drunken consent

[stitch]

this is the sort of thing that really annoys me.
some silly woman gets drunk, has sex with bloke, then ruins his life by saying he raped her. i totally agree with the judge. drunken consent is still consent.
if you totally didnt want sex, then you shouldnt have got yourself so drunk that you cant remember whether you consented or not. rape is obvious as it happens. not after the fact. ask the real victims of rape.
i just feel that this sort of attitude belittles how horrific a crime it really is.
oops, should have done the link first.
here

Have read it now and think he is even more stupid than i thought. Having been charged with taking the girl back because she was ill by a member of staff and then think that having sex with her is looking after her interests is just.....oh i cant find the words.

In any case any decent man wouldnt take advantage of a woman in a drunken state even if (big if) she was coming on to them.

He was sober, too, presumably. Making him taking advantage of the drunken girl even less understandable.

It is possible she "led him on". But she was really drunk, drunk enough to get kicked out of a student event! That's pretty seriously drunk.

Yes but you have to take responsibility for your actions.

If you choose to get so drunk that you can't say no or throw yourself at someone and then regret it the next morning then I'm sorry but that is your problem.

I agree that the security guard was in a position of trust and should not have had sex with this girl though.

She was drunk enough that she didn't know they had intercourse! Ugh, this just gives me the heebie-jeebies.

Easy/Hula, does this mean that it's ok to mug drunk people, too? Just go through their pockets and take whatever you like? After all, they've abrogated their responsibility to take care of themselves, so it's each person for themselves, right?

I don't mean being attacked obv that is different

i am talking about being drunk and throwing youself at someone

CD, getting as drunk as she did was not very sensible. But if you're "so drunk you can't say no", then you're too drunk to say "yes", too.

Had the bloke been drunk, too, I'd have some sympathy for him, though.

Hang on,. I haven't once said that this is okay at all. I just simply asked what else there was to this story. Because the court must have made their decision based on something.

This is the law:
"It's also rape if the victim had too much alcohol or other drugs to know what they were doing."

However, the judge/court decided that in this case it was not rape. therefore there must be more to the story. There must be the man's version of events.

I don't think we have all the facts here. So I can't say if he did or did not rape this woman. I refuse to do so. that would not be a fair judgement IMO.

And I do thinkt hat there are some women and men who do open themselves up to abuse of trust because of their own actions. Like the flat mate I had, who not only risked her self but those of the girls she lived with.

No, it isn't okay to carry out any offence on a drunken person.

BUT where do we get this idea from that it's okay to get paralytically drunk? Personally, I think that is totally abhorrant behaviour, and have never done it in my life, although I enjoy a good night out, and drink quite happily at parties etc.

The 'security guard' was actually another student, who was acting as a security guard on that night.

I wouldn't be surprised if he's fancied her for ages, and couldn't believe his luck when she came on to him

Just a little levity Not condoning .....

I dont think it's a clear cut yes/no answer. Obviously there are different levels of being drunk and therefore of so called drunken consent. Also, in this case I assume the guard was stone cold sober and also in a position of responsibility in which case he should have known better. With both sides euqually drunk then I guess no one is a fault. If one party has been throwing themselves at the other... don't know. They still have to be in a fit state to give proper consent at the time of intercourse.

Not sure how you'd make a blanket decision about something like this as it depends on so many factors. In this case, I would say it was rape - if she really had no knowledge of having had sex with this man then she could not possibly have been in a fit state to give consent.

I'm undecided on this but wanted to take issue on this:

"We don't say to burgulary victims 'no crime has been committed because you don't have window locks and a burgular alarm'" - no, but if you leave your windows wide open and your door unlocked, don't be surprised if the insurance fails to pay out...

The burglar would still have committed a crime, but to a certain extent you are still held culpable and are responsible for the security of your own belongings.

Of course, I'd love to live in a world where you could get hammered and be assured of your own safety... and could leave your doors and windows open and not get robbed blind. And the fault still lies with the perpetrator. But given that you have to live with the consequences, personal responsibility for your own safety is something that we all have to have an interest in, whether male or female, imo.

I agree we don't have the full picture.

But I'm very unhappy with the quote, in the piece, from the prosecutor that "drunken consent is still consent".

And I realise him being a security guard charged with her safety isn't as big a deal as if he were a teacher, or her doctor, or a police officer, but still ...

(incidentally, I agree with comments that even if she was throwing herself all over him, the guy is still at fault for abusing his position of authority regardless).

Yes, getting paralytic regularly is abhorrant, Ihave done it once or twice and wished i hadnt too.

I would have thought though, that this girl felt safe in the confines of her campus, safe in the hands of the member of staff who sent her home, and safe with the person (a security guard?) who helped her home. Maybe getting paralytic isnt sensible but im guessing she felt safe in the surroundings to do so. Those were her actions.

His actions need answering for also.

The CPS said in court that they were offering no evidence to clarify her story.

How could a court find him guilty of rape, with no evidence against him?

im not entirely convinced all the evidence is in the article. it could be very misleading. it just says he was working as a security guard. was he working as a security guard at the time and place he was asked to take her home? not necessarily in a position of responsibility as the article makes you think. it also doesnt say that she was unconcious when they started having sex. i vaguely remember when i was so drunk i fell asleep during sex with someone. i cant say im proud of it but i wouldnt press charges for rape. if i hadnt been drunk, i wouldnt have done it but i know i consented at the time. i also have a friend who only remembered having sex with someone on her front door step when she passed her knickers which were in the gutter the following day. i have seriously reviewed my drinking since those days (the door step thing wasnt me btw, i would be too ashamed of my wobbly bits to do anything so public)

i think the fact that she was NOT conscious tends to negate capacity to give consent?!

also what about rohypnol... woman appears drunk but is actually doped, is this consent too then??#

i think not

But who says she was not conscious? Does the man state this too?

No offence jgggg but isnt that surely good enough reason not to have sex with someone who is THAT drunk? It cant be enjoyable having sex with someone who is, to all intents and purposes, asleep? Why would he do it?

You wouldnt be the first to make a bad judgement call when drunk but it doesnt seem that this is the issue here. Although the article is limited in its contents.

Im afraid im a bit sensitive on this issue.

it doesnt say she was unconcious at the beginning kate. i suspect if she was they would say it explicitly, instead it just seems a bit fudged which makes me think they just want to paint a bad picture of him.

If she was unconscious right from the start, then this would definitely be rape. However this article an the BBC's updated one, does not state this at all and both look at the fact that there was this problem of being clear about her state.

QV, i wasnt sleepy to begin with! if a blokes drunk to then cant he also make a bad judgement? im also a little sensitive about this issue which is why i hate it when women cry rape and its not true. im not saying its 100% certain not to be true but she doesnt know! women who lie about rape are part of the problem with getting rapists convicted

The report in the Times says she recalls making a "pleasurable groaning sound", but then that she regained consciousness and stopped groaning.

Hmmm... if she was unconscious how come she remembers making the sound, esp. as she remembers nothing else.

I think I would class her drunken state as 'contributory negligence'