The problem with stating that statistics around rape are hyperbolized is that it downplays the grave importance of a social problem and allows us to ignore dehumanizing acts of rape which occur on a daily basis. Stating that rape statistics are false or misleading allows us to mask the problem of rape, sweep it under the rug, and ignore it. Too often the involvement of drugs or alcohol is used as an excuse for a crime that should be neither ignored or unpunished. A person who is under the influence of alcohol or drugs has every right to say no, and this must be respected in the same way that a no from a sober individual is. The lack of clarity in Tso’s statements sends an erroneous message that rape only occurs- or most often occurs- in instances of force. This is frankly untrue.
On the other hand, the implication that a person cannot give consent when they are intoxicated or otherwise under the influence of a substance is problematic. If I have voluntarily imbibed alcohol or drugs and voluntarily and without force or coercion decide to have sex, then that is my right. As a woman, I do not appreciate this section of the legal code which stipulates that I cannot give consent under the influence, as it is simply a subtler method of controlling my body, my actions, and my sexuality. It assumes that I cannot make choices for myself and must be protected- a problematic and patriarchal assumption.
In thinking about rape, definitions can be very problematic. In my opinion, much of this has to do with the negative framing of the rape question. ‘No means no’ puts emphasis upon the victim to resist the advances of a perpetrator. A more positive oriented dialogue of ‘yes means yes’ puts emphasis upon both parties to ask for, and grant consent. This line of thinking entirely changes the paradigm around the issue of rape, and was coined in the feminist theory book ‘Yes means Yes: Visions of Female Empowerment and a World without Rape.’ (http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/) The problem with the ‘No means no’ dialogue is that it does not allow room for women’s sexuality and sexual empowerment. By changing our thinking scheme to one of ‘yes means yes’, we allow women- and men- to embrace their own sexuality and acknowledge the fact that we as women also positive rights to sex and sexuality and that in instances of sexual intercourse, it is important that consent always be granted, rather than relying on an ambiguous situation in which consent may neither have been granted nor denied. In this line of thinking, no still means no in all instances, whether or not force is involved. And yes can be changed to no- that is, consent can be retracted. But it expands upon this so that the only instances in which consent is granted is when yes means yes- whether these situations are sober or intoxicated. This is an empowering paradigm shift in thinking around rape, as it no long depicts a victim, but rather a sexually empowered individual who is able to make their own choices in regards to sex and control their own body.
Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at Aurora. Ex-biologist. mjg59 on Twitter. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer. Also on Mastodon.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Consent- Yes Means Yes
Date: 2012-10-30 05:07 pm (UTC)On the other hand, the implication that a person cannot give consent when they are intoxicated or otherwise under the influence of a substance is problematic. If I have voluntarily imbibed alcohol or drugs and voluntarily and without force or coercion decide to have sex, then that is my right. As a woman, I do not appreciate this section of the legal code which stipulates that I cannot give consent under the influence, as it is simply a subtler method of controlling my body, my actions, and my sexuality. It assumes that I cannot make choices for myself and must be protected- a problematic and patriarchal assumption.
In thinking about rape, definitions can be very problematic. In my opinion, much of this has to do with the negative framing of the rape question. ‘No means no’ puts emphasis upon the victim to resist the advances of a perpetrator. A more positive oriented dialogue of ‘yes means yes’ puts emphasis upon both parties to ask for, and grant consent. This line of thinking entirely changes the paradigm around the issue of rape, and was coined in the feminist theory book ‘Yes means Yes: Visions of Female Empowerment and a World without Rape.’ (http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/) The problem with the ‘No means no’ dialogue is that it does not allow room for women’s sexuality and sexual empowerment. By changing our thinking scheme to one of ‘yes means yes’, we allow women- and men- to embrace their own sexuality and acknowledge the fact that we as women also positive rights to sex and sexuality and that in instances of sexual intercourse, it is important that consent always be granted, rather than relying on an ambiguous situation in which consent may neither have been granted nor denied. In this line of thinking, no still means no in all instances, whether or not force is involved. And yes can be changed to no- that is, consent can be retracted. But it expands upon this so that the only instances in which consent is granted is when yes means yes- whether these situations are sober or intoxicated. This is an empowering paradigm shift in thinking around rape, as it no long depicts a victim, but rather a sexually empowered individual who is able to make their own choices in regards to sex and control their own body.