Drunk driver, Drunk woman having sex- Double standard?

[casebro]

If somebody who drives while drunk is to be considered a murderer, then how come a women who has sex while drunk is considered a victim? Shouldn't she be considered the rapist? Or is the typical drunk driver a victim too? Assuming they both willfully got blotto, the driver to 'willfully lose control' of his car, her to 'willfully lose control' of her body. Yet she is considered a victim, the driver is considered a felon. Hmmm???

[quixotecoyote]

I'd need to see the source referring to the incident in such a way before I could form an opinion.

[tkingdoll]

To what do you refer, specifically? Rape convictions are low, and if the woman was extremely drunk during the alleged rape, it's extremely difficult for her to prove she didn't consent.

But, it alarms me slightly that you might be insinuating a drunk woman is somehow allowing herself to be raped. In the civilised world, I'm pretty sure you're not meant to rape someone regardless of how drunk they are. A woman being blotto doesn't make her fair game.

A woman shouldn't have to stay sober to ensure she doesn't get raped. The default position is 'don't rape'.

[baron]

Drunk women can be raped, you know

(I wasn't giving my blessing, BTW, just stating a fact)

It's just difficult to know when a crime's been committed as opposed to when they're lying their faces off to cover up their terrible behaviour of the night before.

[RecoveringYuppy]

The vast majority of women who have sex while drunk aren't considered victims.

I think if you clarify your question so that it's accurate you may find you answer your own question.

[Bob Klase]

If somebody who drives while drunk is to be considered a murderer, then how come a women who has sex while drunk is considered a victim?

Somebody who drives while drunk is considered a murder because he did something to someone else (killed them). That's significantly different than having something done to you (like being raped).

Shouldn't she be considered the rapist?

Not unless she's rapes someone. Just like the drunk driver could be considered a victim if another driver ran a red light and hit him and killed him.

[brodski]

If a woman decides to have sex whilst drunk, she has not been raped, if a woman is raped when drunk, then she is a victim of rape.

Conflating the situations only causes confusion.

[Bob Klase]

Maybe this will clarify it:

If you get drunk, you're (generally) not doing anything illegal just because you got drunk (unless you're underage). Being drunk does not mean that anything illegally done to you by someone else is your fault.

If you get drunk and drive a car, you are doing something illegal. Anything you do while driving the car is your fault.

If you get drunk, pick up a gun and kill someone with it, you're a murderer. If you get drunk and someone else picks up a gun and kills you with it you are a victim.

If you get drunk and rape someone, you are a rapist. If you get drunk and someone rapes you, you are a victim.

[volatile]

If anyone wonders where this comes from, it's an offshoot of the "But... it's a cool shirt" thread, in which Lost Angeles pointed out that a shirt that says "No Means No. (Except when I'm drunk)" was withdrawn from sale, and I pointed out that it was pretty damned offensive:

Well you can continue to feel superior to him and sit in moral judgement over him all over a stupid t-shirt that was, at worst, in bad taste. And you mocked the idea of being "overly sensitive".... wow..

So you don't find a t-shirt that says "No Means No. Except when I'm drunk" offensive? You don't think it's worth pointing out that selling t-shirts advocating rape and murder is a pretty disgusting thing to be doing?

You might call that "over-sensitive". I call it "decent", thanks very much.

Let me point out a double standard here.

If somebody who drives while drunk is to be considered a murderer, then how come a women who has sex while drunk is considered a victim? Shouldn't she be considered the rapist? Or is the typical drunk driver a victim too? Assuming they both willfully got blotto, the driver to 'willfully lose control' of his car, her to 'willfully lose control' of her body. Yet she is considered a victim, the driver is considered a felon. Hmmm...


So let's get this in context, so we can see the ideological underpinnings of this thread: It's not just that women who are raped when drunk are criminals, it's that women who are raped when drunk are funny.

Anyone else find that a pretty repulsive viewpoint, or am I "over-sensitive"?

[klk]

Some of my female friends have complained that they were 'taken advantage of' when both parties had been intoxicated. I suggested to these friends that if they believe they were raped, they should press charges. Two of my friends who had the 'victim mentality' after nights of unplanned, intoxicated fun later referred to it as 'a mistake' on their part, and one of the women is now married to the "jerk who took advantage" of her on their 2nd date, after the two had shared more than a few glasses of wine. As a non-drinker, I have a hard time having too much sympathy, as they did make the choice to consume so much alcohol, knowing full well they would become drunk and that good judgment would be impaired. Of course, I am not talking about non-consensual sex at all. Rape is wrong in any circumstance.

I understand that some people do prey on intoxicated women (bars, nightclubs, elsewhere...) and intentionally take advantage of them, but I do not think the majority of men out there (at least the ones I know) have that intention.

I think people of any gender should take responsibility for themselves, and if they feel a need to become so intoxicated, then do things they later regret, well... I see several easy solutions to avoid the whole situation.

I have often wondered if some of the victim mentality some women portray after intoxicated sex may have something to do with the reality that women can get pregnant and men can't. People I have known who have conceived after a "drunken fling" where neither bothered with birth control, etc. have seemed to wholly blame the other party.

I hope I don't come off as a jerk in this post! I used to drink alcohol and understand how easy it is to throw caution to the wind while impaired, but I think impaired or not, people should still be accountable for their own actions, assuming becoming intoxicated was their choice.

[klk]

volatile, I agree with you that the "No Means No. (Except when I'm drunk)" t-shirt is very offensive!

Perhaps I misunderstood what casebro meant in the original post... I didn't take it to mean non-consensual sex when casebro wrote "Assuming they both willfully got blotto, the driver to 'willfully lose control' of his car, her to 'willfully lose control' of her body. Yet she is considered a victim, the driver is considered a felon."

I actually don't see the connection between driving while drunk and having sex while drunk.

I could be way off, but I thought casebro was perhaps speaking from a direct or indirect personal experience. For example, perhaps if casebro is male, he may have had consensual sex with an intoxicated female who then accused him of taking advantage of her (I know several men who have been in this situation, so maybe that's why it came to my mind). Maybe casebro knows a female who had done that and told casebro of her experience.

I hope I haven't offended you, casebro, I don't mean to assume your gender or anything else about your personal life. I was just trying to show that I didn't take your original post to mean rape, but I could be wrong and perhaps you did mean non-consensual sex. If that's the case, I apologize for how insensitive my previous post must have seemed!

[Loss Leader]

If somebody who drives while drunk is to be considered a murderer, then how come a women who has sex while drunk is considered a victim? Shouldn't she be considered the rapist? Or is the typical drunk driver a victim too? Assuming they both willfully got blotto, the driver to 'willfully lose control' of his car, her to 'willfully lose control' of her body. Yet she is considered a victim, the driver is considered a felon. Hmmm???


I must have missed the day in law school when they taught that a driver has an inherent right of privacy and liberty in his own car and every inch of the roadway.

I must also have missed the day when they taught that rape (a crime that necessarily has a perpetrator acting upon a victim) was the same as drunk driving (a crime where there may be no victim whatsoever). That would be a logical first step before attempting to create an analogy between the actors in the two crimes.

All in all, one of the most illogical posts I have ever read.

[skeptifem]

If somebody who drives while drunk is to be considered a murderer, then how come a women who has sex while drunk is considered a victim? Shouldn't she be considered the rapist? Or is the typical drunk driver a victim too? Assuming they both willfully got blotto, the driver to 'willfully lose control' of his car, her to 'willfully lose control' of her body. Yet she is considered a victim, the driver is considered a felon. Hmmm???


that is so SO disgusting. :jaw-dropp what the hell, man? did you actually think about this before posting?

cluetrain: last stop you. a raped woman doesnt *********** decide to have sex, jesus. i cant believe you need this explained to you. you seem to be suggesting that women should expect to be raped if they drink. why are you only applying this to women anyway? do you think men never get raped by other men after drinking? are men asking for it when they drink too?

[klk]

I regret having posted on this thread. Anyone reading what I have posted, please disregard what I've written - re-reading this post, I believe I misunderstood the original post. I disagree with casebro's original post, although I can't quite figure out exactly what point casebro is trying to make (or what kind of discussion they were trying to start...)

:confused:

[skeptifem]

I disagree with casebro's original post, although I can't quite figure out exactly what point casebro is trying to make (or what kind of discussion they were trying to start...)

:confused:


volatiles post covers it pretty well. the jist of the op to me is that women are asking to be raped if they drink, as if the rapist has no responsibility in the situation.

i know you said to disregard your post, but there is one part i want to address:
Some of my female friends have complained that they were 'taken advantage of' when both parties had been intoxicated. I suggested to these friends that if they believe they were raped, they should press charges.

i dont know if youve ever talked to anyone who went to the police, but they are often real jerks about it and if you were drinking while something happened... chances are they will blame you or be really uncaring about the whole thing. even then it is so, so hard to get a conviction and the trials are awful for rape victims. I can completely understand a woman who was raped not wanting to try to press charges. a pretty universal experience of sexual assault victims is to blame themselves anyway. not saying that is what happened to your friends, but I just felt the need to bring that up upon reading your post.

[Rufo]

I regret having posted on this thread. Anyone reading what I have posted, please disregard what I've written - re-reading this post, I believe I misunderstood the original post. I disagree with casebro's original post, although I can't quite figure out exactly what point casebro is trying to make (or what kind of discussion they were trying to start...)

:confused:
I think your first post contributed something - it may help to further clarify the difference between rape and women who while drunk consensually engage in sex they would not have engaged in (and thus regret) while sober. While it may seem obvious, I hope that casebro has not understood this difference, and that the OP was the result of this misunderstanding.

I suggest to casebro to clarify whether this is the case. I could see a reasonably interesting discussion about why (not to mention if) those women are considered victims, and how it differentiates from men. If the OP does indeed mean to question who the victim is in actual rape of a drunk person, I can only hope that the responses will make the author come to his senses.

[klk]

volatiles post covers it pretty well. the jist of the op to me is that women are asking to be raped if they drink, as if the rapist has no responsibility in the situation.


