Can a drunk woman give consent?

Once again, I would say that saying someone is responsible for keeping themselves safe is not blaming them if, out of stupidity or youthful ignorance of the way the world works or something else, they fail to do that.

I would also say that whether I or anyone else was perfect in my youth is irrelevant.

And I would say again (again!) that EVERYONE AGREES about whose fault rape is: it is the rapist's fault whether the rapist is a man or a woman.

Finally, I would say that some of you seem simply to like being quarrelsome for its own sake. You don't seem to see when you are essentially being agreed with and that the discussion has moved on to abstract ideas about what personal responsibility consists of and what blame is.

There was I thinking people were rational

Once again I would say that, of course, it is irresponsible to get so drunk that you are not in control of what you are doing – but, if someone rapes you, he is the person committing the criminal act. I did a fair amount of stupid, irresponsible and dangerous things when I was young and mostly wasn't harmed or hurt. Were the rest of you so perfect and fully under control all the time that you never – even once – put yourself at risk of something bad happening to you, even if it never happened?

I have great respect for the work you do Aludra85. I don't have daughters but it's a relief to know there are people like your good self out there helping and protecting young girls.

I am a street pastor now, and we take care to look after young girls, scantily dressed with heels so high and so drunk they couldn't run away even if they knew what was happening. These young women are so drunk that taxi's often won't accept them. They may have got separated from their friends and lost their phones.

I really feel some posters are misrepresenting the views of those who have objected to certain remarks relating to women's dress, etc.

The law says that if a woman was so drunk that she could not have consented to have sex, then that is rape. I agree that a difficulty arises in assessing whether the woman rendered herself so physically and mentally incapable that she could not possibly have given consent. I have no objection to someone expressing this view but I do feel some of you are ignoring statements on this thread that have nothing to do with evidential difficulties but which are very judgmental and prescriptive as to how women should conduct themselves.

Some people have suggested that if a woman wears very revealing clothes, she should not be surprised, having "displayed all her goods in the shop window" - I think that was the phrase used, when someone takes her up on her allegedly implied "offer". Another poster said something similar, only this time describing the woman as "oven ready". If, in addition to wearing revealing clothes, a woman behaves in a way that some people consider "provocative" it has also been suggested that it might be reasonable for a man to conclude that she is "up for it". These comments have nothing to do with evidence that might be difficult to substantiate in a rape case and everything to do with notions of how a women should behave, unless she wants to be seen as "asking for it".

Once people start expressing opinions as to whether women should be more "sensible" about their mode of dress, their alcohol consumption and their general demeanour I think it muddies the water. Rape is a crime - wearing revealing clothes and getting drunk are not. It also seems to me that there is potentially no limit to the restrictions that can be placed on women to try and ensure their safety. To some extent, that already happens. Women are told not to walk alone at night, to be careful about what tube carriage they get on, to sit near the driver on a late night bus and not to sit upstairs, etc. etc. It seems to me that this approach places the emphasis on women restricting and adapting their behaviour in order to avoid attack, rather than on men being responsible for their own actions.

It's a judgement call that may have to be based on inexpert witness testimony and the recollection of only two witnesses, with at least one of them being drunk at the time (the topic is about consent while drunk). As a bonus, the accused gets his name and what he was accused of in the public domain, whether he is found guilty or not. It doesn't strike me as being particularly satisfactory.

trisher, you can't just make things up to prove your point. I 'assume that being raped indicates weakness'? Seriously? It is my fault that you are making assumptions about what I mean? I avoid 'real questioning'? What questioning? All you have done is make statements and assumptions.

I said earlier that I wouldn't be able to discuss anything further with you if you continued putting words in my mouth and then you continued, so I think we should leave it there.

Thank you for sharing that Parliament 100 it's a Question that's we haven't had time to raise.

Excellent posts by spooky, thatbags, Anya, and Elegran, sensible and non hysterical, unlike many other posts.

You are putting words in spooky's post again, trisher: No one has said that women are weak defenceless creatures (you seem to assume that being raped indicates weakness, it doesn't, it can happen to anyone, and men are raped too). Spooky said that women are not defenceless creatures, which would seem to agree with what you imply in the bolded part above. I don't think one can assume anything else from Spooky's post.

The quoted bit was about deadly predators, not about defencelessness of women.

The stuff Spooky says about where is the line drawn if the raped person (man or woman) can't really remember what happened means the same as what you have said about evidence being gathered. In the end it is a judgment call, as you say, based on what evidence is available. I don't see a conflist between your view and Spooky's here either.

