To not automatically support my male friend (potentially triggering!)

[User14356]

Agh this is keeping me up tonight, sorry if it’s a bit rambly

My very close, male friend (totally platonic) picked up a woman last weekend at a club. I had left earlier in the night, from what I was told, they were drunk, she had a screaming argument with her friend and then he took her home. Things were done but they didn’t have full sex.

Cut to today and I get a worried message from my male friend saying he has been contacted by this girl saying he took advantage, he is a sex offender and that she’s going to go to the police. This text message was sent at 4am and badly spelled so the assumption is that she was drunk.

I want to believe my friend, but I’m now massively morally split, between not wanting to call this girl a liar, but then not being there for him if the accusations are blown out or false. For now, I’ve been supportive. Is there any way to manage this situation without taking sides- AIBU to have doubts about my friend?

Pumper

Because of the logical implication of why she feels she has been assaulted.

OP stated that the woman was drunk and feels she was 'taken advantage of'. Implication being she presumably consented but now feels like she wasn't in a fit state to consent due to drinking.

OPs friend had also been drinking, therefore if the woman's claim is true (she has been assaulted because she couldn't consent), then it must also be true for the OPs friend.

So either they had a totally legal, consensual sexual encounter, or they both assaulted each other. (On the information we currently have).

Clearly if new information comes out later i.e he forced himself on her or something like that then obviously that's a completely different scenario.

He doesn't sound very pleasent and i have met men like that in my single days and have had sex with men like that men that stay all sorts to get a women to sleep with them and then afterwards don't want to know them that doesnt make a man a rapist though unpleasant yes rapist no .

Patriarchy

The difference is ‘she feels she was taken advantage of’. The same isn’t true for OP’s friend because he DOESNT feel he was taken advantage of.

Unless you’re suggesting that all men who take drunk women back to their house and have sex with them should wait and see if they’re accused of assault before deciding if they themselves were assaulted, I can’t see what point you’re trying to make.

Pumper

Because that's not how criminal responsibility works. Just because you feel like you have been assualted/raped, that has no bearing on whether you have been or not.

If she consented at the time (sounds like she did from the information we have) then the only way she can have been a victim of a crime is if she wasn't able to give that consent. If she is claiming that's the case because she was drunk, then so was the OPs friend. Therefore the exact same circumstances relate to both parties. Just because he doesn't feel the same way as she does is irrelevant (from a legal perspective). So the point remains, did they assault each other? Obviously not, because that's ludicrous.

I won't reel of the actus reus of rape on here, you can Google it and it's the first hit.

Because that's not how criminal responsibility works. Just because you feel like you have been assualted/raped, that has no bearing on whether you have been or not.

But it DOES mean you can accuse a person of rape/assault, which is what has happened here.

So how she feels is not ‘irrelevant’ - she feels like she was taken advantage of and he doesn’t. She has accused him of assault, not the other way around.

If you do things when you are drunk that you wouldn't have done when sober, does that mean that you were taken advantage of?

PatriarchyPersonified, it's ridiculous to act as if being drunk is a binary condition, where you're either drunk or sober. There's a huge difference between having a few drinks and being paralytic.

It is perfectly possible for one mildly inebriated person to act in a predatory manner towards someone who is almost completely incapacitated, and the fact they're both drinking doesn't negate the assault. Sexual coercion, assault and rapes are not rare occurrences, and in nearly every case the perpetrator is male. I'm sorry if that offends anyone's sense that blame should be equally proportioned, and that every instance of male-to-female sexual assault should be balanced with an acknowledgement that, of course, female-to-male assaults do exist, but there's no real comparison. It happens a lot, and our culture has, until recently, regarded it with an amazing degree of complacency.

'You about to go run down some drunk chicks, all right? And don't confuse that with tipsy. We talking about drunk. I want vomit in the hair, bruised-up knees. A broken heel is a plus. That's what you want to find, okay? [...] All you doing is using your instinct. That's it. That's how a tiger know he got to tackle a gazelle. There's a code written in his DNA. It says, "Tackle the gazelle." Okay. And believe it or not, in every man, there's a code written that says: "Tackle drunk bitches."'

That dialogue is from a successful 2005 comedy. The speaker is the protagonist's player friend, written to get some laughs/eye-rolls with his cynicism/bravado/sleaziness, and highlight what a nice guy the main character is. The point of this scene is not to show how grotesque his attitude is; it's how the protagonist is trying out various approaches to meeting a woman.

I don't think dialogue like that would come out this year, at least not without comment, but it's a clear indication of how normalised the concept of targetting really, really drunk women is. And just because the speaker of those words would've had a few drinks themselves doesn't mean they're both drunk and all is equal.

None of this has any specific bearing on the OP's friend, but that's the greater context of his situation: a culture where deliberately making advances on women who've vomited on themselves, lost their friends, smeared their makeup, cried or mislaid their keys is a tactic common enough to be a joke, even a cliche.

