Can a drunk woman give consent?

So if we can't go out skimpily clad, shouldn't drink too much, mustn't park in dark places, hale passing cabs or walk in deserted dark areas

trisher, you can do all that. Plenty of people do. All anyone is saying on here is that there are dangers attached. Anyone who wants to take the attached risks along with drinking too much or walking alone in dark places is free to do so and it is not their fault if they encounter problems. It's unrealistic of them not to accept that there might be problems though. There are risks with all kinds of human activities. That's life. Carry on.

General comment:
I was pleased to realise this morning that the discussion (and ranting) on this thread has clarified something that has not been clear to me. Laddette and Laddish behaviour does give out sexual signals, as I said earlier. We are sexual animals so there's nothing odd about that. Nothing to be ashamed about either, though some of us prefer quieter, more subtle signals (freedom of choice). What I hadn't done before was separate rape completely from such perfectly normal animal sexual behaviour. Now I have. It was the repetition of phrases such as rape is not about sex but about power that had not sunk in properly before, though I thought I understood it. My brain had not sufficiently separated the normal (if not what I would choose) animal sexual signalling that ladds and laddettes of all ages give out from anything to do with rapists, whose activities are beyond the pale.

Thank you for that newfound clarity, Gransnet.

Was that a comment on mumsnet, thatbags? It wasnt written by gransnet itself just to clarify?

That was a comment written by me on Gransnet, soon. I claim full authorship and all right.

Rights

I called it a general comment to separate it from the reply to trisher's post.

Your clarity in differentiating the range of understandable sexual behaviour from predatory aggression explained away as something sexual is the nub of where the confusion lies, bags. That was useful.

Well vampirequeen, I truly did not think you were serious when you suggested that men should not be permitted to drink when they go out. Apparently it was a serious suggestion.

'Why should it be the woman who modifies her behaviour'. Because you should take sensible precautions in life - not because you are a woman. Obviously, as the point has been made over and over again yet does not seem to sink in. Everyone has to modify their behaviour in various situations - that's what you do in society. But you shouldn't have to? Because you are a woman? Or everyone should be able to do whatever they want whenever they want? Many now seem to act as if that is the case.

Naturists are not out on the town off their heads on alcohol looking for a good time - it's an entirely different situation with males and females who are both there for the same reasons (mostly - there are always exceptions). It's a weak argument.

The women's rights movement fought for equality. I wonder what the women who really pushed the movement forward think of women falling over drunk with their skirts up around their waists. Now they are just as chavvy as some young men - job well done.

Glad to see trisher keeping up the hysterical response.

To act like ladettes? boozing until you are incapable, effing and blinding, and staggering around, is this what you wanted for your daughter? not what I wanted for mine. I wanted them to carve out a career for themselves, debate, think for themself etc.

Just because you disapprove of a person's behaviour does not remove their right to behave in that way provided they are not harming anyone else.

The other day DH and I were in McDonalds. A couple of teenage girls were looking at something on their phones and laughing. A man told them in no uncertain terms to be quiet. What right had he to do that when they were doing no harm? The piped music was louder than their laughter. One girl was dumbstruck but the other told him they were only laughing. It was obvious that he didn't like the fact she'd stood up to him. Should she have modified her behaviour to suit this man who seemed to think young girls should be seen and not heard?

You may disapprove of scantily clad, drunk young girls but they have every right to behave in that fashion and this does not give the green light to any potential rapist.

What worries me most about this thread is that some people seem to leaning towards a sliding scale of rape severity where at one end a woman is totally innocent and the other where the woman is virtually responsible.

Some people say that the scantily clad, drunken women should modify their behaviour or women who are attacked should perhaps learn from their mistakes and not put themselves in vulnerable situations.

What about these women:
Sister Ita Ford, M.M. (April 23, 1940 – December 2, 1980) was an American Roman Catholic Maryknoll Sister who served as a missionary in Bolivia, Chile and El Salvador. She worked with the poor and war refugees. On December 2, 1980, she was tortured, raped, and murdered, along with fellow missionaries Sister Maura Clarke, M.M., laywoman Jean Donovan, and Sister Dorothy Kazel, O.S.U. They were killed in El Salvador by members of a military death squad of the right-wing Salvadoran military-led government.

