We are aware that date rape has odd rules. We are aware that promiscuity is rampant. We are aware that alcohol leads to extremely poor choices (if they can even be called "choices" when the brain has been lubricated thusly). And yet the convoluted argument in this article has me bewildered. First, the ground rules as they stand Down Under:
A woman meets a man in a bar or at a party. She likes the man. He likes the woman. She may not normally be a sex on the first night kind of girl. But they have a number of drinks. Fuelled by alcohol, they put aside their inhibitions. The woman goes home with the man. She says yes to sex. In the morning, the man makes it clear it was a one-night stand. The woman is deeply offended and regrets her drunken decision. She claims rape. Under new rape laws introduced in NSW this year, that man is likely to be convicted as a rapist. He is likely to go to prison.
The article refers to this legal posture as "post-coital regret," and it has teeth. And yet Ms. Albrechtsen, who writes this piece for the Austrialian is incensed at the attempt to protect women.
[T]he fact that the woman who says "yes" to sex is drunk is highly relevant: it may vitiate her consent. But the man's intoxication must be ignored when working out whether he had "reasonable grounds" for believing consent was given. It is a curious law that says alcohol only affects the cognitive abilities of women.
These new rape laws degrade women. They treat them as helpless victims, stripping them of the power to make decisions about sex after consuming alcohol. Down a few too many Bacardi Breezers, and the law says you are no longer responsible for your actions. Is this really the message we want to send to young women?
One might think that, for the sake of equality, the writer is upset that women are off the hook while men aren't (which would be a valid concern) but rather she says that sex is naturally part of a night of carousing, and men shouldn't have to pay for that. Honestly, I'm not sure of her point, but it comes nothing close to saying that everyone should be more moderate with alcohol. Bottom line: it seems that this effort to cater to women is one more example of the government in the bedroom, which is intolerable.
Feminists are to blame for this "cat and mouse" game and, as usual, the men pay. But what if this made all men back off casual sex and made them less apt to take advantage? For centuries, many a man who courted a girl (who gladly encouraged him) had to pay when her father found out. It was a healthy form of deterrence that everyone know was part of the landscape.
In this fatherless world, even feminists are reaching out for authoritative protection. Crazy, perhaps misguided, but understandable in the end.