Because "well, they were both drunk, so..." comes up so often in discussions about rape...

[SKL]

 

I just can't feel sorry about telling a guy not to have drunk sex with a person he doesn't know well. Life's rough. 

 

Well sure, I agree with this advice.  I would also say don't get drunk and flirt or go off with someone you don't know well.  And if you can't trust yourself while inebriated, don't drink around people you don't know well.  I would say it to both genders (though I would be called a slut shamer for that).  And I would give both genders' words equal weight if they said, "sex happened when I'd been drinking, but I didn't intend that - and I don't remember much about it."

[Bluegoat]

I agree, except how do you define this in legalese?  Everyone is different in how they express enthusiasm in that context, right?  How do you codify it?

 

Again, if taken seriously, I could see this leading to a lot less casual sex, which wouldn't be a bad thing.  But I just don't see how it is practical to enforce.  As a personal guideline, sure.

 

 

 

 

Who was the famous person who said that even bad sex is pretty good?  I think for many people, they are quite happy to go ahead with ok sex and not wait for really great sex.

 

So far as deciding what counts as enthusiastic, if it's someone you don't know, it would be even trickier to tell.  Some people can be very inhibited about expressing themselves as well, maybe especially younger people.  Lots of people when they are starting to be sexually active, particularly women, are in fact wanting to have sex, but they may not be enjoying it much yet.  Do they have some obligation to perform?

 

Personally though I find it a little paternalistic and intrusive.  There are all kinds of reasons to choose to have sex, and they belong to the person making the choice.  Telling them they need to feel enthusiastic about it is BS.  Presumably they are not being paid to provide some particular experience where thy appear to have all the correct feelings.  If I said or otherwise indicated I was content with the situation, go ahead, and some jerk said I wasn't enthusiastic enough, sorry, no sex for you, I would be very pissed off.

[kewb]

I had both my son and daughter read the victims statement so we could discuss it.  My son is heading off to college in the fall and it is a timely lesson.  Yes, I have taught him not to be a rapist.  To treat women with respect.  Not to drug anyones drink. That if one of his classmates or teammates is plying a girl with alcohol so he can get laid, that if he does nothing he is an accomplis to the crime.  That a girl falling down drunk and pulling you down with her is not consent.  That a drunk girl being sexually aggressive is not consent.

 

Someone spoke upthread about minimizing ones risk.  That as women we should be able to tie one on with impunity (my words, not theirs) and expect not to get raped but that we don't live in that perfect world.  To an extent I agree except that sober women get assaulted, women covered head to toe get assaulted, all kinds of women get assaulted.  So, to me, saying she shouldn't have gotten drunk is the equivalent of "she shouldn't wear that, she shouldn't have left the house, she shouldn't go anywhere alone"  It is smoke and mirrors to avoid the fact that a nice, affluent, white boy is a rapist.  I doubt the sentence would have been as lenient for another ethnicity kid on a sports scholarship.

 

Sexual assault on campuses is no small thing.  As the mother of a son I worry.  I worry about him being wrongfully accused, or making a bad choice, or even making a drunken assault on someone (doubtful, but you never really know).  I am terrified for him.. 

 

[ktgrok]

She made a mistake. Not everyone who makes a mistake, or gets drunk, is an idiot. If you think they are, well, that's a large portion of the women reading this thread I imagine. Or is it only if you are drunk on a college campus? Neither of the times I was assaulted was I on campus. Campus was actually safer, with regular patrols on foot. One was in a private house...the home of the teaching assistant who taught my freshman drama class. She'd thrown a party to celebrate the end of the school year. The other time was at a restaurant bar, with several friends. the one in the news recently was at a classy wine bar place, and the woman was with someone she'd known for a year and considered a friend. 

 

 

[SKL]

 

I guess my observations from many moons ago, is that in most cases both parties would have been drunk at the time of sex.  But all of this reads like the male is ultimately responsible for what happens in any sexual encounter.  Which seems to belie the idea that females are capable of making the same decisions about sex that men are.

 

Yes, I agree that it reads this way.  Maybe people are overcompensating for the fact that in the past, it wasn't considered the man's concern at all in some circles.  But I think it's wrong.  I think it is teaching women that they are victims where if they were men in the same exact scenario they would not be considered victims.  That isn't empowering.

 

[FaithManor]

Bluegoat - she just wanted to be heard.

Victims so rarely are.

 

She is not a lesson in how to avoid being raped, she is a real woman, angry and hurting.

 

Eta- and she is far from the only one.

Exactly.

 

Thank you.

 

A court did that today. They actually "heard" my mom. They let her speak, and they carefully considered what she said. They showed respect for her. (This was not a sexual assault case, but an assault with the intention to do grave harm). We were told not to expect that because courts don't care, don't give a damn about victims. Thank God that was not the case today.

 

I suspect that for most victims of violent crime who live to tell the tale, that is not the norm though, not from what I read about victim advocacy.

[Carol in Cal.]

Who was the famous person who said that even bad sex is pretty good?  I think for many people, they are quite happy to go ahead with ok sex and not wait for really great sex.

 

See, I think this is part of the problem from the male POV.

 

I can't imagine a woman thinking that even bad sexual intercourse is pretty good, because for a woman, bad sex is painful, degrading, and not enjoyable at all.  Whereas many men think that even if sex is not great, they will at least get off which is somewhat enjoyable no matter what.  Hence those incredibly stupid and insultingly dismissive comments like, "Well, if it's inevitable you might as well lie back and enjoy it."  This disconnect is at the root of a lot of the differences between how men and women see rape at the most fundamental level.

[SKL]

It took a year and a half for this guy to get his very light sentence. Should Stanford have just let him remain a student, attending parties, swimming on their team, etc for a year and a half until the court ruled? Many people are saying that colleges should be leaving these matters to the courts. What should happen in the meantime?

