Can a drunk woman give consent?

There it is again, this suggestion that men/young men (and earlier up thread husbands) are unable to control themselves. Total nonsense as any (decent) man will confirm.

My experience of working with rapists, which isn't as extensive as whenim64's, is that many rapists also offend against children. I didn't bring children into this discussion, but that is my response to the criticism of whoever did so.

The suggestion that we can keep ourselves safe by being careful who we mix with, how much we drink or where we go is, of course, the advice we all given our children and try to live by. It doesn't offer total protection though does it. I could detail any number of girls/boys/women/men who have been on the receiving end of sexual assault or rape despite taking all these precautions.

The only person responsible for rape is the rapist.

What constitutes inappropriate clothes for women? Some men are incredibly turned on by feet. If I wear open toed shoes or sandals then draw even more attention to my feet by painting my toenails am I offering to have sexual activity with these men. Other men are turned on by a woman smoking. Therefore are all women who smoke in public asking for trouble. Some men love women to wear loose unrevealing clothes so they can imagine what's underneath. If I wear a kaftan am I inviting sexual advances? Hang on.....there are men who fancy tall women, short women, fat women, thin women, old women, young women, women who wear skimpy clothes, women who were conservative 'cover up' clothes. In fact there are men who fancy every sort of woman. Should we all stay in our homes so that we don't flaunt ourselves in front of some poor man who can't control his urges or misinterprets a woman's individuality as a willingness to have sex?

Hey vampire, the risks in staying at home are that we share our lives with men who simply get carried away ( see various comments above,including one about husband's who don't stop when asked to). Maybe even picking up a copy of the Woman's Weekly could be considered flaunting (Victoria Wood. I say no more)

It's either that or a burkha vampirequeen and even then some of the posters on this thread would probably think you were asking for it by the way you walked or something.

Thanks to a post down/up there I've got to go and make a cup of tea.

I have the impression that some posters have absolutely no idea about the nature of rape. This is not surprising because if all you have ever known is a caring, loving, mutual sexual relationship, it requires a massive leap of the imagination to begin to understand. Rape is not about sexual gratification or a man having such powerful sexual urges that he cannot control himself. It is not about being carried away by the sight of a short skirt, a low neck, an exposed belly or fuck-me shoes. It is always an act of violence, even when the victim does not fight back and no hitting or threats with knives are involved. It is an extreme violation of a person that bears absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to a mutual and loving sexual encounter.

Of course it is unwise for a man or a woman to drink so much alcohol that he or she becomes incapable. However, the woman who is then raped no more invited this crime than the man whose Rolex, wallet and state-of-the-art laptop are stolen invited that crime.

According to the Daily Fail's continued article on Chrissie Hynde, she went on to have a 'relationship' with one of the biker's who subjected her to 24 hours of sexual assaults. Her use of drugs, alcohol and her need for excitement led her into similar situations throughout her life. Not a happy individual

I was waiting locally for a friend to collect me yesterday when a young woman passed me by. She was just dressed very 'normally' and 'sensibly' in jeans and t shirt. She was being hotly persued by an older guy who was trying to chat her up. She was a little way in front of him and told him quite plainly and politely that she was engaged and wasn't interested; she even held her left hand up to briefly show her ring. He took no notice and continued to harass. I then stepped in and said quite clearly "she said no mate and no means no". His reply was that if he kept trying she might back give in and go with him. THIS is the mentality of many, many men and this is what women have to contend with on a daily basis.
It is going to take a life time to change the behaviour of these sorts of men. For a large proportion of them, they do persist and the female concedes so he wins.
It horrifies me that life is so difficult for so many females and we face so much risk from males. Sadly, it remains a fact of life so we have to drum it into the heads of all our daughters/sisters/granddaughters to take care of themselves as much as they possibly can from these deadly predators that threaten us.

vampirequeen, that was a daft post. It is blindingly obvious what people mean when they say 'dressed inappropriately' and it's not open-toe sandals. If you were trying to say that women should be able to wear whatever they want whenever they want then of course they can but there might be consequences because we live in a society where it isn't all about you and your individual needs and desires (or it shouldn't be). Try wearing a bikini to an office job and see how that works out for you.

