'A woman who drinks to get drunk is deliberatly endagering herself and inviting rape' Oh my Gosh

Thing is, I don't think young women do need to become more aware of the fact that getting drunk makes them vulnerable to rape; most women are absolutely attuned to their vulnerability to rape, from when they first discover what rape is. But I don't think young men are attuned to the notion that they may become perpetrators, partly because of the habit our culture has of maknig out rapists to be monsters who aren't connected with other men in any way shape or form.

I agree SGM

We don't just have a rape culture, we do have an alcoholic culture as well.

Going out to get pissed, is a very peculiar thing to do when you think about it. But in our culture, it is absolutely normal and expected, and you are treated as a bit of a wierdo if you just want to have one or two drinks - that is actually wierder than saying you're not having any at all, because you're driving, or you've still got a hangover from the night before or something.

Dittany are you really saying that group sex and gang rape are one and the same?

Well exactly, beckon people over, smile and grope them, fondle them, touch them, kiss them, show every sign of relish in what is going on. You know, like how sex is.

If a woman isn't doing that then you can't assume she is consenting IMO and need to check verbally.

Also, in a group situation, to consent to sex with each individual with non-verbal messages alone, you would have to either walk up to each man and start touching him, or at least point or gesture towards each man. How else can you actively nonverbally consensually select partners in group sex?

I don't think it is ridiculous if the man is drunk. I find it hard to make judgements about what people are trying to express when I am drunk, and I assume that is a fairly common problem. So I do think that a drunk man could rape someone because he was not capable of making a judgement about consent.

I again come back to the point that none of us are familiar with this case except the poster that mentioned it. She herself has said that a sober person might have questioned the woman's ability to consent. In that case, the consent cannot have been that obvious or straightforward.

I am not putting women forward as passive - it could be the case that a woman could sexually assault a man while both were drunk, if she was actively sexually engaged with him while he was lying on the ground in a drunken state.

If a woman isn't doing anything to express consent, verbally or by enthusiastically joining in, then the presumption needs to be nonconsent. That's where it's wrong.

A woman who is lying there passively / not engaging with what's going on etc cannot be presumed by anyone to be consenting.

But all of this sees women as passive. In a group sex situation, it is fairly obvious whether people are enthusiastically enjoying themselves and consenting or not. It doesn't need to be verbal consent. It goes back to this idea that men can't tell the difference between women who are enthusiastically enjoying themselves and consenting and women who are not, and that's ridiculous.

The poster herself (who is the only one actually familiar with the case) said:

Some men who were not quite so drunk might pause long enough to consider whether or not the woman was really sober enough to give meaningful consent.

I think that is the point. You do not, in legal cases according to the CPS, have to be unconscious. They say that a person loses the capacity to consent some time before they are actually unconscious. The poster says that a sober person may question the woman's capacity (meaningful consent).

Being drunk is not a justification for ignoring someone's capacity. That is why we should all be teaching our sons not to have sex with someone unless they absolutely certain that they are able to make a sound judgement about the other person's capacity.

I don't think it is that simple ISNT. For rape to occur, then the person 'agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice' but there is no definition in the Sexual Offences act as to what constitutes capacity.

So a lot is decided on a case by case basis. For this not to have been rape, given the intoxication of the woman, she would have had to say between each man having sex with her, "I want to have sex with person X now." Taking your underwear off or even propositioning someone (if that is what happened) is not consent to every man after that.

And I have no issue with that just in the case spoken of there technically isn't any legal implications as the woman gave both physical and verbal consent. The situation sounds very dodgy except in this case there was footage and audio which shows that it was not.

Saltatrix, I don't think women and men have a different responsibility when drunk. It is a crime to put your penis in someone if they are too drunk to be capable of consent. It is a crime to do so if you are drunk, on drugs or perfectly sober. It would be a crime for a woman to use an implement to penetrate a man who was too drunk to be capable of consent.

On the other hand, someone who is lying down propositioning other people while drunk is not sexually assaulting anyone.

The only way that you could see a drunk victim of rape as being as responsible as a drunk rapist is if you think that avoiding being a victim is as great a responsibility either ethically or legally as avoiding committing a crime. I don't believe that is the case.

