'If a woman is drunk a man should not be prosecuted for rape'

[YouBetterWerk]

Wanker barrister on This Morning saying this right now. Great woman with counterpoints at least.
I just threw my cornflakes at the TV.

Oh fucking hell. It actually makes me shiver that people think this is something that is anything other than a 'rape is perfectly okay if you can get away with it' statement. And that it's ok to have dickheads on tv saying it.

Isn't this exactly what the new guidelines on consent were all about?

If a woman is drunk, a man should have the decency to make sure she gets home okay instead of shagging her while she's practically unconcious.

What kind of man actually wants to have sex with someone who is so drunk she isn't capable of making any kind of conscious decision?

It's just vile.

Quite agree.
God knows at Uni I got hammered (as did everyone) and looking back was in a good few vulnerable situations.
But you know what? The men who were with me and were my friends put me to bed with a pint of water. Because that's the decent human thing to do.
Surely sex with a concious and receptive woman is going to be the better sex??

Presumably this barrister?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/2302893-Have-you-heard-about-David-Osbornes-blog

What a fucking cockwomble.

Even if we were to entertain his insane ramblings for a second, how does he suppose that works?
Can men rape a women after 5 pints? 2 large wines? Any alcohol at all?
Are men free to fuck a woman who's had a WKD blue because she couldn't POSSIBLY be capable of understanding the nuances of consent.
I'm not watching the TV but I hope they're telling him to fuck off to the far side of fuck.

I just find the whole argument odd. I must assume that they are somehow missing a giant point somewhere.

Do you think they are thinking along the lines of "Woman agrees enthusiastically to sex, wakes up, can't remember, is horrified, "cries rape""? And that's what they're trying to stop?

I mean they're not surely saying that it's perfectly fine if a woman is drunk, to rape her, as in forcibly have sex with her against her will? (Even though that's what they would effectively be allowing if there was some kind of law passed saying drunkenness is not lack of consent)

Maybe they are? As some kind of punishment? I can't get my head around it.

If it's OK to rape somebody who is drunk, do they think it's okay to rape somebody who has dementia? Or somebody who has taken sleeping pills? Or somebody who is under anaesthesia for surgery? Or somebody with extreme learning difficulties? An animal? A pre-verbal child?

I just can't see the logic anywhere, which confuses me because I always assume that people act in a way which makes sense TO THEM. But in whose world DOES this make sense?

Exactly Bertie.

They obviously think in their head that there are circumstances when it's okay to do this.

I've made a decision.

Every Friday night I'm going to go into town and every drunk bloke I see I'm going to kick really hard in the balls. I mean if they are walking around drink in their trousers they must be asking for it.

These people believe the myth of drunk woman regretting consensual sex the next day and 'crying rape'
They don't believe that genuine rape of semi conscious women actually happens

this makes me so angry, this is an educated powerful man coming out with all this utter shite! I'm furious. He's an utter cockhead.

I'll join you glen

Then we can get dickhead barrister to defend us by saying 'people should not be prosecuted for assault, GBH, ABH, etc, if the victim is drunk'. Hell, we could beat the living shit out of them actually, because they're not sober enough to say 'please stop hitting and kicking me'. In fact even if they did say 'please stop hitting and kicking me' they wouldn't know what they were saying because they're so drunk, so we can safely assume that either a) they actually like being hit and kicked in the balls or b) it doesn't matter whether they like being hit and kicked in the balls or not because WE LIKE DOING IT TO THEM.

is it the same one or is it a different barrister to hte one in the other thread? if the same, did they ask him why he changed his blog post after it started getting negative attention?

Presumably the barrister feels the same about drunk men? Other passing males are free to anally penetrate them without fear of repercussion too?

There is only one kind of man who wants sex with a very drunk woman - a rapist.
I've been in various states of sobriety, naked in bed with my husband for the last 30 years, he's been perfectly able to resist raping me , even when he's been drinking, funny that.
A rapist rapes whether drunk or sober, a normal, decent man never rapes.

It's the same chap. Here's a link to the other thread

I'm interested in your opinions on whether it's good that the media are picking him up and squaring him off against a feminist (or at least, a woman who knows that women are equal -careful phrasing there) and letting our side be heard, or whether it should be left to die a death. I can't quite decide.

He shouldn't be given air time , someone saying that it's OK to inflict non- sexual violence on people if they are drunk wouldn't be given a platform, so why him?

Wolfbasher has it in a nutshell

Not sure what I think about airtime either. I tend to think no, because we all thought surely if people see what a dick Nigel Farage is they will all laugh at him too, but actually him getting so much airtime has normalised saying the horrible things he says.

But on this, I don't know, if someone said to him what wolfbasher said, I wonder what he would say?

NO man should have sex with a woman who is drunk.
There are so many arguments though, If the man is also drunk and the woman who is also drunk says yes, how is he supposed to be responsible too and consider that she is too drunk to give her consent?
They are both drunk.. Neither can be a reliable 'witness'

Whilst I agree that no man should take advantage and rape a drunk woman, I also think women need to take some responsibility by not getting so drunk they don't know what they are doing. It is mad to think its ok to get rat arsed and rely on other people to look after you.

There must be millions of men who have had sex with a woman too drunk to give her consent. Many men just think its ok. That needs to change.

Drunkeness is not considered an excuse to commit a crime Davsmum. What are the women to take responsibility for? Men's behaviour? Because they aren't committing a crime.

Rape doesn't happen because of how the woman behaves. It happens because of the man's behaviour.

Davsmum The point is that a man should not feel he has the say so to have sex with someone unless he is beyond reasonable doubt that she is expressing consent. That is the opposite of 'but she didn't say no'.
Being so drunk that you don't know what day of the week it is a perfectly legal thing to do. It may not be to everyone's taste but there it is.

If I went out and met a guy who was off his head drunk, decided to steer him back to mine and ram a dildo up his arse, would it serve him right?

Of course it is not an excuse to commit a crime. Leaving men's behavior aside,..women should be aware that getting that drunk is dangerous for their own safety whether it be having an accident or being vulnerable.

Yes,..Rape happens because of a man forcing himself on a woman and that is easier to do if she is drunk. HE is at fault.
If the woman is so drunk she cannot give consent then a man should realise this and leave her alone - if HE is drunk, he can mistake her not saying No or anything at all, AS consent. It may be something he would NEVER do sober - the same as she may not want sex with the man if she were also sober but is not aware what is going on when drunk.