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?

I believe that what she is feeling in this situation is regret, not violation.
(That's based on everything you've said here being taken on face value)

If that was me, I can imagine saying to my partner "I was too drunk, I didn't know what I was doing, I never would have consented sober", but that would be as an excuse for my behaviour, and the cheating. It would not make the man, who genuinely thought I was consenting, responsible.

If she doesn't believe he forced her, just that her consent wasn't valid because she was drunk, then what she's saying is that it was technically rape. Maybe- if a man can be convicted of raping someone unintentionally- I don't know.
But morally? No. It wasn't rape, it was drunken sex.

It is tricky because, on the whole, women who say they have been raped are not lying. Women are, in fact, generally capable of telling the difference between drunken, unsatisfactory, regrettable sex that they engaged in because meh, why not, who cares? and a sexual assault. Just because a woman flirts with a man doesn't mean she's actually willing to have full PIV sex with him.

I suppose what I would want to know is: are there any other women within this social group who have either complained openly about M's behaviour before or since the incident with F, or who have appeared to be uncomfortable in his company but not prepared to say why? The thing is with rapists is they are rapists and they don't just do it the once. They'll always have form.

I think refraining from drunken sex, especially if it's your first time together is wise.

It does seem as though one can give consent, not remember, and then retrospectively withdraw consent on the basis of not remembering.

But this is the issue with hypothetical situations. We're trying to resolve various situations now where nobody has claimed to be raped, and then imagining the circumstances, because the actual circumstances and opinions of people present can't be told because it is hypothetical!

What people should do is obvious.

Do not be a bystander to rape and sexual assault. If you are with somebody, and you think that they are either a. too drunk to consent or b. too drunk to judge somebody else's level of consent, don't let them wander off into a potentially sexual situation, or indeed any situation without a friend to help them, because they are too drunk to be left unattended. Quite apart from the sexual assault incident, they could fall down stairs, go out into the street and get hit by a car, burn themselves on a heater etc.

If you yourself are drunk, don't get into sexual situations with somebody if they a. are too drunk to give meaningful consent or b. if you are too drunk to judge their capabilities to give consent.

The fact that people can't imagine such situations makes me think I know people who get far drunker at parties and in pubs etc than you all do!

As nobody's reported rape - and, as PPs have said - even more clear-cut rapes don't get reported, especially where alcohol's involved - it is a theoretical question and I think a valid one. I'm only guessing here, but think a court would interpret 'reasonable belief' and 'informed consent' as compromised by both parties' inebriation, so no case. Obviously pissed people have sex all the time and, in the normal run of things, don't actually blame the other (equally pissed) party however much they regret it. Some people - men as well as women - are more likely to blame the other if they cheated on someone else while drunk. Sounds like that happened here and, if it makes her feel better about herself, she's making a compromise with her own morals that, hopefully, hasn't hurt anyone.

I do agree that other people's opinions count if a case is brought. When I've been in a group where a woman's drink seems to have been spiked, everybody's always been very solicitous to make sure she doesn't fall into anyone's clutches ... likewise, if anybody sees a bloke making his way upstairs to a woman who's been put to bed drunk, they try to stop him. I was 'date raped' and, although no-one else was present at the time, people who knew us both were certain that's what he'd done - and his attitude the next day showed he felt bad.

Sex being what it is, there are fuzzy areas around it but I don't think a court would agree she'd been raped in this case. It would be a horrible case if she pressed charges, so I'm glad she didn't.

I don't think she's lying though, SGB. But she isn't saying she was forced. She's saying her consent wasn't valid, therefore technically she was raped. If M genuinely believed her to be consenting, (and no-one knows that without being in his head) then he is not a rapist.

Is it possible that both views are valid? That she has been 'violated', and deserves support for this, but that the violation happened as a result of circumstance, rather than his behaviour.

Stormy, there was an outcry when people were told to stop drink driving, and others were told they should stop them getting into cars, take their keys off them etc. But people now do, including bar staff.

Probably none of those drivers intended to hit anybody with a car and hit them. I'm sure when not drunk they didn't go around hitting people with cars on purpose, and when drunk they may well have driven many other times and not killed or injured anybody at all.

But now nobody thinks drunk driving is acceptable, but most people used to not have much of an issue with it. If somebody died, it was considered just a stupid mistake, nobody meant it to happen. The driver was just drunk.

It's hard though, how can you define consent as not being valid.

Just from being drunk? What if she was actively participating, or even leading proceedings?

When is a woman not responsible for her own actions due to booze?

Well, steubenville for a start. The victim was conscious some of the time, but doesn't everyone agree from footage and eye witness accounts that she was incapable of consent due to alcohol consumption?

