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.

I think the definition of consent is very confusing at best.

If the statement that if you are too drunk to say yes is true then I have been raped by 2 people and also sexually assaulted by 2. I don't like to think of it as that. Although 1 rape and 1 sexual assault I agree was rape, as I had said to stop doing that or was underage. I do agree though that when drunk you can't give consent but I'd find it more a stationary rape than just rape. I'm not making much sense tonight, sorry. I mean most woman wouldn't like to see what happened to them as rape, because rape is such a dirty and provocative word.

I don't agree it's always the onus on the man. What about if the man is drunk and the woman is either sober or drunk and she touches him and he doesn't give permission to her? Does him being 'up' make it consent, because if so that's ridiculous and very wrong. If she has sex with him and he doesn't say yes or he does say no or he passes out/talks so slurred he's incoherent then surely the woman has raped the man or at very least, sexually assaulted him?

I am disgusted by some of those posters on that website by the way. It makes me feel :( that people can even think like that.

Basil
I think you should prosecute rapist, I think sentencing should be harsher, and victims should get more support.

The points we are discussing is what is 'too drunk' (as sab says)? I agree don't have sex with drunk people, what is a drunk person?
You have clear driving alcohol limits, you have clear age limits. I'm interested in people's interpretations

I think a good rule of thumb is that if you wouldn't want to get into a car with them driving, then you probably shouldn't be fucking them. Because having sex with someone can be at least as serious a decision as driving 2 tons of metal and if you don't know the person very well, then err on the side of caution - on the side of assuming that having sex is a big thing for them.

But no one requires men to have that bar. They just need to be able to legally get away with rape for most people to feel their behaviour has no moral implications whatsoever.

It's fucking sickening.

So 1 pint of lager or a small glass of wine. Something around that? At that point consent can't be given?

I expect for some people consent can be given.

But I'm not interested in consent. I'm interested in enthusiastic participation.

I'm not interested in finding the lowest bar I can, to get away with sexually assaulting someone who wouldn't otherwise fuck me, without my behaviour being recognised as sexual assault. I'm interested in every single sexual encounter I ever engage in, being fully consensual on both sides.

Hey, imagine that. I don't ever want to fuck someone who doesn't really want to fuck me. Imagine if we taught our sons that that's the lowest bar they should aim for. We'd abolish rape.

Yes, Basil.

x1000000000

Of course you should teach your sons that. I hope you are.

I think if you consider consent being void if a couple of drinks have been taken. Then I would think that rape/sexual assault will be up around 90% of British adults. I know that I have been sexually assaulted more than once under this rule of thumb and probably raped.

It isn't a rule of thumb as to whether a rape has taken place or not.

It is a rule of thumb a decent person should bear in mind in order to avoid causing horrendous pain to another person.

"You answer was, you can't know/probably not. No definitive answer" No it wasn't. The only non-definitive statement I made was about a woman's feelings if she woke up the next morning thinking something had happened that she hadn't consented too. And the only reason for that is that I was not presuming to tell another woman how she should feel about her experience. And as you told me that hadn't answered the question I am not sure why you are citing it.

As I said 5 days ago and from a personal perspective, I think if you are too drunk to remember you are too drunk to consent. I hope answering the question three times for you is quite enough for you now snowshepherd.

Did you not see the sentence "I expect for some people consent can be given", snowshepherd?

Why are you so obsessed with trying to pin down the line where drunken sex= rape when that is impossible to pin down because it will depend on a number of factors, rather than discussing what the basic standard of common decency would be?

If everyone strove to be decent, instead of to get consent, there wouldn't be a problem.

"Why are you so obsessed with trying to pin down the line where drunken sex= rape when that is impossible to pin down because it will depend on a number of factors, rather than discussing what the basic standard of common decency would be?" Yes I'd like to know that?

"If everyone strove to be decent, instead of to get consent, there wouldn't be a problem." Yep. That.

Scallop

As I said 5 days ago and from a personal perspective, I think if you are too drunk to remember you are too drunk to consent. I hope answering the question three times for you is quite enough for you now snowshepherd.

The trouble with that is, its a judgement made in hindsight - you cannot know whether the man or woman was to drunk to remember, until the next morning (usually) - when they have either forgotten or not, as the case may be. (Dear me...)

Sorry - should be 'too drunk'

Well exactly Beatrix. So why ask the question? Why the fixation on it? As Basil says (and I did) there are many other indicators.

It was also a point that Sabrina made further up the thread too. Do we continually have to repeat ourselves?

We do seem to be going around in circles.....

I think someone just wants a soundbite.

sound bite
soundbite

?

Buffy

The default position of the Police ought to be to take all allegations of criminal offences seriously and to investigate them accordingly - not sure, though, if you can make the Police 'believe' allegations.

It is a human right (Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998) in this county that all those prosecuted by the Crown should have a fair trail, whether they be promising or not, young or not, men or not - and to insist on this human right ought never to be flippantly dismissed as hysteria.

Nobody's suggesting for a moment that people shouldn't have a fair trial.

Sadly though, evidence suggests that a substantial number of reported rapes are not investigated properly, end up 'no crimed' or don't get to court. Considering the majority of rapes are never even reported, thats an awful lot of rapists walking free.

I'd say it has everything to do with the police believing victims when they report - John Worbuoys was free to rape women over and over again because the police did not believe the victims that did come forward.

why does everyone keep leaping ahead to the imaginary trial anyway, people were talking about the CPS and jurors before expressing any concern about the woman in question

fucking weirdos