That is the question. Most men have never even had to think about how to answer this question. The answer seemed obvious. However, it now looks like the government will be putting men in the precarious position of figuring out how to answer that in 2012. It also looks as though if men make the correct decision, women will have actually just lost a right that many currently enjoy; a right that men will continue to enjoy. More on that later. First, some background on how men and women have come to this quandary.
For those old enough to remember, feminism, decades ago, contained what was thought of as a radical branch. These “wackos” were seen as extreme and small in number. They were hateful toward men and were frequently quoted in books and seen at protests with signs claiming all men were rapists and batterers. No one really paid any attention to this “little” group of women. Most of the attention went to those women that (allegedly) promoted equal rights. While no one was paying attention, the small, hateful group slowly began to promote their agenda and have affected a substantial amount of legislation. These “wackos” have successfully convinced their fellow women (and their white knights) that, yes indeed, essentially all men are batterers and rapists. Now they have hatched their true agenda’s implementation.
The same feminists I just spoke about have now succeeded in expanding the definition of rape. This can be seen in two recent developments. The first is the rape definition the CDC used for its recent survey about violence. This definition of rape includes attempted forced penetration. No other crime statistic adds attempted crimes. In fact, I didn’t have much success searching for attempted murder rates by state even though murder rates by state were an easy find. This CDC definition also includes sex when a woman is drunk or on drugs. By using these incidents in the definition of rape, the CDC says 1 in 5 women have been raped over their lifetimes.
Amazingly, the CDC does not include in their rape statistics men who were forced (with violence or threats of violence or by being held down) to penetrate a woman (vaginally or anally) or a man (anally) or forced to give oral sex to a woman or forced to receive oral sex from a woman or man. If these were counted as rape, men would have been raped at a rate of 1 in 16 as opposed to the reported 1 in 71. In fact, using those instances counted as rape, the rate of rape of men and women are exactly the same for the 12 months prior to the CDC study. (1)
The second development is what the FBI has included in their new rape definition. This definition now includes penetrating someone, no matter how slight, while that person was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. You can bet the feminists have their soldiers lined up at the doors of every state legislator to pressure them to adopt this new definition for their state. Judging by history, the states will bow to their wishes. If so, common rapists will include those men that engage in sex with women that were drunk, high or on drugs. How many ladies reading this sentence can say they have ever had “consensual” alcohol or drug facilitated sex? If so, you are a rape victim and your partner is a common rapist. So here we go- To Rape or Not to Rape?
Men, you must now make that feared decision. Let’s look at a few examples and see what this new definition does:
a): A husband and wife celebrate the wife’s 40th birthday. They go out and enjoy a nice dinner. They then arrive back home and share a bottle of wine to celebrate her big day. There is some sensual talk and they express their love for each other. She then goes into the bedroom and comes out dressed in erotic lingerie, takes his hand and leads him back to the bedroom. She tells him to make love to her.
b): A woman asks her new boyfriend to meet her at a local restaurant/bar to enjoy some light fare and perhaps a drink. He calls to tell her he is running late from work and will be there in 45 minutes. The girlfriend notices a couple of female coworkers at the bar. She joins them for a few drinks while she waits. Finally her boyfriend arrives and tells him that instead of dining there they should order takeout and dine at her place a few blocks away. When they arrive at her apartment, she says dinner can wait. She brings him into the bedroom and pushes him down on the bed and asks if he would enjoy some oral satisfaction. He agrees.
c): The same woman as example b) goes to a bar and meets her girlfriends after work for happy hour. She drinks the same amount as in example b). She seems fine when she leaves so her girlfriends say nothing when she says she is going to leave and drive home. She misses a stop sign and plows into a car going through the intersection, killing the passenger. Subsequently, the police discover she is slightly over the legal limit.
d): A husband and wife go out for New Year’s Eve. Every year they go to the same tavern and celebrate. They tell each other prior to the party that they will enjoy the first sex of the year together after dinner and drinks and midnight toast. After consuming several drinks each, they go back home via cab and start their initiation of the New Year. Both are inebriated, but neither is passed out or staggering.
e). A man and woman just finished celebrating their wedding reception. They have both had their fair share of drinks. They take the limo to the hotel and consummate the marriage.
OK. Let’s analyze some scenarios using the above examples:
a): If the husband decides to help his wife remember her 40th birthday with some passionate romance and sex, she can now lay claim to spending her 40th birthday being raped by her spouse.
b): Again, even though the girlfriend initiates the sex and is the aggressor, he will be raping her unless he pushes her off and says stop. At the moment of passion, he must now decide whether to probably lose his new girlfriend due to her being insulted and thinking he doesn’t like her, or whether to be a common rapist according to the new legal definition (and perhaps future state law) even if he wasn’t aware she drank before he arrived.