While I find it plausible that in the case of one woman and one man having sex while extremely drunk, the one man might not be aware that to have sex with someone who is too drunk to be capable of real consent is both unethical and a crime, I find it very implausible that in the case of a group of men having sex with an extremely drunk woman while bystanders watched, every single man was unaware of the ethical or legal implications of doing so.

I don't understand the confusion here.

Drunk or sober, if everyone consents then sex is consensual. It may be ill-advised, but it is consensual.

Drunk of sober, if anyone doesn't consent, then it's rape.

If someone is so drunk they are incapable of consenting ie they can't walk/talk, understand, know what's going on or are unconscious then having sex with them is rape.

People who talk about grey areas - saying "oooh you're all too black and white" - are invariably doing their best to find a get out for men who have blatently done something wrong.

Having sex with someone who is unconscious is rape.

In the situation described by the social worker, if the woman removed her own knickers and asked the men to have sex with her then she's consented.

However I am at a loss to believe that there are droves of women who do things that they regret and then rather than feeling a bit crap and carrying on as usual, decide to report to the police, submit to personal physical examinations, lie to all and sundry, and generally get involved in a huge rigmarole that they are going to get in huge trouble for. Women know that successful rape prosecutions are rare and yet apparently they are all keen to hotfoot it to the police for internal examinations after consensual sex. It's a view of women that I don't understand - some are unhinged enough to do this, sure, but not many. Most women are pretty sane.

I also find it disturbing that someone who works with rape victims has come onto this thread solely to propogate rape myths. Men know when they're doing something wrong. They're not stupid. To say that the average bloke can't tell the difference between consensual sex and rape is ludicrous.

Well I think Iphigenie post said the men were also drunk. It's interesting that you seem to say that the men involved (who were drunk) should take responsibility for their actions whilst the woman (also drunk) should not.

It really depends on the state the person is in if they are passed out, so drunk they can hardly speak coherently or are not aware of what's happening then I view that as rape. However drunk people having sex where both are aware and consented is not rape.

I will add (although I shouldn't have to) that having sex with an extremely drunk woman is rape, and most men (according to the research) would not have sex with a woman that drunk. I assume because they understand that it is unethical and a crime.

The poster who has mentioned the group sex situation doesn't explain how amongst a group of men, none of them was unaware that having sex with an extremely drunk woman is rape, and that having group sex with an extremely drunk woman in front of bystanders is unethical. You couldn't legally tattoo someone under similar drunken circumstances, so how can they think it is legal to have public group sex with someone so drunk?

What I find worrying about this thread is the assertion that a very wide range of men can accidently find themselves in a rape situation. Surely when we have had threads on rape before people have linked to the actual research. That has demonstrated that among unconvicted (often unreported) rapists, the rapists themselves admit to having committed acts which are in legal terms rape, and that they have usually done so multiple times. Those same men have also usually committed violent criminal acts against men and children as well. The majority of men asked the same set of questions had not committed violent acts against anyone.

So rather than perpetuate the idea that lots of men may be opportunistic rapists, we should be thinking about the fact that rapists are generally dangerous, target multiple women that they know, and are a danger to the rest of society as well. Dealing with rape effectively reduces the number of future rapes and other crimes. Instead we have someone again perpetuating the myth that there are lots of men just waiting for the opportunity to have a semi-conscious woman at their disposal. There aren't - there are a small number of very dangerous men, and a huge number of ordinary people who are prepared to make excuses for those men and not imprison them.

The legal system seems almost totally incapable of addressing the 'black and white' cases let alone the grey. That to me is an argument for changing the legal system.

Getting very drunk does make you more vulnerable, but the sad fact is that keeping your wits about you is no protection against being raped. I guess to some extent it is like the opportunistic vs the professional burglar. The opportunistic rapist will seize the moment, whereas the 'professional' will plan it. I guess being careful might lower the risk of the former, but I doubt it does anything at all for the latter. As skidoody says rapists aren't branded - many of them appear to be perfectly decent human beings, people who you feel perfectly reasonably safe with.

IphigenieAufTauris wrote - "CCTV, so there was clear video and audio"

So CCTV hears what we say as well does it?