Rape apologism (not a real word, sorry) on a MN thread!

(227 Posts)

Sorry - a thread about a thread, but I feel that input is needed from as many people as possible, to counter some of the ridiculous things one particular poster is saying. The woman the thread is about was so drunk she was blacking out, can't remember what happened, but is sore, so is pretty sure she had sex - and someone is saying this doesn't mean she was raped!


Suelford Tue 03-Dec-13 21:24:19

This is a thread about a thread about a thread.

Brenslo Tue 03-Dec-13 21:53:03

What the legal position? Let's assume for a moment, for the sake of discussion, that she gave consent, but was so drunk she now cannot remember the event at all? Does the law say that's rape, because she was in no fit state to say yes, even though she said it. Or does the fact that consent was given mean it wasn't rape, and it's her fault for getting into that state?

From the man's point of view, how drunk is too drunk. What's the line between tipsy, drunk and paralytic? Is he meant to breathalyse her and get a reading before proceeding?

If he says he got consent, and she can't say that he didn't, I can't see the CPS getting involved in that.

According to her account, this girl was so intoxicated she doesn't remember going back to this man's house, and she cannot remember the encounter in anything but odd flashes - she was not tipsy or even drunk - she was paralytic. Someone in that condition is not fit to consent to anything.

To a man who is worried about this, I would have some simple advice - if you aren't sure your sexual partner is sober enough to give informed, sensible consent, don't have sex with them. But if someone is blacking out, falling over etc - they are not in a fit state to give consent.

Yes, suelford - if you want to be pedantic, it is a thread about a thread about a thread. I hope you feel better for having pointed that out, even if you don't have anything intelligent useful to contribute to the discussion.

It's not complex.

If she was too drunk to give consent she was too drunk to give consent. It's got nothing to do with 'fault'. It was presumably her choice to become drunk (one hopes!). In the same way, it might be my choice to marry an abusive rapist. That would not make marital rape legal, any more than this would make rape legal.

There is nothing - legally - that means valid consent is set aside and we say 'oh, it's actually ok to rape in this circumstance'.

PrufromthePru Tue 03-Dec-13 23:32:24

Interesting, so what if the male was in the same state? If he's as inebriated then surely the responsibility (or lack thereof) is equal & both should count it a lesson learned.....

scallopsrgreat Tue 03-Dec-13 23:36:41

It is a man's responsibility not to stick his penis in a woman without her consent. He is not absolved of that responsibility if he is drunk.

Not sure which two things you're equating, pru. confused

If a man is too inebriated to consent, he's too inebriated to conset.

But obviously, the responsibility isn't equal if a man is pissed and rapes a woman.

If I get in my car pissed and kill someone, I go to jail. Rightly so. That is equivalent to a man or woman who assaults someone while pissed.

If a man is pissed and rapes someone, it's still rape.

Brenslo Wed 04-Dec-13 13:11:23

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Mitchy1nge Wed 04-Dec-13 13:43:22

CPS aren't going to touch that with a bargepole.

is that what matters here, how prosecutable his actions were? confused what a fucked up response

That was my first thought too, Mitchy - what matters here is that people believe this girl, and support her through the aftermath of what happened to her.

Knowing that there are still people who believe so many of the rape myths, and are willing to make excuses for anyone who takes advantage of someone who is clearly very drunk indeed, makes me very depressed.

We are in the real world, bran.

Why do you think they won't? We've had Keir Starmer on here before and he seemed pretty clear on the fact rape is rape, and aware that spreading rape myths and pretending they're 'the real world' is damaging.

Brenslo Wed 04-Dec-13 14:09:51

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

He basically took a stranger off the street, away from her friends, and had sex with her - how can that be 'not doing much wrong'??


Mitchy1nge Wed 04-Dec-13 14:18:37

So, from a legal point of view, it's a nightmare, trying to prosecute.

last night on this thread you expressed confusion about how capacity to give consent is determined and asked for help to understand the legal context, yet now you feel qualified to pronounce it 'a nightmare, trying to prosecute'. It's almost as if you are trying to dissuade people from reporting this sort of thing.

bren, if someone is pissed enough to suffer memory lapses, they're too pissed to consent.

(I do appreciate that you admit that the man who raped a woman in this situation 'didn't do much wrong'. At least you admit it was wrong.)

ChunkyPickle Wed 04-Dec-13 14:45:34

We need to change the attitude over this just as we have over drink-driving.

It's not OK to have sex with someone when they're drunk, if you do (no matter your state) then you are risking it being rape.

Perhaps, 9/10 times you're both happy about the drunken sex, but then 9/10 times you'd probably drive home without incident as well, doesn't make either choice the right decision.

Brenslo Wed 04-Dec-13 15:37:06

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.


No one suggested feminism is about denying the man a fair trial. And perhaps if you really mean to accept that you weren't there, you should stop pretending you can imagine what must have happened, shouldn't you? And stop spinning little stories where you've decided this woman is already guilty before any of it has got to court.

ChunkyPickle Wed 04-Dec-13 15:43:37

I would be worried that my son was going out and having drunken sex with drunken women.

He could catch anything, he could be raping them, he's not being respectful of himself or the women he was sleeping with.

It's a shift in viewpoint, but it's doable - if you're drunk, if she's drunk, think very, very hard before having sex.

scallopsrgreat Wed 04-Dec-13 16:00:00

"I would be worried that my son was going out and having drunken sex with drunken women." This.

"It could be (without wanting to be called an apologist for rape) that he didn't do much wrong. he met a girl on a night out. She'd been drinking, was even drunk, as was he, but was lucid enough. They went back to his place, he asked, she said yes, and the deed was done."

That is just fiction.

I'd rather my sons didn't rape women if its OK with you, Brenslo. Not being a rapist is pretty straightforward:

Don't feel entitled to have sex with a woman because you want to.
Think about her situation and whether she is vulnerable i.e. she is a human being with feelings and everything.
It isn't all about you.

You seem to be doing a lot of thinking about the man's feelings but nothing about how this woman felt and what kind of position she was in. There always seems to be a distinct lack of empathy with women in rape cases.

And you know what, it doesn't mean its not rape if it doesn't go to court or gets thrown out. I hope you aren't teaching your sons that so long as they can get away with raping a woman then it's OK hmm

Brenslo Wed 04-Dec-13 19:14:28

LRDtheFeministDragon Wed 04-Dec-13 15:42:43

No one suggested feminism is about denying the man a fair trial. And perhaps if you really mean to accept that you weren't there, you should stop pretending you can imagine what must have happened, shouldn't you? And stop spinning little stories where you've decided this woman is already guilty before any of it has got to court.

I've never claimed I know what happened. I said none of us know, as we weren't there. I have never said the woman was guilty of anything. I have given a possible alternative version of events, that may or may not have happened. It seems to me that all on here have tried and convicted the man of rape based on one side of the story, which is a dangerous game.

I seem to be the only one prepared to come at this from both sides, to wonder what defence might be put forward in court, be it true or not. To see a possible alternative side of the sorry tale.

I've never been one for jumping on bandwagons. If that upsets anyone, then hard luck.


Except the 'blame the rape victim' bandwagon, then?

If you're not pretending to know, why are you making up one-sided stories blaming the woman, then?

(Not grinning because it's funny, btw, but because it is absurd.)

Brenslo Wed 04-Dec-13 19:35:47

I don't see much evidence of the blaming the rape victim on here, which is where we are transacting the discussion.

At no point in the alternative scenario did I blame the woman. You've made that up to bolster your argument. I've merely suggested that it is possible he thought she was lucid enough to make an informed decision. That isn't blaming her. But if true, it would absolve him.

I have not made up one sided stories blaming the woman, but you however have accepted a one sided story blaming the man! Why?

Erm ... your posts are blaming the rape victim.

You making up little stories where you pretend maybe she consented but forgot, and that that would make it somehow 'not rape' - that would be blaming the victim.

I'm not blaming the man - I don't know what happened. But I do know when a scenario is rape and when it is not. You obviously don't, or you have a vested interest in pretending rape isn't rape.

BasilBabyEater Wed 04-Dec-13 21:41:03

I've told my DS that if a woman is very drunk he shouldn't have sex with her because she may not be in a fit condition to give informed consent and that is the lowest legal and moral barrier he should consider acceptable as a human being.

I'm not bringing him up to be a rapist Brenslo. He knows that if he has penetrative sex with a ragingly drunk woman, he may be committing rape. If he doesn't want to be arrested the next day, he shouldn't do it. Same as driving - if he's had too much to drink, he'll lose his licence if he drives and gets caught.

Brenslo Wed 04-Dec-13 21:55:44


I think you might be hard of reading. Go back thru my posts and find one instance where I blame the woman, if you can. And saying I have a vested interest in pretending rape isn't rape just shows that you have run out of arguments. I do however have a vested interest in exploring all sides of an interesting (from a discussion / legal point of view) situation. Trying not to let my pre conceived prejudices of favouring the woman get in the way of objectivity.

I am not making up any stories about her maybe giving consent and forgetting. As I understand it, she is unable to say if she gave consent or not. So it's a possibility, by her own admission.

Oh, bless you.

No, I'm not 'hard of reading,' thank you dear.

I have already explained why your rape myths blame women. Read again if you don't understand, and then if you still don't understand, MN has a good and simple explanation of rape myths.

There is absolutely no 'side' to claiming that it's ok for a man to rape a woman who's so drunk she is incapable of consenting. If she's unable to say if she gave consent, because she was too drunk, she was too drunk to consent. It's very, very, very simple.

Or do you drink-drive, too?

scallopsrgreat Wed 04-Dec-13 22:15:27

Most of your posts have been deleted Brenslo. Wonder why? You certainly created some scenario where she consented despite the fact she said she couldn't remember what happened. If you drink so much you can't remember you are too drunk to consent. But as Basil said that is a really low bar for a man to have.

I find it interesting that you immediately went to the law as if a conviction or whether the CPS would prosecute determines whether a rape took place. It doesn't btw, in case you're wondering. hmm

If a woman is going in and out of consciousness, what sensible person would give any weight to anything they said during a brief moment of consciousness, Brenslo? If they slurred, "I really, really lurve you and I wanna marry you" would you be expecting to post the banns/book he Registry Office the next day? Of course you wouldn't!

Someone that drunk wouldn't be allowed to consent to a surgical procedure, or to give evidence in court, or make a police statement - so how could their consent to sex be valid?

scallopsrgreat Wed 04-Dec-13 22:44:16

And really. What are men doing having sex with women that drunk?

