Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

188 replies

Itssohothere · 22/05/2018 10:18

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.

OP posts:
Spaghettijumper · 22/05/2018 17:16

So you feel that in that situation it was totally my free choice to give you the money and your behaviour didn't push me at all into doing something I didn't want to do? You had no impact at all?

Pengggwn · 22/05/2018 17:17

Spaghettijumper

Influence isn't coercion. It just isn't. If you chose to give me the money rather than listen to me nag or walk off, that was your choice.

Spaghettijumper · 22/05/2018 17:19

No need to call me ridiculous, I'm just discussing this with you.

I'm talking about a scenario in which a person essentially punishes you, in a way that they know affects you, for saying no, so that you will be forced into saying yes.

Pengggwn · 22/05/2018 17:20

I'm talking about a scenario in which a person essentially punishes you, in a way that they know affects you, for saying no, so that you will be forced into saying yes

But you are NOT forced. That is the point. You have a number of options available to you. You choose one of them. You cannot then say the other person took away your choice and forced you, because they didn't.

Spaghettijumper · 22/05/2018 17:21

What about a con man who sits with an elderly woman and nags her for an hour to get £100 for something?

cloudtree · 22/05/2018 17:21

Spag that isn't coercion, its you being the type of person who will give in and do something that you would rather not do rather than stand your ground and say no.

cloudtree · 22/05/2018 17:21

This is rather bonkers now. It's gone round in circles.

Spaghettijumper · 22/05/2018 17:22

So, the woman in that situation, do you think she takes responsibility for being in a situation where she's having sex she doesn't want? That essentially it's her fault as much as the man's?

Pengggwn · 22/05/2018 17:23

Spaghettijumper

A con man who commits fraud is guilty of fraud. A con man who doesn't isn't. Fraud has a specific legal definition.

A con man who persuades a person without capacity to agree to part with their money is very likely guilty of a different offence, but the point is that they don't have capacity to agree.

cloudtree · 22/05/2018 17:23

Nobody is saying that its her "fault" that she's in a bad relationship. But she does have the choice to say no.

If she is forced into sex when she says no that is of course rape.

Spaghettijumper · 22/05/2018 17:23

So if a man finds the right 'type' of woman, the one who won't stand her ground, he can go ahead and get sex out of her when she doesn't want it? And in that situation is that woman just weak? Or what?

cloudtree · 22/05/2018 17:25

I think you're being deliberately goady.

If a man find a woman who will expressly agree to have sex with him even when she'd prefer not to then he is not raping her.

Spaghettijumper · 22/05/2018 17:25

You haven't really answered the question Pengggwn. If a con man sits down and talks and talks at an elderly but capable woman for an hour until she hands over £100 (for a legitimate product) that she doesn't want, has he committed no offence?

Pengggwn · 22/05/2018 17:26

Spaghettijumper

It doesn't change the law if she is too weak to say no. If she says yes, he isn't a rapist.

Pengggwn · 22/05/2018 17:26

Spaghettijumper

None whatsoever.

Pengggwn · 22/05/2018 17:28

Also, if the product is legitimate, he isn't a conman, he is a salesman.

If his sales tactic is to intimidate until the older person agrees to buy, he may well be guilty of an offence, but you didn't say that initially, so I will assume they aren't.

cloudtree · 22/05/2018 17:38

spaghetti nobody is denying that there are all sorts of men out there who are not very nice (along with all sorts of men who are very nice). The not very nice ones may do all sorts of things like cheat on their partners/do very little around the house/spend all of the money on themselves etc etc. But this does not mean that a woman who agrees to sex with that man in the hope that he will be a little bit nicer and not sulk for days/run off to another woman/call her a cocktease is being raped by him. She is agreeing to have sex with a horrible person.

The old lady has not had her money stolen - she has made a bad decision and may have been subject to underhand techniques but she has not had her money stolen

The person confronted by a beggar in the street has not had their money stolen - they have given in to the nagging in order to get on with their day rather than walking away and blanking the beggar but that money was not stolen from them.

Spaghettijumper · 22/05/2018 17:38

Harassing or influencing someone into buying is covered by Consumer Protection Regulations Pengggwn - that's why you have a cooling off period on things like insurance, to guard against it. Talking at someone for an hour could constitute a criminal offence under the regulations.

Spaghettijumper · 22/05/2018 17:41

Generally in consumer statutes, if someone says no and you disregard that and continue to talk to them, and especially if they say no more than once and you continue that is considered to be very aggressive selling and is definitely against the law. So it seems that the protections to consumers might be better than the protections to people in relationships.

Pengggwn · 22/05/2018 17:42

Spaghettijumper

Good. Glad to hear it. The same isn't true of nagging someone to have sex with you. Plus, that doesn't mean doing that is the same taking their money without permission. So, it isn't theft.

Screaminginsideme · 22/05/2018 17:53

I second showing her this

Hont1986 · 22/05/2018 18:04

"if it were the case that only women could initiate sexual contact because of an understanding of women's weaker position meant that was the only way to decrease rape, would that be a huge problem?"

Is that a serious question? Yes, obviously. Disregarding all the human rights violations to do with free speech and privacy, how would that even be enforced?

QuackPorridgeBacon · 22/05/2018 18:47

I haven’t read the whole thread and have only read the opening post. Your daughter is right and sounds a smart girl. If a man is also drunk and cannot consent then how the fuck has he raped someone? It doesn’t make sense to me. You can be drunk and raped but the two are not mutually exclusive. You can give consent while drunk because not everyone gets themselves to a point of being fucked and unable to think. You may let your inhibitions go a bit but you aren’t thick enough to not understnd what saying yes to sex means. This whole being raped if you are drunk is stupid. If people want to believe every drunk person is raped then surely the man has been sexually assaulted, what then? Who gets the blame? It can’t be the man that gets the blame because it then becomes sexist. The whole thing is a joke.

Pengggwn · 22/05/2018 18:51

l. If a man is also drunk and cannot consent then how the fuck has he raped someone?

He voluntarily put his penis inside them. If they were too drunk to consent to that, he is a rapist. His level of drunkenness isn't relevant. Being drunk isn't a defence.

diddl · 22/05/2018 19:12

I don't know why but I really don't like that cup of tea analogy.

I think it overcomplicates.

Especially when they don't know if they want tea or not so the tea is made.

Wouldn't it be better to not make the tea??