Can a drunk woman give consent?

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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 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?

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thank you, when.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.