Mitchy1nge Wed 04-Dec-13 22:52:34

brenslo as you are interested in this from 'a legal point of view' you might find the CPS guidance on consent valuable reading

Mitchy1nge Wed 04-Dec-13 22:54:21

(it suggests how drunkenness can vitiate consent in this sort of situation)

Oh, thank goodness.

Thanks, HQ.

Brenslo Thu 05-Dec-13 15:04:12

So let me get this straight, in my own mind.

A man wakes up the morning after a drunken night out, and next to him in bed is a woman he doesn't recognise, who is smiling at him and saying "good morning tiger."

On the face of it, you'd agree that this poor chap appears to have been the victim of a serious sexual assault.

DoingItForMyself Thu 05-Dec-13 15:55:03

"If a woman is going in and out of consciousness, what sensible person would give any weight to anything they said during a brief moment of consciousness"

If the man was also drunk what makes you think that his thinking was any more sensible, coherent or lucid than hers? And yet he is expected to do the thinking and the rationalising for both of them?

I have been the drunk woman in this scenario, I have found myself in situations I wish I hadn't got into, but in all-but-one of those situations, the man was also drunk and I would not have expected him to be able to judge just how drunk he thought I was or to notice whether I was 'blacking out' or just having a little nap in between times.

I was irresponsible to get so drunk that I wasn't aware of my surroundings, but I was with other stupid drunk people, some of whom were men. That didn't give anyone the right to penetrate me against my will, but if my will at the time was to go for it, even if I didn't remember afterwards, then that should not be called rape.

I'm not some hairy handed trucker, just someone trying to see both sides, but as far as I can see, it is not a man's responsibility to police a woman's sex drive and decide if she really wants sex or not, or to make judgment calls based on what he thinks she wants rather than what she is showing him and telling him that she wants. If no means no then why doesn't yes mean yes?

snowshepherd Thu 05-Dec-13 16:06:27

Is 'blacking out' memory loss the next day, black spots in memory. Or drifting in and out of a sleep state?

Brenslo Thu 05-Dec-13 16:19:40

DoingItForMyself Thu 05-Dec-13 15:55:03
I'm not some hairy handed trucker, just someone trying to see both sides,

DIFM, on this thread, trying to see it from both sides makes you a victim blaming rape apologist.

ThurlHoHoHow Thu 05-Dec-13 16:29:04

Here's an interesting one I heard recently - true but won't reveal how I heard as I don't want to make it identifiable - but two individuals were caught having sex, one with advanced dementia, and the police were called in case it was rape/assault. The decision was they couldn't prosecute as there was no way of knowing whether the individual had consented but didn't remember afterwards.

Can't work out what I think about that one. I think I agree that you can't just say anyone with dementia or any mental health issues can't have sex, but of course the potential for abuse in that situation is so high.

But how could it possibly be 'seeing it from both sides' to argue that if a woman is too drunk to consent, it doesn't matter?!

Because I cannot follow how you are saying anything else.

If anyone - male or female - is having sex, they have a basic duty to check whether the other person is consenting happily and is capable of giving consent (eg., is not pissed out of their mind, underage, etc.).

I don't see why you think this would be different if a man woke up to someone who'd taken advantage? You imagine men would somehow feel differently from women? This is one of the biggest myths around, that men somehow don't get traumatized.

BasilBabyEater Thu 05-Dec-13 17:15:21

If someone stabbed someone else while they were drunk and had no knowledge of doing so, would he not have committed the crime?

Ah, but that's not the point basil.

What if someone were drunk, and got stabbed? Maybe they asked for it. Who knows? Maybe they simply forgot that they really wanted a good stabbing.

How drunk does a man have to be, not to notice that his sexual partner is unconscious part of the time?

On a general level, I have told my sons that being so drunk you don't know what you are doing, is a very, very bad idea - because they could end up getting into hazardous or bad situations or could end up being the hazard for others (by drunk driving, for example). I have also told them specifically that I think it is not a good idea to have sex if they are drunk, and that they should NOT have sex with a partner who is drunk.

DoingItForMyself - this thread was inspired by a story on another forum, where a woman who was very drunk, was taken away from her friends on the street by a total stranger, who took her back to his home, and had sex with her - despite her being so drunk she can't remember what happened, doesn't remember the sex (but is sore) - and on that forum, people are telling her that this was not rape. It wasn't a case of two drunk people having sex, after meeting at a bar or a party, it was an abduction and rape, and it beggars belief that anyone would try to argue that it was anything less.

scallopsrgreat Thu 05-Dec-13 19:36:46

The onus is on the man not to rape, not on the woman not be raped. Men don't rape because they are drunk. They rape because they have a sense of entitlement to stick their penis in a woman whether she wants it or not. That sense of entitlement is there before they are drunk. It doesn't just magically appear when they are drunk. They may be more inclined to act on it when drunk. The vast vast majority of rapes are planned. Drink may help that plan along.

If the woman is sober and the man is drunk the onus is still on the man not to rape the woman. If both are drunk then the onus is still on the man to not rape the woman. I don't understand why people don't get this? Is it because you don't want men to take responsibility for their actions?

Brenslo Thu 05-Dec-13 21:46:39


The stabbing analogy is beyond daft, because people tend not to happily enjoy and consent to being stabbed, sober or drunk. If someone is stabbed when drunk, then it's pretty obvious they didn't consent to it, regardless of their memory of the event. Sex, unlike stabbing, is something people do consent to.

People tend not to enjoy being raped, sober or drunk.

Amazed that is news to you.

Or are you one of the 'oh, rape is just sex as a surprise!' band?

MistAllChuckingFrighty Thu 05-Dec-13 22:20:08

Bren, do you realise that your last post gives the impression that you equate rape with sex ?

Mitchy1nge Thu 05-Dec-13 22:40:15

Sex, unlike stabbing, is something people do consent to. but I just can't help thinking of R v Brown (93? ish) and how people can (but can't) consent to that sort of thing Brenslo

Mitchy1nge Thu 05-Dec-13 22:40:49

people are just very fucking strange aren't they

MistAllChuckingFrighty Thu 05-Dec-13 22:56:49

strange and really fucking scary just about covers it

Brenslo - do you think people happily enjoy being raped?? Do you really not understand that rape and consensual sex are worlds apart - and the only people who believe that rape and consensual sex are not that different from each other, are rape apologists.

BasilBabyEater Fri 06-Dec-13 00:40:58

Brenslo are you deliberately missing the point of that stabbing analogy? It's nothing to do with consent, it's about whether you are responsible for a crime if you are drunk. In other words, it's about the perpetrator's behaviour, not that of the victim. Being penetrated without your consent, is not a crime. Penetrating someone without their consent, is a crime. Being stabbed is not a crime. Stabbing someone is. Are you following?

snowshepherd Fri 06-Dec-13 03:01:50

I think I get the analogy. But if you are drunk and stab someone you are guilty. You might not remember doing it in the morning or you may not remember why you did it. You will probably regret it. Ultimately if you don't remember you won't know.
I think everyone agrees you don't have sex with someone that is not consenting. I think that is down to reading that person. Whether you believe what they are saying or agreeing to.
There are grey areas within each scenario. The problems is that rapists will prey on people and exploit these grey areas.

claraschu Fri 06-Dec-13 03:19:43

Is it always illegal to have sex with a drunk person?

Drunk people are unable to give consent, so they should be treated as under 16s, in this case.

I guess it should also be illegal to have sex with anyone else deemed incapable of giving consent, for whatever reason (dementia, etc).

By the way, I don't agree with this, but am pointing out tht this is the logical conclusion.

scallopsrgreat Fri 06-Dec-13 08:05:50

You don't agree with not having 'sex' with someone who can't consent? You sound delightful.

mayorquimby Fri 06-Dec-13 08:32:52

"Is it always illegal to have sex with a drunk person? "

No it's not.
There's a distinction between being drunk and being intoxicated to the point where you can't give valid consent or are essentially autonomous.

I think that the specifics of the op almost certainly point to tape having occurred and this being the case.

I also think that a chance to have the general principals aside from the op on drunkeness and an ability to give valid consent has at this point passed due to some utterly bizarre analogies and scenarios being presented and now argued

mayorquimby Fri 06-Dec-13 08:33:41

Wait just re-read that last line.

Beatrixparty Fri 06-Dec-13 08:50:12


The spanner case was exceptional. Has a rule, people don't generally consent to wounding/gbh.

So why are you picking on Brenslo ?

scallopsrgreat Fri 06-Dec-13 08:51:54

No there are no grey areas. It is up to the to gain consented not through coercion or threats. Why are people finding it so hard to grasp that? It really isn't that hard unless you feel entitled to having sex with women. If you are unsure don't. If the woman is drunk, don't. Why is that so hard? You aren't entitled to stick your penis into a woman because you want to and they may or may not be consenting.

Rape doesn't occur because of 'grey area's. Rape occurs because rapists don't care about consent or the welfare of women.

scallopsrgreat Fri 06-Dec-13 08:53:43

It is up to the man that is supposed to say.

Mitchy1nge Fri 06-Dec-13 09:13:57

why, am I picking on her?

Beatrixparty Fri 06-Dec-13 09:17:26

Yes - It seems to me.

Mitchy1nge Fri 06-Dec-13 09:26:29

she has said (although it is difficult because most of her posts have vanished) that on the one hand it would be a nightmare to prosecute a case like this and on the other expressed anxiety about the poor innocent chaps just happily porking away at semi-conscious flesh and then getting into trouble for it (I paraphrase), and that it is 'obvious' what people can and can't consent to when it's not only not obvious but subject to constant refinement in case law or even further legislative change in future - who knows

but the main thing is that she has been posting bizarrely and it's difficult not to respond, the subject of the discussion is someone who was probably seriously sexually assaulted - what sort of person starts thinking about the welfare of the unknown mystery assailant and the likelihood of a successful prosecution? isn't your first thought her health and well being, and maybe the pros of reporting it to the police so that evidence can be gathered and questions can be asked.

Brenslo Fri 06-Dec-13 09:42:00

MistAllChuckingFrighty Thu 05-Dec-13 22:20:08
Bren, do you realise that your last post gives the impression that you equate rape with sex ?

