I never really started drinking--occasionally I'll have a glass of wine with a meal, but that's pretty much the extent of it. And yeah, it changes everything.

It seems to me that most every culture has a communal, "social lubricant" drug of choice. Usually it's alcohol, but sometimes it's peyote, opium, marijuana, concentrated kava-kava, etc. Even the Eucharist probably began as a communal intoxication ritual. So there's something very old about going out and getting wasted with a group of buddies.

But I think it's also very dangerous, and I say this as a man. I don't want my judgment to be impaired. I like my judgment.

And the idea of alcohol as an aphrodisiac really creeps me out, because I have serious doubts as to whether a drunk person can consent. I have always felt--and this is apparently a minority view--that if you have sex with somebody who's drunk and not going into the situation with the specific idea in mind of having sex, you're guilty of rape as a point of ethics if not a point of law.

I had a conversation with a young woman about six years ago. Very young, very attractive.
She had gotten drunk with two out-of-shape fortysomething losers (who had previously expressed pathetic "I'd hit that" style sentiments) and had sex, pretty much in public (in a van outside), at a party. One of the drunk fortysomething losers took pictures. She swore it wasn't rape, but I knew she wouldn't have had sex with either of these guys sober. In any case, her boyfriend--who wasn't either of these men--was at the party and left in tears, and that pretty much ruined her reputation. Last I heard she'd moved out of state.

All of this is to say that I'm pleased but not surprised to hear that you don't drink. I don't know what that means in New York, but here in Mississippi, it's a pretty significant sacrifice not to get drunk, and not to hang around at social venues where everybody else is drunk. In my case it's particularly interesting, since I can't drive and won't ride with somebody who's intoxicated. A little alcohol with a meal, or a few hours before you drive--that's fine. But if my ride is doing shots or gulping rum and coke all night, I'm calling a taxi.

One thing I've learned is that in cities without a good public transportation system, virtually everybody--and by everybody I mean otherwise intelligent, responsible people--drives impaired from time to time and thinks nothing of it. I don't get that.

My, that was quite a ramble there, wasn't it. I guess the short answer is that I get it, and I agree, and I'm always surprised when I see anyone other than me saying this kind of thing. Because it seems to be almost universally accepted, even among principled progressives, that getting smashed on a regular basis is an essential part of life. Some days I really do feel like I'm surrounded by alcoholics, and I'm talking about people I otherwise love to death.

Cheers,

TH

I'm not convinced that the social implications of heavy drinking by Australians can be applied to Americans.

some people drink to be more attracted to people they otherwise wouldn't be. I think we have all been guilty of that one.

No.

Sometimes I have/do drink to be more social, but I have gone through periods of non-drinking, and I have taught myself to socialize both with and without alcohol. If you have never done this, I recommend trying. The best part about not getting smashed like everyone else is not doing anything that I will regret later on (not only sexual stuff, but the myriad other stupid things that are done when drunk). The other benefits include remembering the WHOLE night, and not having anyone clean up after you. I have never gotten drunk to be more attractive. To me, that just sounds like a bad idea. I’m not suggesting that everyone else has the same concerns, everyone has their own boundaries.

I take the work “Risky� differently than you do, Samhita. In Canada, the government recommends that women drink less than 9 drinks a week, and no more than 2 drinks per day. I think the limit for men is around 11 drinks per week. I’m not sure how they came up with these figures, since they don’t take into account stuff like body weight and family history, but I’m gonna go with them. Considering these guidelines, drinking 5-6 drinks is risky for your health (ignoring the personal safety aspects of it), especially if you do it regularly. Since most university age people who drink (drink to get drunk, not light drinkers) consume more than this, it is very concerning.

The drinking culture in the US and Canada is not alarming, but it is definitely something to think about, with respect to your own life and choices. I am very health-conscience, so if a scientific study (or series of studies, even better) suggests that something (not necessarily alcohol) is unhealthy -- or healthy -- for young women, then I change my behavior. I know this is not the general attitude of most people, though. This is one aspect of life that is completely in the control of the individual, so if you think you have problematic habits, change them! I’m talking about binge drinkers here, not alcoholics.

"She swore it wasn't rape, but I knew she wouldn't have had sex with either of these guys sober." - Tom Head

So she said it wasn't rape but you assume it was because the guys were, by your estimation, "out-of-shape fortysomething losers"? Interesting.

He doesn't say that exactly. It is implied but not really stated.

chem_fem - You are correct. I think the implication is there, too, but I was wrong to turn that into a statement in my reply. Thanks.

No worries, we're now even :P

Am I very bad person if I admit that a)there are things that I've done drunk that I wouldn't have done sober and b)I'm really glad that I did some of those things?

Mastermind wrote: "The best part about not getting smashed like everyone else is not doing anything that I will regret later on."

That makes me a little sad. Can you imagine what it would really mean to have no regrets? Doesn't that mean that you never tried anything?

I don't mean this as an attack on anyone's choices. I respect the choice not to drink. But I'm pretty happy with my own choices as well.

If there are things you wouldn't have done sober, DT, that you enjoyed doing anyway, then you need to rethink the way you are living your life.

This kind of attitude is often present in alcohol dependence, in which people feel they "need" alcohol for various reasons.

noname, I was trying to speak from the social framework that was in place. She considered them out-of-shape fortysomething losers up until the night they had sex, just like they considered her young and attractive. Obviously if they had been "young and attractive" and she had been an "out-of-shape fortysomething loser," it still would have been rape.

Am I really supposed to assume that she consented in any meaningful under these circumstances? When her boyfriend was present at the party? When one of the men had a camera and was taking photographs? When she (and this is why the above becomes significant) treated these guys like out-of-shape fortysomething losers, and they treated her like the goddess-of-the-week, and this dynamic had been in place for several years? Hello?

I mean, good on them all if it was a great consensual screwfest and they all wanted it. But it strikes me as strange that she would happen to choose a public place, when they had a camera handy, and when she happened to be plastered out of her mind, to have this consensual screwfest.

And she obviously wasn't very glad she did it later, even though she swore up and down that it wasn't rape, because--it being public, it being well-photographed--it basically destroyed her social life. ALL of her friends knew about it. MOST of her friends had seen the actual photos these wankers were waving around, and are probably still waving around to this day. (They're probably online somewhere.) So I don't buy the idea that what they did doesn't fit the moral definition of rape. As far as I'm concerned, it does--whether it fits the legal definition or not.

I haven't spoken a word to either of these men since. I saw one of these guys in a grocery store a few years back. He smiled and waved at me. I gave him a withering glare until he left my sight. I don't do that kind of thing often, but I had no reservations about doing it this time.

I'm sorry if any of the rest of y'all feel that two men getting a girl drunk and then taking advantage of the situation isn't rape. I'm sorry primarily because you're women yourselves, and it gives me depressing insight into the social dynamic my friend was operating from when she swore it wasn't rape. I still say it was. She would not have done this sober. Period.

Cheers,

TH

...and she basically admitted that she wouldn't have done it sober, too, which is another part of the dynamic I forgot to mention. Anyway, I'm still steamed about this years later. I knew this girl when we were in our mid-teens. She did this when she was in her early twenties. Got uninvited to all future parties. Lost her boyfriend. Lost the respect of all of her friends, who saw her do this with her boyfriend within earshot. Does that sound like consent to you?

Cheers,

TH

Sorry for the rants, folks. I guess I just expected universal hmms and agreement that this was a terrible situation.

I do not like these men. Not one bit.

Cheers,

TH

Hmmm. Were the two "fortysomething losers" (a blatantly prejudicial term, but whatever) also blitzed past the stars, or were they in full posession of their faculties? Their state of ebriation doesn't change the course of events, but it might affect their culpability.

Well, I agree with you that those men were disgusting sleazebuckets who took advantage of your friend--took advantage of her youth, and her inebriation. I think that's sleazy behavior, unethical and immoral and nasty.

But where I differ is that I don't think it's rape. I think there's a whole range of lousy, cruel, exploitative sexual behavior (because of gendered power dynamics more often perpetrated by men on women than the other way round) that isn't rape. I think what they did is more on a par with taking advantage of youth and inexperience in order to pressure someone to do something they wouldn't have done if left to their own devices. It's utterly repulsive. But in my opinion, not rape.

I've been there. I used to drink heavily, and I loved it. Honestly, I still do, and would still be doing it except for the fact that I got older and my body stopped being able to handle it. I had some wonderful times while I was wasted, really a lot of fun. I also ended up in bad situations, doing things I probably wouldn't have done otherwise, and if the men in question hadn't been manipulative creeps, I wouldn't have ended up doing them then. But I wasn't raped. I think there's a range of crappy behavior out there.

