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

I find your reasoning about men fighting too simplistic, Annie. But I don't want to derail, so I'll shut up.

Not exactly.

In my example I have made a lot of assumptions. If I had not intervened, they may have gone back together, had sex and no more said about it. Chalked up as a drunken regret.

If I was younger, I would turn her down. Although I dont think it would be as simple as "If I don't, it's rape". It would be more down to her being drunk and a stranger. I would think it's more morally wrong than legally wrong.

In relation to men, if I had seen the same situation with two men in the gay clubbing area, I probably would not have got involved. If I had done and the drunk male had told me to go away, I would have more than likely done it. That's probably a bad thing but I'm not sure why.

I would agree "annielobeseder" and it would seem men of all ages and backgrounds?

The thing with punching, Yops, is that you know the other person is probably perfectly capable of whacking you one right back. It's a meeting of equals, there's an acknowledgement that while you're expressing your rage and hatred, you also see that other person as fully human and equal. So men fighting other men is, for the most part, accepted. Men punching children, or animals, or women, is seen as far more distasteful since that equality is lost and it's seen as someone in a position of strength using that strength to hurt someone else, and that the victim has very little chance of being able to retaliate in kind.

Rape is the same. It's a violent act inflicted on a weaker person by a stronger (lesser) person, and the victim has even less chance of retaliation in kind (ie, none) because she does not have a penis.

The night DH and I hooked up we were both drunk. I wanted to shag him, he would have had my very enthusiastic consent. But instead he walked me home, with me grumbling and complaining that I would rather go home with him. Because he is not a rapist, and to him it was important that when we had sex, he was completely 100% sure of my (sober) consent.

A great many men understand this and act accordingly by not raping women. But a very frighteningly large number still think that they have some kind of entitlement to a woman's body, and as long as she doesn't say "no", all is well for them to penetrate her. They put their gratification above any consideration of the woman's desires, bodily autonomy or humanity. The do not see women as fully human. Where does this discrepancy come from? What education are the decent men getting that the rapists are missing? Because at some point society and the way some men are raised is letting women down by producing rapists. Most of whom don't even recognise themselves for the rapists they are.

Straight men also rape other men. Rape isn't about sex, it's about having ultimate power to degrade and humiliate.

Rule of thumb - don't put your knob where it isn't welcome. I think that should cover most cases.

Scallops, I suspect they manage not to slip their dicks into other men. No blurred lines there. and nor would there be if they saw women as full human beings, not fuck toys.

Except they do, don't they? Gay men rape other men. There was an MP who stood trial for it recently. And do men who punch other men see men as less than human? Because punching is no way to treat another human being just because you are pissed, or angry, or both.

I agree with the vast majority of what you say, but the 'less than human' bit always loses me.

So you are saying 17-18 yr olds are more likely to be rapists, Mengog and can't control themselves?

Because they should be able to control themselves. And it is disgusting if they won't. I suspect they manage not to slip their dicks into other men. No blurred lines there. and nor would there be if they saw women as full human beings, not fuck toys.

Taking advantage of someone by sticking your penis into them is always going to be rape. When isn't it rape? That is what men need to understand. None of this blurred lines crap.

Petula - I agree as a 32 year old responsible member of society.

However, maybe as a 17-18 year old, on a night out, after a few beers the line may have become blurred.

yes i realise that - as i said above many men don't realise that by not prioritising consent above their own sexual gratification they are at very high risk of being a rapist

Well they would if they accepted that being too drunk to give proper consent counted as non-consent, and that they would then be guilty of rape, Petula, but as right at the beginning of this thread shows, there are still men who don't elieve and understand that, and don't think they would be guilty of rape. They don't think of themselves as rapists, just lucky.

so mengog you could see that she wasn't capable of consenting, and therefore any man who doesn't want to be a rapist would be able to see the same

The wonder is that taking advantage, sexually, is so widely seen as the norm.

"I took advantage of my friend being drunk and got her to give me £100"

"I took advantage of my cousin's slow reactions while stoned and asked if I could hit him, he mumbled yes so I punched him in the face"

"I took advantage of my mum being asleep and borrowed her new car, she woke up briefly when the car keys jangled and didn't say anything so no problem."

It's clear that the three victims in the above cases did not give true permission for the actions. Why different for sex?

"The question then becomes when does taking advantage become rape. "

I think taking advantage is probably rape a pretty high proportion of the time.

To add by the time we drove her home, she had passed out and had to be carried inside.

If the worst had happened I would have confidently said the female was far too drunk to consent, regardless of her actions, and the man knew this.

Ah, I see what you are getting at, BD. Like the motorist always being at least 50% at fault in a cycle-car accident in some EU countries.

I'm not sure I like that, TBH. The important state is the capacity of the complainant and the state of the defendant should no more be mitigating than in other crimes eg GBH.

Thumb has a great point.

The question then becomes when does taking advantage become rape.

I suppose in my example at what point do you not become responsible for your own action due to extreme intoxication? Did I even have a right to intervene, when the female was telling me she didn't want me to.

Decent men don't sleep with drunk women who throw themselves at them, because they don't want to take advantage of the drunk woman's state, IMO.

In this case Breezy I meant more from the other way around, because the guy is much more/is sober than the women he has automatically had un-consensual sex with her regardless of her saying or acting otherwise.

Arguing about degrees of drunkenness makes no difference. I was not drunk when I was attacked but was accused of drunkenness because I'd had one glass of wine. Surely the point is no one should penetrate or interfere sexually with another person as the default way of being. That is the way I live my life, it does not matter how drunk or not the people I encounter are, or what they are wearing.

Nope,not differential drunkeness.

If both are too drunk to have capacity, then each has committed a crime on the other, there's not a no crime situation to be made by getting drunk as well.

I do find it worrying though how some men appear so aggrieved about changes in policy and that maybe in their pasts they have taken advantage of a women and just cant comprehend themselves being a sex offender.