That's a bizarre interpretation. What I am saying is that to compare stabbing with rape is bonkers. Because rape is penetration without consent, and it's the consent that's the key issue. Because penetration with consent is an everyday activity that people enjoy. Stabbing never has consent. So the question of consent is never an issue. I've never known a stabber go to court and say "they asked to be stabbed, and I'd stabbed them several times in the past and they were quite happy with it."

So it's a stupid analogy.

Beatrixparty Fri 06-Dec-13 09:58:52


Rape cases are often difficult cases to successfully prosecute. She was stating the obvious. In the CPS guidance that you linked to, it refers to the appeal case of R v Bree, there Lord Judge at para.36 states

“For these reasons, notwithstanding criticisms of the statutory provisions, in our view the 2003 Act provides a clear definition of "consent" for the purposes of the law of rape, and by defining it with reference to "capacity to make that choice", sufficiently addresses the issue of consent in the context of voluntary consumption of alcohol by the complainant. The problems do not arise from the legal principles. *They lie with infinite circumstances of human behaviour, usually taking place in private without independent evidence, and the consequent difficulties of proving this very serious offence.*”

Pretty much what Brenslo seems to have meant.

I read her responses – including those now deleted. I didn’t make special note of them as it didn’t occur to me that they would be removed (or that I might have wished to refer to them) but it seemed to me she was concerned that miscarriages of justice weren’t committed. Wasn’t she saying that the complainant might have consented but then as a result of intoxication forgotten about it? Is it a possibility? Again, facts for a properly directed jury to determine?

Also, the Brown case – I’d bet you could pop your head into any Crown Court in the Country and not find any GBH case where the mitigation would be that the injured person had consented.

DoingItForMyself Fri 06-Dec-13 10:03:36

"No there are no grey areas. It is up to the man to gain consent not through coercion or threats. Why are people finding it so hard to grasp that? "

People are finding it hard to grasp that because nobody knows if the man did or did not gain consent, because nobody else was there. Even the woman who WAS there doesn't know whether she gave consent, so it is not surprising that some people are finding it difficult to grasp the issue of consent - it IS a grey area because consent may or may not have been given.

However, because the woman has subsequently forgotten, it is automatically deemed that she did NOT give consent. It is presuming guilt on the man's part with no way of ever being able to prove his innocence, rather than presuming innocence until proven guilty, which is the way any other crime would be judged.

That a man has to decide if a woman who has obviously been drinking, is a bit drunk, quite drunk, exceedingly drunk or too drunk to meaningfully give consent to something, even if she appears willing and happy to do it, puts a huge burden of responsibility onto the man and absolutely none onto the woman. As a mother of sons (& a daughter) I find that abhorrent.

I don't recall ever actually saying the words "I consent to you penetrating me" before sex - it is an assumption which is made by both parties based on the actions and reactions of the other.

DoingItForMyself Fri 06-Dec-13 10:13:32

Okay, being a thread about a thread about a thread, I hadn't gone back over the previous information. From what was being discussed on here, I stand by what I have stated.

However, in the particular incident that prompted the previous thread, then yes, that is definitely dodgy, given that the woman hadn't even met this man whose flat she was taken to, then I would suggest it is highly likely she was taken there specifically to be raped.

Mitchy1nge Fri 06-Dec-13 10:20:08

is Bree the case where the consent was given but vitiated by intoxication? maybe not

it is interesting, but a long way down the road for someone who wakes up in the state we imagine from the opening post on this thread and for someone's thoughts to fly immediately to the defence of the person who likes fucking drunk people rather than 'shit, hope she is ok, has she reported it to the police' is fucked up

it is irresponsible to post material that might dissuade victims of serious sexual assault from reporting the incident or at least seeking medical or other help and I don't understand why anyone would do that, why attempt to frame a discussion about an awful experience someone has had into yet another chat about men being unfairly accused - as if men don't get raped too

Brenslo Fri 06-Dec-13 10:38:53

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Mitchy1nge Fri 06-Dec-13 10:43:30

so what are you saying, men mustn't drink alcohol at all in case they end up not knowing the difference between someone is awake and well up for some shagging or not?

it seems a bit extreme and unfair on men who are able to drink and still conduct themselves like a decent human being

Claraschu - are you saying that you think it is OK for someone to have sex with a person who is suffering from demetia, and this would not be rape? I really, really hope I have read this wrong.

Picture this scenario - your aged grandmother is sadly suffering from dementia - she thinks she is 20 again, and the male carer who has come into her room is her newly-wed husband - so she consents to have sex with him. Would you (or any decent, rational person) think this was OK?

I would not think it was OK, because the 'consent' given was not informed consent - she didn't know that she is not a newly-wed twenty-something, making love with her husband - and she is not giving consent for a HCA she barely knows, and doesn't recognise to have sex with her. Therefore that would be rape - and a huge betrayal of trust. He would have taken massive advantage of her frailty and mental confusion to get her to do something she wouldn't otherwise do.

Mitchy - I have advised my sons that drunken sex is a very bad idea - but I am using drunken to mean very drunk, not someone who has had a glass or two of wine. I suppose, if you are not fit to drive a car, you should think twice before having sex - maybe that is a reasonable rule of thumb.

DoingIT - looking at the specific actions of the man in the account from the other forum before the sex took place - because I believe they are very telling. He approached a total stranger on the street, and took her back to his house, away from her friends - they didn't meet at the pub or a party or even the bus stop and have a chat, then go back to his house - he basically abducted her because she was very inebriated and didn't have the ability to stop him taking her wherever he wanted. That is my interpretation of what happened, based on the facts she gave.

Does that sound like he had any respect for her at all? Or any consideration?

To me, it sounds as if he saw a girl who was incredibly vulnerable, because of how drunk he was, and he took full advantage of that to get her to go to his house with him. Does that sound like the sort of chap who would care if her consent was slurred out in a brief moment of consciousness? Or someone who would care at all about whether she wanted sex with a total stranger?

Beatrixparty Fri 06-Dec-13 11:00:23


I read the report of Bree from BAILII yesterday. it was (I hope) an atypical case, where the CPS started prosecuting it on the basis that the complainant was unconscious at the relevant time and therefore consent could not have been given at that time, but then the CPS changed its direction, and said that she had been conscious and had indicated that she did not consent. The defence was that she was consenting and had reacted fairly enthusiastic. The jury convicted but the conviction was quashed because of poor direction from the trial Judge. Not sure if the case was retried. Here 'M' is the complainant.

From Bree..At para 20...

at the start of the trial the prosecution alleged that the appellant raped M when her level of intoxication was so great that she was effectively unconscious. She lacked the capacity to consent, and therefore did not consent. However, by the end of the evidence, the prosecution case against the appellant had changed. The jury were no longer invited to conclude that M had been unable to consent to intercourse because she was unconscious, rather, the prosecution accepted that the gaps in her recollection were probably the result of intoxication, and lack of memory, rather than unconsciousness. The prosecution case, therefore, was not that the complainant lacked the capacity to consent, but that she did not in fact consent to intercourse. Her ability to resist was hampered by the effects of alcohol, but her capacity to consent remained. She knew what was happening. She knew that she did not want to have sexual intercourse, and so far as she could, made that clear. The appellant's case, as we have indicated, was unchanged from start to finish, that notwithstanding, and perhaps because of drink, M was consenting. He reasonably believed that she was.

I haven’t really looked much at the OP – was it on a different thread ?, I'm just dealing in generalities. Maybe Brenslo was too – I think she is. From what I did take from the OP and on the facts she relates – I think a jury would convict.

I would always support victims of crime reporting matters to the Police. There may be lines of investigation not immediately obvious to the complainant. e.g. In the Bree case, the complainant had a blood sample taken to evidence her alcohol readings at the time of the alleged rape. Unfortunately, one would have to get down to the Police and to have that taken pretty quickly.

The offence is a very ‘special’ offence – and therefore emotive – it is THE offence that only men can commit, and when they do so, it is very often against women. It’s also one that is often difficult to prove at trial. People are on the whole very sympathetic towards victims but in the same way are also sympathetic towards those wrongly accused. Sorting out which is which is the issue.

DoingItForMyself Fri 06-Dec-13 11:03:00

In that specific incident I completely agree, it sounds very much like the woman had no intention of meeting up with this man for sex, but was taken there without her being conscious enough to object.

However, the principle remains for me, that if the way those two people had met were different, say they met at a party, say he was a friend that she knew quite well, or even a boyfriend, then according to some people, when she woke up the next day feeling like she may have had sex, but unable to remember whether or not she had consented, then we should all cry rape because she doesn't remember if it was or not, and best to err on the side of caution eh?

To suggest that if someone has drunk too much to drive they should abstain from sex would mean that most of the women on MN would never have sex with their husbands given all the wine and gin that is regularly consumed on here.

It might be a good rule of thumb for more casual encounters, at the very least, though, Doing? Because what's the worst that will happen if someone decides they are a bit too pissed to have sex? Not having sex is not going to blight their life or someone else's.

But having drunk, ill-advised sex has all sorts of risks for both parties - even if neither party regrets the actual sex afterwards, their state of intoxication could lead them to risky behaviour, such as not using protection, that could have very real, possibly life-altering consequences.

LurcioLovesFrankie Fri 06-Dec-13 11:23:53

Can we pause and have a think about how drunk you have to be to have black outs the next day? We're not talking "slightly tipsy, inebriated enough to lose some of your inhibitions so you're prepared to grab a bloke's arse while you're dancing in a night club" drunk. We're talking "staggering, barely able to stand, unable to put together a coherent sentence, on the verge of passing out" drunk. How could any decent man (the vast majority of the male sex), even if he was a bit drunk himself, not realise that a woman (or man, for that matter) in the incoherent-staggering-verge-of-passing-out category needed to be put to bed, on their own, rather than poked like a blow-up doll because they're too passive to resist? Anyone who seriously thinks there's a grey area here is either extremely dim or being wilfully (as in with an agenda of their own) stupid. (And yes, I have known many lovely men who have gone down the "put her/him to bed safely, then retire to a safe, separate sleeping place of your own" route).

NCISaddict Fri 06-Dec-13 11:36:46

I am married and during the course of that marriage I have, on occasions. been so drunk that I don't remember the events of the evening but have had sex, have I been raped? I don't feel like I have.
There have also been occasions when my DH has been so drunk that he doesn't remember the events of the evening but I was not drunk and know that we have had sex, happily on my part but he was unable to ensure my consent or me his. Rape or not?
What happens on the occasions that we were both so drunk that neither of us remember the event but it is obvious we've had sex?
I realise that this makes us sound like permanent drunks but it hasn't happened often and we have been married for a long time but I think it is an interesting quandary.

