Rape Culture

A self-described vegan-eco-friendly-anarcha-feminist-hippie-nudist posted an article entitled Demetri Martin and Rape Culture. I have no idea who Demetri Martin is, but she describes him as a comedian, one she even liked, until one show where he apparently did not live up to her standards regarding the seriousness with which rape should be dealt.

(She does not give her name, so I will have to resort to pronouns and other ellipses to identify her.)

This is how she describes part of his comedy routine on the night in question:
“a regular guy finds a time machine and goes throughout history “seducing” womyn to be a time pimp. “Seducing” is in quotes because it is really rape. at least a couple of the circumstances. Rape by circumstance of poverty.”

In the next paragraph, she says:
“The “regular guy” goes to Ireland during the potato famine with a sack of potatoes. He then approaches a womyn and comments on the famine and shows her his sack of potatoes. She is starving and in need of food and she removes her clothes and we learn he successfully “bangs” her.”

Near the end, she writes:
“I suppose it shows a lot about the culture. That if someone is starving, and you have food, it is ok to withhold that food until they perform sexual acts. This is normal, this is rape culture.”

I agree that offering food in return only for sexual favours is a deplorable act. However, I have to respectfully disagree as to this necessarily being part of “rape culture.”

Rape is generally defined as an assault of a sexual kind, one where a victim has not consented to the sexual activity he or she is being forced to commit or endure. The only possible defence against a charge of sexual assault is that the alleged victim had consented to the act and did not change his or her mind throughout. So let’s look at the word “consent.”

The relevant section of the Criminal Code of Canada pertaining to consent, as of this writing, is numbered 273.1. Subsection 273.1(1) gives the following definition of consent: “the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question.” Subsection 273.1(2) specifies further that no consent is obtained where:

(a) the agreement is expressed by the words or conduct of a person other than the complainant;
(b) the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity;
(c) the accused induces the complainant to engage in the activity by abusing a position of trust, power or authority;
(d) the complainant expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to engage in the activity; or
(e) the complainant, having consented to engage in sexual activity, expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to continue to engage in the activity.

When it comes to “rape by circumstance of poverty,” the closest thing we have is Paragraph 273.1(2)(c) above. I suppose it could be argued that the possessor of food is in a position of power over the hungry and impoverished person. Whether this would have legal standing is doubtful, but for the sake of argument, let’s assume that this is true.

When a sex worker approaches a potential customer, he or she is making the offer of sex in return for a form of payment. The potential customer can then either accept or refuse. But if the potential customer took the initiative to offer a form of payment to a sex worker in return for sex, he should also ask for proof of financial stability, or at least be allowed to see that his or her cupboards and fridge contain a certain amount of food. Otherwise, the potential customer may face a charge of sexual assault even if the sex worker gave his or her full consent.

Let’s now look at the situation where a non-sex worker is given the opportunity to receive food in exchange for sex. Like the sex worker, the non-sex worker can say yes or no. But if the non-sex worker agrees, then the potential customer should at least make sure the non-sex worker is not doing this “by circumstance of poverty.” Otherwise, the potential customer will be guilty of sexual assault.

Confused yet? Let’s go a little further.

We don’t actually know how the potential customer came to be in possession of the food. It may have been a gift. It may have been stolen. It may have been the product of hard work, either as a hunter, a fisher, a gatherer, a farmer or a purchaser. In any case, the potential customer has the food.

What if that food is the only food he or she has for a meal that day? Would it really be asking too much for something in return? If he or she could sell the food, at least he or she could use the proceeds of the sale to buy some more food. Otherwise, maybe he or she would accept a sexual encounter in exchange, and then try to find other food to replace what he or she had to pay out. Does this in itself represent a rape culture?

I know what point the author of the blog posting was trying to make. No one should ever have to perform a sexual act just to receive the necessities of life, and the jokes made by Demetri Martin were probably not respectful of that. But we all do what we have to do in order to make ends meet. So, the concept of “rape by circumstance of poverty” is rather problematic.