Did they ask to be tortured, raped and murdered? You could argue that they deliberately put themselves in danger but did they deserve what happened to them?

When I was a girl there was a phrase used about certain women. "She's no better than she should be." Usually they were sexually active or dressed 'like a slut' (another favourite phrase used about women). Anything that happened to this type of woman was deemed to be her own fault. Do we want to go back to that?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ita_Ford link to information about the nuns.

whenim64, that is all very well but it doesn't address the actual topic. Very often alcohol lowers inhibitions and makes a woman (not because she's a woman - because it is the topic) more likely to do something that apparently she might not be capable of consenting to, or she did consent to but would not have usually done if sober. It would probably also make the man equally less capable of making rational decisions. You are not going to stop people drinking and the normal consequences of that.

vampirequeen, what was the point of the link in relation to the topic or discussion?

To avoid plagarism. If one quotes directly from a source then one should reference it. This credits the original author and gives the reader the opportunity to check the quote/read on further should he/she wish.

vampirequeen, don't worry, I have read the earlier post that I had not seen.

Yes, they put themselves in danger, no they didn't deserve what happened. Exactly the same as all the other examples that nobody disagrees with. I don't get why you and others keep making the same argument that nobody disagrees with.

I will absolutely disagree that people should be able to behave exactly how they want. The point of society is that it is meant to pull people together as a reasonably cohesive group. The idea that 'nobody can tell me what I will do, say, wear' is something I would expect from a teenager.

As long as they're not hurting anyone why shouldn't people have the freedom to do what they want, Spooky?

They do, vampirequeen,and with that freedom come responsibility. You could argue that they are hurting themselves, but people also have the freedom to make poor decisions.

People rolling around drunk in the streets often create significant mess and damage, create problems that the police have to address, etc. I would say their behaviour absolutely can 'hurt' someone, if we can define that as having a negative impact on others.

Society only really works when people conform to certain requirements (laws) and expectations. Society doesn't work all that well when people are only concerned with their own rights and freedom to do whatever they want when they want.

Consensual sex in public doesn't 'hurt' anyone. Is that ok? Obviously it is against the law - that isn't the question. Who are they hurting and why shouldn't they be allowed to do it.

A lot of youngsters (and some not so young) walk around talking loudly and using expletives every few words. That upsets some parents and older people particularly. It doesn't actually hurt anyone though, other than some people's sensibilities being hurt. Why shouldn't they say what they want when they want? Why should they modify their behaviour? Perhaps consideration of others could be a reason?

"Glad to see trisher keeping up the hysterical response."
Oh Spooky what a thing to say on a thread about women and rape. Your comments reveal just how deep your prejudices go. You need to move on and move into the modern world.

So who's rules would you like everyone to conform to? Who will decide what's right or wrong/appropriate or inappropriate?

Individuals will to a certain extent, vamp, as they do in fact. What one person might think appropriate another might think inappropriate. Both might be within the law in which case they are personal preferences. This will cover things like getting pissed out of one's mind in order to 'enjoy' onself. Some people seem to like doing it, some don't. Once a pissed person starts causing a rumpus or being violent towards others it stops being allright.

Societal rules don't have to be written down for people to have a pretty good grasp of them.

The same 'not allright' applies to a non-pissed person if they cause trouble.

Seems to me that spooky is talking a lot of sense.

trisher, which comment(s) of spooky's reveal his/her prejudices. I haven't noticed any that struck me as showing the deep prejudices to which you refer without actually naming them. So, prejudices about what?

Women thatbags. And in particular the post about me "keeping up the hysterical response."
Hysteria has been a way of condemning outspoken women for centuries.

I don't think spooky has said anything anti-women. I thought your post from Mon 07-Sep-15 21:59:47 was a bit OTT too. Not hysterical exactly but, well, a bit silly.

The discussion isn't about a drunk person breaking the law though. It's about whether a scantily clad, drunk woman is in some way responsible if she is raped.

Some people on the thread seem to be judging the women as culpable based on their own prejudices and beliefs about appropriate behaviour.

It is not illegal to be scantily clad and/or drunk in this country.

It is illegal to commit rape.

Sexual activity is dependent on signals - some subtle, of which we may not even be aware. Alcohol disrupts that communication.

So lets ban alcohol as it seems to be behind a range of crimes.