 

That's a good question.  I think in this case, they could point to other rules he violated.  Like underaged drinking.

 

I don't honestly know if it's right to automatically kick someone out for an unsubstantiated rape accusation.  However, in this case, it was a lot more than an accusation.  I don't know what the deciding factor was or how long it took for the school to kick him out.

[Caroline]

I think people are talking about automatically kicking rapes to the non-campus police department and prosecutors instead of handling things "in house" with student judiciaries. The student judiciary should ALSO act, but it should not be an investigation in lieu of an actual criminal investigation. The big report that came out a couple/few years ago talked about how this was one way colleges swept sexual assaults under the rug so to speak.

I agree with you, completely.

[Caroline]

Exactly.

 

Thank you.

 

A court did that today. They actually "heard" my mom. They let her speak, and they carefully considered what she said. They showed respect for her. (This was not a sexual assault case, but an assault with the intention to do grave harm). We were told not to expect that because courts don't care, don't give a damn about victims. Thank God that was not the case today.

 

I suspect that for most victims of violent crime who live to tell the tale, that is not the norm though, not from what I read about victim advocacy.

I am glad your mom was heard in court. I'm sorry you are going through all of this.

 

I, too, wish that more victims could be heard.

[SKL]

The statistic that 99% of rapists are men - do you mean reported rapists?  Because how many men are going to report regretted sexual contact that they did not consent to?  Culturally that is a great big no-no.

 

If we're going to define rape to include sexual contact when the other person was drunk and unable to consent or did not enthusiastically affirmatively consent, then there are lots of men who have been raped, and lots of women rapists.  Women initiate sex, drunk and sober, more than 1% of the time, don't you think?

[FaithManor]

Who was the famous person who said that even bad sex is pretty good?  I think for many people, they are quite happy to go ahead with ok sex and not wait for really great sex.

 

So far as deciding what counts as enthusiastic, if it's someone you don't know, it would be even trickier to tell.  Some people can be very inhibited about expressing themselves as well, maybe especially younger people.  Lots of people when they are starting to be sexually active, particularly women, are in fact wanting to have sex, but they may not be enjoying it much yet.  Do they have some obligation to perform?

 

Personally though I find it a little paternalistic and intrusive.  There are all kinds of reasons to choose to have sex, and they belong to the person making the choice.  Telling them they need to feel enthusiastic about it is BS.  Presumably they are not being paid to provide some particular experience where thy appear to have all the correct feelings.  If I said or otherwise indicated I was content with the situation, go ahead, and some jerk said I wasn't enthusiastic enough, sorry, no sex for you, I would be very pissed off.

But you know what Bluegoat, he would be making the best choice for him, the best choice morally, legally, and ethically. Whatever her reasons are for wanting whatever substandard sex she wants at the time, she can go ahead and be pissed off because he should feel ZERO obligation to provide it.

 

Within the context of being outside a long term, monogamous relationship in which one really gets to know one's partner well with a better understanding of the other person's internal motivations, a male shouldn't have to try to figure out why her outward vibes seem conflicting. He needs to protect himself and be able to look in the mirror with integrity the next day.

[Joules]

 

But, I will not, and do not, respond to a story about a woman being raped by going off on a tangent about drunkeness and promiscuity. It isn't the time or place for that discussion. Especially when it focuses mostly on the women, and not the men's behavior. For all the reasons I listed before, the biggest being that it creates an environment where women are unlikely to report rape. 

 

You are right, Katie.  Though I said nothing about promiscuity, I was referencing the sex-when-drunk thread title and direction the conversation had gone in my post about my advice to kids (which I believe should be the same for both genders.)  I've deleted, as it belongs elsewhere, not in a thread that was supposed to be about this particular victim.

[ktgrok]

People are continuing to say you shouldn't get drunk around people you don't know, strangers, etc. Ignoring that people you do know may be even more likely to try something. Basically, to really protect yourself women would have to never drink at all, ever, unless alone at home. And yet in the same breath people are saying well, you can't expect men to stop drinking and having sex. 

[Guest]

the baffling idea that having a drink increases the victim's responsibility whilst simultaneously lessening the rapist's.

 

This sums it all up.

 

That line of reasoning is transparently ridiculous.

[FaithManor]

People are continuing to say you shouldn't get drunk around people you don't know, strangers, etc. Ignoring that people you do know may be even more likely to try something. Basically, to really protect yourself women would have to never drink at all, ever, unless alone at home. And yet in the same breath people are saying well, you can't expect men to stop drinking and having sex. 

Staggering! Isn't it!!

[poppy]

What I've gotten from this conversation is that many people think women shouldn't drink and will question the validity of rape claims so long as women are still permitted to drink.

 

I am glad the laws are a bit less draconian.

[SKL]

If I said or otherwise indicated I was content with the situation, go ahead, and some jerk said I wasn't enthusiastic enough, sorry, no sex for you, I would be very pissed off.

 

In another context, I could share a personal anecdote.  It would not fit here because it would be light-hearted.

 

I agree that enthusiasm just simply isn't the emotion some people feel when they intend / are willing to have sex.

[Guest]

Bummer about non-enthusiasm-inspiring sex lives, but it really doesn't affect the workability of consent-awareness programs in the context of assault prevention.

Edited June 6, 2016 by OKBud

[FaithManor]

In another context, I could share a personal anecdote.  It would not fit here because it would be light-hearted.

 

I agree that enthusiasm just simply isn't the emotion some people feel when they intend / are willing to have sex.

But that doesn't change the fact that for a male who doesn't know the female well enough to know what her internal motivations are, he should feel free to walk away from the non-enthusiastic partner. Seriously. His integrity is on the line. There is no obligation for him to give her what she wants when he is getting mixed signals.

