Was Bristol Palin raped?

[darleneoconnor]

according to this bristol palin was so drunk when she conceived her son that she doesn't remember having sex.

Sounds like rape to me.

Then she was basically 'forced' to marry her rapist? WTF! Sometimes America sounds more like the middle east!

Quite a few forums are discussing this, with some

disgusting rape myths on this forum

It's hard to say without having been there and seen what state she was in.

Being so drunk that one does not remember all the events of the previous evening is not necessarily the same as being so drunk that one is incapable of giving clear consent at the time.

I think it was rape clearly. One of the main principles of capacity to give consent legally is the ability to retain information. Bristol quite clearly did not have this.

The only thing with situation is that obviously we werent there, being so drunk ou don't remember giving concent is not neccesarily the same as being so drunk and unable to consent.

My ex used to often have alcohol-induced memory lapses. Those memory lapses only became obvious in hindsight. It was impossible to tell at the time whether this was going to be one of those situations that she would be able to remember the following day or not. She would obviously not be stone-cold sober but it would be very hard to tell exactly how drunk she was until she became incoherent.

Sure, if Levi Johnston had sex with Bristol Palin when she was obviously smashed and unable to give consent then I'd absolutely agree that he raped her. If she gave clear consent at the time (I don't know if that is what Levi is claiming happened of course) and it only emerged the following day that she could not remember what happened then no I don't think it would have been rape.

Snorbs - "it would be very hard to tell exactly how drunk she was"

I see what you're saying IRT your ex, but unless someone is an alcoholic (who I agree can give the appearance of being much more sober than they are) I think most people can tell the difference between sober and drunk. I will be teaching my DS that genuine consent cannot be given if his partner has had anymore than just a couple of drinks. Even mildly tipsy is considered an impairment of your judgement to drive, so why not something as important as who you allow access to your body?

My only is that she claims to have been on the contraceptive pill for 'stomach cramps' - WTF?

I would hazard a (totally uninformed) guess that she is being pressurised to claim virginity in the same way she was pressurised to get engaged - to protect mummy's reputation as a good catholic girl.

Why it should even matter what the family members of politicians get up to is beyond me. Or, I mean I understand why it's gossip-worthy but not why it's national news and supposed to reflect on the professionalism of the politician.

Regarding whether or not she was raped - it doesn't sound like it IMO from the story, but there is no way on earth we can know. The boy sounds like a very unpleasant young man though.

The article doesn't say clearly whether the drunken incident (when she lost her virginity) was also the occasion on when she conceived - it does say they went on to have a consensual sexual relationship.

Drunken consent will always be problematic. Alcohol is a disinhibitor and, without being there, it's impossible to say whether her words or actions indicated consent nor how drunk she appeared to be. The difference between dead drunk and sober may be clear, but there's a huge range of middle ground.

Just a note about sex whilst very drunk: on my younger days I had several longish-term fun relationships. We would go out and get very drunk and in the morning, with a thumping head and in a cuddle, I might ask 'did we have sex last night?' and a laughing boyfriend would say either 'yes' and with mock hurt 'do you not remember?' or 'yes, but you wanted to stop halfway through' (which he would have done) or 'no haha, you were far too drunk!'. All of these situations were possible because I trusted my partners, and I never felt in any way that I was not in control. I would usually remember patchy details later anyway, if not the whole event.

I understand that some men would take advantage of a woman in a similar situation, and that would be rape. I am lucky that I have not dated any rapists.

I think we should hesitate before calling Levi a rapist on the basis that Bristol was drunk. It just makes it incredibly difficult to establish consent.

It is a slightly tricky one given that poor Bristol was undoubtedly force-fed abstinence messages and Nice Girls Don't bullshit, so there may well have been pressure on her to claim that she 'couldn't remember' what happened as saying that yes, she had sex with her boyfriend and enjoyed it would mean declaring herself a Bad Girl. But her 'boyfriend' may well have got her pissed and pressured her into having sex, as well. Is she saying it was rape? Or just saying that she couldn't remember it happening?

Without getting into the rest of it (I haven't figured out my thoughts entirely), to be fair Marcaroona, I went on the pill for "stomach cramps" (I'm presuming she means bad period pains - I would often have described them as stomach cramps, or just bad cramps) long before I lost my virginity (in fact long before I had any intention of it) and continued on the pill for a good while after that not entirely pleasant incident, purely due to the relief that the pill gave me from the absolute torture that my periods had been.

(Of course, that doesn't rule out the possibility that there's a whole lot of other pressure going on for her to 'claim virginity' anyway)

I don't think we can comment on the Bristol Palin episode specifically as we are not in possession of any of the facts, nor has she made an allegation, but the principles are certainly worth discussing. I appreciate there's a huge amount of middle ground between sober and drunk, but I still think that it is very unwise to assume genuine consent from someone who has had more than a couple of drinks.

Hard to say.

She obviously had huge issues surrounding sex because of her upbringing.

I agree with SpringChicken.

I also think it is relevant that she ws only 15 at the time, so I'm assuming wasn't a seasoned drinker. Apparently she had 'a few wine coolers' -dont know what they are or who gave them to her.

In retrospect Levi does sound like quite an unpleasent person and the whole 'she woke up to find him outside joking with his pals rather than snuggled in with her' does to me, give more evidence of non-consent.

I dont know. There seems to be an awful lot of rape in politics (JA, DSK) recently, if this case is just about her trying to salvage her 'good girl' identity then it's a setback for real rape victims trying to get justice.

SGM - do you think I was raped in the situation I have above then?

I'm really surprised what I am reading here. If she was too drunk to consent, which is what she has described, then she couldn't consent. If you can't consent it is rape.

As for questioning her reason for being on the pill as anything whatsoever to do with whether or not she was raped. What on earth is that about?!

She could be on the pill, have a draw full of sex toys, be wearing a thong, doing the naked lambada, selling her body to the highest bidder on the side and none of that means consent.

Alice - do you think I was raped?

Macaoona- I've been there too, had 'fuckbuddies' (for want of a better word) at uni, we'd get wasted (with a group of mutual friends) and then wake up the next day, neither of us able to remember whether we'd had sex or not (or if we'd used a condom).

It would never have crossed my mind at the time that any of this could be considered rape, and given how incapacitated the boy was, I would have been just as guilty. But, nowadays both the law and public perception has changed and having sex with someone in this condition IS RAPE.

SGM- did you intend to have a double negative there?

Darlene - my situation was in relationships of months or more, not fuckbuddies (not that I'm judging at all!)

At that time I really enjoyed being disinhibited from alcohol and having wild sex. If I couldn't remember the next morning, I never questioned the consent.

If a woman is acting very provocatively and initiating sex, and visibly enjoying it, how can it be rape if she then doesn't remember it? Or even if she regrets it?

I'm not in any way a rape apologist btw, totally agree that a woman is never responsible in any way if she is raped.

In fact I'd go as far as saying that calling sex which was drunkenly consensual 'rape' undermines the women who are actually raped whilst drunk.

I don't want to be attacked dittany - I'm making a point.

Call me a rape apologist if it's easier than addressing my point. I'm not arguing in any way against identifying rape, just musing on the benefit of calling all drunken sex rape.

Anyway I'm not doubting her story, just debating that she was raped. She doesn't say she was raped, only that she doesn't remember it. I don't think that always = rape.