I’m jumping in late so my apologies but there is the legal aspect of a drunk woman not being responsible for her actions that runs into a wall when a drunk man is involved.
I was at a bar with a friend a few weeks ago and 2 ladies invited themselves over. One of them was was obviously drunk. She hit on my friend in a not very subtle manner. She then went on to drink like her life depended on it and I’d say she was 2.0 when we left. I’d heard later they left with a couple other guys who were also drunk. I’m sure she got what she was after but legally she is entitled to cry rape.
The suggestion that women not get hammered is good advice because alcohol lowers inhibitions and reasoning skills. The author of the article was stating simple common sense.
Is it ethical to have sex with someone who is unable to consent? If they are passed out? If they are passed out due to legal medication (let’s say an epilepsy medication that causes extreme drowsiness)? If they are asleep?
I’m genuinely interested in your responses and, as stated before, assuming nothing.
In my example my friend and I were sober and walked away but the 2 men they picked up were probably drunk. And make no mistake, she was clearly the initiator. If both parties are drunk then who can claim rape?
Most people who have drunk sex are not being raped/raping. If they picked up men and had consensual sex, no one was raped and no one (unless they are trying to extort money from the other party or otherwise be an unethical shithead) is going to prosecute for rape.
If she “initiates,” he says he wants to have sex, and she says NO, and THEN he has sex with her, that is rape. If the same happens but she says she wants to have sex and he says no and she has sex with him, that is rape. If either has sex with the other person’s passed out body, that is rape.
Sex + alcohol does not = rape.
Sex - consent = rape.
It’s not advisable for anyone to get wasted in public (or private), but it isn’t part of the rape equation, which is pretty simple.
we already had a public case of a rape accusation after-the-fact that challenges what you just said. It was the videotaped public sex act where the women said she was raped after the video of it went on the internet.
So again, if 2 people are drunk the accusation of rape becomes suspect. Without corroboration of a 3rd party it is the word of one drunk against the word of another and neither has the capacity of reason because they were drunk.
A person can claim rape but as a legal matter what I’ve pointed out matters. So going back to the original author’s point do you now see why it’s really good advice not to enter into personal situations when drunk? The accusation of rape does not equal rape.
So you can argue about what is or is not rape but from a legal and personal standpoint the logic of the article stands as solid, useful advice.
And for the record, I wanted to point out the inaccuracy of this statement. I would say a great many women are raped while drunk. For you to suggest it is or is not consensual makes no sense at all and I think you should retract it going forward.
I clearly understand that many drunk women are raped while drunk. I do not believe it is possible that the majority or even, say, 1/4 of drunk sex acts constitue rape or any other crime. If you have any evidence to the contrary please provide it.
I have not once argued that “do not get super drunk” isn’t good advice. I have attempted to answer the initial question of why presenting this advice resulted in controversy. I would prefer not to rehash every argument I’ve made but I’m happy to clarify.
I am aware that accusation of a crime does not = a crime. This is a problem any time two citizens are alone and a crime occurs. Sometimes science is as or more useful than a witness. In some cases, a rape might not be medically detectable (or medically detectable as distinct from consensual sex). If you have two people who make conflicting claims and there are neither witnesses nor scientific evidence, that is a difficult problem indeed. I am not a lawyer or judge and do not have any real understanding of how things work at that point. I am interested, if anyone here is aware of protocol in situations like this.
I think the point is being missed here, though the digressions are interesting as well. It seems as though the initial question has been answered by several posters. Does anyone really feel unclear as to why this advice would be met with “outrage”/controversy?
Well then we’re really not at odds with what has been said. Rape is easy to define but hard to prosecute. It would have been good for the writer to include men in the article but alas, that didn’t happen.
There is a gulf of difference between person passed out cold on alcohol is raped, and two people at varying levels of conscious intoxication having sex.
Forgive me if this has come up before (it’s a long thread), but it basically comes down to one thing: there are crimes for which society and individuals tend to assign at least some of the blame to the victim for leaving him/herself open to it, or not doing enough to prevent it. Does this at all apply to rape? If your answer is “no,” then obviously the OP’s article is offensive.
Why can’t one acknowledge that some behaviors are more risky than others without bringing blame into the equation? I personally think that people who get hammered in public or around people who are not extremely trustworthy are taking a risk in doing so. That doesn’t make them culpable in the event that something undesireable occurs, only that their behavior is suboptimal in terms of avoiding said ill.
It’s not victim blaming to mitigate your risks from bad things happening to you.
When I go camping, when checking in to pick up my permits in the back country. When the park staff says “I noticed your camping on site 8A, just so you know there was a black bear sighting at site 10 two days ago, please take proper precautions etc …”
I don’t go flying off the handle because of it. I know not all black bears aren’t going to eat me in my sleep but some might.
We aren’t going to eliminate people from being predatory animals any time soon.
When you add alcohol to the equation there is the very common “I don’t remember” variable. It’s not as simple as asking if she said yes or not, she could have easily said yes and not remembered a damn thing. One time in my 20s I was so drunk I took a shot of Cuervo and windex, something I had absolutely no memory of until I tried to find out why I felt so horrible the next day. According to my friends at no point was I passed out or unconcious, simply drunk.
If she would have included men and women, I don’t think as many people would have been offended. I would not find the article problematic if it urged both men and women to moderate drinking.
I don’t think we are really at odds, either. I understand your point about the difficulty of establishing consent when both parties are drink, but I have (and most people I know have, and I’m guessing most of you have) had drunk sex that just felt clearly consensual to both parties.
I do think that explicit consent is ideal and that consent becomes impossible when one or both parties are drunk. I find this problematic and am not 100% sure how to deal with it in terms of all sexually active people, ideologically I mean. I do feel that I have had drunk sex that was clearly consensual and that my partner felt was clearly consensual.
In a mentoring context (I don’t have my own kids yet), I would tell a sexually active teen of either sex not to drink for this reason. I would also recommend not drinking to all teens for a variety of reasons. I’m not sure what I would say to an adult friend, but every situation regarding drunk sex that has been related to me has seemed pretty cut and dry (consensual or not). I don’t think that’s an adequate response and understand what’s problematic here.
But most people aren’t! I find this especially insulting to men, who are much more likely to commit these crimes, but as a group mostly not rapists. Saying “women, don’t get drunk or you will quite possibly get raped!” is insulting to everyone. It’s insulting to men because the majority of men would never rape and would help a too-drunk date get home safe as they would a too-drunk friend.
Mitigating risk in terms of assault results in an inability to live ones life freely. I’m thinking less of drinking and more of situations like running. Women may plan when to go out on a run based on when they are less likely to be assaulted. Let’s say I work until dark–I may never be able to safely run if we think about this stuff in terms of mitigating risks. Rape is a huge problem in the military, and I don’t think it’s a good solution to not allow women to fight for their country of they choose to do so.
“Teaching men not to rape” is an imperfect way of putting it and is reactive because of rape culture. I do think everyone can be taught about establishing clear consent. This would not eliminate rape entirely. There are plenty of violent offenders and/or people who simply lack empathy (1-4% of the population for the latter, I think).