It's like this: a few years ago a man I dated pressured me into doing things I didn't want to do. I hadn't had anything to drink, but, you know, I didn't want to "hurt his feelings" or anything, he wouldn't take "no" for an answer unless I repeated it at least ten times, and even then he'd try to get around it. Ultimately, I consented, I wasn't raped--but he was a manipulative shit who took advantage of the fact that I was way out in an area of the city I didn't know, that I was socialized to be nice and he was socialized to get what he wanted without paying attention to others, etc. I wasn't drunk, but the dynamic felt similar. (And, the nice thing about being older, is that eventually I told him to get the hell away from me, I was leaving!)

David, it was a blatantly prejudicial term and I explained the blatantly prejudicial context of it. Please also bear in mind that I am still (justifiably, I think) very angry at these men.

I'm sure they were feeling a buzz, but my understanding of the situation is that they were nowhere near as tanked as she was. My impression was that it was two guys with a 0.05 blood alcohol level working over a young woman with an 0.1 or 0.15 blood alcohol level. They were sober enough to remember to take pictures for posterity, because they knew they were only getting it once and they wanted to be able to brag about it.

EG, thanks for this and for your story. I think I understand now, and I might be throwing the word "rape" around a little too casually. It does fall on the negative end of the moral spectrum, is "rape" the right word for it? I don't know. My gut feeling is that if the person can't consent, it's rape, period.

I remember going to a party. A young woman, who I had a crush on, wanted to snuggle early on. This was fine; she'd only had a little bit to drink, and while this was uncharacteristic, it wasn't uncharacteristic enough that I felt like I was taking advantage of her. Then she started doing shots and tried to snog. She hadn't done that before, and even in my 18-year-old state I didn't feel right about it, so I dodged her. Hugged her or kissed her on the cheek or forehead instead--I can't remember exactly, but something more consistent with our established physical boundaries--and she didn't try again.

Days later I got the feeling that she might have been insulted, but I wasn't willing to take advantage of her blood-alcohol level, not even to get something I badly wanted. We never did kiss, but I'm still very proud of myself for not taking advantage of her in that way, because I knew she wasn't sober enough to consent to that kiss.

Moral of the story? I don't know if there is one, except that heavy drinking screws up relationships in all kinds of different ways. I mean, the whole point of getting intoxicated is that it lets your guard down--which means that on some level, it interferes with your judgment. At what point does that become non-consent? And if it's non-consent, are we saying that one can have non-consensual sex without being raped? If so, what is our working definition of rape?

Maybe I just don't understand the process of intoxication well enough. I've never been drunk; I have a family history of alcoholism and am terrified of the idea. But this all strikes me as very complex and counterintuitive.

Cheers,

TH

TH,

I agree with you. My brother tells me about the way the guys he knows talk about "nailing chicks" when they're too drunk to say no.

I once had a police presentation on a subject where the officers blatantly said that if the person is impaired, they cannot consent because they are not in possession of their faculties. It doesn't matter if the other person is impaired as well. Proving it in court would be something completely different, of course.

In my opinion, the situation Tom Head describes was rape. And I'll go farther: everyone who judged the woman in question negatively because of what she did, is also guilty of wrong doing (though not on a level with rape.). That her reputation was destroyed by other's perception of what she did is as awful as what was done to her.
I don't see anything wrong with moderate intoxication for the sake of achieving a known behavior change, but we should be aware that (beyond moderate intoxication) the more intoxicated a person is, the less voluntary one's actions are. If an intoxicated woman wants to have sex with me, and I suspect she wouldn't while sober, I will say no.
It's possible I don't know what I'm talking about; although I often (last few years, anyway) have a few drinks at a party, I've never drank to where my memory of the previous night was significantly impaired. I've also never had sex while intoxicated, nor have I had sex with an intoxicated person.

"She did this when she was in her early twenties. Got uninvited to all future parties. Lost her boyfriend. Lost the respect of all of her friends, who saw her do this with her boyfriend within earshot. Does that sound like consent to you?" - TH

Negative consequences for her actions does not mean she did not consent. If she was unconscious or incapacitated, then I am fine with calling it a rape. Otherwise, she is just someone who regrets something they did while drunk. Also, she was in her twenties. The whole “taking advantage of her youth� argument seems a bit ridiculous.

I have no problem with you calling these guys sleaze-bags, you know those involved and I don’t. I do have a problem with accusations being thrown around when even the girl denies it. Personally, I respect her for taking responsibility for her actions.

noname, I'm not throwing around accusations. Throwing around accusations would be if I gave you some idea of who these people are, or were. I'm discussing an unidentified situation with unidentified participants. That is, by definition, illustrative--not accusatory.

I also find your standard of what constitutes consent to be, at the very least, generous towards predatory men. If the rule is that it's just "[regretting] something [the victim] did while drunk" if the victim isn't "unconscious or incapacitated," then clearly not only have I been too hard on men, but most state rape laws have as well.

It sounds like you think I should have kissed the girl!

Cheers,

TH

“It sounds like you think I should have kissed the girl!� - TH

“Days later I got the feeling that she might have been insulted� – TH

Sounds like she thought you should have kissed her, too. ï?Š

“I also find your standard of what constitutes consent to be, at the very least, generous towards predatory men. If the rule is that it's just "[regretting] something [the victim] did while drunk" if the victim isn't "unconscious or incapacitated," then clearly not only have I been too hard on men, but most state rape laws have as well.� – TH

Laws differ from place to place. I believe that grown men and women are responsible for their actions regardless of how much they drink. If this girl willingly participated that night, I can’t see how it was rape.

"noname, I'm not throwing around accusations. Throwing around accusations would be if I gave you some idea of who these people are, or were. I'm discussing an unidentified situation with unidentified participants. That is, by definition, illustrative--not accusatory." - TH

I forgot to say: You are right, here. I need to be more precise when I post. I'll try to do better.

Tom, I think you did right not to kiss the girl. I think sexual consent is one area where you want to err on the side of caution. What's the worst that could happen if you do? She clarifies her desire later and you get to make out with a clean conscience. Or maybe not, maybe the two of you never get together. Big deal. There'll always be someone else you meet whom you're attracted to.

I think there're lots of things that can affect one's judgment adversely: alcohol intake, youth (and in my experience, a woman in her early twenties is far less experienced and confident than men in their mid-forties), family issues. I guess the question is at what point is one's judgment so adversely affected that one's consent is no longer valid. I personally don't think drunkenness is at that point (unless someone's been spiking the drinks, which is another thing altogether).

But I still think that people have responsibilities to each other, so that a fifty-year-old man who meets a nineteen-year-old girl who wants to sleep with him should think damn long and hard about what exactly is going on, and whether he wants to be a party to that kind of thing. And less drunk people need to do what Tom and a guy I once had a crush on* did and think about what might be going on when very, very drunk girls start to behave in ways they wouldn't normally.

*I'm told I threw myself at him. He was ten years older than me--I was a teenager--and lived with his girlfriend. He was a decent man, and told me that he thought I was very attractive, but he was seeing someone, and then took me home in a taxi. Good guy. I don't think I realized how good at the time, but now I'm grateful, and I think of him fondly.

EG wrote “It's like this: a few years ago a man I dated pressured me into doing things I didn't want to do.�

Forcing or manipulating someone to have sex is rape.

Having sex with someone who is incapacitated is rape.

Why can men do whatever they want with women’s bodies?

In our society, the woman is blamed for being in a bad situation. That would be the whole reason for the original piece, which was women are more vulnerable when they have been drinking, and the more they drink, the more likely something is going to happen. Since it is always the woman’s fault that there was drunken and (im)possibly consensual sex, it is shameful to admit that it may be rape. You may have been a victim, but it is your fault that it happened. So, in TH’s situation, what would she have gained by saying that it was rape?

first, this whole dialogue going on... TH, right on for sticking with it... EG, props for getting out... Mastermind, great points... rilly...

which brings me to one thing Sami stated...

