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

Tasden

Wigglepuppy wrote: »

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!

I didn't say passed out.

Lux23

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.

I think it is because your average Irish man has probably slept with a few drunk women and they are reacting to the possibility that they are in fact a rapist. But nobody is saying you can't pull in Coppers, its just be careful that the woman you meet is aware of what is going on and maybe just ask if she is comfortable.

Pawwed Rig

rjpf1980 wrote: »

The rapist to blame 100%. Getting blind drunk facilitates rape by putting the victim in a vulnerable position. She is not to blame for being attacked and is 100% innocent.

Is there part of my point you disagree with or do we just repeat the accepted mantra for these situations?

A_Sober_Paddy

Why are all the laws towards rape and sexual consent all geared to favour women in this country?

Tasden

Lux23 wrote: »

I think it is because your average Irish man has probably slept with a few drunk women and they are reacting to the possibility that they are in fact a rapist. But nobody is saying you can't pull in Coppers, its just be careful that the woman you meet is aware of what is going on and maybe just ask if she is comfortable.

Exactly, it is not too much to just ask for consent. Or not sleep with a woman who really is too drunk to give consent. Whether that be a "listen you've had a few are you sure you want to do this?" or whatever. But apparently that is not "sound advice" similar to that being given to women about knowing your limits.

Wigglepuppy

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

Why are all the laws towards rape and sexual consent all geared to favour women in this country?

Old skool view of women as victims, men as predators I guess?

Wigglepuppy

Tasden wrote: »

Exactly, it is not too much to just ask for consent. Or not sleep with a woman who really is too drunk to give consent. Whether that be a "listen you've had a few are you sure you want to do this?" or whatever. But apparently that is not "sound advice" similar to that being given to women about knowing your limits.

Are people really disputing the above or saying their rights are breached by it though? Genuine question by the way.

I'd be surprised if the majority didn't agree with you.

Little CuChulainn

Yellow pack crisps wrote: »

Big swinging Micky if he says the rapist is 100% to blame it does not dismiss the fact that what he is saying is that women do not have the right to get drunk and that to do so is to be at the mercy of rapists! And it's partly your own fault!

Nobody has said women do not have the right to be drunk.

Penny Tration wrote: »

Um, pretty simple really. It's giving consent with full knowledge of the possible outcomes/consequences. ie if someone is extremely drunk, they may be too drunk to realise that by not using protection, they could get pregnant. They may be too drunk to realise they're risking STDs. They may be so drunk that they think this guy is gonna be a new boyfriend when all he wants is sex (or vice versa with the man).

That is not informed consent. That goes beyond it.

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.

Who said the second part of your post? The bit I have bolded?

Dravokivich

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.

The hypocrisy is the stereotypical drunk sex you closed out with.

I don't honestly know anyone that would excuse someone of rape for having sex with another who couldn't give consent. But if there was confusion over consent between 2 drunk participants, why is it usually the man that gets pointed out?

Ken.

Mod-Threads merged. No need for 2 threads on the same topic.

rjpf1980

rjpf1980 wrote:

It IS rape.

Tasden wrote:

Exactly, it is not too much to just ask for consent. Or not sleep with a woman who really is too drunk to give consent. Whether that be a "listen you've had a few are you sure you want to do this?" or whatever. But apparently that is not "sound advice" similar to that being given to women about knowing your limits.

The whole point is that a woman "can't give consent" when pissed. So regardless of whether you ask or even get her to sign a contract saying that she wants sex is moot as you can still be classed as a rapist

blue note

Lux23 wrote: »

I think it is because your average Irish man has probably slept with a few drunk women and they are reacting to the possibility that they are in fact a rapist. But nobody is saying you can't pull in Coppers, its just be careful that the woman you meet is aware of what is going on and maybe just ask if she is comfortable.

I think we're reacting to the unfairness of it. I met a girl in diceys (I think) and woke up beside her the next morning. I had no idea what her name was. I have tiny flashback memories of that night, but have no memory of going home or of having sex which I apparently did (doubt it was my most impressive performance). I'm not sure how drunk she was, but from reading this thread it's possible she was as drunk as me in which case I raped her. But leaving the legal definition aside and taking rape to be sex without informed consent, she without a shadow of a doubt raped me. I was in no state to consent that night, whereas the following morning it was clearly consensual.

