College Women: Stop Getting Drunk

If they are both as drunk as eachother, who is raping whom?

"Are these drunk women who are incapable of giving consent (though they are not saying "no") also not responsible for their other actions while drunk?"

Of course they are responsible for their actions.

However, they are not responsible for someone else's actions. Somebody raping them, is somebody else's actions, not their actions.

It's funny how horrified so many people are, by the idea that men should be held responsible for where they put their cocks. If you are actually putting a piece of your body into someone else's body, it isn't unreasonable to have a basic assumption that you should get their informed consent first. Even if you are drunk. If getting drunk will prevent you from ensuring informed consent, then don't get drunk. I know (or suspect) that drinking any alcohol at all will prevent me from being a careful and competent driver. So if I want to drive, I don't drink any alcohol - the onus is no men to ensure that I'm capable of driving. It's the same principle.

STDG - yes, a man who was very drunk and incapable of giving consent, could of course allege rape and/ or sexual assault. Funnily enough, 1 in 4 men aren't getting sexually assaulted by women though.

One thing occurs to me. If both parties in a sexual encounter are equally pissed and incapable of giving consent, who is raping whom? Could a man who had had a drunken sexual encounter allege rape against the woman he slept with?

I have told my sons that drunken sex is a bad idea, full stop. I have told them not to have sex with someone unless both parties are in possession of their faculties, and are able to give proper consent. I have reminded them that, when drunk, people often have poor judgement and make stupid decisions - for example, the decision not to use protection when having sex - and that this could lead to very real consequences for both them and the other party - principally unwanted pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases.

I don't like the assumption that a drunk woman is not responsible for herself:
"If somebody is too pissed to realise what they are doing, then they are not capable of giving consent and therefore if someone penetrates them, that is rape."

Isn't this like treating drunk women as if they were underage i.e.: not capable of giving consent to sex, just as a 12 year old isn't capable of giving consent?

If a very drunk woman wants to have sex, does she need to be protected from her own baser instincts, like Katherine Hepburn in "The Philadelphia Story"?

Are these drunk women who are incapable of giving consent (though they are not saying "no") also not responsible for their other actions while drunk?

I've had loads of drunk sex. When I was under 25, probably more than sober sex.

But come on, the idea that women (or girls) are so hysterical, malicious and all round bad, that when we wake up with hangovers and remember the terrible sex we had last night, we all go rushing down the cop shop, is a rape myth. That's all it is. False allegations of rape are no more likely than false allegations of any other crime, we know that.

It is much more likely to be the other way round. Firstly, most of us who've had drunk bad sex (or even drunk good sex) get over it with a coffee and lots of high fat food that day as described by Elephants . The minority who actually didn't consent to that sex and were in fact raped, will also tell themselves that they made a mistake and shouldn't have given the rapist a chance to rape them and in fact won't even acknowledge that it was rape, they will put it down to bad communication, alcohol, the "grey area" and shut up about it, feeling wretched about it for a few minutes or hours but curing it with extra bacon, or for weeks, days, months or years depending on the circumstances and other factors in their lives. They will not report it, they will not tell anyone else and in most cases they will shrug and put it down to experience.

Those of you so concerned about someone else's son being accused of rape because of drunken sex, are misdirecting your worry. The statistical probability of a drunken young man being raped or beaten up by another man, is higher than the statistical probability of them being falsely (or even correctly) accused of rape by a girl or a woman. You are worrying needlessly.

I don't think wearing a mini skirt is a signal to rapists. In fact, I don't really know why is a signal to rapists. I think the idea that women invite sexual assault by their choice of clothing is pretty warped thinking. Keir Starmer was on R4 this morning talking about this. Did anyone hear him? Powerful stuff.

Aside from that, I do have some slightly muddled thinking about how flashing tits, legs and ass whilst wearing next-to-nothing somehow indicates a lack of self-respect. Almost as if they are saying 'Look, this is all I am!'

