It seems like whenever I post about how people cannot consent while drunk, a lot of folks make a point of telling me about how they’ve had sex while drunk and they consented, so making a blanket statement like that is wrong.

Well look, here’s the thing. I’ve had plenty of consensual sex while drunk, too. It was awesome. And you know why? Because I was also enthusiastically consenting.

And in the morning, I remembered what happened, and I knew then that I had consented too because I remembered consenting, and I was still cool with the sexual contact when I was sober.

When I say that people cannot consent while drunk, I mean that everyone who is thinking about ever having sex with a drunk person should consider this before they engage in sexual actions with said drunk person. 

That if it turns out they were too drunk, if they had blacked out, etc. etc. that they might accuse them of rape, and they’re not in the wrong for doing so.

So instead of victim-blaming with “she wasn’t that drunk” or “I didn’t know he had blacked out”, the framing is instead “You had sex with a drunk person knowing there was a huge possibility they were not consenting”. Thus, victim-blaming isn’t present, and the responsibility for preventing rape is on the potential rapist, and consent is more well-defined. 

So basically, if you don’t want to be accused of rape, don’t have sex with drunk people. If you’re willing to take that risk, go for it. But the risk in drinking/having sex should never be that you might be raped, it should always be that you could rape someone and be prosecuted for it.

So no, I don’t care how much consensual sex you’ve had while drunk, because it has nothing to do with the paradigm shift I’m proposing. If you consented, that’s awesome. It doesn’t change the fact, however, that the only way to make sure you’re not a raping someone who is drunk is to wait until they’re sober to have sex with them AND that this should be the standard we hold - not the other way around. 

feministsaresexist:

The Lies Feminists Tell That Hurt Rape Victims, And Why Feminists Don’t Care

That link is one of the most disgusting things on the internet. 

Let’s just go ahead and go through this, because anyone who could write this bullshittery needs a rhetorical smackdown.

Very few people “blame” a woman for being raped, or believe that a rape is ever justified based on how a woman acts or dresses (again, just the opposite: the vast majority of the public wants to hold the accused rapist responsible for any claim of rape by a woman or girl).  

O RLY? Is that the case? Let’s take a look at some numbers, since the author of this article can’t seem to provide any for their assertions. In the UK, a poll was conducted asking folks if a woman could be held responsible for her rape. A majority of those folks said yes, for various different reasons. Now, I realize this article is probably talking about the US, but these are the only numbers that I can find since a similar poll seems to have not even been conducted here! I wonder if the numbers would be similar, since the UK and the US do have somewhat similar cultures. The UK has extremely low conviction rates, the US has extremely low conviction rates…hmm. 

So yeah, that part? Complete bullshit. 

Let’s see what other ridiculous claims are made in this article.

So if the public is firmly behind the notion that rape is an awful thing, that women who cry rape deserve support, and that rapists ought to be punished severely, why does a significant segment of the sexual grievance industry continue to repeat these mantras? 

“Women who cry rape”… “Women who cry rape”…WOW, LOOK AT THAT SUPPORT. It’s so awesome when folks disprove their own assertions with their own attitudes in their writing. Not only that, but the assertions can easily be proven incorrect with those pesky fact things. Not to mention, um, the prevalence of rape jokes sort of casts doubt on this whole “the public is firmly behind the notion that rape is an awful thing”. So awful…we lol over it? Right. 

Yeah, no.

Next!

Never mind that even the President and Founder of the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN), recently said that women aren’t failing to report due to fears of not being believed or of being blamed for their own behavior or dress. (He claimed that women don’t report because “they don’t want their loved ones to know what happened; they’re ashamed themselves; they just want to put it all behind them.” In other words, not reporting isn’t the fault of some “rape culture” that has normalized masculine predation of females; it is due to choices women are freely making — a radically feminist idea, wouldn’t you say?)  Regardless, the sexual grievance industry, by and large, continues to repeat those awful mantras.

This supposed quotation isn’t even cited. Awesome. Even so, um, they’re ashamed of themselves because PEOPLE BLAME THE VICTIM. Do people really believe that folks don’t internalize that? And since rape is one of the only crimes in which the accuser is put on trial rather than the accused, why wouldn’t they just want to put it all behind them? Why would they want to go to court to get victimized again? When someone has had their humanity torn from them, I doubt that’s the time when they would feel strong enough to take on an entire culture. 

Women don’t exist in a vacuum. They internalize what society tells them. Since society tells them that they are to blame for their rapes, of course they will feel ashamed and not want to bring up charges. The fact that women feel like they’re to blame for their rapes is not at all a feminist idea, radical or not - so fuck off with that misappropriation of feminism. Justifying the huge problem of sexual assault isn’t even human let alone feminist. 

In any event, if, indeed, some women are put off from reporting their own rapes because they’ve heard they won’t be believed, they can thank the sexual grievance industry for spreading that lie.

Really? So the “sexual grievance industry” was the reason why Ben Roethlisberger is still playing football and is still hailed as a hero even though he’s been accused of multiple sexual assaults? Is that because folks believe women so much when they say they’ve been sexually assaulted? What about Kobe Bryant? His accuser was believed automatically, which is why he’s in jail, right? Gosh, all of these men in jail instantly just from being accused of sexual assault! It’s a wonder women don’t know the power they wield just by telling someone they’ve been raped! But, you know, you’re right. It’s probably the “sexual grievance industry“‘s fault that they don’t know the power they hold. 

In the UK, the Home Office, and politicians seeking to jack up rape convictions, have long cited the attrition rate for rape, which is the number of convictions as a percentage of number of reported crimes. That rate is 6%. But, the Home Office, and everyone, uses the conviction rate (the number of convictions secured against the number of persons brought to trial for that given offence) for all other crimes. In fact, the conviction rate for rape is 58%.  The result has been to make it appear that law enforcement is terribly, and uniquely, ineffective when it comes to rape. Please re-read that and make sure you understand it: the feminists who dominate the public discourse about rape in the UK have long insisted that only 6% of “rapists” are convicted, as opposed to the correct figure: 58%.  Stern Review, see page 45. Rape is the only crime judged by the attrition rate. All others – murder, assault, robbery, and so on – are assessed by their conviction rates. That was dishonesty of Biblical proportions. And the Stern Review noted that use of the attrition rate instead of the conviction rate“may well have discouraged some victims from reporting.” Stern Review, see page 45 (emphasis added).

Saying that 6% of rapists are convicted is entirely accurate, since people who rape and get away with it are still rapists. And you know, I’ll even say that maybe citing low conviction rates might discourage some people from reporting. But do you know how to fix that? FIX THE CONVICTION RATE. Ever hear that saying “don’t shoot the messenger”? Yeah, it applies here. It’s not the fault of the “sexual grievance industry” (fucking Christ, that phrase) that either the attrition or conviction rates are so low (since I don’t think 58% is such a shining number, considering the number of false accusations is 2 to 8%. That’s the fault of a culture that doesn’t believe sexual assault is the fault of those who do the sexual assaulting. 

So yeah, author of this post and folks who think it’s anything but bullshit - you might want to try not being sorry excuses for human beings, and possibly learn something before running your fingers over a keyboard. There’s really no justification for creating an article this vile, and by the same token, there’s no justification for buying into it wholeheartedly and distributing it, especially as some kind of justification for another person’s victim-blaming mentality. In other words, kindly fuck off, and take your terrible logic and and inability to face reality with you.