I don't agree with the MN feminists. AIBU?

[jennyvstheworld]

I consider myself an active proponent of equality of opportunity and a stern critic of discrimination... and yet I find that I can't identify with many of the viewpoints I encounter on the MN feminism page (and often say so). AIBU?

Here is the UK sexual offences act.

The relevant passage is: If, through drink (or for any other reason) the complainant has temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have intercourse on the relevant occasion, she is not consenting, and subject to questions about the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse takes place, this would be rape;

I think that's fairly clear. I would argue that most men are smart enough to work out if a woman is consenting or not, others seem to find that more of a grey area.

Anyway, I have errands to run so I will leave this debate to go round in the usual circles.

In which case victor it would be helpful not to throw about phrases like: "for heavens sake you cannot give consent whilst intoxicated". Even if you do later clarify what you meant.

YANBU

No, it's not enough - the people who disagree on this thread have openly declared that they're not feminists. So how can their views represent feminism? Plus I don't take the MN feminists as representative of feminism - but I have noticed that the feminism pages in the Guardian, the F word, various american blogs, feminist theory, novels, etc, etc, all take much the same line on rape as most of the MN feminists. Also, there's people like you who have resorted to slinging ableist insults at me - I'd like to read those who don't do that, if possible.

Sex work and sex workers, on the other hand - now there, you can truthfully say that MN generally on one side of a very clear line of debate, and there's plenty of places that espouse the opposite view to most on MN. But rape? There's a broad base of agreement there and the MN feminist board is smack in the middle of it.

Thanks, Christine - that's what I'd read. So I was correct then?

Christine - that is correct. it actually has very little to do with subsequent amnesia and everything to do with mental capacity at the time sexual intercourse took place.

Victor you are right women are deemed to be capable of consenting to sex as long as they are not so drunk that they are unconscious.

I was just pointing out "Under UK law, consent cannot be given whilst intoxicated. Feminists aren't making this stuff up, you know" that this wasnt correct.

Actually most of the people on this and those threads have said they are feminists, or used to be feminists until the radical feminists (which is the MN Feminista doctrine, you don't speak for all feminist thought) turned them off.

But Christine has just posted the Sexual Offences Act, that says that intoxication means consent cannot be given!? So no, you can't give consent while intoxicated because your capacity to consent is diminished. Obviously I didn't mean 'intoxicated' to mean 'after one pint' but people seem to have taken it that way.

I would consider myself a feminist.

MN feminists do not.

Interesting.

Sorry im missing posts, i will have to have a look, if im wrong i will happily say so.

Can people please stop using the term 'MN feminists'? Because it's really not clear if you mean that a poster on the Feminism board has specifically called you 'not a feminist' or if you just think that's what they would say.

Like I say, I'm pretty new over there but there's already been several threads along the lines of 'am I a feminist?' to which the answer is a resounding yes and the OP expresses surprise that this is the case.

victor and case law interprets "intoxication" within the act to virtually the point of being comatose, slumped in a door way unable to speak/walk type drunk. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the woman can subsequently remember what happened which is what you said.

Surely no one can tell you if you're a feminist or not based on their own version of feminism. Is that honestly what has happened on the feminist boards? Can you link to examples?

I'm now immensely confused, whatmeworry. There are radical feminists on MN, and they're a brilliant presence. But perhaps our versions of what is radical are different, and that's why we're arguing, because I don't think that radical feminism dominates on that board, whereas you think it's all radical feminism.

I haven't specifically been told I am not a feminist. I have been told that I am a rape apologist. I assume the two are mutually exclusive.

sprogger I haven't disassociated with feminism in RL. I don't tend to engage on the MN feminist boards. I don't think my position is unusual.

QueenofDenial - how the courts interpret it is nothing to do with what the law actually states. I'm well aware of how judges view intoxicated victims, as the case of R v Dougal I cited earlier shows. It's a bloody awful thing.

I really feel you're splitting hairs here. I used the phrase 'so drunk she can't remember' (ie slumped/comatose) to distinguish between that and a woman saying that she would never have said yes were she not so drunk (ie drunk but able to remember: personally I feel that's dodgy as hell but a court won't share my view).

Just because a court won't convict, though, does not mean rape did not take place. That's where feminist support of victims comes in.

It also states "Where the complainant has voluntarily consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remains capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse, and in drink agrees to do so, this would not be rape"

Which brings us back to consent can be given while intoxicated.

I think we agree, claw - but I think it's the definition of intoxicated that's tripping us up. I should have been clearer that when I say intoxicated in a legal sense I mean really drunk: falling, slurring, sleeping, etc. The OP I was referring to was that of a woman who could not remember she consented or not. That is heavily intoxicated and covered by law.

Personally I think anyone, man or woman, who is regularly sleeping with people who are less heavily intoxicated ('having consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol') need to take a long hard look at themselves and think about why this is happening.

It is not my intention to split hairs but I do think your use of the phrase "too drunk to remember" is extremely ambiguous and it certainly doesn't in my mind mean slumped/comatose at the time of events - which is what is crucial.

I can't be the only woman in the world who has had numerous conversations with friends who were far removed from comatose on a night out but have queried how they got home, have to be reminded which bar they ended up in etc. So it is in my view extremely unhelpful to suggest that just because you cannot remember you must have been raped, it is not true in reality and not true in law.

Case law makes up "the law" in this country. Statutory law cannot legislate for everything and in this case doesn't provide a definition of "intoxicated" - it has been left, presumably deliberately for the Courts to establish what "intoxication" means which they have done. Just because it is case law as opposed to statutory law doesn't make it any less of "the law" I'm not sure whether you are being disingenuous or simply do not understand the legal position.

All the law has changed is moved the debate from he said/ she said to I was blotto/no you weren't.

Presumably a man can get it up under law no matter what his state of inebriation : o

Victor obviously i dont agree with men having sex with women who are too drunk to know what they are doing.

But i dont agree with statements such as "Under UK law, consent cannot be given whilst intoxicated" or the sentiment or impression that ALL intoxicated sex is rape. As this is clearly not the case.