For what it's worth I have advised my sons to never have sex with a woman who has been drinking however much she says she wants to as they cannot ensure consent. Better safe than sorry.

Mitchy1nge Fri 06-Dec-13 12:08:00

the law isn't there to catch out couples who are both perfectly happy with their existing arrangements ffs

Beatrixparty Fri 06-Dec-13 12:16:38


I agree with you and can also see LLF's point of view. Basically, that's why courts have juries - to bring the knowledge and understanding of life and everyday living of 12 persons to sit in judgement of the accused.

See also the facts in this case I've referred to Bree Case . No wonder rape trials are so difficult to prosecute.

There are regular posters on this thread and other threads in this MN section, that are firmly of the opinion (and in theory they are correct) that sex without consent IS always rape/sexual assault.

LurcioLovesFrankie Fri 06-Dec-13 12:17:01

G'ahhh! Not again. Not the "it's going to ruin my happy married sex life" argument. No it isn't. It really, really isn't.

NCIS (love the name by the way) - this is like the thing that always comes up re. discussions of initiating sex while one partner is asleep. Again, it's not bloody rocket science.

Scenario 1: You're happily married. At some stage one partner says "you know, I have a bit of a kink where I would quite like being woken up by you starting to make love to me... and don't worry, if on the odd occasion I'm not in the mood, I'll let you know, and so long as you stop if asked, which I know you will, because you're a nice person who loves and respects me, that's fine." This is perfectly OK.

Scenario 2: Abusive marriage - one partner routinely wakes the other up by "climbing aboard" despite having repeatedly been told that this is not welcome. Sexual assault/rape.

Scenario 3: The morning after the night before in what started out as a consensual one-night-stand. Just because they had sex the night before, you can't assume they'll want to have it this morning - you have to wake them and ask, and if you don't, again, sexual assault/rape.

Honestly, normal, reasonable people can quite easily tell the difference between a sexual advance which is welcomed and reciprocated and one which isn't. In fact (google the work of psychologist David Lisak on date rape) rapists can tell too - they just don't care.

LurcioLovesFrankie Fri 06-Dec-13 12:19:12

And the whole point about being paralytically drunk (the clue is in the word "paralytically") is that the person can't reciprocate - and if they're just lying there totally inert like a sack of spuds what sort of weirdo would get off on having sex with them? (The answer, in case you're struggling, is "a rapist").

Beatrixparty Fri 06-Dec-13 12:29:25


Your post of 12.08, is missing the point. The point is about how, through drink, consent may have been forgotten about the next morning in any relationship - casual or established.

We all know that rape is possible within marriage - so, if in her first paragraph, NCISaddict knows that the act of penetration occurred but it appears to have been so, without her consent - why is that not on the face of it, rape ?

As an aside too - re: statistics on sexual assault/rape - were the question to be put to her - has any one had sex with you without your consent - is the answer yes ?

Beatrixparty Fri 06-Dec-13 12:39:15


what a fantastic example of the 'straw man' argument - introducing a 'sleeping partner' - a real pleasure to see it in the flesh.

NCISaddict Fri 06-Dec-13 12:42:54

I'm not disagreeing or a rape apologist but I know that when I or my partner have been so drunk that we can't remember what we did we would not have been lying like a sack of spuds but would be giving every sign of enjoying the experience. My main problem is where both party's are incredibly drunk. So drunk you can't remember is not necessarily unable to walk/respond which applies to both sexes.
Do we have to ban drunken sex or at least advice our children not to indulge? If that's what it takes then so be it.

LurcioLovesFrankie Fri 06-Dec-13 12:44:35

Beatrix - presumably because happily married couples talk to one another, and not just in the bedroom. Can't speak for NCIS, but I could imagine a conversation the next morning which goes something like

A: 'eff me, I'm hungover
B: me too
A: did we shag last night?
B: Yeah, well kind of more of a drunken fumble, but yeah... hang on, you don't remember?
A: No.
B: Are you ok?

Then one of three scenarios
A: Yeah, course I am, drunken fumbles happen. I probably quite enjoyed it.
B: Oh, right then. (marriage proceeds quite happily with the occasional drunken fumble in future).

A: Feels a bit funny to be honest. But hell, you were drunk too. It's not the end of the world.
B: God, sorry, we'd better make sure that doesn't happen again.
(marriage proceeds quite happily with mutual agreement not to have drunken fumbles because it feels a bit weird the next morning).

A: Feels a bit funny to be honest. But hell, you were drunk too. It's not the end of the world.
B: Yeah, you shouldn't have let me get drunk in the first place, 'cos you know I'm a bit of an arse when I'm drunk.
(marriage proceeds very unhappily, B having engaged in a nice piece of victim blaming which he/she presumes gives him/her the entitlement to carry on as before).

LurcioLovesFrankie Fri 06-Dec-13 12:47:07

Cross posted, Beatrix - not a straw man at all. The whole point is that being drunk to the level of blackouts is, for most people, being drunk to the level of insensibility, which vitiates consent every bit as much as being asleep, being insensible due to being drugged.

NCISaddict Fri 06-Dec-13 12:47:18

I do not feel that I was raped, I do not know if I consented but then I guess within a normal loving relationship consent is not formal or necessarily in words but can be implied.
Equally when I was sober but my DH was very very drunk he did not actively/verbally consent but he appeared to be participating happily but did not remember it in the morning.

Mitchy1nge Fri 06-Dec-13 12:50:32

you (collectively) are moving so far beyond the spirit of the law I'm not surprised to have missed whatever the point is, obviously it is for NCIS to determine whether the sexual contact with her husband is unwanted or not and that's what the law is there to protect us from and that's when it becomes useful

LurcioLovesFrankie Fri 06-Dec-13 12:51:40

Exactly, NCIS, so (don't know the details) you're clearly in my first imagined scenario, and you and your husband are perfectly happy with what went on. No one in their right mind's going to be jumping up and down shouting "LTB".

But there are threads in relationships where something much more like my third scenario is the case. And in that case I would be saying "LTB."

And in any case, neither of these scenarios is the one being described in OP - there, a complete stranger preyed on a paralytically drunk woman too inebriated to resist, took her back to his place and raped her.

NCISaddict Fri 06-Dec-13 12:55:47

This is a very interesting discussion, in my youth, many moons ago I had a few drunken fumbles some leading to intercourse, some to passing out without ever managing to get to that point.
In a few of those incidents I came to in the morning and thought once I had worked out what had happened' I really wish I hadn't done that' but I did consent, at the time, and did participate rather enthusiastically in the event. Was my consent valid? Was his?
I wouldn't have had sex with that man if I had been sober, equally he may not have had sex with me if he had been sober, in the cold light of day we weren't attracted to each other. It's not behaviour I am particularly proud of, and probably neither was he, but was it rape?

LurcioLovesFrankie Fri 06-Dec-13 12:56:49

Actually, it's just struck me that this conversation has got shifted (as usual) to "what does a woman have to do to make it clear that she unequivocally withdraws her consent?" When actually what we need is a massive shift in mindset to "what does a man have to experience in order for him to be clear beyond all reasonable doubt that this woman does want to have sex with him?"

And my choice of "want to have sex" rather than "consent" is quite deliberate, because if all you're focussing on is consent, as others have said, that's setting the bar way too low.

Beatrixparty Fri 06-Dec-13 13:03:07


With respect, none of that goes to the general point about consent. The point of contention is this - Is it possible for two drunken and consenting (or seemingly consenting as far as the other is genuinely concerned) persons to be having sex and for at least one of them to be unable to recall being consenting, when they sober up - usually the next morning.

Because if its possible with married couples - why not with 'one night stands' ?

snowshepherd Fri 06-Dec-13 13:04:53

What about if there is consenting drunk sex between two drunk adults. Then they continue drinking after sex till they pass out. One has blackouts in the morning.

Mitchy1nge Fri 06-Dec-13 13:05:56

if you are looking back at a long or even short history of drunken sex with randoms I hope you've had yourself checked out for STIs

snowshepherd Fri 06-Dec-13 13:12:25

It was just a scenario. Many possibilities of what might happen

Mitchy1nge Fri 06-Dec-13 13:14:46

what is possible is not necessarily probable though is it?

if there is a possibility that someone has been raped, as in the circumstances that inspired this thread, then it is in the public interest for the police to investigate it and gather their evidence and identify the other party and question him and make a decision about charges and so on

if NCIS and her husband are enjoying their sex lives it's really not anyone's business but theirs and I don't understand what it has to do with this discussion at all

LurcioLovesFrankie Fri 06-Dec-13 13:15:28

Beatrix: Because with (happily) married couples you know each other, you have a long history of discussions about what you like sexually, you know how to read each other's body language, you've been drunk together before, you know each other's boundaries.

With a one-night-stand you have to err on the side of caution, because you don't know each other. If I was a bloke - and here I am making a background assumption that I would have to be slightly less paralytic, if I was still capable of getting it up - I'd be thinking "she's really out of it - is she up for it, or is it one of those drunken 'I really luff you' situations?"

The continuing drinking case snowshepherd suggests is more difficult. But that, everyone, is why we have jury trials. And I would suggest that it really isn't as complicated as some people are making out. Sure one can tie oneself up in knots with really bizarre counterexamples, but most of the time if someone is drunk to the point of passing out, you shouldn't be having sex with them. I really, really don't get why this is such a contentious view to hold.

LurcioLovesFrankie Fri 06-Dec-13 13:18:04

Mitchy: "if NCIS and her husband are enjoying their sex lives it's really not anyone's business but theirs and I don't understand what it has to do with this discussion at all"

Precisely! Why do people seem to think that any discussion of consent will inevitably lead to the instigation of a rad feminist police force watching people's activities in the bedroom and bringing prosecutions when both parties are happy about it?

Beatrixparty Fri 06-Dec-13 13:19:19


The point does not relate to NCIS per se. it's this - Is it possible to consent when under the influence of drunk and then to forget ?

Mitchy1nge Fri 06-Dec-13 13:22:22

I really do hope the woman from the thread about which the thread that this thread is about is ok. I hope she encountered people who gave at least a bit of a shit about her welfare.

