Is rape always rape? (1 Viewer)

[townie]

http://mobile.news.com.au/breaking-...bbc-tv-presenter/story-e6frfkp9-1226650719605

 

[stampede]

its only rape if its up a guy

girls always love the d

(citing no studies, speaking from experience)

 

[SylviaB]

Yes, of course. Only men are responsible for their actions whilst intoxicated.

 

[Tasteless]

Yes, I believe so.

You can give or deny consent when drunk and that still counts (afaik in Australia?).
Of course a bf can commit rape, being in a relationship doesn't change anything imo.
If there's no consent then it simply doesn't matter how ~far they've gone~.

While I think it's completely fair to say that in some cases women can be irresponsible when it comes to protecting themselves, that in no way absolves the rapist of the crime. The blame should always fall entirely on the one who committed the rape.

 

[brent012]

Yes, I believe so.

You can give or deny consent when drunk and that still counts (afaik in Australia?).
Of course a bf can commit rape, being in a relationship doesn't change anything imo.
If there's no consent then it simply doesn't matter how ~far they've gone~.

While I think it's completely fair to say that in some cases women can be irresponsible when it comes to protecting themselves, that in no way absolves the rapist of the crime. The blame should always fall entirely on the one who committed the rape.

I thought the point of this discussion was that you can't give consent when you are drunk.

 

[SylviaB]

You can give or deny consent when drunk and that still counts (afaik in Australia?).
.

no but feminists claim that drunk women can't consent, that's what makes it rape

 

[Tasteless]

I thought the point of this discussion was that you can't give consent when you are drunk.

The way I see it, if you give consent at the time that's all that matters, intoxication irrelevant (unconscious or unable to give consent = no consent).
Idk if the law disagrees though.

But (and this might be off topic but yolo) how the fuck do you even prove consent was or wasn't given if you're hauled in front of the courts, would it not just become a he said, she said with no real evidence (assuming violence wasn't involved and no yelling etc)?

 

[nerdasdasd]

By definition, rape is forcing another person someone to do sexual acts.....

 

[Kiraken]

The way I see it, if you give consent at the time that's all that matters, intoxication irrelevant (unconscious or unable to give consent = no consent).
Idk if the law disagrees though.

But (and this might be off topic but yolo) how the fuck do you even prove consent was or wasn't given if you're hauled in front of the courts, would it not just become a he said, she said with no real evidence (assuming violence wasn't involved and no yelling etc)?

sometimes they have some form of trauma like bruising, abrasions etc. so i guess that could be one form of evidence

also the intoxication thing probably stems more from the argument that a very drunk person isn't in a clear enough state of mind to be providing consent and might make a decision that they normally wouldn't. But tbh i don't really know how drunk you have to be to reach this stage and where that line is between drunk and too drunk

 

[brent012]

The way I see it, if you give consent at the time that's all that matters, intoxication irrelevant (unconscious or unable to give consent = no consent).
Idk if the law disagrees though.

But (and this might be off topic but yolo) how the fuck do you even prove consent was or wasn't given if you're hauled in front of the courts, would it not just become a he said, she said with no real evidence (assuming violence wasn't involved and no yelling etc)?

Yeah, I agree. I was just parroting what i've read/heard before. Obviously it would be different if one of the people involved was extremely drunk and the other wasn't but i'd say proving that is close to impossible.

 

[LANADELREY]

everything has gradations, lol.

"Half of all women who have had penetrative sex unwillingly do not think they were raped and this proportion rises strongly when the assault involves a boyfriend, or if the woman is drunk or high on drugs: they led him on, they went too far, it wasn’t forcible, they didn’t make themselves clear. . .

according to some people though, being pulled into an alley and being raped at knifepoint = the same trauma as having sex while drunk and regretting it the next day.

 

[brent012]

according to some people though, being pulled into an alley and being raped at knifepoint = the same trauma as having sex while drunk and regretting it the next day.

Well that's why there used to be the concept of "date rape". Rape implied a stranger and violence, but "date rape" was if the perpetrator was known to the victim. That's not really used anymore, and rightly so because it implies raping someone you know is somehow more acceptable.