Pumper

The person who has been assaulted is the person who feels they were assaulted

Categorically not true. Actually a very dangerous way of thinking if you follow it to its logical conclusion.

^Just because you feel like you have been assualted/raped, that has no bearing on whether you have been or not.

But it DOES mean you can accuse a person of rape/assault^

Only if you have grounds for that accusation. Accusing someone of rape is pretty big thing to do.

Tsundoku

I actually completely agree with you. I was taking issue with the opinion of some posters that someone who has been drinking can automatically not give consent. I took that logic to its natural conclusion (that they both assaulted each other) in order to highlight how absurd that way of thinking is.

Some men can be very predatory towards women they perceive as vulnerable, alcohol is often a factor in that.

The point is, that from the information the OP has given, there is no reason to think that the OPs friend has done anything wrong. It does sound to me like the woman in question is unstable to say the least, If I was the OPs friend, I would do exactly what has been suggested on here. i.e screenshot messages, write my account of what happened down now to get it straight in my mind etc.

Ah Patriarchy you know you’re being a bit too literal here, come on now. The person who feels they have reason for complaint is the person who is entitled to make that complaint. The person who feels they were taken advantage of is the person who is entitled to say ‘I feel I was taken advantage of’. The person who feels they have been assaulted is the person who says ‘I feel I have been assaulted’ not ‘she says I assaulted her and only then do I feel like the true victim here’.

The OP hasn’t given us enough information for us to know if this particular woman has grounds for the accusation or not, but to accuse someone of rape IS a big deal so presumably she does, or at least feels she does.

The point is, that from the information the OP has given, there is no reason to think that the OPs friend has done anything wrong.

I think, from the limited information given, there's adequate information to at least raise concern after an accusation has been made. This is NOT the same as assuming he's done anything wrong. There's a wide spectrum of scenarious within that one situation.

Very drunk, upset woman separated from friends.
Less drunk man with fairly contemptuous/disrespectful view of previous sexual partners.
Sexual encounter occurs, after which the woman feels she did not consent.

Of course, it could also be:

Two equally drunk people go home together, with mutual capacity to consent.
Woman has personal issues which lead her to make an accusation.

If it became a criminal matter, I'd expect a lot more information to be sought about the circumstances in which they went home. Someone already wrote an excellent post about that: was the man 'helping' her back to her house, or his, because she was in a state? or was it an enthusiastic mutual decision? whose idea was it? what happened before and after the sex?

The respective levels of intoxication on either part would also be crucial: I don't think 'they were both drunk' is specific enough. CCTV footage outside the club would probably be vital: I think there have been cases where you can very clearly see how falling-down drunk the woman was, and how she was targeted; equally I'm sure there are cases where the woman is able to interact fairly normally and happily with a range of people and perform various functions, and this has thrown doubt on the statement that she was blackout drunk. Statements from friends and witnesses (bar staff, bouncers, cab drivers?) could also be really important.

It's a horrible and complicated situation.

Christ, this thread is depressing. A crime doesn't come into existence when a guilty verdict is reached, or do people genuinely believe that over 90% of accusers are lying?

If a friend told you she'd been sexually assaulted, would you refuse to believe her until a time where a guilty verdict was reached?

Innocent until proven guilty is legal terminology for a court room. It has very little to do with whether a crime has occurred in reality and much more to do with whether it can be proven (which in cases like this it usually cannot).

Whether he's guilty or not in reality, you can't possibly know. By your own admission, he took a woman home who was severely incapacitated by alcohol and then had sex with her of some description. I'd say "taken advantage" sounds about right, at best.

Tsundoku

I agree. Very reasonable post.

Drunken sexual encounters must be one of the biggest single headaches for the police and the CPS. Like you said, it's almost impossible in some circumstances to know what has gone on, particularly when things take place behind closed doors. He said-she said is never going to be grounds to prove something beyond reasonable doubt. That's got to be one of the reasons that rape and sexual assault conviction rates are so historically low.

Tammy said By your own admission, he took a woman home who was severely incapacitated by alcohol

No. The OP actually said from what I was told, they were drunk At no point has the OP or her friend indicated that he woman was "severely incapacitated". I know plenty of people who would be classed as drunk but not be in the least incapacitated, let alone severely.

There was a text sent a couple of days later at 4 am. Assumption was made by the OP that the woman was drunk again due to the text being badly spelled. She could equally be dyslexic. Texts sent during the daytime were equally rambling. This could indicate she was still drunk hours later or that she is dyslexic or mentally unwell.

In other words, there are very, very few facts in evidence and people are making assumptions based on what very little we do know or have been told. Even the OP has made assumptions!

Tammy if a friend told you she'd been sexually assaulted would you refuse to believe her until....

Of course not. Presumably you mean the friend is someone I know well. Unless this friend were the sort of person whom I knew often made things up, and then yes, I'd want more information.