The dynamics of this are naturally different between men and women in mainstream bar culture, and although I think many parts of drinking culture are patriarchal (women need to loosen up, men get more aggressive etc.) this is an issue for all young people.

which i think ties in, too, with the way in which people's behavior changes after only one drink.

drinking is a social ritual in our society... and, beyond the simply drug effects of alcohol there's a coded behavioral shift that happens... perhaps it's a letting go (if i'm drinking, then i probably don't have much responsibility for the rest of the day, out of work, etc.)...

however, it also triggers certain other behaviors we've got coded into us, hence the situations like what TH described.

on a certain level, i don't think it's appropriate to entirely place the blame for our behaviors on outside forces. i mean, i've been out of my wits (on alcohol, among other things) enough times, but always recognized that my choices are mine...

however, certain circumstances and drugs will make us act out certain behaviors that we've been suppressing with good reason. behaviors that are coded into us by society (such as submissiveness and domination)... and it's important to recognize the power of these circumstances...

resultingly, it's important we take control of ourselves within those spaces, recognize the power or loss of control we're experiencing, work to change the dynamic and, after the fact, still support one another as human beings (as, it seems, TH has done for this woman...)

heights, blessings, and a good-morning ramble...

Flyinfur - No, I'm pretty cool with the way I live my life.

I'm certainly not alcohol dependent, in that I easily go for months without a single drink. But I enjoy alcohol. Why is that bad?

You wrote "If there are things you wouldn't have done sober, DT, that you enjoyed doing anyway, then you need to rethink the way you are living your life."

I simply want to know why. I'm not hurting anyone, and I'm enjoying myself. Why is that bad?

As for the rape/not rape case - I don't think that manipulating someone into having sex with you is rape. On the other hand, I don't see actions as either a)rape or b) good. I agree that there is a continuum of awful things that one human being can do to another.

i would just like to reiterate noname's point: it wasn't rape because it ruined her social life. it wasn't rape because the guy took pictures, or you thought the guys were unattractive, or because her boyfriend was in the house, or because it took place in a van, or because she was made to feel embarassed about it afterwards. it was rape because she either did not or could not consent.

it seems that there are a lot of people that think that women are incapable of having satisfactory sexual experiences that are casual or risque or are outside the loving-partner-in-bed situation. just because you think it was stupid, or it wasn't something you'd do, or it's something "good" girls don't do, doesn't mean she didn't willingly do it. this kind of paradigm (omg! they had sex in a VAN! a woman who was able to consent would never do that!) also takes away women's sexual autonomy.

i'm also really disturbed by the fact that her friends shunned her after the experience. the ostracisation is marginally worse if she was raped, but the slut-shaming is disgusting even in the event that she was able to consent. she shouldn't have been made to feel bad in either situation (except for the embarassing/cheating on her boyfriend part, if she consented). maybe she needed new friends.

slut-shaming is probably part of the reason young women drink anyway: they lose the shame connected to sex, and feel freer to do the things they are told are bad, such as enjoying hot casual sex like the guys do.

I think jm make lots of good points. If you want to have sex with two guys in a van that's a perfectly legitimate personal choice. It's regressive to think men are responsible for ensuring women make the 'correct' sexual decisions, just as it's regressive to blame women for men's adultery.

I think some of you are having the same basic problem. Suppose there are two verions of 'me'. The sober me who is pure and chaste, and the drunk me who wants nothing more than to screw like a rabbit. Who's to say that the sober me is the one making the correct decisions? How do we know the drunk version the 'real' me?

EG, Mastermind, puck: Thanks for the kind words. This was really a creepy-as-hell situation.

jm, leederick: This is stupid.

If the young woman in question wanted to have sex with the two men in a van--and it's not like they hadn't been trying unsuccessfully for years--then she would have been able to take advantage of the opportunity at a time when her boyfriend wasn't in the next building bursting into tears, and when they didn't have a friggin' camera handy to take pictures for their buddies. She was so humiliated by the experience that she moved out of the area. She was not "slut-shamed." She was humiliated, in much the same way that a rape victim would be humiliated. It was not an empowering experience for her.

And these guys hit their jackpot because they got her drunk. She wasn't unconscious, but to say that she wished it hadn't happened when she sobered up would be the understatement of the year. I'm not sure she even remembered any of it.

And she was not "pure" and "chaste" (i.e., sexually repressed) when she was sober; she was a sexually empowered woman. She did whatever the hell she wanted. Which did not include getting drunk and then getting sexually exploited.

I am really very depressed by these last two posts in the thread. I hope that if you're men, neither of y'all have kidded yourselves into believing that this sort of behavior isn't exploitative.

Cheers,

TH

“And these guys hit their jackpot because they got her drunk. She wasn't unconscious, but to say that she wished it hadn't happened when she sobered up would be the understatement of the year." – TH

She is a 20 something years old woman, and these men “got her drunk�? She says it wasn’t rape but you don’t believe her because you thought it was “creepy� and because her friends abandoned her afterwards (nice friends, BTW)? It is almost as if you don’t trust women to direct their own sex lives (or even their use of alcohol).

I also have to wonder; do you really think that regretting something the next day means you didn't consent to it the night before? I have done plenty of things drunk I regretted the next day (college was fun). I take responsibility for all of them. Are women not capable of doing the same in your eyes?

“She was so humiliated by the experience that she moved out of the area. She was not "slut-shamed." She was humiliated, in much the same way that a rape victim would be humiliated. It was not an empowering experience for her.� – TH

So sex has to be empowering or it is rape? That’s a new one to me.

Look, this woman made a bad choice while drinking (happens to the best of us) and later had to face the consequences. While I feel bad for her (despite what she did to her boyfriend), I am not going to pretend these “losers� raped her just to relieve her of responsibility for her own actions.

noname writes:
Look, this woman made a bad choice while drinking (happens to the best of us) and later had to face the consequences.

Since you don't know this woman or anything else about this situation, and I do, then I hardly think you're in a position to lecture me about how I should interpret all this.

In any case, you have made your position clear: Getting someone half your age drunk and taking advantage of the situation is a-okay; just blame the "slut" and move on. Got it. Remind me not to invite you to any of my parties.

Cheers,

TH

Why are these two guys responsible for protecting this woman's virtue?

Women aren't incapable of making their own decisions while drunk. If she wanted sex and so did then what's the problem? The adverse consequences were a result of a choice she made and the reactions of her friends and boyfriend.

“Getting someone half your age drunk and taking advantage of the situation is a-okay.� - TH

How did they get her drunk? They held her down and forced the bottle in her mouth?

“Since you don't know this woman or anything else about this situation, and I do, then I hardly think you're in a position to lecture me about how I should interpret all this.� – TH

I am using the information you provided to discuss the scenario you brought up.

I am amazed that more people on this site are not outraged by TH's lack of respect for this woman's sexual autonomy.

You're all really having this debate? I know it's taboo to challenge the worship of drunken sex as a rite of passage or unmitigated "good thing" or whatever the hell love affair our society has with it, but your judgment is impaired while intoxicated. You can't sign a legal document, you can't consent to sex, end of story. Without consent, it's rape. Frankly, it doesn't matter whether the woman in question calls it rape, the definition is ironclad on this front. Shame on you, noname, for co-opting the language of responsibility to defend this practice. Exactly what is she supposed to be responsible for? Either way, you are definitively not responsible if your judgment is impaired.

TH, your friend is sadly far from alone, one of my close friends got drunk at a college party and had sex with two men one after the other. She'd never had sex before, she was in fact planning on waiting because she didn't feel ready. This was well known. Afterwards she couldn't remember anything, not even whether a condom was used. She never thought to call it rape, though, so I suppose some people here would applaud her for her "responsibility" and would use her story to reenforce their disgusting notion of "morning after regret."

For the record, you can be prosecuted under the law for taking advantage of a woman sexually while she was drunk.

Tom – I regret that this discussion seems to have developed a nasty edge to it. I realize that while I am discussing a scenario more or less in theory, you are discussing someone you actually know, so that is probably a big part of it. Hopefully you understand that I am not saying these guys were blameless. I would, in fact, tend to categorize their actions as “slimy� at best. I am only arguing against using a rape label where I don’t think it belongs and limiting the sexual autonomy of women.

"For the record, you can be prosecuted under the law for taking advantage of a woman sexually while she was drunk." - TheGlimmering

In some places, yes. That is what I am arguing against.

"Shame on you, noname, for co-opting the language of responsibility to defend this practice. Exactly what is she supposed to be responsible for? Either way, you are definitively not responsible if your judgment is impaired." – TheGlimmering

I find it extremely dangerous to absolve people of responsibility for their own actions just because they are drunk.
.

On reflection, I think I'm being deliberatly extreme above because I really dislike the subtext of the thread.

