ext_3842 ([identity profile] maladaptive.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] swan_tower 2012-08-23 04:01 pm (UTC)

I recall how in some states if a man and a woman are both drunk when they have sex then the man is automatically a rapist

Actually, I just took the bar so I know this, and generally if a man is drunk he can't be a rapist because rape is a specific intent crime, and drunk people can't form mens rea. So while this may be true in some states because state law can diverge from common law, they're unusual enough that it makes me raise my eyebrows. I sincerely doubt it's that cut and dried.

And the false claims of rape happen at about the same rate for false claims of other crimes, so if you're not worried about being falsely accused of robbing somebody with a gun, you probably shouldn't worry about being falsely accused of raping someone, either.

What about situations where someone doesn't *give* consent, but also doesn't have the guts to vocally *deny* consent?

The person who acted without first getting consent is a rapist. Full stop. Consent is never, ever assumed as something that must be explicitly withdrawn-- it's something that has to be given in the first place. This is also a good rule of thumb for interacting with other people! i.e., don't touch them before you have their go-ahead that you can. The idea that "she didn't say no loud enough" buys into the idea that women (generally, though men can be victims of rape too) are public property and you can do what you want with them unless otherwise specified.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting