'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.

Rule of thumb - don't put your knob where it isn't welcome. I think that should cover most cases.

Scallops, I suspect they manage not to slip their dicks into other men. No blurred lines there. and nor would there be if they saw women as full human beings, not fuck toys.

Except they do, don't they? Gay men rape other men. There was an MP who stood trial for it recently. And do men who punch other men see men as less than human? Because punching is no way to treat another human being just because you are pissed, or angry, or both.

I agree with the vast majority of what you say, but the 'less than human' bit always loses me.

Straight men also rape other men. Rape isn't about sex, it's about having ultimate power to degrade and humiliate.

The night DH and I hooked up we were both drunk. I wanted to shag him, he would have had my very enthusiastic consent. But instead he walked me home, with me grumbling and complaining that I would rather go home with him. Because he is not a rapist, and to him it was important that when we had sex, he was completely 100% sure of my (sober) consent.

A great many men understand this and act accordingly by not raping women. But a very frighteningly large number still think that they have some kind of entitlement to a woman's body, and as long as she doesn't say "no", all is well for them to penetrate her. They put their gratification above any consideration of the woman's desires, bodily autonomy or humanity. The do not see women as fully human. Where does this discrepancy come from? What education are the decent men getting that the rapists are missing? Because at some point society and the way some men are raised is letting women down by producing rapists. Most of whom don't even recognise themselves for the rapists they are.

The thing with punching, Yops, is that you know the other person is probably perfectly capable of whacking you one right back. It's a meeting of equals, there's an acknowledgement that while you're expressing your rage and hatred, you also see that other person as fully human and equal. So men fighting other men is, for the most part, accepted. Men punching children, or animals, or women, is seen as far more distasteful since that equality is lost and it's seen as someone in a position of strength using that strength to hurt someone else, and that the victim has very little chance of being able to retaliate in kind.

Rape is the same. It's a violent act inflicted on a weaker person by a stronger (lesser) person, and the victim has even less chance of retaliation in kind (ie, none) because she does not have a penis.

I would agree "annielobeseder" and it would seem men of all ages and backgrounds?

Not exactly.

In my example I have made a lot of assumptions. If I had not intervened, they may have gone back together, had sex and no more said about it. Chalked up as a drunken regret.

If I was younger, I would turn her down. Although I dont think it would be as simple as "If I don't, it's rape". It would be more down to her being drunk and a stranger. I would think it's more morally wrong than legally wrong.

In relation to men, if I had seen the same situation with two men in the gay clubbing area, I probably would not have got involved. If I had done and the drunk male had told me to go away, I would have more than likely done it. That's probably a bad thing but I'm not sure why.

I find your reasoning about men fighting too simplistic, Annie. But I don't want to derail, so I'll shut up.

As an aside, stats show heterosexual males are more likely to rape men and boys than homosexual ones. Because as a PP says, it has fuck all to do with sex and everything to do with power.
Just saying.

Yes the 'less than human' bit probably does lose you Yops.

I wasn't meaning that men don't rape other men. I was looking at the specific example Mengog gave. Because there is rarely thoughts that men will rape other men because they are drunk and can be taken advantage of.

Scallops Yes, often a rape with a very 'clear cut' victim is peoples eyes will get far more support and attention than that of what people see as the 'typical' rape victim (Young, female, drunk, out late)
I have seen the response to male rapes and pensioner rape be completely different to that of a young, female rape.

^ That's not worded well, sorry, been on lates!!

What I mean is that people will often react much more disgustedly to those kind of rapes than that of a young, female one. There seems to be a lot more 'Sicko' and 'Castrate the bastard' comments.
NB - Not in the Police, the public in general, on social media etc.

it's all so fucked up isn't it?

young woman > perceived as sexual, permanently available > well who wouldn't want to have sex with them, it's only natural, a man couldn't help himself

elderly woman > not perceived as sexual being > ew only a disgusting pervert could want to have sex with them

man > not viewed as permanently available, especially if heterosexual > ew only a disgusting pervert could want to have sex with them (homophobia)

but of course it isn't actually about sexual attraction to the person who is raped anyway

(i realise that is very simplified)

Exactly, Petula

That's why I'd rather focus on capacity than drunkeness. There's a judgement (the "ew" above) associated with having sex with someone who, say, did not have the mental capacity for consent. Yet because getting drunk is an action of the victim, to talk about drunkeness not capacity brings it back again to the victim's actions.

Knickerful
Getting drunk is not against the law.
Rape is.
getting tired now

Youbetter, I agree with you!

Sorry Knickerful, just re read your post, I see what you are saying now

falls asleep on laptop

So is it OK for drunk men to be raped? If 2 drunk men go home together, is it OK for Man A to assume that Man B is probably OK with having gay sex? I mean if Man B is too drunk to say no and doesn't resist too much(due to being somewhat unco-ordinated whilst drunk) when his trousers are pulled down, then it must be OK presumably? Especially if Man A is a bit tipsy as well, they are both unreliable witnesses, aren't they? So watch out, men, next time you are staggering home, it's OK for other men in the pub to accompany you and then have sex with you. And if for some odd reason you're not OK with that, you know you are not up for gay sex all the time for example, then don't get in a drunken state in the first place.

Think how many sober men there would suddenly be around!!

Well road, it goes against my rule of thumb from 14:21 - don't put your knob where it isn't welcome - so on that basis I'd say it's not okay.

As an aside, how many straight people here have had consensual, drunken, straight sex which they later regretted? And how many of the same group have had consensual, drunken gay sex which they later regretted?

*Rosa, not road.

Have you seen this BBC article about a recent Appeal Court ruling about rape? A judge had halted a trial because of what he thought was lack of evidence about the complainant's level of drunkenness and whether it meant she was incapable of consent. The Appeal Court found that this was wrong, and it was a matter which should be determined by a properly directed Jury, it went back to trial and guilty verdicts were returned.

Yes I saw that I was really

The appeal judges said the original judge was wrong to - ignore? decide to overlook? didn't really understand that bit - video of the woman that showed she was at a level of inertness / non responsiveness that the appeal judges felt showed she clearly wasn't consenting or in a fit state to and obviously the jury agreed.

So how / why was the original judge able to unilaterally disregard what sounds like the key evidence of the case?

The judges in the system need to be looked at don't they.