Can a drunk woman give consent?

vampirequeen, if it's got nothing to do with alcohol (I agree) then why would you suggest banning alcohol?

Have you actually said whether or not you think a woman can consent to sex if she is drunk?

vampirequeen,

'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.'

Actually, it was about whether a drunk woman can give consent. It hasn't been about a drunk women being responsible for being raped and I don't know why you keep on with this when it has already been roundly rejected ad nauseum.

I suggested banning alcohol as it seemed to be one of the sticks being used to beat and woman who is raped whilst drunk.

If avoiding alcohol would make women safer than they'd be safer still if men couldn't drink either as neither could be said to have alcohol clouded judgement.

But let's be honest it's nothing to do with alcohol or clothes. We could be a totally dry country with exceedingly conservative clothing and women would still be raped. Even then some people would still say they'd brought it on themselves because they'd shown an ankle or a wrist or worn makeup. walked alone in a dark/quiet street, talked to a man, left the house....whatever is frowned upon.

trisher - thanks for your post summarising the issues around calling women in general and you in particular 'hysterical'. Imo, spooky's comments add nothing positive to this discussion and in fact can be read as offensive to women in general.

Banning alcohol wouldn't solve the problem, although it might ensure that women are 'safer' in that they would have their wits about them at all times.

But banning things doesn't usually work anyway - look at the history of prohibition.

Alcohol certainly is behind a range of crimes - no question about that - and drugs too. We could I suppose ban them, or simply make sure that people are aware of the potential risks of getting "wasted" - and that the risks are not just to your liver, but could involve traffic accidents, falls, and waking up in the morning not knowing who with or if you have had sex and whether you gave consent or not.

That is not a statement in defence of rapists.

"Sexual activity is dependent on signals" now there's an interesting idea. Presumably then a man can claim he just misread the signals and it wasn't rape at all. Sexual attraction may be dependent on signals. sexual activity requires consensual agreement.
Anybody can criticise my posts. Sometimes when I find attitudes a bit ridiculous I like to extend the ideas behind those attitudes to the furthest extent hoping that the poster will recognise or at least acknowledge the flaws in their argument. Of course it doesn't work with people who don't understand irony
.
thatbags you may not consider the "hysterical" comment to be anti-women I would certainly differ. And so would a lot of others.

From Stop telling women they are crazy

"“Hysteria” became popular in the mid 19th century, suspiciously around the same time that women’s rights began gaining momentum. The first national women’s rights convention took place in 1850. By 1859, physicians were claiming that a quarter of all women suffered from hysteria — as defined by a 75-page list of possible manifestations. Women demanding equality was a pesky problem, and hysteria was a brilliant answer. Hysteria asked, "Don’t those high-maintenance females see they’re too irrational to do things like own property, control finances, get a college degree, or cast a vote?" It framed female emotional instability as biological “fact.” "

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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

"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.

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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?