No You Can't Claim A Right To Be Irresponsible And Then Blame It On Someone Else

I had hoped to be done with the topic of PZ Myers' incredibly irresponsible post accusing Michael Shermer of serial rape but what I've been reading on the topic needs looking into.   The entire accusation, other than rumors he claims he'd heard Myers entire accusation was based on this passage Myer's says is from an e-mail:

At a conference, Mr. Shermer coerced me into a position where I could not consent, and then had sex with me. I can’t give more details than that, as it would reveal my identity, and I am very scared that he will come after me in some way. But I wanted to share this story in case it helps anyone else ward off a similar situation from happening. I reached out to one organization that was involved in the event at which I was raped, and they refused to take my concerns seriously. Ever since, I’ve heard stories about him doing things (5 different people have directly told me they did the same to them) and wanted to just say something and warn people, and I didn’t know how. I hope this protects someone.

Myers said:

I will again emphasize, though, that I have no personal, direct evidence that the event occurred as described; all I can say is that the author is known to me, and she has also been vouched for by one other person I trust.

So Myers' is admitting that he has "no personal, direct evidence that the event occurred as described" on one of the more if not most widely read blogs made an accusation against a named person of serial rape, to tens of thousands and by now, I'd guess, millions of people.

Before going on, and in light of not only what I read elsewhere, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that on the description given, no one could possibly know if what is alleged to happen would even constitute rape as legally defined anywhere.  I don't even know what being "coersed into a position where I could not consent" means.  I doubt any jury would ever find anyone guilty of anything on that basis.   If the legal standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt"  then someone making an accusation of a crime should not provide the doubts in what they claimed happened.  To do so makes it impossible for an honest policeman or prosecuting attorney who shares your outrage at the behavior and even your desire to punish the one you feel has done you wrong to do anything about it.

If that was the description she brought to the "organization" she notified, she made it impossible for them to do more than avoid an association with him.   People making an accusation have a responsibility to articulate an actual wrong, especially adults of average or above intelligence and unencumbered by mental illness.  If I were forced to sit on a jury hearing a case based on a lot of the complaints like those I've been reading, I couldn't possibly honestly say that I didn't have a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of even someone I found truly awful.  Based on what Myers' provides, I'd have to admit I would have to have a reasonable doubt based in the possibility that he made it up.   And I start this by having disliked Michael Shermer for about as long as I've known he existed and being on record as doubting his honesty.

After a lot of talk about the possibility of Myers' being sued for libel, he produced what he said was corroboration of the account given above.  But it didn't contain anything helpful, in fact, it made Myers' assertions even more open to doubt

The anonymous woman who wrote to you is known to me, and in fact I was in her presence immediately after said incident (she was extremely distraught), and when she told the management of the conference (some time later).

From that, I wouldn't even be able to tell you that the person was even talking about the woman who wrote the first e-mail.   How, on the basis of what Myers' said, would he or she know they were talking about the same person or incidence?   This doesn't even hold up as confirmation that they are talking about the same thing.

Well after that, Myers posted this in an update:

Michael Shermer was the guest of honor at an atheist event I attended in Fall 2006; I was on the Board of the group who hosted it. It’s a very short story: I got my book signed, then at the post-speech party, Shermer chatted with me at great length while refilling my wine glass repeatedly. I lost count of how many drinks I had. He was flirting with me and I am non-confrontational and unwilling to be rude, so I just laughed it off. He made sure my wine glass stayed full.

And that’s the entirety of my story: Michael Shermer helped get me drunker than I normally get, and was a bit flirty. I can’t recall the details because I was intoxicated. I don’t remember how I left, but I am told that a friend took me away from the situation and home from the party. Note, I’d never gotten drunk at any atheist event before; I was humiliated by having gotten so drunk and even more ashamed that my friends had to cart me off before anything happened to me.