 

This is the very thing that gets some young men in trouble. Time enough in the future to figure out what their long term monogamous partner's motivations for sex are without putting that off on them in a less familiar situation.

 

Good grief, everyone is so darn afraid that some boy some place is going to be falsely accused. Well, right here we have the exact set up. He's got no idea what is going on in her head, so if he goes ahead when she clearly doesn't seem too thrilled with it, he is setting himself up for a fall. Too bad for the missy who wants sex for whatever reason and can't pull together an enthusiastic response. That's her problem, not his. He should walk away to protect himself and his integrity.

 

I mean really! What the hell do all of you think a guy should do? I guess join a monastery so he doesn't have to try to figure out what consent is and is not. 

 

Boys, PSA to you, if she ain't into it, if you get even a hint of a mixed signal, if you have even a moment of insecurity, unsurety, if she is like "whatever dude", GO HOME! Save her, save yourself, it is not worth it, and there will be plenty of time later for sex in which you don't have to guess whether or not it is okay, or in which you have been with a woman long enough to have figured out her internal motivations and how that affects her outward behaviors.

 

Her lack of enthusiasm is a HUGE problem for him legally and ethically. That is HER problem to overcome, not his.

 

None of which has an ounce of bearing on consent awareness programs and protecting oneself legally.

[SKL]

People are continuing to say you shouldn't get drunk around people you don't know, strangers, etc. Ignoring that people you do know may be even more likely to try something. Basically, to really protect yourself women would have to never drink at all, ever, unless alone at home. And yet in the same breath people are saying well, you can't expect men to stop drinking and having sex. 

 

I never said either men or women are more capable of being responsible with alcohol.  Maybe there are statistics on that, but I wouldn't know.

 

Responsible drinking is going to vary from person to person.  Some people can drink more than others without impairing their judgment.  I wouldn't expect an underage person (which most college students are) to know just how much is safe for them to drink.  I would recommend people figure this out in the trusted family setting and not be in a rush to do it among strangers or even short-term friends.

 

Yes, people we know can be jerks too.  That doesn't mean it's stupid to be careful at a party with strangers or acquaintances.

 

Women and men shouldn't break the laws about underaged drinking.

 

I talk about "my daughters" because I don't have sons.  If I had sons I'd be telling them to stay sober too.

 

Edited June 6, 2016 by SKL

[SKL]

But that doesn't change the fact that for a male who doesn't know the female well enough to know what her internal motivations are, he should feel free to walk away from the non-enthusiastic partner. Seriously. His integrity is on the line. There is no obligation for him to give her what she wants when he is getting mixed signals.

 

Did someone say the male shouldn't be allowed to walk away?  Is that how it is today?  That sounds like rape.

 

[FaithManor]

Did someone say the male shouldn't be allowed to walk away?  Is that how it is today?  That sounds like rape.

 

Bluegoat, opined that she would be pretty pissed if she had reasons to have sex without any enthusiasm for the act and some guy walked away, and that enthusiastic consent programs or training is "paternalistic and intrusive".

 

What that implies is that guys are supposed to walk a tightrope trying to figure out if they really have consent or not, if this is going to come back on them, if they have in some way made the other person feel like she has to "put out", but she clearly doesn't want to put out or worse yet so unclear as to not understand what on earth is going on her head at all.

 

Nope.

 

If the woman can't give an enthusiastic response, it is her problem, not his. Males should not be encouraged to have sex with non-enthusiastic responders whatever the other person's reasons are for acquiescing to sex despite not feeling "into it".

[SKL]

But that doesn't change the fact that for a male who doesn't know the female well enough to know what her internal motivations are, he should feel free to walk away from the non-enthusiastic partner. Seriously. His integrity is on the line. There is no obligation for him to give her what she wants when he is getting mixed signals.

 

This is the very thing that gets some young men in trouble. Time enough in the future to figure out what their long term monogamous partner's motivations for sex are without putting that off on them in a less familiar situation.

 

Good grief, everyone is so darn afraid that some boy some place is going to be falsely accused. Well, right here we have the exact set up. He's got no idea what is going on in her head, so if he goes ahead when she clearly doesn't seem too thrilled with it, he is setting himself up for a fall. Too bad for the missy who wants sex for whatever reason and can't pull together an enthusiastic response. That's her problem, not his. He should walk away to protect himself and his integrity.

 

I mean really! What the hell do all of you think a guy should do? I guess join a monastery so he doesn't have to try to figure out what consent is and is not. 

 

Boys, PSA to you, if she ain't into it, if you get even a hint of a mixed signal, if you have even a moment of insecurity, unsurety, if she is like "whatever dude", GO HOME! Save her, save yourself, it is not worth it, and there will be plenty of time later for sex in which you don't have to guess whether or not it is okay, or in which you have been with a woman long enough to have figured out her internal motivations and how that affects her outward behaviors.

 

Her lack of enthusiasm is a HUGE problem for him legally and ethically. That is HER problem to overcome, not his.

 

None of which has an ounce of bearing on consent awareness programs and protecting oneself legally.

 

I certainly don't want anyone to feel obligated to have sex when the other person isn't responding in a way that works for him.

 

To me, trying to legislate what consent should look like is the government getting way too intimate in our bedrooms.  There are all kinds of couples.  Chemistry is a fascinating thing - what flops for one guy works for another guy.  I can understand not having good sexual chemistry with a guy, but I can't understand forcing myself to build up to the legal not-rape threshold before sex.  :P

 

Like I've said 100 times, I'm cool if that means fewer young people are having sex.  I just think it's unrealistic and frankly it teaches young people things about sex that aren't quite true.  Is there something wrong with a quiet approach to sex?  Is it wrong for a couple to mutually enjoy one being more passive than the other?  Is there really any right or wrong in consensual sex with your life partner?

