I don't know if there is a big stink about this in other countries, but I'm going to preface this thread genesis with a bit of info on why this issue is important in Canada. Here is a link for more information:
Suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And here is a brief synopsis.
Rehtaeh Parsons was a 16 year old girl who was raped at a party where she had been drinking. Pictures and a video of the event were taken and posted online. Since then, the boys responsible for the act were tried for manufacturing and distributing child pornography, (which in my opinion is worse than just a sex offence on one's record). Rehtaeh attempted suicide by method of hanging herself after months of harassment at school over the matter. She wound up on life support for some time before they pulled the plug and she died. Since then the Canadian media and Rehtaeh's parents, along with the government have been raising awareness on the issues of consent for sex, cyber bullying and sexual harassment.
Since then, any and all controversial opinions on the subject of consent have been sensationalized on the news and in schools. The message is simple, rape is bad, you can't have sex with someone who doesn't consent to it.
Now, in the case of Rehtaeh Parsons, we have a textbook open and closed case of violation. There was videographic and photographic evidence to suggest that she was not consenting (she was unconscious). But the sensationalizing of the issue has opened up a huge can of worms and the one I want to talk about is the definition of consent. Apparently, after a person has had a few drinks, they are not capable of making correct choices for themselves and therefore are incapable of consent, even if they do in fact verbally consent. So now there are women going to bars, getting drunk and sleeping with men (also drunk) and regretting their decision the next day. Does that mean they were raped? While I'm not convinced, since the debate started, the definition of rape (not the legal definition, the social definition) changed from "having sex with someone who doesn't give their consent" to "having sex with any girl who is drunk." And the bigger issue for me is that if I get drunk and wind up having sex, I can't complain the next day that I was raped by some woman. To me, if she can complain, but I can't and we both feel the same way, isn't that a serious gender inequality? And before you judge based on the theory that a man with an erection is consenting, let me argue this. Every morning, I get morning wood. I'm not in the mood for sex, neither am I giving consent, it's just there.
So my question is, first, how much does a woman need to drink before her consent is negated? Second, why don't men have the same legal rights as women on this matter?
Also, if anyone can find a record of a woman in prison for raping a man, I would be very entertained to see it. I don't doubt it's there, I just can't find it.
Suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And here is a brief synopsis.
Rehtaeh Parsons was a 16 year old girl who was raped at a party where she had been drinking. Pictures and a video of the event were taken and posted online. Since then, the boys responsible for the act were tried for manufacturing and distributing child pornography, (which in my opinion is worse than just a sex offence on one's record). Rehtaeh attempted suicide by method of hanging herself after months of harassment at school over the matter. She wound up on life support for some time before they pulled the plug and she died. Since then the Canadian media and Rehtaeh's parents, along with the government have been raising awareness on the issues of consent for sex, cyber bullying and sexual harassment.
Since then, any and all controversial opinions on the subject of consent have been sensationalized on the news and in schools. The message is simple, rape is bad, you can't have sex with someone who doesn't consent to it.
Now, in the case of Rehtaeh Parsons, we have a textbook open and closed case of violation. There was videographic and photographic evidence to suggest that she was not consenting (she was unconscious). But the sensationalizing of the issue has opened up a huge can of worms and the one I want to talk about is the definition of consent. Apparently, after a person has had a few drinks, they are not capable of making correct choices for themselves and therefore are incapable of consent, even if they do in fact verbally consent. So now there are women going to bars, getting drunk and sleeping with men (also drunk) and regretting their decision the next day. Does that mean they were raped? While I'm not convinced, since the debate started, the definition of rape (not the legal definition, the social definition) changed from "having sex with someone who doesn't give their consent" to "having sex with any girl who is drunk." And the bigger issue for me is that if I get drunk and wind up having sex, I can't complain the next day that I was raped by some woman. To me, if she can complain, but I can't and we both feel the same way, isn't that a serious gender inequality? And before you judge based on the theory that a man with an erection is consenting, let me argue this. Every morning, I get morning wood. I'm not in the mood for sex, neither am I giving consent, it's just there.
So my question is, first, how much does a woman need to drink before her consent is negated? Second, why don't men have the same legal rights as women on this matter?
Also, if anyone can find a record of a woman in prison for raping a man, I would be very entertained to see it. I don't doubt it's there, I just can't find it.