'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.

That's my thinking six.

It makes me so angry that this attitude that women are responsible for everyone's behaviour no matter what that I can barely articulate it.

if a person chooses to drink and as a result of their choice to drink, they cause harm to another person, they are 100% responsible for that. There can be no leaving aside of their behaviour because their behaviour is the top and bottom of it.

If I went to the pub and had a skinful, then got in my car and drove home, and on my way home I knocked over and killed someone who was walking home drunk from the pub, there is no WAY that I could successfully defend myself or reduce my responsibility by saying well, they were drunk and if they hadn't been, they would have been able to see me weaving down the road and they would have known I was drunk and they wouldn't have put themselves in a situation where I could run them over, so therefore it's partially their fault they're dead.

A woman is not causing harm to another person by getting drunk but harm is caused to her if a man chooses to rape her while he and/or she is drunk.

That is his fault. Not hers. His responsibility. Not hers. He chose to drink and to rape. She chose to drink. Not to be raped. Her choice didn't put her in that situation. His did.

If the law is now clarifying to men that women actually have to give recognisable consent - recognisable if described to a third party, that's a good thing.

It's a terrible thing that such a clarification was ever needed. We should never be in a situation where we have to be saying to men look, if you want to have sex with a woman, just take a moment to look at her and make sure that's what she wants too, ta everso.

Davsmum you said: "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?". You are absolving men of their responsibility in committing a crime because they were drunk. The law doesn't recognise that. Women are not responsible for men's behaviour. If he can't tell when a woman consents he should not be sticking his dick in them.

I've just posted about this somewhere else. I watched This Morning for the first time in many many years today and I saw they had a section on rape and consent. I thought, great, these things need to be talked about. Why oh why did they feel the need to balance the debate with a rape apologist? I was so sickened by the whole thing I can't get that knotted feeling from my stomach.

How can anyone think that a woman being "provocatively dressed" can't complain if someone rapes her? Everything that came out of his mouth seemed to come from the perspective of men not being able to control themselves and it's not their fault. I think that this actually does most men a massive disservice, but it also clouds the debate and encourages victim-blaming, putting the onus on women to protect themselves, because if they don't it's probably their fault. It's disgusting.

One woman phoned in asking if it was a man who made himself look nice, went out and then got raped by another man, would that also be his fault. She was dismissed as taking the discussion on a tangent and the case of male rape wasn't relevant to the discussion they were having! I couldn't believe it!

In your opinion ladies and gents, can a drunk woman give consent at all?
If a drunk gentleman meets a drunk lady, and that lady is clearly consenting... is it still consent?

Davsmum, a man would be responsible for any other crime he committed when drunk whether he knew what he was doing or not. Why should rape be any different?

And I disagree that he might not do it when he's sober. It is his attitude that is the problem. He feels entitled to penetrate a woman because he wants to. And that is highly likely to be the same whether drunk or sober. But running with your thoughts on that, if you think that men are more likely to rape when drunk why are you not insisting that they understand their responsibilities when drunk, or in fact not get drunk at all? Why is all the advice framed around women getting drunk if men are so uncontrollable and dismissive of other people's rights when drunk?

You are also assuming a man doesn't know when a woman wants sex. That is quite scary.

Hubert - of course she can still give consent. But if she's so drunk she has no control over what is happening to her, she's not consenting. There's a difference between enthusiastic consent (whether drunk or otherwise) and assumed consent on the basis that a woman is in no fit state to argue otherwise. Most men I know would be able to identify the difference and certainly wouldn't assume consent!

I have many times, been drunk and had very nice consensual sex. Of course it is possible.

Hubert if you are ever in doubt as to consent, for whatever reason, you shouldn't have sex with that person.

scallopsrgreat

Sorry - the scenario I was considering was if a man and a woman are out together - or even if they met that night, and they are both drinking and both being very touchy feely,..They both get extremely drunk and drunkenly stumble into a situation where they may have sex, IF the woman is equally responding and seems as keen as he does and they go on to have sex, she has not said No,....is he a rapist if she claims not to remember the next day?

Is he, although AS drunk as she is and caught up in the situation he believed they both wanted to continue to have sex, supposed to realise at that moment that he had better not go any further. So,..he should be responsible in that situation that she has to be?