I don't know how I didn't see that when I first read the op. Thanks for the insight! Now I REALLY regret my previous posts, trying to discuss the wrong topic! Not the best way for me to get off on the right foot on the forum... :(

Is it possible to delete one's own posts in a thread, due to embarrassment?

[Redtail]

Ok. If we're talking about a woman who gets drunk, agrees to have sex with a guy, then regrets it, and decides that she was raped because she wouldn't have agreed if she was sober, then hell no she's not a victim. At least not a rape victim.

If we're talking about a woman who is barely coherent and is mumbling "no" then hell yes she's a rape victim.

[JoeEllison]

If there was a real point to be made in this thread, it was lost in the utter clumsiness(at best) of the OP. When you say "rape", we assume you mean "rape," and not some other sort of sexual activity.

So, can we maybe lock/delete/ignore this whole thread, and maybe casebro would like to start again, with a clearer statement of direction and intent?

[luchog]

It's a difficult issue with a lot of gray area.

I can't really add much, aside from a few personal observations and anecdotes.

Anecdote:

I know a girl who, when she was in her late teens and early 20s, would castigate men in general, using the number of times she'd been "raped" (something that apparently happened to her quite frequently) as a reason. I put raped in quotes, because the actual situation is not quite the standard definition of the term. See, she liked to drink. A lot. She was quite the flirt when she was sober, she liked winding guys up just so that she could reject them (yes, she was and is somewhat psychotic that way). It was an ego trip that she liked taking quite often.

The problem she had was that when she got drunk, she became much more aggressive, would glom onto anything with a penis, and never got around to saying no, even if she had earlier in the night. (I've had to peel her off me a couple times when she was hammered; and anyone who's actually met me will know just how drunk someone has to get to glom onto me.)

So imagine you're a guy, with this really cute girl coming on to you, then telling you no; then coming back a couple hours later and doing just about everything short of screwing you right there on the dance floor. Imagine that you've had a few as well.

Part of her problem was that she also couldn't handle her alcohol. She couldn't just take one or two drinks and leave it at that, she inevitably drank excessively, and typically got puking drunk at some point.

So it ended up with her describing any sexual encounter she had when drunk, and later regretted, as "rape", despite the fact that she initiated pretty much all of it.

I've known a few others who had a similar attitude. Any sexual encounter had under the influence of alcohol (or any other drug, as many of them use quite a number of recreational substances) and later regretted was termed "rape", regardless of who initiated it, or how consenting they were at the time.

Other comments:

Yes, I realize that

Some regions have either proposed or implemented (I'm not sure about the latter, though I am sure about the former) laws which would define any sexual intercourse with a female who has been drinking as rape. I know a few learning institutions which have implemented private polices of this nature; although I don't know if any of their students have been disciplined because of it. They do not have similar policies regarding males, and consider males to invariably be the aggressor in any sexual encounter.

I know that there are quite a number of males -- some of which I am personally aquainted with, unfortunately -- who do "prey" on intoxicated females. It's reprehensible, but I'm not sure I'd necessarily consider it rape; since there is typically no force involved. The problem is that the effects of alcohol are well-understood, and anyone who drinks should know, unless they've been living under a rock for their entire lives previously, that alcohol, and indeed any other drug, will remove inhibitions, and impair judgement and ability to resist. Becoming intoxicated in an environment with a significant potential for this sort of incident is simply irresposible, and negates any claim to "rape" unless there was actual force involved. That applies regardless of the gender of the "victim". There is also definitely a double standard here. When it happens to a female, the inevitable response is a backlash against the male, and accusations of rape. When it happens to a male, the inevitable response ranges from comments about poor judgement, to simply laughing it off.

The problem is that it can sometimes be very difficult to distinguish that sort of situation, from a true "date rape" or predatory behaviour. The later invariably involves some sort of coercion, or at least trickery. For example, a person who spikes someone else's drink, so that the victim is consuming far more alcohol than they intend to and are aware of at the time. The victim might think they are drinking responsibly, and many only have one or two actual drinks; or may not be intending to drink alcohol at all, and are not aware that they are, in fact, consuming it. And yes, it is possible to make drinks that contain substantial amounts of undetectable alcohol. These typically also contain substantial amounts of sugar, and often dairly products as well, both of which mask the presence of alcohol. Drinks of this sort are typically referred to as "panty droppers", because their purpose behind their creation is just that, to enable someone to drink enough to become irresponsibly intoxicated, without noticing how much they're drinking. (And this is not always predatory, I've known several young females who deliberately drink those concotions because they "want to get drunk, but can't stand the taste of alcohol".)

Then there is the issue that someone else pointed out. Those who say "no", yet act "yes". Most common among young religious types who believe it's wrong, but want to do it anyway. They put themselves in situations where it's quite clear that sex is the desired end, but try to weasel out of responsibility by saying "only to this point and no farther"; despite the fact that that point is where the hormones kick in and judgement turns off, and they put up no resistance when it does go past that point, aside from a weak "We shouldn't be doing this" (or some variant thereof). By saying no initially, yet allowing themselves to be "subjected to" intercourse, without resisting; and they can rationalize that they're not responsible for anything that happens. They're the "victims", not active participants; and therefore havent committed any "sin". Again, something I've seen too often (and I actually have come pretty close to playing the victim, myself, on one occasion).

There is way too much emotional blather around this issue; and any attempt at discussion invariably results in the sort of pointless and obfuscatory personal attacks and double standards that this thread has already devolved into.

[skeptifem]

I don't know how I didn't see that when I first read the op. Thanks for the insight! Now I REALLY regret my previous posts, trying to discuss the wrong topic! Not the best way for me to get off on the right foot on the forum... :(

Is it possible to delete one's own posts in a thread, due to embarrassment?


i really dont think your post was that bad. lol, you should see some of the stuff in the CT forum. i doubt anyone is going to judge you very harshly, esp given your later posts w/regret

[JoeEllison]

...words, words, lots of smart words...
I've known girls like that... and the idea that men are the aggressors is, unfortunately, derogatory towards men AND women. I don't know about the law, university policies, and/or the opinion of the unwashed masses. As far as I'm concerned, women are equal to men in all the ways that matter, and are not "victims by default."

"No" means no.
"I don't want to" means no.
"Maybe" means no, if you have any sense of self-preservation.
"Yes" means yes, and doesn't magically mean "no" if the woman regrets it later.
"Too drunk to be responsible for your actions" should mean the same thing for men and women.

And, of course, everyone should have a wing man/woman who has their back when drinking is involved.

[skeptifem]

It's a difficult issue with a lot of gray area.

I can't really add much, aside from a few personal observations and anecdotes.

Anecdote:

I know a girl who, when she was in her late teens and early 20s, would castigate men in general, using the number of times she'd been "raped" (something that apparently happened to her quite frequently) as a reason. I put raped in quotes, because the actual situation is not quite the standard definition of the term. See, she liked to drink. A lot. She was quite the flirt when she was sober, she liked winding guys up just so that she could reject them (yes, she was and is somewhat psychotic that way). It was an ego trip that she liked taking quite often.

The problem she had was that when she got drunk, she became much more aggressive, would glom onto anything with a penis, and never got around to saying no, even if she had earlier in the night. (I've had to peel her off me a couple times when she was hammered; and anyone who's actually met me will know just how drunk someone has to get to glom onto me.)

So imagine you're a guy, with this really cute girl coming on to you, then telling you no; then coming back a couple hours later and doing just about everything short of screwing you right there on the dance floor. Imagine that you've had a few as well.

Part of her problem was that she also couldn't handle her alcohol. She couldn't just take one or two drinks and leave it at that, she inevitably drank excessively, and typically got puking drunk at some point.

So it ended up with her describing any sexual encounter she had when drunk, and later regretted, as "rape", despite the fact that she initiated pretty much all of it.

do you think its ok to have sex with someone so drunk that they are throwing up? what if she was generally too drunk to consent either way?

I dont understand why her being sexual beforehand matters. is she not allowed to change her mind? or are you saying what she was doing beforehand makes it ok for someone to have sex with her if she becomes so intoxicated that she is unable to consent? I agree that her goals were really cruel but that doesnt mean she deserves something to happen to her. maybe something did happen to her and it messed her up forever, she sounds like she has/had some serious mental problems.

I have no idea who this chick is or what really happened, I just want to examine some of the attitudes surrounding some of the details youve decided to throw in.

I've known a few others who had a similar attitude. Any sexual encounter had under the influence of alcohol (or any other drug, as many of them use quite a number of recreational substances) and later regretted was termed "rape", regardless of who initiated it, or how consenting they were at the time.

OMG WOW, thanks for your AMAZING INSIGHT that some people arent completely honest! Im sure no one was aware of that until you posted your anecdote.

I am really, really, really sick of these anecdotes. I hear about some crazy chick who lied a bunch every time rape is discussed, everyone instantly thinks of her as if some crazy chick you knew says something about women in general.

hey why dont i bring up some girl i know who got molested by her dad every time there is a discussion of fathers rights! thats really respectful of the people involved, eh?


Yes, I realize that

Some regions have either proposed or implemented (I'm not sure about the latter, though I am sure about the former) laws which would define any sexual intercourse with a female who has been drinking as rape. I know a few learning institutions which have implemented private polices of this nature; although I don't know if any of their students have been disciplined because of it. They do not have similar policies regarding males, and consider males to invariably be the aggressor in any sexual encounter.

evidence?


I know that there are quite a number of males -- some of which I am personally aquainted with, unfortunately -- who do "prey" on intoxicated females. It's reprehensible, but I'm not sure I'd necessarily consider it rape; since there is typically no force involved.

by 'force' do you mean 'non sexual violence'? because if thats what you mean then i guess you have a hard time deciding if an unconcious person being ********** is rape or not, and in that case i am very sad for you.

the level of force involved in a rape doesnt determine how traumatic it is. A ton of children who are raped or molested comply with the demands of the predator.


The problem is that the effects of alcohol are well-understood, and anyone who drinks should know, unless they've been living under a rock for their entire lives previously, that alcohol, and indeed any other drug, will remove inhibitions, and impair judgement and ability to resist. Becoming intoxicated in an environment with a significant potential for this sort of incident is simply irresposible, and negates any claim to "rape" unless there was actual force involved.

