"If Mugging was treated the same way as rape"

Partial if that was a response to me it's no clearer. I was talking about men as victims and you commented about men as perpetrators, it was nothing to do with your point or your logic.

It's simple, men who don't know when it's rape or not are rapists, although some men enjoy rape so they do know. If you have to ask then stop having sex until you get the point.

Rape can happen any time to anyone. It can be by a sober man or a drunk man, it can be stranger, an aquaintence, a relative, a friend or a partner. The only thing all those situations have in common is that someone met a rapist that day.

Just read you questions out to DH partial who thought you sounded like a bit of an arse. He basically said if you are not sure if a woman wants to have sex with you then you really shouldn't have sex with her. Why is this so difficult?

So you are admitting to rape, partial . I'm hoping that's sarcastic.

And I think you understand perfectly partial.

Stop making it our responsibility for men not raping women. It's their responsibility. And it really isn't that hard. If you don't know when a women wants to have sex with you then you need to stop putting your penis into women.

And I think men who rape get off on on the act of rape. Rapists don't care about whether a woman consents and that is a turn on. Taking what they want.

Anyone who is aware of and cares about what their female partner wants and whether they are enjoying themselves at all times isn't going to rape someone.

I wish I wouldn't think of rape as something that just happens outside the pub. - If only! We could just station an anti-rape officer outside every hospitality establishment

Glad you came to your senses.

OK...

Just remembering that it's often not a sexual act at all is it?

So maybe my argument about who gives consent is completely redundant in most cases.

I wish I wouldn't think of rape as something that just happens outside the pub.

I do not normally, I just got carried away and ignorant.

(In my defence, I do believe many other pp took the same approach)

Partial, I don't understand what your point has to do with what I said.

GGG: Are you saying you have sex with passive, uncommunicative women who can't exert their own will?

Yeah! Of course!

Helpme understand:
I'm not sure about the idea of if a man was too drunk to consent, in that case they're not normally sober enough to take part. Far more will required on his side.

I thought a lot of men rape when drunk. It's not a physical (sexual) act, it's an act of power.

That would undoubtedly make you better in bed, too, Buffy

I am assuming you're a man, Partial, because I can't imagine a woman pursuing this particular, narrow line of thought quite so intensely. Are you saying you have sex with passive, uncommunicative women who can't exert their own will?

Exactly Garlic, a man who is not a rapist will have the common sense to know this woman doesn't know what she's doing without being given rules.

I'm not sure about the idea of if a man was too drunk to consent, in that case they're not normally sober enough to take part. Far more will required on his side.

A drunk woman indicating her enthusiasm for sex isn't going to be raped, she's going to have consensual sex. A woman who is passive, uncommunicative, unconscious… she isn't consenting to sex.

Thanks Buffy that makes sense. But is it always so simple to do define?

It's not how drunk she is, it's whether she consents. A drunk woman indicating her enthusiasm for sex isn't going to be raped, she's going to have consensual sex. A woman who is passive, uncommunicative, unconscious… she isn't consenting to sex. Men who say they can't tell the difference and need absolute hard and fast rules that don't rely on them checking with their sexual partner that she consents are either very, very stupid or cynical liars. Or rapists.

I've just had a flick through that thread. Yes, some of them were raped. The little blue sadfaces are often a clue. I'm pissed in the American sense, not the British one.

Having sex while drunk is not a crime. FFS.

Are you pissed?

Having sex while drunk is not a crime. FFS.

So, it's just how drunk she was?

But many of the women who contributed to the 'Worst thing you did when drunk' seemed quite proud of shagging the men they did, regardless of any consent given at any moment during the act by either partner.

There are pretty clear legal definitions of what constitutes too drunk to consent, Partial. They are all based on common sense, like whether the drunk person can stand up, walk, speak, remember their address and so on. Seriously, would you want to shag a person who was in that state? Before you say 'but what about ...', if you're both so trashed your IQ has gone down to 10, you're both culpable of not getting consent. A court would recognise that.

I need some clarification here.

If a woman is drunk, she is not capable of giving consent.

If consent has not been given, she has been raped?

And yet there were plenty of posters happy to share their drunken night 'shags' on a recent 'Chat' thread that asked 'What's the worst thing you have done when drunk' (Or something similar)

Were they all raped?

(Sorry if I am being particularly thick here)