'If a woman is drunk a man should not be prosecuted for rape'

Yy to both Pilchard and Petula, especially your point about crap sex, Petula. I don't doubt women regret sex btw. But is it only (or predominantly) women? If so why the skew?

And I meant to say I completely agree with what you said about some people's perceptions of rape, Pilchard.

Am I right in thinking not long ago women would also have all their sexual history trawled through during the case? Does that still happen?

"But to take what strange people do and make law on that basis (but only when it's to do with women) is not the correct way to proceed surely."

exactly

Yes scallops just rereading my post.

I haven't regretted sex because why would I? If I've gone out and got pissed and shagged a bloke who was, what, not that tasty or something? Then I write it off to experience and proceed without a second thought. Given that going out and getting drunk and pulling was quite normal within my peer group when I was young, what/why are the regrets coming from? Got pissed, pulled, nothing to see here, surely?

It is weird. Maybe when people say "sex the woman regrets in the morning" some of them mean "because she picked a bad 'un who wouldn't take no for an answer / had a go at her while she was passed out"?

And yes clearly some women are going to be very strange and behave in an unusual manner as are some men. But to take what strange people do and make law on that basis (but only when it's to do with women) is not the correct way to proceed surely.

scallops i crossed with you there. iirc the regret about the sex was usually that it turned out to be far less satisfying than they were hoping for (due to alcohol, partner who didn't care about their pleasure, that sort of thing), rather than feeling ashamed about having had sex iyswim

i lived with six other girls for a number of years. there was plenty of drinking believe me, and in the course of that time many of us had consensual sex with men that we regretted afterwards (embarrassment and gentle mockery ensued). many of us also experienced sexual assault and/or rape (horror, sadness, support, advice and cuddles if wanted ensued). we very much knew the difference. incidentally, none of those assaults/rapes were reported in the end for various reasons

i am sure there are women who are malicious and liars - women are after all human. i just don't see it as some sort of intrinsic personality trait as MRAs seem to, where women are just waiting for the law to make it easier for them to make false accusations of rape against innocent men when they regret the consensual sex they have with them. if anything, many women are keen to explain and excuse at all costs bad and dangerous behaviour in men for obvious reasons (see threads passim)

It is also only ever purported that women regret sex in the morning. That is a loaded concept if ever there was one. Is it even true? If so, why would that be? Answers to the second question could be quite scary in terms of social pressures, how men view women, consequences for women of having sex in today's society etc.

Yes I think that would be good.

As ever it's hard to understand that people think differently. I wouldn't (and haven't) thought of drunken regretted sex as anything other than that, and as a rule I try not to regret things and so I while I have thought "well that wasn't too clever" I don't go in for the whole regret thing.

I would say my friends are the same.

But maybe there are women out there who do behave in a completely different way to what I would understand as obvious and normal. I find it hard to believe though. So yes research would be good.

Incidentally more on the BBC today here it's data from ONS. It says

• 1/5 of victims of serious sexual assault were asleep or unconscious
• 1/10 said their assailant had choked or strangled them
• 17% reported their most recent assault to the police

I think that many people simply don't understand the realities of sexual assault do they. They read "rape" and they think "gentle but accidental sex" like a normal fuck with a woman who is happy but not swinging from the chandeliers. They don't understand the absolute loathsomeness of someone touching you when you don't want them to and the violation of someone stuffing / forcing something into your body.

I think they're either stupid or wilfully obtuse and if the latter you've got to wonder why really.

Yes I saw that I was really

The appeal judges said the original judge was wrong to - ignore? decide to overlook? didn't really understand that bit - video of the woman that showed she was at a level of inertness / non responsiveness that the appeal judges felt showed she clearly wasn't consenting or in a fit state to and obviously the jury agreed.

So how / why was the original judge able to unilaterally disregard what sounds like the key evidence of the case?

The judges in the system need to be looked at don't they.

Have you seen this BBC article about a recent Appeal Court ruling about rape? A judge had halted a trial because of what he thought was lack of evidence about the complainant's level of drunkenness and whether it meant she was incapable of consent. The Appeal Court found that this was wrong, and it was a matter which should be determined by a properly directed Jury, it went back to trial and guilty verdicts were returned.

*Rosa, not road.

Well road, it goes against my rule of thumb from 14:21 - don't put your knob where it isn't welcome - so on that basis I'd say it's not okay.

As an aside, how many straight people here have had consensual, drunken, straight sex which they later regretted? And how many of the same group have had consensual, drunken gay sex which they later regretted?

So is it OK for drunk men to be raped? If 2 drunk men go home together, is it OK for Man A to assume that Man B is probably OK with having gay sex? I mean if Man B is too drunk to say no and doesn't resist too much(due to being somewhat unco-ordinated whilst drunk) when his trousers are pulled down, then it must be OK presumably? Especially if Man A is a bit tipsy as well, they are both unreliable witnesses, aren't they? So watch out, men, next time you are staggering home, it's OK for other men in the pub to accompany you and then have sex with you. And if for some odd reason you're not OK with that, you know you are not up for gay sex all the time for example, then don't get in a drunken state in the first place.

Think how many sober men there would suddenly be around!!

Youbetter, I agree with you!

That's why I'd rather focus on capacity than drunkeness. There's a judgement (the "ew" above) associated with having sex with someone who, say, did not have the mental capacity for consent. Yet because getting drunk is an action of the victim, to talk about drunkeness not capacity brings it back again to the victim's actions.

(i realise that is very simplified)

it's all so fucked up isn't it?

young woman > perceived as sexual, permanently available > well who wouldn't want to have sex with them, it's only natural, a man couldn't help himself

elderly woman > not perceived as sexual being > ew only a disgusting pervert could want to have sex with them

man > not viewed as permanently available, especially if heterosexual > ew only a disgusting pervert could want to have sex with them (homophobia)

but of course it isn't actually about sexual attraction to the person who is raped anyway

Yes the 'less than human' bit probably does lose you Yops.

I wasn't meaning that men don't rape other men. I was looking at the specific example Mengog gave. Because there is rarely thoughts that men will rape other men because they are drunk and can be taken advantage of.