To think this is a very good analogy

[Babycham1979]

www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/consent-its-a-piece-of-cake/17594#.Vjh4hpiUR6Y

I appreciate the aims of the campaign to promote public understanding of 'consent', but I agree with the author in that this seems to be dangerously blurring the lines and criminalising behaviour that is, at worst, antisocial (ie persuasion).

Rather like the recent events with 'safe spaces' and censorship, I suspect this will ultimately backfire on its proponents.

Another, if alcohol prevents you from being able to consent, why do we hold drunk drivers to account? Surely, extending the same logic, we would have to excuse them for being incapable of making an informed decision as to whether or not to drive home?

I agree. If you can be held responsible for criminal damage, rape, assault, drunk driving, or anti-social behavior while drunk, you can be held responsible for choosing to have sex while drunk.

If someone isn't giving enthusiastic consent or is in a slurring stupor, obviously the sex should not be happening.

But saying yes while drunk is still consent in the same way you consented to getting into the car to drive home drunk or consented to damaging property while drunk.

Eh why would you think that? I've never said that at all .

senpai, the law does say that you can be too drunk to consent to sex (or surgery, or to sign contracts) without being unconscious. You might disagree with the law, but that is a different kettle of fish entirely.

Being drunk isn't a defence against breaking the law, of course, but that's quite different. If there's a risk that you might break the law when you drink then you just don't drink. But women shouldn't have to avoid alcohol just to avoid being raped (or operated on, or trapped into a contract).

m1nnie, I thought that because that's the normal use of 'grey area' in my experience. And there clearly are people who think like that (see senpai's post). Sorry if I misunderstood.

I think you can be drunk and still consent, like geuinrly consent. The situation I was in she claimed that consent wasn't consent because she was drunk. That's entirely different of course you can consent when your drunk and regretting it afterward isn't withdrawing consent. For fuck sake who hasn't had a drunken fumble they regreted but that's completely different to what's being spoken about here! So yes of course I think it's possible to be too drunk to consent!

No Senpai. Being too drunk to consent is like being the car in the analogy of the drunk driver. The drunk driver is the rapist.

How can you think that women should be held accountable for what men do to them when they can't consent?

It basically seems to come down to whether you think that consent is something obtained by men or something given by women.

So if you recognise that consent is something granted by the person who is penetrated by a penis, then you can see clearly that consent is binary and contingent - it can be withdrawn at any time if you stop wanting it.

But if you imagine that consent is something for a man to obtain so he can have the sex he wants, then you think that times when he can't be sure he has obtained consent constitute a grey area.

Because the important thing from that perspective is whether the man can go ahead with his intended penetration.

Not whether the woman (or man) actually wants it, but whether it is allowable.

Further along that path are the people whose concern around consent is what can be proven.

So they think a rape didn't take place, even if there was no consent, unless it can be proven in court.

These are the people who are always on about false accusations, because they imagine that an allegation of rape becomes a false allegation if it cannot be proven.

The Sex on Trial was interesting on this.

First they had the young people meet two people with experience of rape

1 a woman who had been sexually assaulted

2 a man who (claimed he) had been falsely accused of rape

It was a very questionable editorial decision to line these two up as equivalents - it implied that women will experience rape as victims and men will also experience it as victims, of false allegations.

When the reality is that men are much more likely to experience rape as people charged with rapes they did actually do.

And women are far more likely to be raped than the men who rape them are to ever face any consequences at all.

The man who chose to come on to publicise the supposed falsehood of his being charged with both rape and kidnap, made a big deal of how he now records "consent".

So after everything that happened to him, he still has no grasp of consent. Recording someone saying they are comfortable with what is happening doesn't constitute consent.

It might, however, constitute evidence in a rape trial.

It really makes you wonder what he's planning to do after the camera's switched off if he's lining up his evidence in advance.

If we were talking about a binding legal contract I think most people would agree that getting an intoxicated person to sign one whilst they are drunk is wrong and the intoxicated person should not be held to it.