 

[SylviaB]

also the intoxication thing probably stems more from the argument that a very drunk person isn't in a clear enough state of mind to be providing consent and might make a decision that they normally wouldn't. But tbh i don't really know how drunk you have to be to reach this stage and where that line is between drunk and too drunk

So basically, if women get too drunk they're unable to make correct desicions about having sex, but men, who are as drunk or even more drunk are expected to realise that these women can't make sound decisons.
Which is to say, drunk men have to understand drunk women's state of mind better than the drunk women can themselves.

 

[SylviaB]

voluntarily getting black-out drunk around a bunch of drunken men, or getting drunk and voluntarily having sex and then later deciding you didn't consent and then crying rape just trivialises actual rape.

 

[Tasteless]

voluntarily getting black-out drunk around a bunch of drunken men, or getting drunk and voluntarily having sex and then later deciding you didn't consent and then crying rape just trivialises actual rape.

Not so convinced about the first (as irresponsible as it is) but definitely the bold, yes.

I wonder how often that actually happens though.

 

[LoveHateSchool]

voluntarily getting black-out drunk around a bunch of drunken men, or getting drunk and voluntarily having sex and then later deciding you didn't consent and then crying rape just trivialises actual rape.

So getting drunk around drunken men, it's your fault if you get raped??

I can't even fathom his arguments against it.
1) It doesn't matter if it's your boyfriend, consent must always be provided.
2) Last time I checked drinking wasn't a crime and also comes under the you can't give consent if you are a drunk/under the influence of drugs.
3) 'Leading on' isn't consent. Hence not an excuse for rape.

Anything that trivialises the notion of consent is an absolute abomination and tantamount to victim blaming.

 

[Tasteless]

2) Last time I checked drinking wasn't a crime and also comes under the you can't give consent if you are a drunk/under the influence of drugs.

Is this really a thing?

Wouldn't a fucking huge portion of people who bang be drunk though?
Are you saying these are all cases of rape as those involved "can't give consent"?

 

[SylviaB]

So getting drunk around drunken men, it's your fault if you get raped??

Not entirely, but I can think of about a million greater injustices.

If you drive into a dodgy neighbourhood, leave the key in the ignition and leave the doors wide open, nobody gets accused of "victim blaming" when everybody blame the guy for leaving his care open with the key in the ignition.

1) It doesn't matter if it's your boyfriend, consent must always be provided.

I didn't bring that up.

2) Last time I checked drinking wasn't a crime and also comes under the you can't give consent if you are a drunk/under the influence of drugs.

From my above post: "So basically, if women get too drunk they're unable to make correct desicions about having sex, but men, who are as drunk or even more drunk are expected to realise that these women can't make sound decisons.
Which is to say, drunk men have to understand drunk women's state of mind better than the drunk women can themselves. "

Should women be allowed to drink drive when their BAC is above a certain point? After all, if a drunk woman can't consent, then how can she know that it's wrong to drive? I'm not being faceteous, I'm genuinely curious.

3) 'Leading on' isn't consent. Hence not an excuse for rape.

I didn't bring that up.

Anything that trivialises the notion of consent is an absolute abomination and tantamount to victim blaming.

Agreeing to sex (or even initiating it) and then deciding ex post facto that you didn't consent because you were drunk trivialises consent.

 

[brent012]

Wouldn't a fucking huge portion of people who bang be drunk though?
Are you saying these are all cases of rape as those involved "can't give consent"?

Imo, that's what i don't like about the whole generalising of drunk = unable to give consent. Who is to blame if both (or more, I guess?) people involved were all drunk and equally unable to give consent?

 

[enoilgam]

But (and this might be off topic but yolo) how the fuck do you even prove consent was or wasn't given if you're hauled in front of the courts, would it not just become a he said, she said with no real evidence (assuming violence wasn't involved and no yelling etc)?

With many rape cases involving those in a relationship or those who know each other, it often becomes a "he said, she said" thing which makes it exceedingly difficult to prove in court.

Another issue you guys might want to consider is the concept of female-on-male rape. If a man is drunk to the point where he cant consent to sex, can a women be held responsible for rape? I'm not offering an opinion on this, but it's an interesting little issue which we looked at in Criminal Law at uni (prior to a few years ago, female on male rape was impossible as rape required "penetration" back then). It's a rare occurance and extremely difficult to prove, but it does happen.