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

I have many times, been drunk and had very nice consensual sex. Of course it is possible.

Hubert - of course she can still give consent. But if she's so drunk she has no control over what is happening to her, she's not consenting. There's a difference between enthusiastic consent (whether drunk or otherwise) and assumed consent on the basis that a woman is in no fit state to argue otherwise. Most men I know would be able to identify the difference and certainly wouldn't assume consent!

Davsmum, a man would be responsible for any other crime he committed when drunk whether he knew what he was doing or not. Why should rape be any different?

And I disagree that he might not do it when he's sober. It is his attitude that is the problem. He feels entitled to penetrate a woman because he wants to. And that is highly likely to be the same whether drunk or sober. But running with your thoughts on that, if you think that men are more likely to rape when drunk why are you not insisting that they understand their responsibilities when drunk, or in fact not get drunk at all? Why is all the advice framed around women getting drunk if men are so uncontrollable and dismissive of other people's rights when drunk?

You are also assuming a man doesn't know when a woman wants sex. That is quite scary.

In your opinion ladies and gents, can a drunk woman give consent at all?
If a drunk gentleman meets a drunk lady, and that lady is clearly consenting... is it still consent?

I've just posted about this somewhere else. I watched This Morning for the first time in many many years today and I saw they had a section on rape and consent. I thought, great, these things need to be talked about. Why oh why did they feel the need to balance the debate with a rape apologist? I was so sickened by the whole thing I can't get that knotted feeling from my stomach.

How can anyone think that a woman being "provocatively dressed" can't complain if someone rapes her? Everything that came out of his mouth seemed to come from the perspective of men not being able to control themselves and it's not their fault. I think that this actually does most men a massive disservice, but it also clouds the debate and encourages victim-blaming, putting the onus on women to protect themselves, because if they don't it's probably their fault. It's disgusting.

One woman phoned in asking if it was a man who made himself look nice, went out and then got raped by another man, would that also be his fault. She was dismissed as taking the discussion on a tangent and the case of male rape wasn't relevant to the discussion they were having! I couldn't believe it!

Davsmum you said: "If the man is also drunk and the woman who is also drunk says yes, how is he supposed to be responsible too and consider that she is too drunk to give her consent?". You are absolving men of their responsibility in committing a crime because they were drunk. The law doesn't recognise that. Women are not responsible for men's behaviour. If he can't tell when a woman consents he should not be sticking his dick in them.

if a person chooses to drink and as a result of their choice to drink, they cause harm to another person, they are 100% responsible for that. There can be no leaving aside of their behaviour because their behaviour is the top and bottom of it.

If I went to the pub and had a skinful, then got in my car and drove home, and on my way home I knocked over and killed someone who was walking home drunk from the pub, there is no WAY that I could successfully defend myself or reduce my responsibility by saying well, they were drunk and if they hadn't been, they would have been able to see me weaving down the road and they would have known I was drunk and they wouldn't have put themselves in a situation where I could run them over, so therefore it's partially their fault they're dead.

A woman is not causing harm to another person by getting drunk but harm is caused to her if a man chooses to rape her while he and/or she is drunk.

That is his fault. Not hers. His responsibility. Not hers. He chose to drink and to rape. She chose to drink. Not to be raped. Her choice didn't put her in that situation. His did.

If the law is now clarifying to men that women actually have to give recognisable consent - recognisable if described to a third party, that's a good thing.

It's a terrible thing that such a clarification was ever needed. We should never be in a situation where we have to be saying to men look, if you want to have sex with a woman, just take a moment to look at her and make sure that's what she wants too, ta everso.

That's my thinking six.

It makes me so angry that this attitude that women are responsible for everyone's behaviour no matter what that I can barely articulate it.

Of course it is not an excuse to commit a crime. Leaving men's behavior aside,..women should be aware that getting that drunk is dangerous for their own safety whether it be having an accident or being vulnerable.

