Can a drunk woman give consent?

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our forum guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

No a drunk women can't give consent and too many men take advantage of women they meet under the influence of booze. The Government does not even prosecute those any more who have sex with girls below the age of consent if a similar age and Doctors give them contraceptives without their parents being informed. The only time I suppose you can assume consent if the women brings home some wine to share with you and you are in a relationship and it is not your first time of sleeping together.

I don't see how a woman drinking herself senseless sends out a signal that she's 'up for it', whatever she's wearing. Women don't over-drink because they're gagging for it...

Looking smart/attractive/feminine is one thing, but if a girl goes out looking oven-ready she is asking for trouble.

I admit "trying on" this -by now-despicable practice of using alcohol to "soften up" susceptible "candidates" fortunately-things did not go far enough or that far. I would therefore sympathise a great deal with those innocent parties suffering from the terrible consequences of drug + alcohol induced actions these days

Why is being "dressed provocatively" not seen as an 'up for it' signal? I really don't understand how we can talk of dressing sexily or provocatively and then say no one is allowed to be sexually 'provoked' (I don't mean provoked in an aggressive sense). People seem to be saying that women in particular can be as sexually provocative as they like with regard to their 'get up' without consequences. Would we, do we say the same about men? If not, why not? I would very much like to agree that women should be able to dress how they like, even deliberately sexily, without it mattering, but how we present ourselves usually does matter very much indeed. That mattering is not just the case with sexy dressing; it applies in all sorts of situations, including completely formal ones.

When other female animals give out sexual signals, it does mean they are 'up for it'? Why shouldn't this apply to human females (males too), especially as we are in control of the sexual signals (and their 'strength') that we send out, whereas other animals are not (not to our knowledge anyway).

I realise my post may not seem altogether straightforward. That's because my thoughts about sexual signals and sexual behaviour are not altogether straightforward.

That's partly why I only mentioned the drunkenness aspect - getting drunk is not a signal of 'availability' although provocative dressing might be seen as such.

I do think age should get mentioned. Some younger girls dont realise, and havent thought through things and implications of scenarios.

I agree with that, ana.

Of course the rule about mutual consent still applies even when a woman has deliberately and with forethought dressed in a sexually provocative way. I'm not saying such dressing is an excuse for rape, just that I don't agree that women (or men) should be able to dress how the hell they like without expecting any comeback at all, so of you dress sexily it's unreasonable to expect other people not to think of sex (possibly with you). How we present ourselves just doesn't work like that, which everyone should realise when they apply dressing as one likes to almost any other day to day situation.

'Scenarios' is a good way of putting it.

In Germany it cannot be considered rape if there is no sign of force.

The word 'rape' used to mean that force was involved - that's how it was when I was growing up (not so long ago, but long enough). Rape was having sex with someone against their wishes - consent was implied by actions and for most people if they heard 'no' then they stopped. There was a world of difference between that and getting lucky after a few drinks with a girl who had also had a few. Now it seems to apply to any woman who has had sex and regretted it, fallen out with the chap, etc. The word 'rape' has been diminished by the ever-greater scope given to such a charge.

The number of people who are going to grab someone off the street and rape them is relatively small. Most people are fundamentally decent. This issue of consent is something that really cannot usually be proven, other than by signs of force. Yet the accusation can be sufficient to damage a person's reputation and career as the identity of the accused is not protected. The danger is now that if a woman says she was raped and there is evidence of having had sex with the accused (but no sign of force) then he can still be convicted? That would seem rather 'anti-men' if true, and a lot of men are feeling that vibe in society at present. A few bad men doesn't make all men potential rapists, etc, yet that seems to be the presumption. Witness the swimming pool where they have a 'safe time', defined by no adult males being allowed in.

If a person wasn't forced because they were drunk and it seemed like a good idea at the time then hopefully they will learn not to put themselves in situations where they might not like the consequence in the cold and sober light of day. That's about all that should happen - look to yourself instead of others. Waking up the next day with cuts and bruises, having obviously been forced, is clearly a different matter. I say 'clearly', yet it is becoming less so and this can only cause a further divide between the sexes.

The point about drugs (which would therefore possibly leave no sign of force) is a bit of a red-herring. Firstly, there would very possibly be signs of the drug in a person's system, or at least for a certain period of time. Secondly, we knew when I was young to watch out for stuff being put in drinks in clubs, etc. Lastly, you cannot clumsily legislate for the entirety of society because of something that happens so very rarely. You can come up with all manner of scenarios but if you legislate for every eventuality you end up with an absolute mess of a legal system, which is where we are heading.

With regard to the points about women dressing how they want, of course they can. If they walk around with everything on show they are going to get attention - that's why they do it. Unfortunately they are not going to like some of the attention that they get - that's called a consequence.