I would agree that what they did was morally wrong and they shouldn't have done it - given that it was going to have nasty consequences for other people and they should be expected to be aware of that not aware of that. I think the parallel with rape is way over the top. If you can't consent to sex while drunk you equally can't consent to anything else - so a lot of shops and taxi drivers are committing theft and fraud.

But really, the whole idea that men “take advantage" of women, that no woman would want to be with an older man sober, that men who have consenting sex with a drunk woman are being "predatory", that alcohol warps women's mind so much that any sexual decisions they make under the influence aren't really theirs. Yuck. That mentality is so close to that of the "slut-shamers".

I have a question for clarification.

If a man is legally intoxicated and he has sex with a sober woman, can she be prosecuted for rape?

TheGlimmering, thanks for the backup. I am, frankly, depressed that I'm having this debate, too. I brought up the scenario only as an illustrative point. It had never dawned on me--never--that anyone here would turn around and give me a "how dare you" type response. This has been a real eye-opener for me.

I am personally involved. I am very, very angry. I am becoming more angry as I read stories from you, and from other posters, about similar situations that happened or almost happened, where women are being raped--or something very similar to it--and the best response our culture can manage is "girls gone wild! woo!"

I'm not sure I can muster up more to say in this thread. I used to think male ally "No Rape Day" style initiatives were silly, because of course all male allies of the feminist movement don't practice rape, and they oppose rape, and what the hell is "No Rape Day" supposed to mean. And now I'm beginning to get it. Men, by and large, are rat bastards. And they get women to propagate this stuff, too.

I'm not saying that you can't get drunk and have non-exploitative sex. I am saying that if someone gets drunk and doesn't plan on having sex, and someone takes advantage of that person's intoxication for the purpose of sexual exploitation, I don't see how that isn't rape. I really don't.

If it's non-consensual, it's rape to me. Maybe someone can explain to me where I can split that hair, but I don't really see it. There's consensual sex and there's nonconsensual sex. One is rape and one isn't. It isn't a very complicated concept.

And if we're going to say that there are forms of nonconsensual sexual exploitation that aren't rape, I sure as hell don't want to hear about how they're expressions of "sexual autonomy." Being exploited when your cognitive faculties are impaired, when that's not what you have in mind at all, when you find it painful and humiliating and degrading, is not sexual autonomy. It's sexual slavery. Good grief, people. Good grief.

Cheers,

TH

This is starting to get a Duke thread (runaway train) vibe to it, and we are debating the unfortunate circumstance of someone TH actually knows and cares about, so I think it would be best if I bow out at this point. I have already laid out my position here, and barring misunderstanding or insult, I see no reason to continue this discussion.

TH – I hope this has discussion has not hit too close to home for you, although I fear it has.

EO:

I can't find a copy of any relevant statutes, but I believe that is the case, yes. Social factors generally prevent men from pressing that charge, however, and in the case of mutual intoxication, the courts generally default to protecting the woman.

Ok, thanks for the clarification Zed. I appreciate that... and for clarifying about mutual intoxication.

"and in the case of mutual intoxication, the courts generally default to protecting the woman."

Isn't that sexist?

my point was not that she wasn't raped. my point was that all the other information TH included--that her boyfriend was inside the house, that it happened in a van, that the guys were unattractive, etc-- is IRRELEVANT to the question of whether she was raped. TH's ideas, and the ideas of her so-called friends, about how she should have acted are also IRRELEVANT. the only relevant question was: did she consent at the time? (and from the story, it seems like she did not.)

it also seemed like to me was that TH believed that no woman would do what this, if given the choice--which is a separate issue from rape, but one i think it also important in this conversation. this type of judgment is also a method of controlling women's sexual behavior.

and TH, you say she was later excluded from parties and social gatherings. how is this not slut-shaming? this sounds like humiliation imposed on her for either being raped, or willingly having sex with these men. either way, it's horrible.

i want women to be able to claim their sexual experiences for themselves. i don't want them to be so drunk that they can't give consent, but neither do i want them to have to use the excuse "well, i was drunk" to excuse perfectly normal sexual behavior that they are afraid to admit that they enjoy. you know, in case people stop inviting them to parties because they had sex with unattractive guys. maybe if we allowed women sexual autonomy, they wouldn't feel the urge to drink as much. it CAN be a dangerous situation to be in.

"Plus the article fails to mention how some people drink to be more attracted to people they otherwise wouldn't be. I think we have all been guilty of that one." - Samhita

Sorry to post once more. I thought it might me good to tie in the original post with our discussion. Does this apply?

noname, you're right about one thing: This did hit too close to home. I need to back away from this thread.

Cheers,

TH

TH - Same here. Sorry again that I hit a nerve.

It's okay. Sorry if I did the same.

Cheers,

TH

You didn't. I just get a bit intense when I argue.

I'm not halfway through the thread, so this might have been dealt with, but:

EG, shame on you! Shame on pretty much everyone I've seen in this thread (so far), but especially you since you're almost always "spot-on". :(

The situation that Tom Head described is CLEARLY rape. In most states, it's LEGALLY rape, too, and for good reason - it's a textbook example of substance abuse rape. I am this close to vowing to leave this site and never return - though I doubt I'll be missed, at least I won't feel like I've been wallowing in shit.

Fuck this. I haven't finished this thread and I'm not going to.

I'm going to go to a bar and find a woman who's had a bit too much to drink. Then I'm going to lure her into my van and have sex with her. The van is ideal because in the time it takes to get to a motel, she might sober up enough to be able to consent - and yet refuse to do so. I'm also going to take pictures and use them to humiliate her later, even when she explicitly wants me NOT to show the pictures around town.

THEN I'm going to come on here for reassurance that I'm not a rapist. I know you empowered ladies and understanding men will be happy to give it to me.

I feel sick. I'm outta here. If this is feministing, then I want no part of it.

Thanks, EJ--that's not sarcasm, that's me thanking you for singling me out because you normally think more highly of what I say.

I have to say, I've been turning and turning these kinds of situations over in my mind, and I'm less comfortable with saying "No, that's not rape," than I was before. I still think there's a difference between a man who hears "no" and continues and a man who hears a drunken "mmmmalllrighty" and thinks "score, she'd never have said yes if she were sober." But on the other hand, you're right, doing the latter is pretty sickening, and legally and morally rape. I think part of my ambivalence comes from my memories, fond and not-so-fond, of being drunk, and being unwilling to consign everything I did to the state of "not being able to consent."

Please don't abandon feministing. I always enjoy your posts, even on those occasions when we disagree--you write well, and clearly, and, as in this case, you always make me rethink my position.

Hmm. I guess what I'm saying is that there're two kinds of doing things drunk that you wouldn't do sober--at least, for me, there were. There was the stuff that I didn't really want to do. But there was also the stuff that I kind of did want to do, was ambivalent about, was too self-conscious to do, and being drunk alleviated the self-consciousness. That kind of thing. But then, the difference between those two things is clear, and unless one is of the opinion that women are evil conniving bitches who live only to trap men with their lies (and I, of course, am not), the one wouldn't affect the fact that the other is rape.

I know people of both genders who love the prospect of going out, hitting the bars, getting drunk, and "getting wild." I can only assume that this is what EG is thinking of--a very specific, romanticized idea that really had nothing to do with the example I gave, but might have triggered some thoughts or memories in that general direction.

But the sad truth is that we live in a culture where it is apparently perfectly socially acceptable to use alcohol as a way to "grease the wheels"--in other words, impairing judgment so that one can have sex without full consent. I mean, isn't that what it amounts to? It's one thing to go--in the words of the Jimmy Buffett song--"why don't we get drunk and screw?" But it's another thing entirely, I think, to get someone drunk as a way of getting into that person's pants. There are probably predatory and non-predatory connections between alcohol and sex.

Personally, as I suggested in the post above, I'd never even kiss a girl for the first time if she was drunk. The two men who did what they did are, to my way of thinking, monsters. I have never spoken to them since the incident. My only contact with either of them was when I ran across one of them at a grocery store, and glared silently at him until he left my sight. I don't think I've ever done that to anybody before or since.

Cheers,

TH

I'll say one other thing: Remember all those antifeminist trollers we used to have (thanks for booting them, Jessica!) who thought the real tragedy of rape was all the "false accusations"? How much you want to bet that the specific cases they have in mind involved alcohol, and an impaired woman who was not able to rationally consent? I'm just saying.

This is all a very big, very ugly, very complicated question. The specific case I cited was one that I cited as a baseline--an obvious example of so-called "ambiguous" alcohol-based rape from which we could proceed. I didn't expect anyone to actually pipe up and say "How DARE you?!" That caught me off-guard.

