This post is the culmination of a number of conversations I've had over the course of this academic year that have left me feeling troubled, to say the least.
It all started back in August, when some football players who live in my building were complaining about a seminar they'd been forced to attend about sexual violence (all the freshman and a number of organizations had to attend the same one; athletes were not being unfairly singled out). They were informed that drunk people are not capable of giving consent to sexual activities (duh) and if they chose to have sex with someone who had had too much to drink, they could be charged with sexual assault or rape. This should be a no-brainer: having sex with someone who is intoxicated isn't a good idea for a number of reasons. However, the people I talked to were absolutely outraged:
Football Player #1: I think it's all just ridiculous.
Me: That having sex with someone who's so drunk that they can't consent constitutes rape?
Football Player #2: No! I'd never have sex with someone who said no.
Me: But that's not the issue. If anyone's been drinking heavily, they can't consent to any kind of contract- no tattoos, no piercings, nothing. Of course they're not capable of consenting to sex.
Football Player #1: But then it's not a question of "Does yes mean yes or no," but "How drunk is too drunk?"
Me: If there's any doubt, you probably shouldn't be doing it. I don't think that any sex is worth rape charges. And drunk sex is usually pretty terrible, so...
Football Player #2: I guess, but what if I was drunk, too?
Therein lies my problem. I've had similar discussions all year with people from all parts of the social, political, and feminist spectrum, and it's starting to worry me. Most everyone can get behind the idea that it's wrong to have sex with someone who has been drinking, especially if they're on the verge of being unconscious, but they balk at the idea that someone who is also drunk should be held responsible for raping someone else.
On one hand, I can understand the reasoning. We've all done regrettable things while under the influence, including my wonderful self. Case in point: Cinco de Mayo of last year, in which I met my mother and younger sister at an outdoor bar, dressed in my Catwoman pajamas because I'd just moved back home for the summer. Did I stay at the table and pretend that I was wearing normal clothes? Nope. I got ripped on margaritas and proceeded to spend the rest of the night dancing to the crappy house band. Did I mention I was wearing CATWOMAN PAJAMAS? Because I was. And that MY MOTHER was there? She definitely was, and frequently reminds me of my behavior that night, which I can't seem to recall clearly. That's why you get to hear this story: I'm pretty sure everyone I know has already heard about it, and I'm never living it down.
The rest of my fantastic drunk stories will be published in my memoirs, to be released only after my mother, father, and grandmother have died and I have retired from all careers I've embarked upon. Especially any in politics. Eeesh.
Anyway. Back to the point. We all do dumb things when we're drunk that we'd like to forget about later, and most of us would like to not be held responsible for them, either. As Nature Boy likes to say, "If I don't remember doing it, it didn't happen." However, the world doesn't (and shouldn't) work that way. Whether or not you you would do something sober is irrelevant; it was still you, and you're still responsible for it. If you pull a Jekyll/Hyde every time you drink, maybe you shouldn't be drinking.
I'm serious about this. When has being drunk ever absolved anyone of committing any other crime? You never hear about anyone successfully arguing, "But, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I was really really drunk when I crossed the median in my SUV and caused a pile-up that killed six people. I never would have done that sober, so it shouldn't count against me." In fact, the opposite is usually the case; people get hit with additional criminal charges if they were intoxicated while committing a crime.
You also don't tend to see victims of other crimes being blamed if they were intoxicated at the time. I have never in my life heard anyone use, "Oh, well, you shouldn't have had that third glass of wine at that dinner party; you could have heard the burglar sneaking into your house and stopped him" as a reason to tell someone whose house has been broken into and burglarized that it was their fault and/or that they shouldn't seek renumeration in the legal system. But yet, so many people say that to rape victims all the time: "Well, maybe if you hadn't been drinking, it wouldn't have happened," or, my personal favorite, "Women shouldn't put themselves in unsafe situations..." like, drinking in a bar? Going to a party with friends?
What is it about rape that makes it suddenly acceptable to give the perpetrator excuses that no other criminal is privy to? Why is it acceptable to blame rape victims for being too drunk to ward off their attackers when it isn't for victims of other types of crime? The implications of this mentality worry me quite a bit. I can't decide if it's because:
a) people don't think
b) people are more complicit in sexual assault than they'd like to think
c) most rape victims are women and people having huge double standards about sexual violence is therefore totally unsurprising.
At this point, I'm leaning towards some combination of all of the above, but I think it's a serious problem no matter what solution anyone comes up with to explain this.
And I can't help but feel that as long as "I was just as drunk as she was!" is a legitimate defense for sexually assaulting someone, nothing will change.