 

 

[SKL]

There is no mystery to safe alcohol limits. That knowledge is provided in high school health class, in driver's ed training, and in college freshmen alcohol education. The fine tuning on the bodily harm is done in real life.

 

Different people have very different limits in terms of how alcohol affects them.  Even people of the same weight.

 

[zoobie]

That's a good question.  I think in this case, they could point to other rules he violated.  Like underaged drinking.

 

I don't honestly know if it's right to automatically kick someone out for an unsubstantiated rape accusation.  However, in this case, it was a lot more than an accusation.  I don't know what the deciding factor was or how long it took for the school to kick him out.

 

Schools have student judiciaries or some kind of disciplinary tribunals with established rules to deal with students accused of crimes. It's not automatic. In this case, I believe the rapist withdrew voluntarily rather than waiting to be expelled. Stanford blocked him from re-enrolling and barred him from campus once he was formally charged with multiple felonies. Barring students who have been formally charged or indicted with dangerous felonies is pretty standard operating procedure. 

[SKL]

Thats the fine tuning. They already know what the bac is for their weight. They dont know the effect of food, timing, etc. But really, since most are binge drinking, what diference does it make if they are on their 7th or 8th shot in an hour? They are too impaired to cross the street. Actually I know the aswer..the stomach lining starts being damaged and the pain begins before the alcohol deadens the pain or the person passes out. One nice thing about the hospital near ds' s school is that they have an ER within the ER, so nonalcohol related injuries dont wait in line behind all the stomach pumping cases.

 

I was thinking slower intake, but maybe I am too naive.

 

I will be teaching my kids how you can have 1 drink and that's supposed to be safe, but as you finish that drink you are starting to get less rational, and you might think one more drink, sipped slowly, would not be a big problem ... and by the time you've drunk that, your ability to judge what's safe and sensible is pretty much gone.  So if you're not experienced and mature yet about drinking, it's probably better not to do it - especially since it's illegal in the first place.  What is the big hurry?

[Murphy101]

People are continuing to say you shouldn't get drunk around people you don't know, strangers, etc. Ignoring that people you do know may be even more likely to try something. Basically, to really protect yourself women would have to never drink at all, ever, unless alone at home. And yet in the same breath people are saying well, you can't expect men to stop drinking and having sex.

One, I can and do expect men to stop or at least give some basic reasoning to their drinking and having sex, same as women. We are not uncontrolled beasts.

 

Two, it is not ignoring that people we know may be more likely to commit a crime against us. It is just mitigating upping our personal risk factors. Just like no one thinks that locking my home means it can't or won't be stolen or broken into, but we all know it does reduce the opportunity and ease for criminals to do so. And when the cops come out on a theft call, they ask, "was it locked?" And no one thinks that means the cop is saying they deserved to have their property stolen or broken into or should never be allowed to own a home or be alone at home or to leave their home unguarded.

 

Again, noting that we must deal with the reality of a double edged sword on these issues is NOT about blaming victims or thinking that criminals deserve lighter sentences. It's just recognizing that this ugly reality is out there and trying to reduce our chances and the chances for our children of being exposed to it. It's no guarantee. It doesn't mean anyone deserves crimes against them. It doesn't excuse the criminal behavior. It's just a fact of life people must deal with until the world is a significantly better place than it currently is.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

One, I can and do expect men to stop or at least give some basic reasoning to their drinking and having sex, same as women. We are not uncontrolled beasts.

 

Two, it is not ignoring that people we know may be more likely to commit a crime against us. It is just mitigating upping our personal risk factors. Just like no one thinks that locking my home means it can't or won't be stolen or broken into, but we all know it does reduce the opportunity and ease for criminals to do so. And when the cops come out on a theft call, they ask, "was it locked?" And no one thinks that means the cop is saying they deserved to have their property stolen or broken into or should never be allowed to own a home or be alone at home or to leave their home unguarded.

 

Again, noting that we must deal with the reality of a double edged sword on these issues is NOT about blaming victims or thinking that criminals deserve lighter sentences. It's just recognizing that this ugly reality is out there and trying to reduce our chances and the chances for our children of being exposed to it. It's no guarantee. It doesn't mean anyone deserves crimes against them. It doesn't excuse the criminal behavior. It's just a fact of life people must deal with until the world is a significantly better place than it currently is.

 

Actually in many jurisdictions whether a home is locked or not affects the actual criminal charge that can be levied.

[Pam in CT]

This is what flummoxes me, on this and other related threads.

 

There are many other kinds of crimes -- say, house burglaries -- where there could have been measures that the victim could have taken that could have (at the margin) reduced their risks.  Yet reactions don't generally turn to "well, but did the victim double-bolt the door?  Lock every window? Did the house have an alarm system?  Was it on?  How about an automatic light system?"  There's a special flavor of victim behavior scrutiny that only appears for rape victims.

 

Similarly, there are many other kinds of crimes -- say, muggings -- where the possibility of false allegations exists.  Yet again, reactions don't generally turn to, "but was it really a crime, or is the so-called victim lying?  Maybe he lent the money and later regretted it!  Maybe she actually left her purse unattended and now feels foolish!  How do we know for sure the victim isn't lying?"  There's a special flavor of doubting victim testimony that only appears for rape victims.

 

 

And since that special-scrutiny and special-doubt so often zooms in, as here, on alcohol, to parse that too:  

 

People who've been drinking alcohol commit other crimes -- but neither the law, nor public opinion, gives a pass on their culpability for their actions in other criminal arenas on the perpetrator side.  You're drunk, you hold up a liquor storer -- you've still robbed the liquor store.  You don't get a pass because of drunkenness.  There's a special type of sympathy that extends only to the perpetrators of rape for their actions -- poor guy, he was drunk! how was he supposed to know?