God, I've had sex while drunk and once or twice I've regretted it in the morning.

Oddly the way I dealt with it was not to put my hand up and volunteer for an upsetting, endless and invasive police investigation into the man I'd had sex with, but to have a fried breakfast and think "aargh, I'm an idiot".

The reason I could do this was that I had consented to sex, then regretted it. I had not been raped. The fact that many people including starball bring this subject into a discussion of rape is just bizarre - they are two completely different circumstances. It's like bringing a discussion of people who get pissed at a charity auction and spend thousands they can't afford into a discussion on violent muggings.

As for the football fan analogy, that only works if you think all men are rapists.

If you deliberately go into what you know to be a hostile environment, where there are violent people who are prepared to attack you and you wear colours or costumes or whatever which are a marker for them to attack you, then it is not your fault if they do, but it might be considered unwise.

If you believe that all men or most men are violent rapists who may attack women at any time and all they need to do that, is for her to be wearing the wrong clothes, or be drunk or whatever, then the analogy works - men are so violent and so rapey, that women need to make sure they don't get drunk if they're round them, because it will trigger the men's rape response. If feminists argued this, they would be called man-haters.

Rape apologists argue this all the time because deep down, they believe all men are rapists and because that is inherent in masculinity, men aren't responsible for the rape they perpetrate so therefore the only thing women can do about it, is to take responsibility for it and stave it off by what really amounts to a series of superstitious lucky charms. Not getting drunk around men, not wearing mini-skirts, not sending the wrong signals, is the equivalent of a charm warding off the evil eye. It works if there isn't a rapist in the room. But in that case, you have no need of the lucky charm anyway, because there's no evil to ward off.

". I do not see why someone's son should end up in court with his career in ruins because my DD wasn't sober enough to recognise a drunk twat and walk the other way."

I have a son. I've told him that even if he is drunk, he has to ensure that any girl he has any sort of sexual activity with, is consenting to that. If he murdered someone, the fact that he was drunk would not be a mitigating factor. If he got into a car thinking he could drive it, the fact that his judgement was impaired by alcohol would not be a mitigating factor. He understands that if he chooses to rape someone, being drunk is not a mitigating factor. He understands that women and girls are not responsible for stopping him raping them, he is responsible for not raping them.

You are putting the onus on a girl to recognise a drunk twat and walk away from him.

People who aren't rape apologists, put the onus on a male to not rape.

That's the difference in emphasis.

Don't just aim this at women. Nobody should get so pissed as to lose all control. You could trip over a paving stone, or fall down a well, or step in front of a car....I would guess that the risk of self-inflicted damage far outweighs the risk of being mugged or assaulted.

I have had sexual encounters when I was drunk. I have regretted some of them in the morning. Had I been sober, they would not have occurred. I did not feel violated, just a bit sheepish. Is drunken consent on my part still consent?

Why do you keep apologising?

Sorry, I'm assuming the boy and many first year students are still tall little boys is to pissed himself to have any judgement of whether the girl is in a fit state to consent.

If both parties are too drunk to know what they are doing, they are both fucking stupid. I do not see why someone's son should end up in court with his career in ruins because my DD wasn't sober enough to recognise a drunk twat and walk the other way.

I know it's not PC, but if no force is involved, young men and young women can both be equally to blame for the messes they get into.

Sorry, but I knew when I'd had enough to drink and when to walk away, long before I was 18 and always considered keeping out of trouble my responsibility.

I would not tell you what to wear or blame you if something happened.. but I think where football hooligans are involved.. you know there is a potential thereat. It isn't the same as say a drunk woman walking home because at that point you are saying that men are going out looking to rape as a general rule. Which isn't really the case.. you're more likely to be raped by a known person

You aren't more likely to be attacked for your choice of football club by a known person.

Myth vs reality

Have I made any sense just now?