I think the drink driving is very apt to mention- if the woman had got into her car, driven home and killed someone, you can be sure she'd be held responsible for her actions. But choosing to have sex was seemingly beyond her control.

Slithy, this has got to be the second or third time I've posted to you that drugged people - particularly those drugged with rohypnol - do respond & participate. A person who's been rendered compliant is not consenting, even if they've been rendered 'very' compliant. They've been coerced. Sex under coercion is rape. To clarify further, this also applies when a wife or girlfriend has been hounded, bullied, blackmailed or otherwise coerced into acting compliant.

That she has been 'violated', and deserves support for this, but that the violation happened as a result of circumstance, rather than his behaviour.

Sounds like common sense to me.

Garlic, it doesn't sound like she was coerced in this case. Obviously we don't know as we weren't in the room, but it doesn't even sound like she thinks she was coerced.

X-post, sorry!

SGB - no one else has raised concerns about M. From what I know of him and from talking to him many years ago, he's of the attitude that mutually enthusiastic sex is the best thing since sliced bread. I've seen women turn him down and he's shrugged and moved on without batting an eyelid. But rapists don't tend to advertise their rapeyness, so while I can say it seems out of character, that in no way proves he'd never rape anyone.

Thread keeps moving while I'm typing, argh! Thank you all for your thoughts so far, I'm going to go to bed and spend tonight's insomnia-fest pondering on what everyone has said.

We don't know if she consented. We don't know if she was coerced. We don't know that she chose to have sex. We just know she flirted with a man and they went into a room. We don't even know for sure they even had sex.

Garlic - you had only posted once before, and I didn't realise it was directed at me as I hadn't mentioned drugs.

I also can't see in your first post any mention of drugged people responding and participating.

Regardless, I apologise if you think I was ignoring you, I was not.

In response to your post, I feel very sorry for blokes then, as it seems that both partners can be pissed, the woman can be actively leading proceedings, and yet she can still withdraw consent after the event due to memory loss. How can coercion be proved if one party doesn't remember and the other is denying it.

I am another one who fears for my sons.

Strawberry, I don't know what Steubenville is, I will google it now.

I do know what Steubenville is, just checked. Surely a drunk person vomiting and unconscious while people do things to her is very different to a drunk person taking the lead in sex and actively enjoying it, going on top etc? I just don't see how in the latter example, even if they don't remember, they can claim that they did not consent.

Is it the same as an underage person not being able to consent no matter how much they think they are?

Slithy, you are underestimating the wisdom of the law. Since the law still tends to be unwisely applied in favour of rapists, I suggest your 'fear for your sons' is unfounded. Also, this woman has NOT brought charges, so why be paranoid?

All you have to do is teach your sons to treat women as people with ideas of their own, and to respect that.

Is it the same as an underage person not being able to consent no matter how much they think they are?

Similar, yes! Similarly, a 13-year-old boy having sex with a 'consenting' 13-year-old girl is very much less guilty than a 21-year-old man doing the same. It's about power imbalance. A very drunk man having sex with a 'consenting' very drunk woman is less guilty than a man who got her drunk on purpose. Power imbalance. I don't think a court would find the man in the OP guilty, as I've said. Reasonable belief, remember. (reasonable in commonsense terms, not some over-entitled dickwad's idea of what he thinks should be reasonable!)

Slithy, you asked when somebody was not able to consent due to booze. I gave you the example of steubenville. She was nog unconcious when she left with the boys, but her friends tried to stop them leaving as she was too drunk. Leaving a room with someone is not the same as initiating sex with them. All we factually know from the Op is that the woman voluntarily left the room.

I think you have missed my point garlic? Are you still annoyed because you think I was ignoring you?

I would be happy to respond to your original post if you could paste the bit which was in response to me.

Fear for my sons is not unfounded because I would not want DS to be accused of rape, whether he was found guilty or not.

And if a woman can consent when drunk, actively participate, and wake up the next day and claim no consent and coercion, then I don't see that a bloke has a chance. And if the woman did report it, then there are always those people who say no smoke without fire, and it would never leave them.

I think this is why actually it's a good idea to have a pha on avoiding drunken sex. It protects both parties. Women from abuse and men from 'false' (as in, accidental) claims of rape.

I think I'll be teaching my sons (and my daughter) to try to avoid drunken sex, unless in the context of a loving relationship, as you can never trust a drunk person's judgement (your own or someone else's).

I may have worded my question badly almond. I know full well that being unconscious is rape, and I know that leaving with someone is not consent.

But moving on from the OP, I am asking that if a drunken women actively initiates proceedings and participates, but then doesn't remember, is that still invalid consent? Are the woman's actions (unzipping pants, going on top etc) not her responsibility?