I think of it this way. If my friend came over. We had plenty of wine, got tipsy and silly and in a moment of stupidity and silliness I signed over my house to her whilst we are both drunk... No one has done anything wrong. The next morning we both realise it was a silly mistake and not something I would do if sober. We would tear up the contract, never speak of it again and I would chalk it up to experience.

If my friend came over, poured me doubles whilst drinking Diet Coke. Waited until I was trollied and then convinced me to sign my house over to her and tried to enforce this in court I hope most of us would agree that not only is the contract unenforceable but my friend would be a criminal. (at least I'd bloody hope so!)

Yy Bathtime. Totally agree.

Was discussing something like this last week with family as someone my family know is being "falsely" accused. Charges have not been brought because she hasn't gone to the police, but she has seperated from him, and has told people who have asked her exactly why, she was made to have sex with her boyfriend.

This person who bil knows had told him she consented, she said yes. He also told bil that it took 8 goes to get her to say yes though, and then she just lay there.

Seriously, there are people on Facebook having a go at her, they should be having a go at the man who after being told no, kept asking, and asking, and asking, and asking,and asking......

If you ignore the no, if you have to badger and coerce someone it's rape, a forced yes from a woman who may well be scared what will happen if she says no for the ninth time, isn't consent, and isn't behaviour of a decent man. The only people I can see who benefit from people arguing about grey areas is the men who rape, it diverts attention away from them and blames the victim for his shit behaviour, making people less likely to report rape, which is another benefit for the men who rape. And then it can lower the statistics in a way that makes rape look like a smaller prob than it is, which I think also benefits the men who rape too.

I agree Bathtime.

Especially the bit about the man falsely accused of rape and kidnap still not understanding the concept of consent.
Quite frankly, If I met a man and he insisted I let him record me consenting to sex I'd wonder what he was about to do to me after he'd gained this consent.
In my opinion that is a rapists view of things.
'I recorded her consenting to sex at 10pm so therefore anything that happened afterwards was consensual' when in reality, she could change her mind at any second and shouldn't have her recorded consent forced upon her.

He did CLAIM he was falsly accused, he WAS falsly accused the same way the girl didn't CLAIM she was raped, she WAS raped.

m1nnie, if I person is too drunk to consent, then it doesn't matter is they say 'yes'. Like the analogy earlier that if a person is too young to consent then it doesn't matter if they say 'yes'.

I don't want to comment on the case you know of because it's obviously personal to you, and I have literally no idea how drunk the woman was. But I know that my ex didn't have sex with me even when I wanted too as I was too drunk. Because he's not a rapist.

We don't know that he was falsely accused, only that the judge stopped the trial.

There are any number of reasons the judge might have stopped the trial.

It certainly doesn't prove that the accusation was false.

You don't hear much about false accusations of kidnap leading to charges and trials.

So by that reasoning any girl that has drunken sex has been raped, no matter how drunk she was?? I don't buy that I'm afraid. Like I said there are few women who haven't had drunken 1 night stands and regreted it the next day. Woukd I claim I was raped? No! Do I think many women would? Absolutely not so as I said before my instinct would tell me that any claim like that has merit. It's very dangerous to just pressume all do though without looking at the facts. There is no worse crime than rape, end of. I would like to think most normal people would think the same. I do feel somewhat like I am going round in circles here. I shouldn't need to announce that I think rape is wrong and that its a woman's right to say no at any point and not be fucking penetrated against her will! Who actually thinks the opposite? I've thankfully to my knowledge not met anyone who dies, unfortunately some do!

But according to some here I am a rape apologist remember, I breed rapists and I apparently believe we should just let rapists crack on

Neither does it prove it was geuine allegation. We just have to oressume the judge knew what he was doing, some as we oressume it for the girl. Still not sure what Your point is? He must be guilty because someone said he was and he has a penis?

"Being too drunk to consent is like being the car in the analogy of the drunk driver. The drunk driver is the rapist."

No. Senpsi isn't saying women should be held accountable for what men do to them. She's saying that I f you can be held accountable for drunk driving ie you were considered capable of making the (ill advised) decision to drive when you were drunk then you should also be considered capable of making a decision to have sex when you are drunk.

