To be so lost after PSHE comment on consent/alcohol and now situation with DD. *trigger warning, mentions rape*

[Itssohothere]

I have tried my best to word this post best as I can, but if anyone is offended then I do apologise. I did consider the feminism section but this is also about general parenting advice as well so hopefully here is okay.

DD is 16 and currently doing GCSE’s. Study leave has been removed for the whole year due to lack of said studying. The school have decided to continue with PSHE, God knows why, so DD is still attending hourly PSHE sessions once a week.

The PSHE teacher has reportedly said, “if a man and woman have sex and either is drunk, it’s rape.” Bear in mind this is my 16 year old DD’s account.

DD has come home very angry with this statement and has asked me to explain this. According to my DD, she has had sex when drunk before at a party and doesn’t consider herself to have been raped. I knew DD was sexually active but this conversation has thrown me and I don’t think I’ve done DD justice in explaining the teachers comment.

I tried to explain that a woman cannot consent if drunk, which is as far as I got really. But DD then went back to the point if she didn’t think she has been raped, surely not every woman who has drunken sex has been raped and if the man is drunk he cannot consent also. Which again, please bear in mind is my DD’s opinion, not my own. And she is 16, very strong headed and opinonated. I know many people will disagree with her here.

So AIBU on several points here:

A) to be concerned that my DD has had drunken sex at a party? I knew she had had sex with her ex boyfriend, and she was fully advised and prepared in terms of protection, but I wasn’t aware of drunken sex at parties. She shouldn’t be drinking, so I can punish her for drinking... but at the same time I feel like I’d be punishing for having sex which I don’t want too do, as obviously this wouldn’t be healthy at all. What do I do here? Let it go and accept she’s just at this stage now? We are close, she’s always told me stuff so I’m grateful that our closeness has led to conversations about protection, etc... and has allowed me to help her get herself on the pill, talk her through the confusion of when she first had sex and felt upset after, etc... and I don’t want to ruin this. I like the fact she trusts me so much and is willing to confide in me and I don’t want to lose this.

And B) she’s leaving school soon, but AIBU to be annoyed at how sloppy this PSHE lesson was? And want there to be some sort of follow up? Clearly some girls have been left confused and angsted.

And finally, what the hell do I say to my DD? A woman can’t consent if she’s drunk, but if you have sex whilst drunk and are perfectly happy with the activities, then of course you don’t have to think of yourself as raped- but have to bear in mind that a woman still cannot consent if drunk, you cannot speak for other women, therefore another woman in the same situation may very well consider themselves to have been raped and in which case this will have been rape?

But then by saying this I feel like I am telling my DD that a woman chooses if she has been raped, which of course isn’t true.

So can someone more articulate please provide me with an explanation, resource or input I can share with my daughter here? I feel like this a chance I have to make a positive impact on her development and I don’t want to eff up here but explaining something terribly.

Thank you.

I think it's helpful if PHSE can talk about drinking and the risk of low inhibitions leading to crimes being committed ie you might ride a space hopper the wrong way down an underpass
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-30681476

You might get drunk and try to steal a bar stool because all your friends have stolen pint glasses.

You might punch a bouncer (or try to).

Some men might commit rape.

And framing it in this way removes the 'does she consent' element from it - committing a crime is a separate conversation from consenting to sex, ideally. I don't see how you can cover both elements in the one training session without victim-blaming.

Isn't the idea more that someone is so drunk that they would have been incapable of consenting?

I've had sex when drunk-& admittedly I doubt that I would have had sex with them if I was sober.

That's impaired judgement though, not lack of consent.

upsideup Under UK law though, women can't rape men, as they don't posses a penis. In general, it's much more common for women who are incapable of consent to be raped or sexually assaulted by a man than it is for a man to be sexually assaulted by a women in this situation. Also, the OP is specifically talking to and about her daughter.

OP, as an analogy, could you use the idea of being tattooed while drunk? A responsible tattooist wouldn't tattoo someone under the effects of drugs or alcohol, as it's possible they might come to regret their decision, and their decision making might be impaired. It might not be, but the "might be" is important here. The tattooist doesn't know how the person will feel when they're sober, so they er on the side of caution.

Obviously sex is a bit different to a tattoo- in a loving relationship where you know each other well, you can usually judge if the other person is too drunk, or if they will regret doing something later on (although even then, making that judgement call for another person is a bit iffy). If you don't know each other well- especially if you don't know the other person well enough to judge how drunk they actually are- then it's probably best not to make that judgement call for them.

We sometimes override things that drunk people are saying, because we know they're not in a position to make the best decisions for themselves.

Remind her that when teachers give this advice, it is more about teaching people not to rape, than how not to be raped (as there's no sure way to avoid being raped).

Lots of sensible advice here.

I think you're getting confused over the drunk element - that's not relevant really. The key is whether both people involved have the capacity to consent and have consented freely, without any coercion. So, for example, if the man nags and begs the woman and she eventually gives in, that's rape, because she hasn't consented freely. If the woman is so drunk that she doesn't have the capacity to consent, then that's rape.