I used to respect you. unfortunatley i cant anymore.

again, lets apply this argument to someone who drinks until they pass out. its well understood that if you drink too much, you can pass out. is it ok to have sex with a person who is unconcious?

That applies regardless of the gender of the "victim". There is also definitely a double standard here. When it happens to a female, the inevitable response is a backlash against the male, and accusations of rape. When it happens to a male, the inevitable response ranges from comments about poor judgement, to simply laughing it off.

not when they are raped by a guy (double true if they arent gay and raped by a man).

men have a really awful time trying to share those sorts of things though, because its seen as something that happens to women. all the support is aimed twards women, and yes that does bother me a lot.

and hell, how do you know what they are feeling? if guys did anything except laughing it off what sort of reaction would they get?

The problem is that it can sometimes be very difficult to distinguish that sort of situation, from a true "date rape" or predatory behaviour. The later invariably involves some sort of coercion, or at least trickery. For example, a person who spikes someone else's drink, so that the victim is consuming far more alcohol than they intend to and are aware of at the time. The victim might think they are drinking responsibly, and many only have one or two actual drinks; or may not be intending to drink alcohol at all, and are not aware that they are, in fact, consuming it. And yes, it is possible to make drinks that contain substantial amounts of undetectable alcohol. These typically also contain substantial amounts of sugar, and often dairly products as well, both of which mask the presence of alcohol. Drinks of this sort are typically referred to as "panty droppers", because their purpose behind their creation is just that, to enable someone to drink enough to become irresponsibly intoxicated, without noticing how much they're drinking. (And this is not always predatory, I've known several young females who deliberately drink those concotions because they "want to get drunk, but can't stand the taste of alcohol".)

you are acting like the guys who are having sex with the women arent a factor in the morality of the situation. you are focusing a whole lot on women and what they are drinking and blah blah blah.

to me, none of that **** matters. if you drop your wallet on a bus, is it ok for me to steal it? is it morally ok for me to steal because you left it there? Hell no it isnt. I know better and blaming you for dropping the wallet is just an obvious attempt to rationalize my immoral actions.

hen there is the issue that someone else pointed out. Those who say "no", yet act "yes".

why would you do something if you are confused about the persons intentions? if the person is talking nonsense is it ok to interpret it however you want to and deem it consent?


Most common among young religious types who believe it's wrong, but want to do it anyway. They put themselves in situations where it's quite clear that sex is the desired end, but try to weasel out of responsibility by saying "only to this point and no farther"; despite the fact that that point is where the hormones kick in and judgement turns off, and they put up no resistance when it does go past that point, aside from a weak "We shouldn't be doing this" (or some variant thereof). By saying no initially, yet allowing themselves to be "subjected to" intercourse, without resisting; and they can rationalize that they're not responsible for anything that happens. They're the "victims", not active participants; and therefore havent committed any "sin". Again, something I've seen too often (and I actually have come pretty close to playing the victim, myself, on one occasion).

more anecdotes where someone is "asking for it". very insightful :rolleyes:

There is way too much emotional blather around this issue; and any attempt at discussion invariably results in the sort of pointless and obfuscatory personal attacks and double standards that this thread has already devolved into.

saying its impossible to rape a drunk woman is a VILE thing to say, people who dont feel something when they hear that statement have something wrong with them.

[JoeEllison]

nails3jesus0,

I think you need to take the outrage down a couple of notches. You're reading all sorts of things into that post that don't actually seem to be there. We all agree that rape is a terrible thing, you know? We also know that there are a ton of stupid kids out there drinking and acting irresponsibly. That doesn't mean that acting irresponsibly excuses rape, but it also doesn't define an act as rape. And, yeah, there really is a double standard... the man is, very often, seen as the aggressor by default, regardless of the circumstances, as a holdover from a more sexist time.

[klk]

i know you said to disregard your post, but there is one part i want to address:


i dont know if youve ever talked to anyone who went to the police, but they are often real jerks about it and if you were drinking while something happened... chances are they will blame you or be really uncaring about the whole thing. even then it is so, so hard to get a conviction and the trials are awful for rape victims. I can completely understand a woman who was raped not wanting to try to press charges. a pretty universal experience of sexual assault victims is to blame themselves anyway. not saying that is what happened to your friends, but I just felt the need to bring that up upon reading your post.

That is a good point! I don't believe that is the case with the people I was talking about in my post, they are close friends of mine and we are very open with eachother, however I can never really know, as I wasn't there when their experiences happened. I should have been more careful with the way I worded my post, I realize I came off sounding quite insensitive. I used to volunteer for a crisis phone line, and heard many accounts of women not being believed or taken seriously by police and the legal system due to having been intoxicated by drugs or alcohol at the time of the rape. Many of the people (men as well) in this situation we took calls from ended up committing suicide. It is a very harsh system, especially for someone who is feeling violated and vulnerable.

I was much more understanding with my friends than I made it seem in my post. Had I not been thinking I was posting on another topic, I would have been more clear about that! Any way it's put, rape is not something to take lightly, and there is certainly nothing funny about it.

[Zygar]

And, yeah, there really is a double standard... the man is, very often, seen as the aggressor by default, regardless of the circumstances, as a holdover from a more sexist time.

I've never seen any evidence of this supposed double standard, though I hear about it a lot. And how on earth could that be a holdover from a more sexist time? It seems like the opposite would be true.

[casebro]

Well, I did stir up some discussion, thats fersure.

Yes, my OP was worded a bit extreme, intentionally. But so are so many related posts/articles. The media seem to equate anyone who drives after drinking as a murderer, even if no accident is involved. And the whole 'date rape' concept is what I was playing on too- that any man who 'takes advantage' of a woman who has had a couple is a rapist- when the woman did exactly the same thing as the drinking driver, she got toasted to enjoy life. Yet she is considered a victim, the driver is considered a killer. And you can't say that her bacchanal was harmless either, what with 'forgetting' contraceptives while drunk too. How many 'accidents' do drinking women participate in annually? Victim? or perpetrator?

Discussion continues below-

[JoeEllison]

I've never seen any evidence of this supposed double standard, though I hear about it a lot. And how on earth could that be a holdover from a more sexist time? It seems like the opposite would be true.

You've never seen... then I doubt I could convince you. :(

It IS a holdover from a more sexist time. The idea that men do things, while women have things done to them, is an inherently sexist notion that works against women. The idea that women are the prey, and men are the predators... do you not see that as an inherently sexist idea?

luchog presented an example of someone who insisted on making herself into a victim, whether or not her "victimizer" did anything wrong or not. I can tell you that I have known many women who are the opposite of that. They are strong women, women who know their mind, women who are not in a position of weakness when dealing with men. These are women who would never consider crying "rape" because they said "yes" while they were drunk... mostly, because they would have decided who they wanted to be with when they were stone sober.

I've been lucky to know those women. It makes me angry to think that any part of the world sees women as automatically weaker than men, or somehow less able to decide things for themselves after having some drinks.

[Zygar]

Well, I did stir up some discussion, thats fersure.

Yes, my OP was worded a bit extreme, intentionally. But so are so many related posts/articles. The media seem to equate anyone who drives after drinking as a murderer, even if no accident is involved. And the whole 'date rape' concept is what I was playing on too- that any man who 'takes advantage' of a woman who has had a couple is a rapist- when the woman did exactly the same thing as the drinking driver, she got toasted to enjoy life.

First logical fallacy. He got toasted, then got in an "implement of vehicular homicide" and started wielding it. She simply got toasted. Huge difference.

Yet she is considered a victim, the driver is considered a killer.

She is a victim because someone victimized her. Alcohol has ****all to do with it.

And you can't say that her bacchanal was harmless either, what with 'forgetting' contraceptives while drunk too.

... I have no words for how completely retarded this statement is. Perhaps you should not post while drunk.

How many 'accidents' do drinking women participate in annually? Victim? or perpetrator?

Enough. Did you start this thread because you are trying to defend past actions? Drunk driver and rapist?

[JoeEllison]

Enough. Did you start this thread because you are trying to defend past actions? Drunk driver and rapist?
That's the sort of accusation that we don't really need around here.:(

[skeptifem]

Well, I did stir up some discussion, thats fersure.

Yes, my OP was worded a bit extreme, intentionally. But so are so many related posts/articles. The media seem to equate anyone who drives after drinking as a murderer, even if no accident is involved. And the whole 'date rape' concept is what I was playing on too- that any man who 'takes advantage' of a woman who has had a couple is a rapist- when the woman did exactly the same thing as the drinking driver, she got toasted to enjoy life. Yet she is considered a victim, the driver is considered a killer. And you can't say that her bacchanal was harmless either, what with 'forgetting' contraceptives while drunk too. How many 'accidents' do drinking women participate in annually? Victim? or perpetrator?

Discussion continues below-

restating your position with more words doesnt do a whole lot to explain it. its a worthless post. you didnt answer ANY of the questions people asked you about your position.

[Zygar]

You've never seen... then I doubt I could convince you. :(

It IS a holdover from a more sexist time. The idea that men do things, while women have things done to them, is an inherently sexist notion that works against women. The idea that women are the prey, and men are the predators... do you not see that as an inherently sexist idea?

luchog presented an example of someone who insisted on making herself into a victim, whether or not her "victimizer" did anything wrong or not. I can tell you that I have known many women who are the opposite of that. They are strong women, women who know their mind, women who are not in a position of weakness when dealing with men. These are women who would never consider crying "rape" because they said "yes" while they were drunk... mostly, because they would have decided who they wanted to be with when they were stone sober.

I've been lucky to know those women. It makes me angry to think that any part of the world sees women as automatically weaker than men, or somehow less able to decide things for themselves after having some drinks.

So you have absolutely no evidence for your claim. And you blame women for being victims. That's all I need to know.

