"Women needs to face facts about the link between rape and drinking"

1hnr79jr65

Lux23 wrote: »

I think the biggest problem we have with rape is that some men All Rapists don't understand what rape is and what consent actually is.

Your post is truly shocking.

FYP as both men and women can commit rape.

Also there will always be an issue concerning consent between 2 drunk individuals, even if consent was agreed it can be disputed that it wasn't due to being drunk.

bonyn

[Deleted User] wrote: »

so the other party is supposed to make that decison that the girl is unable to make an intelligent decision? How is someone to know if the other party is too druk, drugged, etc. when they themselves are intoxicated?

Sadly, that backs up the argument that women should be responsible for not getting drunk.

My view is that it's fine for women to get drunk. They just need to take responsibilty for their own actions which they commit in their drunken states.

By eliminating all that nonsense, what we're left with was whether the woman (or man) was forced into sex/penetration, and was she (or he) conscious. If no to both, well, it's not rape.
Edit: must also be over age of consent

Penny Tration

Lux23 wrote: »

You can withdraw consent at any time. Just because you agree to something at some point does not mean you will want it when it comes right down to it. I have gone home with men and decided to leave because it just wasn't doing it for me, thankfully there was no resistance from them but yea I would have sent texts to a friend saying where I was and what I was doing. But that does not constitute consent. The guys I was with were not privy to those texts either. Drawing a conclusion like you just did is very, very dangerous.

I'm not drawing a conclusion. She told her sister, the day after she had sex, that she enjoyed it and wanted it. Two days after, when he didn't return her texts, she changed her mind.

She then did the same two weeks later.

She stated, while sober, after the act, that she wanted it.

Lux23

Lux23 wrote: »

You can withdraw consent at any time. Just because you agree to something at some point does not mean you will want it when it comes right down to it. I have gone home with men and decided to leave because it just wasn't doing it for me, thankfully there was no resistance from them but yea I would have sent texts to a friend saying where I was and what I was doing. But that does not constitute consent. The guys I was with were not privy to those texts either. Drawing a conclusion like you just did is very, very dangerous.

I live mostly in China these days, and there is a common attitude amongst girls if they pretend to resist sexual advances then they'll remain "good girls". But they will encourage you verbally and non-verbally to have sex with them, while at the same time, saying "no, no, no" or "we shouldn't". It's a very common system in Asia.

Now, Im not suggesting its the same here in Ireland, nor am i seeking to diminish rape... but there are plenty of games (for flirting and such) that women perform that send mixed signals. Some responsibility has to rest with the woman. and some with the man.

peronally, I tend to stop immediately if a girl even drops the "no" or "stop" words. But then thats because I have seen friends pulled up on rape charges from girls who are known to behave in this manner. Was it rape? I don't know. But i do know that playing headgames with initiating sexual advances is dangerous. A lot of women don't seem to see their own responsibility in that.

And lastly withdrawing consent at any time? Seriously? If I sleep with a girl, she consents the whole time, and then changes her mind three hours later... you consider that acceptable?

Lux23

bonyn wrote: »

So, in that example 2 blind drunk people raped each other? Or is it a case of when everyone is raped, no one is?

And what if someone gets drunk and masturbates.. are they also a rapist?

Rape is when a person can't give informed consent. Certainly when both people are drunk the law gets very grey. But rape is defined in the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990 i as "a sexual assault that includes penetration of the anus or mouth by the penis or penetration of the vagina by any object held or manipulated by another person."


So I guess if the woman placed an object in the man's anus, then technically you could say he was raped too. But that does not seem very likely. And even a child knows that it is not possible to rape yourself.

Story Bud?

Lux23 wrote: »

Rape is when a person can't give informed consent. Certainly when both people are drunk the law gets very grey. But rape is defined in the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990 i as "a sexual assault that includes penetration of the anus or mouth by the penis or penetration of the vagina by any object held or manipulated by another person."


So I guess if the woman placed an object in the man's anus, then technically you could say he was raped too. But that does not seem very likely. And even a child knows that it is not possible to rape yourself.

Actually no, it specifically says that it has to be a penis penetrating the anus for it to be rape.

Penetrating with an object, only applies to the vagina.

(I think that law should be updated, tbh).

bonyn

Penny Tration wrote: »

It happens. Drunk people, in the heat of the moment, forget all about the possibility of pregnancy or STDs. It's nothing new or ridiculous, it's something that happens every single weekend in cities.

They don't forget. Their inhibitions are lowered so they don't care, and they make a bad decision. Or maybe a good one. let their hair down a bit.. who knows.
Still not rape.