 

Whereas, on the "consent" side, as a legal matter (as both CR and LMD pointed out upthread), a contract that is signed while the signatory is drunk is not considered legal.  If a shyster encouraged a little old lady to get falling-down drunk -- or just happened upon her falling-down drunk -- and convinced her to sign a new will, the law would not consider the new will to be valid.  Very little "complicated" or "controversial" with that... but somehow sexual consent is a wholly different matter.

 

 

Which comes around to what confuses me the MOST OF ALL -- why these conversations invariably get redirected straight to the "complicated" "difficult" "gray area" cases, no matter where they start or how unambiguous the issues are.  It's so different from how sympathy in other areas operates... when we're in a thread about other difficult issues involving victims-- say, child abuse, or educational neglect, or elder fraud -- it's actually quite rare -- I'd almost say taboo -- to go to the blurry zones.  We respect the pain and the dignity of the victims.  Yet with rape it happens every single time, within minutes.  It's a special kind of insistence on a "shared-blame" model that only happens with rape, no other kind of crime or problem.

 

WHY?

[swimmermom3]

I think you're wrong about that.

 

The difference (from your other post, you asked about what if they are both drinking) was that a woman just got drunk. The other party got drunk AND THEN RAPED SOMEONE.

 

How do people not understand the difference. Have all you guys just never been drunk? I don't understand what there is to not understand. Are you thinking that getting drunk can make you a rapist????

 

 

So you are going to tell your kids not to drink? Ok. Why is this the conversation were having after a man assaults an unconscious woman behind a dumpster???

 

It's crazy to me that men aren't really responsible for their sexual activity when drunk . If we treated drunk driving the way we treated rape (he can't *really* be responsible if his judgement is impaired ....) we would have a culture much more accepting of drunk driving. In that sense I feel like these conversations help lead to a culture that is kinda sorta ok with rape.

 

I've been to so many frat parties and college parties. Where I drank. I met my husband at a frat party (we were both just visiting ). I've also observed my share of events where I was the only sober person in the room due to being designated driver, or pregnant, or not in the mood. It is not normal for men to prey on vulnerable women to assault. It's just not. Everyone has to pace him or herself, talk to each other, be with a buddy (both sexes), try to have fun. Finding passed out women to fondle is not a thing sober men, 'buzzed' men, drunk men do. It's like shoplifting or running a red light - clearly a choice, clearly out of normal bounds. When it happens it is a criminal act. Clearly.

 

Just a resounding "Yes!" and "Thank You!" for both of these posts. 

[SKL]

 

People who've been drinking alcohol commit other crimes -- but neither the law, nor public opinion, gives a pass on their culpability for their actions in other criminal arenas on the perpetrator side.  You're drunk, you hold up a liquor storer -- you've still robbed the liquor store.  You don't get a pass because of drunkenness.  There's a special type of sympathy that extends only to the perpetrators of rape for their actions -- poor guy, he was drunk! how was he supposed to know?

 

Whereas, on the "consent" side, as a legal matter (as both CR and LMD pointed out upthread), a contract that is signed while the signatory is drunk is not considered legal.  If a shyster encouraged a little old lady to get falling-down drunk -- or just happened upon her falling-down drunk -- and convinced her to sign a new will, the law would not consider the new will to be valid.  Very little "complicated" or "controversial" with that... but somehow sexual consent is a wholly different matter.

 

 

My issue is that you can't say a woman isn't responsible (can't consent even if she says "yes") when she's drinking, but in the same circumstance a man is responsible (has to know that "yes" might not mean "yes") when he's drinking.

 

As has been stated many times, this doesn't apply to the case in the OP.  I haven't seen anyone suggest that that rapist's guilt is mitigated by his alcohol consumption.

 

As for bringing up her drinking and his drinking, the OP did that.

Edited June 6, 2016 by SKL

[ChocolateReignRemix]

My issue is that you can't say a woman isn't responsible (can't consent even if she says "yes") when she's drinking, but in the same circumstance a man is responsible (has to know that "yes" might not mean "yes") when he's drinking.

 

As has been stated many times, this doesn't apply to the case in the OP.  I haven't seen anyone suggest that that rapist's guilt is mitigated by his alcohol consumption.

 

As for bringing up her drinking and his drinking, the OP did that.

 

But we already have that standard in the law in other ways.

1.) You can't be held to a a contract you sign or a confession you give while too inebriated to do so with lawful consent.

2.) You can be convicted of a crime you perpetrate on another while drunk (drunk driving, assault, murder, etc).

 

Basically the law doesn't allow you to be taken advantage of while drunk, but also does not give you blanket immunity for harm you perpetrate on others while drunk.

[SKL]

But we already have that standard in the law in other ways.

1.) You can't be held to a a contract you sign or a confession you give while too inebriated to do so with lawful consent.

2.) You can be convicted of a crime you perpetrate on another while drunk (drunk driving, assault, murder, etc).

 

Basically the law doesn't allow you to be taken advantage of while drunk, but also does not give you blanket immunity for harm you perpetrate on others while drunk.

 

But what some people seem to be saying is like this:

 

1) a woman can't be held to a contract signed when she was inebriated.

2) a man CAN be held to the other side of the same contract signed when he was also inebriated.

 

This is the logic behind the argument that sex while both parties are inebriated is rape and the man is the rapist.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

But what some people seem to be saying is like this:

 

1) a woman can't be held to a contract signed when she was inebriated.

2) a man CAN be held to the other side of the same contract signed when he was also inebriated.

 

This is the logic behind the argument that sex while both parties are inebriated is rape and the man is the rapist.

 

This comes back to your false belief that these are consensual encounters that the female later regrets.

 

In addition, when you stick part of your body inside of another person and they did not give legal consent, you have committed sexual assault.  It really is a simple concept you are making complicated.