If you read the law spooky (and I know you don't like it mentioned) it clearly states that evidence can be gathered to show how drunk the woman was from other people who had contact with her (taxi drivers etc) and medical evidence-blood tests can be presented. There is then a judgement made as to how able to give consent she was.
No one has said that women are weak defenceless creatures (you seem to assume that being raped indicates weakness, it doesn't, it can happen to anyone, and men are raped too)
If you are not clear about what you really mean that is not my fault spooky. You consistently avoid any real questioning or any accurate information. I am still wondering when you think a man would not have been classified as a rapist and if you realise this is probably because a woman wouldn't report it.
You have your opinion but beware because the law does not agree with you.

I bet you're the life and soul of the party.

I wouldnt want sex with a drunk woman.

trisher, you keep going to extremes and that doesn't help in terms of having a balanced discussion. We are not talking about extreme situations.

You keep talking about people who are incapable of giving consent. We are not talking about that, unless you are of the opinion that if a woman has had anything to drink then she cannot possibly give consent. That would be rather condescending and quite plainly nonsense. Consent is not always given explicitly, whereas a no is clear. Being drunk is, to my mind, different from being incapacitated due to drinking too much alcohol.

Where is the line drawn. At what point is a woman too drunk to give consent (or too drunk for a man to accept that consent) and how does he evaluate that? What happens when the woman instigates sex after a drinking session and in the morning has no recollection of doing so. How do you prove such a thing? Where is her responsibility in this? How on earth is a man supposed to know exactly how drunk she is? Or do we just assume the man was guilty unless he can prove otherwise? And please don't come up with 'if she cannot stand up', etc, as we are not talking about extremes where the conclusions really are rather obvious.

We have young women going out intent on getting as blotto as men and women who are as predatory sexually as some men. We are equals, right? Women are not defenceless little creatures who need protecting from the 'deadly predator' amongst them, to quote an earlier view that was expressed of men in society.

You persist in responding to what you think I mean rather than just responding to what I say and that makes any discussion with you very difficult. I have no problem discussing this topic but I cannot do so if you keep putting words in my mouth and making assumptions about what I 'really' mean. According to you, i now apparently think that men are 'coerced to have sex with women and then blamed for it'.

Seriously, just stick with what I have said or I simply cannot discuss it further with you.

Again, the question is whether or not a woman can give consent if she is drunk. As she is an adult, I will say yes, she can.

It is less likely to happen to someone who doesn't get drunk and who stays with her group instead of 'going off' with some stranger who, by the way, is still the one at fault and to blame if he rapes her.

I think people are equating responsibility for one's own safety (which might well include not getting so blotto that you do really stupid things) with blame. The two things are not the same.

Empowering women is fine, and many of the women I see out drinking in the town centre are empowered and enjoying themselves. They aren't likely to get into trouble because they are looking after each other. The problem arises when one of them is separated from the others, by chance or choice and goes off with someone. If she is then very drunk she may be raped. The line between being empowered and in control and becoming a victim is soon crossed and it can happen to anyone.

What's wrong with empowering women?

Bags got the point of my post.

Incidentally i think possibly what you are referring to in the past is the non-reporting of incidents which were legally rape but were not reported or prosecuted because of the stigma involved and the unsympathetic attitude taken by the police and the legal system. Thank goodness we have moved on from there.

spooky if you fail to understand that rape is non-consensual sexual intercourse with anyone then you fail to understand what the argument we are presenting is and that is that if a woman (or anyone else) has not said "yes" or is not in a fit condition to say "yes" it is rape. Force is not necessary.
The law strangely enough recognises this, you seem to think men are in some way being coerced to have sex with women and then blamed for it. And actually the law on drunkenness and incapability hasn't changed dramatically since 1956. It has been modified to take account of circumstances but it has been considered rape to have sex with someone who was incapable of giving consent for over 50 years. How far back do you want to go with " where a man would not have been classified as a rapist in years gone by." the Victorian age?
Of course the law is important. It clearly sets out what constitutes rape and what doesn't and it takes account of anyone reaching the state of being unfit to give consent. If someone (and it isn't necessarily a woman) is unfit to give consent for any reason it is rape.

whenim64, I'm not sure we are talking about rapists who are not concerned with consent. If anything they might prefer to definitely not have consent.

We are really talking about whether or not a woman can give consent when drunk. This impacts upon men who really are not qualified or in a fit state to judge and gets applied to situations where a man would not have been classified as a rapist in years gone by. We are potentially making rapists out of men who do not get a buzz out of forcing themselves on women.

