The problem is that its about as silly as saying “don’t wear a miniskirt if you don’t want to be raped”. Yes its true that it would be less rape allegations if men never had sex with drunk women, there would also be less rape if women never went home with men they didn’t want to fuck, neither of those is a reasonable expectation though. You are responsible for your behavior when you are drunk, nobody ever argues that drunk drivers shouldn’t be punished because they aren’t in complete control of their actions, why should women get a pass? as long as shes not passed out and unable to agree to sex her consent is just as valid as if she was stone cold sober.
Marital rape is still rape, so consent isn’t any more implied than with a stranger. A spouse can just not be in the mood, and a stranger can be randy as hell for you.
As for turning her down; she’d be at least as likely to take that as an insult, especially if she figures out why. You are after all implying that she is one of the worst sorts of liars, or inferior to men ( since it’s never about the ability of men to consent to have sex when drunk; just the women ). And she can call you a rapist even if you never touched her or even met her; so you do have to worry about it anyway.
As for it being smarter to forgo sex; it’s always smarter for a man to forgo sex. The way our laws and social attitudes are right now a rational man would never have sex, or talk to a woman without a camera rolling **. But men aren’t sensible about sex, and that’s that.
** This is not meant as an insult to women in general. But our system is set up right now to generally allow the worst sorts of women to get away with false accusations of rape or even worse things like assault. How would women feel about men if rape were legal, even if they thought most men weren’t rapists?
I highly doubt your spouse would cry “marital rape” if you had sex with her when she was drunk but otherwise willing. Seriously.
So sorry, but I have to call bullshit on this whole paragraph. I think you’re just making a lot of assumptions, like she’d be insulted if you decided not to have sex with her because she’s too drunk to give consent, both legally and in point of fact. Why would she think you were calling her a liar if you said you wanted her to be sure she felt good about it? I sure wouldn’t. Also, I wouldn’t have sex with a drunk guy I just met either, no matter how hot he is or how horny he seems. This double standard is something you’re insisting on but that doesn’t mean it exists. It’s just a really bad idea to have sex with someone for the first time when they’re drunk, male or female. A man may feel like he can’t complain about it, lest other men call him a pussy, but he could very well feel taken advantage of if someone has sex with him when his judgment is impaired.
Huh? She can call you a flying pink unicorn too, if she’s a nut, but really, this sort of hysteria will get you nowhere in a rational argument.
It’s always smarter to forgo sex with people you don’t know who also can’t legally give you consent, whether you’re male or female. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want anyone to wake up in the morning and regret having sex with me because they feel like they weren’t in their right mind. This doesn’t have to be gender war nonsense. It’s just solid common sense.
Don’t you think, in the age of DNA tests and advanced forensics, that you’re being a bit paranoid here?
So why do these conversations always end up telling guys to wait if the woman they’re with is drunk? I never see people telling women not to have sex with drunk guys because they might wake up the next day feeling taken advantage of.
Really? You don’t think this is a false equivalence? You’re sober, you’re on a first date or at a frat party, and a drunk girl comes onto you. You avoid having sex with her, and this is somehow the same as blaming a woman for rape if she wears a miniskirt? Absurd. You are protecting YOURSELF here. Like I said, if you have a pre-existing sexual relationship with this woman, that’s different. If you don’t, just skip it. It’s the smart thing to do, for men or women.
Your comparison to drunk drivers is useful, but not for the reason you think. We prosecute drunk drivers because they shouldn’t drive. Would you give a drunk person the key to your car? No? Then why is it OK to let her unzip your pants? If you’re capable of showing some good judgment, you should. That’s all I’m saying.
If you read my whole post, you’d see that I said exactly that.
And I doubt that the average stranger would either.
I doubt that it would even occur to most men to blame anything but themselves or the drink itself.
It’s not “hysteria”; it’s the simple truth. Nobody cares if they accuse you of being a unicorn; they will if she accuses you of rape.
That IS gender war nonsense.
In terms of extralegal consequences, it doesn’t matter if a man is demonstrably innocent. The accusation is what does the damage; most people who think you are a rapist won’t even hear that you were shown to be innocent. Assuming they even care; it’s a major taboo among a lot of feminists to even admit that false accusations exist.
You have no idea what she might or might not think, because she is a stranger. So just don’t fuck her if she’s drunk, and you’re sober enough to decide against it. I would say the same to a woman dealing with a drunk man.
You don’t think any guy has ever woken up next to a woman and thought, “Oh god, what did I do?” and then felt really disgusting about it? Maybe he wouldn’t blame the woman, maybe he would just blame himself, but so would most women in the equivalent situation.
Sorry, I think it’s hysteria to say that a woman can accuse a man she hasn’t met of raping her and this is something men should worry about. Ridiculous, and I bet most men aren’t worried about it either. However, if you go around fucking drunk women you don’t know, yeah, you should worry.