I am not saying it is right - but it is a situation that is a bit scary..

Sorry - THAN she has to be, ..not that she has to be..

If she doesn't remember the next day then she is too drunk to consent. This will be obvious. I'm not sure why you think it won't be.

Of course he should be responsible in that situation. He is the one about to penetrate another human being! He is the one about to commit rape!

If a drunk gentleman meets a drunk lady, and that lady is clearly consenting... is it still consent?

Can't speak for everyone but for me very much yes.

This is what massively fucks me off about this whole fucking thing. I don't know if others agree with me but this is how I see it.

The 'drunk' thing for me is a ruse. It allows men to be like 'BUT WHAT IF WHAT IF'.

For me, the issue is people having sex with people who do not, or cannot consent. 'Does not' consent, for me is obvious and frankly I don't believe that as many people as pretend to don't understand 'into it' and 'not into it' from women. Under 'cannot consent' I would list

• legally cannot, due to age, disability etc (NB: not all disabled people cannot consent to sex, before someone jumps on that as a tangent)
• is unconscious, only partially conscious and not actively indicating consent, or asleep
• is prevented from giving or demonstrating consent (which if you're preventing someone from expressing thoughts you're already obviously not looking for consent but it does count in theory I suppose)

In the 'unconscious/partially conscious' category I would add a series of reasons you can get into that state. Of which drinking is one.

It is NOT about 'she was really into it but she was drunk!' This is about 'She was barely coherent and didn't fight me so I assumed it was fine for me to stick my dick in her'.

These two things are VERY DIFFERENT. I do not for one second see how people can't seem to see that. And I assume that in most cases it is an intention misreading, to further some weird interest of their own.

Simple questions, gents. When you're about to have sex with a woman. Is she coherent? Is she enjoying herself? If you've got two yeses there, or a 'mostly' and a 'very much yes' then great. If not, don't you think you should ask if she's ok?

Thanks.
So he has to be more responsible than she is despite being just as drunk.

I understand what you are saying but I can't see a DRUNK man turning down sex with a woman when they both seem keen. It may be in that situation she may even say yes and because he is drunk he thinks that is ok.

Men will have to realise that sex is off limits if he is out with a woman having a drink. It is the only safe way for both of them.

Of course he has more responsibility. He has sole responsibility for not raping someone. You say this as if it is a bad thing.

The fact that you can't see a drunk man turning down sex with a woman is incredibly worrying.

"It is the only safe way for both of them." It is the only safe way for women. Men aren't being violated. Women are.

"So he has to be more responsible than she is despite being just as drunk."

he is the one at risk of committing a crime. he has to be more responsible

Davsmum - it's not about anyone being more or less responsible, it's about being clear that a man should not assume consent. Not raping a person isn't about being responsible, it's about not raping a person. If someone is enthusiastically giving consent it's not rape. If a man is in any doubt as to the woman's enthusiasm, he shouldn't have sex with her. You can't just penetrate another person's body because they're too drunk to know what's going on. I think it's clear to most people when a person is enthused by prospective sex and when they're so drunk they can't argue. If they don't know the difference they've got serious issues.

He isn't more responsible though is he. He is the only one responsible.

yes, you're right, badly worded by me

Yes, if a man feels that when he is drunk he may be unable to recognise consent (or lack of) then he absolutely should realise that sex is off-limits. Or perhaps he should simply refrain from getting so drunk.

What if the rapist says the woman wasn't drunk? How can the victim prove she was?

"It may be in that situation she may even say yes and because he is drunk he thinks that is ok."

Eh? But if they're both drunk and she says yes, then it's not rape.

'What if the rapist says the woman wasn't drunk? How can the victim prove she was?'

Through witness statements mostly, I would imagine.

'What if the rapist says the woman wasn't drunk? How can the victim prove she was?'

The same way all crimes with just the alleged perpetrator and the victim present are proven (or not).

Isn't that the very reason that he should be prosecuted for rape, because the woman wasn't able to give clear informed consent? What an utter tosser of a barrister.

ONE day all these neanderthals will be dead. ONE day.