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.

Sorry mitchy, crossed wires. Thought you were talking about consent in general.
Of course, if the person involved wants, an investigation should be underway.

But people aren't exclusively talking about unconscious flat out people.
There's alot of terms being used which haven't been defined or are being used interchangeably by some posters and not others.

I don't think anyone is arguing that men have a right to sex or to rape unconscious women. Which for me would be what the term paralytic refers to.

Then there's the term blackout drunk.
To me this means drinking to the point of memory loss but not necessarily unconscious. Quite often I'd think this would involve levels of intoxication that would vitiate consent but not always as from personal experience I've consented to, instigated or enthusiastically reciprocated to sexual acts while in such a state.

However this is not a get out for rapists. Blackout drunk so the woman can't remember (or man for that matter) does not mean no rape or assault has taken place.

But equally I don't think it's as definitive as some say that being blackout drunk means the person could not have possibly consented the previous night. I think that is where the debate is centred on that point.
Not unconscious, or sleeping or stumbling incoherent intoxication but rather people who despite having no memory of their actions where enthusiastic and willing participants.

I think it has moved on from the description in the op which for me seems like a clear case of rape and not even one where intoxication has vitiated consent but one where the woman gave no consent drunk or otherwise

anyway I am not saying that mutually enjoyable, freely engaged in sex should be criminalised and I'm glad it's not, obviously I don't think many people would argue for that

No that's not what I meant about people with dementia (or drunk people, or people with certain mental illnesses) having sex. I was talking about the idea that someone who was suffering from dementia (or another condition which makes the idea of consent very complex) being automatically thought of as in the category with under 16s- unable to give consent.

I was pointing out that people seemed to be saying that since a drunk person is unable to give consent, it would be logical for sex with a drunk or mentally disabled person always to be illegal. I don't think it is as simple as that.

I have had sex when drunk to the point of memory loss but don't consider it rape. I wanted sex and got it.

that said, i do believe woman are raped when drunk (& it could happen to me - i am not any different than other women).

i cannot square all of the above points. the best i could say when talking about it with a friend was 'i can be predatory'.

On the dementia point, in the case of wills (and I'm not equating rape to property etc. just highlighting jurisprudence in other areas of law) it's accepted that people suffering from dementia have periods of lucidity aswell as those where reasoning is impaired.
The courts look to see if wills or gifts were made during moments of lucidity or if the decision was impaired by their illness.

The only person who considers classing anyone as under 16 is you claraschu. Consent isn't complex. It is an extremely low bar.

Rape is all about the man's behaviour and attitude, not the woman's.

A rapist doesn't mistake consent, he doesn't care. A decent man would not want to have sex with a vulnerable person whether that person was drunk, had dementia, asleep or whatever. This entire discussion seems to be revolving around the fact that people feel men are entitled to have sex with women. They aren't.

I'll say it again, a decent man will not rape someone because he is drunk. He will not get mixed signals or misinterpret or whatever grey areas people are insisting on just because he is drunk. He won't get mixed signals or misinterpret because the woman is drunk either. He won't rape someone because he does not feel entitled to have sex with a woman. That is not in his attitude. He isn't going to have 'sex' with a woman who is so drunk she isn't likely to remember in the morning because that's not what he's about. He doesn't want to violate a woman's boundaries so he won't.

A rapist's attitude is different. He doesn't mind crossing women's boundaries (not just physical ones either). He doesn't care whether the woman consented. He doesn't care whether someone is vulnerable.

SDTG hit the nail on the head with regards looking at this mans behaviour ahead of the scenario in his house. He'd already crossed boundaries to get the woman to come with him.

Rape really is all about the men and what they do and their underlying attitudes towards women.

Would that still apply if they had been found to be no longer competent to manage their affairs, Mayor? Dsis and I have signed up to be mum's attorneys (for finance, and for health and welfare), and this kicks in if she is no longer competent to manage her affairs - but she could still be having periods of lucidity - just not enough to be considered competent - the odd flash of recognising her relatives - that sort of thing.

But if a doctor or doctors have signed to say she isn't compentent any longer, but she gave a valuable gift to a relative stranger - would that still be allowed to stand, if they could prove she was lucid at the time, or would the over-arching fact that she had been declared no longer competent override that?

Not an expert in that area, I practice on criminal, so only remember the jurisprudence from my training.
I would have thought that if an order has already been made that they're not fit to manage their affairs then that would be the order.
I can't think of any situation that someone who'd been deemed incapable of managing their affairs would then be held to be capable.

Wrt to the stranger if she sold them something or gifted and they're a genuine bonafides 3rd party then the contract may be held valuable (that's in the case of selling) with gift then it may be different.

As I say, I'm a criminal lawyer, so not an expert. If you've already engaged a solicitor who specialises in that area then ask them.
Never take people on forums at face value when they dish out advice or expert opinion as its uncertified. It's a good source to give you thoughts or questions once you do meet your solicitor though.

Thank-you for that information, mayorquimby - it was more curiosity than anything else - at the moment, mum has a firm grasp on her marbles and shows no signs of losing any of them. When and if we reach the point where we do have to activate the Power of Attorney, we will be consulting a solicitor - that is very good advice. Ds1 is studying law at the moment, but plans to go into commercial law, so he won't be much use!

