decision

Why "Too Drunk to Keep Your Keys" is a Fine Metric for Judging "Too Drunk to Consent"

Responding to my last post, On Guilt or Innocence While Intoxicated a commenter named Samantha who shortens it to Sam at the end pointed out that my argument that the line dividing competence to consent to sexual overtures breaks down at the same point one is intoxicated enough that reasonable third parties would ask for their car keys.

Of course we shouldn't be saying that all victims must be sober in order to "count." But where it seems to me that this gets complicated is that after a mugging, one person is missing the wallet and the other one has it; after a shooting, one person is dead and the other is alive. But after intercourse between two drunk people, both people had sex (or, were raped?). I agree with the upshot that people too drunk to consent or to get consent shouldn't be having sex, period, but this doesn't much help with establishing the identities of perpetrators and victims.

Brief quibble: It might be more accurate to say it doesn't help much with establishing the guilt or innocence of perpetrators.  But I think it can still be used consistently and fairly to determine whether the party or parties were to "tipsy" to competently consent or competently distinguish a prospective partner's consent.

I don't think this is all that big a problem because to a large extent it's already been solved in other contexts. Based on considerable case law on the liability of bartenders and hosts when they serve to someone who's intoxication later leads to injuries or death, the fact that it's vague isn't as important as one might reflexively make it.  Specifically, a guideline, rule, or law doesn't have to handle *every* edge case to severely narrow the area in which edge cases -- what's sometimes called the 'gray area" -- occurs.  Judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys have established some pretty effective methods for determining drunkenness and liability after the fact, even in cases where "hard facts" like blood alcohol levels are in question.  And therefore it shouldn't be that difficult to apply those same established criteria to questions of whether or not a victim was deemed competent to drive, and therefore whether he or she was competent to autonomously decide to have sex.

Now mind you, this seems to be the only area where establishing an accuser's intoxication or sobriety might be used against his or her assertion of having been attacked.  (For instance how many non-sexual assault victims have to demonstrate that they were sober before someone will accept their accusation that the didn't want to be in a fight?  Even if the accused said no, it was all in good fun and it wasn't fighting it was consensual sparring.)  But that's actually neither here nor there -- another edge case and an analogy to boot.  But in the main, anyone with experience in the field of host/bartender liability would have no trouble in the field of intoxication assault.

Oh, and speaking of bar fights and assault there's another metric where bartenders (probably more than lawyers or judges) are likely to have perfectly average judgment: assessing whether someone in a bar fight was just the loser of a two-party fight or the victim of a one-party fight.  Even when both parties to a fight are equally intoxicated body language, behavior, shock response, between someone who actively participated in a fight but lost and someone who hadn't wished to fight at all is readily apparent.  Even a day later when they've sobered up.  I'm not about to say "oh, let's just be all subjective about it" but I'm very confident that it's an assessable and teachable skill.  That, now that I think about it, might be an interesting public-safety research project.

Bottom line, though, is that based on several years of third-hand, second-hand, and I'm now very ashamed to say first-hand experience in college bar culture in the mid-1970s (the era Mary Koss was prompted to begin her research, incidentally) the issue isn't *quite* as clear-cut as some proponents say but it's *waaaay* less ambiguous than almost any detractors say.


Tags:

On Guilt or Innocence While Intoxicated

A not completely unreasonable objection to the general assumption that in no- or badgered-consent situations both parties can be equally intoxicated yet one party can be consdered a victim and the other a perpetrator.  The objection does become unreasonable when an analogy is drawn between a drunk driver who's held accountable for passing out behind the wheel and a drunk victim who passes out where he or she can be assaulted.  For both not-unreasonable and unreasonable objections here's how that thing works:

If I roll a drunk for his wallet he’s a victim, no matter how drunk he was. And if I’m drunk when I roll him I’m still a mugger, no matter how drunk I was. Same if a drunk murders another drunk — doesn’t matter how drunk the parties were, the victim’s the victim and the murderer’s the murderer. Now, you can argue whether that’s fair or unfair, but you can’t say it’s an unusual distinction.

Similarly, in almost all law a contract or agreement signed while drugged or intoxicated can be invalidated with the completely reasonable argument that when drunk or drugged one is not capable of making sound decisions. And again, it doesn’t matter whether the counterparty to the signature was drunk, nor does it matter how drunk that party was.

