***
The rape of reason (on disagreeing with the British government giving drunk rape victims the same state-sponsored compensation as sober ones)
"Many of the people who write to me, and many who comment on this site, are would-be censors who would silence me if they had the power to do so. Their mails, phone calls, letters and comments are based on the belief that it was wicked of me to express a view that the writer does not like.
They do not wish to disagree with what I say. They object to my saying it at all.
Such letters contain no actual facts or arguments, only denunciation. Try as I may, I find it difficult to learn anything from most of them except that free speech and thought have seldom been so endangered...
I would guess that many of my ultra-feminist critics, being conventional leftists, would tend to blame the victim and sympathise with the attacker in the case of crimes other than rape. Their militant punitive views are reserved for crimes against ultra-feminism...
But the issue here was never whether rape should be punished, or by how much. That wasn't in doubt. I made my position on this completely clear in the original article - so clear that a large number of correspondents simply ignored what I said, so here it is again: "Men who take advantage of women by raping them, drunk or sober, should be severely punished for this wicked, treacherous action, however stupid the victim may have been." As the ultra-feminists themselves like to ask "What part of this don't you understand?"
The issue was whether the state should pay the same compensation to a sober rape victim as it should pay to a drunk one. In this, the question of 'culpability', that is to say not responsibility for the crime against them, but responsibility for needlessly putting themselves in a position of danger, arises. "Culpability", the thing which Bridget Prentice maintains does not apply to drunk women who get raped, refers to a responsibility in civil law for taking care of yourself. It is not the same as "guilt' which refers to criminal responsibility for a criminal action. Try it another way. The rapist is not culpable for the rape. He is guilty of it. The victim may or may not be partly culpable for creating the conditions in which the rapist could strike...
'Rachael' seems to assume that my motives for taking this view are selfish, pro-rapist and anti-woman. She insisted "Whatever language you choose to use, it is blatantly obvious that you are placing a degree of responsibility with the victim of rape who is drunk."
In other words, "Even though you say quite clearly and unequivocally that rapists are entirely responsible for their actions, whether their victims are drunk or sober, I will nonetheless conclude that you mean the opposite of what you say, and too bad". Well, how can civilised people argue if one side assumes that the other side is lying, presumably because it has already dismissed the other side as wrong and evil? No free society can last long if disagreement is based on this level of contempt for opponents. This is how opponents become enemies, and argument is replaced by force...
"JW" enquired:"Would Mr Hitchens's views have been the same if it was a drunken man who was raped?" Well, of course they would. Why on earth shouldn't they be? What would be the difference? The mind staggers and reels that anyone could imagine otherwise. Once again, we here meet the conviction that I am evil in myself, and concealing secret unspoken views behind the ones I actually express, and quite different from them. I am not allowed to think what I actually think. because I am not orthodox, I must therefore be the embodiment of evil. This is just a way of closing your mind to thought. A conservative who wants rapists punished? Why, that's like a conservative who's against the Iraq war. It doesn't make sense. So he must be lying...
A victim who suffers bad consequences which were made more likely by his or her stupid behaviour deserves less sympathy than a victim who behaved wisely and still suffered bad consequences. Anyone disagree with that?...
People who get drunk, and then rape, murder, steal or drive dangerously are not excused their crimes because they got drunk, and nor should they be. The law says that they knew the risks when they decided to get drunk in the first place. Wouldn't it be inconsistent to say that tis applied to civil culpability just as much as it applies to criminal guilt?...
This brings to mind one fascinating attempt to codify the new relations between men and women, made since the early 1990s at the campus of Antioch College in Ohio. Here's an extract from what is now the Antioch "Sexual Offence Prevention Policy":
"Consent:
Consent is defined as the act of willingly and verbally agreeing to engage in specific sexual conduct. The following are clarifying points:
-Consent is required each and every time there is sexual activity.
-All parties must have a clear and accurate understanding of the sexual activity.
-The person(s) who initiate(s) the sexual activity is responsible for asking for consent.
-The person(s) who are asked are responsible for verbally responding.
-Each new level of sexual activity requires consent.
-Use of agreed upon forms of communication such as gestures or safe words is acceptable, but must be discussed and verbally agreed to by all parties before sexual activity occurs.