Penny Tration

Deleted User wrote: »

I live mostly in China these days, and there is a common attitude amongst girls if they pretend to resist sexual advances then they'll remain "good girls". But they will encourage you verbally and non-verbally to have sex with them, while at the same time, saying "no, no, no" or "we shouldn't". It's a very common system in Asia.

Now, Im not suggesting its the same here in Ireland, nor am i seeking to diminish rape... but there are plenty of games (for flirting and such) that women perform that send mixed signals. Some responsibility has to rest with the woman. and some with the man.

peronally, I tend to stop immediately if a girl even drops the "no" or "stop" words. But then thats because I have seen friends pulled up on rape charges from girls who are known to behave in this manner. Was it rape? I don't know. But i do know that playing headgames with initiating sexual advances is dangerous. A lot of women don't seem to see their own responsibility in that.

And lastly withdrawing consent at any time? Seriously? If I sleep with a girl, she consents the whole time, and then changes her mind three hours later... you consider that acceptable?

That's a seriously dodgy game for women to be playing, and I'd imagine it's very difficult for men to actually know if they've gotten consent or not in those situations. Seriously, that's messed up.

As for withdrawing consent at any time, no, she can't withdraw consent after the act is over. She can withdraw consent during the act, or before the act. If she changes her mind AFTER the act, well, she consented throughout so what she's feeling is regret, not non-consent.

Penny Tration

Penny Tration wrote: »

Tbh I hope any of you asking what informed consent is, and when a woman can withdraw consent are being facetious because it's scary to think some men don't actually understand consent.

I don't pick up drunk girls. I only sleep with those who have consented to first return home with me, and consented through various stages of foreplay, and I usually get them to put the condom on. That to me is consent. If she says stop duing sex, then I'll stop. thats part of consent.

But saying that a girl can change consent after sex is finished? Thats simply retarded.

1hnr79jr65

Lux23 wrote: »

Rape is when a person can't give informed consent. Certainly when both people are drunk the law gets very grey. But rape is defined in the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990 i as "a sexual assault that includes penetration of the anus or mouth by the penis or penetration of the vagina by any object held or manipulated by another person."


So I guess if the woman placed an object in the man's anus, then technically you could say he was raped too. But that does not seem very likely. And even a child knows that it is not possible to rape yourself.

That's quiet the sexist and uniformed view you have. Placing an object into a man's anus does not need to be done for rape to happen, it can happen via intercourse, or focing oral sex, same as for a man raping a woman, or woman raping a woman or man raping a man.

Also the likelyhood you refer to is alot higher than you seem to suggest, men have a very high chance of not reporting rape due to percieved social stigma, pyschological and emotional issue.

Lux23

Story Bud? wrote: »

Actually no, it specifically says that it has to be a penis penetrating the anus for it to be raped.

Penetrating with an object, only applies to the vagina.

Well there you go now.

Lux23

Sour Lemonz wrote: »

That's quiet the sexist and uniformed view you have. Placing an object into a man's anus does not need to be done for rape to happen, it can happen via intercourse, or focing oral sex, same as for a man raping a woman, or woman raping a woman or man raping a man.

Also the likelyhood you refer to is alot higher than you seem to suggest, men have a very high chance of not reporting rape due to percieved social stigma, pyschological and emotional issue.

It's not my view, it is the law. Plus I was referring to a specific scenario whereby if a man and a woman are both too drunk, have they actually raped each other.

Story Bud?

Lux23 wrote: »

Well there you go now.

It's ridiculous.

Penny Tration

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't pick up drunk girls. I only sleep with those who have consented to first return home with me, and consented through various stages of foreplay, and I usually get them to put the condom on. That to me is consent. If she says stop duing sex, then I'll stop. thats part of consent.

But saying that a girl can change consent after sex is finished? Thats simply retarded.

Nobody has said a woman can withdraw consent after it's finished. That's not withdrawing consent, that's regret.

A woman can withdraw consent before or during the act (as can a man, of course).

A woman can regret it afterwards (again, as can a man, so I won't keep repeating the men part, IMO it applies to both genders).

A woman can wake up with no memory the next morning and NOT have been raped, because the man truly believed that she was capable of consent - we've all gotten so locked that we blackout, but acted perfectly fine while locked and seemed grand.

A woman can wake up with no memory, and have been, in the eyes of the law, raped because she couldn't walk straight, puked on the street and couldn't string a sentence together before having sex.

Penny Tration

Story Bud? wrote: »

It's ridiculous.

It's actually a really disgusting law.

I'm all for protecting women when they're sexually assaulted/raped. But the law is seriously sexist, it's disturbing that it demonises men and victimises women.

