Prominent feminist Jessica Valenti makes a bald faced lie and claims that no serious feminists call drunk sex rape. Are they getting scared of blowback for their silly policies?
In short, when creating the laws they're all "sex with a drunk person is rape." But in public debate, they bait and switch, "of course drunk sex isn't automatically rape! Really? Wow, just wow." Personally, I'd rather have the law on my side than a bunch of vacuous pundits, so their public position is irrelevant.
Here, for example, is Stanford University forbidding precisely what the feminist is pantomiming is legal: http://www.thefire.org/cases/stanford-un...y-finding/
I'm on my phone and it's slow, but you can find plenty of institutions saying consent is impossible with someone who is intoxicated, making sex with them nonconsentual and thus assault or rape.
I'm not aware of any legal definition of intoxicated, but as far as driving is concerned, a girl only needs one to two drinks to be over the limit. I found a University site (Notre Dame) stating that intoxication is indeed > 0.08 BAC.
"But here's what Delgado is most concerned about: that "prominent scholars and activists" define rape as any sex had after drinking alcohol. Who is making this extreme argument? We don't know. Despite their "prominence", Delgado fails to point out one scholar or activist actually saying such a thing. (Now, I'm sure you could find some radical individual who would argue that anything but sober sex is rape - but don't point me to a Tumblr and tell me it's policy.)
"Admittedly, I am no scientist," Delgado says - don't worry, we could tell - "but I am fairly certain that a statistically significant amount of sex – including very enjoyable sex – happens under the influence of alcohol. But by the liberal definition of my generation, I have been raped. Multiple times."
This lie – that anti-sexual assault advocates and feminists somehow believe any sex that involves drinking is rape – is an oft-repeated one, so let me set the record straight: yes, you can be drunk and have sex. What feminists tend to advocate for is enthusiastic consent - the belief that consent is the presence of a "yes", not just the absence of a "no". Throwing a few back doesn't mean you can't enthusiastically say yes to sex."
Link: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree...k-have-sex
Here's another article by Amanda Marcotte doing something similar - baldly claiming that a sexual assault policy does not forbid drunk sex when it clearly does -
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/201...dards.html
Are these broads evil liars or just morons? Who knows? I feel like I massively misread these shrews, but I think I have not.
Notre Dame Site: http://oade.nd.edu/educate-yourself-alco...oxication/
In short, when creating the laws they're all "sex with a drunk person is rape." But in public debate, they bait and switch, "of course drunk sex isn't automatically rape! Really? Wow, just wow." Personally, I'd rather have the law on my side than a bunch of vacuous pundits, so their public position is irrelevant.
Here, for example, is Stanford University forbidding precisely what the feminist is pantomiming is legal: http://www.thefire.org/cases/stanford-un...y-finding/
I'm on my phone and it's slow, but you can find plenty of institutions saying consent is impossible with someone who is intoxicated, making sex with them nonconsentual and thus assault or rape.
I'm not aware of any legal definition of intoxicated, but as far as driving is concerned, a girl only needs one to two drinks to be over the limit. I found a University site (Notre Dame) stating that intoxication is indeed > 0.08 BAC.
"But here's what Delgado is most concerned about: that "prominent scholars and activists" define rape as any sex had after drinking alcohol. Who is making this extreme argument? We don't know. Despite their "prominence", Delgado fails to point out one scholar or activist actually saying such a thing. (Now, I'm sure you could find some radical individual who would argue that anything but sober sex is rape - but don't point me to a Tumblr and tell me it's policy.)
"Admittedly, I am no scientist," Delgado says - don't worry, we could tell - "but I am fairly certain that a statistically significant amount of sex – including very enjoyable sex – happens under the influence of alcohol. But by the liberal definition of my generation, I have been raped. Multiple times."
This lie – that anti-sexual assault advocates and feminists somehow believe any sex that involves drinking is rape – is an oft-repeated one, so let me set the record straight: yes, you can be drunk and have sex. What feminists tend to advocate for is enthusiastic consent - the belief that consent is the presence of a "yes", not just the absence of a "no". Throwing a few back doesn't mean you can't enthusiastically say yes to sex."
Link: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree...k-have-sex
Here's another article by Amanda Marcotte doing something similar - baldly claiming that a sexual assault policy does not forbid drunk sex when it clearly does -
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/201...dards.html
Are these broads evil liars or just morons? Who knows? I feel like I massively misread these shrews, but I think I have not.
Notre Dame Site: http://oade.nd.edu/educate-yourself-alco...oxication/