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.

Spag with all due respect you're talking rubbish and as a PP said its a bit worrying. It also really undermines the women trying hard to work with the police and CPS to secure convictions for genuine rape cases when people run such arguments.

I'm also out.

Spaghettijumper

It's pure fallacy, not pure logic. I don't want to cook dinner tonight for my DH. But it's my turn, so I will. I don't want to mow the lawn, but he's hurt his back, so I will. I don't want to go on holiday to France this year, but he keeps banging on about France and I can't be bothered arguing, so we're going. All things I don't want to do but I am choosing to do anyway.

so not simple at all really then

OP, you would be far better telling your daughter that (a) no one has the right to beg/force/manipulate her into having sexual contact and (b) no one has the right to define what qualifies as rape for her (albeit the legal definition is good to know).

While rape is simple enough to spot most of the time, in some situations there is no real consensus about what constitutes reasonably believing consent has been given and how drunk you can be but still have decision-making capacity, as this thread beautifully illustrates.

Rather than focus on that, help her decide what standard of behaviour she expects from partners and how to communicate that.

I would be very sorry if my 16 year old (male or female) was getting drunk and then making the choice to have sex at parties. It's not the same as deciding to sleep with a trusted boyfriend/girlfriend (not that I'd personally be fine with that either at 16). With the world being as it is (and not what we'd like it to be) she doesn't sound particularly safe.

There is a really important difference between nagging/begging and threatening. I think you are conflating the two, spaghetti. Nagging and begging are irritating but don't have any serious consequences - I always have the option to walk away safely. Threatening is a totally different ball game.

Back to the point of the thread - OP I think the teacher should have said that a drunk person may be unable to consent. I have been drunk and able to consent, and I have also been too drunk to consent (fortunately only around non-rapists). For everyone the amount of alcohol required to reach the "unable" threshold is different. And it isn't bad advice to suggest that if you are even remotely unsure whether the other person is too drunk, then just don't do it. Better to miss out on a drunken shag than to rape someone.

Pengggwn, if you had to do all of those things against your will because your DH nagged you to do them and you had to give in, then it could constitute coercive control, which is a form of domestic violence.

Regardless you're completely missing the point - no one is pressuring you to do those things and you could just choose not to do them. It wouldn't benefit you very much but you could choose.

If you're in a situation where you can't choose then you're under the control of another person and that's where the problem lies.

Apart from anything, sex isn't a necessary life task - you could choose never to do it again. The idea that you would equate sex with a chore is a bit odd tbh.

Spaghettijumper

No, Spaghetti. Enough people have told you now. In order for it to be coercion, I would have to be in fear of serious consequences if I said no.

'Nagging and begging are irritating but don't have any serious consequences - I always have the option to walk away safely. Threatening is a totally different ball game.'

So if a woman has the option to walk away safely, why doesn't she? Why does she give in?

So if I know that if I don't give in to the begging, I'll be ignored for a week, is that a serious enough consequence? Or does it have to be more serious for it to qualify, in which case I'm just a weak woman for giving in?

I'm just trying to find out what the line is a man can tread in order to get away with rape, long-term.

"please have sex or I'll sulk" - "oh ok then" =not rape
"please have sex, please have sex, please have sex, please have sex, please have sex, please have sex - "oh ok then" = not rape
please have sex or I won't talk to you for a week - "oh ok then" = not rape
please have sex or I'll be really nasty for ages - "oh ok then" = not rape

"please have sex" - "no" followed by forced sex = rape
"please have sex - can't respond because unconscious through drink - followed by forced sex = rape

Ok so as long as the man uses sulking and nastiness he can extract sex from an unwilling partner without any consequences.

Got it.

Spaghettijumper

A serious consequence places you in danger. It doesn't mean a falling out.

What a fantastic world we live in for rapists. And an utterly shit one for women.

This has been a really interesting conversation, thanks cloud and Pengggwn for sticking with it.

hand shook

Head grateful

Do you think the law is unfair, Spaghetti? Where would you draw the line between genuine consent and co-erced non-consent?