[Dogdoctor]

What if a guy is drunk and a woman has sex with him while he is drunk...is that rape? What about if both of them are drunk is that double rape? Well I never had those types of problems...... at least after a point. I used to go to the disco to meet women and had a couple of them tell me that they only had sex with me because they were drunk. Do you know how small and inadequate and unimportant that makes you feel? So I developed a philosophy of not having sex with drunk women. Even if they threw themselves on me I would just tell them they are drunk and if they want we can do it tomorrow when they sober up. Some women got pissed off when I told them that. I figure those are the ones who were going to tell me that they were only having sex with me because they were drunk.

[JoeEllison]

Well, I did stir up some discussion, thats fersure.

Yes, my OP was worded a bit extreme, intentionally. But so are so many related posts/articles. The media seem to equate anyone who drives after drinking as a murderer, even if no accident is involved. And the whole 'date rape' concept is what I was playing on too- that any man who 'takes advantage' of a woman who has had a couple is a rapist- when the woman did exactly the same thing as the drinking driver, she got toasted to enjoy life. Yet she is considered a victim, the driver is considered a killer. And you can't say that her bacchanal was harmless either, what with 'forgetting' contraceptives while drunk too. How many 'accidents' do drinking women participate in annually? Victim? or perpetrator?

Discussion continues below-Not a whole lot of that makes sense...

... especially the part where you put the entire burden of contraceptives on the woman. Kind of a role-reversal that reveals something not so logical(or even nice) about your position.

[Francesca R]

The media seem to equate anyone who drives after drinking as a murderer, even if no accident is involved.Well never mind the media, but anyone who drives after drinking over the limit is a reckless criminal.

any man who 'takes advantage' of a woman who has had a couple is a rapistAny man who "takes advantage" of a woman, if that means a sexual act without her consent, is a rapist.

Any particular questions?

[JoeEllison]

So you have absolutely no evidence for your claim. And you blame women for being victims. That's all I need to know.

You're making a dishonest statement about my position, and you owe me an apology.

[megaresp]

If somebody who drives while drunk is to be considered a murderer, then how come a women who has sex while drunk is considered a victim?
Your analogy is flawed.

In the first case, it's the driver who is drunk. For the second case to fit, the rapist would have to be drunk.

The state of inebriation of the victim is unlikely to impact on the legal guilt of the perpetrator in either case.

[JoeEllison]

Well never mind the media, but anyone who drives after drinking over the limit is a reckless criminal.

Any man who "takes advantage" of a woman, if that means a sexual act without her consent, is a rapist.

Any particular questions?

I was originally thinking that his putting "takes advantage" in quotations was to imply that it wasn't really a case of a woman being taken advantage of. Taking all of the posts as a whole, however, has made me question my initial assumption. :mad:

[JoeEllison]

Your analogy is flawed.

In the first case, it's the driver who is drunk. For the second case to fit, the rapist would have to be drunk.

The state of inebriation of the victim is unlikely to impact on the legal guilt of the perpetrator in either case.

I think a better(but still not particularly useful) analogy would be if two people decided to have a wrestling match in the yard, and the loser decides to sue the other one for assault the next day. How much blame the "winner" bears is influenced by the circumstances, and he did not automatically victimize the "loser."

[skeptifem]

What if a guy is drunk and a woman has sex with him while he is drunk...is that rape?

i dont think anyone here is saying that simply being drunk makes it rape.

being too drunk to consent is what makes it rape, or using alcohol as a way to make someone less able to fight back. so if a woman does something sexually to a guy while he is passed out, too ********** up to say no, etc yeah its sexual assault. its not ok, and a guy in that situation has a lot less resources for support and its a damn shame.



What about if both of them are drunk is that double rape?

there is no such thing as double rape, for obvious reasons. someone is the rapist and someone is the victim (there can be more than one of those in any given situation, but both must be present for rape to occur).


------ anyway, i never understood why more men arent angry at the sexism of these sorts of threads. the op and others who pretty much say that women should expect to be raped make it seem like men are immoral and so ruled by their ****s that they cant help but rape women. isnt that a bit insulting to any of you?

[JoeEllison]

------ anyway, i never understood why more men arent angry at the sexism of these sorts of threads. the op and others who pretty much say that women should expect to be raped make it seem like men are immoral and so ruled by their ****s that they cant help but rape women. isnt that a bit insulting to any of you?Yes, well... men are automatically assumed to be able to handle it. Any man who complains about the double standards and unfair male stereotypes is likely to be accused of being a horrible person, if not a rapist himself. :rolleyes:

[Zygar]

You're making a dishonest statement about my position, and you owe me an apology.

Perhaps. The way your post read to me did indicate that. In the same way that you seem to be saying that all men are not rapists, you seem to claim that all women are not victims. But really, all women are potential victims, so that's why I came to my conclusion.

[JoeEllison]

Perhaps. The way your post read to me did indicate that. In the same way that you seem to be saying that all men are not rapists, you seem to claim that all women are not victims. But really, all women are potential victims, so that's why I came to my conclusion.

Aren't all men potential victims as well? Aren't all women capable of being the victimizer? Or, does someone's genitals or genetics determine their fate from birth?

[Zygar]

Aren't all men potential victims as well? Aren't all women capable of being the victimizer? Or, does someone's genitals or genetics determine their fate from birth?

Sorta. Physically, a woman raping a man is a bit more difficult. But yes, it's possible and it happens.

ETA: This thread is about heterosexual rape, so I am restricting my response to that realm only.

[klk]

Yes, well... men are automatically assumed to be able to handle it. Any man who complains about the double standards and unfair male stereotypes is likely to be accused of being a horrible person, if not a rapist himself. :rolleyes:
I hope the majority of people out there don't feel that way!

I think we need to support men when they speak out about being sexually assaulted or the negative stereotypes will continue to perpetuate.

Organizations that provide support to victims of sexual assaults often depend on volunteers to expand their services and increase awareness to the public. More public awareness and more services for victims may, over time, shift society's attitude on men and sexual assault.

[Ace_of_Sevens]

I think the question is that if a woman is too drunk to consent, it's rape, so theoretically an equally drunk guy should be drunk to form intent as it requires the same mental faculties, but that doesn't come up.

[JoeEllison]

Sorta. Physically, a woman raping a man is a bit more difficult. But yes, it's possible and it happens.
My point is less about physical acts, and more about personal responsibility and stereotypes.

Let's cut the "weaker sex" crap out, first of all. Yes, "on average," women are weaker than men. On the other hand, most men would get knocked down by one of the women on American Gladiators. And, alcohol and drugs can make victims out of anyone.

Secondly, I think that since we all agree that one person physically overpowering and forcing themselves on another person in order to engage in an involuntary sex act, by any means, constitutes rape, so we can put all the "you condone rape!" hyperbolic nonsense aside for the moment.

The thing I object to is the idea that if a man and woman are drinking, and they decide in their state of mutual drunkenness to engage in sex, a woman can claim that she was somehow forced, even if she said "yes" throughout the entire act, even if she instigated the encounter, by reason of her drunken state. (BTW, these sorts of "gray area" situations are the ONLY thing I am debating here... any claim by anyone that I am saying that women "deserve" rape, or that forcing yourself on a drunk person is ever acceptable, is a strawman on their part, and a damnable lie as well.)

The thing that has always bothered me about these situations is this: there is a claim made that a drunk woman cannot give consent to sex, from a legal standpoint. In that case, why is a drunken man considered capable of correctly interpreting whether given consent is legal or not? The burden for both people's actions are shifted onto the man, in an unfair way.

[JoeEllison]

ETA: This thread is about heterosexual rape, so I am restricting my response to that realm only.

That seems something close to a "cheat" from where I'm standing... and a cheapening of the crimes committed beyond the narrow category that you are willing to address as "real rape," intentionally or otherwise.

[klk]

The thing I object to is the idea that if a man and woman are drinking, and they decide in their state of mutual drunkenness to engage in sex, a woman can claim that she was somehow forced, even if she said "yes" throughout the entire act, even if she instigated the encounter, by reason of her drunken state.
Wouldn't that be conensual?

[JoeEllison]

Wouldn't that be consensual?

You would hope so... but not according to some people, who claim that a woman CANNOT give consent when she is drunk, period. The laws of some areas seem to take this sort of ridiculous view of consent as well. The level of intoxication of both parties is not always considered relevant.

[skeptifem]

I think the question is that if a woman is too drunk to consent, it's rape, so theoretically an equally drunk guy should be drunk to form intent as it requires the same mental faculties, but that doesn't come up.


being too drunk to form a coherent sentance makes it pretty hard to plan and carry out a rape, donchathink?

[klk]

[QUOTE=JoeEllison;3488599]

The thing I object to is the idea that if a man and woman are drinking, and they decide in their state of mutual drunkenness to engage in sex, a woman can claim that she was somehow forced, even if she said "yes" throughout the entire act, even if she instigated the encounter, by reason of her drunken state.
QUOTE]
If they were both intoxicated and agreed to consensual sex, how would it be considered rape?
If the woman consented to having sex, how could she later legally accuse the man of forcing her?
Wouldn't that be one person's word against another's?
Perhaps that is where the double standard might come in. I wonder how gender neutral the legal system would be?
How could anything be proved or disproved?

[casebro]

So I'll attempt to simplify the OP, for the disingenuous among us.

A drinking driver who engages in reckless behavior is consider a criminal.

A drinking woman who engages in reckless behavior is considered a victim.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Uh, no. Still not an accurate portrayal of the situation.

For one thing, all people who drink to excess are engaging in reckless behavour. But not all reckless behaviour is illegal.

And in your two comparative sentences you've made "driving" and "being a woman" analagous. How does that work?

Again, try coming up with sentences that actually reflect the relevant actions.

[The Gnomon]

So I'll attempt to simplify the OP, for the disingenuous among us.

A drinking driver who engages in reckless behavior is consider a criminal.

A drinking woman who engages in reckless behavior is considered a victim.

Even simpler - voluntary intoxication is not exculpatory.
Is this thread a contest to see how many responses can be elicited by posing a nonsense question?

[Bob Klase]

The media seem to equate anyone who drives after drinking as a murderer, even if no accident is involved.