Beatrixparty Fri 06-Dec-13 13:23:01

LLF @ 13:18

Re: "Precisely.....etc etc

Straw man again - has anyone here said this. See this wiki page for description of straw man

snowshepherd Fri 06-Dec-13 13:23:36

Passing out. Is completely the extreme. I think it is the drunk situations where there is difference of opinions. I'd imagine you would need a friend or someone else to tell you that you were passing out, probably the day after. I think that a rapist would divulge this to a woman

snowshepherd Fri 06-Dec-13 13:24:45


LurcioLovesFrankie Fri 06-Dec-13 13:24:51

Again, turn it round! Ask yourself under what circumstances you'd be prepared to put yourself through the sheer hell of a rape investigation and the subsequent trial. I'd argue as a woman only in the circumstances where you thought to yourself "even though I can't remember, it would be so totally out of character for me to have had sex in these circumstances, with a man like this, that I cannot believe I would have consented." And thought this with utter conviction.

NCISaddict Fri 06-Dec-13 13:25:58

The thing is I used to know men who were perfectly capable of 'getting it up' when virtually drunk to the point of passing out so the assumption does not always apply. They may well not have been capable of an orgasm but they were very capable of an erection. This is why I advise my sons not to have sex with women who are drunk, I think they are safer that way. I do not, for one moment, think that they would force themselves on a woman or indeed neglect to ask but that deciding when a woman is too drunk to consent/remember they have consented is too risky a call for them to make. Better safe than sorry in both cases.

snowshepherd Fri 06-Dec-13 13:26:58

Then just go to the police. Let them investigate

LurcioLovesFrankie Fri 06-Dec-13 13:28:10

I know what a straw man argument is. But this isn't, it's a reductio ad absurdum. Because no rape investigation or trial ever takes place without someone making a complaint to the police. Sex people are happy with, or mildly regret but chalk up as a bad experience, or suspect might be rape but don't think enough people would believe them do not lead to people reporting.

snowshepherd Fri 06-Dec-13 13:29:46

Did you find out about these men, during sex with them? Did you ever think that these paralytic men were too drunk for sex, despite the errection?

Mitchy1nge Fri 06-Dec-13 13:33:23

* Is it possible to consent when under the influence of drunk and then to forget ?* this sounds like something you should ask a neurologist or a habitual drinker or someone who is both, I don't know, is it possible?

NCISaddict Fri 06-Dec-13 13:33:39

Probably not at the time, looking back on it now with the benefit of 30 years of added experience ,yes they almost certainly were too drunk to make a rational decision.

snowshepherd Fri 06-Dec-13 13:39:08

I know it's possible to consent and not remember in other areas of life

Mitchy1nge Fri 06-Dec-13 13:45:03

the point is not really is it hypothetically possible to be well up for sex one minute and completely forget all about it the next, the point is did someone not care whether or not the woman in this situation was well up for it - or has a crime been committed, are others at risk if he is not apprehended

Beatrixparty Fri 06-Dec-13 13:45:35


We are a nation of habitual drinkers - I would think it very likely to find a few on a randomly selected jury, to pass on their experiances.

Going by my own experience, it is possible to forget. NCIS and maybe snowshepherd, it seems to me, would also say yes.

It's been good chatting with you - I'm off to work now. Bye.

snowshepherd Fri 06-Dec-13 13:49:17

Are you talking about a scenario where consent has been given and whether the other person should take that on face value.

Brenslo Fri 06-Dec-13 13:53:21

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

MistressDeeCee Fri 06-Dec-13 13:53:43

If consent was not given it is rape. If a man has sex with a drunk incoherent woman he is well aware is unable to give consent, then he is a rapist. Alcohol is not a mitigating 'free for all' circumstance. That's without going into the court side of it..as if that changes anything; there's no law that says if a woman is drunk then that's taken as 'given consent'.

Brenslo you've jumped so heavily onto the bandwagon your feet are sticking through the bottom. As I read it, you are in a longwinded 'I think I'm oh so clever & alternative way', on this thread being nasty & picky with women about a situation that is nasty to women.

What's this point about 'none of us knows?'. I mean, that's stating the obvious isn't it? That being the case I guess, this thread should be deleted; most Mumsnet threads involve situations where we aren't present.

'If that upsets anyone, hard luck'.

That'd be the day. Lord save us from keyboard warriors with a --misogynist/misogynist influenced--pseudo axe to grind who get off on making unplesant subjects even more unpleasant hmm

MistressDeeCee Fri 06-Dec-13 14:04:50

I agree with Mitchy

I hope the rape victim has found sympathy and support in RL, rather than self-appointed judges who feel it was enirely her fault, she deserved it for being drunk hence, so what if she was raped..but as the mealy-mouthed hypocrites they are, won't come right out and just say it straight.

If a man was paralyytic laid flat out & then someone came along and robbed him of money - & that person was caught - there'd be no qualms in deeming the perpetrator a thief. He stole from victim - end of story. There wouldn't be cries of 'oh the victim was drunk, so he deserved to be robbed'...

That is an excellent analogy, MistressDeeCee.

snowshepherd Fri 06-Dec-13 14:11:21

We all a agree with the being robbed scenario/being raped.
I thought we were talking about an analogy where the man was so drunk he handed over his wallet willingly to a stranger and whether that would be classed as consent to hand over the wallet.

snowshepherd Fri 06-Dec-13 14:12:11

*being raped is wrong

Mitchy1nge Fri 06-Dec-13 14:15:54

"Mitchy Are you talking about a scenario where consent has been given and whether the other person should take that on face value."

I feel like saying 'what are you chatting mate' but, yeah, what are you chatting? We are talking about a situation in which someone might have been abducted by a stranger and raped so ideally an investigation would be underway by now - to identify the stranger and determine whether or not a crime has been committed, and if there is a risk to the public.

LurcioLovesFrankie Fri 06-Dec-13 14:20:05

Thankyou, MistressDeeCee for getting the thread back on track! Basically, everything you've said seems spot on.

Mitchy1nge Fri 06-Dec-13 14:20:27

and then I suppose at some point someone will decide whether he might have done something seriously wrong or whether she could have seemed up for it and in a fit state to engage in some shagging

snowshepherd Fri 06-Dec-13 14:21:48

Sorry mitchy, crossed wires. Thought you were talking about consent in general.
Of course, if the person involved wants, an investigation should be underway.

mayorquimby Fri 06-Dec-13 14:23:23

But people aren't exclusively talking about unconscious flat out people.
There's alot of terms being used which haven't been defined or are being used interchangeably by some posters and not others.

I don't think anyone is arguing that men have a right to sex or to rape unconscious women. Which for me would be what the term paralytic refers to.

Then there's the term blackout drunk.
To me this means drinking to the point of memory loss but not necessarily unconscious. Quite often I'd think this would involve levels of intoxication that would vitiate consent but not always as from personal experience I've consented to, instigated or enthusiastically reciprocated to sexual acts while in such a state.

However this is not a get out for rapists. Blackout drunk so the woman can't remember (or man for that matter) does not mean no rape or assault has taken place.

But equally I don't think it's as definitive as some say that being blackout drunk means the person could not have possibly consented the previous night. I think that is where the debate is centred on that point.
Not unconscious, or sleeping or stumbling incoherent intoxication but rather people who despite having no memory of their actions where enthusiastic and willing participants.

I think it has moved on from the description in the op which for me seems like a clear case of rape and not even one where intoxication has vitiated consent but one where the woman gave no consent drunk or otherwise

Mitchy1nge Fri 06-Dec-13 14:23:41

anyway I am not saying that mutually enjoyable, freely engaged in sex should be criminalised and I'm glad it's not, obviously hmm I don't think many people would argue for that

claraschu Fri 06-Dec-13 14:30:28

No that's not what I meant about people with dementia (or drunk people, or people with certain mental illnesses) having sex. I was talking about the idea that someone who was suffering from dementia (or another condition which makes the idea of consent very complex) being automatically thought of as in the category with under 16s- unable to give consent.

I was pointing out that people seemed to be saying that since a drunk person is unable to give consent, it would be logical for sex with a drunk or mentally disabled person always to be illegal. I don't think it is as simple as that.

YouAreMyFavouriteWasteOfTime Fri 06-Dec-13 14:33:09

I have had sex when drunk to the point of memory loss but don't consider it rape. I wanted sex and got it.

that said, i do believe woman are raped when drunk (& it could happen to me - i am not any different than other women).

i cannot square all of the above points. the best i could say when talking about it with a friend was 'i can be predatory'.

mayorquimby Fri 06-Dec-13 14:43:52

On the dementia point, in the case of wills (and I'm not equating rape to property etc. just highlighting jurisprudence in other areas of law) it's accepted that people suffering from dementia have periods of lucidity aswell as those where reasoning is impaired.
The courts look to see if wills or gifts were made during moments of lucidity or if the decision was impaired by their illness.

scallopsrgreat Fri 06-Dec-13 15:01:35

The only person who considers classing anyone as under 16 is you claraschu. Consent isn't complex. It is an extremely low bar.

Rape is all about the man's behaviour and attitude, not the woman's.

A rapist doesn't mistake consent, he doesn't care. A decent man would not want to have sex with a vulnerable person whether that person was drunk, had dementia, asleep or whatever. This entire discussion seems to be revolving around the fact that people feel men are entitled to have sex with women. They aren't.

I'll say it again, a decent man will not rape someone because he is drunk. He will not get mixed signals or misinterpret or whatever grey areas people are insisting on just because he is drunk. He won't get mixed signals or misinterpret because the woman is drunk either. He won't rape someone because he does not feel entitled to have sex with a woman. That is not in his attitude. He isn't going to have 'sex' with a woman who is so drunk she isn't likely to remember in the morning because that's not what he's about. He doesn't want to violate a woman's boundaries so he won't.

A rapist's attitude is different. He doesn't mind crossing women's boundaries (not just physical ones either). He doesn't care whether the woman consented. He doesn't care whether someone is vulnerable.

SDTG hit the nail on the head with regards looking at this mans behaviour ahead of the scenario in his house. He'd already crossed boundaries to get the woman to come with him.

Rape really is all about the men and what they do and their underlying attitudes towards women.

Would that still apply if they had been found to be no longer competent to manage their affairs, Mayor? Dsis and I have signed up to be mum's attorneys (for finance, and for health and welfare), and this kicks in if she is no longer competent to manage her affairs - but she could still be having periods of lucidity - just not enough to be considered competent - the odd flash of recognising her relatives - that sort of thing.