So. Even if I was drawing an analogy between being too drunk to drive and too drunk to either consent or accurately discern consent in others, instead of making a pharmacological distinction, it still wouldn’t matter. Or wouldn’t matter if there wasn’t the historical assumption that a woman who gets drunk “deserves” to be assaulted because she would have been "more careful" had she remained sober.

But!

Again, I making a pharmacological distinction not drawing an analogy: if you're so drunk your friends are asking you for your keys you're also too drunk to make a competent decision about your own or a prospective partner's consent.


Tags:

About Degrees of "Tipsy," Consent, and the Ability to Recognize Consent

Ozy Frantz started a nice conversation about whether "drunk sex" is rape. Since the possible cases under discussion range from one or both parties having only half a glass of wine all the way over to both parties are incompetently black-out drunk I thought I'd reiterate my position.

As for the “tipsy” vs. “drunk” vs. “wasted” distinctions, my hard and fast rule is “if someone is drink enough for you to ask for their keys because they’re too drunk to realize they shouldn’t drive then they’re also too drunk for meaningful consent.

Similarly if you’re drunk enough to realize you shouldn’t drive then you’re also drunk enough to realize you shouldn’t try to accurately determine whether someone else is consenting.

Either way, that’s where I draw line between “tipsy” and “drunk.” It’s also the point where red flags ought to start going up for a) one’s self, b) one’s prospective paramours, and c) friends, onlookers, family members, and especially hosts and bartenders.

I say “especially bartenders” in part I used to be a bartender. In a college town. Where “spinning” drunk women into “consent” was all too often considered par for the course rather than what it actually was.

Which, incidentally, is exactly why “but I do that so it can’t be rape” is such a dire total fucking bullshit metric. As is, incidentally, “but everybody does that so it can’t be rape.” Because you know what… it sure as shooting can be. Not always. Not necessarily. But, yeah, you hear someone say anything like that and it should send up a big red flag.


Tags:

Em & Lo's Excellent Student-Mixer Cocktail-Hour Advice About Sex and (Degrees of) Drinking

Photo by Flickr user DoctorWho. Cached as a bandwidth-conserving courtesy
Photo by Flickr user DoctorWho. Used under a Creative Commons license.

Drinking and sex in College? I'm not a big fan of alcohol and sex. (And not just because I've got a faulty gene that keeps me from enjoying alcohol myself.) So I really appreciated this list of tips for college students from Em & Lo. The whole list is great but #3 is a real keeper.

Don’t do it drunk. You will get drunk. Too drunk. Way too drunk. Probably on more than one occasion. We’re not talking about a good, healthy buzz — because let’s face it, that’s the only time sex is going to happen for you this year — no, we’re talking completely sloshed. And when that happens, when your balance starts to fail and your voice gets really loud and the room spins a bit, try with all your might NOT to hook up. The chances of it not going well are exceedingly high. Think: poor sexual performance, blackouts, accusations of date rape, actual date rape, mid-sesh vomiting, forgotten birth control, accidental pregnancy, the list goes on.

Source: Today on EMandLO.com

What's great is their acknowledgement that asking students to refrain from drinking entirely is unproductive. Instead they just lay out the conditions and consequences: a glass of wine with dinner, or a couple of drinks over a night of dancing and romancing? Not the end of the world.

But past the point where responsible friends would ask for your car keys? Oh yeah, if you're too sloshed to make a competent decision not to drive you're definitely too sloshed to competently decide that, yes, you really want to be doing this right now. Let alone deciding your (possibly equally sloshed) acquaintance has competently decided he or she wants to be doing it with you as well.

Seriously. Most of the stuff that gets in the papers? That gets friends shaking their heads? That gets guys (especially) branded as a creep or a loser or someone To Be Avoided? The ones where someone ends up getting battered or worse?

Yeah, there are exceptions to every rule but alcohol is behind just a heck of a lot of very bad sex-related behavior.

I'm not going to say never get technicolor-yawningly drunk. I certainly won't say never have sex, or even have sex! But I gotta agree, based on a ton of first-, second-, and third-hand experience, that mixing the two is a heck of a recipe for more regrets than fond memories.


