Judge's warning to drunk women

[FirstShinyRobe]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-39233617

AIBU to think she had a marvellous platform with her retirement speech to issue instead a warning to men not to rape women?

To be honest you can get raped if you are drunk, not drunk, locked inside your home, insert any scenario of choice here.
90 year olds get raped by sick burglars in their own beds.
I suppose if we're stupid enough to leave our bomb proof panic rooms we could get raped.
I was planning a completely different post about responsible drinking then realised actually it makes zero difference to the risk of rape.

Keep giving this message if you wish. But please be aware of how utterly ineffective it is. No sign of number of rapes going down is there. The estimate for female students is now 1 in 3. How long have we been trotting out there messages to women? If it was effective why has nothing changed.

I agree with her. Getting drunk when you're out in public makes you vulnerable to attack - whether you are a man or a woman. We all have to take responsibility for ourselves and our friends when out. There ARE predators out there. It fucking sucks - it really does - but saying 'they're the predators and we can do what we like and it shouldn't matter and anything else is victim blaming' is stupid. Much better to encourage people to drink sensibly, to stick with their friends, to always have enough money for a cab and the number programmed into their phones, to agree to a safe meeting place if they get separated, etc. And sex education should include consent, the law, grooming, and rape.

What if the law was changed so that if a victim had been drinking that it was automatically seen as rape because alcohol is deemed to impair someone's ability to consent therefore they could not consent.

That would mean if you were at home with your husband or partner and had a glass of wine then had sex legally they would be committing rape.

It would also mean that millions of women who have sex after a drink perfectly happily would have their freedom to consent to that taken away by the state.

It would mean that (at a guess) about 75% of the sex acts that happened last night were rape. Ridiculous and unworkable.

Elendon actually due to where I live falling in the river is a bigger risk than being attacked while drunk. The point was that there are risks associated with being drunk and being raped is only one of them so we need to stop the focus on women being raped because that just feeds into rape culture.

With regards to people understanding consent I think I've seen at least 2 posters say they are teaching no means no but that is wrong. A lack of a no does not mean consent. Stop teaching no means no and instead use yes means yes.

But Bill seeing as there aren't cameras in bedrooms, it would only matter as a technicality if the women said she was raped. So women says she was raped and there is evidence that she had been drinking = an assumption of rape.

Rather than the current assumption that she probably consented and forgot.

This would be excellent progress for rape trials. Unless we truly believe there are hoards of conniving women out there just wanting for their chance to falsely accuse men of rape.

But Bill seeing as there aren't cameras in bedrooms, it would only matter as a technicality if the women said she was raped. So women says she was raped and there is evidence that she had been drinking = an assumption of rape.

If this was the case, and a woman can prove she has had intercourse and alcohol then she could prosecute for rape. Don't you see you how dangerous that is?

What do you mean by being attacked while drunk? If you mean rape then why not say it.

Welcome to the thread btw.

Why should consent be the on the onus of the person who was raped? If you see a person who is so drunk, why ask a question that requires yes or no when it comes to something so integral and personal as sexual intimacy?

But saying someone is asking for it because they look like a prostitute is buying into non consensual sex. You don't pay your partner to have sex with you.

Drink driving limits are set before people get drunk as a small amount of alcohol is considered to impair judgement, this isn't considered to be infantilising drivers. TBf if you are going to look at who's alcohol level should be measured it would be the rapist as they are the equivalent to the driver, the victim is the pedestrian in this analogy. However, it is the alcohol consumption of women that has bothered the majority of posters on this thread, not that of rapists.

Would people not be able to abstain from sex after a drink if it meant that all women and men could be protected from being raped without prosecution after they have had a drink? But you would expect women to not have a drink in the hopes that would make them less vulnerable to an opportunist rapist?

Would people not be able to abstain from sex after a drink if it meant that all women and men could be protected from being raped without prosecution after they have had a drink? But you would expect women to not have a drink in the hopes that would make them less vulnerable to an opportunist rapist?

Spot on. You've put that very eloquently.

Not every rapist has the same motives, Elendon.

I've actually just thrown up after reading what you posted SarcasmMode

Permission and cooperation for sex demands the right messages and cues to come from both parties to the act. There is no doubt that being drunk makes the messages harder to interpret and, with sex, as with everything else, it is better to be sober so that there are no possibilities of things going wrong.