But if a doctor or doctors have signed to say she isn't compentent any longer, but she gave a valuable gift to a relative stranger - would that still be allowed to stand, if they could prove she was lucid at the time, or would the over-arching fact that she had been declared no longer competent override that?

mayorquimby Fri 06-Dec-13 15:14:48

Not an expert in that area, I practice on criminal, so only remember the jurisprudence from my training.
I would have thought that if an order has already been made that they're not fit to manage their affairs then that would be the order.
I can't think of any situation that someone who'd been deemed incapable of managing their affairs would then be held to be capable.

mayorquimby Fri 06-Dec-13 15:20:23

Wrt to the stranger if she sold them something or gifted and they're a genuine bonafides 3rd party then the contract may be held valuable (that's in the case of selling) with gift then it may be different.

As I say, I'm a criminal lawyer, so not an expert. If you've already engaged a solicitor who specialises in that area then ask them.
Never take people on forums at face value when they dish out advice or expert opinion as its uncertified. It's a good source to give you thoughts or questions once you do meet your solicitor though.

Thank-you for that information, mayorquimby - it was more curiosity than anything else - at the moment, mum has a firm grasp on her marbles and shows no signs of losing any of them. When and if we reach the point where we do have to activate the Power of Attorney, we will be consulting a solicitor - that is very good advice. Ds1 is studying law at the moment, but plans to go into commercial law, so he won't be much use! winkgrin

LurcioLovesFrankie Fri 06-Dec-13 17:53:40

Scallops - thank you for saying what I was trying to say upthread, but doing so much more clearly and succinctly.

BasilBabyEater Fri 06-Dec-13 23:04:19

Scallops are you up for starting a new thread over there which focuses on men's behaviour during sex and what actually constitutes rape? Demanding that instead of looking at women's behaviour we look at men's? Because what you've just said really sums it up and because most of us were answering the rape apologists over there, that message would prob have been lost in the general melee.

Doingitformyself, I find it abhorrent that you find it abhorrent that your sons should take responsibility for not raping other people. Do everyone a favour and tell your sons not to go near anyone else's daughters if they don't know that they're responsible for preventing rape by not raping anyone eh? The idea that it is a "huge burden" on a man to keep his dick in his pants because a woman might not be capable of meaningful consent, is unbelievable. No man needs to fuck a woman just because he's feeling a bit horny, so if he likes someone who seems keen but very drunk, what's wrong with taking her number so that he can meet up with her when she's sober and can give meaningful consent to sex?

sashh Sat 07-Dec-13 09:56:23

It seems to me that all on here have tried and convicted the man of rape based on one side of the story, which is a dangerous game.

The situation described in the op on TSR is rape.

If we were a jury then we would have all the evidence to convict or acquit. But we don't, we have one account, and that is an account of rape.

*But equally I don't think it's as definitive as some say that being blackout drunk means the person could not have possibly consented the previous night. I think that is where the debate is centred on that point.
Not unconscious, or sleeping or stumbling incoherent intoxication but rather people who despite having no memory of their actions where enthusiastic and willing participants.*

Being enthusiastic and or willing is actually irreverent. If you are too drunk to consent you CANNOT consent. That is the law.

It is like the argument that a 14 year old enjoyed sex with a 40yo. The 40yo is still having sex with a child. They are still breaking the law.

scallopsrgreat Sat 07-Dec-13 10:17:05

Basil, is that on the site where the woman posted? I can do it this afternoon but I am just about to go out this morning.

mayorquimby Sat 07-Dec-13 10:32:09

"Being enthusiastic and or willing is actually irreverent. If you are too drunk to consent you CANNOT consent. That is the law."

Agreed. If the person is too drunk to consent.
Many people seem to think that being drunk to the point if memory loss definitively proves that the person was too drunk.
Others disagree and think that it is possible to drink to the point where there is memory loss the next day but that this does not necessarily mean that the person was intoxicated to the point where they can no longer validly give consent.

I don't think the two view points will reconcile or be swayed from their position so not sure where the debate goss from their.

From my personal experience I've been blackout drunk numerous times but not drunk to the point where I could not give valid consent. Others feel differently.

BasilBabyEater Sat 07-Dec-13 14:58:42

"It seems to me that all on here have tried and convicted the man of rape based on one side of the story, which is a dangerous game."

In what way is it a dangerous game? It would be if all on here were on a jury, but of course if people were on a jury they would wait to hear the other evidence before they decided whether they thought someone was guilty or not.

But we're not a jury. We're a bunch of people chatting on the interweb and there is this enormous fucking taboo about calling something rape or calling a man a rapist, even if prima facie, it looks like rape and even if he is telling you that what he did that time was in fact, rape as the law defines it.

Even in an anonymous space on the internet where nothing we say can possibly have any impact whatsoever on this unknown probable-rapist's life, women are not allowed to call out rape when they see it.

Astonishing. If you weren't a feminist and couldn't guess why.

BasilBabyEater Sat 07-Dec-13 15:03:50

Oh btw Sash was that you over there? You were awesome!

Scallops whenever you're ready. I think you said it so well and what they clearly need over there, is to be presented with the astonishing idea that maybe when it comes to rape, the best thing to do is to consider men's behaviour rather than women's.

What came across was the idea that men really are entitled to fuck a woman whether or not she wants him to and that it's only wrong to do so when she doesn't want him to, if she has specifically told him that she doesn't want him to. It's deeply depressing - there is simply no notion there of the necessity of men taking responsibility for their sexual behaviour, no notion that if you are going to have sexual activity with someone, you ought to be 100% sure that they want you to have. They clearly have no idea that if everyone isn't enjoying the sex, then they're doing it wrong. I suspect that many young women are having truly terrible sex.

MistressDeeCee Sun 08-Dec-13 02:35:58

Even in an anonymous space on the internet where nothing we say can possibly have any impact whatsoever on this unknown probable-rapist's life, women are not allowed to call out rape when they see it.

Exactly, BasilBabyEater. Well said.

There are people bullshitting around as if,its the victim's fault. As if, being drunk means a yes. As if sex is something a man can just take from a woman. There are moral obligations placed upon women that aren't placed upon men at all. The whole ideology is, if she was drunk - then, tough. If she didn't consent let's still take that as a yes as she was too drunk to say no anyway.

Of course we can't know if this man is guilty of rape. But in this circuimstance he's put himself into a difficult situation, hasn't he? How about being sure the woman you want to shag is in control of herself enough to say yes or no to you?

This thread is so sexist and judgmental in parts. Sadly,I wasn't entirely shocked by that

Beatrixparty Sun 08-Dec-13 09:17:22

Looks the Rape-Finder Generals are arunning - hopefully taking their Straw Men arguments with them, I hope.

CaptChaos Sun 08-Dec-13 10:31:48

Wow! Did you mean to be so ridiculous? I wonder why you bother with this part of the forum if you so violently disagree with it's posters views.

LurcioLovesFrankie Sun 08-Dec-13 12:20:10

Don't take it personally, Capt. As Beatrix so condescendingly explained to me yesterday, "straw man" is her googled definition of the week, and she's trying to use it in every post! (I note she still hasn't got round to googling reductio ad absurdum yet).

BasilBabyEater Sun 08-Dec-13 12:35:41

What does that post even mean Beatrix?

(Hang on, do I really care?)

sashh Sun 08-Dec-13 17:22:29


It was indeed, thank you.

I expect to be banned any time soon (from there not here).

scallopsrgreat Sun 08-Dec-13 21:53:24

Do you think it would still be appropriate to start a new thread about this in TSR? I was too lazy didn't get a chance to start one last night.

BasilCranberrySauceEater Sun 08-Dec-13 23:07:53


Was all fired up on Friday when moderators closed that thread but have descended back into apathy again. fgrin

GoshAnneGorilla Sun 08-Dec-13 23:23:39

Trigger warning: discusses a rape

Can I just add for those claiming that such cases are a nightmare for the CPS, there was a very interesting documentary earlier this year, which looked at two cases traditionally thought as difficult to convict.

One involved a women who had gone out for NYE. Her friend had stood her up, so she decided to stay in the bar and carry on drinking. She got very drunk indeed. The bouncers, caring souls that they are, threw her out. CCTV showed her lying in the street, before getting up and staggering down an alley. This was where she was attacked, afterwards (IIRC, she managed to get home and woke up feeling very sore and that some bad had happened.

Fortunately, she reported to the police, they were able to obtain DNA samples and match them and CCTV in the club showed the rapist clearly watching her.

The evidence was sufficient that there was no way she would have been in a position to consent and the rapist was found guilty.

It's possible that there may be some CCTV footage of the woman in the OP, that would show she was not in a position to consent.

scallopsrgreat Mon 09-Dec-13 00:03:59

grin Basil

I'll see how easy it is to register and make a decision!

Beatrixparty Mon 09-Dec-13 09:08:05


When there is such good evidence as that, successful prosecutions are not difficult - the problem cases are when there a lack of such evidence -thus leaving the juries without enough to reach a guilty verdict.

catsrus Mon 09-Dec-13 09:37:02

I had a close friend who was an alcoholic and I attended AA meetings to support her during her first few months - I heard stories from Airline pilots who had flown planes and did not remember doing so shock. I learned that there was a difference between an alcohol induced blackout and passing out. It is perfectly possible to appear to be functioning and coherent to people around you but to engage in activities that you don't remember the next day.Some technical stuff on brains, memory and alcohol here pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-2/186-196.htm.

Like others on this thread I have been drunk and got into sexual situations that I regretted. Each time that happened I said 'no' to penetrative sex and that 'no' was respected by the men I was with, I have no doubt that had they continued on to have sex with me it would have been rape. I remember those incidents very well.

I have once experienced an alcohol induced blackout - I have no memory of parts of an evening when I evidently was very free with my consent at prolonged snogging with my SIL confused. I believe I did it because enough family members have teased me about it over the years. I was not 'passing out drunk' cleared up all the party stuff and washed the glasses before going to bed. Would I, sober, snog my SIL? probably not. Did I consent to do it? everyone around me certainly believed I was consenting...

scallopsrgreat Mon 09-Dec-13 09:53:10

Oh well thats OK then. Clearly she wasnt raped because you snogged your SIL and have no memory of it. FFS. Would they then have raped you? Or would they have thought catrus is a bit more than merry, lets get her home?

Look at the actions of the man. This has nothing to do with what the woman did. He did not have to have sex with her. He engineered it so she was isolated from her friends and in his house. Alone. There was absolutely no need to do that. Ever.

scallopsrgreat Mon 09-Dec-13 10:00:10

And sashh I read that thread on TSR fully last night. You rock! That was amazing.

catsrus Mon 09-Dec-13 10:14:21

Sorry scallops I wasn't clear - I'm not saying she was not raped. From what I have read of that situation it looks to me like she was raped.