But I had a bad taste in my mouth about Shermer’s flirtatiousness, because I’m married, and I thought he was kind of a pig. I didn't even keep his signed book, I didn't want it near me.

Who was supposed to be keeping track of how much they drank?   Who apparently didn't say "no I'm not interested, I'm married" or even "buzz off"?    About the only thing that this claims is that Shermer was flirting with a married woman who got drunk because a famous atheist was overly generous with the wine.  I can't even claim to have any sympathy for AN ADULT WHO VOLUNTARILY GETS DRUNK in this story.  Especially as she says that she "was a bit flirty".   As a gay man,  instead of alleging that what happened supports a charge of serial rape against someone doing what she's accusing him of, if it were me I'd call what happened ME MAKING A FOOL OF MYSELF.

This is a world away from those incidents in which young girls and boys are raped while they are too drunk or drugged to resist,  there is no doubt that that is rape, a serious crime.   This is not like people who are mentally incapacitated being taken advantage of due to the fact that they cannot really give informed consent.  This is adults making fools of themselves and regretting it later.   Even ADULTS who serially make fools of themselves, someone who sleeps with creeps and sleazes is an adult who is legally able to give consent under normal circumstances.  If anyone even pointed out that they were being stupid there would be angry, enraged denunciations that you were infantilizing them, violating their "agency" or some such other trendy buzzword.   The situation is someone demanding they have the right to make fools of themselves, refusing to even admit that's what they've done, and then blame it on other people. 

I'm unaware of any place in the United States where it is illegal to have sex with someone who has had a drink, never mind the very generous legal limits in some states.  So even if it is a crime to have sex with someone who is drunk when they say yes,  if I were on a jury hearing the case, I'd be hard put to say I knew they were sufficiently drunk for it to constitute the legal definition of rape.   I'd say unless there was clear physical proof of blood alcohol levels, there was a reasonable doubt that the person who was conscious was temporarily unable to give consent.

If Michael Shermer is guilty of a crime is for a jury in a criminal or civil trial to say, not anyone else, certainly not PZ Myers based on what he so irresponsibly claimed in his blog post, setting off an even more irresponsible comment thread of the kind that a blogger of his experience would certainly know was bound to be the result of what he did.   By bringing these charges up the way he did was the most irresponsible thing I've seen by a blogger considered to be a serious academic, relied on for accuracy and honesty do. But in researching the issue, some even more disturbing developments in blog culture came to my attention.  The very concept of people acting like adults seems to be in danger.

--------------------

Here is another account from Michelle Acciavatti, " a neuroscientist and free-lance science writer interested in clinical ethics."  I'll give the entire thing:

As someone who was raped after a party, I often find myself falling for rape-apologist language. The guy that raped me would be most likely be horrified if I had accused him of rape. The guy that raped me is a good person. In fact, the guy that raped me was someone I found sexually attractive and had been flirting with for several weeks. I remember accepting his invitation for a ride home from a party. I don’t know what I was thinking. I do know that as a chronic drinker it is nearly impossible for others to tell when I've had too much. So, doesn't my drinking to excess, and accepting a ride home from this guy make me at least a little culpable? If I’d driven home in that state and killed someone in a car accident I couldn't use the excuse that I was too drunk to make the right decision about getting behind the wheel to not be charged with vehicular manslaughter. I’d have made the decision to drink and drive. Period. Impaired judgment would never enter the conversation.

It’s taken me a long, long time to realize that the drinking-and-driving scenario is not analogous to drinking-and-getting raped. To this day I have a hard time not accepting responsibility for my actions that night.

But I am not responsible. I did not make the decision to go out and get raped.

I am sure the guy that raped me didn't make the decision to go out and rape either, and that’s when I get sucked right back into the apologists rhetoric.

Because alcohol (or any other drug) does make consent difficult. And it is putting a lot of responsibility on one party to make them decide whether or not their sexual partner is capable of consent. Especially when that party may be impaired themselves.

