Can anyone help me get my head round this alleged rape?

[StormyBrid]

A couple of years ago, there was an incident between two people I used to know but haven't really seen for years. I keep coming back to it and pondering it, because I just don't know what to make of it. I'd appreciate any thoughts.

I'll call her F and him M, for clarity. And all I know is hearsay, but confirmed by many witnesses. For some months there had been escalating flirtation between them, at social gatherings, with alcohol involved. F has a partner. On the night in question, their flirting was commented on by many people - both of them could have been described as up for it. By the time they disappeared into a bedroom, both were incredibly drunk.

No one knows what happened in that room. F says she remembers nothing, but it was clear from, ahem, the state of her trouser region that sex had happened. M says he barely remembers what happened, but that F was very enthusiastically consenting during.

Here's where my confusion comes in. M says F consented, but F was clearly too drunk for that consent to be valid. F says it was rape. So far, so good. But M was just as drunk, and so equally couldn't give valid consent. So surely if he's guilty of rape then she is too? Can two people rape each other at the same time? Wouldn't that cancel out?

Custardo, the police and many other groups give out safety advice on not letting friends wander off into sexual situations if they appear to be, in the words of the op, 'incredibly drunk.'

It isn't unusual at all to intervene in the behaviour of people who are very drunk, for all sorts of reasons. I've intervened in the behaviour of drunk strangers in a train station because they were just very lost and confused. It is normal to attempt to help the 'incredibly drunk.'

Yes, what custstdo said. Bit mad to suggest drunk people at parties should be stopped from sloping off together.

Oh I see

So no condom. Unless we're talking being achy/sore? I am assuming you mean come though.

Would your friend normally consent to sex without a condom. If she wouldn't EVER consent to sex without a condom, then we're heading down a different road here.

And of course people get pissed and do stuff but if she can't remember anything, she only knew she had sex in the morning because of come, she wouldn't normally have sex without a condom, and she is saying that she was too wasted to be able to say yes or no, then that's not looking too clever is it.

But they weren't wandering round a station were they, they were in a house.

I haven't any further information to drip feed with, almond, so no worries on that score. So, ifin retrospect he viewed himself as capable of consent but she viewed herself as incapable... Yep, that fits in my brain. Thank you!

But you can have sex with a condom and still be different down there to normal. Women secrete too ya know, and condoms can have lube on...

Except that people do stop people sloping off if they consider one of the people is too drunk to consent, and I've seen it happen, or else we end up with Steubenville.

So one of the most relevant parts of this whole situation (which the OP wasn't even present at) was did anybody at that party think F was too drunk to consent.

Also drunken shagging with condom can sometimes = condom falling off on way out and cum all over the place.

But she's viewing herself as incapable of giving consent after the event right? At the time, she has no idea whether she was consenting or not... So if she was all for it at the time, and then looking back, can't actually remember asking for sex, she wasn't actually consenting at all?

It's all a bit if a tree fell in the woods... Let's assume this man genuinely thought she was consenting... Where does that leave him? Guilty of rape for thinking someone was consenting but that person now says they basically had a drunken blackout?

FLB, which is why the testimony of eyewitnesses is so important.

At Steubenville, many of the girls did think the victim was too drunk to consent when she voluntarily left with the boys, and attempted to stop them leaving with her, which was important evidence in the trial.

The same with a case in Wales where the woman did not remember consenting. Various other people had said she was too drunk to consent and had tried to get her home.

I'm not sure I understand why you are asking the question. I would say that this is not rape - as she appears to have consented but we don't know what happened inside that room. she may have consented, or may not have. It is certainly doubtful there would be evidence for a prosecution.

So what was the question again? rape technically penetration by penis but it can be an assault, assault by penetration, some other assault if woman commits the offence.

Thanks, almond.

It's so incredibly unscientific isn't it. Awful for victims and accused, if not guilty.

Had I been there, I would have intervened. Unfortunately, not everyone is so inclined. Among that group, if it looks mutual no one's going to intervene, no matter how drunk they are. I don't know myself how much either of them had had, because I wasn't there, but I said in the original post that he was just as drunk as she was because that's what I've been told by people who were there.

Everyone's version of 'very drunk' is so different though isn't it.

Right, so what should men do in this situation?

Woman seems up for it, they're equally drunk. They have sex.

In the morning, she thinks 'did we have sex?'

He says yes.

She doesn't remember.

He tells her 'you passed me the condom to put on.'

She doesn't remember.

He says 'you were instigating x y z that we were doing.'

She doesn't remember anything after them getting in the room.

Is that rape?

So a situation where someone may have consented during, but can't remember, and then when sober decides they haven't consented?

Very, very difficult.

I'm interested in this, as I am waaaaay more open to suggestions when I'm pissed, and woke up one morning knowing I had had sex but not remembering much of anything, to find out that what I had consented to the night before was videoing it!

So the consent and active participation (incidentally, with now DH) was recorded loud and clear for all to see, despite me not knowing at the time what had went on.

No I wouldn't call that rape london

And it's one of the reasons men as well as women need to protect themselves in vulnerable situations.

Unless he is lying of course! But how do we know.

Equally, a man presumably could claim sexual assault and that he was too drunk to do anything but lie there, especially if there wasn't a significant size discrepancy.

cafecito "what was the question?" is a very good question. I really must get better at being concise.

Witness accounts describe them as equally drunk, and apparently equally enthusiastic. The question that's been bothering me is: if they were equally drunk, can it be called rape on the grounds that she was too drunk?

What is 'too drunk' though?

But then I feel like a right bastard, because if F feels she's been violated that should surely count for something?

Well, should it? If she consented at the time?

Not trying to be difficult, just thinking aloud

Someone up thread mentioned her sons. What should her sons do. Of course they should make sure the woman is consenting. But should they perhaps abstain after so many drinks, or something?

I don't know. I'm not entirely comfortable with either answer.

And now I'm imagining the general outcry if there was a public health campaign encouraging us to refrain from drunken sex.

It's not a bad idea though.