It's worth talking to your daughter about the fact that some men actively enjoy getting women drunk enough to have sex with them, in situations where they wouldn't otherwise say yes. That's technically not rape, but it's disgusting manipulative behaviour and any man who does it is the lowest of the low in my view - they understand fully what they're doing and they're calculating enough to ensure they can get away with it. Arsewipes.

I don't think a male can tell the difference between a drunk woman who still consents to sex and a drunk woman who looks as if she is consenting but is actually too far gone to do so. So the advice to stay away from having sex with drunk women seems fairly sound, and is something I would pass on to my sons!
It may have been delivered in a clumsy way but there are still far too many cases of girls being encouraged to drink to get them willing for sex, or boys who think not saying no or fighting them off means a green light. And it's so much better than "well she got drunk so what did she expect" which would have been the approach prevalent in my schooldays.

'I don't think a male can tell the difference between a drunk woman who still consents to sex and a drunk woman who looks as if she is consenting but is actually too far gone to do so. So the advice to stay away from having sex with drunk women seems fairly sound, and is something I would pass on to my sons!'

This sort of comment really bothers me. It suggests that it's normal for men to just go ahead and stick their penis in a woman without any real interaction with them, that it's normal for a man to be totally oblivious to the state and feelings of the person he is right next to. It's a similar argument to the one that men can't tell if a woman is happy or not, or enjoying things or not - it genuinely horrifies me that women really believe that, because it makes me wonder what sort of awful sexual situations they must have been in and considered normal.

Barring any serious mental issues, human beings, women and men alike, can tell quite easily how other people are feeling - they are generally very good at reading body language, but failing that they usually can speak and so could just say 'are you ok?' The idea that a man can just go and stick himself into someone and not give a thought to how that someone feels is horrifying - if a person went and, say, stuck their hand in someone's mouth without thinking twice about how the other person feels, everyone would think they were totally nuts, and a bit disgusting. But sticking your penis in someone with no thought to how they feel? Absolutely fine.

Spaghettijumper

Excellent post. Of course they can tell.

So, for example, if the man nags and begs the woman and she eventually gives in, that's rape, because she hasn't consented freely

Please don't tell anyone else this. It isn't true.

What do you mean Pengggwn? That a man can coerce a woman into sex, as long as the coercion involves nagging and begging?

So, for example, if the man nags and begs the woman and she eventually gives in, that's rape, because she hasn't consented freely

No! Thats the very definition of consent. She is saying yes! Albeit she might wish afterwards that she hadn't but she has expressly consented.

I did not say without interacting with her. I am meaning times when the woman may seem keen to have sex but in the same circumstances sober she absolutely would not. And if her judgement is impaired then his probably is too if both drinking (especially the quantities some teenagers drink) then the advice not to have sex under the influence stands. I don't accept that a woman still capable of saying "yes" has given consent if she is too drunk to be deemed capable of consenting. Free and informed consent and drunkenness just don't go together.

Giving in isn't consent. Jesus Christ.

I think you'd be on sticky legal grounds there Spaghetti.

If a man nags a woman for sex and she agrees she has expressly consented.

If a man holds a gun to a woman's head and says he'll kill her if she doesn't agree then she has not consented.

These scenarios are very different and getting them mixed up is what has probably resulted in some of the confusion about whether drunken women can consent.

Spaghettijumper

I am saying you don't understand what coercion is. If someone approaches me in the street and nags and begs me to give them £20 and I do, they have not stolen it; I gave it to them. Same with consent to sex. Unless coercion amounts to a situation where they feel they must allow sex, consent is consent, begging or nagging or no.

Who gives a fuck about legal grounds? Why does it always come back to that? If I can't prove in a court of law that you stole my ring, it doesn't make the ring any less stolen. Equally if a woman can't prove in a court of law that she was raped, it doesn't make her any less raped.

Why would a woman give in to sex that she doesn't want unless she felt she had to?

who gives a fuck about legal grounds?

The person wrongly accused of rape
The person trying to establish (correctly) that they have been raped.

It's important. If someone agrees to have sex with a man when he has been nagging them that is NOT rape.

Spaghettijumper

Who gives a fuck about legal grounds?

The police, the CPS, the prosecuting barrister, the judge, the jury - you know, people involved with deciding whether a crime took place.

You can have your own special definition of rape, but there is an actual definition.

Spaghettijumper

She might feel sorry for him. She might feel she can't be bothered having an argument about it. She might feel she owes him sex.

'If someone approaches me in the street and nags and begs me to give them £20 and I do, they have not stolen it; I gave it to them'

Sorry what the fuck? Are you saying it's perfectly legal to go to someone on the street and nag them and beg them until they give in and give you their money?

spaghetti - erm yes.

There are not many situations where somebody does not have free will. Usually restricted to situations where threats of serious harm are made.

'She might feel sorry for him. She might feel she can't be bothered having an argument about it. She might feel she owes him sex.'

And that's all perfectly fine and normal? For a woman to have sex she doesn't want because she feels she owes someone or in order to avoid an argument?

Even though your daughter may have been drunk, she was not drunk enough not to be able to consent. She gave consent because she was capable of doing so.