Cheers,

TH

EJ, I count 9 posters (including you and I) that clearly indicate they think the incident Tom Head described was rape. I count 3 others who seem to think it was bad, but not rape. You agree with the majority, but you're leaving? I don't understand.

"I can only assume that this is what EG is thinking of--a very specific, romanticized idea that really had nothing to do with the example I gave, but might have triggered some thoughts or memories in that general direction."

Yes, sort of. It was really more of an attempt to move from the particular to the general and back to the particular, and trying to sort those things out. Perhaps more than that as well, though. It was also that I've been in similar positions to your friends (though nothing that extreme, thank goodness), and, like her, I didn't experience those things as rape. It was in part about trying to reconcile your arguments--which make sense--with my lived experience, which includes experiences akin to your friend's as well as experiences a lot more fun than that.

Meh. I'm back, either I'm a glutton for punishment or I just calmed down and curiousity got the better of me. You decide.

EG, I'm sorry I flew off the handle. I did notice that later in the thread you "backed out", as it were. It just sort of stung because, 9 times out of 10, I agree with your posts so wholeheartedly that I have to double-check to make sure that's a 'G' down there and not a 'J'!

I realize that this is a very polarized issue. TH can't be "neutral" because he knows the young lady in question; EG can't be neutral because she has fond memories of drunken capers. Fair enough.

However. There are VERY clear guidelines about consent and the lack thereof while intoxicated. Now, if a woman (or man) wakes up the morning after and feels that she/he wouldn't have done anything differently had they been sober, well, I'm a firm believer in after-the-fact consent.

In the same way, if you sign a legal document while drunk, it's not binding since you could not give consent. Yet if, after sobering up, you still agreed with the document and were glad that you signed it, well, I think the spirit of the contract is binding (if not the legality - I'm not sure how that would play out in courts but it's irrelevant.)

In other words, you can CHOOSE to consent to sex after the fact. This is why EG was not "raped" - even though she might have been unable to consent when she had sex, she WAS able to consent the morning after... and she did.

In the case of Tom Head, the young woman COULDN'T consent at the time... and DIDN'T consent afterwards.

The fucking insane argument that Tom Head's details of the men's behavior was "irrelevant" is, well, fucking insane. TH mentioned the men's sadistic behavior in spreading the photographs around not to PROVE she was raped, but to point out that the kind of men who will humiliate a girl are also, possibly, the kind of men who will rape a girl. It was important circumstancial evidence.

On a side note, I am fucking sick of the nitpicks on this site. Saying "I'm not saying it was rape, I'm just saying that those details don't, necessarily PROVE it was rape" is pointless. Go fuck off and join a debate team if you want to argue "point of order"s. The information is relevant and any statement to the contrary is a blatant attempt at sideswiping the argument.

Ulg, I appreciate that you want me to stay, but my concern is not that a few posters think two men forcing themselves on a drunk girl half their age and humiliating her afterwards isn't rape. My concern is that these few posters are relatively unchallenged. And at a feminist site, of all places!

Nevertheless, I will challenge.

First and foremost, if a person isn't sober, they can't consent to sex. Period. Consent to sex may only be given by an adult of sound mind and unimpaired judgment. If you're too impaired to drive, sign legal documents, or marry, you're too impaired to consent to sex.

Corollary: One CAN consent to sex "after the fact". This is NOT the same as "morning after regrets" - "regrets" implies a reversal of consent which is not possible. If the sex was consensual when it occurred, it cannot be made "unconsensual" afterwards. However, if the woman couldn't consent at the time (due to impaired judgment), she can choose to consent afterwards.

Second: Defending a woman's "right" to be raped as "sexual autonomy" is sickening. Noname, you should be banned.

Third: Saying that the men weren't guilty because they didn't "get" her drun kby holding her down is immaterial. First off, they KNEW she was drunk and that she could not legally consent to sex. Further, since drinking impairs judgment, a person who has been drinking a little can sometimes be easily coaxed into drinking more than they intended to. Many rapists use this tactic to further inebriate women.

Fourth: In the specific case of TH, since the woman could barely remember the incident later, she was clearly inebriated and therefore unable to consent. Even if she DID "want it" - her judgment wasn't unimpaired and those men knew it. The fact that they took advantage of her state makes them, as TH pointed out, monsters.

That he should have to explain or defend this sickens me. I expect more from this feminist site. Where are all the readers? After all the ambiguous rape cases that have been discussed here, is it really so hard to say "Inebriation = Rape"?

Maybe Glimmering was right. Maybe drunken sex is considered sacrosanct. But it shouldn't be. This wasn't a college kegger - it was rape.

You know what, EJ? You just broke it down really well for me.

That's the nice thing about having similar ways of thinking...

LOL. I'm just glad someone actually READ my post! :D

I'm always noticed that a one-sentence flame post gets more attention than a six paragraph discussion post. I'm too wordy. (sheepish grin)

But I'm glad we can still be buddies. It was easier to understand your position when I admitted that we're all coming from different paradigms. To be honest, I'm not a heavy drinker (bad livers in the family, so best not to start!) so I don't have any good "drunken sex" memories. So it's a bit easier for me to rail against it... :)

Mmm. More to say.

To continue a thought:

"The fucking insane argument that Tom Head's details of the men's behavior was "irrelevant" is, well, fucking insane. TH mentioned the men's sadistic behavior in spreading the photographs around not to PROVE she was raped, but to point out that the kind of men who will humiliate a girl are also, possibly, the kind of men who will rape a girl. It was important circumstancial evidence."

If, on the other hand, the men had been kind, understanding, and generally gentlemanly about it, you could assume that maybe, just maybe, the whole thing had been a big mistake and they hadn't realized that the girl had been too inebriated to consent.

In a case like THAT, the act might be legally rape, but the spirit of rape (as it were) would not be present.

Yet another reason why TH's included details were not only relevant, but VERY relevant.

EJ, thank you for your long posts. I agree with and appreciate your points about the men's sadistic behavior in spreading the photos around and the other relevant details.

EJ, thanks for this. I'd been doing a lot of soul-searching, trying to figure out if I was looking too hard at this particular situation and being uncharitable towards people. Reading your posts makes it clear to me that I was right to begin with and shouldn't have backed down. Not when we're talking about something like this. It won't happen again.

I kept trying to get folks to tell me what non-consensual sex was, if it wasn't rape, and it frustrated me that the folks defending these men--these total, anonymous strangers--were unwilling to say. It was as if, as you said, drunken sex were some kind of holy cow and I'm just not supposed to go there in asking whether it might at least sometimes constitute rape.

And the photographs bit was really what settled it for me. If she had been able to consent, they would have had no reason to get photographs for posterity--they could reasonably assume that they might have sex with her again. But by taking photographs, they were basically conceding that there would be no after-the-fact consent, so they were getting all they could out of the situation while she was good and drunk.

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that noname should be banned, though I get angry reading his/her earlier posts, which were much more accusatory towards the victim, and downright hagiographic when it came down to these two monsters, than the later posts were. I'm trying very hard to chalk that up to an aggressive devil's-advocate position. But it does bother me that for most of the thread, despite the fact that these folks were outnumbered, the clear "community view"--the view held by the most posts (noname, jm, and leederick), and by the most aggressive posts--was that this situation, which they didn't even know anything about, was most definitely not rape, and how dare I interfere with the young woman's sexual autonomy by suggesting that it might have been.

I think the hostility of the reaction to my story should give me some clue as to why so few rapes are reported. Because women do get chewed out. Women do get "slut-shamed." Are you sure you didn't want it, the question goes, and even as a man I can imagine demonizing myself and second-guessing myself over and over again. After all, I backed down a little--and I'm not even the victim.

This has been a very educational thread for me. Thanks, y'all. And especially you, EJ, for setting me straight again.

