't looking.

i don’t think I can be understanding this properly. To me it seems to be suggesting something like this:

Rich, white, middle-class, educated, middle-aged, employed women = 6 areas of privilege vs 1 area of disadvantage.
Poor, black, working-class, uneducated, young, jobless man = 6 areas of disadvantage vs 1 area of privilege.
Therefore it would not be rape if the man had sex with the woman without consent, as she has so much more privilege than him.

That cannot be right, but I can’t see how else to read it. Can someone explain to me please?

Consent (or apparent consent) might not be enough.

But sex without consent is rape regardless of the relative 'privilege' of the victim and perpetrator.

So if I have consensual sex with someone who has more power than me (because they are a man, because they are richer whatever) that means it is rape? And if I have sex I don't want with someone who has the same or less power than me (according to whatever mathematical formula we use to calculate that) it can't be rape. Batshit!
And ten years ago I would have considered the take above ridiculously pedantic and paranoid. But after the nonsense of the last few years I am automatically sceptical.

There has to be some serious debate and discussion about sexual coercion; it's obvious that 'consent' is an inadequate standard.

Is it? That's not obvious to me.

Rape is just rape, it was never intended to be a catch-all term for "everything people do sexually that is morally problematic". Even less for "everything people do sexually within the context of societal power inequalities".

The problem with defining rape as "sex that is influenced by cultural inequalities of power" or similar, is that it pretends there's some kind of sex - or even some area of human life anywhere - that isn't.

And also that power is rarely one-dimensional or one-directional so lawyers (who are paid to be good at finding imaginative ways to argue things) would have a field day arguing which power issue is stronger, more heinous or more relevant to the sex at hand, with all kinds of potential unintended consequences.

There’s a lot of whataboutery in the paper, but her thesis statement is:

My point is, when a sexual interaction is equal, consent is not needed and does not occur because there is no transgression to be redeemed. Call it sex. And when a sexual incursion is not equal, no amount of consent makes it equal, hence redeems it from being violative. Call it sexual assault.

She is mostly arguing too that sex can never be equal between a man and a woman. Or white and non-white. Or upper class and lower class. Or upper caste and lower caste. Or older and younger. Or punter and prostitute. She argues that sex should be categorically outlawed between unequal parties the same as it is for adults and underage teens.

I think her paper is batshit tbh. She’s cherry picked US laws too.

Or staying, even?

Or saying 'person' and lot if confusing stuff that just muddies the water, creates doubt and loopholes for lawyers?

So many ways to obfuscate.

And also, actually it could affect men too. Let's say a man is raped by another man and the victim happens to be straight, Does that automatically put him in a privileged position compared to his attacker? In many situations a straight man (or straight women) does have more privilege. But in a case of sexual assault?* And the quote directly refers to sexual orientation as an example.

*Actually I can think of examples where being gay might make it harder to report/not be believed. But that's not really the point here.

Does the definition still include penises? Or is that disappearing at the same time as an attempt to rename the trans penis as a very big clitoris?

Not Rachel McKinnon but longstanding feminist activist and legal scholar, Professor Catharine A MacKinnon as well as Mandu Reid, leader of the Women’s Equality Party

As the linked article says I'd be very worried that this is a way of saying that powerless transwomen cannot rape privileged women.

And why is any TRA supporting this? Even this brief description shows it is clearly incompatible with their 'sex work is work' doctrine.

No. Because a sex worker may well be very empowered by their work. Especially if they are Cis, white, heterosexual or benefitting from "pretty privilege aka the privilege of being in a body our western media view sees as the beauty standard". Whereas the client who attacks her might well be suffering from: a disability, mental illness, sex addiction, stigma due to his sexual proclvities, social marginalisation due to being a creepy wierdo .
"Therefore m'lud my client cannot be guilty of the crimes he was accused of. In fact I argue that it is the "so called victim" who is really guilty using her privileged position to put my client in a position where he/she/they had no choice but to have sex with her. Case closed, 50 lashes to the rape victim for being a wicked temptress."

How would that actually work in practice though? I don't see how using that definition would help you to prove rape. Consent/lack off consent is always difficult to prove because it can come down to he said/she said but at least its something concrete -and it can be backed up by physical evidence etc etc. Basing it on a power dynamic sounds really difficult because who is judging those "multiple inequalities of power". I can see that massively backfiring if a rape victim is considered higher on the ever changing power hierarchy than the rapist.
Of course, teaching young men and women that the sex they are having should be "willing, wanted, respectful and mutual" is an excellent plan.

There has to be some serious debate and discussion about sexual coercion; it's obvious that 'consent' is an inadequate standard. I have no idea how those proposed changes in the law would work but just starting the debate is important.

But RACHEL MCKINNON. Jesus fuck, that can't be good. And why is any TRA supporting this? Even this brief description shows it is clearly incompatible with their 'sex work is work' doctrine.

This seems pertinent, I've not had a chance to read it yet

twitter.com/JeanHatchet/status/1598571612307017728?s=20&t=KzdAj8RzUeXTwip9v5Ra7w