No means no. But what about yes? | Herald Scotland - 0 views
-
A man can never claim he’s too much the worse for wear to elicit consent from a sober woman. This legislates that a drunken man is accountable for his deeds, but a drunken woman is not, thus negating even the presumption of equal rights before the law. Of course, responsibility for rape will always lie with the rapist, but absolving women who engage in drunken sexual liaisons of responsibility for their actions is not liberating; it’s demeaning.
-
There is no doubt that if you are very drunk, you might well wake up the next morning with a whole series of memories of regretted actions. Did I really say that to my boss? Did I honestly dance on the table? Even, perhaps: oh no – I didn’t sleep with him, did I? It sometimes feels as though rape-awareness activists are over-keen to encourage women to automatically label the latter error of judgment as rape; to incite women to regard themselves as violated and abused victims for having regretted sex. Of course, women can be raped when they are drunk, but an unwise sexual liaison while you are drunk is not the same thing. By muddling this up, perhaps it is unsurprising that those polled in surveys think women who drink excessively have some responsibility if they are raped. It’s a category error created by rape-awareness campaigns rather than reactionary victim-bashing.
-
"Consent is a thorny issue. Of course "no" means "no", but sex is an act that rarely has an explicit "yes" attached to it. Sometimes a lack of consent means we're not sure - not because we're weak, vulnerable or under male pressure, but for our own reasons: "I shouldn't stay as I've an early work meeting but I'm tempted"; "I should say no as I'm married but I really like him"; "I'm tired but I love him"; "I'm drunk and might regret it, but what the hell". Surely women and men need space for such ambivalence, to negotiate the delicate ins and outs of interpersonal and sexual relations? In truth, sex and relationships are often a tangle of false starts, uncertainties and messy complications; active consent is no guarantee of romantic or sexual bliss. Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the new Act is that it sets out situations where there can be no free agreement, such as where someone is deemed to be "so drunk they are unable to give any meaningful consent to sexual activity". The Not Ever literature emphasises: "The message is clear - if there is any doubt about whether or not someone is too drunk to consent to sex, assume that they are unable to give consent." So "yes" doesn't always mean "yes", according to the new law. Does this mean that a man should wait for a woman to sober up before taking her at her word? Is it in women's interests to have an official ban on sex while drunk?"