Got any examples of that? I can recall many examples of the media (and others) equating (or outright labeling) drunk drivers as a danger to other people. Personally, I've never seen the media label drunk driver as a murderer when they hadn't actually killed someone. I would imagine that the lawsuit over that libel (or slander) would have made the news somewhere.

[Bob Klase]

So I'll attempt to simplify the OP, for the disingenuous among us.

A drinking driver who engages in reckless behavior is consider a criminal.

A drinking woman who engages in reckless behavior is considered a victim.

Nice try, but that's a gross over-simplification. All reckless behavior is not automatically criminal.

A man who jumps off a house and breaks both his legs is engaging in reckless behavior. Stupid perhaps but not criminal.

A man who jumps off a house and lands on top of his neighbor killing him is engaging in reckless behavior which (at least if intentional, and probably even if not) is also criminal.

You want to label them both as reckless and therefore both as criminal. Do you really fail to see a difference?

[Rufo]

So I'll attempt to simplify the OP, for the disingenuous among us.

A drinking driver who engages in reckless behavior is consider a criminal.

A drinking woman who engages in reckless behavior is considered a victim.
It does not clarify what most people seem to wonder - what exactly is the reckless behavior that you refer to in the case of the woman? A rape victim does not 'engage' in anything. A rape victim is the subject of someone else's actions. So you are not talking about getting raped. What is it that a drunk woman 'engages' in that will make people consider her a victim?


Even simpler - voluntary intoxication is not exculpatory.
Is this thread a contest to see how many responses can be elicited by posing a nonsense question?
Been done. And if this 'contest' is forum-wide, this one will never get close to the involuntary applications. :p

[Zygar]

My point is less about physical acts, and more about personal responsibility and stereotypes.

Let's cut the "weaker sex" crap out, first of all. Yes, "on average," women are weaker than men. On the other hand, most men would get knocked down by one of the women on American Gladiators. And, alcohol and drugs can make victims out of anyone.

Secondly, I think that since we all agree that one person physically overpowering and forcing themselves on another person in order to engage in an involuntary sex act, by any means, constitutes rape, so we can put all the "you condone rape!" hyperbolic nonsense aside for the moment.

The thing I object to is the idea that if a man and woman are drinking, and they decide in their state of mutual drunkenness to engage in sex, a woman can claim that she was somehow forced, even if she said "yes" throughout the entire act, even if she instigated the encounter, by reason of her drunken state. (BTW, these sorts of "gray area" situations are the ONLY thing I am debating here... any claim by anyone that I am saying that women "deserve" rape, or that forcing yourself on a drunk person is ever acceptable, is a strawman on their part, and a damnable lie as well.)

The thing that has always bothered me about these situations is this: there is a claim made that a drunk woman cannot give consent to sex, from a legal standpoint. In that case, why is a drunken man considered capable of correctly interpreting whether given consent is legal or not? The burden for both people's actions are shifted onto the man, in an unfair way.

... That's not what we are talking about.

That seems something close to a "cheat" from where I'm standing... and a cheapening of the crimes committed beyond the narrow category that you are willing to address as "real rape," intentionally or otherwise.

Narrow category? You're completely clueless. For the rest of this thread I will not respond to you because you can't even read the OP.

[Zygar]

So I'll attempt to simplify the OP, for the disingenuous among us.

A drinking driver who engages in reckless behavior is consider a criminal.

A drinking woman who engages in reckless behavior is considered a victim.

You still have a major fallacy here. The drinking driver is by virtue of the fact that he/she is driving is a criminal. He/she needs to go no further than to be a drinking driver.

Secondly, you are implying that simply by being a drunk woman, she is engaging is reckless behavior. And you never responded to my question. So I think the issue here is a personal one you have. Get over it and stop trying to rationalize your problems.

[JoeEllison]

... That's not what we are talking about.



Narrow category? You're completely clueless. For the rest of this thread I will not respond to you because you can't even read the OP.

I'm "clueless"? Or are you just here with an axe to grind? And, can you tell the difference? I think not.

What's weird is that we seem to totally agree on the OP in general, which makes your problem with me seem ridiculous.

[Loss Leader]

So I'll attempt to simplify the OP, for the disingenuous among us.

A drinking driver who engages in reckless behavior is consider a criminal.

A drinking woman who engages in reckless behavior is considered a victim.



Still the dumbest thing I have ever read.

[skeptifem]

So I'll attempt to simplify the OP, for the disingenuous among us.

A drinking driver who engages in reckless behavior is consider a criminal.

A drinking woman who engages in reckless behavior is considered a victim.



so you decide to restate using LESS words.

you arent answering any questions or addressing any concerns. you are just restating.

if discussions worked this way then there would be no need for response because things would never make it past retstating the first thing you said. ugh.

how is a woman simply being drunk wreckless?

[Darth Rotor]

If somebody who drives while drunk is to be considered a murderer, then how come a women who has sex while drunk is considered a victim? Shouldn't she be considered the rapist? Or is the typical drunk driver a victim too? Assuming they both willfully got blotto, the driver to 'willfully lose control' of his car, her to 'willfully lose control' of her body. Yet she is considered a victim, the driver is considered a felon. Hmmm???
To answer your question clearly and concisely:

A drunk driver once dented my wife's rear end (car) rather badly.

No drunk woman has ever, by having sex, caused damage to an automobile I own. *

I thus find that your dilemma is a false one.

* I did once kick out the window in my VW Bug whilst having an aerobic time, and we were both drunk or close to it. I cannot fault the lady in question: it was my foot that went through the window.

DR

[Dogdoctor]

i dont think anyone here is saying that simply being drunk makes it rape.

being too drunk to consent is what makes it rape, or using alcohol as a way to make someone less able to fight back. so if a woman does something sexually to a guy while he is passed out, too ********** up to say no, etc yeah its sexual assault. its not ok, and a guy in that situation has a lot less resources for support and its a damn shame.
Hmmm yeah at what point does one become too drunk to consent? Only if they are unconscious ? Or does just being too drunk to make correct choices qualify? Too drunk to remember?



there is no such thing as double rape, for obvious reasons. someone is the rapist and someone is the victim (there can be more than one of those in any given situation, but both must be present for rape to occur).
I bet sex occurs where both parties are unable to make good choices and both would not have had sex if they were not drunk.


------ anyway, i never understood why more men arent angry at the sexism of these sorts of threads. the op and others who pretty much say that women should expect to be raped make it seem like men are immoral and so ruled by their ****s that they cant help but rape women. isnt that a bit insulting to any of you?

I am the person that I am regardless of whatever anyone thinks of me.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

So I'll attempt to simplify the OP, for the disingenuous among us.

A drinking driver who engages in reckless behavior is consider a criminal.

A drinking woman who engages in reckless behavior is considered a victim.

But for the second one it takes someone else to engage in reckless behavior with an intoxicated woman.

[Puppycow]

Maybe this will clarify it:

If you get drunk, you're (generally) not doing anything illegal just because you got drunk (unless you're underage). Being drunk does not mean that anything illegally done to you by someone else is your fault.

If you get drunk and drive a car, you are doing something illegal. Anything you do while driving the car is your fault.

If you get drunk, pick up a gun and kill someone with it, you're a murderer. If you get drunk and someone else picks up a gun and kills you with it you are a victim.

If you get drunk and rape someone, you are a rapist. If you get drunk and someone rapes you, you are a victim.

What he said. I don't see what's complicated or confusing here.

[skeptifem]

Hmmm yeah at what point does one become too drunk to consent? Only if they are unconscious ? Or does just being too drunk to make correct choices qualify? Too drunk to remember?


too drunk to consent means exactly that. another person is unable to obtain consent from the person due to their being drunk, which includes being passed out. someone talking nonsense, not responding, etc.

I bet sex occurs where both parties are unable to make good choices and both would not have had sex if they were not drunk.

yep, im sure it does. that isnt what is being discussed.




I am the person that I am regardless of whatever anyone thinks of me.

so? are you saying its impossible for you to be insulted? lol

I just wanted to point out that so many threads with blatant sexism twards women have some rather awful stereotypes about men tied into them. letting stuff like this go unchallenged isnt just bad for women, its bad for everyone. it wasnt directed at you specifically but thanks anyway.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I have an idea: Men should ask the men/women they plan on having sex with to take a breath test before doing the deed. That way there would be some objective evidence as to how intoxicated he/she was before the act. The government could even set a drink-sex limit.

------ anyway, i never understood why more men arent angry at the sexism of these sorts of threads. the op and others who pretty much say that women should expect to be raped make it seem like men are immoral and so ruled by their ****s that they cant help but rape women. isnt that a bit insulting to any of you?

I think what you're forgetting is most men are morons. Fortunately, so are most women. I don't think either sex are visiting nightclubs and bars in search of intellectual stimulation or a meeting of minds, do you?

[Rufo]

------ anyway, i never understood why more men arent angry at the sexism of these sorts of threads. the op and others who pretty much say that women should expect to be raped make it seem like men are immoral and so ruled by their ****s that they cant help but rape women. isnt that a bit insulting to any of you?
I see what you're getting at, and if casebro actually means what you believe he does (that is, what he actually says...) that's pretty goddamn insulting to me, yes. But I suspect casebro simply does not know how to use the word 'rape' in a meaningful way - that is, I don't think he's talking about rape.

That, and I'm generally not angry on the Internet, if I can avoid it.

[volatile]

------ anyway, i never understood why more men arent angry at the sexism of these sorts of threads. the op and others who pretty much say that women should expect to be raped make it seem like men are immoral and so ruled by their ****s that they cant help but rape women. isnt that a bit insulting to any of you?

Yes indeed. Hence my original outburst that provoked the thread. Apparently this makes me "over-sensitive"... :rolleyes:

[Darth Rotor]

The government could even set a drink-sex limit.
Dumbest idea I've seen in a month. Congratulate yourself.
I think what you're forgetting is most men are morons.
Speak for yourself, with supporting evidence being your government/drink silliness.

Keep the damned government out of my pub. It's bad enough that they tax spirits, wine and beer.

DR

[Ivor the Engineer]

Dumbest idea I've seen in a month. Congratulate yourself.

