|
|
 Originally Posted by spoonitnow
While I agree that what you have to say would be a decent way of handling it, one problem I have with this bill is that it very quickly departs from anything reasonable. In today's legal environment, relationship status is never a part of consent ever. Also under the wording of this bill, someone who has had alcohol or drugs (who isn't necessarily intoxicated) cannot consent in any way, shape or form.
Well, that is as long as that person is a female. You can bet your ass that if a drunk man and a drunk woman have sex that only the man is being tried with rape in that scenario and never the woman.
To avoid spoiling, I won't name the show, but there was a scene in a popular hour long drama recently in which a black out drunk man was having sex with a fully coherent, if not totally sober woman. This was, by even a very strict definition, a scene depicting explicit rape. But here's the thing, I haven't heard a thing about this-- no one is up in arms, and my guess is that most people would view this as a comical scene (it was meant to be) and enjoy it as such. But what if the genders were reversed? The mainstream media, blogs, facebook posts-- people would have lost their god damn minds. There would be petitions to boycott the network, feminist would find their way to a podium, and if queried the average person would, at the very least, say it extremely distasteful.
I honestly do think some of this MRA stuff has eaten its way into some of your brains, and I don't think it's healthy that there is a knee jerk "but what about X!" retort every time a women's rights issue arises-- but I also think examples like this show that the MRA's stuff isn't completely baseless.
|
Reply With Quote