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.

In that specific incident I completely agree, it sounds very much like the woman had no intention of meeting up with this man for sex, but was taken there without her being conscious enough to object.

However, the principle remains for me, that if the way those two people had met were different, say they met at a party, say he was a friend that she knew quite well, or even a boyfriend, then according to some people, when she woke up the next day feeling like she may have had sex, but unable to remember whether or not she had consented, then we should all cry rape because she doesn't remember if it was or not, and best to err on the side of caution eh?

To suggest that if someone has drunk too much to drive they should abstain from sex would mean that most of the women on MN would never have sex with their husbands given all the wine and gin that is regularly consumed on here.

It might be a good rule of thumb for more casual encounters, at the very least, though, Doing? Because what's the worst that will happen if someone decides they are a bit too pissed to have sex? Not having sex is not going to blight their life or someone else's.

But having drunk, ill-advised sex has all sorts of risks for both parties - even if neither party regrets the actual sex afterwards, their state of intoxication could lead them to risky behaviour, such as not using protection, that could have very real, possibly life-altering consequences.

Can we pause and have a think about how drunk you have to be to have black outs the next day? We're not talking "slightly tipsy, inebriated enough to lose some of your inhibitions so you're prepared to grab a bloke's arse while you're dancing in a night club" drunk. We're talking "staggering, barely able to stand, unable to put together a coherent sentence, on the verge of passing out" drunk. How could any decent man (the vast majority of the male sex), even if he was a bit drunk himself, not realise that a woman (or man, for that matter) in the incoherent-staggering-verge-of-passing-out category needed to be put to bed, on their own, rather than poked like a blow-up doll because they're too passive to resist? Anyone who seriously thinks there's a grey area here is either extremely dim or being wilfully (as in with an agenda of their own) stupid. (And yes, I have known many lovely men who have gone down the "put her/him to bed safely, then retire to a safe, separate sleeping place of your own" route).

I am married and during the course of that marriage I have, on occasions. been so drunk that I don't remember the events of the evening but have had sex, have I been raped? I don't feel like I have.
There have also been occasions when my DH has been so drunk that he doesn't remember the events of the evening but I was not drunk and know that we have had sex, happily on my part but he was unable to ensure my consent or me his. Rape or not?
What happens on the occasions that we were both so drunk that neither of us remember the event but it is obvious we've had sex?
I realise that this makes us sound like permanent drunks but it hasn't happened often and we have been married for a long time but I think it is an interesting quandary.

For what it's worth I have advised my sons to never have sex with a woman who has been drinking however much she says she wants to as they cannot ensure consent. Better safe than sorry.

the law isn't there to catch out couples who are both perfectly happy with their existing arrangements ffs

NCISaddict

I agree with you and can also see LLF's point of view. Basically, that's why courts have juries - to bring the knowledge and understanding of life and everyday living of 12 persons to sit in judgement of the accused.

See also the facts in this case I've referred to Bree Case . No wonder rape trials are so difficult to prosecute.

There are regular posters on this thread and other threads in this MN section, that are firmly of the opinion (and in theory they are correct) that sex without consent IS always rape/sexual assault.

G'ahhh! Not again. Not the "it's going to ruin my happy married sex life" argument. No it isn't. It really, really isn't.

NCIS (love the name by the way) - this is like the thing that always comes up re. discussions of initiating sex while one partner is asleep. Again, it's not bloody rocket science.

Scenario 1: You're happily married. At some stage one partner says "you know, I have a bit of a kink where I would quite like being woken up by you starting to make love to me... and don't worry, if on the odd occasion I'm not in the mood, I'll let you know, and so long as you stop if asked, which I know you will, because you're a nice person who loves and respects me, that's fine." This is perfectly OK.

Scenario 2: Abusive marriage - one partner routinely wakes the other up by "climbing aboard" despite having repeatedly been told that this is not welcome. Sexual assault/rape.

Scenario 3: The morning after the night before in what started out as a consensual one-night-stand. Just because they had sex the night before, you can't assume they'll want to have it this morning - you have to wake them and ask, and if you don't, again, sexual assault/rape.

Honestly, normal, reasonable people can quite easily tell the difference between a sexual advance which is welcomed and reciprocated and one which isn't. In fact (google the work of psychologist David Lisak on date rape) rapists can tell too - they just don't care.

And the whole point about being paralytically drunk (the clue is in the word "paralytically") is that the person can't reciprocate - and if they're just lying there totally inert like a sack of spuds what sort of weirdo would get off on having sex with them? (The answer, in case you're struggling, is "a rapist").

Mitch1nge

Your post of 12.08, is missing the point. The point is about how, through drink, consent may have been forgotten about the next morning in any relationship - casual or established.

We all know that rape is possible within marriage - so, if in her first paragraph, NCISaddict knows that the act of penetration occurred but it appears to have been so, without her consent - why is that not on the face of it, rape ?

As an aside too - re: statistics on sexual assault/rape - were the question to be put to her - has any one had sex with you without your consent - is the answer yes ?

LLF

what a fantastic example of the 'straw man' argument - introducing a 'sleeping partner' - a real pleasure to see it in the flesh.

I'm not disagreeing or a rape apologist but I know that when I or my partner have been so drunk that we can't remember what we did we would not have been lying like a sack of spuds but would be giving every sign of enjoying the experience. My main problem is where both party's are incredibly drunk. So drunk you can't remember is not necessarily unable to walk/respond which applies to both sexes.
Do we have to ban drunken sex or at least advice our children not to indulge? If that's what it takes then so be it.