It sounds like you think that any sexual act that isn't initiated by the woman purely out of a desire to have sex could be an assault. If a man asks a woman for sex, she is put in a position where she might have to refuse and thus potentially anger or upset him, so can any consent given by a woman to a man be genuine? This route leads down the "all PIV sex is rape" road which puts a lot of people off feminist theory and undermines the genuinely useful stuff.

Hand shook

Ok so as long as the man uses sulking and nastiness he can extract sex from an unwilling partner without any consequences

Legal consequences, absolutely.
The partner is more than welcome to issue her own consequences, such as leaving the relationship.

Thanks Pengggwn :)

Sorry Hont, I have to go. I hate to comment and run but if you start a new thread I'll look it up later (conscious that we've really derailed this one).

I think the asking a woman for sex thing is a red herring because it doesn't reflect real life. As I said earlier, unless a man has a serious disorder, her can tell when a woman is smiling, touching and responding to him - it's not a huge mystery like some people seem to want to make out. It's usually plainly obvious when a woman genuinely wants sex and is really into it. If it's not clear then he can always use words and ask, again, that's not hard. If he's a genuine and decent person then even if she says yes but seems not into it, he'll back off - why he would want to have sex with someone who seemed reluctant, regardless of what they were saying? Surely that's only fun to a rapist?

If I was chatting to you and I suddenly stuck my hand in your mouth I don't think you would accept the explanation that I thought you wanted it. It would seem absolutely mad that I thought that. That's because in normal human interaction, it's pretty clear when you're overstepping boundaries and if you're not sure you can always ask. For some reason when it comes to sex the basic knowledge of how humans behave seems to go out the window and people start postulating really odd situations where a person can be literally on top of someone and still genuinely not know, nor have any way of finding out, how that person is really feeling.

Needless to say it's total bollocks and it's how men justify hideous behaviour. For some reason the ridiculousness of it seems to go unexamined a lot of the time partly because, I think 1) a small but significant proportion of men are rapists and are all for any explanations that allow them to get away with it 2) an unacceptably large proportion of women have been raped in these circumstances but would (understandably) rather not see it that way 3) because of 1 and 2 society has it set up so that it's not acceptable to beg and nag someone to let you put your hand in their mouth (it's not acceptable behaviour, it's just weird and intrusive) but it is commonplace to beg and nag someone to let you put your penis in their vagina, and if they give in, then well, they've chosen to be used, no matter what the reason was for giving in.

I don't think anyone on the thread disagrees with that. But it doesn't really answer what I asked about, which is the line beyond which nagging/begging, or even just any real or supposed negative consequence, turns into coerced consent.

I hope you might answer this when you get back.

Spaghettijumper

I'm as horrified as anyone by bullying, nagging and generally entitled sexual behaviour. It's wrong. But blurring the lines between those things and rape does women no favours. It just creates excuses for rapists to say, "See - daft women don't know what they're talking about and they see rapists everywhere! She'd had a few but she definitely wanted it; I mean, look, she consented on Monday. Yes, she was a bit out of it on Tuesday but she moaned when I touched her. She was enjoying it!"

We have to keep the actual definition of rape in our sights. It is vital.

so that it's not acceptable to beg and nag someone to let you put your hand in their mouth (it's not acceptable behaviour, it's just weird and intrusive) but it is commonplace to beg and nag someone to let you put your penis in their vagina

Your "hand in mouth" analogy in interesting because it would also not be considered a criminal matter. Nobody here is suggesting that nagging and begging for sex is okay, I personally would not accept it within a relationship. The consequences for such behaviour are, however, not for the criminal justice system to deal with.

and if they give in, then well, they've chosen to be used, no matter what the reason was for giving in.

Again, nobody is saying that. The reason for giving in is vitally important. All I (and I think others) are saying is that In order to be considered coercion (ie a legal matter) there is a higher threshold than nagging.