I thought it was a lot dumber than that, though not quite in the same league as trying to equate driving and having sex.

I predict the next 10-30 years will be a good time to be a hepatologist.

[ponderingturtle]

To what do you refer, specifically? Rape convictions are low, and if the woman was extremely drunk during the alleged rape, it's extremely difficult for her to prove she didn't consent.

There are some ideas that a woman who consented while drunk can retroactively withdraw consent when she sobers up, so that consentual drunk sex can when sober later become rape.


That would seem to be what this is addressing. But I have not see how much indication there is that laws actualy work that way. I have seen consentual sex when drunk refered to later as rape(someone at school wrote the paper about it, and said that she viewed it both their faults for being drunk, but still seemed to consider it rape)

[ponderingturtle]

that is so SO disgusting. :jaw-dropp what the hell, man? did you actually think about this before posting?

cluetrain: last stop you. a raped woman doesnt *********** decide to have sex, jesus. i cant believe you need this explained to you. you seem to be suggesting that women should expect to be raped if they drink. why are you only applying this to women anyway? do you think men never get raped by other men after drinking? are men asking for it when they drink too?

Depeneds on exactly how you defined rape. Some people define rape in such a way that consenting to sex while drunk does not mean it was not rape. People do define consentual regreted later drunk sex as rape.

[ponderingturtle]

I think your first post contributed something - it may help to further clarify the difference between rape and women who while drunk consensually engage in sex they would not have engaged in (and thus regret) while sober.

I have certainly been in situations of "education" where they did not make that distinction, or rather both where classes as rape.

[ponderingturtle]

do you think its ok to have sex with someone so drunk that they are throwing up? what if she was generally too drunk to consent either way?

The this is if she say killed someone or drove, then being drunk would not mitigate her responcibilities for her actions. So when is a drunk responcible for their actions, and when are they not? Drunk driving being drunk does not reduce your responcibility for it, nor murder.


saying its impossible to rape a drunk woman is a VILE thing to say, people who dont feel something when they hear that statement have something wrong with them.

I am not entirely sure someone was asserting this.

[Soapy Sam]

People do stupid stuff when drunk.
Sometimes they do illegal stuff when drunk.

Being drunk is (sometimes) an excuse for stupidity.

It is not, ever,an excuse to break the law. Not ever. That's what the law says.

The difference in the cases in the OP is evidence.

If someone drives a car when drunk, he broke the law . If caught, he will be treated accordingly.

If someone raped someone when drunk, ditto.

But if he (or indeed, she) rapes someone who is also drunk , the victim's testimony may be considered completely unreliable, and if that is the only source of evidence, a conviction is improbable.

About four months ago, I was filling the car about 23:30, when I realised a couple of teens (or maybe a little older) were actually having intercourse against the wall of the service station. To judge by the young woman's vocal output, this was no rape, but apart from brickdust on her buttocks, I doubt she recalled much of it next morning. The stench of alcohol was palpable and I was twenty feet away.
I do wonder if the security cameras got them. They may be on youtube by now.

But would she even know if she consented? Beats me.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

I would say the most prudent course of action for anyone who is considering engaging in sex acts with someone who has been using any amount of intoxicants would be to make sure they get home safely, then say goodnight, maybe calling them later when they're sober. In other words, don't. Not only is there a risk of a criminal accusation being levelled against you, you may do something that causes someone else needless mental anguish. Even if it's not a case of clear-cut rape (the woman is still lucid, but goofy, and verbally consents to sexual activity), wouldn't you feel guilty about exploiting someone who is in a vulnerable position? Why can't we take better care of each other?

[skeptifem]

I am not entirely sure someone was asserting this.


read the post again.

[Zygar]

What's weird is that we seem to totally agree on the OP in general, which makes your problem with me seem ridiculous.

Seems like a failure to communicate, here. Sorry.

[Zygar]

Yes indeed. Hence my original outburst that provoked the thread. Apparently this makes me "over-sensitive"... :rolleyes:

Where was this outburst?

[Soapy Sam]

I would say the most prudent course of action for anyone who is considering engaging in sex acts with someone who has been using any amount of intoxicants would be to make sure they get home safely, then say goodnight, maybe calling them later when they're sober. In other words, don't. Not only is there a risk of a criminal accusation being levelled against you, you may do something that causes someone else needless mental anguish. Even if it's not a case of clear-cut rape (the woman is still lucid, but goofy, and verbally consents to sexual activity), wouldn't you feel guilty about exploiting someone who is in a vulnerable position? Why can't we take better care of each other?

Aye. But would you have said that at 16?

[volatile]

Where was this outburst?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3486428#post3486428

[Polaris]

------ anyway, i never understood why more men arent angry at the sexism of these sorts of threads. the op and others who pretty much say that women should expect to be raped make it seem like men are immoral and so ruled by their ****s that they cant help but rape women. isnt that a bit insulting to any of you?

Couldn't agree more. There's nothing beyond that I could add to this thread.

[Polaris]

The thing that has always bothered me about these situations is this: there is a claim made that a drunk woman cannot give consent to sex, from a legal standpoint. In that case, why is a drunken man considered capable of correctly interpreting whether given consent is legal or not? The burden for both people's actions are shifted onto the man, in an unfair way.

Ok I lied, there is a question I have...

I seemed to remember something about this as well, but my knowledge of the law is hazy, and I'm sure it varies state to state (and undoubtedly around the Western world). Can anyone provide links to the statutes?

[Rufo]

I have certainly been in situations of "education" where they did not make that distinction, or rather both where classes as rape.
I have been in situations of education where the exact meaning of rape was disputed as well. I know that as a man (or, not to give me and my peers at the time too much credit, as someone in the process of becoming a man :o), it's easy to get overly defensive and be worried about your rights and that you will be called a predator and a rapist simply because of your sex. There are a few pseudofeminists who like to whine about how terrible men are, essentially giving women and feminists a bad name in the same way as the OP gives men a bad name.

However, at least where I live, this is not the problem. The problem is rather that actual rapists go free. The problem is rather that women blame themselves, even when they were raped. The problem is rather that society has not completely gone past the point where rape victims are considered as 'dirty'. The problem is rather that, however worried we are about our rights as men, women do have more reason to be worried about theirs. I would not consider this a point of view, but a fact.

Sure, it's important that we make this distinction, but from where I'm sitting, it seems we have more urgent things to worry about when it comes to rape.

[ponderingturtle]

i dont think anyone here is saying that simply being drunk makes it rape.

being too drunk to consent is what makes it rape, or using alcohol as a way to make someone less able to fight back. so if a woman does something sexually to a guy while he is passed out, too ********** up to say no, etc yeah its sexual assault. its not ok, and a guy in that situation has a lot less resources for support and its a damn shame.


So if you are too drunk to be responcible for your actions why is driving at that level a crime?

[ponderingturtle]

I think the question is that if a woman is too drunk to consent, it's rape, so theoretically an equally drunk guy should be drunk to form intent as it requires the same mental faculties, but that doesn't come up.

Define too drunk to consent? Passing out, that I think few will argue with that sex with an unconsious or barely consious person is rape, but that is rarely the only situation people talk about.

[ponderingturtle]

You still have a major fallacy here. The drinking driver is by virtue of the fact that he/she is driving is a criminal. He/she needs to go no further than to be a drinking driver.

Secondly, you are implying that simply by being a drunk woman, she is engaging is reckless behavior. And you never responded to my question. So I think the issue here is a personal one you have. Get over it and stop trying to rationalize your problems.

Well women do get an easier time getting a pass for some bad decisions made when drunk and get to call it rape.

[ponderingturtle]

too drunk to consent means exactly that. another person is unable to obtain consent from the person due to their being drunk, which includes being passed out. someone talking nonsense, not responding, etc.


So only at that level, but the whole being an active participant level is then consentual, and not rape no matter how others define it?

[ponderingturtle]

I have been in situations of education where the exact meaning of rape was disputed as well. I know that as a man (or, not to give me and my peers at the time too much credit, as someone in the process of becoming a man :o), it's easy to get overly defensive and be worried about your rights and that you will be called a predator and a rapist simply because of your sex. There are a few pseudofeminists who like to whine about how terrible men are, essentially giving women and feminists a bad name in the same way as the OP gives men a bad name.

I have seen a variety of people class consentual but drunk sex as rape, and no one in this thread has given a good idea how drunk someone needs to be for consent to become impossible, asside from a very clear passing out.

So many do seem to think that if two drunk people have sex that if the woman regrets it in the morning it is then rape.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Aye. But would you have said that at 16?


Well, I'm not a good example, as I wouldn't have been anywhere near drunk folks at sixteen, but I see your point. People make bad decisions at all ages, though.

[tkingdoll]

Well women do get an easier time getting a pass for some bad decisions made when drunk and get to call it rape.

They might cry rape, but have you seen rape conviction statistics lately? You have little chance of a conviction for ANY reported rape. And if the woman was drunk during the alleged rape, I can't imagine that goes particularly well for her case.

Also, importantly, can you tell us how many rape reports involve the woman being drunk? If not, then I'm not sure on what you're basing your assertion that women are actually doing this. I'm sure it happens, but it might be rare as hell.

The moral, though, is that if the woman you're about to have sex with is blind drunk and slurring "yesh babeeee" then zip up your pants and put her in a cab home.

[volatile]

Over in the mother-thread, we learn that, yes, some people on this apparently rationalist forum do find the idea of raping drunk women amusing and irreverent.

Rape jokes are "irreverent"?YES

If you have any kind of sense of humor


What if a man was wearing the shirt??? How would you feel then???? Oh let me guess, not so bad .

[The Atheist]

This is an interesting thread - has been a hot topic here over the past few weeks, thanks to several cases, but in particular this one (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search/search.cfm?kw1=tea%20ropati&kw2=&op=all&searchorder=2&display=20&start=0&thepage=1), featuring one of the country's best-loved sportsmen.

Given that video evidence of the sex act/s exists, Ropati's statement was that the victim was a willing participant, but drunk. Interesting that even his wife came out and claimed he wasn't a sleaze, after video of him having drunken sex in a public alleyway had been shown to the court.