I fail to see how. “Don’t have sex with drunk strangers regardless of your gender or theirs, if you can at all help it” is not gender war nonsense. It seems eminently sensible to me.
You speak with authority about what most men think, what a lot of feminists think, and what most people think. Your generalizations don’t jibe with what I know of men, feminists, or people, so I’m loath to accept your generalizations as being fact-based. This is GD, so anecdotes and your feelings on how things are aren’t particularly compelling.
Also, I don’t get why you’re even arguing with me. You seem to think men live in constant fear of false rape accusations, going so far as to say that men should worry about spousal rape accusations and accusations from women they’ve never touched or met, but my idea of just not fucking drunk strangers is unreasonable? It seems like the least precaution you could take to protect yourself in such a man-endangering world, no?
Rape does not necessarily imply that the rapist viewed what they did as rape. I remember reading about a woman who went out to dinner date with a co-worker, and after dinner, in his car, he had sex with her all while she was repeatedly telling him no and trying to get away, and eventually crying. After he was finished he took her home. She went to the police who told her that since it was her word against his, there was not much of a case, but suggested that she wear a wire and talk with him about it and hope he would incriminate himself. She did and he did describing the encounter with enough detail that the case was made, and eventually led to a conviction, but the rapist never thought what he did was rape.
I still think it is a good idea for all involved to get positive, preferably verbal, consent before *initial *sexual encounters. I am not suggesting verbal consent before each sex act each time, just the initial encounter with an individual. And I am not suggesting this ought to be law, only that it is a good idea.
I didn’t say anything about blaming, im saying your suggestion to men not to have sex with drunk women is as ridiculous as me suggesting to women not to wear miniskirts even if both would lead to less rape. You are protecting YOURSELF if you are never alone in a room with a man who is not family, you are protecting YOURSELF if you never go outside without being covered from head to toe, you are protecting YOURSELF if you never drink alcohol. That doesn’t mean any of those are reasonable suggestions, neither is “never have sex with drunk women”. Young single people mostly hook up at bars, parties and clubs, its simply ridiculous to expect no alcohol to be involved.
You fail to recognize that unlike miniskirts, alcohol is a mind-altering substance. The effects of a miniskirt and the effects of alcohol are not comparable, and to compare them is ridiculous.
Do you think the law should change, and that it shouldn’t be illegal to have sex with someone who is unable to give consent because they are drunk? I don’t know exactly how the statute is written, if both parties are drunk, does that cancel itself out? However, I think it’s safe to say, if you’re sober and the other person is drunk, you are capable of walking away, and you should. I really don’t care that it’s how most young people hook up. That doesn’t make it any less stupid.
But why don’t we hold the drunk person accountable at all for putting themselves in that position? If you get drunk and your judgment is impaired to the point where you think it’s okay to drive, we don’t give you a pass because you were drunk. If you’re drunk and not passing out but your inhibitions are a lot lower and you decide to have sex with someone, can you really claim to feel violated the next day when you made the decision?
The difference is I doubt it would occur to a man to accuse her of rape. And if the drunkenness=inability to consent standard is anything but a slam against men, he should be able to do so and be taken seriously.
Of course not; like I said, men aren’t reasonable about it. But they SHOULD be afraid.
It’s gender war nonsense because it’s nothing more than an excuse for a woman to accuse a man of rape. It’s a double standard.
You are distorting what I said; I said that men should be, not that they are. And it doesn’t matter if the woman is drunk or not. Avoiding drunken women won’t protect you.
We do - if it’s a man. If a man and woman are drunk and have sex, she can accuse him of rape and be taken seriously. He can’t. Nor can he claim that he “Couldn’t stop himself” from rape do to being drunk. Drunkenness is only an excuse for women.
Women don’t get raped because they wear miniskirts. (Women have a right to wear miniskirts without being sexually assaulted.) Women do get raped because men chose to have sex with them when the women are in no condition to give consent because they are drunk. (Men do not have a right to have sex with a woman when she is incapable of giving informed consent.) That is how these two situations are different.
I also believe a woman is just as guilty if she takes unfair advantage of a drunken male.
It matters to the really decent men. And it matters in a court of law.
It sounds more to me like the male is using her drunkenness as an excuse to have sex with her. That’s called “getting a girl drunk and taking advantage of her.”
Of course she is responsible for being able to take care of herself. She did a crummy job of it and got drunk. It was foolish but not criminal. What he is about to do is criminal.
You don’t think there’s a difference between getting behind the wheel of car, which gives you the power to kill multiple people, and having sex with another person, who also has to go along with you? I mean, if the car had to give consent to be driven, then your analogy would work. But it doesn’t, and so your analogy fails.
You can claim to feel however the hell you feel. You’ve never made a bad decision and felt really disgusting about it the next day? That, of course, doesn’t justify you crying “rape.” But then again, I’m not really talking about that either. I’m saying, for the person who is having sex with a drunk person, the smart thing to do is to decline, because you know that person has impaired judgment. I can’t believe this concept is getting so much resistance.