Tags:

Food for Thought: Jason Reitman's 2004 Short Film "Consent"

So I've been thinking a lot (a lot) about issues of consent, of sexual abuse, of "gray areas," of stereotypes and assumptions, and, especially, about accountability. Last summer, here on this blog, at No Seriously, What About Teh Menz, and in various comment threads around the intertubes, I started digging deeper into what I saw as just one or two incidents of violent sexual assault I experienced as a child -- one at age four at the hands of a ~12-year-old neighbor girl, one around age 14 at the hands of a ~17-year-old neighborhood bully.

The more I've been digging into it the more I've come to realize that, you know, I grew up in a culture that was pretty rife with sexual abuse -- enough so that I only really registered the above-mentioned incidents. But the kid who was the closest thing to a best friend in elementary school? Duh, let's see, he and his sister were foster kids who's father taught them all about "corn-holing" and "fuck-rubbers?" Gee, only this summer did it occur to me to wonder why they were foster kids? The core of the new-to-town teens I hung out with in late high-school and after I dropped out but before I left home? The variously emancipated and/or runaway boys and girls who at times seemed voraciously sexual(ized) but spoke in fluent 70's-era "sexual liberation?" The ones who's attitudes and behaviors deeply influenced much of my own early sexual aspirations? It only recently occurred to me that a contemporary assessment would be that they'd been groomed to the nines both by adult influences. And speaking of grooming and sexual abuse, how about the handful of distinctly predatory adult "youth counselors" (inside a much larger group of entirely decent, appropriate ones) who advocated boundary-crossing in ways that, while not necessarily unsound advice overall, nevertheless advanced their own "hands on" agendas with various "promising young people?"

Let's not even talk about the barkingly predatory "pre-date-rape" alcohol, cocaine, and Quaalude drenched college music bar culture I lived and worked in where it seemed at the time to be perfectly "cool" for more experienced bar patrons and bartenders to take over-intoxicated young men and women home to "crash." Where what this year would be called morning-after gaslighting was considered just helping the erstwhile partner get "perspective."

And all that's got me wondering where have those early influences left me!?!?! What else has been done to me? What else have I let happen? What else have I done in all earnestness? What impact have I had on others?

It's been bugging me a lot. Sort of a hard, fast replay of the old Will Rogers line, which I cite frequently, that "it's not what you don't know that'll hurt you, it's what you know that just ain't so."

Anyway, while I could launch into how my latest runaway train of thought about consent and assumptions has been accelerated by Clarisse Thorn's controversial but excellent exploration of forgiveness vs. accountability in On Change and Accountability, or how it was set rolling by Rachel Hills' Best of 2010: “But women don’t rape!”: sexual pressure, rejection and the male sex drive discourse, and how at the moment I'm feeling a bit like the only people one should really trust in sexual situations are the meticulous negotiation fetishists in the kink community (for instance see item #4 in Andrea Zanin's Expectations of Dominance: Picking Through the Tangle.) But I'm still not feeling completely collected about it, and besides, at the moment I'm feeling all Maslow's hammer about unstated assumptions that can interfere unspoken and even verbal consent... and so at this point any conclusions I draw are likely to be, um, over the top.

So instead I'd like to point out this cute little 2004 video short Jason Reitman and his then-partner Michele Lee called "Consent." It's not perfect (the text "romance deserves better than this" at the end of the credits is a little ambiguous) but it nicely captures how little we're able to communicate with simple yeses, nos, and you-want-tos.

YouTube link via Caitlin.


Tags:

The BDSM Community is a Great Source for Concrete Advice on Applying "No Means No"

Note: Still on a happily hectic family vacation on the awesomely laid-back Greek island of Lesvos and so posting and comment moderation will continue to be sparse.  Today or tomorrow we're going to try and get over to Skala Eresou, which in addition to being Sappho's birthplace is also supposed to have an awesome beach.

It's really great to keep spreading the message that "No means no" and as a slogan "no means no" is memorable and effective. But a slogan isn't really adequate for helping people navigate real-world situations: you also need real-world illustrations and examples. Sarah Sloane offers an example from the BDSM community that ought to be part of mainstream Relationships 101.