If somebody who drives while drunk is to be considered a murderer, then how come a women who has sex while drunk is considered a victim? Shouldn't she be considered the rapist? Or is the typical drunk driver a victim too? Assuming they both willfully got blotto, the driver to 'willfully lose control' of his car, her to 'willfully lose control' of her body. Yet she is considered a victim, the driver is considered a felon. Hmmm???

Genius.

If anyone wonders where this comes from, it's an offshoot of the "But... it's a cool shirt" thread, in which Lost Angeles pointed out that a shirt that says "No Means No. (Except when I'm drunk)" was withdrawn from sale, and I pointed out that it was pretty damned offensive:

So let's get this in context, so we can see the ideological underpinnings of this thread: It's not just that women who are raped when drunk are criminals, it's that women who are raped when drunk are funny.

Anyone else find that a pretty repulsive viewpoint, or am I "over-sensitive"?

Soft Pommy is my call!

Drunk women being raped isn't just funny, it's compulsory, isn't it? Get her too drunk to notice that you're a piece of crap whom she wouldn't usually spit on and then drag her down an alley and screw her?

Just 21st century man's Neanderthal tendencies coming out; bit of harmless fun for the lads. After all, if she's out alone and blotto, there's only one thing she's after, right?

its not ok, and a guy in that situation has a lot less resources for support and its a damn shame.

And yet, strangely, there have also been a couple of recent cases of male -> male rape which have had convictions in identical circumstances.

The obvious difference is that when a bloke goes out and gets drunk looking for sex, he's supposed to be the top, so if sex occurred, it had to be rape.

------ anyway, i never understood why more men arent angry at the sexism of these sorts of threads. the op and others who pretty much say that women should expect to be raped make it seem like men are immoral and so ruled by their ****s that they cant help but rape women. isnt that a bit insulting to any of you?

Insulting? Encouraging, maybe, but hardly insulting. Unless you're some kind of wimp.

[volatile]

I see what you did there.

PS: I have an Australian passport.

[The Atheist]

I see what you did there.

PS: I have an Australian passport.

No way.

Your custom title says "Scholar and Gentleman". If so, you must be the only person in history who claims both (hell, either!) of those and who has an Aussie passport.

[Magenta]

No way.

Your custom title says "Scholar and Gentleman". If so, you must be the only person in history who claims both (hell, either!) of those and who has an Aussie passport.


Yeah, but you're a Kiwi. Would you know a scholar and a gentleman if you saw one? :D

[casebro]

So if you are too drunk to be responcible for your actions why is driving at that level a crime?

BINGO!

[LostAngeles]

So if you are too drunk to be responcible for your actions why is driving at that level a crime?

Too drunk to consent to sexual activity (no decision made)!= too drunk to drive safely (decision made).

EDIT: Or as was just said in IRC by Jeff - a woman can engage in sex, "passively," but you can not drive, "passively."

[Zygar]

Well women do get an easier time getting a pass for some bad decisions made when drunk and get to call it rape.

Given how hard it is to prosecute someone for rape, and how few women even report it, I disagree with this.

So if you are too drunk to be responcible for your actions why is driving at that level a crime?

This is a strawman. If you are too drunk to consent, you are likely too physically impaired to be driving, anyway. People that drive when they are physically impaired but mentally able to choose not to drive are the big issue here.

Genius.

For my reason above, no it is not.

Insulting? Encouraging, maybe, but hardly insulting. Unless you're some kind of wimp.

You find the fact that men on the whole are seen as sexually irresponsible to be encouraging? And those who find it insulting are wimps? That is both irresponsible and offensive.

[Bob Klase]

So if you are too drunk to be responcible for your actions why is driving at that level a crime?

Driving is an action that you alone are responsible for. Being raped is an action that the rapist is responsible for.

You can take all the quibbles in this thread about 'too drunk to consent' and they add up to nothing (add in the claims about being drunk and consenting but changing her mind later and they add up to less than nothing).

If you want to source some rape convictions based on the woman being too drunk to consent and look at the actual facts of those cases then you might find something that makes that a valid question.

[Bob Klase]

So many do seem to think that if two drunk people have sex that if the woman regrets it in the morning it is then rape.

Makes no difference what "so many seem to think". What's the law and how many have been convicted because the woman regrets it in the morning?

[JoeEllison]

This is a strawman. If you are too drunk to consent, you are likely too physically impaired to be driving, anyway. People that drive when they are physically impaired but mentally able to choose not to drive are the big issue here.Interesting... to clarify our earlier breakdown in communication, you are making my point right here: there is a narrow window where someone is technically impaired and yet still able to make their own decisions. What I was saying earlier is that a woman can be drunk, and still render very obvious consent, whether or not she regrets it later. Hell, based on my impulsive shopping habits, regret can happen even when you're stone sober and making a decision... can you then blame people for acting based on your consent, if you have second thoughts after the incident?

[Bob Klase]

BINGO!

Fraid not. You not only don't have bingo, you don't even have your bingo card yet.

[Bob Klase]

So only at that level, but the whole being an active participant level is then consentual, and not rape no matter how others define it?

What difference does it make how others define it? How do the courts define it?

[Magenta]

Interesting... to clarify our earlier breakdown in communication, you are making my point right here: there is a narrow window where someone is technically impaired and yet still able to make their own decisions. What I was saying earlier is that a woman can be drunk, and still render very obvious consent, whether or not she regrets it later. Hell, based on my impulsive shopping habits, regret can happen even when you're stone sober and making a decision... can you then blame people for acting based on your consent, if you have second thoughts after the incident?


If there is "very obvious consent" it isn't rape, regardless of later regrets. Are people still unclear about this?

[JoeEllison]

If there is "very obvious consent" it isn't rape, regardless of later regrets. Are people still unclear about this?

Yeah, they are, last I heard.

[The Atheist]

Yeah, but you're a Kiwi. Would you know a scholar and a gentleman if you saw one? :D

Hell yeah. I've even been confused for one myself once or twice. Soon set that straight!

You find the fact that men on the whole are seen as sexually irresponsible to be encouraging? And those who find it insulting are wimps? That is both irresponsible and offensive.

How quaint that you didn't deduce the satirical nature of my post.

[LostAngeles]

...
How quaint that you didn't deduce the satirical nature of my post.

About halfway through I questioned the satire bit myself, but I remembered:

This is The Atheist. He may be a cock at times, but he's not a bad guy. He's more than likely taking the piss.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You can take drink out of the equation and still have a valid question:
Person A consents to having sexual relations with Person B.
Person A later denies having given consent to Person B and claims rape.

How does one establish the guilt or innocence of Person B?

ETA: Or even more simply, Person A denies having given consent. Person B claims consent was given. Who is telling the truth?

I think the crux of what some people on the thread are arguing is, is that inebriation does not mitigate given consent. If you were drunk and consented, it should be functionally no different than if you were sober and consented.

[Soapy Sam]

Sex tends to be a private activity (teens in forecourts notwithstanding). So evidence will always be a problem.
The Scottish Parliament is about to spend £200,000 on an ad campaign to convince us that rape is NEVER the woman's fault, no matter how drunk she is or how provocative her behaviour.
This seems unrealistic to me, for exactly the reason given in the OP. If a drunk woman legally CANNOT behave in ANY fashion which in any way contributes to her responsibility for a rape, then by what logic can we arrest a drunk woman for driving ?
Or a drunk man for murder? Or a drunk man for rape?

This is a question with two "obvious" mutually incompatible answers. Ask any group of people and you get a spread of the two, except, apparently, among politicians, who seem to be drifting towards a consensus that women are never in any way responsible.

As these are the same politicians who are certain (unlike the rest of the population) that capital punishment is ineffective, barbaric and unacceptable in any circumstances, I find myself wondering where politicians are getting their information which seems so strikingly at odds with the opinion of the population in general.
ETA A Scottish Parliament link on the legal definition of rape.
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/Apps2/sch/SiteSearch/BasicSearch.aspx

Sorry- link does not reach the PDF directly. Enter RAPE in the search box. Interesting that anal sex does not qualify as rape by this definition.

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Or even more simply, Person A denies having given consent. Person B claims consent was given. Who is telling the truth?

<snip>

Exactly. Unless the attack was brutal enough to leave obvious physical damage, it ends up being her word against his.

[Magenta]

The Scottish Parliament is about to spend £200,000 on an ad campaign to convince us that rape is NEVER the woman's fault, no matter how drunk she is or how provocative her behaviour.
This seems unrealistic to me, for exactly the reason given in the OP. If a drunk woman legally CANNOT behave in ANY fashion which in any way contributes to her responsibility for a rape, then by what logic can we arrest a drunk woman for driving ?
Or a drunk man for murder? Or a drunk man for rape?


This has already been answered by at least one person on this thread:


Maybe this will clarify it:

If you get drunk, you're (generally) not doing anything illegal just because you got drunk (unless you're underage). Being drunk does not mean that anything illegally done to you by someone else is your fault.

If you get drunk and drive a car, you are doing something illegal. Anything you do while driving the car is your fault.

If you get drunk, pick up a gun and kill someone with it, you're a murderer. If you get drunk and someone else picks up a gun and kills you with it you are a victim.

If you get drunk and rape someone, you are a rapist. If you get drunk and someone rapes you, you are a victim.

[mijopaalmc]

The Scottish Parliament is about to spend £200,000 on an ad campaign to convince us that rape is NEVER the woman's fault, no matter how drunk she is or how provocative her behaviour.

Have you thought long and hard (take the pun as you want it) about what blaming anyone for sexually "provocative" in the instrumentality to his/her rape say about the sexuality of the alleged perpetrator?

This seems unrealistic to me, for exactly the reason given in the OP. If a drunk woman legally CANNOT behave in ANY fashion which in any way contributes to her responsibility for a rape, then by what logic can we arrest a drunk woman for driving ?
Or a drunk man for murder? Or a drunk man for rape?

Have you missed the bulk of the thread?