I think they should be more afraid of getting hit by a car while crossing the street. Do you think men should be more afraid of a false rape accusation, or a woman should be more afraid of being raped or sexually assaulted? Which is more likely to happen?
How in the world can you take the statement "“Don’t have sex with drunk strangers regardless of your gender or theirs, if you can at all help it” and turn it into a double standard, when it very explicitly is NOT a double standard. It’s the same standard for men and women. Unless you think telling anyone not to have sex, ever, is some sort of coded anti-male statement, which I think is absurd.
Then all men should just lock themselves in a monastery with cameras running 24/7 just in case a woman accuses them of rape… but that probably wouldn’t protect them from those evil, lying women.
It shouldn’t be, which I have said over and over and over.
And if they are BOTH drunk? Are they raping each other?
Of course in practical terms, what actually happens is that the man will be held to blame. That’s what “informed consent” in these matters almost always boils down to. Two 15 year olds have sex; the girl gets counseling for her “trauma”, the boy ends up a registered sex offender.
I was pointing out that a woman can accuse a man of rape whether or not she was drunk, so avoiding drunken women is no protection. And being found not guilty won’t undo most of the damage.
It’s also called “woman getting drunk to lower her inhibitions”. Or “horny woman gets drunk”. Your entire argument is based on the “men are predators, women are victims, sex involving men is assault” paradigm.
No one knows; estimates of false rape claims vary wildly. But given that it’s actively encouraged by some feminists, and that the woman faces little or no consequences most of the time I’d be surprised if it’s at all rare. Why wouldn’t she, if she felt like it? What has she to lose?
The double standard is that there are only legal and social consequences if you are male.
But it IS, which is the point I’ve been making over and over.
This is a legitimate question. What does the law state if both parties were too drunk to give consent? Surely there’s some legal standard in place for this eventuality. I don’t want your opinion; I want actual law here.
Again, I believe this is total bullshit. TOTAL. I work in a school, and I’ve seen girls pregnant by underage boys. The boy was NOT made a registered sex offender, not even close. This does not happen if both are unable to give consent. If you contend otherwise, you will have to provide a cite.
Please offer some credible evidence that “some feminists” encourage women to make false accusations of rape. I simply do not believe that this is a feminist agenda anywhere. I also disagree that a woman who makes provably false rape charges faces “no consequences.” What you seem to be ignoring completely is the other side of this, which is that rapes still go underreported because the process of reporting it is so alienating and traumatic, and admitting being raped is, for most women, more shameful that just copping to having made a bad decision about sex and letting it go. Your depiction of women making false charges left and right, including towards men they’ve never met, is a completely fabricated scenario that has only a passing relationship with reality.
I don’t necessarily believe that, but if it’s true, then men are just as responsible for that double standard as women are, because if a man expresses regret about having sex, the people he is most likely to receive negative feedback from are other men.
I sure hope you’re doing more to change it than just bitching about it on the internet and being ridiculously paranoid.
I feel a need to point something out here. If the woman is passed out on the couch or incoherant and a man has sex with her, that is rape. If you go home with a girl who is just a bit fucked up from drinking all night, that isn’t rape. You are still responsible for the bad decisions you make while drunk just as you would be if you decided to get behind the wheel of a car.
IOW, the “OMG what did we do last night?” scenario is generally not considered rape.
Really? You can’t see how “Don’t have sex with drunk strangers regardless of your gender or theirs, if you can at all help it” would be good advice, beyond consent? How about being sober enough to insist on a condom and use it properly, helping prevent STDs and unwanted pregnancy with a near stranger? How about knowing your (hetero) partner well enough to find out their views on abortion? How about avoiding some of the delightful by-products of fall-down drunk sex (erectile dysfunction, projectile vomit)?
Yeah and alcohol is often involved. But if I drink and make a stupid decision, I don’t blame the guy who “got a girl drunk.” I’m a woman, I choose to get drunk. If I make a dumb decision, I don’t blame a guy for “taking advantage.” I blame myself for choosing to get drunk and not knowing better. Now, if the guy wants to have sex and I don’t and I tell him that and he ignores me, he’s to blame, not me. But for me being so drunk that I think it’s a good idea to do something stupid like have unprotected sex, and then realizing in the light of day that I wouldn’t have done that sober? My fault.
Anyway, I get the feeling that this thread is devolving into another “How drunk is drunk” tangents when what I really want to get at isn’t about impaired judgment but when you have consent. On the most basic level, is just lying there when a person asks if you want to have sex (or mounts you) equivalent to consent?
I’m inclined to agree with what DianaG said here. I guess the rub comes with when is violence assumed? Most guys aren’t seeing themselves as violent but I’m sure a lot of girls have been in bad situations where they think the guy might turn violent and so they just give in. But then again, in a situation like that, even if the man asked, couldn’t “yes” just be a coerced “yes”?