Getting drunk.

Crossed posts Ana same point being made.

I'd like to add too that it is difficult to establish just HOW drunk someone actually is, unless they are throwing up or passed out cold. I had a friend at college who could hold a reasonable conversation (it seemed) when well bladdered but you had to know her to realise this and she couldn't remember anything next morning.

Yes - I thought that was my point, too!

That's not her point.

Her point was how can a jury make a decision when the woman admits she was so drunk she has no memory of whether or not she gave consent.

So she may have been quite happy to have sex, eager even, but the next day hasn't a clue about it. How can a jury convict a man, who might have had a willing partner, but all she can say is 'I don't remember, but I'm sure I wouldn't have agreed'.

Yes, I agree. The point I was trying to make earlier, though, was that a woman could give consent while being drunk but not 'completely out of it', and not remember a thing the next day.

I'm in no way excusing rape, just saying that if both parties have drunk a considerable amount of alcohol (or consumed a considerable quantity of drugs) it must be very hard to establish consent/non-consent or culpability.

Sorry, I'm getting confused. I just thought that having sex with someone who is so drunk that she can't remember what she said, amounts to rape anyway.

Well, of course, it's silly to get very drunk but I've done it a couple of times in the past, though not deliberately. I can't see the point of the Judge's comments because it's not likely to change daft behaviour but it is likely to be misconstrued.

I thought that was what we'd been discussing, Eloethan.

I thought that if a man has sex with a woman when he is aware she is so drunk that she's completely "out of it" and incapable of giving consent, it constitutes rape? I suppose the problem would be proving that she was incapable of giving consent, and proving that he was aware of it? Does anyone know?

Many of the girls I worked with seemed to think that getting off their faces and having no idea what they were doing was the sign of a great night out. The idea of things turning nasty never seemed to cross their minds.

In the version I read the judge was saying that there was no defence for raping a woman or taking advantage of a drunken one.

Seems very sensible advice by your mother NanKate to me. Just as sensible as not tottering down dark alleyways [snickets] in high heels at one in the morning.Or hanging about in doorways wearing a mini skirt and low necked top.Or getting into cars full of men you hardly know.We all know in theory that you should be able to do these things, but will that theory comfort you later, when you have been raped?

If a woman can't remember giving her consent, then the man who has taken her consent for granted (or not even considered whether she was willing or not) is of course going to say that she consented enthusiastically and took the lead.

Ana - seriously that's helpful. I'm just trying to get my head around the consent thing and remembering. I suppose if you were at a party and your friend saw you in a very drunk state go off into a bedroom with a bloke and then later you realised you'd had sex, there would be a case you had not been able to consent because there was so someone else who'd seen the state you were in just beforehand. As for being drunk - Ana goodness me! As if! But seriously, when I look back to my younger days, I can see now that I must have known a lot of very nice men ( as most of them are anyway) and never ended up in any tricky situations despite having drunk too much

I would think dark unlit alleyways are very , very dangerous in todays climate.
Wouldn"t catch me going down one alone, no way.

Have you never been drunk, GrannyTwice? It's possible to feel completely in control and in charge of one's behaviour when under the influence, but to remember nothing the next morning. It's a well-known phenomenon. People actually joke about not remembering what they've done the night before.

So in answer to your question, yes, you may have consented at the time, but can't remember having done so the next day.

It is lovely IMO the difference between North & South.

Ginnel, is a lovely Northern word ,think we know it down South as alleyway.

But, I am genuinely puzzled here, if you can't remember if you consented then how can you have consented?

Totally agree Feetle- but if a woman cannot remember if she did consent or not, because she has no memory at all of what happened...

I am surprised you can't see the difference VampireQueen- it is not about being 'sensible'- but about being aware of what you are doing and sure about the circumstances, etc, of an attack- if one does happen.

If y woman cannot remember what happened, if she consented ... or not, etc, etc- then it is VERY, in fact totally, different.

Thank you feetle

Most rapes are not by strangers in ginnells or by men hiding behind bushes! Most are by family members or people known to them!

Dark, unlit ginnels should not be dangerous, nor should any woman anticipate being attacked when she leaves her house. I sometimes wonder if women are being subjected to covert curfews when the arrangements for moving around their neighbourhoods have to accommodate the risk of being jumped on. It's time men started having a serious talk with themselves and each other.

Bit Harsh, must be a totally terrible thing to be raped .

One must only feel sorrow for the victim , .

IMO

Why not? She chose to use the dark, isolated route. She put herself in the path of the stranger. If she'd been sensible she'd have taken the well lit but longer route where the man wouldn't have been able to attack her unseen.

If a drunk woman puts herself in a position of danger by making the wrong choices then surely my hypothetical woman has too.

Absolutely not- just does not compare, at all.

A woman goes out on a freezing, wet night to buy a pint of milk. The short route which takes 5 minutes takes her through a dark, somewhat isolated ginnell. The long route is on a well lit road but it's a half hour walk. She chooses to take the short route which she has used many times before in daylight and dark. In the ginnell she is attacked by a male stranger.

She could have taken the longer well lit route but made the choice not to. Is the woman responsible for the attack?