The Scottish parliament finally passed the new rape legislation that has been on the cards for a while. Previously, we had a very narrow definition of rape, which meant penis in vagina without the women's consent- but consent was never defined, and it has usually been taken to mean- did she say 'no'. The law has broadened so that rape can include penis into vaginas, anuses and mouths (so men can now be legally raped), while consent is now defined as free agreement where the party is not drunk, unconscious, asleep, threatened or coerced (and various other things). Consent can also be withdrawn at any point during the sex act. People need to show that they took steps to ensure consent to sex and describe what those steps were (in defence, if accused of rape). In effect, the idea should be to shift the burden, so the victim should not longer have to prove s/he said no, but rather that rapist needs to show that s/he said yes. It should no longer be a defence that s/he never said no or stop.
These are some great steps forward, although the initial discussions around the legislation wanted it to go further and it probably still should- for example, the definition of rape is still very narrow- only 'penises' get to penetrate. Rape with implements other than a penis still come under sexual assault. And the 'steps to ensure consent' is incredibly vague. What 'steps' are counted as valid? I kicked her and she grunted, I thought that meant yes? She wore a short skirt and flirted over a glass of wine. I thought that meant yes. She accepted a 'cup of coffee', I thought that meant yes. She was kissing me, I thought that meant yes. I guess the problem is that they have went to the effort to define what is not consent, or rather who cannot give consent, but do not define what consent should look or sound like.
It will be interesting to see the impact on convictions.
These are some great steps forward, although the initial discussions around the legislation wanted it to go further and it probably still should- for example, the definition of rape is still very narrow- only 'penises' get to penetrate. Rape with implements other than a penis still come under sexual assault. And the 'steps to ensure consent' is incredibly vague. What 'steps' are counted as valid? I kicked her and she grunted, I thought that meant yes? She wore a short skirt and flirted over a glass of wine. I thought that meant yes. She accepted a 'cup of coffee', I thought that meant yes. She was kissing me, I thought that meant yes. I guess the problem is that they have went to the effort to define what is not consent, or rather who cannot give consent, but do not define what consent should look or sound like.
It will be interesting to see the impact on convictions.
7 comments:
Sounds like a good start!
"consent is now defined as free agreement where the party is not drunk"
So if I were to have a few drinks I would no longer have the legal power to consent to sex? Removing the ability to consent as if alcohol magicly makes you under 16 does not sound like a good plan.
Well it says unable to consent due to consumption of alchohol- the debate would arise over the point at which you are unable to consent, which is not defined per se.
I have trouble with this too: There's no point (short of unconsciousness) where consent is impossible. The issue with alcohol is that it makes determining consent harder, maybe because someone is too drunk to say 'no' (pointing to the importance of positively determining consent, rather than defining consent as 'lack of "no"', which is important anyway). Or because it's harder to know that a 'yes' is completely uncoerced, when someone is drunk. Or any number of subtle things that make communicating and thinking harder.
So to be safe, sometimes rules (maybe college campuses, or wherever) define 'consent' so that you have to be sober. But that isn't really about what consent is-- it's about an institution wanting to mandate certain precautions. And not having sex with drunk people sounds like a pretty reasonable precaution.
I'll add that this is a pet peeve of mine because when feminists on my college campus (I wasn't a feminist) said that consent is impossible under the influence of alcohol, I dismissed that and them and (by extension) feminism as ridiculously stupid.
I'm to blame for that, of course, but it still bothers me.
If a drunk woman is exempt from responsibility when she has sex she must also be exempt from responsibility when drink driving. Or robbing a bank.
Are men considered rape victims when they wake up next to a munter with no recollection of how they got there?
Why someone has to read all the usual comments under rape articles, the usual victim-blaming can't stop after everything has been done to eradicate this kind of thought...
Hey, but are you guilty of anything when you go to your bank knowing that it has been already robbed few times so you've a high percentage rate of it getting robbed again? and maybe you find yourself beaten up by the thieves? Well you know, it's your fault because you can avoid going to your bank, there's the internet banking!
I wonder why people bother to put their nose out of their homes with all these dangers around.. pfft...
Post a Comment