But that's consent. This thread was about whether it is okay to advise people on ways of staying safe (as much as is possible). If a mother tells her daughter to go straight home in a taxi after a night out and the daughter gets raped a lot of people seem to think the mother is victim blaming her daughter - taking blame sway from the victim and putting it on her daughter. I have a real problem with this. I think most people can separate advice from blame, but from reading this thread some people can't.

The Rape of Lucretia

Deleted User wrote: »

The whole point is that a woman "can't give consent" when pissed. So regardless of whether you ask or even get her to sign a contract saying that she wants sex is moot as you can still be classed as a rapist

If she is too drunk to drive a car, then surely she is also too drunk to rationally give consent to sex ? Which is not necessarily a lot of alcohol. But even one drink is undeniably known to impair judgement. And so if she does, she is classed as raped because she was unable to truly consent.

El_Duderino 09

The Rape of Lucretia wrote:

If she is too drunk to drive a car, then surely she is also too drunk to rationally give consent to sex ? Which is not necessarily a lot of alcohol. But even one drink is undeniably known to impair judgement. And so if she does, she is classed as raped because she was unable to truly consent.

I think that would require a complete rethink of night life and the culture that goes with it. If you do hat rethink it would mean that the man is equally unable to consent and was also raped.

Do 2 rapes make a right? Is it worth pursuing 2 people for raping each other if they both had a good time? What if a fella wakes up and realise he cheated while drunk, can he claim to have been raped?

It's a mess. I'm not saying it isn't worth exploring but it would require a complete rethink rather than saying 'she had a drink so she couldn't consent, ergo rape'.

The Rape of Lucretia

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

If she is too drunk to drive a car, then surely she is also too drunk to rationally give consent to sex ? Which is not necessarily a lot of alcohol. But even one drink is undeniably known to impair judgement. And so if she does, she is classed as raped because she was unable to truly consent.

That logic makes the determination of consentual sex to be incredibly difficult, if not downright impossible, if any party is under any chemical or emotional influence. By the same logic, If she's on the birth control pill, her body chemistry is different, and therefore she "might" not be capable of giving consent. How can a man know all the factors affecting a womans initial acceptance for sexual activities?

It basically says that any time you have sex with someone you're probably committing rape... unless you do blood test to ensure she's of sound mind... and even then she can withdraw consent.

You don't see how unrealistic that is, considering the way many people behave (and prepare themselves) when they're searching a ons, or even a short term relationship?

Reductio ad absurdum.

As usual.

Candie

Candie wrote: »

Reductio ad absurdum.

As usual.

huh? what? me?

Little CuChulainn

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think that would require a complete rethink of night life and the culture that goes with it. If you do hat rethink it would mean that the man is equally unable to consent and was also raped.

Do 2 rapes make a right? Is it worth pursuing 2 people for raping each other if they both had a good time? What if a fella wakes up and realise he cheated while drunk, can he claim to have been raped?

It's a mess. I'm not saying it isn't worth exploring but it would require a complete rethink rather than saying 'she had a drink so she couldn't consent, ergo rape'.

There is an important part of the rape legislation. The man must know there is no consent or be reckless as to whether it is given. It's not enough for the woman to simply be impaired.

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

If she is too drunk to drive a car, then surely she is also too drunk to rationally give consent to sex ? Which is not necessarily a lot of alcohol. But even one drink is undeniably known to impair judgement. And so if she does, she is classed as raped because she was unable to truly consent.

The law does not recognise a situation where a woman can rape a man. It is sexual assault.

El_Duderino 09

Little CuChulainn wrote:

There is an important part of the rape legislation. The man must know there is no consent or be reckless as to whether it is given. It's not enough for the woman to simply be impaired.

The law does not recognise a situation where a woman can rape a man. It is sexual assault.

The sexual landscape has changed and the laws should change to detect that. The laws should protect people. If they are outdated or don't take account of the reality, then they should be update

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The sexual landscape has changed and the laws should change to detect that. The laws should protect people. If they are outdated or don't take account of the reality, then they should be update

Has the law been changed about minors? I remember when I was a teenager... if two 16 year olds had sex, the boy could be charged with statutory rape, but not the girl?

Or am I remembering the law wrong?

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote:

Has the law been changed about minors? I remember when I was a teenager... if two 16 year olds had sex, the boy could be charged with statutory rape, but not the girl?