Trisher, we are not discussing what the law IS. We are discussing consent when drunk (not what the law says about it) and, I suppose as a consequence, what constitutes rape. At one time it meant by force or against someone's will, hence the use of the word in other contexts. Now it seems it is rape if the woman didn't say yes (but also did not say no), can't remember saying yes, etc, none of which can usually be proven. You also say the following:

'I can't believe that people are still posting things implying women have some responsibility for rape. '

Nobody is implying that and your continued posts along those lines show that you are either not getting what the discussion is about or intentionally sidetracking it. Rather than posting about what you think someone means can I suggest that you limit yourself to commenting on what has actually been said.

Well said thatbags.

I suppose the title of this thread keeps leading posters back to the woman, but the point is that rapists are rapists and consent is not in their thinking, except to seize on as one of many ways to rationalise what they did. Rape is 100% the fault of the rapist. Offending behaviour programmes for rapists are based on this - anger, power and control, occasionally sadistic intent, not provocative behaviour or sexual desire, that motivate rapists to target victims of their attacks, some of which are less savage than others and leave victims feeling confused about what they might have done to make the rapist attack them, or think they could have been clearer about whether they gave consent or not. During treatment, rapists gradually come to terms with understanding all the different individual and social reasons why myths about consent are so pervasive and they have used this distorted thinking to permit themselves to rape. It's opportunity created by the rapist that enables them to offend, not anything the woman did.

Trisher, you are missing the point I have made several times. Please look again at the burglary example. It does not blame the homeowner or diminish the crime. It does, however, increase the chance of that crime happening.

Also, Trisher, do not put words in my mouth as people might read you saying 'So it isn't dress that causes rape as you insist.' and think that was my position, yet I have never said that and I don't think it. It is a delicate discussion to have and is not helped by you taking 1 and 1 and coming up with 11. You say 'why shouldn't women be allowed to choose when and who they receive attention from?'. Showing plenty of flesh and getting drunk is hardly a way for a woman to be selective about who she gets attention from - it's a way of getting attention from everyone. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Vampirequeen, you seem determined to prove that your post wasn't silly but I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree with regard to that. The women that granjura has described are far from unusual and are putting themselves into potentially unsatisfactory positions, therefore they have to take some responsibility for doing so. They are providing opportunity, just the same as the bloody idiot who left the front door open.

The issue with consent when drunk is that it entirely removes responsibility from the woman. It's entirely possible for someone to be flat out drunk but appear to know what they are doing, especially when you are both drunk, only to find in the morning that they cannot remember anything about last night. Did they both rape each other?

We grew up with 'no means no' and that shared the responsibility - for the woman to open her mouth at the time and say no and for the man to respect that. There is a huge difference between the concepts of obtaining consent or respecting no.

Back to the initial question - can a drunk woman give consent? Yes, she can, but she might not remember that she did and if that happens then you are a rapist.

vamp asks
Last night DH went out and I forgot to lock the front door as I fell asleep on the sofa. If a man tried the door, came in, found me on the sofa and raped me would it have been my fault? Was I asking for it? Was leaving the door unlocked a signal that said I'm up for sex with anyone who chooses to come in?

No, you weren't asking for anything, but if you think locking the front door protects you from passing rapists or other criminals (it probably does most of the time or why would any of us ever lock doors?), then you were not doing all you could to protect yourself from some unwanted chancer walking in. You are responsible for keeping yourself safe whenever you can (sometimes you can't, obviously) by such simple measures. That's all people are saying, not that if you forgot to lock the door and someone did come in and rape you that it would be your fault.

If someone gets drunk while out and about they are putting themselves at a greater risk of all sorts of harm—being run over, having their wallet stolen, falling over and knocking themselves unconscious, falling asleep and choking on their own vomit, and so on.

If someone has a lot of one night stand sexual partners they have a greater risk of catching sexually transmitted disease unless they take measures to protect themselves. This is a plain fact, not a judgment about one night stands.

People are not blaming women for getting raped when they say that there are ways of making yourself less vulnerable to rape attacks. These ways do not make you completely safe but some of us believe that they do make a significant difference in many but obviouslt not all circumstances.

Good advice is not blame, it's education. And in no case is getting raped the fault of the raped person. I don't think anyone on this thread is arguing that.

I can't believe that people are still posting things implying women have some responsibility for rape. Women are never responsible for rape and what they wear or how much they drink or their body language have nothing to do with it. The law states
"if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape. However, where a complainant had voluntarily consumed substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether to have intercourse, and agreed to do so, that would not be rape. Further, they identified that capacity to consent may evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious. Whether this is so or not, however, depends on the facts of the case."
They go on to say evidence can be collected from other people to show the victim's condition at the time.
Even the law it seems is ahead of some on GN.

acting on