Men should not have sex with women who are sufficiently drunk as to be unable to know what they are doing; the trouble is, they are often equally drunk themselves.

I do not think that anyone is saying that women who get drunk deserve everything that happens to them; simply that, in some contexts, such as a party, being sufficiently sober to make sure that your are able to make your wishes clear has a lot to recommend it.

I am not suggesting that rape has anything to compare with stealing a laptop - the idea is clearly nonsense.

Certainly the advice I gave to all my 3 DDs was that being sober enough to know what you were doing is the way to go. It does not guarantee that they will never be raped, but it certainly stands as good advice I think.

It is not about "being responsible for their own rape", but suggesting that not being legless drunk has a lot to recommend it - that goes for men and women.

Why is it dangerous Opal?

Woman has had drink - don't have sex with her. What is dangerous?

Unless you think there are lots of women determined to go out drinking, then seduce vulnerable men, then accuse them of rape afterwards?

Does anyone genuinely believe this to be a risk?

Mermaidinthesea I was planning a completely different post about responsible drinking then realised actually it makes zero difference to the risk of rape.

Do you really believe that there are no people who would specifically target a drunk women? Or no rapes that would not have happened had someone not been drunk?

Well Batteriesallgone, for one I'd personally have had to forfeit some pretty amazingly mind blowing sex.

But bigger picture here. My husband is already extremely respectful. He has a firm grip on consent and sometimes it's frustrating but ultimately it's one of the things I love about him. If we were committing a crime by dtd after a glass of wine then he would absolutely sign on to that and our self life would suffer to the tune of about 50%. Sex is so important in a couples relationship. Society as a whole would either have to be breaking the law, going tee total or walking around unsatisfied. Very dangerous to mess with biology like that. Consentual sex is a protected human right.

(And champagne blow jobs would be out the window, and that in itself is rather dangerous, no?)

I do believe there was a time not so long ago when they made a consensual sex act illegal. Sex between two men, if I recall. That turned out well, didn't it?

Also, while on the topic. Would a women become a sex offender against men if they had sex them, being sober, but the man is drunk?

Murky murky waters.

No one is to blame for a rape but a rapist.

However, what she says is fact in that some rapists do look for vulnerable victims- alone, in an isolated place, drunk, taken drugs, whatever it is that makes them vulnerable.

Women should be able to feel safe wherever they go and whatever they choose to do but at the same time, we should all look after ourselves and take responsibility for the choices we make around risks.

Elendon
But saying someone is asking for it because they look like a prostitute is buying into non consensual sex. You don't pay your partner to have sex with you

This is yet another untrue statement. No one on this thread has said this or implied it. One poster said they would advise their children not to dress like prostitutes ( ) but they certainly did NOT say and neither has anyone else said that if you dress like a prostitute you are 'asking for it'.

Why don't you try quoting people in your posts then you can remind yourself what posters have actually said rather than making all these untrue and incorrect statements.

I would still advise them to stay in groups not get absolutely legless or dress like prostitutes

There you go insider.

We are not talking about children but young adults going out and enjoying themselves. Young adults being teenagers in case you don't understand InsiderOut

You know exactly what I mean InsiderOut when I mean asking for it. The blame is totally on the victim and not the rapist with the quote above. This is abhorrent. And you know it, as do I. So why are you being so defensive?

Haven't RTFT
Giving tips on how to be the victim of a crime is not the same as blaming anyone who hasn't taken those steps are to blame if they become victims. That is what I think this judge was doing.

The way for the judge to enforce this is when directing a jury that a victim is never to blame for what happened, whether they were very drunk, left their front door wide open or their keys on the dashboard (depending on the crime). They must tell the jury they should have absolutely no part in when the jury consider whether this particular defendant committed the crime. Then when a person is convicted the judge must not let the victims actions make them give a lower sentence. If anything it should be more severe. I presume this judge has been doing this for years.

I personally think these are just sensible suggestions from someone who has seen the facts of many rapes. There aren't many female judges so I think she was right to give the opinion. There has been a lot of controversy but I'm sure a retiring male judge would have been even more vilified.