Yes,..Rape happens because of a man forcing himself on a woman and that is easier to do if she is drunk. HE is at fault.
If the woman is so drunk she cannot give consent then a man should realise this and leave her alone - if HE is drunk, he can mistake her not saying No or anything at all, AS consent. It may be something he would NEVER do sober - the same as she may not want sex with the man if she were also sober but is not aware what is going on when drunk.

Davsmum The point is that a man should not feel he has the say so to have sex with someone unless he is beyond reasonable doubt that she is expressing consent. That is the opposite of 'but she didn't say no'.
Being so drunk that you don't know what day of the week it is a perfectly legal thing to do. It may not be to everyone's taste but there it is.

If I went out and met a guy who was off his head drunk, decided to steer him back to mine and ram a dildo up his arse, would it serve him right?

Drunkeness is not considered an excuse to commit a crime Davsmum. What are the women to take responsibility for? Men's behaviour? Because they aren't committing a crime.

Rape doesn't happen because of how the woman behaves. It happens because of the man's behaviour.

NO man should have sex with a woman who is drunk.
There are so many arguments though, If the man is also drunk and the woman who is also drunk says yes, how is he supposed to be responsible too and consider that she is too drunk to give her consent?
They are both drunk.. Neither can be a reliable 'witness'

Whilst I agree that no man should take advantage and rape a drunk woman, I also think women need to take some responsibility by not getting so drunk they don't know what they are doing. It is mad to think its ok to get rat arsed and rely on other people to look after you.

There must be millions of men who have had sex with a woman too drunk to give her consent. Many men just think its ok. That needs to change.

Not sure what I think about airtime either. I tend to think no, because we all thought surely if people see what a dick Nigel Farage is they will all laugh at him too, but actually him getting so much airtime has normalised saying the horrible things he says.

But on this, I don't know, if someone said to him what wolfbasher said, I wonder what he would say?

Wolfbasher has it in a nutshell

He shouldn't be given air time , someone saying that it's OK to inflict non- sexual violence on people if they are drunk wouldn't be given a platform, so why him?

It's the same chap. Here's a link to the other thread

I'm interested in your opinions on whether it's good that the media are picking him up and squaring him off against a feminist (or at least, a woman who knows that women are equal -careful phrasing there) and letting our side be heard, or whether it should be left to die a death. I can't quite decide.

There is only one kind of man who wants sex with a very drunk woman - a rapist.
I've been in various states of sobriety, naked in bed with my husband for the last 30 years, he's been perfectly able to resist raping me , even when he's been drinking, funny that.
A rapist rapes whether drunk or sober, a normal, decent man never rapes.

Presumably the barrister feels the same about drunk men? Other passing males are free to anally penetrate them without fear of repercussion too?

is it the same one or is it a different barrister to hte one in the other thread? if the same, did they ask him why he changed his blog post after it started getting negative attention?

I'll join you glen

Then we can get dickhead barrister to defend us by saying 'people should not be prosecuted for assault, GBH, ABH, etc, if the victim is drunk'. Hell, we could beat the living shit out of them actually, because they're not sober enough to say 'please stop hitting and kicking me'. In fact even if they did say 'please stop hitting and kicking me' they wouldn't know what they were saying because they're so drunk, so we can safely assume that either a) they actually like being hit and kicked in the balls or b) it doesn't matter whether they like being hit and kicked in the balls or not because WE LIKE DOING IT TO THEM.

this makes me so angry, this is an educated powerful man coming out with all this utter shite! I'm furious. He's an utter cockhead.

These people believe the myth of drunk woman regretting consensual sex the next day and 'crying rape'
They don't believe that genuine rape of semi conscious women actually happens

I've made a decision.

Every Friday night I'm going to go into town and every drunk bloke I see I'm going to kick really hard in the balls. I mean if they are walking around drink in their trousers they must be asking for it.

Exactly Bertie.

They obviously think in their head that there are circumstances when it's okay to do this.