I don't agree with the MN feminists. AIBU?

[jennyvstheworld]

I consider myself an active proponent of equality of opportunity and a stern critic of discrimination... and yet I find that I can't identify with many of the viewpoints I encounter on the MN feminism page (and often say so). AIBU?

Wamster I recall a thread like that. In fact I think there have been a number over the last year. The general conclusion on the one that I was looking at was that if you were "so drunk" that you could not remember then even if you had said yes and particpated fully then it was still rape because you are incapable of giving consent when drunk and the man even if he was equally drunk was a rapist which seemed in my view to place a very heavy and unfair burden on decent men.

I felt very uncomfortable about that thread as I felt that it labelled a lot of behaviour that wasn't rape as rape and more depressingly consigned woman to a life time of sex only when sober. However I was quite clearly in the minority.

I didn't contribute to the latest thread - although I did to a previous one where I said there have been occasions where me and DH have had drunken sex. I received several patronising "I'm so sorry if that is the way your DH treats you not very passive agressive at all)

It depressed the hell out of me.

But SGM is it helpful to anyone (generally and specifically) to enable a woman to label behaviour that wasn't rape as rape on the basis they consented to something they weren't with hindsight happy with? I am not sure that does anyone any favours.

The very fact that you think feminism is 'OTT' on rape, whatmeworry, demonstrates the barriers women face in obtaining justice. For the hundredth time, 'all men are rapists' is a goddam myth - it's debunked on Snopes, no less!

QueenofDenial - the situation you describe is rape (on the thread, not your own experiences). Under UK law, consent cannot be given whilst intoxicated. Feminists aren't making this stuff up, you know.

StewieGriffinsMom, this has NOTHING to do with making rape up! It is quite clear: to tell a woman she has been raped if she does not remember herself whether or not she gave consent is highly irresponsible.

Admittedly, a responsible person does NOT say: 'Come on you were drunk, he can do what he likes!' That would be wrong, wrong, wrong.

But, at the same time, a responsible person does NOT say, 'You were raped for certain'. You say-if there is any sense about you- 'I am sorry to say that as you cannot remember yourself if you gave consent or not, I cannot say either way'

Or is that too much like sense?

For heaven's sake: consent cannot be given whilst intoxicated. If the OP is so drunk she can't remember, any consent she gave is invalid.

The very fact that you think feminism is 'OTT' on rape, whatmeworry, demonstrates the barriers women face in obtaining justice

I didn't say feminism is OTT, I said MN Feminists are OTT. I do not think MN Feminists represent anything like the views of most feminists, never mind women.

Victor consent can be given while drunk and it not be rape by default. The Law states is the use of alcohol or other substance to facilitate the offence.

Really? I do. I'm relatively new to mumsnet and joined precisely because of the range of feminist views on the Feminism board. It's not something I've found anywhere else.

I don't know of any feminists who take a softer line on rape than that demonstrated on MN. Could you link me up please?

I have had consensual drunken sex.

I have also been raped while too drunk to fight properly.

There's a difference.

I've never had drunk sex where I was too pissed to remember the next morning. I mean, you have to be really slaughtered to have a memory lapse. It should be fairly clear to a respective partner that you're too far gone to participate. IMO, of course.

Claw - really? I'm basing what I've said on the reaction to the R v Dougal case, where the judge told the jury to return a not-guilty verdict due to the victim's level of intoxication. If I'm recalling correctly, consent cannot be retroactively withdrawn with intoxication as an excuse (so if I freely admit I said yes, saying I said yes because I was drunk won't stand) but if someone is intoxicated to the point of amnesia then it is presumed that consent is witheld.

If I'm wrong about this I'll happily correct other posts with regards to legality. In any case, it's a pretty poor show when heavily pissed people who aren't in a relationship with each other think that having sex is the best possible course...

If heavily pissed people wish to have sex with each other outside of a relationship, that is their choice. It happens all the time.

Victor you are wrong consent can be given when intoxicated. Intoxication of course covers a wide range of states, the spectrum is enormous. Each case would be considered on it's merits.

I have to be honest it is that sort of statement "for heavens sake consent cannot be given whilst intoxicated" - ie. all inebriated sex is rape, which turns so many woman off feminism.

You're avoiding the question Whatmeworry.

Like I said yesterday, if you don't agree with feminism's view of rape, then you can do one of two things:
a) Post your point of view and expect to be challenged
b) Don't post in feminism.

It's like me going onto the doghouse and saying dogs are horrible and cats are much better. I wouldn't expect to be agreed with, given I'm talking to self-avowed dog-lovers.

You see chickens that is your experience. I can be perfectly rational and dare I say sensible after half a bottle of wine but frequently can't remember things that have happened when I have been drinking even small amounts. However last time I shared that on the feminist board I was told that I must be an alcoholic so I guess I just can't win

Despite my comments at 0844, something I rarely see acknowledged is that one of the problems with securing a conviction for rape is that the situation, by its very nature (ie lack of witness etc), can be one person's word against another. It is a fundamental tenet of law that the prosecution has to prove something beyond reasonable doubt.

I have yet to see anyone on here discuss this or suggest how they might address this.

Whatmeworry - I'm not interested in getting into a fight. Either you have an answer to my query or you don't. No need for what you wrote.

QueenofDenial: Where would I find more information on that please? As I said, I was basing my conclusions on precedents set by court cases and the reactions to that. If there's a clear summation of sexual consent, it would be useful for me to read it. But I think you're crediting me with too much power - while I may be incorrect on the legal side (and happy to clarify) I'm not 'feminism' and I don't think my statements can turn women off feminism. Women are capable of deciding for themselves.

I don't think feminisms' view of rape is the one MN Feministas espouse, in fact I note some women are arguing with it right here on this page.

And I'm interested in some examples of 'feminisms' view of rape. I've never read anything - internet, books, anything - that suggests the MN feminism board is out of the ordinary in its members' views on rape.

Victor my understanding is its the use of substances to facilitate rape that is unlawful ie deliberately getting someone drunk in order to rape them.

As with most law is the intention and admittedly very hard to prove and very shady ground.

But to say that ALL intoxicated sex is rape by default is also very shady. How many drinks do you have to have to be 'intoxicated' one, two, ten? What if you are in a relationship and you get drunk and have sex, is that rape?

TQoD - to be fair, if you admit to being slightly tipsy on most parts of MN you'll get told that :o

And I'm interested in some examples of 'feminisms' view of rape. I've never read anything - internet, books, anything - that suggests the MN feminism board is out of the ordinary in its members' views on rape

I've pointed you to this page and pointed out that a lot of MN'ers have disagreed with you in spades before. Surely that is proof enough?

But of course they disagree with you so cannot be feminists I guess

Claw - I clarified the intoxication part with my second post. Consent cannot be withdrawn with the 'excuse' of intoxication but if one is so drunk that amnesia occurs then consent is presumed not to have been given. However, I obviously need to go and find some more sources.

Have you got any sources on intoxication and consent?

I don't think it's helpful to get into discussions along the lines of 'well I have one drink with my boyfriend and we have sex and you can't call that rape', simply because I don't think anyone is trying to call that rape. The cases under discussion have been incredibly intoxicated women, so drunk they can't remember and very vulnerable. Women who have a few drinks with their partners and then swing from the chandeliers are not the women who end up in court. It's not helpful to either to conflate the two.

Chistine that's me stuffed then