Keep in mind that you do not need to have a reason to say no – you are entitled to say no for any reason (or even no reason) at all. It’s YOUR decision whether to play or engage in sex. You also do not need to give them a “rain check” or tell them maybe another time unless you want to – in fact, in my experience it’s been worse for me to tell them “maybe” instead of just saying no and leaving it alone.

When I came up in my leather community, I was taught that one of the things that bind us together is a sense of respect; part of that is respect for ourselves and our ability & power to say no, and part of it is respect for the other person that we’re talking with. Honesty – not the blunt, hurtful kind, but the compassionate kind – will be something that both you and the person that you’re being honest with can live with.

Practice saying no – to your mirror, to friends, in writing – and use those practice sessions to feel more comfortable and confident when you say it. When you’re in a position where you’re not sure what to say to the other person, tell them that – and ask them if you can get back to them. Take the time you need to make a decision; it’s a very rare situation to have a potential play session with someone that you will literally never see again, so there’s no need to pressure yourself into deciding. And when it comes down to it, remember that no means no – and if the person in question spends time trying to talk you into it, or becomes defensive, then that should be a clear indication that it’s not someone that you wanted to play with in the first place.

Source: Fearless Press

It's almost a cliché in social theory that minority or alt communities will be more accurately aware of their differences and similarities than will the mainstream culture they're embedded in. And that therefore they may have useful insights that the mainstream culture would benefit from. Cliché or not, the BDSM community really has necessarily invested considerable time pondering issues of peer pressure, consent, and maintaining mutual respect. Of course, Sloan's case demonstrates that, being human beings, BDSM people often need active coaching and sometimes frequent reminders. But, being human beings, everyone else frequently needs those same reminders as well.

Via Viviane's Sex Carnival


Tags:

Logical But Not Necessarily Intuitive: Boundaries and Consent Go Both Ways

Photo by Flickr user robotclaw. Cached as a bandwidth-conserving courtesy
Photo by Flickr user robotclaw. Used under a Creative Commons license.

A reader with the pen name Slap Unhappy asked Em & Lo for advice with the following situation.

My wife and I have been together just over five years. The other night while having sex, she asked me to slap her in the face. Repeatedly. I was raised not to lay a hand down on a woman, and now I am being asked to. We are pretty active and broad in our sexual tastes, but this one is kind of weird to me. Thoughts, ideas?

– Slap Unhappy

Source: Em & Lo

First of all, I recommend reading E&L's response, which is both informative and thoughtful.  But the question brings up another dimension that I don't think is explored often enough.

Back in the late 1970s or early 1980s I ended up breaking up with someone early in a relationship because she wanted me to slap her. It just totally freaked me out. A few years later I was really freaked out when a partner told me she was terribly turned on by spanking.

It wasn’t that I didn’t know about BDSM. In fact I’d done a fair amount of bondage and coercion role-playing. But neither of those partners had seemed the least bit interested — they’d just had previous partners who’d done it to them and they’d discovered they liked it.

My loss in retrospect, and of course theirs too.

What I didn’t understand at the time, and it’s really important for Slap Unhappy too, is that boundaries and respect for boundaries are really important not just to protect the sub, and in more gendered terms they’re not there just to protect the woman.

You’re absolutely right that, especially when we’re turned on, people can withstand far more “impact” than their partners may be psychologically or even physically comfortable giving. (Psychologically as in Unhappy’s and my case where hitting someone went against ingrained upbringing. And physically it often hurts one’s hand more to spank someone than it hurts the spankee’s bottom.)

So anyway, while it might be Unhappy’s partner’s wildest turn on to be slapped, if it’s a turn-off for him then she needs to a) recognize that it’s a boundary issue for him, b) negotiate to see if there’s a way to make him comfortable enough to consent, and if not then c) respect his boundary and his decision not to participate.

Oh, and possibly if he goes ahead anyway then she may also need to d) help work with him through what I’m going to call potential “top drop” afterwards. Because what he might agree to try he might still be bummed about after.

Bottom line: We don’t usually think of boundaries and consent as moving in the direction of the top, or in heterosexual relationships as working towards the man. But boundaries are boundaries and consent is consent and when they’re confronted it’s important that they be respected regardless of who’s boundaries they are or who’s consent is required.