Edited June 6, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix

[SKL]

This comes back to your false belief that these are consensual encounters that the female later regrets.

 

Well, in the examples given, nobody seems to know or remember who instigated it or what was said.  Or witnesses saw the woman acting like she was interested in physical intimacy.  No evidence that one person pushed the other into it, just a feeling that it shouldn't have happened after the buzz wears off.  So how does one conclude that the male (never the female) is guilty of rape?  The only way I see is to impose a higher duty per se on males.

Edited June 6, 2016 by SKL

[SKL]

In addition, when you stick part of your body inside of another person and they did not give legal consent, you have committed sexual assault.  It really is a simple concept you are making complicated.

 

So basically the male is a rapist because biologically, sex involves a male body part going inside a female body part.  That can never have been the woman's suggestion or due to the woman's action.  Women are always on the bottom during sex.  Or wait ....

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

So basically the male is a rapist because biologically, sex involves a male body part going inside a female body part.  That can never have been the woman's suggestion or due to the woman's action.  Women are always on the bottom during sex.  Or wait ....

 

 

If the woman assaults the male without his consent, she would be guilty of sexual assault.

 

Again, before you commit an act upon another, you must have their consent.

1.) If they are intoxicated to the point where they cannot legally consent, then you are not allowed to have sexual activity with them even if they say yes.

2.) The law does not allow you to use inebriation as a defense against your own actions.

3.) I have not seen any cases here where the inebriated female committed an act upon a male.  When that does occur, it is sexual assault.

 

I know you have this bizarre need to trot this red herring out about how men are being victimized in large numbers by drunken women and the legal system, but it is bullshit and needs to be called out as such.

[Bluegoat]

See, I think this is part of the problem from the male POV.

 

I can't imagine a woman thinking that even bad sexual intercourse is pretty good, because for a woman, bad sex is painful, degrading, and not enjoyable at all.  Whereas many men think that even if sex is not great, they will at least get off which is somewhat enjoyable no matter what.  Hence those incredibly stupid and insultingly dismissive comments like, "Well, if it's inevitable you might as well lie back and enjoy it."  This disconnect is at the root of a lot of the differences between how men and women see rape at the most fundamental level.

 

Yes, I think you are right about bad sex, which is why I modified it to "ok" sex.  Lots of women do, I think, quite like ok sex, or may have it for other reasons that seem worthwhile for them. 

 

However - the person who originally made the comment seems to have been saying that sex with someone who was not enthusiastic would not be great sex, so why do it?  In the end though, I think most people do not hold out for great sex every time.

 

I looked it up and couldn't find an attribution for the quote, but apparently Sharon Stone (who is without doubt a woman) is one person who has said some version of this - that sex was like pizza, even bad pizza is good.  So at least for some women, it seems to hold true.

[Bluegoat]

But you know what Bluegoat, he would be making the best choice for him, the best choice morally, legally, and ethically. Whatever her reasons are for wanting whatever substandard sex she wants at the time, she can go ahead and be pissed off because he should feel ZERO obligation to provide it.

 

Within the context of being outside a long term, monogamous relationship in which one really gets to know one's partner well with a better understanding of the other person's internal motivations, a male shouldn't have to try to figure out why her outward vibes seem conflicting. He needs to protect himself and be able to look in the mirror with integrity the next day.

 

Look, if anyone has some good reason to think the person they are with is having second thoughts, or whatever, by all means it is a good reason to ask them about it. 

 

And I absolutely agree that a man who is worried about this should protect himself if he thinks there is a problem, that is a good reason to refrain.

 

I think it is unreasonable to expect people to always know what someone's enthusiasm looks like, or to second guess them for it if they don't notice, and I think enthusiasm is an unreasonable thing to demand from a sexual partner.  Grown ups can decide to have sex for any reason they want to.  Does anyone think that porn actors, for example, always feel enthusiastic?  They probably often feel like they are at work and want to have a nice hot bath. 

 

To add it as some kind of necessary aspect of consent is crazy, but there are people thinking that way about consent.

[swimmermom3]

I just read an article last week maybe about the pervasiveness of slut shaming in college(although it doesn't stop there just changes). Sadly the big problem was other women, not men. For some reason women can't support other women. It is like we are all in some stupid contest or something. It would sure be nice if we could build a community of support instead of looking for ways to blame the women.

 

It does seem as if many women get a particular sort of satisfaction pointing their fingers at other women and saying, "Oooooh look at what she did; I would never do that!"  Therefore the finger pointers are smarter, more virtuous, whatever, than the victims. 

 

Here's the part I wonder about.  What if men were as nasty and judgemental with their peers?  I wonder how many guys know another guy that has had sex with a passed out woman?  Not necessarily rape - given Crimson Wife's example.  How many of them have said, "Dude, that is not cool and I don't really think you are the kind of guy I want to hang around?"  What would happen if the otherwise good guys in our lives did a little more self-policing of their friends?  What if "making it" no matter how you "made it" wasn't such a commendable and critical part of defining one's manhood?

 

Have we had discussions with our sons about dealing with the situation where you know something not okay has happened?  There's the guy code. How far does that go?

 

[Guest]

I bet unenthusiastic ppl bumping uglies, looking real bored, is someone's fetish.

 

Anywayyyyyy

 

Obviously people can have sex for whatever reason they want to.

 

Being assured the other person WANT TO is the ticket.

 

Without being coerced.

 

Therefore: enthusiastic.

[Bluegoat]

People are continuing to say you shouldn't get drunk around people you don't know, strangers, etc. Ignoring that people you do know may be even more likely to try something. Basically, to really protect yourself women would have to never drink at all, ever, unless alone at home. And yet in the same breath people are saying well, you can't expect men to stop drinking and having sex. 

 

Um, no.

 

Some men will always drink and have sex, even if you make it illgal.