Beatrix - presumably because happily married couples talk to one another, and not just in the bedroom. Can't speak for NCIS, but I could imagine a conversation the next morning which goes something like

A: 'eff me, I'm hungover
B: me too
A: did we shag last night?
B: Yeah, well kind of more of a drunken fumble, but yeah... hang on, you don't remember?
A: No.
B: Are you ok?

Then one of three scenarios
A: Yeah, course I am, drunken fumbles happen. I probably quite enjoyed it.
B: Oh, right then. (marriage proceeds quite happily with the occasional drunken fumble in future).

Or
A: Feels a bit funny to be honest. But hell, you were drunk too. It's not the end of the world.
B: God, sorry, we'd better make sure that doesn't happen again.
(marriage proceeds quite happily with mutual agreement not to have drunken fumbles because it feels a bit weird the next morning).

Or
A: Feels a bit funny to be honest. But hell, you were drunk too. It's not the end of the world.
B: Yeah, you shouldn't have let me get drunk in the first place, 'cos you know I'm a bit of an arse when I'm drunk.
(marriage proceeds very unhappily, B having engaged in a nice piece of victim blaming which he/she presumes gives him/her the entitlement to carry on as before).

Cross posted, Beatrix - not a straw man at all. The whole point is that being drunk to the level of blackouts is, for most people, being drunk to the level of insensibility, which vitiates consent every bit as much as being asleep, being insensible due to being drugged.

I do not feel that I was raped, I do not know if I consented but then I guess within a normal loving relationship consent is not formal or necessarily in words but can be implied.
Equally when I was sober but my DH was very very drunk he did not actively/verbally consent but he appeared to be participating happily but did not remember it in the morning.

you (collectively) are moving so far beyond the spirit of the law I'm not surprised to have missed whatever the point is, obviously it is for NCIS to determine whether the sexual contact with her husband is unwanted or not and that's what the law is there to protect us from and that's when it becomes useful

Exactly, NCIS, so (don't know the details) you're clearly in my first imagined scenario, and you and your husband are perfectly happy with what went on. No one in their right mind's going to be jumping up and down shouting "LTB".

But there are threads in relationships where something much more like my third scenario is the case. And in that case I would be saying "LTB."

And in any case, neither of these scenarios is the one being described in OP - there, a complete stranger preyed on a paralytically drunk woman too inebriated to resist, took her back to his place and raped her.

This is a very interesting discussion, in my youth, many moons ago I had a few drunken fumbles some leading to intercourse, some to passing out without ever managing to get to that point.
In a few of those incidents I came to in the morning and thought once I had worked out what had happened' I really wish I hadn't done that' but I did consent, at the time, and did participate rather enthusiastically in the event. Was my consent valid? Was his?
I wouldn't have had sex with that man if I had been sober, equally he may not have had sex with me if he had been sober, in the cold light of day we weren't attracted to each other. It's not behaviour I am particularly proud of, and probably neither was he, but was it rape?

Actually, it's just struck me that this conversation has got shifted (as usual) to "what does a woman have to do to make it clear that she unequivocally withdraws her consent?" When actually what we need is a massive shift in mindset to "what does a man have to experience in order for him to be clear beyond all reasonable doubt that this woman does want to have sex with him?"

And my choice of "want to have sex" rather than "consent" is quite deliberate, because if all you're focussing on is consent, as others have said, that's setting the bar way too low.

LLF

With respect, none of that goes to the general point about consent. The point of contention is this - Is it possible for two drunken and consenting (or seemingly consenting as far as the other is genuinely concerned) persons to be having sex and for at least one of them to be unable to recall being consenting, when they sober up - usually the next morning.

Because if its possible with married couples - why not with 'one night stands' ?

What about if there is consenting drunk sex between two drunk adults. Then they continue drinking after sex till they pass out. One has blackouts in the morning.

if you are looking back at a long or even short history of drunken sex with randoms I hope you've had yourself checked out for STIs

It was just a scenario. Many possibilities of what might happen

what is possible is not necessarily probable though is it?

if there is a possibility that someone has been raped, as in the circumstances that inspired this thread, then it is in the public interest for the police to investigate it and gather their evidence and identify the other party and question him and make a decision about charges and so on

if NCIS and her husband are enjoying their sex lives it's really not anyone's business but theirs and I don't understand what it has to do with this discussion at all

Beatrix: Because with (happily) married couples you know each other, you have a long history of discussions about what you like sexually, you know how to read each other's body language, you've been drunk together before, you know each other's boundaries.

With a one-night-stand you have to err on the side of caution, because you don't know each other. If I was a bloke - and here I am making a background assumption that I would have to be slightly less paralytic, if I was still capable of getting it up - I'd be thinking "she's really out of it - is she up for it, or is it one of those drunken 'I really luff you' situations?"

The continuing drinking case snowshepherd suggests is more difficult. But that, everyone, is why we have jury trials. And I would suggest that it really isn't as complicated as some people are making out. Sure one can tie oneself up in knots with really bizarre counterexamples, but most of the time if someone is drunk to the point of passing out, you shouldn't be having sex with them. I really, really don't get why this is such a contentious view to hold.

Mitchy: "if NCIS and her husband are enjoying their sex lives it's really not anyone's business but theirs and I don't understand what it has to do with this discussion at all"

Precisely! Why do people seem to think that any discussion of consent will inevitably lead to the instigation of a rad feminist police force watching people's activities in the bedroom and bringing prosecutions when both parties are happy about it?