Some women flaunt as much flesh as possible for attention. Unfortunately they can sometimes get attention from the 'wrong' person. This could simply mean that she doesn't fancy the chap who has decided to chance his arm, but then that can be classed these days as an unwanted sexual advance, although the poor chap has no way of knowing if his advance is wanted or not until he tries. Perhaps he won't even try now rather than risk being lumped in with rapists. Points that are made regarding the woman being drunk, how she is dressed, etc, are NOT excusing rapists.

wondergran, it's people like you that make the relations between men and women worse. 'We face so much risk from males', 'these deadly predators that threaten us'. 'Predators" Are you bloody serious? It sounds similar to the 'all men are rapists' crap that some strident 'feminists' come out with.

I feel quite sorry for you if that is your view of men.

Someone I know was recently in the park and his child was walking off a bit too far. He caught up and took his child's hand and the next thing he knew some woman was screaming (yes, screaming) at him to get away from the child. The vast majority of men are decent people, as are the majority of women. How do you think these men feel to find that they are viewed in this way - potential rapists, paedophiles, etc. A swimming pool was reported to have a 'safe hour' which turns out to mean no men. Heaven forbid men do anything that expressly excludes women, but apparently it's ok the other way around. Are we in danger of swapping one inequality for another?

Back to the original question though, I still think no means no but I'm not going to carry around a consent form to be signed just in case. Perhaps a breathalyser to make sure she isn't over the limit? Maybe never have sex if you can smell alcohol on her breath? Utterly ridiculous. I'll assume consent based on the other person appearing to be into it. Even if consent is given it can be retracted or denied after the fact. Don't want to have sex with someone? Just say no and most men will accept that. If not then you can probably call it rape every time. Then again, I went out with a girl for a number of years and I had to ask her out several times before I got a yes... Back then it was just persistence - now after the act it might be rape.

vampirequeen's post was not "daft" spooky yours however is the biggest load of twaddle i have ever read. Bringing in the father and child in the park is so unnecessary. If you can't make a point without doing things like this your argument must be incredibly weak. "Just say no and most men will accept that". It is the men who won't and the times they don't that we are discussing. And you obviously recognise that these exist.

vampirequeen's post was absolute nonsense - toeless sandles being provocative? At least I said why I thought her post was daft rather than just saying twaddle and leaving it at that. You say my argument must be weak (and therefore presumably easily picked apart), yet you don't.

The father in the park anecdote was used to highlight the fact that men are seen as the enemy and the assumption of guilt/threat that there seems to be, as expressed by wondergran. It clearly related to her post. I guess you didn't figure that out.

We were not actually discussing the men who won't accept 'no', who are a small minority anyway. The clue is in the title of the thread - it's about consent.

I object to my post being described as 'absolute nonsense', Spooky. You may not agree with my opinion but that doesn't make it less valid.

My post was pointing out that different men find different parts or behaviours of women provocative. A foot fetishist would not be turned on by a ripe pair of breasts but give him a pair of well kept feet in peep toe shoes and he'd be in heaven.

I'm not sure if you think my post is nonsense because you don't agree with it or because you don't believe foot fetishists exist.

vq you're absolutely right . Foot fetishism is common and at the milder end of what can be a very nasty continuum. In its extremes, some very unexpected and shocking practices and preferences are used fetishistically and to serve as memories and souvenirs of horrendous crimes.

I didn't actually see you express an opinion in that post - you just posted a variety of questions that I thought were rather silly. You are of course entitled to an opinion and to express it. Once you have done so you have to accept that other people will let you know what they think of your opinion.

The reason I think your post was nonsense is because it attempts to distract from the point. It's a diversion. You start by asking what is an inappropriate way to dress and then come up with a variety of examples, none of which would be deemed inappropriate in any significant way. It isn't relevant whether or not particular men might find particular items or styles of clothing attractive, or which parts of the body might do it for them. It was about women who dress in a manner designed to show off their attributes, for want of a better phrase, the purpose of which is really only to get attention.

It doesn't matter what the particular fetishes of various men might be, dressing in a provocative manner is going to get attention - that is the point of doing it. The only question is whether or not the attention is from someone that the woman wants to get attention from and, subsequently, if the type of attention given is wanted.

In other words, if a woman dresses in a way that is designed to get attention then she cannot legitimately complain when she gets attention just because it wasn't the type of attention she wanted. Before anyone gets hysterical about that sentence, there is a difference between attention and forced sex.