It’s always ok to say no.


Tags:

The Two Rules of Desire and Conventional "Rape" Fantasies

I'm an occasional participant in the popular "Wise Guys" feature at Em & Lo.  This week the question was "You often hear how the rape fantasy is common in the minds of many women. Do men have this fantasy, too?"  Here's how I answered.

First of all, I don’t know who actually has them more often, but I get the impression that more women than men seem willing to disclose their rape fantasies. Based on my own experience, though, I think it’s important to mention that the term “rape fantasy” covers an awful lot of different ideas. So when you say “rape fantasy” you could be talking about Rhett Butler sweeping Scarlett O’Hara up the grand staircase or something that might scare Ted Bundy. And both men and women’s fantasies cover the whole range. One more good reminder why communication and negotiation are important when translating fantasy into roleplaying.

In my teens I had a lot of fairly vanilla rape fantasies, inspired in part by “bodice ripper” romance novels and in part by the much more direct Victorian BDSM novel A Man With a Maid. This was furthered by two of my earliest girlfriends who shared the fantasies (and their romance novels) with me. Roleplaying was lots of fun — but not for everyone, as I pretty quickly figured out with the next couple of partners.

Years later I was involved with someone whose ideas of roleplaying were so dark I felt a little uncomfortable — and even more so when she mentioned what she really fantasized about when I was trying my best. And that’s a great reminder that what we fantasize about and what we actually want to do in real life can be very different things.

Source: Em & Lo's Sex, Love and Everything In Between

Of course reading that now I'm doinking myself on the head for missing what should have been an obvious chance to add to the bogus Two Rules of Desire. If it's both intolerable and inconceivable for women to express sexual desire, and for men to be sexually desired, then "he made her do it" types of fantasies make a lot more sense. Even more so considering that, unlike real-life date rape and criminal sexual assault, in most fantasies both parties enjoying themselves.

While the fantasies themselves are pretty harmless the implications of this are not amusing. At all. Because I'm pretty sure that the fantasy that overcomes those two really bad rules creates real misunderstanding when it comes time to cope, socially and legally, with the actual crimes of rape.

Weirdly, I think the two rules might help account for social intolerance of consensual BDSM. Which for a lot of non-practitioners seems a little too intentional and voluntary and thus not in keeping with the "propriety" of the rules.

Hmm... I'm going to have to think about this a little more.


Tags:

Amanda Palmer on Rejecting the Impulse to Impose One's Own Preferences on One's Children's Appearance

Great quote from solo artist and Dresden Dolls co-founder Amanda Palmer in Spin magazine

"I've been really shocked and distressed to find out that 8- and 9-year-old girls are getting all their pubic hairs waxed off by their mothers," she says. "I think if I have any purpose at all, it's to stand up there and say, 'Oh, no, no, no, no, girls. You totally have a choice. You can wax it, you can shave it, you can grow it out, and this really is up to you.' That's the way that I feel about everything, that you just need to know there's a choice out there."

Adds Pope, the director: "On the surface, it's a song about girls growing out their pubes. Underneath that, however, is a call to everyone, woman and man alike, to discover the courage to be themselves. Whoever that may be."

Source: Spin

That sounds exactly right. I couldn't find the right post this morning but I remember Holly of The Pervocracy saying that for her the decision to remove her pubic hair signaled adulthood rather than pre-pubescence. There are obviously plenty of good cases for never fiddling with your body hair at all in adulthood but this isn't about that. Beyond basic sanitation whatever one's choice might be, as a child or an adult, it ought to be your choice and not your parents. And yeah, having your mom decide to wax you isn't as permanent as other decisions parents make: piercing ears, circumcision, or sex reassignment surgery come to mind, so if it's just getting waxed you can stop once you're out of the house.  (Right, as if only permanent physical alterations leave mental scars.)  So let's just add this to the list of things you should leave it to the child to decide. When he or she grows up.

(Note: based on conversation with teachers and other parents this is one of those areas where a) daughters are more subject to parental pressure and b) moms tend to bring more of that pressure to bear.)

