This is the paradigm we’re all so indoctrinated with that it’s hard to get our heads around the idea that women have powerful desires too, and that women’s sexual desire is just as valid as men’s. Even good women, like yo’ mama, might like to fuck, before during and after alcohol… gasp!!

The main reason for a woman to wake up with a hangover and cry rape is SHAME, and where that shame comes from should be no fucking (!) mystery: several thousand years of suppression of female sexual freedom. Sexual shaming is still, everywhere, a very powerful and prevalent way of keeping women in their places.

Most women don’t falsely condemn anyway because of the stigma and inconvenience, but let’s not pretend for a second like it’s an even playing field where sex is concerned. If it were, it wouldn’t enter our minds to assume that a woman would cry rape for “malicious and self-serving” reasons, any more than she would sue her host after a dinner party.

If we could understand sex to be a mutually fulfilling, but very intimate and often complex, amusement that is sometimes entered into unwisely, drunk lovers might wake up and think “oh shit,” but there wouldn’t be any reason for false rape charges. Rape would be a result of coercion or, if someone is incapable of consent, violation of bodily autonomy. And yes, that would apply to any kind of (human, I guess?) partnering over the age of consent.

The thing is, we aren’t there yet. A few decades of a half-won revolution haven’t changed the paradigm. So we still discuss sex as if a woman is handing over property. Hmmm, sounds like patriarchy to me. Claiming desire: yet another reason for the revolution. Meanwhile this law is long overdue.

Perhaps this is a small minority of cases, but I am thinking very particularly about sex involving minors. I myself had drunken sex when I was a minor — never drunk to the point of being ill or passing out, but I would certainly not have operated a motor vehicle, so I imagine I was legally drunk. I was always in a controlled setting with a steady, trustworthy (also teenage) boyfriend, and I gave my consent, and the experiences were always mutually satisfying (and make me smile to remember now, several decades later).

Now, what if my parents had come home early and caught us en flagrante delicto? What if they had carted me off to a lab, to obtain evidence that I was both legally drunk and that I`d had intercourse? Could they have said, “She was drunk, so the fact that she gave her consent and was a willing participant means nothing,” and had my boyfriend prosecuted for rape?

I just hope the law can`t be used that particular way.

How do we know no one will ever decide to charge men with rape against the woman’s wishes, a la “consensual” statutory rape*?

That would depend on how the statute is worded, and what other laws it modifies. Since the state currently doesn’t bring rape charges on its own, as I don’t believe they have the right to unless a girl is under the age of consent, this shouldn’t change anything barring an explicit statement of the right of the state to do so.

what happens if a woman claims she had lost her ability to consent: “I was too drunk to consent, test me.” And let’s say she was, in fact, raped. What if she tests at .06 (still assuming we’re talking about .08, like DUI) and the prosecutor - or at the very least, the goddamn vulture opportunist MRAs - say “nope, sorry. You blew too low. We can’t possibly convince the jury you were too drunk to consent. Go home.”

You mean, more or less what happens today, except less of the time? Certainly this statute isn’t going to solve everything. However, given the sorry state of rape convictions in England, every little bit helps. Are you aware of the Ryairi Dougal case? The woman was drunk and unconscious. But because she couldn’t remember if maybe she had uttered some word that the rapist might have possibly taken as “consent,” the judge directed the jury to acquit. That’s only one example of the current state of affairs in England. There was also a doctor who raped two drunk women (one passed out and the other asleep) in one night who was acquitted.

Look, your concern for the agency of women is nice, but the reality is that women get raped while drunk and their rapists are acquitted or never even tried. That’s how the agency of women is being taken away in our society. I’ve never even heard of a case where the state brought charges on its own if the woman was over the age of consent. As I said earlier, I don’t think they can. Not all crimes can be prosecuted without the victim’s agreement. Your concern might be an interesting hypothetical, but we need to have laws that address the reality, not something that might perhaps remotely happen if the world changes dramatically at some undetermined future date.

As I’ve said before, whether the woman avails herself or not, the law states what the law states. Unless the Daily Mail reported it wrong, which is clearly more than possible. Here’s the point I’m making: How do we know no one will ever decide to charge men with rape against the woman’s wishes, a la “consensual” statutory rape*?

The law only applies when a woman believes she was too drunk to meaningfully consent and presses charges. In that instance, the woman herself has already decided she lost her ability to consent.

My above concerns aside, what happens if a woman claims she had lost her ability to consent: “I was too drunk to consent, test me.” And let’s say she was, in fact, raped. What if she tests at .06 (still assuming we’re talking about .08, like DUI) and the prosecutor - or at the very least, the goddamn vulture opportunist MRAs - say “nope, sorry. You blew too low. We can’t possibly convince the jury you were too drunk to consent. Go home.”

Look, a specific driver may well be capable of functioning with a BAC of .08, but if he/she gets pulled over and tested, too bad. The state can press charges on its own, even if no one was actually harmed.

Yeah, that’s actually my fear. When the state starts removing agency, it seems like a can of worms.

* Not arguing that the statutory rape laws are poorly handled, necessarily. Just saying that the dynamic could be the same.

This law does not decide for a woman at what point she loses her ability to consent, because no woman is required to avail herself of its benefit. The law only applies when a woman believes she was too drunk to meaningfully consent and presses charges. In that instance, the woman herself has already decided she lost her ability to consent. It simply sets a bright line so that a man accused in that case cannot use the “honest belief” defense. No agency is removed, because it does not give the state the right to press charges on its own.

Further, how do you feel about arbitrary limits in DUI? That’s an actual instance where your own feelings about your mental capacity are irrelevant, unlike the law in question in this post. Look, a specific driver may well be capable of functioning with a BAC of .08, but if he/she gets pulled over and tested, too bad. The state can press charges on its own, even if no one was actually harmed.

Now, if the law were that all “rape kits”/investigations were to involve a recording of the woman’s blood alcohol level, so that it could be entered into evidence as part of the totality of evidence, I’d be unreservedly in favor of it. I just have a problem with a law which decides for the woman at what point she loses her ability to consent.

So true Auguste, until the raped woman is brought up to the stand and forced to testify as to what her actual level of intoxication was and how exactly that incapacitated her and removed her agency.

The spirit of the law now is that although in our culture women aren’t capable of doing much of anything, one thing they can do is give consent, even when stone cold passed-out or fallen-down drunk.

Of course as many of the English Daily Mail commenters illustrate, the law probably still won’t get a girl or woman off the hook, cause then she’s got to convince the judge and jury that she didn’t mean to get drunk and she doesn’t get drunk all the time or hang with boys while drunk or wear those skirts and pink thongs.

So sure, its NOT THAT HARD to figure this stupid shit out, until a man is in jeopardy of the prison sentence, then suddenly in proportion to his social standing (race, economic and social position), his freedom must be defended at all costs!