From: q2tj@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Seducing Drunk Women (or men)
Date: 28 Jan 93 16:22:29 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Cornell University

julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes: 
> 
> Two drunks mutually consenting
> to sex is not rape of anybody, regardless of how they feel the
> next day.  However, a sober person seducing a drunk person (and
> knowing the drunk person wouldn't consent while sober) is taking
> advantage of that person.  While this sober person is not as criminal
> as the person who jumps out a bush and assaults another person, I
> feel they are definitely wrong and some sort of punishment is required.  
> (If it's a YoungAndStupid(tm) person, then they are in need of
> serious maturity and should get off with a lighter sentence than
> an OlderAndWiser(tm) person who should know better.)  A stiff 
> talking to is also required for the drunk person.
>
	This is pretty good thinking, and I would also like to
address this issue of a "sober person seducing a drunk person while
knowing that the consent is only due to drunkeness"

Notice that we *are* talking about a seduction.  In most cases,
seducing someone to give their consent to sex is not a crime
(exceptions are mentioned below)

We really need to get clear on the distinction between ethics
and legality.  This kind of seduction, like most seductions, is 
highly unethical, and unjust towards the drunk person.  But I don't
believe this is criminal.  Our (secular) courts do not dispense
justice (in it's ultimate sense), rather they dispense equity.
This situation may very well be outside of our legal system,
and perhaps that how is *should* be!

The principle in this case is one of "consent during impaired
judgement"  Unless the person was physically forced to drink
alcohol they are responsible for their state of impaired judgment.
Wether that impaired judgment comes from emotional trauma, lack
of sleep, unhappy childhood, or alcohol/drugs that person will
be vulnerable to being taken advantage of, or being seduced.
I see no reason to prosecute any of these cases so long as
seduction in itself is considered legal.  The only case where
the consent is invalidated is in certain cases like "not of
majority age" or mental retardation, certain mental illnesses,
or certain kinds of duress (threats of assault, loss of job, etc.)

There are also some practical considerations.  In real life we
can be confident that if a drunk man was seduced by a woman
he would never ever have sex with, prosecuation of the woman
would be *inconceivable*.  No matter how traumatized the man
was there wouldn't even be a name for a criminal charge for the
woman.  No doubt this is related to our cultural ideal that a man
should always be ready for sex whenever and wherever and with
whomever; but that has no legal bearing.  If the man is the seducer
he is similarly unethical as in the case of a woman seducer, but legally
is no more culpable.  

I think we should resist the urge to say "hey! there oughta be a 
law against that!" everytime we notice something unethical or wrong.
Criminal charges in the above case seem completely inappropriate.

Putting legalism aside there's also one train of  radical-feminist thought
that goes some like the following:

	We should not assume that the women is to be
	an innocent protected flower.  Any idea that women
	cannot take full responsibility for their actions
	(however stupid) will be a return to puritanism
	or a state of tutelage.


Steve Seidman
q2tj@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
seid@ee.cornell.edu
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:7608 soc.women:23033