 

Some women will do the same.

 

Both should be careful about, not drinking, but binge drinking, which is I think an important distinction.  Widespread binge drinking is largely a cultural phenomena, and not something anyone needs to do.

 

If people are going to binge drink, they probably should do it with people they know, in a relatively safe setting.

 

Some would argue that the stakes are higher for this with women, which is why they would probably think it is a more serious concern for them.  Others might disagree.

[Bluegoat]

This is what flummoxes me, on this and other related threads.

 

There are many other kinds of crimes -- say, house burglaries -- where there could have been measures that the victim could have taken that could have (at the margin) reduced their risks.  Yet reactions don't generally turn to "well, but did the victim double-bolt the door?  Lock every window? Did the house have an alarm system?  Was it on?  How about an automatic light system?"  There's a special flavor of victim behavior scrutiny that only appears for rape victims.

 

Similarly, there are many other kinds of crimes -- say, muggings -- where the possibility of false allegations exists.  Yet again, reactions don't generally turn to, "but was it really a crime, or is the so-called victim lying?  Maybe he lent the money and later regretted it!  Maybe she actually left her purse unattended and now feels foolish!  How do we know for sure the victim isn't lying?"  There's a special flavor of doubting victim testimony that only appears for rape victims.

 

 

And since that special-scrutiny and special-doubt so often zooms in, as here, on alcohol, to parse that too:  

 

People who've been drinking alcohol commit other crimes -- but neither the law, nor public opinion, gives a pass on their culpability for their actions in other criminal arenas on the perpetrator side.  You're drunk, you hold up a liquor storer -- you've still robbed the liquor store.  You don't get a pass because of drunkenness.  There's a special type of sympathy that extends only to the perpetrators of rape for their actions -- poor guy, he was drunk! how was he supposed to know?

 

Whereas, on the "consent" side, as a legal matter (as both CR and LMD pointed out upthread), a contract that is signed while the signatory is drunk is not considered legal.  If a shyster encouraged a little old lady to get falling-down drunk -- or just happened upon her falling-down drunk -- and convinced her to sign a new will, the law would not consider the new will to be valid.  Very little "complicated" or "controversial" with that... but somehow sexual consent is a wholly different matter.

 

 

Which comes around to what confuses me the MOST OF ALL -- why these conversations invariably get redirected straight to the "complicated" "difficult" "gray area" cases, no matter where they start or how unambiguous the issues are.  It's so different from how sympathy in other areas operates... when we're in a thread about other difficult issues involving victims-- say, child abuse, or educational neglect, or elder fraud -- it's actually quite rare -- I'd almost say taboo -- to go to the blurry zones.  We respect the pain and the dignity of the victims.  Yet with rape it happens every single time, within minutes.  It's a special kind of insistence on a "shared-blame" model that only happens with rape, no other kind of crime or problem.

 

WHY?

 

I think there are a few things:

 

1) People actually tend to take it for granted that people can and will take precautions with things like locking doors, and if they don't, that is because they accept whatever risk is implied from that.  That may be reasonable or foolish depending on the circumstances, but it isn't seen as a moral judgement for the most part.  OTOH, no one finds it upsetting if someone says - this neighbourhood has a lot of break-ins, you should lock your door/get a dog/have an alarm. 

 

As someone said above, breaking into a locked house may result in different charges.

 

And your insurance company will without a doubt want to know, if you make a claim, whether you locked the door, and they will perhaps give you better rates if you have an alarm.  Again, no one sees these as moral judgements.

 

2) I don't know that these questions are really major factors in all cases, other than insofar as the accused wants to have a case. Look at this one - I don't think anyone said that drinking was any reflection on the nature of the crime, only her wisdom.  And in many other cases, it clearly isn't a factor. 

 

3) It isn't entirely true that alcohol consumption does not affect the legal outcome in other crimes.  If there are questions about testimony of anyone, the victim, accused, or witnesses, it absolutely is a factor.  It can in some cases also be related to intent, or may come into sentencing if the person was impaired. 

 

4) Its true that drunk people can't be held to contracts, but there are plenty of contracts that have been signed when people consume alcohol.  And if both people who sign are drunk, generally we would see it as invalid on both sides, a mutual folly.  So, how drunk does the person signing the contract have to be for it to be invalid? 

 

And how do we want to put that with sexual assault?  Do we want to say, for example, that if you are too drunk to drive you can't have sex?  That seems like it would be very simple, but I honestly can't see people going for it, and it has to be a reasonable expectation for all situations, not just students at parties.  Do we want that to be the cultural norm for all of us?

 

Most of the legal opinions I've seen seem to say too drunk to consent to sex is a pretty high bar - unconscious, incoherent, and so forth.  OTOH there seem to be universities and some activists that place it much lower, or want it to be lower in law, where it becomes more difficult to enforce reasonably.

 

5) As for why people go into grey areas, I think people are interested in them in all kinds of situations.  It's a very typical way to work through problems in philosophy.  It's a bit like testing to destruction - if someone proposes a idea or way of thinking, it may seem quite obvious in a more obvious situation - the test is can it apply or work in these other situations that are more difficult.  If it doesn't, it may be flawed, or need to be made less general.  In this case, I think there is the additional reason that a lot of what seem to be sexual assaults are not going to be possible to prosecute legally, maybe more than the ones where things are really clear-cut.  So to look at only what is clear cut would leave quite a lt untouched.

[Bluegoat]

But what some people seem to be saying is like this:

 

1) a woman can't be held to a contract signed when she was inebriated.

2) a man CAN be held to the other side of the same contract signed when he was also inebriated.

 

This is the logic behind the argument that sex while both parties are inebriated is rape and the man is the rapist.