What I am saying is that alcohol induced blackouts are NOT the same as being comatose or falling about drunk (which is what some posters appear to be saying and I was reacting to that confusion). It is perfectly possible for someone to appear to be in full control of what they are doing but to not remember it. The lack of awareness of this difference confuses the whole debate.

scallopsrgreat Mon 09-Dec-13 14:55:39

No it doesn't. Only if you ignore the behaviour of the rapist does it confuse matters.

snowshepherd Mon 09-Dec-13 15:01:12

Scallop, I think catsrus is talking about not remembering consent or the sexual act. You are talking about a rapist.

scallopsrgreat Mon 09-Dec-13 15:02:23

Yes. That is exactly what we are talking about. The actions of the rapist.

scallopsrgreat Mon 09-Dec-13 15:03:12

Why do people keep insisting on turning it around on to what the woman did? It is the actions of the man that determines whether it is rape or not.

scallopsrgreat Mon 09-Dec-13 15:05:53

Plus both scenarious catsrus described were when drunk people did something to other people, not had something happen to them.

snowshepherd Mon 09-Dec-13 15:08:05

It's not turning it round. consenting sex does involve two people. You have to include both people. I'm not sure what is difficult to understand about that

scallopsrgreat Mon 09-Dec-13 15:14:32

But we aren't talking about consenting sex. We are arguing about degrees of drunkenness of the woman. It is ignoring the actions of the man. Would catsrus family and friends tried to have sex with her in her scenario? Does that seem even remotely likely?

snowshepherd Mon 09-Dec-13 15:19:20

Are you saying that there is no 'consenting sex' within these 'degrees of drunkeness'?

catsrus Mon 09-Dec-13 15:28:52

"Plus both scenarious catsrus described were when drunk people did something to other people, not had something happen to them." in both scenarios I was a willing participant. In the first scenario I remember stopping being willing and saying 'no'. Had I not been with decent blokes it might have ended up with something happening to me. In the second scenario I simply don't remember - I was apparently not 'off my head', certainly not trying to stop what was happening, and not falling about drunk. What if it had not been my SIL but my BIL I had been snogging? what if we were on our own? what if I had consented to going further?

I did something that I would not dream of doing while sober. I certainly was appearing to consent to what was happening to me. I simply don't remember. All I'm saying is that not remembering is not the same as having been passed out and unable to consent and that once alcohol is involved there can be blurred lines.

scallopsrgreat Mon 09-Dec-13 15:45:55

I am saying it is the actions of the man that determines whether it is rape snowshepherd.

catsrus illustrates nicely here: "In the first scenario I remember stopping being willing and saying 'no'. Had I not been with decent blokes it might have ended up with something happening to me."

catsrus - you were also doing something out of the norm for you and most people. I would imagine that most of the people at the party would have recognised that.

scallopsrgreat Mon 09-Dec-13 15:47:44

Sorry that last paragraph was referring to kissing your SIL.

I had meant the airline pilot scenario as one of the scenarios where a drunk person did something to endanger others, not have something happen to them.

snowshepherd Mon 09-Dec-13 15:49:15

Yes and the actions of both when it comes to consensual sex.

scallopsrgreat Mon 09-Dec-13 16:04:00


We aren't talking about consensual sex.

Do you feel entitled to have sex with a woman because she says yes regardless of her demeanour and state snowshepherd? Even in catsrus kissing SIL scenario there were indicators that she was drunk. Drunk enough to do things out of the ordinary.

catsrus Mon 09-Dec-13 16:11:22

I think all I'm trying to say (badly I admit!) is that 'not remembering' does not necessarily mean 'not consenting' once alcohol is involved (which some messages in the thread seem to imply).

Alcohol is a poison which affects our memory and our judgment. Because someone does not remember consenting does not mean that they did not consent and appear to be in control of themselves. Because the pilot did not remember landing the plane does not mean they did not land it and appear to be in control of themselves. The whole issue of consent gets very muddy once alcohol is involved - we use it all the time to lower our inhibitions ('dutch courage') and many people are able to function apparently 'not very drunk' but not remember anything the next day.

snowshepherd Mon 09-Dec-13 16:14:34

No entitlement to have sex. I also have the right to say no.
You are arguing from the point of view of a guaranteed rape. Everyone on this thread agrees to wrongness of that and that they should be dealt with.
The thread, I thought, had moved on to people's experiences/definitions of 'blackspots', drunken consent.

Scallop, just clear up, do you think you can consent and not remember?

scallopsrgreat Mon 09-Dec-13 16:31:59

"You are arguing from the point of view of a guaranteed rape." I don't really understand what you mean by that. I am saying that the actions of the man are more telling than the behaviour of the woman.

"Scallop, just clear up, do you think you can consent and not remember?" Why do you think that is so important? Do you think there are lots of women out there wanting to trick men into having sex with them so that they can cry rape? Because that is what it is coming over like. I think if someone is drunk enough that they can't remember there are plenty of indicators of that. Its just that rapists ignore those or don't care or in the case of the woman on TSR see it as a green light.

catsrus - you have no way of knowing whether they appeared to be in control of themselves and neither do they. Just as you have no way of knowing whether you appeared to be in control of yourself. The fact that you did somethig out of the ordinary would suggest not.

scallopsrgreat Mon 09-Dec-13 16:37:44

I also think that if you wake up in the morning thinking that something has happened that you didn't consent to, you probably didn't consent to it.

snowshepherd Mon 09-Dec-13 16:43:18

You were using the term 'rapist', when we were talking about drunken consent. Rapist is pretty conclusive.
I think by you not answering the question, you kind of answer it. I understand why you wouldn't want to answer.

I personally think consent is very important. I really don't understand why you don't think it's important hmm

scallopsrgreat Mon 09-Dec-13 16:53:57

I used the term rapist when talking about rape, snowshepherd.

I have answered the question.

I do think consent is important. It is rapists who don't. But it is a low bar to have (as I have already said). And it isn't consent that you seem to find so important. It is a specific, quite rare scenario.

snowshepherd Mon 09-Dec-13 17:00:42

I'm concerned with all scenarios. Like I have said.
I'm not sure you answered the question, I'll ask again. Yes or no, can you consent and not remember?

scallopsrgreat Mon 09-Dec-13 17:08:23

I couldn't no.

snowshepherd Mon 09-Dec-13 17:11:48

I agree. So it's hard for anyone to know. It's impossible to assume one way or another. You might say that part of consent is a 'grey area'.

Beatrixparty Mon 09-Dec-13 17:12:44


Please answer snowshepherd's question - do you think you can consent and not remember It's obviously not a case of 'crying wolf' as the crucial point is that the woman has genuinely forgotten that she had consented. It really is not a difficult concept, is it ?.

For the avoidance of doubt, this is a general question not one relating to the OP - everyone agrees that the woman there in that case appears to have been deliberately lifted in order for the man to have non-consensual sex with her.

scallopsrgreat Mon 09-Dec-13 17:14:36

No I wouldn't for the reasons stated above. There are other indicators of drunkenness, if you want to see them. And the true indicators of rape come from the man.

scallopsrgreat Mon 09-Dec-13 17:14:59

Go away Beatrix. I have answered the bloody question.

scallopsrgreat Mon 09-Dec-13 17:15:46

"is that the woman has genuinely forgotten that she had consented" No she didn't consent. She was too drunk to consent.

Beatrixparty Mon 09-Dec-13 17:19:09


Temper Temper - it was a cross-post, I hadn't seen the posts made after 16.30ish

snowshepherd Mon 09-Dec-13 17:20:34

No I wouldn't for the reasons stated above. There are other indicators of drunkenness, if you want to see them. And the true indicators of rape come from the man

So if someone indicates that they are drunk then they cannot have sex? But you also said drunk people can, sometimes, consent.

Beatrixparty Mon 09-Dec-13 17:23:16


is that the woman has genuinely forgotten that she had consented" No she didn't consent. She was too drunk to consent

You are being deliberately obtuse - there is no actual woman in the question. It's a general question.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Mon 09-Dec-13 19:20:04

I'm wondering what laboured point snowshepherd is trying to make here.

There is no grey area to consent. Only rapists or rape apologists try to make out there is.

snowshepherd Mon 09-Dec-13 19:32:37

I didn't say that mullholland. There is either consent or no consent. Within that there can be grey areas when trying to establish this during an investigation.

I was trying to get scallop to define what they believed about drunken consent and other things on this thread, so that we could discuss it. Scallop didn't seem to want to so the thread stalled.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Mon 09-Dec-13 19:44:31

Why were you trying to do that? scallops has made her position perfectly clear.

Don't you think it's up to the man to ensure that the woman isn't too drunk to consent? Hint - rapists don't care. Men that aren't rapists do.

snowshepherd Mon 09-Dec-13 19:49:40

Yes, of course it is up to the man!! That's not what we have been discussing.

No, scallop wasn't clear about drunk sex, drunk consent, blackouts, etc. hence why I was trying to establish that. It was important to help me understand her position. Everyone sees this area differently

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Mon 09-Dec-13 19:54:58

Scallops posts were perfectly clear to me.

If it's up to the man to ensure that the woman is not too drunk to be consenting to sex, then why is your question to scallops even relevant?

snowshepherd Mon 09-Dec-13 19:58:28

It was relevant to the topic. Hence asking the question.

Can you define 'too drunk'? Do you think you can have black spots in your memory without being 'too drunk'?

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Mon 09-Dec-13 20:01:34

No, I don't. Black spots in the memory are exactly an indicator of being 'too drunk.'

However, that is totally irrelevant - as the man has no idea whether the woman will have black spots in her memory in the morning, or not.

JoTheHot Mon 09-Dec-13 20:02:52

What an absurd post. The distinction between drunken sex and rape are not clear-cut either morally or legally.

When you are sober, you can consent (white). When you are paralytic you can not (black). As you drink, your capacity to choose is gradually eroded (grey).

Do you seriously believe in a threshold effect, such that someone can drink x pints and have the capacity to choose, but x pints plus 1 mouthful and be incapacitated, and furthermore that all concerned can reliably identify this threshold? This is what your assertion that there is no grey area implies.

snowshepherd Mon 09-Dec-13 20:04:34

So you can not consent if you can't remember, finally someone can give an answer.