Patriarchy

was taking issue with the opinion of some posters that someone who has been drinking can automatically not give consent.

This is obviously not the case. But it’s not quite the argument many are making...

I took that logic to its natural conclusion (that they both assaulted each other) in order to highlight how absurd that way of thinking is.

Right.

First we have to ask ourselves what level of intoxicating would lead to us making the assumption non-consent.
there is unfortunately not a consensus about what that actually means in several jurisdictions...

A. the standard for non-consent is being genuinely ‘blackout drunk’ / complete incapacition or a consumption of alcohol that is usually associated with such a state:
Someone in that state could obviously not initiate sex. Two incapacitated people therefore couldn’t rape each other.

So that’s fairly unproblematic.

B. the standard is lower....:

• if both are drunk the person that is charged / seen as a suspect is usually the one that initiated the act. (Who is generally assumed to be male. Which is definitely a discussion to be had.)

we do generally place the responsibility on the initiator. One should therefore not initiate if one is unsure whether one still has the ability to recognise non-consent and act accordingly.

• there is also the argument that a voluntary diminishment of one’s ability to recognise certain circumstances or control one’s actions is not an excuse for criminal behaviour (Which is rather common in criminal law)

Museum - he wasn't so drunk he couldn't plan to at the very least target someone emotionally vulnerable to a sexual advance - that seems at least a little calculating to me.

As for parity - men are still stronger than women drunk or not, she was the one more vulnerable here.

"That he has form for ignoring women after sex is pretty inconclusive. Unless, of course, you'd be willing to discount the possibility that a man is a rapist based on the fact that he follows up on post-sex texts." No I think you know that's not what I'm saying, but it speaks to his attitude toward women generally - which other posters have also picked up on.

"Why? Just the accusation of rape/sexual assault can be enough to completely ruin a mans life" sorry that's nonsense, numerous cases in recent news of both celebrity and non-celebrity men accused even convicted have shown this is FAR from true, there's still a LONG way to go in equality regarding sexual assault.

"Taking her back to her house puts more control of the situation in her hands, and taking her back to his gives him the control." Yes!

"What nonsense is this? Drunken consent is still consent." NO IT ISN'T not even legally! DEFINITELY not morally, seems op's friend isn't the only person needs to learn about consent.

"That's got to be one of the reasons that rape and sexual assault conviction rates are so historically low." And another big reason is the prejudice against and disbelief of victims.

"we do generally place the responsibility on the initiator. One should therefore not initiate if one is unsure whether one still has the ability to recognise non-consent and act accordingly." Exactly - an initiator should be as sure as possible they have sober, sane, non-coerced, clear consent.

Graphista said he wasn't so drunk he couldn't plan to at the very least target someone emotionally vulnerable to a sexual advance

Where are you getting the fact that she was emotionally vulnerable to a sexual advance? Who has said that? I see no reference to that whatsoever in the OP.

The OP said the woman had a screaming argument with another friend and that she was drunk. This does not automatically mean she was emotionally vulnerable.

Well i think the girl is most likely right. Someone said that you should take the side of the innocent, until proven guilty, but i think what you should do is take the side of the OPPRESSED. And in our society's case its cleraly the girl. I mean for all we know he might have done horrible things to her, and now he's trying to get away with it.
Anyway, thats what you get when you vote for Trump.

Museum - he wasn't so drunk he couldn't plan to at the very least target someone emotionally vulnerable to a sexual advance - that seems at least a little calculating to me.

Please explain where you got this idea?

I think it’s fair to suggest that a woman who has a screaming arguement with her friend then goes off with a stranger is more vulnerable than a woman who is having a happy night out with her friend and leaves, still happy, with a stranger, yes.

Museum As two of us have now asked that question, be interesting to see the answer. Both Graphista and Tammy are stating things that are nowhere to be found.

mbajoras444 Thank you for that completely ridiculous comment. I hereby claim the right to create Shatner's Law, which is the same as Godwin's Law, only replacing Hitler with Trump.

Pumper As I said to Tammy, I know people who are drunk without being severely incapacitated. Similarly, I know people who can have a screaming argument but half an hour later be laughing and joking and placid as hell. People are making suggestions and assumptions based on very flimsy ground, not on what little actual FACT there is to go on.

Man getting into fight = aggressive
Woman getting into fight = vulnerable

Is this right?

Shatner but that doesn’t mean anything. I know people too, I know people who get drunk and fight and never get over it. And I don’t think it’s totaly out of the realms of reality to suggest ‘fallen out with friend’ is more vulnerable than ‘having a brilliant night out with friend’ - do you? That doesn’t mean he took advantage, of course, but it seems ridiculous to deny she could be vulnerable without her friend.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting they know the facts of what happened here - for every ‘I believe her’ there’s a counter ‘I don’t believe her’.

The point in this OP is, this woman has made a complaint. That to me suggests she feels she has something to complain about.