Redefining rape

[Jux]

Right to Equality . org are hoping to redefine rape in law. This, afaics, is the specific bit.

"World-renowned feminist legal scholar and advisor to Right to Equality, Professor Catharine A. MacKinnon adopts a transformative approach to redefining rape in laww*. MacKinnon argues that consent is an intrinsically unequal concept and should be eliminated from the law of sexual assault. To redefine rape as the crime of inequality that it is, the prohibited act should centre instead on a concept of force that, beyond physical force, incorporates multiple inequalities of power such as age, race, disability, celebrity, caste, sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex/gender when used to coerce a sexual interaction. Instead of focusing on what he did to her or what she ‘allowed’ him to do to her body, the court should scrutinise the context in which sex happened: Was the sex willing, wanted, respectful and mutual?"

I'm interested in what you think of this.

I should also say that this org includes Jo Maugham and Rachel McKinnon.

Also, is the cyclepath involved or is it just surname confusion? 🗣 previously claimed 🗣 was raped by 🗣 ex wife, I think the rationale was that 🗣 had sex 🗣 didn't enjoy while not in woman costume.

I googled and its surname confusion. The author appears to be a female academic.

It's pretty opaque language isn't it? Makes me suspicious.

McKinnon from around 5 years ago...

I have always seen discrimination against trans people as a form of sex-based discrimination. I’ve taught it that way since 1977; it can be found throughout my casebook Sex Equality (2007). One of my earliest clients was a transwoman who was imprisoned in male prison. Her situation was absolutely horrific. My views on this have not changed one iota over time, although they have become more informed as more trans people have written, spoken out, and more discussion has been engaged, and as I have met more and more out trans people (mostly transwomen) all over the world.

My basic feeling, with Simone de Beauvoir, is “one is not born, one rather becomes a woman.” How one becomes a woman is not, I think, our job to police, even as everything about that process is worth inquiry and detailed understanding. Having been surrounded by born women who do not identify as women particularly, and reject feminism as having nothing to do with them, it has been inspiring to encounter transwomen who do identify as women, actively oppose violence against women including prostitution (in which those who engage have little choice), and are strong feminists. “Woman” can be, in part, a political identification. To be a woman, one does have to live women’s status. Transwomen are living it, and in my experience bring a valuable perspective on it as well.

www.transadvocate.com/sex-gender-and-sexuality-the-transadvocate-interviews-catharine-a-mackinnon_n_15037.htm

I think so.

What's the date on the Catharine MacKinnon paper? I couldn't see it. I know a number of US states have what some UK academics would call more "progressive" rape laws.

Guess how? They don't use the term "penis" or "he":

https://newyork.public.law/laws/n.y.penalllawpartt3titleeharticlee130

https://newyork.public.law/laws/n.y.penalllawsectionn130.35

"§ 130.35 Rape in the first degree. A person is guilty of rape in the first degree when he or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person:
1.
By forcible compulsion; or
2.
Who is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless; or
3.
Who is less than eleven years old; or
4.
Who is less than thirteen years old and the actor is eighteen years old or more. Rape in the first degree is a class B felony."

This project is one to be enormously wary of. We do not want the Sexual Offences Act changed.

@ResisterRex
it says 2016 in the top left corner of every other page, so think that is the year.
I agree she cherry picked US law, ignoring the states where forcing someone to penetrate you is also considered rape (woman raping a man).

The medium account I posted a link to earlier has been suspended! I didn't get a chance to read it.

The writer is going to try to repost it, so I'll keep an eye out.

This sounds like it is saying that any sexual encounter that is seen as in some way "unequal" would become possible rape.

I realize of course that wouldn't be the intent, but I'm not sure good intentions matter in terms of making good laws.

Someone archived it

archive.ph/lyFlc

It sounds a bit like the most vulnerable people in society might be able to force sex on whoever they want.

There is a kernel of truth here. There are certain circumstances where the power imbalance is so extreme that consent can not be accepted. Prisoner and guard, student and teacher, adult and teenager. We can look at these situations and say that even if both parties are adults and happy to participate, the onus is on the party with more power to stop the situation from proceeding. The power imbalance is simply too great to trust that consent is truly freely given.

you can’t use that to redefine rape entirely. Just because you can easily see the obvious cases where consent can’t exist, doesn’t mean that you can create a formula to decide exactly when every matchup is balanced.