Another note on the pubic hair, just to tease my friend Chingona, who's promised never to go easy on me about pubic hair pontificating: the real question to ask these days isn't so much why women are or aren't grooming their pubic hair. Instead it should be why men aren't doing it more -- after all the same esthetic, hygenic, and sensory arguments ought to apply both ways. Actually, technically, to the extent they apply at all they do apply both ways.

(Link to Palmer quote via SexIsNotTheEnemy)

Update: Palmer's assertion that mothers are waxing their 8-year-olds may be related to this article in The Frisky which reports spa owners in the Bay Area and NYC are trying to build a market for it.  So with any luck it could be another one of those all sizzle, no steak stories like rainbow bracelets, vagazzling, or labiaplasty.  (I gotta say, though, the telling line would be a spa owner in NYC who said "in 10 years, waxing children will be like taking them to the dentist or putting braces on their teeth."  Um, yeah.  Waxing? Braces tightening? What child could possibly object?


Tags:

Missing the point: After Easily Hooking Up With (At Least) Two Women in 24 Hours, Assange Calls Sweden a "Feminist Saudi Arabia"

Summary: This post is about the objectively stupid claim that feminism makes Sweden a really bad place to be an even modestly considerate sexually active heterosexual man. Sweden!

Question: Which of the following three items is not like the other ones?

Item #1: According to this Time Magazine archive article from 1964!:

Sweden, which generally plays it lightly, last week was in an uproar about sex. The cause was a petition of protest to King Gustav VI Adolf signed by 140 eminent Swedish physicians, including the King's own doctor. Their plea to the monarch and to the government: take swift steps to stop sexual laxity, which "is a menace to the vitality and health of the nation."

For years, in Sweden, premarital intercourse has been widely condoned, and the government provides legal abortions when deemed "in the mother's interest." The result, warned the doctors, has been a tide of extramarital pregnancies and mounting venereal disease—with most of the victims young people. Sweden's gonorrhea rate has jumped 75% in five years, and of last year's new cases, 52% were among teenagers.

Reform Talk. The physicians placed the blame squarely on Sweden's schools, where sex education starts in the first grade, pointing out that young minds —unless taught differently—can confuse instruction with encouragement. Arguing that "chastity in no way is harmful to health," the doctors declared that "monogamous marriage [with] common responsibility for the children, is the natural order of life." In sum, the doctors urged schools to teach "what is right and wrong."

Source: Time Magazine: March 06, 1964

And item #2: And in early 2009 Kommissarie F. Curiosa of Sweden's English-language The Local said

With one of the highest birth rates in Europe, the Swedes seem to be pretty prolific when it comes to making babies, but even after six plus years of living in Stockholm, I'm still not sure how Swedish relationships actually happen.

The only obvious explanation seems to be massive quantities of alcohol. In other words, Swedish babies wouldn't exist without Finnish booze cruises and Systembolaget.

In recent months, The Local has reported that Swedes are much less inclined than their European counterparts to spend vast sums of cash in their efforts to find a mate. This didn't surprise me at all. That's because they spend it all on alcohol trying to get themselves drunk enough to talk to a member of the opposite sex.

I know that it will seem ungrateful to be accusing my host country of being a nation of stingy alcoholics, and I'll be the first to admit that a few drinks can be a fantastic social lubricant. It's probably also a case of “it's not the Swedes, it's me,” but Swedish mating and dating rituals (and usually in that order) appear to be a very slow process that go nowhere (except the bedroom) fast.

In a nutshell, it goes something like this:

A) Meet at a mutual friend's party.

B) Get really, really drunk.

C) Make out. Sex is optional.

D) If you're lucky, you are sober enough to save the other person's telephone number in your mobile, AND to put it under the correct name.

E) Send a text message along the lines of "last night was nice. Shall we have a coffee sometime?"

F) Spend hours analyzing the various ways in which aforementioned text message could be misinterpreted. Get your friends involved.

Source: The Local

Item #3: Via of Echidne of the Snakes

Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism. I fell into a hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism. -- Julian Assange

Source: Echidne of the Snakes

Yeah, Sweden's such a "feminist Saudi Arabia" that Assange was easily able to hook up for casual sex with two separate, consenting Swedish women in less than 24 hours.