The argument has been and always will be that a person, by virtue of getting in a automobile while legally intoxicated is statistically endangering the lives of anyone else one the road; therefore, such actions are illegal. Can you honestly, and with good supporting evidence say the same for someone who has sex when they are legally intoxicated?

[Soapy Sam]

This has already been answered by at least one person on this thread:

Have you thought long and hard (take the pun as you want it) about what blaming anyone for sexually "provocative" in the instrumentality to his/her rape say about the sexuality of the alleged perpetrator?

Have you missed the bulk of the thread?

The argument has been and always will be that a person, by virtue of getting in a automobile while legally intoxicated is statistically endangering the lives of anyone else one the road; therefore, such actions are illegal. Can you honestly, and with good supporting evidence say the same for someone who has sex when they are legally intoxicated?

Would you say the sole effect of alcohol on crime is that it makes some people dangerous to others? Might it not make them a danger to themselves?

I think we are talking about two divergent issues and I suspect this is common in the wider public debate.

Drink does not alter the moral acceptibility of assault, sexual or otherwise.
It manifestly does alter the probability.
Also, while the criminal's responsibility for the act may be 100%, who is responsible for the victim's safety? Her parents? The police? Not her at all?

If I drive past a pub car park at 11pm, I slightly increase my chance of being in an accident- because there are people emerging from it who have been drinking. Am I in any sense morally responsible if one of them hits me? Hardly, and the risk of doing this once in a while is pretty small. But if I habitually drive by pub car parks late at night, it is not unreasonable to say I'm taking an increased chance. Ask any late night cab driver. So I need to be extra cautious. I'm responsible for my own safety. I cannot realistically expect a drunk to be.

If I drive by while drunk myself, even if everyone agreed I was the victim , not the cause of the accident, not only would my insurers wash their hands of me, but the police would treat me as just as much of a lawbreaker as the other driver. Rightly so. It would be seen as partly my fault. Nobody would say I was less responsible because I had had a drink, even if my driving did not contribute at all to the accident.

Now it is not illegal to be drunk and sexually aroused when on foot, in the street, late at night. But does anyone think these facts do not materially affect the likelihood that someone will be assaulted? Not even slightly?

In the simplest situation- drunk girl, sober male sexual predator- we can all decide easily that the fact the victim may be drunk is of minor relevance, because he WAS responsible for his actions.
But what if both parties are drunk, as is often the case? Her culpability is reduced by public drunkenness, but his is not? We seriously expect males to be the responsible sex here? Male humans?

If both parties are drunk, do we truly believe that tomorrow, in the cold light of day, each of them will remember everything that was maturely discussed in the car park last night? The questions, the answers, the refusals or acceptances? What if they don't?

If the rapist's responsibility for the assault is 100%, even when he actually thought he was being invited to go on, then the girl's responsibility for her own injury is zero - but then whowas responsible for her safety? Who was responsible for her not getting in this situation in the first place? Her parents? Her friends? A strange guy she just met in a bar? Or her?

Assault should not happen, sexual or not. I doubt anyone here thinks otherwise. But it does. In a known potentially hazardous situation, potential victims need to take precautions and to accept a degree of responsibility for their own safety. That's all of us. I'm just saying young women are maybe more vulnerable and need to be that bit more careful. That's maybe unfair, but it's true. Young men tend to die from violence more than women. That's not fair either. Maybe they are all innocent victims whose actions had no part at all in their deaths. Maybe.

ETA- Coincidentally the radio is on about Britney and Amy Winehouse being plastered in public then complaining about intrusive paparazzi taking photos.
Less contentious perhaps,(except to those involved) but is there not a similar question at the heart of it? That there is a limit to how far others are responsible for individual security?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

What difference does it make how others define it? How do the courts define it?

Enough of a difference to ruin lives and drive people to suicide?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7265307.stm

"According to Home Office research, between 3% and 9% of all reports of rape are found to be false. Yet the lives of those men accused are often devastated. Some even commit suicide, so terrible is the stigma of being charged with sexual assault - even if subsequently cleared."

[Jaggy Bunnet]

The Scottish Parliament is about to spend £200,000 on an ad campaign to convince us that rape is NEVER the woman's fault, no matter how drunk she is or how provocative her behaviour.

According to the BBC, they are concerned that people think some victims may be "partly responsible".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7275588.stm

If I leave my car unlocked and a computer on the backseat, am I partly responsible if somebody steals it?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

According to the BBC, they are concerned that people think some victims may be "partly responsible".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7275588.stm

If I leave my car unlocked and a computer on the backseat, am I partly responsible if somebody steals it?

Well, last I knew, in Ohio it was illegal to leave your car running w/ it's doors unlocked w/o you in it, because it is too easy to steal then.

(note: if that scenario sounds crazy, consider the, "oops left my gloves on the counter" moment, when you dash back inside from the driveway.)

[Zygar]

How quaint that you didn't deduce the satirical nature of my post.

Given the rest of this thread, the satire was lost on me.

[LostAngeles]

Sex tends to be a private activity (teens in forecourts notwithstanding). So evidence will always be a problem.
The Scottish Parliament is about to spend £200,000 on an ad campaign to convince us that rape is NEVER the woman's fault, no matter how drunk she is or how provocative her behaviour.
This seems unrealistic to me, for exactly the reason given in the OP. If a drunk woman legally CANNOT behave in ANY fashion which in any way contributes to her responsibility for a rape, then by what logic can we arrest a drunk woman for driving ?
Or a drunk man for murder? Or a drunk man for rape?

This is a question with two "obvious" mutually incompatible answers. Ask any group of people and you get a spread of the two, except, apparently, among politicians, who seem to be drifting towards a consensus that women are never in any way responsible.

As these are the same politicians who are certain (unlike the rest of the population) that capital punishment is ineffective, barbaric and unacceptable in any circumstances, I find myself wondering where politicians are getting their information which seems so strikingly at odds with the opinion of the population in general.
ETA A Scottish Parliament link on the legal definition of rape.
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/Apps2/sch/SiteSearch/BasicSearch.aspx

Sorry- link does not reach the PDF directly. Enter RAPE in the search box. Interesting that anal sex does not qualify as rape by this definition.

According to the BBC, they are concerned that people think some victims may be "partly responsible".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7275588.stm

If I leave my car unlocked and a computer on the backseat, am I partly responsible if somebody steals it?

I was about to quote that very article since I saw it reference on Jezebel earlier along with a pic from a similar ad campaign.

Link. LLLLLIIIIINNNNNNKKKKKK (http://jezebel.com/363653/college-senior-tells-rape-apologist-to-stop-blaming-the-victim)

From the BBC story linked by Jaggy:

"It is hard to believe that in a modern Scotland there are people who still think that if a woman is dressed in a certain way or has been drinking it's her own fault if she is raped," he added.

"Similarly, people who believe that a woman can't be raped by her husband, or someone else she knows, are wrong. A person doesn't have to use physical force to make it rape. We need to make sure that is clear."

If I have a drink, it's not an invitation to rape me, nor are my bustiers.

A friend of mine, once considered a good, upstanding kid (Amnesty International work, Brown U.) turned out to be a date rapist and an ******* of several orders.

[Soapy Sam]

Jaggy I'd give the same answer as to the issue of rape. You are not "responsible" for your stereo being nicked, but you did increase the probability of it being nicked by leaving it unlocked. Insurers would probably not pay out.
That's my point in a nutshell. We are, to some extent, responsible for our own security. If we can show we exercised reasonable care , took appropriate precautions, and were still assaulted, we are less likely to be blamed for any misfortune that still befalls us.
That may not be right, but it's very human.

[Francesca R]

Jaggy I'd give the same answer as to the issue of rape. You are not "responsible" for your stereo being nicked, but you did increase the probability of it being nicked by leaving it unlocked. Insurers would probably not pay out.Insurers can stipulate their own conditions independent of whether there is legal contributory negligence though. In rape cases, contributory negligence is not a factor (I think) and campaigns like those referred to are an attempt to rid the public of the idea that it may be

[treble_head]

How is this an issue? Really. At the root of my most drunk, I knew what I wanted and what I didn't. I've had weird moments, which I'd rather not explain. Booze is something you choose to enter into your body. I know I choose it. You say "okay" to something you wouldn't normally do. That's your fault. You cannot wake up and regret what you did, as it was your choice.

Hear me out, please. If you are plastered beyond all choice and are taken advantage of, then it is rape. Pure, simple, rape. That exists too.

Here's the problem I'm having. Why are we discussing this like it's the norm?

Rape happens. Sloppy regretful sex happens (that isn't rape), and Sloppy good sex happens too. Only one of those things is deplorable, so why are we arguing the semantics?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Insurers can stipulate their own conditions independent of whether there is legal contributory negligence though. In rape cases, contributory negligence is not a factor (I think) and campaigns like those referred to are an attempt to rid the public of the idea that it may be

I don't see it working.

People would hold me partly responsible if my computer got nicked in such circumstances. Doesn't mean whoever stole it is any less of a criminal however.

[skeptifem]

Jaggy I'd give the same answer as to the issue of rape. You are not "responsible" for your stereo being nicked, but you did increase the probability of it being nicked by leaving it unlocked. Insurers would probably not pay out.
That's my point in a nutshell. We are, to some extent, responsible for our own security. If we can show we exercised reasonable care , took appropriate precautions, and were still assaulted, we are less likely to be blamed for any misfortune that still befalls us.
That may not be right, but it's very human.

rape is a very serious crime- much more serious than theft. it can cause PTSD like a war or natural disaster. it can ruin your life, and victims almost always blame themselves to some extent no matter how they were assaulted. they dont need someone else to try and make them feel that way, i think that is what pisses me off so much about this thread. they blame themselves even if they were not drunk or wearing something 'too revealing' or whatever and some people never get over the idea that they deserved it. its just rubbing salt into a wound to try and make a point out of that, its just... so **********.

[The Atheist]

rape is a very serious crime- much more serious than theft.

In fact, comparing rape to anything short of murder or child abuse is insulting, degrading and ignorant.

I doubt this girl would have topped herself if she'd had her stereo stolen. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=124&objectid=10493062)