I have think it has been changed to allow leeway between people of similar age. I don't get your point though.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I have think it has been changed to allow leeway between people of similar age. I don't get your point though.

No point. Just asking. quicker than searching online for the answer

rjpf1980

blue note wrote: »

I think we're reacting to the unfairness of it. I met a girl in diceys (I think) and woke up beside her the next morning. I had no idea what her name was. I have tiny flashback memories of that night, but have no memory of going home or of having sex which I apparently did (doubt it was my most impressive performance). I'm not sure how drunk she was, but from reading this thread it's possible she was as drunk as me in which case I raped her. But leaving the legal definition aside and taking rape to be sex without informed consent, she without a shadow of a doubt raped me. I was in no state to consent that night, whereas the following morning it was clearly consensual.

But that's consent. This thread was about whether it is okay to advise people on ways of staying safe (as much as is possible). If a mother tells her daughter to go straight home in a taxi after a night out and the daughter gets raped a lot of people seem to think the mother is victim blaming her daughter - taking blame sway from the victim and putting it on her daughter. I have a real problem with this. I think most people can separate advice from blame, but from reading this thread some people can't.

You are a rapist scumbag.

Banned.

AudreyHepburn

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

There is an important part of the rape legislation. The man must know there is no consent or be reckless as to whether it is given. It's not enough for the woman to simply be impaired.



The law does not recognise a situation where a woman can rape a man. It is sexual assault.

The laws need changing on both counts.

Having a drunken one night stand and regretting it, as I am sure we have all done, does not equal rape. Bring drunk does not necessarily mean you lack the capacity consent, nor does it mean the supposed aggressor forced him or herself on you.

And why anyone would think a man cannot be viewed as a victim is beyond me. Of course men can be raped, the law, and society in general, really need to begin to recognize that men are not all evil and women are not all angels.

El_Duderino 09

AudreyHepburn wrote:

Having a drunken one night stand and regretting it, as I am sure we have all done, does not equal rape. Bring drunk does not necessarily mean you lack the capacity consent, nor does it mean the supposed aggressor forced him or herself on you.

The drunken one night stand thing is interesting to explore. Who raped who of neither was able to consent. If ko consent = rape, then lots of people are raped and had a good time and have no ill effects. That means we need to separate harmful rape and non harmful rape because the harmful kind needs to be treated with the utmost seriousness and not in the same way as 2 people who make up next to each other with a hangover and hazy memory.

Does anyone remember Richard Dawkins said he was touched up a bit as a child but it didn't harm him? People jumped down his throat and now this discussion seems to have caught up with what he was saying. Funny old world.

El_Duderino 09

This idea that a man can rape a woman and a woman can't rape a man, Needs to be reviewed.

What about 2 gay fellas hooking up after a few beers? Both rapists charged with raping each other?

2 gay women hook up after a few beers? Neither rapists and no charge to answer? Silly laws need to be reviewed to protect people.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Apparently it's rape when the vagina is penetrated. Therefore, why men aren't raped. It's buggery for anal sex AFAIK

blue note

Kitchen Design wrote: »

If a woman forces a mans penis into her vagina against his consent that should be considered rape by law.

Or if a woman has sex with a man who is too drunk to give informed consent.

Kitchen Design

Kitchen Design wrote: »

If a woman forces a mans penis into her vagina against his consent that should be considered rape by law.

Ahh but many people don't recognize that arousal for men isn't a completely conscious thing. They assume that if the penis gets hard, then he must want sex, and therefore is responsible.

Do you know the term "morning wood"? waking up in the morning with a hard-on. Quite common for most men I think. A few years ago I had a friend and his sister stay in my apartment. Woke up in the morning with her naked on top of me. I'd been asleep during the whole initaition of sex. Now, it wasn't rape as such because I didn't say "no" or "stop", but no initial consent was asked of me.

The Pheasant2

Deleted User wrote: »

Ahh but many people don't recognize that arousal for men isn't a completely conscious thing. They assume that if the penis gets hard, then he must want sex, and therefore is responsible.

Do you know the term "morning wood"? waking up in the morning with a hard-on. Quite common for most men I think. A few years ago I had a friend and his sister stay in my apartment. Woke up in the morning with her naked on top of me. I'd been asleep during the whole initaition of sex. Now, it wasn't rape as such because I didn't say "no" or "stop", but no initial consent was asked of me.

This is very similar to that scene in channel 4's classic comedy "Peep Show" - enjoy