You use the words 'too drunk'. Can you define that term?

scallopsrgreat Mon 09-Dec-13 20:12:11

Snowshepherd, I haven't said drunk people can sometimes consent.

Beatrix, I wasn't being deliberately obtuse, I just didn't read properly.

And both of you, I already answered snowshepherd's question about 5 days ago - Wed 04-Dec-13 22:15:27 yet you saw fit to insist on another answer and made it personal.

I have been very clear that it is the actions of the man we should be looking at. Introducing 'grey areas' starts absolving men of their responsibility. Creating fictitious scenarios absolves men of their responsibility. You don't have to have sex with a drunk woman. Really you don't. Stop making it hard.

snowshepherd Mon 09-Dec-13 20:14:13

You answer was, you can't know/probably not. No definitive answer

BasilCranberrySauceEater Mon 09-Dec-13 20:20:17

Ah yes, the grey area, the rapist's safe space. The space where he can get away with rape and not even have it recognised as rape.

Here's the thing. If you're in a grey area with someone in any other walk of life and there is a massive power imbalance between you or they are particularly vulnerable, you don't just decide to do what you want and rely on them to tell you they don't want to do it, do you? You err on the side of caution. You create the space to enable them to express what they want clearly, so that you don't bully them or strong-arm them into doing something you want to do but you are conscious that they might not. Because you are a decent person.

Only men in sexual situations with women, are not expected to behave like decent people in every other area of life behave. The main concern most people have, is not that men do not behave badly, but that we must not at all costs, call them rapists when they behave badly. Why is that then?

BasilCranberrySauceEater Mon 09-Dec-13 20:22:19

You know, this thing of alcoholic behaviour causing blackouts is true, but it is only true at a certain point of alcoholism. I have known many alcoholics and yes, people do things in blackout and appear stone cold sober to someone who isn't too close to them, but they are raging alcoholics by the time they get to that stage.

Someone who drinks normally, does not go into blackout without other very clear signs of drunkenness.

GimmeDaBoobehz Mon 09-Dec-13 20:24:35

I think the definition of consent is very confusing at best.

If the statement that if you are too drunk to say yes is true then I have been raped by 2 people and also sexually assaulted by 2. I don't like to think of it as that. Although 1 rape and 1 sexual assault I agree was rape, as I had said to stop doing that or was underage. I do agree though that when drunk you can't give consent but I'd find it more a stationary rape than just rape. I'm not making much sense tonight, sorry. I mean most woman wouldn't like to see what happened to them as rape, because rape is such a dirty and provocative word.

I don't agree it's always the onus on the man. What about if the man is drunk and the woman is either sober or drunk and she touches him and he doesn't give permission to her? Does him being 'up' make it consent, because if so that's ridiculous and very wrong. If she has sex with him and he doesn't say yes or he does say no or he passes out/talks so slurred he's incoherent then surely the woman has raped the man or at very least, sexually assaulted him?

I am disgusted by some of those posters on that website by the way. It makes me feel sad that people can even think like that.

snowshepherd Mon 09-Dec-13 20:26:35

I think you should prosecute rapist, I think sentencing should be harsher, and victims should get more support.

The points we are discussing is what is 'too drunk' (as sab says)? I agree don't have sex with drunk people, what is a drunk person?
You have clear driving alcohol limits, you have clear age limits. I'm interested in people's interpretations

BasilCranberrySauceEater Mon 09-Dec-13 20:36:30

I think a good rule of thumb is that if you wouldn't want to get into a car with them driving, then you probably shouldn't be fucking them. Because having sex with someone can be at least as serious a decision as driving 2 tons of metal and if you don't know the person very well, then err on the side of caution - on the side of assuming that having sex is a big thing for them.

But no one requires men to have that bar. They just need to be able to legally get away with rape for most people to feel their behaviour has no moral implications whatsoever.

It's fucking sickening.

snowshepherd Mon 09-Dec-13 20:39:43

So 1 pint of lager or a small glass of wine. Something around that? At that point consent can't be given?

BasilCranberrySauceEater Mon 09-Dec-13 20:44:24

I expect for some people consent can be given.

But I'm not interested in consent. I'm interested in enthusiastic participation.

I'm not interested in finding the lowest bar I can, to get away with sexually assaulting someone who wouldn't otherwise fuck me, without my behaviour being recognised as sexual assault. I'm interested in every single sexual encounter I ever engage in, being fully consensual on both sides.

Hey, imagine that. I don't ever want to fuck someone who doesn't really want to fuck me. Imagine if we taught our sons that that's the lowest bar they should aim for. We'd abolish rape.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Mon 09-Dec-13 20:48:12

Yes, Basil.


snowshepherd Mon 09-Dec-13 20:51:37

Of course you should teach your sons that. I hope you are.

I think if you consider consent being void if a couple of drinks have been taken. Then I would think that rape/sexual assault will be up around 90% of British adults. I know that I have been sexually assaulted more than once under this rule of thumb and probably raped.

BasilCranberrySauceEater Mon 09-Dec-13 21:04:13

It isn't a rule of thumb as to whether a rape has taken place or not.

It is a rule of thumb a decent person should bear in mind in order to avoid causing horrendous pain to another person.

scallopsrgreat Mon 09-Dec-13 21:08:04

"You answer was, you can't know/probably not. No definitive answer" No it wasn't. The only non-definitive statement I made was about a woman's feelings if she woke up the next morning thinking something had happened that she hadn't consented too. And the only reason for that is that I was not presuming to tell another woman how she should feel about her experience. And as you told me that hadn't answered the question I am not sure why you are citing it.

As I said 5 days ago and from a personal perspective, I think if you are too drunk to remember you are too drunk to consent. I hope answering the question three times for you is quite enough for you now snowshepherd.

BasilCranberrySauceEater Mon 09-Dec-13 21:16:28

Did you not see the sentence "I expect for some people consent can be given", snowshepherd?

Why are you so obsessed with trying to pin down the line where drunken sex= rape when that is impossible to pin down because it will depend on a number of factors, rather than discussing what the basic standard of common decency would be?

If everyone strove to be decent, instead of to get consent, there wouldn't be a problem.

scallopsrgreat Mon 09-Dec-13 21:39:13

"Why are you so obsessed with trying to pin down the line where drunken sex= rape when that is impossible to pin down because it will depend on a number of factors, rather than discussing what the basic standard of common decency would be?" Yes I'd like to know that?

"If everyone strove to be decent, instead of to get consent, there wouldn't be a problem." Yep. That.

Beatrixparty Tue 10-Dec-13 09:03:56


As I said 5 days ago and from a personal perspective, I think if you are too drunk to remember you are too drunk to consent. I hope answering the question three times for you is quite enough for you now snowshepherd.

The trouble with that is, its a judgement made in hindsight - you cannot know whether the man or woman was to drunk to remember, until the next morning (usually) - when they have either forgotten or not, as the case may be. (Dear me...)

Beatrixparty Tue 10-Dec-13 09:04:49

Sorry - should be 'too drunk'

scallopsrgreat Tue 10-Dec-13 09:28:40

Well exactly Beatrix. So why ask the question? Why the fixation on it? As Basil says (and I did) there are many other indicators.

scallopsrgreat Tue 10-Dec-13 09:29:36

It was also a point that Sabrina made further up the thread too. Do we continually have to repeat ourselves?

Beatrixparty Tue 10-Dec-13 09:54:48

We do seem to be going around in circles.....

BuffytheElfSquisher Tue 10-Dec-13 20:25:50

Why are you so obsessed with trying to pin down the line where drunken sex= rape when that is impossible to pin down

It seems to me that the aim is to create a terms of reference that will allow men to have sex with women comfortable in the knowledge that they aren't in a legal sense (rather than a moral one) raping them.

My question is why would they want to?

I am curious to know (but of course it's very unlikely we ever will) how many rapes would be investigated by the police if our default position was to believe women who say that they had sex they didn't consent to, rather than the default mode being disbelief.

Before we get back onto hysterical accusations of denying promising young men a fair trial, no, I'm not saying convict every man accused of rape, merely investigate it. Properly. Thoroughly. Would this be a terrible thing? And if so, why?

Mitchy1nge Tue 10-Dec-13 20:28:54

I think someone just wants a soundbite.

Mitchy1nge Tue 10-Dec-13 20:29:31

sound bite


BuffytheElfSquisher Tue 10-Dec-13 22:06:57


Beatrixparty Wed 11-Dec-13 09:04:38


The default position of the Police ought to be to take all allegations of criminal offences seriously and to investigate them accordingly - not sure, though, if you can make the Police 'believe' allegations.

It is a human right (Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998) in this county that all those prosecuted by the Crown should have a fair trail, whether they be promising or not, young or not, men or not - and to insist on this human right ought never to be flippantly dismissed as hysteria.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Wed 11-Dec-13 10:12:06

Nobody's suggesting for a moment that people shouldn't have a fair trial.

Sadly though, evidence suggests that a substantial number of reported rapes are not investigated properly, end up 'no crimed' or don't get to court. Considering the majority of rapes are never even reported, thats an awful lot of rapists walking free.

I'd say it has everything to do with the police believing victims when they report - John Worbuoys was free to rape women over and over again because the police did not believe the victims that did come forward.

BuffytheElfSquisher Wed 11-Dec-13 13:51:19

Yeah Beatrix but on this board the accusation that feminists want to deny men a fair trial is levelled. It is this accusation that I find hysterical, not, as you claim, people who insist upon this fundamental human right. Was my meaning not clear in some way?

Mitchy1nge Wed 11-Dec-13 14:10:22

why does everyone keep leaping ahead to the imaginary trial anyway, people were talking about the CPS and jurors before expressing any concern about the woman in question

fucking weirdos

BuffytheElfSquisher Wed 11-Dec-13 15:15:32

Well I can only tell you why I mentioned a trial.

I mentioned it because when I've participated in other discussions about rape, the notion that the default mode should be belief in what the woman is saying (firstly, because who would put themselves through the horror of an investigation if they didn't have to, and secondly because the rates of malicious accusation seem to be on a par - or slightly lower - than that of other crimes) the next stage in the discussion is to accuse feminism and feminists of wanting the law changed so that men are guilty until proven innocent.

I was just pre-empting that argument.

Mitchy1nge Wed 11-Dec-13 21:29:09

I didn't mean that sort of thing, but from the very outset of this thread people weighing up the probability of the man facing any sort of prosecution and if so the probability of its success - a peculiarly inhumane initial response isn't it

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now