First off…  any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here,  and here.  Die spambots, die!  And now…  the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are The Iraqi Insurgency Has No Centra…

I’m not making this stuff up, of course. It’s not so far fetched, either, when you consider the kind of nonsense that feminazis like Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin used to spout (perhaps MacKinnon still does).

What I take from what you’re saying, though, is that a drunk woman can say she consents and act for all the world like she consents and it can still be rape if she later claims that she didn’t want it.

I assume you’d agree with me that at least some drunk women actually do want to have sex. Therefore, from the position you appear to be taking, you can’t differentiate between those who “consent” and those who do not by their conduct at the time. You can only discern their will, evidently, by their contentions after the fact. Ergo, ex post facto regret evidently equals lack of consent.

I’ll say it again: if willing participation is not sufficient to infer consent, then the pendulum has swung too far. And this begs an additional question: If the evident “yes” can also mean “no”, wouldn’t it stand to reason that “no” can also mean “yes”? Beware the slippery slopes on which we trod.

On the way home, it occurred to me that if an act (rape) was a crime depending on anything taking place after the act (a women’s regret or lack of regret) it would be impossible to establish a man’s criminal intent and a host of other legal problems.

I can’t recall or believe any serious person, even a feminist, would take this position. Some commentators try to make feminists look more foolish by saying feminists support the unintended consequences of feminist policies.

UPDATE: Speaking of success, Lashawn Barber of Lashawn Barber’s Corner talks about the No Child Left Behind act that President Bush enacted and how it is apparently not working based on some recent studies into the programs. Achievement gaps still pla…

Can you support this with a link to a feminist site – not a feminist bashing site?

I’m not against laws that prohibit intoxication rape, but these laws do take away personal responsibility. If you don’t want to get caught in a bad situation, don’t drink.

Oh, I think you’re wrong on this. I think for a lot of radical feminists, the regret proves the lack of consent. As you said, a woman wouldn’t lie. Her regret may even convince her that she didn’t want it to begin with. So, again, we’re back to the position that the apparent difference between drunken sex and rape is whether she regrets it in the morning.

Let me be very clear — I’m not talking about passed-out drunk. I’m talking the facts like what John described where two people get drunk and, while drunk, willingly and actively participate in sex. Mere intoxication cannot vitiate consent. That would just be nuts.

On this, you are wrong. I and no one, even radical feminists would say a woman’s regret makes sex rape. It’s inability to consent that makes it a crime – just as if I asked you for your car when you were drunk and kept your car. It’s true that some women regret sex, than believe it’s rape, but no one supports this position.

Actually, the Duke AV in the parking lot would according to feminists be a good example of someone unable to consent to sex, and I would agree. If Kim just dumped the AV on the side of the road in a wrong part of town, and some man talked the AV into sex knowing she was unable to say her name and seeing things, I would agree with feminists that it should be (and most likely is) a crime (I don’t know NC law).

But feminists also claim that while drunk/high/crazy women are often so wasted and “obviously” unable to consent to sex, these women “never” file false rape reports. Feminists can’t have it both ways.

They would? I don’t know how the law defines rape. I’d imagine it has to do with consent. Common sense tells me that if the woman is too incoherent to talk and is virtually a non-pariticpant, then it’d be kind of tough to argue consent, but those aren’t the facts that were described. In the facts that were described, the woman was a coherent and willing participant. If that’s rape when she later sobers up and regrets her drunken behavior, then the pendulum has swung too far.

This reminds me of what La Shawn posted on the Shelby Steele entry where comments weren’t open. In the excerpt from Steele’s book, La Shawn highlighted passages that talked about how the black Harvard student would have to argue for the inferiority of his race in order to justify continued affirmative action (Dr. Steele said it much better than I did).

The feminist agenda does the same thing. Women are strong, BUT … we need to protect them from regretting sex by defining consent in a way that strains credulity. Women are strong, BUT … we need to shield them from sex-talk in the workplace (unless they’re the ones talking about sex, in which case it’s OK — until they get offended by someone else’s sex talk, at which point it’s no longer OK).

But, UNK, just to make sure I understand your position, you’re saying that if a man and a woman go get drunk and have sex together where she verbalizes and willingly participates in the sex act, whether rape occurs or not depends on whether the woman regrets it after she sobers up. Do I have that right?