My understanding, actually, is that it's approximately as easy to have heterosexual sex in Sweden as it is to have gay male sex in San Francisco. I.e. pretty bloody easy. And for approximately the same reasons: however many class or income barriers might exist in San Francisco, since everybody having gay male sex is... well... male. And so on a gender level they're pretty much going to treat each other as sexual equals.

The intent of all those ferocious Swedish feminists is to... create an environment where sexual equality between heterosexuals there is as routine as is equality between homosexuals here.

M'kay. Now. Let's posit a little scenario. One that takes the San Francisco analogy a little further. Let's say Julian Assange is gay instead of straight. And let's say Assange had dropped into San Francisco instead of Stockholm last year. And let's say Assange hooked up with an anally topped two men in 24 hours. And let's say that in one case he "accidentally" neglected to use a condom, and in the other case he didn't use a condom when, after properly condomed sex he penetrated his partner a second time without a condom while the partner was asleep.

In those circumstances would a hypothetically gay Assange's male partners have any cause for complaint? Fucking right they would! In fact I believe in quite a few states they could file criminal charges, and in a few others prosecutors might file charges even if the partners themselves said it was no big deal.

Here's the even bigger trick, though. If these hypothetical partners of a condom-tossing Assange kicked up a fuss would we say "oh boy, are those gay guys politically correct?" Would we call them militant homosexualist? Would we call California, or New York, or... Illinois, Missouri, or Oklahoma(!) militantly homosexualist for their "knowing transmission" laws? Why that would be no.

With that little thought experiment out of the way, what do Assange's antics look like now? A charismatic if somewhat narcissistic young man kites into Sweden, easily arranges consensual sex with two women (at least! remember only two women complained!) And due to their intensely egalitarian upbringing the young women felt as comfortable hooking up for sex with a man as a gay man in San Francisco would. But also like San Francisco men those women expected to be treated with equal consideration.

And when all he did was skip condoms when he, and they, knew he was sperm-positive and could knowingly transmit pregnancy they went all "feminist Saudi Arabia" on him?

Dudes! Do you have any idea what kind of heterosexual casual-sex paradise America, England, or, say, Germany would be with the kind of "feminist Saudi Arabia" values Assange was carping about?

Seriously?

Sweden?

Still not convinced? Let's put it another way then, hmm. Let's say you're a sex-loving heterosexual in a culture where casual heterosexual liaisons between social equals are as easy as arranging casual gay ones because by both custom and law all parties, women and men, have equivalent or equal degrees of faith and trust in the system. Then along comes some coarse Aussie dork who's used to the idea of sex as something that has to be purchased, extorted or otherwise "scored" off of women... and he thinks that's a good thing because any sheila who didn't have to be extorted into sex is either a slut or a whore. Oh yeah, and he thinks it's of zero consequence to him if he gives a sex partner a STI or an unwanted, unplanned pregnancy and when he gets to your town instead of picking up on the handful of social rules and basic hygiene that keep your very-mutually-beneficial sex lives humming smoothly he basically goes out of his way to avoid using condoms even when his partners expect him to use them.

Even if for some reason you didn't think this was unacceptable behavior on strictly egalitarian grounds would you be happy with this guy peeing in the community water supply like that? No. You'd want him called out on the carpet so fast his comb-over toupee would still be hanging in midair like Wylie Coyote.

Now. Does this have any bearing on whether the charges against Assange are trumped up? No, not really. If Sweden's applying it's laws unevenly that's a nuisance. But is there a problem with the laws themselves? I'd argue, forcefully, that for sex-loving heterosexuals, particularly for sex-loving male heterosexuals the answer has to be no. Because, seriously, Sweden? We're talking about a country where (according to the aforementioned post from The Local) it's far more common to fret about asking for a romantic date after the third time you've had sex than vice versa! And you know one of the biggest reasons it's so easy to have that kind of casual sex in Sweden? Because feminism won! Assange just didn't get the memo and thought he could treat Swedish women like the 2nd-class pieces of shit Australians grow up getting away with. And he got busted for it. (I'll ask the question once again: what possible incentive would even deeply anti-feminist Swedes have for letting foreigners screw up their sexual gravy trains? None? Right in one.)

Kasheesh! Like we should all have those problems Swedish men have!


Tags:

User login