Can a drunk woman give consent?

anyone, and any sex are at risk of rape, but we cannot live life in a bubble, vegasmags.

it goes back to what we were saying about sensible precautions. Calling a cab firm, not just flagging what you think may be a minicab in the street, wearing the right clothes etc. We all sometimes have to be in the street late at night for various reasons, but have to try and keep safe. When my DD's used to go clubbing, they would wear short dresses to look attractive, but go and come back in a coat, so were covered up for outside, and either we collected them or they waited at the office of the cab firm.

I'm afraid you are missing the point roses. It is not only young, sexually attractive and drunken women who are at risk of rape.

are you not a gran then? Are you an escapee from Mumsnet?
Grans in coats rarely get molested by cab drivers that's all.
True, age is no barrier to rape, but if you have rung a cab firm and you are an older person who is sensibly dressed and not reeling about in a drunken way, then you should have nothing to fear.

How do you know that rosesarered? And why would it matter if I was? This may be news to you, but age is no barrier to rape.

we all have to take cabs sometimes Vegasmags,but anyway, you are a gran wearing a coat, not a scantily clad 19 year old.

I think the problem is bags that judging by this thread alone, it's very difficult to say what 'situations' apply. Are we talking about drinking, being alone at night, wearing the 'wrong' clothes, or flirting with strangers? And will women who then have the misfortune to be raped be criticised/blamed for not taking what others see as suitable precautions?

Last month, I found myself alone in a dodgy part of Manchester, at 3 am and having had a bit too much to drink, getting into a minicab with a man who was a stranger to me. The circumstances were that I was having dinner with friends when I got a phone call at 11.30 pm to say that my brother had been admitted as an emergency to MRI - the central Manchester Hospital. A friend gave me a lift to the hospital, I saw my brother and the doctor and then rang for a cab, waiting outside on the deserted streets. The bare facts tell another story, though.

I don't see what the issue is with accepting the people should take sensible precautions in life.

I wonder if the people who object most strongly simply view it as being told what to do, what they should wear, etc, and object on that level. The 'why should I have to' approach ignores the reality of the world. Someone earlier said that women are 'told' not to go out in the dark alone, etc - the reality is that nobody is 'telling' anyone anything - it is advice and you take it or leave it. This has nothing whatsoever to do with any crime that may be committed. That advice can also be applied to men who might want to minimise the chances of a bunch of drunken yobs fancying a fight. There's nothing condescending or sexist about such advice.

There are plenty of good people in the world and a small number of bad people. Take sensible precautions or don't - make sensible choices or don't - entirely up to you.

We've seen many people giving opinions about a variety of related topics but not too many opinions posted that give a direct answer to the question that was originally posted.

And that is not saying that there don't exist situations where our behaviour can have no influence; it's just saying that there are situations where we can. No harm in trying.

I don't think it does, vegas, partly because being drunk and alone in the middle of the night is such a good 'situation' for an attacker to take advantage of. There is no point making it easy for them to take advantage and most of the advice from police, students' unions and the like is about avoiding 'situations' where it's relatively easy for an attacker to apprehend you.

The Cheadle example you give is awful and nothing the woman had done was 'wrong'. I bet she won't park at a car park perimeter near bushes again though. She will alter her 'behaviour' based on her dreadful experience.

None of this removes any of the focus of blame for the crime away from the perpetrator of the crime. It would be wonderful if people didn't have to worry about being attacked in any situation at all but the fact is that we do because rapists exist.

People don't get raped because of what they are wearing, or because they have been drinking alcohol. They don't get raped because they are out in the middle of the night. They get raped because there is a perpetrator - a rapist - who takes advantage of the situation. This focus on the behaviour of women shifts attention away from the real problem.

Last week a woman was raped at 7 pm in the John Lewis car park at Cheadle. The rapist opened her car door, dragged her to some nearby bushes and raped her. She was parked near the perimeter of the car park near bushes and near a pedestrian cut through via which the man escaped. I imagine that this was a well thought through plan on the part of the rapist, and if this poor woman hadn't been his victim, someone else would have been. Despite a very good description and e-fit picture he has not yet been apprehended.

All the preparation in the world won't protect you in a situation where your attacker is someone you trust and thought you would not need protection from, but when out "on the town" among strangers it does seem a good idea not to be helpless.

I can't focus on everything, elo. I focussed on what mattered to me. As one does.

I understand your criticism of the mountaineering analogy and accept it. What you say is right about a mountaineering tragedy not being a criminal act. My focus there though was about preparedness or lack of it in a risky situation. Things like getting drunk deliberately (or even just carelessly) when out on the town, "going off" with a stranger carry risks one can make attempts to avoid, just as good preparation, having the right equipment and so on, can reduce the risks of accident or death from exposure on mountains. That's what I meant. I think it is close to what some posters earlier in the thread were arguing too.