If a woman is vaginally or anally penetrated with a foreign object, it counts as rape. But only if a penis penetrates a man is it rape? That's nasty and sexist.

Lux23

Penny Tration wrote: »

A woman can wake up with no memory the next morning and NOT have been raped, because the man truly believed that she was capable of consent - we've all gotten so locked that we blackout, but acted perfectly fine while locked and seemed grand.

I haven't to be honest, I have never blacked out so I can't understand why a person who is that out of it would appear normal to another person.

Story Bud?

Penny Tration wrote: »

If a woman is vaginally or anally penetrated with a foreign object, it counts as rape. But only if a penis penetrates a man is it rape? That's nasty and sexist.

Well no, penetration of male or female anus with an object is not deemed to be rape.

Lux23

Penny Tration wrote: »

It's actually a really disgusting law.

I'm all for protecting women when they're sexually assaulted/raped. But the law is seriously sexist, it's disturbing that it demonises men and victimises women.

If a woman is vaginally or anally penetrated with a foreign object, it counts as rape. But only if a penis penetrates a man is it rape? That's nasty and sexist.

That's buggery, I believe. There is another law governing that.

Penny Tration

Lux23 wrote: »

I haven't to be honest, I have never blacked out so I can't understand why a person who is that out of it would appear normal to another person.

I have.

I appeared fine, spoke fine, walked fine, everything about me indicated I was tipsy and having a great time - I woke up with no memory of the night before. If I had had sex that night, I wouldn't say I'd been raped because to any passing man, I looked perfectly capable of consent.

Other times, I've been an absolute shambles and woke up with no memory, and certainly would not have appeared capable of consenting. Alcohol hits us differently depending on food, medication, type of alcohol, your mood, etc.

Penny Tration

Story Bud? wrote: »

Well no, penetration of male or female anus with an object is not deemed to be rape.

My bad. But to count forced vaginal penetration as rape, and not forced anal penetration unless with a penis (in the case of men) is pretty damn sexist.

1hnr79jr65

Lux23 wrote: »

It's not my view, it is the law. Plus I was referring to a specific scenario whereby if a man and a woman are both too drunk, have they actually raped each other.

I can tell you from personal experience the law is not as straight foward as what you have quoted. Rape is alot more than what is defined by words written into law.

There is an issue with informing/teaching consent however there is also an issue demonising men as always being the perptrators and women as only the victims.

dodderangler

So it's only rape if a woman is raped by man??
Can't possibly be rape if a woman does it to a man?? Hmmmmm bit sexist no??

Penny Tration

dodderangler wrote: »

So it's only rape if a woman is raped by man??
Can't possibly be rape if a woman does it to a man?? Hmmmmm bit sexist no??

It's extremely sexist.

osarusan

OP does it again!

Lux23

Sour Lemonz wrote: »

I can tell you from personal experience the law is not as straight foward as what you have quoted. Rape is alot more than what is defined by words written into law.

There is an issue with informing/teaching consent however there is also an issue demonising men as always being the perptrators and women as only the victims.

Of course. But what I was trying to explain to someone why if two people are drunk, they can't have raped each other.

Tasden

So when we tell women not to drink so much as it may increase their chances of being raped it is not attributing blame or absolving the guilty party, it is "sound advice/common sense/should be done without being told" etc.
But when it's pointed out that men should maybe not sleep with the woman who is off her head drunk as it could be considered rape, that is not "sound advice/ common sense/ should be done without being told" but an infringement on their rights/freedom to do as they please because its the other party that is to blame/responsible.

Surely I'm not the only one who sees the hypocrisy.

Lux23

Penny Tration wrote: »

It's extremely sexist.

The law is blind to these things.

eamonnq

rjpf1980 wrote: »

The case last week in which a woman was apparently raped by a trio of young men in broad daylight is the exception.

When and where did this happen ?

Lux23

Lux23 wrote: »

The law is blind to these things.

hardly. It just hasn't recognized equality and personal responsibility yet.

Wigglepuppy

Tasden wrote: »

So when we tell women not to drink so much as it may increase their chances of being raped it is not attributing blame or absolving the guilty party, it is "sound advice/common sense/should be done without being told" etc.
But when it's pointed out that men should maybe not sleep with the woman who is off her head drunk as it could be considered rape, that is not "sound advice/ common sense/ should be done without being told" but an infringement on their rights/freedom to do as they please because its the other party that is to blame/responsible.

Surely I'm not the only one who sees the hypocrisy.

Surely nobody said it's an infringement on men's rights to say they should not have sex with someone who is nearly passed out from drink?

Of course they shouldn't!