As a solemn warning to my female readers and probably even some of my male readers, this post won’t be pretty or politically correct. But dammit, it needs to be said.
I was having an interesting discussion with a good friend of mine…a devout feminist. I tend to exercise caution around this particular young lady because even the most innocuous observations I make about womenfolk are usually met with an all-out assault from her, as if my name was Larry Flynt, A Pimp Named Slickback, or or some s***. It’s a miracle we’ve been friends this long.
The topic of conversation was rape, particularly how rape is and – in my opinion – should be defined. According to Michigan State Law, if a woman consents to sex, the engagement is not considered rape. If she does not consent, it’s considered rape. If a woman consents while drunk, but has no regrets later; for all intents and purposes, the engagement is merely considered drunken sex. However, if that same woman consents while drunk but does have regret later, it’s considered rape.
Maybe I’m just inconsiderate, but that has to be one of the most insane, ass backwards concepts to fathom.
In our conversation, I first conceded to the notion that men should ALWAYS exercise the best judgment possible by simply avoiding inebriated women altogether, even if they give the impression that they’re sober. With so much at stake (serious prison time and/or life-long registration as a sex offender), the smart man would avoid any and all moments of quick and cheap sex with intoxicated women. When it comes to sex and accusations of rape, we men need to face facts: we’ve been dealt a horrible hand. As such, we need to act accordingly. Our male privilege being what it is (yes, fellas, there IS a such thing as male privilege) doesn’t allow us the luxury of being irresponsible with our sexual activity.
But – and here’s where things got seriously contentuous – I also noted a glaring contradiction that gets easily dismissed by people like her. If the law allows a woman – willingly intoxicated – to be absolved of any sexual actions she made in that condition, shouldn’t it be fair to conclude the same for men? Would feminists be willing to concede that if a man has sex when he’s “too drunk” to make sober decisions, that he is no more responsible for the consequences of that sex (consequences like accidental pregnancy, passing on STDs, or even the woman’s post-sex regrets) as a woman? How can anybody seriously contend that a man, drunk by his own choice, has to bear full responsibility for actions committed in a drunken state while positing that a woman in the exact same situation is free of any responsibility?
Better yet – and in the interest of not waging a war between the sexes – let’s examine this same standard solely with regards to women. Again, the law absolves women of sexual actions conducted while under the influence. Meanwhile, conducting other activities under the influence – like driving – is illegal on all fronts. Driving under the influence = illegal, whether you’re a man or a woman. Having sex with a partner under the influence = wrong for men, OK for women.
I need somebody to explain that to me, ‘cuz quite frankly, I’m not seeing it. From my end, the standards applied to men, drunkeness, and sex should also apply to women. But then again, maybe I’m just a caveman.