Rape apologism (not a real word, sorry) on a MN thread!

[SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius]

Sorry - a thread about a thread, but I feel that input is needed from as many people as possible, to counter some of the ridiculous things one particular poster is saying. The woman the thread is about was so drunk she was blacking out, can't remember what happened, but is sore, so is pretty sure she had sex - and someone is saying this doesn't mean she was raped!

Here.

This is a thread about a thread about a thread.

What the legal position? Let's assume for a moment, for the sake of discussion, that she gave consent, but was so drunk she now cannot remember the event at all? Does the law say that's rape, because she was in no fit state to say yes, even though she said it. Or does the fact that consent was given mean it wasn't rape, and it's her fault for getting into that state?

From the man's point of view, how drunk is too drunk. What's the line between tipsy, drunk and paralytic? Is he meant to breathalyse her and get a reading before proceeding?

If he says he got consent, and she can't say that he didn't, I can't see the CPS getting involved in that.

According to her account, this girl was so intoxicated she doesn't remember going back to this man's house, and she cannot remember the encounter in anything but odd flashes - she was not tipsy or even drunk - she was paralytic. Someone in that condition is not fit to consent to anything.

To a man who is worried about this, I would have some simple advice - if you aren't sure your sexual partner is sober enough to give informed, sensible consent, don't have sex with them. But if someone is blacking out, falling over etc - they are not in a fit state to give consent.

Yes, suelford - if you want to be pedantic, it is a thread about a thread about a thread. I hope you feel better for having pointed that out, even if you don't have anything intelligent useful to contribute to the discussion.

It's not complex.

If she was too drunk to give consent she was too drunk to give consent. It's got nothing to do with 'fault'. It was presumably her choice to become drunk (one hopes!). In the same way, it might be my choice to marry an abusive rapist. That would not make marital rape legal, any more than this would make rape legal.

There is nothing - legally - that means valid consent is set aside and we say 'oh, it's actually ok to rape in this circumstance'.

Interesting, so what if the male was in the same state? If he's as inebriated then surely the responsibility (or lack thereof) is equal & both should count it a lesson learned.....

It is a man's responsibility not to stick his penis in a woman without her consent. He is not absolved of that responsibility if he is drunk.

Not sure which two things you're equating, pru.

If a man is too inebriated to consent, he's too inebriated to conset.

But obviously, the responsibility isn't equal if a man is pissed and rapes a woman.

If I get in my car pissed and kill someone, I go to jail. Rightly so. That is equivalent to a man or woman who assaults someone while pissed.

If a man is pissed and rapes someone, it's still rape.

CPS aren't going to touch that with a bargepole.

is that what matters here, how prosecutable his actions were? what a fucked up response

That was my first thought too, Mitchy - what matters here is that people believe this girl, and support her through the aftermath of what happened to her.

Knowing that there are still people who believe so many of the rape myths, and are willing to make excuses for anyone who takes advantage of someone who is clearly very drunk indeed, makes me very depressed.

We are in the real world, bran.

Why do you think they won't? We've had Keir Starmer on here before and he seemed pretty clear on the fact rape is rape, and aware that spreading rape myths and pretending they're 'the real world' is damaging.

He basically took a stranger off the street, away from her friends, and had sex with her - how can that be 'not doing much wrong'??

So, from a legal point of view, it's a nightmare, trying to prosecute.

last night on this thread you expressed confusion about how capacity to give consent is determined and asked for help to understand the legal context, yet now you feel qualified to pronounce it 'a nightmare, trying to prosecute'. It's almost as if you are trying to dissuade people from reporting this sort of thing.

bren, if someone is pissed enough to suffer memory lapses, they're too pissed to consent.

(I do appreciate that you admit that the man who raped a woman in this situation 'didn't do much wrong'. At least you admit it was wrong.)

We need to change the attitude over this just as we have over drink-driving.

It's not OK to have sex with someone when they're drunk, if you do (no matter your state) then you are risking it being rape.

Perhaps, 9/10 times you're both happy about the drunken sex, but then 9/10 times you'd probably drive home without incident as well, doesn't make either choice the right decision.

No one suggested feminism is about denying the man a fair trial. And perhaps if you really mean to accept that you weren't there, you should stop pretending you can imagine what must have happened, shouldn't you? And stop spinning little stories where you've decided this woman is already guilty before any of it has got to court.

I would be worried that my son was going out and having drunken sex with drunken women.

He could catch anything, he could be raping them, he's not being respectful of himself or the women he was sleeping with.

It's a shift in viewpoint, but it's doable - if you're drunk, if she's drunk, think very, very hard before having sex.

"I would be worried that my son was going out and having drunken sex with drunken women." This.

"It could be (without wanting to be called an apologist for rape) that he didn't do much wrong. he met a girl on a night out. She'd been drinking, was even drunk, as was he, but was lucid enough. They went back to his place, he asked, she said yes, and the deed was done."

That is just fiction.

I'd rather my sons didn't rape women if its OK with you, Brenslo. Not being a rapist is pretty straightforward:

Don't feel entitled to have sex with a woman because you want to.
Think about her situation and whether she is vulnerable i.e. she is a human being with feelings and everything.
It isn't all about you.

You seem to be doing a lot of thinking about the man's feelings but nothing about how this woman felt and what kind of position she was in. There always seems to be a distinct lack of empathy with women in rape cases.

And you know what, it doesn't mean its not rape if it doesn't go to court or gets thrown out. I hope you aren't teaching your sons that so long as they can get away with raping a woman then it's OK

LRDtheFeministDragon Wed 04-Dec-13 15:42:43
hmm

No one suggested feminism is about denying the man a fair trial. And perhaps if you really mean to accept that you weren't there, you should stop pretending you can imagine what must have happened, shouldn't you? And stop spinning little stories where you've decided this woman is already guilty before any of it has got to court.

I've never claimed I know what happened. I said none of us know, as we weren't there. I have never said the woman was guilty of anything. I have given a possible alternative version of events, that may or may not have happened. It seems to me that all on here have tried and convicted the man of rape based on one side of the story, which is a dangerous game.

I seem to be the only one prepared to come at this from both sides, to wonder what defence might be put forward in court, be it true or not. To see a possible alternative side of the sorry tale.

I've never been one for jumping on bandwagons. If that upsets anyone, then hard luck.

Except the 'blame the rape victim' bandwagon, then?

If you're not pretending to know, why are you making up one-sided stories blaming the woman, then?

(Not grinning because it's funny, btw, but because it is absurd.)

I don't see much evidence of the blaming the rape victim on here, which is where we are transacting the discussion.

At no point in the alternative scenario did I blame the woman. You've made that up to bolster your argument. I've merely suggested that it is possible he thought she was lucid enough to make an informed decision. That isn't blaming her. But if true, it would absolve him.

I have not made up one sided stories blaming the woman, but you however have accepted a one sided story blaming the man! Why?