Cheers,

TH

this is why i continue to argue on this thread: i am uncomfortable with the fact that TH says this woman got raped when she herself says she was not.

the first problem is that, other than her own testimony, the only evidence that she was raped is circumstantial--which is important, but still only circumstantial, and seen through TH's point of view. by the way, his evidence included not just the guys' behavior, but that it happened in a van, and they were unattractive, which are not things that would indicate that they were definately rapists.

in a second, separate issue, TH's description of the situation also seems to be negatively judgmental, and, imho, undermines a woman's autonomy--the exact opposite goal of someone who is a feminist. maybe TH isn't like that; i don't know him, obviously. but that's how i read it, maybe because this same thing has happened to me.

third, and most important, ****when a man can decide that a woman was raped, even though she says she wasn't, we come dangerously close to a place where a man can say she was not raped, even though she says she was.****

i guess my default is to take the woman at her word.

i'm not sorry i'm nitpicky. i guess i get that way when the subject is something as important to me as feminism, feminist philosophy, or my own fucking sexual autonomy. nitpicky is what gives us feminist analysis. it's what allows us to have intelligent discussion.

and "the spirit of rape"?! wtf? if she did not give, or was unable to give consent, it was rape, no matter what condition his fucking "spirit" was in. again, **her lack of consent is what made it rape,** not the pictures, not their immorality, not the guys' unattractiveness, not the opinion of anyone on this site.

TH and i cross-posted, but i'd like to point out: i never said it was "most definitely not rape"! if she was unable to give consent, because she was drunk or whatever, she was raped! this has been my stance the whole time. can i not write coherent sentences, or are you just not reading what i write? i think these men were abhorrent, most likely rapists, but i still stand by my idea that a woman should decide for herself whether she was raped.

sorry if i'm being annoying, but my third sentence on this thread was "it was rape because she either did not or could not consent." please actually read what i write before tearing it apart.

"First and foremost, if a person isn't sober, they can't consent to sex. Period." - EJ

So she raped them too?

"Defending a woman's "right" to be raped as "sexual autonomy" is sickening. Noname, you should be banned." - EJ

I never defended anyone's right to be raped. Would a right to be raped even be possible given the definitions of the two words?

"Further, since drinking impairs judgment, a person who has been drinking a little can sometimes be easily coaxed into drinking more than they intended to." - EJ

What is she, 10 years old? If she takes a drink, she takes a drink. This is no one else’s responsibility.

"In the specific case of TH, since the woman could barely remember the incident later, she was clearly inebriated and therefore unable to consent." - EJ

I agree. If she was so drunk that she blacked out, that would fit my idea of "incapacitated", and I would therefore consider this a rape. Unfortunately, TH doesn't seem sure if she blacked out or not. Without this key information, I just can’t call this rape.

EJ – We aren’t very far apart in this argument. You think consent cannot be given if someone is inebriated. I think consent cannot be given if someone is incapacitated. It is really only a matter of degree.

“And the photographs bit was really what settled it for me. If she had been able to consent, they would have had no reason to get photographs for posterity--they could reasonably assume that they might have sex with her again.� – TH

Some people take sexual photos of their spouses or significant others. I think you misunderstand why.

“I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that noname should be banned, though I get angry reading his/her earlier posts, which were much more accusatory towards the victim, and downright hagiographic when it came down to these two monsters, than the later posts were. I'm trying very hard to chalk that up to an aggressive devil's-advocate position.� – TH

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

I don’t think I accused the woman of anything other than getting drunk and having sex where her boyfriend could find out. Frankly, I don’t care if she drinks or who she has sex with, so I have difficulty even calling it an accusation (declaration might be more appropriate).

I certainly did not canonize the two men involved. I said that I didn’t think they raped her, but what they did do was “slimy at best� and that I had no problem calling them “sleaze-bags�.

“I think the hostility of the reaction to my story should give me some clue as to why so few rapes are reported. Because women do get chewed out. Women do get "slut-shamed." Are you sure you didn't want it, the question goes…� – TH

The thing is, no one had to ask her if she wanted it. She said it wasn’t rape.

I am sorry to have jumped back into this, Tom, but I think both of my return conditions (insult: EJ / misunderstanding: TH) were met and needed to be addressed. I already said this in my response to EJ, but I will say it again because I think it is important: We aren’t very far apart in this argument. You think consent cannot be given if someone is inebriated. I think consent cannot be given if someone is incapacitated. It is really only a matter of degree.

jm writes:
third, and most important, ****when a man can decide that a woman was raped, even though she says she wasn't, we come dangerously close to a place where a man can say she was not raped, even though she says she was.****

A man can't, jm. Nobody but the victim can, and most of the time even the victim can't. Your imaginary epidemic of false vicarious rape accusations smells no different from the imaginary epidemic of false non-vicarious rape accusations that the antifeminist brigade kept railing on about.

We wouldn't be having this conversation if she had signed over power of attorney while drunk, but there is apparently something mystical and magical about sex that makes it okay for men to get a woman drunk and then take advantage of the fact.

You like to ignore the "irrelevant" details because you've already made your mind up, but the fact that she moved, that the photographs were taken, and so forth are very important, whether you dictate that they are or not.

I am not saying that every time that a woman gets drunk and has sex, it's rape. I am not saying that I am 100% sure that the word "rape" is the best indicator of this situation, though I wonder what else one is supposed to call non-consensual sex. I am saying that shuffling all women who are sexually exploited while drunk into the category of "women exercising their sexual autonomy" is an insult to these victims.

She was humiliated. Her relationship with her boyfriend and life in her community were destroyed. These men, last I heard, got off scot free. And they will continue to. Hell, if I named names, they could probably sue me successfully for libel. There's nothing I can do about any of this. I recognize that. There's no need to rub it in.

But I am not going to sit here and pretend that nothing bad happened, or that I am doing anything wrong by believing that something bad happened.

You seem to believe that if she wasn't willing to say that she had been raped, or press charges, then she must have enjoyed it. You imagine a ludicrously unlikely world where men can file rape charges on behalf of unwilling women, but I can show you a world where women are raped and beaten and threatened every day and cover it up because they feel like they ought to. I don't know how many of those situations involve alcohol. I do know that I'm not willing to write them all off under the phrase "sexual autonomy."

Cheers,

TH

"[She] had sex, pretty much in public (in a van outside), at a party. One of the drunk fortysomething losers took pictures. She swore it wasn't rape, but I knew she wouldn't have had sex with either of these guys sober. In any case, her boyfriend--who wasn't either of these men--was at the party and left in tears." - TH

Why didn't anyone help her? Can we assume no one else there thought this was rape either?

A man and a woman, both very drunk, hook up after last call and stagger to his/her place for a drunken romp in the sack. The next morning when they sober up, they both realize that they never would have done it if they weren't so loaded.

As both were too drunk to legally consent to sex, are they both guilty of rape?

"Risky" is just jargon used to instill fear? I'd say drinking 10 drinks in one sitting is pretty risky. You'd be taking a risk just trying to stand up and get to the toilet!

The contract/rape analogy is flawed. If you sign a contract consent needs to be 'valid' because government will be using its power to enforce the contract in the future. In rape consent determines whether someone has committed a crime.

"We aren’t very far apart in this argument. You think consent cannot be given if someone is inebriated. I think consent cannot be given if someone is incapacitated. It is really only a matter of degree."

I'm not sure it is a matter of degree. If you're incapacitated you can't consent. If you're inebriated your consent isn't valid. That's a difference in kind.

though I wonder what else one is supposed to call non-consensual sex.

Sexual misconduct? Third-degree rape? Just thinking out loud here.

apparently, TH is incapable of actually reading my posts, or just incapable of understanding them. maybe he's drunk. (sorry, had to say it.)

listen, all those factors- age, attractiveness, location, photographs- are aggravating factors, but they can also be present at non-rapes. they are what made TH mad, what made him think it was rape. but she said it wasn't rape. REGARDLESS of whether she was raped, the inclusion of these factors shows TH's values.

this might be an extreme example, but let's say it's 1958. a young man and woman have sex, and somehow we know this. the man is lynched. why? he's black, she's white, and we all know a white woman wouldn't willingly have sex with a black man.

i think we should ask the woman if she was raped. TH thinks we should judge the circumstances by whether we think would have willingly participated ourselves, or if this is something white women usually do. i don't think this part has anything to do with whether she was really raped. she may have been, she may not have been. but TH's opinion, to me, is irrelevant.

another, less extreme example: a woman has sex with two guys in a band, after about 2 beers. 2 other guys watch, once in a while making stupid comments. they're in a political punk band, but they're definitely sexist, not like anyone she's ever had sex with before. she'll never do this again. it seems from the description, like this might have been a degrading situation. was it rape? her open-relationship boyfriend back home thinks it might be. but what are the relevant factors here? i'm saying i wasn't raped. but i was made to feel embarassed about it afterwards by people who were not there, who were friends. and now maybe some benevolent guy wants to step in and tell me i was raped, but didn't know it.

i'm not saying this is an epidemic. but it's been done to me, and i think TH is doing it now.