Scallops - thank you for saying what I was trying to say upthread, but doing so much more clearly and succinctly.

Scallops are you up for starting a new thread over there which focuses on men's behaviour during sex and what actually constitutes rape? Demanding that instead of looking at women's behaviour we look at men's? Because what you've just said really sums it up and because most of us were answering the rape apologists over there, that message would prob have been lost in the general melee.

Doingitformyself, I find it abhorrent that you find it abhorrent that your sons should take responsibility for not raping other people. Do everyone a favour and tell your sons not to go near anyone else's daughters if they don't know that they're responsible for preventing rape by not raping anyone eh? The idea that it is a "huge burden" on a man to keep his dick in his pants because a woman might not be capable of meaningful consent, is unbelievable. No man needs to fuck a woman just because he's feeling a bit horny, so if he likes someone who seems keen but very drunk, what's wrong with taking her number so that he can meet up with her when she's sober and can give meaningful consent to sex?

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.

The situation described in the op on TSR is rape.

If we were a jury then we would have all the evidence to convict or acquit. But we don't, we have one account, and that is an account of rape.

But equally I don't think it's as definitive as some say that being blackout drunk means the person could not have possibly consented the previous night. I think that is where the debate is centred on that point.
Not unconscious, or sleeping or stumbling incoherent intoxication but rather people who despite having no memory of their actions where enthusiastic and willing participants.

Being enthusiastic and or willing is actually irreverent. If you are too drunk to consent you CANNOT consent. That is the law.

It is like the argument that a 14 year old enjoyed sex with a 40yo. The 40yo is still having sex with a child. They are still breaking the law.

Basil, is that on the site where the woman posted? I can do it this afternoon but I am just about to go out this morning.

"Being enthusiastic and or willing is actually irreverent. If you are too drunk to consent you CANNOT consent. That is the law."

Agreed. If the person is too drunk to consent.
Many people seem to think that being drunk to the point if memory loss definitively proves that the person was too drunk.
Others disagree and think that it is possible to drink to the point where there is memory loss the next day but that this does not necessarily mean that the person was intoxicated to the point where they can no longer validly give consent.

I don't think the two view points will reconcile or be swayed from their position so not sure where the debate goss from their.

From my personal experience I've been blackout drunk numerous times but not drunk to the point where I could not give valid consent. Others feel differently.

"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."

In what way is it a dangerous game? It would be if all on here were on a jury, but of course if people were on a jury they would wait to hear the other evidence before they decided whether they thought someone was guilty or not.

But we're not a jury. We're a bunch of people chatting on the interweb and there is this enormous fucking taboo about calling something rape or calling a man a rapist, even if prima facie, it looks like rape and even if he is telling you that what he did that time was in fact, rape as the law defines it.

Even in an anonymous space on the internet where nothing we say can possibly have any impact whatsoever on this unknown probable-rapist's life, women are not allowed to call out rape when they see it.

Astonishing. If you weren't a feminist and couldn't guess why.

Oh btw Sash was that you over there? You were awesome!

Scallops whenever you're ready. I think you said it so well and what they clearly need over there, is to be presented with the astonishing idea that maybe when it comes to rape, the best thing to do is to consider men's behaviour rather than women's.

What came across was the idea that men really are entitled to fuck a woman whether or not she wants him to and that it's only wrong to do so when she doesn't want him to, if she has specifically told him that she doesn't want him to. It's deeply depressing - there is simply no notion there of the necessity of men taking responsibility for their sexual behaviour, no notion that if you are going to have sexual activity with someone, you ought to be 100% sure that they want you to have. They clearly have no idea that if everyone isn't enjoying the sex, then they're doing it wrong. I suspect that many young women are having truly terrible sex.

Even in an anonymous space on the internet where nothing we say can possibly have any impact whatsoever on this unknown probable-rapist's life, women are not allowed to call out rape when they see it.

Exactly, BasilBabyEater. Well said.

There are people bullshitting around as if,its the victim's fault. As if, being drunk means a yes. As if sex is something a man can just take from a woman. There are moral obligations placed upon women that aren't placed upon men at all. The whole ideology is, if she was drunk - then, tough. If she didn't consent let's still take that as a yes as she was too drunk to say no anyway.

Of course we can't know if this man is guilty of rape. But in this circuimstance he's put himself into a difficult situation, hasn't he? How about being sure the woman you want to shag is in control of herself enough to say yes or no to you?

This thread is so sexist and judgmental in parts. Sadly,I wasn't entirely shocked by that

Looks the Rape-Finder Generals are arunning - hopefully taking their Straw Men arguments with them, I hope.

Wow! Did you mean to be so ridiculous? I wonder why you bother with this part of the forum if you so violently disagree with it's posters views.

Don't take it personally, Capt. As Beatrix so condescendingly explained to me yesterday, "straw man" is her googled definition of the week, and she's trying to use it in every post! (I note she still hasn't got round to googling reductio ad absurdum yet).

What does that post even mean Beatrix?

(Hang on, do I really care?)

BasilBabyEater

It was indeed, thank you.

I expect to be banned any time soon (from there not here).

Do you think it would still be appropriate to start a new thread about this in TSR? I was too lazy didn't get a chance to start one last night.