Oh good gracious JAPAB, you haven't made an interpretation of what Amelia said, have you? I thought you were steadfast in your scorn for the practice.

Nope, people can interpret, assume, and believe whatever they like, including me. Though when it is being asserted that another has malevolent motives, or is saying offensive things, I might wish to clarify where this comes from.

One interpretation of needing to teach 'if in doubt, don't' is that something called 'grey areas' exist. But if by grey areas, you mean a blurred boundary where sometimes no might mean yes (which I understand to be the usual meaning of that term) then no, Amelia wasn't acknowledging that such a blurred boundary exists, she was acknowledging that some people aren't good at (or don't care about) understanding when someone is not consenting.

I was thinking about how there is a continuum of states of drunkeness between being sober and able to consent, and being passed out drunk or otherwise too drunk to be able to. Most people can recognise the states that are near to one end or the other. But if you acknowledge there can be doubt then you acknowledge there is a "grey area" where you don't know but it is best to assume they can't give meaningful consent, to be safe.

"It basically seems to come down to whether you think that consent is something obtained by men or something given by women."

I don't really think that deals with the issue of whether or not a woman can give consent when drunk and whether the consent was given under duress or not (technically still given by the woman even though the man pushed for it - which we all seem to agree isn't actually consent!)

it is possible to be so drunk you can't speak or form thoughts, but you are still conscious. If a guy has sex with a woman in that state id say clearly there is no consent. Surely a bit of common sense can be used in relation to this? How do you prove it? I guess you can't! It would ne your word against his, no way round that.

On another note I'm also pretty sure that if, no matter how drunk I was, a guy asked me to voice record my consent I would stagger the hell out of there. thats just a whole lot of weird, doesn't make him a rapist but certainly not a great chat up line!!

I think the word 'enthusiastic' should be stuck in front of the word consent for the hard of thinking.

I know for sure the man who raped me was fully aware that I wasn't enthusiastically consenting. He just didn't care

Agreement under duress isn't consent at all. Agreement after too much alcohol isn't consent at all. This is the current legal situation. Either under duress or too drunk and it isn't possible to give consent. A woman must be capable of giving free consent to sex. Otherwise it is rape.

There are no grey areas around whether consent is freely given or not.

There may be confusion for some people who find it hard to distinguish between 'drunk' and 'too drunk'. (Which is where 'reasonable belief' in consent comes in as a defence.) It may be difficult to establish after the fact whether consent was freely given (reasonable doubt leading to a 'not guilty' verdict). But neither of these things change the fact that either consent was capably and freely given or it was not.

Anyone is free to think the law should be different in any area, but I think it's important to realise that this is the law as it stands. Particularly for those of us responsible for raising or educating children and teenagers.

^The man who chose to come on to publicise the supposed falsehood of his being charged with both rape and kidnap, made a big deal of how he now records "consent".

So after everything that happened to him, he still has no grasp of consent. Recording someone saying they are comfortable with what is happening doesn't constitute consent.

It might, however, constitute evidence in a rape trial. ^

Isn't that last sentence the point? So he'd now have something beyond just his word that the other party had indicated consent, should history repeat itself?

How much store a court would place in it is another matter. Nothing would stop the other person saying they were threatened into it, or changed their mind the second the camera was put away, whether or not they are telling the truth as it happens. But it would be evidence.

One case that never went to court has taken up so much of this thread it's not unusual when talking about rape or sexual assault

Yet how many of us have been raped who are posting on this thread it's more that one probably a few more and most of us will have been sexually assaulted at some point in our lives some assaults more serious than others but it is still a crime (not expecting anyone to talk their story)

Yet how many went to to the police how many of these men were prosecuted and served time in jail for causing so much pain and distress probably none

Yet a thread about rape gets derailed by the story of one man (and no I do not think it was fair if she did lie)

Always the same argument

Again there are no grey areas

I never intended to 'derail' the thread, I gave my experience, which is apparently not very common. I believe it was those that belittled , judged and accused me that derailed the thread. I have no problem debating and discussing such a serious issue, I think it's important to. all aspects, peoples opinions and experiences should be respected, even if not agreed with. Although I have, for the most part, found it very interesting and sad!