-Consent is required regardless of the parties’ relationship, prior sexual history, or current activity (e.g. grinding on the dance floor is not consent for further sexual activity).
-At any and all times when consent is withdrawn or not verbally agreed to, the sexual activity must stop immediately.
-Silence is not consent.
-Body movements and non-verbal responses such as moans are not consent.
-A person can not give consent while sleeping.
-All parties must have unimpaired judgement (examples that may cause impairment include but are not limited to alcohol, drugs, mental health conditions, physical health conditions).
2
-All parties must use safer sex practices.
-All parties must disclose personal risk factors and any known STIs. Individuals are responsible for maintaining awareness of their sexual health. These requirements for consent do not restrict with whom the sexual activity may occur, the type of sexual activity that occurs, the props/toys/tools that are used, the number of persons involved, the gender(s) or gender expressions of persons involved"
Please note that it insists that all parties (including the woman) must have "unimpaired judgement"... The trouble is that an attempt to codify sex in this way is immensely difficult, because it assumes an almost total absence of trust and mutual support. In the end, you could draw up a document on the rules of sex which was as long as the EU Constitution and it still wouldn't have the same force as the Church of England's 1662 marriage service - which is founded precisely upon trust and mutual support, and on permanence - its most crucial and binding clause being "till death us do part"...
It was heartening to read the comment from Shan Morgain. It is easy for men to agree with my position. But for a woman it's much, much harder. It will get you into trouble with the sisterhood if they even suspect you of thinking this sort of thing. What she says is a sad summary of the unhappy position women find themselves in . But its a realistic and an honest one."
The comment from Shan Morgain:
"I am a woman and I am also a fire breathing radical feminist. Have been one for over 30 years. I agree with the article on rape wholeheartedly.
As I understand it, it's saying that a rapist is no less responsible for rape if his victim is drunk. I might add he should be penalised more as he has not taken due care. But that is controversial.
It's not that "she asked for it" so the rapist is punished less. It USED to be like that but the law changed. He certainly gets punished the same as if she were sober. If the evidence allows it. But yes she gets less sympathy, and less money. Because she hasn't shown common sense.
To me the foundation of my pride in being a woman is that I expect myself and other women to be strong and sensible.
That doesn't mean we can't be vulnerable when it's safe, or when with someone we can really trust. But we have to live with our female vulnerability - as well as our immense female strengths.
We live in a dangerous world so we must protect ourselves. That means EITHER stay home, only go out in a group or with a big tough bloke who has been thoroughly checked over time. Like a trustworthy dad or older brother. OR go out, it's your world too: but take care, be sensible, and accept you may have to pay the price if you get unlucky. With ferocious anger. But recognise that there may be a price.
Because we don't live in a safe society for women. Girls must be taught only to drink with company they have known and seen to be trustworthy a long time. Or else stay in public in a group, in well-lit places. Never so far from help you can yell for.
Our daughters MUST be taught that if they go somewhere alone with any man they have known less than a year for real friendship (as a rough guide) it's a risk. It's a far greater risk if drunk.
Stay comparatively safe, don't do these things. You might still get raped but it's much less likely. Live free, take lovers you don't know well, go to a man's home or take him to yours so you are alone before you have known him over a long time, and you're much more likely to suffer. Do it drunk, and the probability gets very high indeed. Your judgement is sloppy, your body will send out more sex signals whether you know it or not. He is more likely to misunderstand or be drunk himself and blindingly insensitive. You may feel you want it, it's all a laugh, till suddenly you realise you don't and it's too late to stop. Booze destroys control for both of you.
I am not prudish. I wish we could all enjoy free love safely. We can't. You have to choose between freedom or safety. Being drunk pushes you away from safety. That's part of its delight and its hell."
Interestingly, since he argues that
People who get drunk, and then rape, murder, steal or drive dangerously are not excused their crimes because they got drunk, and nor should they be. The law says that they knew the risks when they decided to get drunk in the first place
By extension, it would also be the case that,
People who get drunk, and then later claim they did not consent to sex, do not have their claims taken seriously, and nor should they be. The law says that they knew the risks when they decided to get drunk in the first place
(of course, this applies to cases of date rape, rather than the more conventional forced consent variety)