The furor over consent has gotten so loud that I am wondering if we are heading to a new consensus that sex is allowed only if you have a signed notarized consent form. Some colleges are ruling that consent can be given only if the woman is sober and gives active consent (whatever that means). I would have thought that if she undresses and lies down with him, she was giving consent. Would this mean that a deaf mute cannot give consent? Where will this end? If a woman is too drunk to give consent isn’t the equally drunk male too drunk to be culpable?
The case that motivated this thread was an article in the paper this morning about an 85 year old man accused of rape for having sex with his equally old wife. The thing was that is in an advanced state of dementia and thus not capable of giving consent. Presumably, it was his way of showing that he still loved her. Short of showing that she resisted, how can this be rape?
Are you seriously suggesting it’s A-OK to fuck a person who is completely senile? I think I need to go take a shower because this place is fucking disgusting lately.
Well, it’s better than the days in which it was legally impossible for a wife to be raped.
And, let me point out that sex can be extremely uncomfortable for women past menopause. Vaginal thinning, lack of lubrication, etc. There’s some prep that might have to occur. So, yeah, consent is pretty goddamn important if only for health reasons.
That said, I doubt that the guy will go to prison, and he doesn’t deserve it.
If they had a long-term continuous love life, and assuming she became senile gradually, and assuming that she didn’t exhibit any signs of pain or discomfort, I can see how this would be considered consensual. If her husband were prosecuted and convicted, he himself would be the victim of rape, by the judicial system.
Why would it matter if she became senile gradually? The only thing that matters is her condition at the time of the act. If she was oblivious to the world, then it’s rape. Why not just legalize climbing on top of and fucking loved ones who are in a coma? (And no, I don’t count harvesting comatose or post-mortem sperm as rape since it’s done to collect DNA, not for sexual pleasure of the harvester.)
No, because he’s a man. Much of this is driven by the viewpoint that male sexuality is innately predatory, and that sex is by definition about a woman surrendering to male predation.
It really is quite Victorian, with feminine purity and helplessness having to be protected from masculine corruption and brutality.
First of all, you’re misunderstanding the concept. The consent does not have to be given verbally; the actions of the woman can imply consent. But the woman has the right at any time to say, “No” (or to imply from her actions she wants to stop.).
When the woman undresses and lies down, that’s certainly consent, but if you touch her and she says, “I changed my mind” (or she pulls away from your touch), then she’s revoking consent and you have to respect that.
That’s common sense. Despite the macho myth, a man can stop at any time up until orgasm.
I believe many couples have the kind of relationship in which either partner is welcome to touch, kiss, or initiate sexual contact with the other, even if the other isn’t fully conscious at the time (i.e. is asleep or drunk). I’m sure this “privilege” could be abused where there isn’t love, trust, and consideration. But I sure wouldn’t fault a man, let alone accuse him of rape, for initiating sex with the wife who’s sleeping beside him in bed if he knows her well enough to know she wouldn’t have any objections, and if his wife has the ability to shut him down if she chooses (which agrees with what RealityChuck said above).
I don’t know enough about senility to know how this would change if one partner, or both, were senile. Can I sign a document now saying, “When I’m old and senile, I grant my wife permission to do whatever she wants with me sexually”?
If the woman’s dementia is advanced enough that she doesn’t recognize her husband, then as far as she’s aware she’s being raped by a stranger. The fact that they slept in the same bed for 50 years doesn’t have any bearing on that at all.
It’s a tragedy for both of them. But it’s also clearly rape.
That exact question was asked of a guest lecturer from the local rape crisis center during one of my college classes. Her answer that if a man was that intoxicated he would be unable to get an erection in the first place. :dubious: She did not enjoy being asked that question (& it was asked by a female student).
Bloomberg ran a long article about the case that is quite nuanced. There appears to be significant evidence that she recognized him and understood what they were doing together, at least in general. It’s not apparent what evidence there may be as to the specific incident with which he has been charged.
The article quotes several geriatricians who hold that view, noting that memory loss does not necessarily indicate lack of capacity to consent (and indeed, enjoy sex).
FWIW, she was examined on the night in question and found to have no vaginal bruising or tearing.
No, it’s driven by a desire to not be raped. If a drunk man stabbed you, and you called the police, would it be because you’re pure and need to be protected from corruption? Or would it be because you really, really don’t like being stabbed?
As a matter of fact, Heather McDonald recently had a cover story in the Weekly Standard entitled “Neo-Victorianism on Campus” which deals exactly with what you’re saying. And I’m inclined to agree with most of what you say.
A generation ago, every civilized person seemed to be in agreement: rape is forcing someone to have sex against their will, it’s a terrible crime, and it must be severely punished by law. Now it seems we live in an alternate universe. A Republican Senate candidate says that rape doesn’t lead to pregnancy. A Democratic President says that some rapes should not be tried in criminal court, but instead by university administrators (so then rape is about as bad as cheating on the chemistry midterm?) Alleged “feminists” insist that we not educate women on how to protect themselves against rapists because that would be “blaming the victim”. When and why did we all agree to go insane about this topic?
Cite? My impression is that, a generation ago, most rapes that were not committed either by evil people jumping out of bushes and attacking women or by black men against white women were pretty much invisible in the eyes of the public; anything else you know, probably wasn’t rape. There was certainly little to no recourse for a woman raped by a “friend” or acquaintance, particularly if she didn’t have a husband to go to bat for her.
The fact that people didn’t talk about/acknowledge rape that occurred in less extreme circumstances (ie, the non-boogeyman in the bushes circumstances) doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. Lamenting that we can’t put our heads back in the sand and ignore the issue is no way to handle it.
I, for one, would much rather deal with the fraught and complex nuances of consent and communication than bitch about the good old days when we (men) didn’t have to worry about such things.
That’s hardly analogous. Keep in mind that it doesn’t matter how the woman feels; she’s a victim because a third party says so. If a man and woman share a bottle of wine and have sex, he’s an evil rapist; the fact that she wanted it means nothing. She doesn’t get to decide if she’s been raped or not.
What we are being sold here is an idea that there was once a time where sex was a little more freewheeling, and it wasn’t a problem because everyone knew the rules. And if something occasionally crossed the line, people were level headed enough to forgive, saving their outrage for things like attacks by strangers. Nobody was going to get angry about something as little as a date gone wrong. And everyone was better off for this.
Then the mean old feminist came, who didn’t understand sex, and therefor tried to stop it.
The problem with this narrative is that women from that era are not inaccessible. They are still around. They can be talked to, they write books, and they generally aren’t nostalgic for the “good old days”. Indeed, many have gone through some seriously traumatizing experiences. And latchkey, they didn’t speak out then because they felt they couldn’t.
It’s also not hard to find places outside the U.S. That operate like the good old days. But somehow we aren’t as nostalgic about the secual politics of Pakistan.
The way things used to be is not that far from us. We know plenty about it it. And it sucks.