 

I would put it this way:

 

If having sex with someone drunk is in itself rape (an invalid contract,) then both people have willingly entered an invalid contract.  So they are both victims.  And both would also be the perpetrators of the crime, since they can be guilty of crime while drunk.

 

The only way to come to the conclusion that the accused is the criminal, but the other person is not, if the whole substance of the argument is that the people involved were drunk, is to make an a priori assumption that the accusation is true, which we aren't supposed to make.

[swimmermom3]

It is more than an anomoly. This article gives a decent overview.

 

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/12/18/other-side-sexual-assault-crisis-403285.html

 

’â€The issues lawyers take with school proceedings include the vague notices schools send accused students; the single-investigator model, in which one person is responsible for the entire investigation; the lack of access the accused have to records; and the way some schools bar advocates or attorneys from aiding the accused."

 

What always worries me in these threads is the very heavy concern about men being wrongly accused of rape and again, the stats are very low compared to the number of women being raped.  This is not to say that I think how colleges in particular are responding in some of these cases is okay, but the point is that they did jack for so long over so many assaults, often encouraging women not to report in order to avoid damaging the man's reputation, that the pendulum is swinging back. It has to. It doesn't make it the manner right, but there has to be a sense of balance at some point.

 

The quote above could be used with the words changed to "accuser" and it would very much represent what has been happening to women on campuses for decades. So why the outrage when the perceived victims are men?

 

[LMD]

I thought we already established that there is just not a trend of women changing their minds and confused men being charged? It hardly ever happens. Yet it gets 99% of the focus.

 

A man is more likely to be sexually assaulted himself than be falsely accused.

 

I err on the side of believing the victim, because overwhelmingly, statistically, they are telling the truth.

 

It really isn't so complicated.

[LMD]

So, you're essentially saying trials should be speedier?

 

As Ravin said early on, the guy's defense attorney did his job. He did what he was supposed to do. If the law was changed where it was simply illegal for a male to have sex with a drunk female at all, then I think there would be much less defense involved. So, I guess the law could be changed to reflect that as the actual crime so that is the only thing that the accuser would have to prove? It seems like that could be much less painful than allowing for a defense based on the fact that alcohol was involved.

 

Other than that, I'm not sure how you conduct an investigation and a trial without questioning of the victim and establishing all the circumstances surrounding the crime. Again, unless the crime itself was sleeping with a woman while she was drunk (in which case alcohol couldn't be used as a defense), and even then our laws say the accused has the right to face the accuser, has a right to defense, etc. It may be really distasteful in all sorts of circumstances, especially with something as personally devastating as rape, but unless you completely change how criminal investigations and trials are conducted then I don't see how you avoid what you and I would probably consider as horribly traumatic for the victim. IMO, that's part of the insidiousness of the crime.

 

It seemed from the article that for her part she noted that the hospital and police did the best they could to support her. If the rapist is a filthy sociopath, there is not a lot to be done about the trial being ugly for her unless, again, the law is somehow changed so that he cannot present his defense in the way that he did.

 

As for social commentary, okay, I don't see how that can be avoided either. I have seen nasty comments from people on all kinds of issues and articles on the internet, from sick children to adoptions to wedding celebrations. It amazes me what people will say on the internet about even the most uplifting or benign articles, much less the more controversial ones. I don't think that can really be controlled for.

No, I'm saying that a guy can be literally caught inside an unconscious woman, he gets 6 months and she gets called an idiot.

On what planet is this good enough?

[swimmermom3]

News flash for the a-hole father! Don't do something that causes irreparable harm to another person. No one gives a @$ how little time the act took but they sure as hell care what the act was! This is not a far cry from a defense of, "It only took 45 seconds to kill the little lady, so sad that he has to be punished for 45 seconds out of 45 years!" God help us if that kind of insane reasoning became an acceptable plea for mercy for any violent crime.

 

Though it would cause me profound pain if one of my children had to serve a long prison term, I would rather that than have him or her on the outside finding new victims.

 

Kind of makes you wonder what kind of a lowlife the dad is....what skeletons he has in the closet.

 

Makes me wonder about the judge too.

 

He's probably not what many of us would consider as a "lowlife."  Entitlement to women comes in all kinds of packages.

 

We as parents may also think we are sending one message to our kids, but have no clue how our kids will translate  the message. For example, a young man we know has been drilled by his father as to how a "gentleman" behaves around a woman.  This includes paying for EVERYTHING.  Father is a successful businessman who just happened to beat the crap out of the kid when he was little.  He also cheated on his wife and the boy's mother in their own home.  This young man now pays for everything for his dates, breaks up with them frequently so he can sleep with another girl but technically not be cheating, and of course, hits them when things don't go his way. That's probably not exactly how his dad expected the message to be perceived.

 

That's why when I saw a board member call the victim in the original case an "idiot" to her own dd's face, it really made me cringe.  Your kids' brains are not wired the same way as yours and they will come to their own conclusions and those can be disastrous in times of crisis.

[swimmermom3]

Except it was acknowledged multiple times that the guy was a guilty sociopath who raped a woman who was blacked out behind a dumpster.  I don't think it is controversial or that there is going to be much except agreement that "Yeah, that's wrong and he should get a harsher sentence".  And no one thinks that unconscious or concious women should be raped, so I'm not sure what else could be said. 

 

The discussion did move beyond the OP, but I would guess that is pretty much a matter of course around here.

 

I think it's interesting that we are referring to him as a "guilty sociopath," and yet his attitude is somewhat common among elite athletes - the sense of entitlement.  For young men, we as a culture send very mixed messages.  "It's cool to drink."  "Athletes, especially good ones are 'special,' above the law."  "It's good and desirable for a young man to have lots of sexual experience." (How are these young men supposed to prove their virility and get all that experience if the girls are all supposed to be careful and good?) A guy that has lots of partners is a stud. A girl that has lots of partners is a slut.