Surely the best advice is to limit your drinking so as not to cause irreparable damage to your major organs?

On the subject of victim blaming, please help me with this. I support a well known football team. I don't wear club colours to away fixtures, because there will doubtless be some grade A weapon who wants to make an issue of it. I run the risk of being assaulted. I should be able to wear whatever I want, wherever I want, but there are times and places where frankly it isn't worth the hassle. So, do I modify my behaviour slightly to minimise risk, or do I exercise my right to wear whatever I like? What would people tell their son or husband to do in this situation?

Emily Yoffe is actually a good writer and I regularly read her 'Dear Prudie' advice column so I'm a little let-down to see her spouting the usual stereotypes about girls getting drunk.

Anyone getting so rat-arsed that they piss themselves or puke or pass out and have no memory of what has happened should be embarrassed, regardless of gender. It's definitely good that Yoffe is highlighting the link between excess alcohol consumption and college sexual assault but her message that it's something only women need to worry about is too simplistic.

Prior to the 1970s, it was considered a disgrace if women got drunk and respectable women generally didn't go to pubs or drink much in public. That didn't stop sexual assaults and rapes from happening back then and, in fact, rape was legal within marriage then so a woman could have been clean and sober in the 'safety' of her own home and still been raped. The fault is with the rapist and the sense of entitlement that some men have towards the bodies of women.

Another great rebuttal of the article, this time from Jezebel

" if one of them consents to sex while too pissed to realise what they are doing with a boy who's also totally rat arsed, it's not rape just because they regret it in the morning"

Well done on the rape myth propagation.

If somebody is too pissed to realise what they are doing, then they are not capable of giving consent and therefore if someone penetrates them, that is rape.

That is what the law says.

You should stop misinforming your DD's on what the law is Starballbunny and stop telling them that being raped is just sex they regret. That is a rape myth and is guaranteed to ensure that if either of them are ever raped, they will never tell you about it because they know you will blame them.

I agree - my question was directed at Kasey - I should have made that clear - sorry.

Am I wrong to say this to them?

Not at all. It is wrong to single out women for this advice though, and it's wrong to imply that foolishly drinking too much makes women responsible for crimes against their person.

So are you saying that we should never warn young people about the risks of being very drunk?

What SDTG say's getting stupidly drunk, is bloody stupid and dangerous regardless if gender.

It is especially stupid at freshers in a strange city with no friends to make sure you get home safely.

I have two DDs and if one of them consents to sex while too pissed to realise what they are doing with a boy who's also totally rat arsed, it's not rape just because they regret it in the morning.

As men are more likely to be victims of street crime, I think they should, for their own good of course, stay in at night.

Or if they have to go out, they should at least stop getting drunk as this lowers their judgement of tricky situations and makes them a target for other men out looking for a fight.

Of course I'm not victim blaming but it's well known that men are more likely to victims of street violence so they should take every precaution they can.

I'm just trying to protect them.

I have three sons, and I have talked to them about the dangers of being drunkenly incapable - it sounds as if this article has focused on only one risk and one gender, and I agree this is wrong, BUT I see nothing wrong with telling all our young people that drinking to excess is a bad idea because it can lead you to end up in dangerous situations or doing stupid things - like having drunken sex that you or the other person might regret later, or driving whilst drunk, or getting into fights. Not to mention the damage that binge drinking can do to your health.

I have told my dses that being drunk lowers their inhibitions, impairs their judgement and could lead them to making one stupid decision with repercussions they'd regret all of their lives, and is it really worth the risks?

Am I wrong to say this to them?

Great response here

Yeah, its pretty amazing she thinks women will have never heard this line and that she's doing the kind thing by warning women not to drink.

I'd love to see a nation wide campaign dedicated to warning men that if they get drunk and pass out that they are at risk of rape. Wouldn't that just be enough to make men think? If you're too drunk to say no, surely it is just as likely for men to be raped? They can't fight either.