I just think this is a nightmare in practice. You can already prosecute rape (and I have) where there is consent that is coerced. It’s not true consent. The suspect has to reasonably believe the victim consents and if you are bullying, abusing and even threatening someone you don’t really believe they’re overcome with lust for you do you. This believe is on objective belief too. The jury have to believe it. The suspect can’t say ‘well I know it’s an unreasonable belief but I believed it’ that’s not the rules for this crime.

The first two of those are already crimes. The last is an issue but I don’t think it’s properly resolved this. It would just become a farcical argument in court about who is powerful instead of whether the suspect committed rape

I agree with pondering and porky. If the GRA has shown us anything, it's that hard cases make bad law.

Thanks for spotting the date Onnabugeisha. The reason I was curious is that a while ago, MacKinnon was - so I thought - sensible. If this is 2016 then that would make sense, time-wise.

This is a highly dangerous, unevidenced and barking mad idea. Our Sexual Offences Act doesn't need to be changed.

Wtf?!

One of the issues with the unequal sex = rape thing is where one person doesn't know the vulnerability of the other. The reason teacher student relationships are so bad, is there is no excuse of being unaware of the student's age.

In other cases, it's less obvious and that could be abused. Also, people in a position of extreme privilege would be very limited in their dating pool!

Another blow against casual sex, imo. You should get to know the person you are trying to sleep with, and find out whether they are vulnerable!! As in, someone with bipolar who isn't in a good phase, or a 13yr old girl with is you met in a nightclub. (Both cases I've read on here).

Sorry, wittering and feeling old.

Interesting, pickle. What these SJWs don't realise then, in their quest to provide access to sex for men at all times through the guise of "equality", is that they're actually arguing against the legalisation of prostitution. Which I assume is a given in this fucked up project headed by narcs.

The paper is doing the exact opposite of providing access to sex for men. In her paradigm, privileged men (white, straight, etc), can only have legal sex with other privileged men because a woman of equal privilege to them is less equal to them simply by being a woman so sex would be unequal and rape.

The paper is against prostitution and thinks it should be categorically made illegal.

”SJWs” are not a monolith of people with all the same views. This Mackinnon I think knows exactly what she is arguing for and she is mad as a hatter and pretty fringe.

She reminds me more of the quasi feminists who think all heterosexual sex is rape. Especially how she goes on about “violative” and “a violation”.

I thought I was have Ng an extended brain fart as that is what I ended up with.

No well off middle class white woman could ever be raped, unless her assailant had a peerage.

And then I stopped thinking about it because either it is batshit crazy or I have lost my marbles

Will this not work against people with protected characteristics though? If trans people and people of colour are to be regarded as always more vulnerable in a relationship will people without a protected characteristic not just avoid having sex with anyone with one so they are less likely to be accused of rape? Also seems to give transwomen rapists unfair protection. I hate this competitive vulnerableness nonsense

Just as troubling in this paper is that the most disadvantaged can never legally consent to sex even if they are fully mentally capable, are adults and are consenting.

So, a disabled minority bisexual working class woman is effectively barred from any sex with men and can only have sex with women just like her.

The view that sex has to be between equals to not be rape/sexual assault is very eugenics, isn’t it? As in you can only have sex with your own “kind” if a gay man or woman in terms of racial, economic, class/caste, education, religion equality, disability, age, etc.

But straight women must date down on one factor if looking for a man, but still their own “kind” on every other factor otherwise she is assaulting him. So rich, white woman with a doctorate cannot have a sexual relationship with a working class minority man who only has GCSEs. And straight men must date one privilege factor up if looking for a woman- meaning no white man can ever have sex with a non-white woman. Working class white man can have sex with a middle class white woman everything else being equal.

Disabled woman can never have an abled man for a partner….

Eugenics.

Just as troubling in this paper is that the most disadvantaged can never legally consent to sex even if they are fully mentally capable, are adults and are consenting. this too.

And straight men must date one privilege factor up if looking for a woman- meaning no white man can ever have sex with a non-white woman.

Or with ones of inferior status in any way.... that's going to severely limit the dating pool of 'alpha males'.

For which reason alone, back in the real world, this sort of idea won't ever get much traction.