If you leave your front door open and get burgled then your a bloody idiot for leaving the front door open. Conceding that point doesn't mean that the burglary is less of a crime.

I'm probably rambling a bit but it is an interesting discussion (when it can be done without everyone getting crazy).

Your arguments are ill-founded, spooky. The attention needs to be focused on the perpetrator. It's irrelevant what she is wearing and whether she is inviting attention. It's all about the rapist.

Leaving a door open isn't inviting burglary. Being 87 and shopping with your purse in your bag isn't inviting a street attack. Wearing a Rolex isn't inviting a robbery. Being 18 and having a mobile phone in your hand isn't inviting a mugging. Wearing a scanty dress isn't inviiting rape.

Apart from the rape one, the others are creating or increasing oppurtunity sadly.

In that case whenim64 you should probably have a go at the police when they advise people not to leave valuables on display in their cars.

Why do they say that? Are they blaming the victims? Are they perhaps theft apologists?

Oh, and leaving a door open IS inviting burglary. It is providing someone with an opportunity that otherwise would not have existed. As I said - it makes you a bloody idiot whilst simultaneously recognising that it does not diminish the crime.

And wearing a Rolex is inviting a robbery, depending on where you wear it and who has happened to see it. If you didn't wear it then it couldn't have possibly been stolen from you.

It doesn't mean you want to be robbed and it doesn't change the fact that people shouldn't steal things or rob people, but they do. There will never be a time when there aren't people who want to steal your Rolex, so perhaps have your sleeve cover it, don't flaunt it in front of stupid people and use a bit of common sense. If you still get robbed despite all that then a solid defence in Court is never going to be 'well she was waving her Rolex around and I couldn't resist nicking it'. The fact that you chose to visibly wear your Rolex is also not going to reduce the sentence. Nonetheless, wear your Rolex visibly in public and it will get some attention, just hopefully not the wrong type.

Yes I guess we all take precautions, we lock our expensive bikes and cars up when we leave them in a public place, we shouldn't have to in a perfect world, but we don't live in one do we?

The point about dress is relevant because different societies have differing standards of dress, but rape is still practised and women still suffer. So it isn't dress that causes rape as you insist. Women wearing dresses that cover most of their bodies are raped. And why shouldn't women be allowed to choose when and who they receive attention from?
The father in the park anecdote was used to deflect from the main topic and to depict men as victims. This thread isn't about that.
As for consent, you obviously feel that consent is given at some point and then things just go ahead. As I have said before a woman has a right to say "no" at any point and if there is any doubt about, if she is capable of making that judgement, or if she has given consent then nothing should happen.
Incidentally if leaving the door open doesn't diminish the crime of burglary why should dressing provocatively be even considered when rape happens?

My 'rather silly' questions were designed to draw attention to the fact that different men are attracted to different aspects of the appearance and behaviours of women.

Just as a man might be sexually excited by a provocatively scantily clad woman then a foot fetishist might be sexually excited by a woman because she has well pedicured, painted nails provocatively peeping out of a hole at the front of her high heel shoe. However just because they feel sexually excited doesn't mean they commit rape. They control their sexual urges.

Rapists attack because they can. Rape has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with power.

As any behaviour/body type etc (see my list of 'rather silly' questions) is at risk of stimulating a sexual response in one man or another then a woman's only option is to remain locked, preferably in a panic room, within her home so that she doesn't confuse some poor man into thinking she is sexually available and leading him to rape her.

Struggling with both sides of the argument- but I agree with Anya. No I wouldn't like to use the word blame, or say 'she was asking for it'- makes me want to scream when I hear this said. But on the few occasions I had to go into Leicester or Nottigham city centre very late at night- you could just see it was a disaster waiting to happen- with so many girls and young women with practically nothing on, and so drunk they can't walk- carrying high heels in their hands, and holding on to lampposts or sitting being sick in the streets- with groups of young men in more or less the same state.

I know some of you will want to scream at me- but NO- this just does not happen in most European towns, this is a really UK phenomenon- like it or not (I don't, find it tragic really).Sorry.

We lock our doors and have burglar alarms. We lock our cars. We wouldn't think of leaving a purse on the pavement full of money and cards. Yet young girls go out revealing their personal assets to anybody. Then fall about drunk. I wouldn't say they are asking for trouble but they are putting themselves at risk unnecessarily.

Rape is a pretty harsh punishment for being young and stupid.