TH says: "Nobody but the victim can, and most of the time even the victim can't."
and so when the victim can't, TH steps in? sorry, no. you can believe it's probably rape, but it's up to her to make the final determination. if she needs help with that, and she's a non-impaired adult, you have to wait until she asks. otherwise, keep it to yourself.

all this drunken sex women have is only a problem if they think they're having a problem. i know it's hard to step back and watch people do things you think are self-destructive or risky, but they are the ones who have to make the determination. please allow women to make the determinations for themselves.

I really didn't want to take a big role in this discussion, but after EJ spoke up, I now feel lazy.

This is stupid. There's plenty of women who are in abusive relationships who deny the fact because "he loves me" until things get so bad that they can't deny it anymore. Is it impossible that women are brainwashed by society into thinking things are always their fault when they aren't in the same way?

Yes, it is possible to get someone drunk, using the method used on my friend at his graduation party. Just keep refilling the cup. It's weird how they often don't even notice. But my friend had never been more than a little tipsy before, and he was throwing up that night.

Sexual autonomy? A year ago, I had sex with a boy after a party, on the couch in the living room. I wasn't drunk. I'd had two drinks much earlier in the evening, but was completely sober when the incident occurred. He knew I was fine, and my friends knew I was fine. We continued to have sex a few times a week for the next couple of months. THAT is sexual autonomy. Being so embarrassed by a drunken incident that you move to another STATE is NOT sexual autonomy.

At the same time, I have had drunken sex with someone: my boyfriend. We both got drunk and had sex, but I'd had sex with him the day before, and I did again the day afterwards. I would have consented either way. If people in this thread feel that they would not have consented to things they did when they were drunk when they were sober, maybe those people need to look at their own sexual autonomy.

Lastly, I'd like to share a conversation almost verbatim that I had with my friend after class a couple of weeks ago:

Me: "So what happened?"
Her: "I think we had sex."
Me: "You think?"
Her: "Well... I remember a little bit, but I don't remember much else. Like, I don't remember how I hurt my elbow, right? He's so sketchy. He apparently wasn't even drunk."
Me: "Wait... so he just took advantage of you?"
Her: "Pretty much. I was telling him how I would never have sex with someone outside a relationship, and even then, the first time wouldn't be while we were drunk. So he KNEW."
Me: "Are you ok?"
Her: "I guess. I think I wanted it at the time. He's just so SKETCHY! My friend said he came out of the room and started hitting on her."
Me: "Ew."
Her: "He seemed like such a nice guy, too..."
Me: "I don't think they wear signs saying that they're horrible people."
Her: "They should."

Rape or not, this is not acceptable behaviour, and it shouldn't be filed under "sexual autonomy." My friend was trying to hide it, but she was genuinely upset. At the same time, women should be free to do whatever they want while they're sober so this area isn't so grey.

Noname, you're a fucking idiot.

It doesn't MATTER that no one tried to help the girl. If the whole fucking town was out there cheering on the guys, it wouldn't matter. If the incident was broadcasted live on TV, it wouldn't matter.

In the same way, it doesn't matter whether the girl wore pink that night or if she wore blue! You're introducing irrelevancies!

She was intoxicated. She cannot, legally, give consent to have sex. Period. ANY sex with her without her consent is rape. She may choose to consent afterwards, yet she did not.

Your position that "well, if people didn't help, it must not have been rape" is stupid.

"Your position that "well, if people didn't help, it must not have been rape" is stupid." - EJ

I didn't say that. I asked:
"Why didn't anyone help her? Can we assume no one else there thought this was rape either?"

"Noname, you're a fucking idiot." - EJ

Please lay off the personal attacks. They are not constructive.

jm, you're an idiot, too.

You want me to explain what the "spirit of rape" is? Jesus Christ. Okay, here goes.

You have consensual sex with a complete stranger. You find out later, after the fact, that she was 15. (She doesn't look it.) Technically, you have committed rape - that's a fact and you can't get around it.

However, you didn't mean to commit rape! You thought she was old enough to give consent. This is called a "good faith" mistake. In other words, you did violate the letter of the law, but not the spirit. Hence, my coined term "spirit of rape".

I explained this very carefully - you just choose not to understand.

To continue, you state that TH can't say a woman was raped if SHE doesn't say she was raped. Wrong again. In the example of your hypothetical 15 year old partner, she can say all day long that "it wasn't rape" but you're still going to jail.

TH said that the woman distinctly said that she hadn't wanted to sleep with the men and that she was devastated by the incident - ergo, "after the fact" consent was not present. Consent at the time was not possible, as she was drunk. That is rape. The fact that she doesn't want to label it as that for whatever reason is immaterial. A rape by any other name is still rape.

I call it as I see it Noname. I'm not going to apologize for calling someone an idiot it they say idiotic things.

You're trying to sidetrack the argument. It doesn't matter if no one thought it was rape. Hell, in the 1960's, no one thought lynching was murder!

Sex without consent is rape. In order for consent to be possible, the person must meet certain requirements, including age, mental acuity, and sobriety. It's that simple.

I'm sorry that you want to introduce a "trial by peers" wherein you think that a girl can be gang raped as long as no one steps in to help.

"I'm sorry that you want to introduce a "trial by peers" wherein you think that a girl can be gang raped as long as no one steps in to help." - EJ

Again, I didn't say that. Why do you persist in arguing a position no one on this thread has posited?

prairielily;

Why is this guy responsible for making sure your friend doesn't do anything drunk she wouldn't sober, while she isn't and gets to play at being a victim? I'm sorry she did something she regrets and is upset about it. But framing this as men 'taking advantage' of women and putting the blame squarely on him for what happened seems very patriarchal. The whole analysis seem very wedded to traditional gender roles and ideas about female sexuality. That's really what's getting my back up about the whole thread.

Boy, noname, you just can't bear to answer a whole post, can you?

I'll repeat.

Sex without consent is rape. In order for consent to be possible, the person must meet certain requirements, including age, mental acuity, and sobriety. It's that simple.

Now, would you like to tell me how your question "Why did no one help her?" had anything to do with anything? Since your whole position thus far in this thread has been that it wasn't rape, then why did you ask this, unless it was to bolster your position?

Maybe you just want irrelevant information. Maybe TH can come by later and tell us what the girl was wearing, the color of the van, and the make and model of the camera used. But it won't change a simple fact: She was raped.

Sex without consent is rape. In order for consent to be possible, the person must meet certain requirements, including age, mental acuity, and sobriety. It's that simple.

"TH said that the woman distinctly said that she hadn't wanted to sleep with the men" - EJ

Where? I couldn't find this.

I'm sorry, leederick, can you repeat that?

It looked like you just said that it's not a person's responsibility to do a quick check to make sure the person they have sex with can legally consent or not.

Jesus, and here I just assumed that most "good people" would want to do a quick check to make sure the person they wre about to fuck wasn't:

1) Underage
2) Inebriated
3) Drugged
4) Mentally Retarded

Considering that it should take all of ten minutes to check those basic requirements, I'm amazed that it's not someone's "responsibility" to check. Sex without any responsibility whatsoever - that sounds healthy. Huh. I guess that's too much trouble when there's pussy that needs to be hit.

(Noname, he said so clearly several times. It's clear you don't read posts - I'm not doing it for you. Anyway, it's irrelevant. Once again, she was drunk so consent was not possible. It's really very simple - I'm amazed you can't grasp that.)

You have consensual sex with a complete stranger. You find out later, after the fact, that she was 15. (She doesn't look it.) Technically, you have committed rape - that's a fact and you can't get around it.

However, you didn't mean to commit rape!

What you mean is "legally, you have committed rape, assuming you live in the US." More enlightened countries than the US recognize that setting the age of consent at 18 is head-in-the-sand stupid and consequently set it at 16 or 14. More to the point, law or not, some people can consent in different situations from others. Some are mature enough to meaningfully consent at 12; others are only at 18.

Second thing, if you didn't mean to commit it, you didn't. There's no such thing as unintended murder; there's only manslaughter or negligence, and even then you might have a reasonable-person defense. Statutory rape laws generally don't permit any reasonable-person defense, but that's largely because most statutory rape laws are written by the same kind of people who think harassing 20-year-old drinkers isn't retarded.

I call it as I see it Noname. I'm not going to apologize for calling someone an idiot it they say idiotic things.

And I'm not going to apologize for calling someone a flamer.

Considering that it should take all of ten minutes to check those basic requirements, I'm amazed that it's not someone's "responsibility" to check.