Sometimes all the carefulness in the world will not protect you of course.

Thank you, when.

I have not seen any posts on here blaming women for being raped, the rapist is always to blame. What I have seen, are sensible precautions that women can take, not staggering around half naked, being drunk and incapable, not falling into any old cars that stop for you, not going down dark alleys.

thatbags You have chosen to focus on something which was not the main thrust of what some people objected to. You have not addressed the points I made regarding the sort of attitudes that some posters have demonstrated regarding women's behaviour, and the sort of language that, in my opinion, betrays an unhealthy and hostile view of women.

Being raped is not like deciding to climb a mountain when ill-prepared. Any ensuing injury or death would be an accident involving only the person to whom it befell, not a crime perpetrated by another person.

I could just as easily say you are being "quarrelsome". It's an accusation that you have made before and I suggest that if you feel compelled to respond to comments with which you take issue, then you too could be called "quarrelsome". If nobody expressed their views for fear of being labelled in this way, we wouldn't have a discussion forum.

Bags rape is defined as a violent act triggered by a range of negative feelings like hatred of women, perceived need for revenge, to establish power and dominance over others, to gratify an appetite or inflicting serious physical and/or psychological harm, even for the sheer thrill of getting away with it, which can reinforce and create a pattern of raping within relationships, on dates and sometimes as serial stranger rapists. Lots of theories about how someone becomes a rapist but research indicates consistently that rapists have experienced abuse as children, like other sex offenders, on top of which a tendency to be rule-breakers in all aspects of life eg being generally criminal or wanting to switch social 'rules' to their advantage.

soontobe:

'As the law currently stands, a drunk woman can give consent. But people want it changed, and rightly so.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3108406/Courts-assume-women-t-consent-sex-drunk-Rape-report-s-controversial-proposal.html'

Rightly so? The police cannot determine if someone meets the definition of 'drunk', which would mean to the extent that they cannot have meant yes even if they said yes, without a test. And the man in that scenario is somehow supposed to know what the woman has drunk and how drunk she is (and also to know what's best for her, as she will now be told that after a few drinks she cannot possibly know her own mind). Idiocracy.

Perhaps Amstrad could come up with a cheap chastity belt for guys with a breathalyser fitted to the front. That would potentially save everyone a lot of trouble.

With regard to that friend's daughter, if 'she was not sure if she was raped or not' then she probably wasn't. Perhaps she will have learned not to get so drunk that she cannot remember what happened. Then again, get a breath test, tell the police you might have been raped and let the Courts decide. If it turns out she wasn't raped then maybe they can go on a second date.

Sorry about that... it's Monday morning and sarcasm levels are far higher than later in the week.

Sorry thatbags. I found a link that I thought was relevant to this thread, so thought I would share it, even though the thread has moved on in other directions.

I presume, going by the link, that then men, if they are deemed able to have sex when drunk or partly drunk themselves, are also able to see that the woman is so drunk that even if she may have said yes to sex previously, that there is no longer any consent.

In reality, the op's scenario is currently a legal mindfield, and hence the radio discussion?
As the law currently stands, a drunk woman can give consent. But people want it changed, and rightly so.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3108406/Courts-assume-women-t-consent-sex-drunk-Rape-report-s-controversial-proposal.html

Sadly, I woman I know a bit, and hadnt met for a while, came up to me one day in a different town. We got chatting and she said that her daughter had gone out one night and got drunk. It had happened a few months previously.
In the daughters words to her mum, "she was not sure if she was raped or not".

I would like to ask a question. It is a proper question based on my ignorance of the subject and is aimed at people who have knowledge about what triggers rape if indeed there are triggers.

I understand that rape is not about sex but about power. However, sexual acts are used, often violently, for the assertion of that power. This suggests to me that certain sexual 'triggers' are at work in the psyche of rapists. Is it thought that this is so?

Sorry for the disjointed sentences. I'm breaking off here and there to rant talk sensibly about the stupid behaviour of a certain fourteen year old. So that she learns.

I guess we agree to differ about the direction the thread has taken, then, absent. By this stage in its progress I see agreement about the basic tenet and quarrelsomeness about where blame is attached when someone is raped.

To go back to the mountaineering analogy, mountain rescue teams (MRT) do not blame people they rescue necause they know that even the most prepared and experienced mountaineers can get into difficulties (or even killed). MRT do, however, stress that being prepared and using the knowledge and experience that others share with regard to safety in the mountains. They advise and recommend in the hope of preventing further problems.

thatbags I don't think this thread is a "violent agreement". I think there have been posters who have been very equivocal about whose fault rape is. I do not like being quarrelsome for quarrelsome sake and I do think that most of the time I am pretty much rational. I just wonder about juries of peers with some of the views that have been expressed on this thread.