Because, as my Dad tried to teach me, if it seems like a good idea tonight, it will still be a good idea in the morning.

I didn't listen to my father, I didn't listen to most of what I learned in sex ed. But, I try not to walk alone at night. I moderate my drinking when I go out to unfamiliar places. I use the buddy system at parties. I make friends with my bartenders and bouncers. I never leave my drink unattended. I never let someone buy me (or bring me) a drink. I have listened to the lessons of rape culture.

And I am sick of it. I am sick of being the one responsible for not getting raped. I am sick of “responsible” and “rape” being used in the same sentence.

It is time to start talking. Not about why people rape, or get raped, but about consent. Just like turning your keys in when you know you are too drunk to drive, when you go out to get impaired you need to turn your sexual expectations in. Any night when you get impaired the only thing you should go home with is a phone number and the excitement of maybe getting a phone call.

When you make the decision to get “fucked up”, then you also need to make the decision to not engage in sexual activity. You have to give up your right to consent, because you can not be responsible for someone else’s ability to consent.

This conversation needs to start happening as soon as sex ed does. Consent is not just “yes” and “no”. It is not a “mess”. Consent is awareness of all consequences of the intended action. Consent requires sobriety. It is that simple.

First, if the guy she had sex with was also drunk, didn't she rape him?   If someone accused me of raping them while describing the scenario she does, I'd sue them for serious damages.   This was not rape, this was her deciding she made a fool of herself, or even just regretting who it was she chose to have sex with.  It might even be the kind of self-deception that many of us who have family members who are alcoholics are all too sadly familiar with.   For an allegedly "feminist" blog to be telling women that what she did was OK and that the consequences of her bad choices WHICH SHE CONSENTED TO is someone elses fault is to demand all of the privileges of adulthood while being excused from any of the responsibilities of adulthood.

I'm left wondering what the hell is she complaining about.  This isn't an account of a rape, it's someone wanting to get attention by claiming to be a rape survivor when what she describes isn't rape, it's her deciding after the fact that she's made a fool of herself.   She isn't "sick of being the one responsible for not getting raped,"  she's apparently sick of taking any responsibility as an adult for her own actions and her own decisions.  If I were on a jury listening to her account, I'd say that people with drinking problems of the kind she includes in her account frequently present their alcoholism in the same terms.  That's always someone else's responsibility too.   Admitting that's a lie is part of them giving it up, of them acting like a responsible adult. Responsibility is the price of being a full adult.  AND THIS IS SOMEONE WHO SEEMS TO BE SETTING HERSELF UP AS AN ETHICIST!

Men can be real scum, believe me, I've had sex with men, I've had men come onto me.  When I was young, even illegally drinking before the legal age of 21 (back then I wasn't even legally an adult), older, far more experienced men came onto me in bars, when I still drank too much, before giving it up.   I know.  Gay rape is a lot more common than is believed and it is widely considered to be a joke, even among those who have learned not to make light of rape of women. I've even read prison rape jokes on "feminist" blogs.  Gay rape, when the victim is a gay man, would have been laughed out of court, if it ever got past the first interview with the police.   But this is just stupid.  This kind of claim cheapens the concept of being raped, of being the victim of a serious crime based in someone sexually attacking someone who doesn't say yes or who, by something far more serious than making a fool of him or herself.   This is adults refusing to act like grownups while demanding that they not be advised to not make fools of themselves.    I hate to have to be the one who breaks it to you,  but that doesn't make it any kind of stand a serious person should be required to take seriously.   It's something that any rational person is entirely within reason in rejecting.  It is just plain irresponsible and stupid.

Men can be real jerks, and, being fully the equal of men, women can be too.  Being a jerk is not a right that any civil rights movement will successfully claim.  It's what real civil rights movements fight against.   It's when civil rights movements claim that right that they discredit their movement.  It's when you know it's time for the real adults to take it back.