Spooky, you are spot-on with your analysis.

I cannot agree with those who seem to assume that if a man is drunk he can't have sex, therefore a man cannot be raped by a woman. He may not be able to climax or even get very hard but he can certainly have sex and enjoy it, just as drunken women can.

You don't have to be drunk to the point of insensibility to do something you may regret in the morning - this applies to both sexes.

Can a drunk woman give consent? Yes.

If she tells the man no at any stage (and come on, it really isn't that hard to know what no means) and he goes ahead anyway with or without force, then that is rape in my eyes. If she is so drunk that she is insensible, perhaps to the point where she doesn't realise at first sex has even taken place, then that is also rape.

Whether or not she reports it as a crime is another matter.

She may decide not to do anything about what happened for a number of reasons (which is her choice), or she may feel strongly enough to make an allegation of rape at some point. This is where the grey area lies for me and each case should be decided on its own circumstances.

If men don't see the repercussions of putting their physical needs above common decency and the issue of consent, then women will always be vulnerable. In this day and age, it should never be acceptable for a man to be able to continue with intercourse if the woman doesn't want it to happen.

Getting very drunk may be stupid, but it is not a crime and it is never a reason for ignoring the issue of consent. Responsibility and consent go hand in hand and work both ways.

I can't believe some of the comments made on this thread.

Well said heavensent!and Wilma

thing is Bags we aren't animals!

Yes we are. We are more in control of our actions than most perhaps but we are definitely animals.

We are, actually...

People who study animal behaviour are finding more and more things that animals do that we do too, with species specific variations of course. Our links to the animal kingdom seem closer every day in some things, including behaviour traits seen in social situations.

I often wonder what people who think we are not animals think we are instead.

Rapists aren't looking for consent unless it's clearly under duress, otherwise it defeats their object. Provocative clothing is largely irrelevant in rape cases but will get trotted out by the defence lawyer to undermine her complaint. If you examine rape cases that make it as far as court (high attrition rate because who in their right mind wants the world to know they've been raped) date rapes where consent is claimed are more difficult to prove and result in more acquittals due to doubt in the jury's minds. Drunkenness is not a valid excuse in rape or any other offence. The doubt has to relate to the state of mind of the alleged rapist, who could choose to exercise a sense of responsibility if the person is incapacitated in some way, not rape her.

I'm gobsmacked by Chrissie Hyndes' comments. Applying her rationale to the horrific experience she had is not helpful to other survivors of rape who have looked at their own behaviour to explain why they were raped. If a date or casual acquaintance rapist intends to rape, they set the situation up, plan and fantasise about it independently of who their chosen victim will be, then await their opportunity. The average male won't exploit vulnerability when women are drunk or dressed scantily, but think about mothers and sisters and act protectively. Unfortunately, I have seen too many rapists avoid conviction, yet be known to the police for repeat sexual attacks on women. Just because they know what to say doesn't mean she led them on, gave consent or asked for it.

There are (a few) predatory men about in all sorts of situations. They strike when women are respectably clothed, sober and in broad daylight and will try it on by claiming consent.

Yes, I know there will be the odd exception, but regretful complainants are rare and most will either drop the complaint or back out as soon as they can and try to avoid the consequences. So rare, in fact, that those occasional cases make the headlines.

Other animals are doing what they are genetically programmed to do - mate as much as possible. We've all seen the wild life programmes where a male animal has sex and moves on or kills the young of a female before mating.

Our developed brains mean we can control instinctive behaviour.

trisher it is a crime to deliberately give someone a drug or alcohol with the purpose of assaulting /raping them. So yes it would be rape.

Re a certain dress style 'inviting' sexual attention of course it does but there is a difference between wanted and unwanted and reciprocal attention.

If a person makes it clear the attention is not wanted, no matter how they are dressed, the attention must stop!

I do think that there may be an element of naivety in some young people in not understanding how their behaviour/appearance maybe 'read' by others. Not that it gives anyone the right to assume they can have sex with someone because they wear certain types of outfits.

If I go for an office job interview in a swimsuit I cannot be surprised that I do not get the job. If I go to a house party done up to the nines I cannot be surprised that people look at me and may want to talk to me but I should not expect to have sexual contact unless I reciprocate any advance.

Your post is written by someone who knows far more about such things than I do, when, and as such I accept it completely. I'd like to make it clear that I have never argued that dressing sexily is an invitation to rape. I don't think that and never have. But I do think that how one dresses is always part of one's body language and that body language matters and is part of one's communication with others.

What is your view of the post by spooky?

pen has out my thoughts into words. Thanks, pen.

Agreed, wilma. I don't think anyone has argued otherwise than that we have more control over our behaviour than other animals.