c): Here we have a woman that is in the same inebriated state as example b. She also chose to drink one or two too many and made her own decision to drive home anyway. In b, the woman is removed of all responsibility of her actions even though it was her choice to drink and her decision to not stop at one or two. If we apply the logic from the new rape definition in b to c, then this woman should not be arrested for vehicular manslaughter or any crime since this car crash was alcohol facilitated. A woman cannot be held responsible for any bad choices if the choices were alcohol facilitated. In fact, based on the FBI thinking, the sober driver should be arrested as he should have known the woman was incapable of making her own choices and decisions about driving after drinking.
d): Here we have both husband and wife inebriated at equal levels. The husband is expected to be responsible for his actions and be able to think clearly enough that if he has sex, he will be committing rape. His wife is not expected to be responsible at all for her actions in accepting sexual enjoyment. Even though they both agreed ahead of time that they would enjoy sex after some drinks, this is not good enough. Consent must be at the time of encounter, not given hours prior to relations.
e): Here, after the reception at which most likely drinking took place, consummation of the marriage will, according to the FBI and the CDC, be rape. Yes, there is nothing like raping your new bride on her wedding night. The FBI has turned what used to be a tender moment of passion and romance into a criminal act.
OK. I know some out there are saying that these rape examples I gave would almost never result in any kind of rape accusation by the woman. The key word is almost. We all too well know there are women out there that will, for various reasons, falsely accuse a man of rape. If, however, this becomes state law, it wouldn’t be considered falsely accusing since it would be actual rape. Should the FBI definition become state law, there is no longer a defense justified by her consent. Once under the influence, the man is a rapist, period. Should the revised VAWA be passed, any college male would automatically be a rapist since the proposed revised VAWA now defines rape using the FBI definition (cleverly the feminists saw to that knowing they would get their way and change the FBI definition). This would mean, essentially, guilt by accusation and immediate expulsion. No chance to ever get your degree.
A man must think of the future. Even in example e, it is quite possible the new bride would accuse her groom eventually. Perhaps the relationship sours in 5 years. Over half of marriages end up in divorce, with the wife filing most of the time. If she wants to get even for some perceived wrong-doing, all she needs to do is call authorities and state that she was raped on her wedding night. 200 witnesses, photos, and a videotape will all corroborate her drinking that day. The man now may be imprisoned for 25 years just because he wanted to consummate his marriage. Similarly, a, b and d could result in a rape accusation if the wife/girlfriend chose to get rid of her husband/boyfriend at any time. Of course if they are married, she’ll take the house, kids and assets as well.
I am bringing up these examples as a warning to men; most especially to college men. “To rape or not to rape?” Ask yourself if 15 minutes of pleasure is worth expulsion from school or 25 years in jail. Personally, I would not take the risk, no matter how slight it may seem. No woman is worth decades in jail. No orgasm is worth my life being destroyed. Self-love is much less risky, and I could get a good night’s sleep without being awakened by the thought I have just given license to a woman to destroy me. I would think avoidance of any ladies nights would now be the accepted norm.
That atmosphere invites trouble. It is rife for manipulation and entrapment. An upscale bar may give free or low priced drinks to ladies and advertise for men to come and enjoy the company of the self-inebriated. At any of these ladies nights, there could lurk an opportunist willing to be picked up in order to blackmail a well-intentioned male with a rape charge if he doesn’t make her financially happy. Or perhaps an ego trip, actually accusing someone to destroy a successful man’s life. Now there would be no hassles of a trial with he said/she said issues. A woman would just need an affidavit from her regular bartender telling of him serving her several drinks on the night in question.
I would avoid bars if I knew myself to not be able to resist conversing with the opposite sex hoping to get “lucky.” I’d have to think twice about meeting a woman that enjoyed alcohol at a favorite bar. Men, the same goes for college parties. If you attend in hopes of meeting a woman, you’d better think twice. Don’t even be alone with a woman that has indulged. The conference call on 1/9 given by the President’s administration made it clear that college men are now the main targets of this new definition regarding drug/alcohol facilitated sex.
Ideologues have asked, and now received for all women a total release of responsibility for their actions and are automatically provided the rape victim status if they decide to engage in sex while using drugs or alcohol. In each case, by indulging in drink, the female is always a victim and the male always the rapist. Hey, just like the feminists proclaimed all these many years.
A victory for feminism. Or is it?
If all men heed my warning (which I know is unlikely), then any time we went out with our wives or girlfriends, we would have to state up front that if they would enjoy some romance and sex later on, they can no longer enjoy having anything to drink over dinner or at the bar other than soft drinks. We as men would be able to enjoy our wine or beer or hard drink while we watched our partners complain and scold us about how lucky we were that we could enjoy alcohol or drug facilitated sex while they could no longer do so.
Most likely the feminists will use this as another example of Patriarchy, despite themselves being the creators. As men, we would need to tell the woman we are with, that this is what women want. By law, we can’t have sex with women if they insist on drinking with us at dinner. If we take this seriously, which we damn well should, feminists just took away a right most women do enjoy and have given us sole ownership of this right. We’d have a right that women don’t. Yes, I am looking at this new rape definition optimistically because I have to. And, being the optimist, I see this with my wine glass half full.
Source:
(1) http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf Pages 17-19.