These basic requirements are way too fuzzy. How do I know if someone's mature enough for sex? How do I know if the amount of alcohol someone's drunk is high enough to impair her judgment?

Alon, you seem to be saying that just because something is legally rape, doesn't mean that it IS rape. If you want to take that stance, you're going to half to prove it. As I said, in the above instance, the man has committed rape. It's a fact and he can't get around it.

Call me a flamer all you want. I don't care. You can't hurt my feelings! :D

And, sorry, checking to see if someone is:

1) Underage
2) Inebriated
3) Drugged
4) Mentally Retarded

Is "way too fuzzy"? I'm going to wet myself laughing. 99 times from 100 you can tell these things in a 10 minute conversation. If that's too long to wait to have sex, then you have a serious problem!

"Sex without consent is rape. In order for consent to be possible, the person must meet certain requirements, including age, mental acuity, and sobriety. It's that simple." - EJ

I don't agree with the sobriety requirement. It's that simple. I think one can be drunk without being incapacitated. I believe that consent is valid until that point of incapacitation. This is a difference of opinion, nothing more.

As for the "Why did no one help her" comment, it was in response to an earlier post by TH when he said:

"Since you don't know this woman or anything else about this situation, and I do, then I hardly think you're in a position to lecture me about how I should interpret all this."

If he answered that no one at the party thought it was a rape, I was going to hold him to the same standard he held me to by asking how he can lecture on how to interpret an event at which he was not present when others closer to the situation (the “victim� and the party goers) disagree with him.

Clearly this argument does not prove no rape occurred, it just points out the absurdity of his contention that I should not voice my opinion to him since he is closer to the situation than I.

Again: Could you cool it on the insults? You have now called jm, xyz, and me idiots all in one afternoon. This is simply rude.

"Noname, he said so clearly several times. It's clear you don't read posts - I'm not doing it for you. - EJ

He never said that. He says she regretted it later, not that she didn't want to sleep with them at the time.

I only called you an idiot because you are saying idiotic things. It's not that hard to NOT say idiotic things! :D

You are taking the same arguement as Alon, namely, "Yes, it's LEGALLY rape, but it's not REALLY rape." That's for you to argue. You want us to accept your terms that a person can give consent while inebriated yet I don't. And the law is on my side of the argument, so to speak. Since rape is a legal definition (and not one that YOU make up) it was rape. Period. It's that simple.

Just because you don't want to call an apple red doesn't make it any less so. ;)

I love the tenor in this thread. Apparently, people should be allowed to walk into a room and have silent sex with a complete stranger and then claim they "didn't know!" the stranger was drunk, drugged, underage, or mentally retarded!

I think it's wonderful that we now don't have to take responsibility for our actions. Personally, I wouldn't sleep with someone I'd spoken to for less that 30 minutes - which would be more than enough time to make a good faith determination of state of mind re: sexual consent.

And if I thought that there was even a CHANCE that person was not in a state of mind to consent, then I wouldn't sleep with them that night. Is that really so hard? Are we now meant to be slaves to our sexual desires?

"I was going to talk to him long enough to make sure he wasn't drunk, but he was just so hot, I couldn't be bothered to restrain myself!": Now THERE'S an attitude to be proud of. Very enlightened and empowered.

"Alon, you seem to be saying that just because something is legally rape, doesn't mean that it IS rape. If you want to take that stance, you're going to half to prove it." - EJ

Their are many legal definitions of rape in the world. These definitions shift over time as well. Do you think rape as a concept is this subjective?

I think Tom Head very much has a position to tell you to shut your yapper. You've said that his position re: rape (as well as mine) robs women of their "sexual autonomy". That's a pretty heavy gauntlet to throw down. Don't go crying "foul" whenever he puts you in your place and explains that you don't know what you're talking about.

He's been nothing but kind and polite in this thread and you've walked all over him and his friend. I'm sick of it. He may be too gentlemanly to deal with you the way you need to be dealt with, but I'm not. If you don't like it, then tough.

The fact of the matter is that the woman was drunk. The law says she cannot give consent in that state. Therefore, by all standards that matter, she was raped. The only mitigating circumstance would be if 1) it had been a misunderstanding on the part of the gentlemen (based on their behavior afterwards we can assume it wasn't) or 2) she had consented once she was sober (and she didn't).

Your "opinion" on what should and shouldn't be rape, legally, is irrelevant to the fact that it was rape.

Fucking nitpickers alert.

What you mean is "legally, you have committed rape, assuming you live in the US."

"Their are many legal definitions of rape in the world."

He clearly stated this occured in America. Excuse me for using American laws. And you guys wonder why I call you "idiots"...

Alon, you seem to be saying that just because something is legally rape, doesn't mean that it IS rape. If you want to take that stance, you're going to half to prove it. As I said, in the above instance, the man has committed rape. It's a fact and he can't get around it.

If you ask me, the fact that different countries disagree on whether it's rape - and, in fact, the most progressive ones say it's not - is an argument. You can disagree, but ignoring what I said is not the way to do it.

Frankly, I'm not overly concerned with Tom's example. If I were, I'd have commented way earlier. There's a reason I waited until you said having sex with a 15-year-old is rape no matter what (for an adult, presumably...).

Is "way too fuzzy"? I'm going to wet myself laughing. 99 times from 100 you can tell these things in a 10 minute conversation. If that's too long to wait to have sex, then you have a serious problem!

And again, you keep ignoring the fact that different people are ready at different ages. Even sexual ignorance isn't by itself evidence of immaturity, given the state of sex education in certain parts of the world.

"And the law is on my side of the argument, so to speak. Since rape is a legal definition (and not one that YOU make up) it was rape. Period. It's that simple." - EJ

You and I live in different places with different legal definitions of rape. This party in all probability happened in another place, with another legal definition. Tell me, does your personal definition of rape change when you travel to places with different laws?

"I only called you an idiot because you are saying idiotic things. It's not that hard to NOT say idiotic things! :D" - EJ

That's actually pretty funny. ï?Š I have no problem with you calling what I say idiotic, as long as you back it up and refrain from calling me an idiot. Hopefully this sort of levity can help us regain the ability to argue constructively or at least to recognize our intellectual impasse and move on without hard feelings.

Hopefully this sort of levity can help us regain the ability to argue constructively or at least to recognize our intellectual impasse and move on without hard feelings.

I'd say it's a fairly unrealistic hope. At least in my experience, arguments in which one person consistently bashes the other for being an idiot, even in jest, are never constructive.

Some are mature enough to meaningfully consent at 12...There's a reason I waited until you said having sex with a 15-year-old is rape.

So Alon, as an adult you want the right to have sex with "mature" 12 year olds?

Thanks for clearing that up. First and foremost, I don't need to reply to you any more. You're not an idiot - you're a pedophile. Second, I'm assuming that the NSA is watching us since the feminists are such far-left liberal crazies. Hopefully they can bother you sometime in the near future to make sure there's no child porn on your computer.

Did I mention I feel slightly ill now?

Jessica, if you're watching, can we close this thread now?

It was bad enough when the argument was that having sex with inebriated women isn't rape. If we're now going to argue that having sex with 12 and 15 year olds isn't rape.... :O

First and foremost, I don't need to reply to you any more. You're not an idiot - you're a pedophile.

At least I don't engage in the puritan infantilization of people under 18 that's rampant in the US.

Second, I'm assuming that the NSA is watching us since the feminists are such far-left liberal crazies. Hopefully they can bother you sometime in the near future to make sure there's no child porn on your computer.

Please tell me that in your more sober moments, you know that the American agency that's in charge of using child porn as an excuse to invade people's privacy is the FBI. And, that you know that there exist people outside the US, and thus outside the FBI's purview.

"You've said that his position re: rape (as well as mine) robs women of their "sexual autonomy". That's a pretty heavy gauntlet to throw down." - EJ

It is a heavy gauntlet to throw down. It is also appropriate in my opinion.

"Don't go crying "foul" whenever he puts you in your place and explains that you don't know what you're talking about." - EJ

I don't think he explained it. I definitely don't think he supported it.

Yeah, it's definitely puritan infantilization to insist that 30 year old men can't have sex with 12 year olds.

I'm assuming that you realize the NSA and FBI are joined at the hip? Nevermind, I don't care. You're a pedophile and I have no interest in carrying this discussion further.

EJ,

While this isn't my Blog, and I have absolutely no right or privelege to say what type of behavior is or isn't allowed in the comment section of this particular web blog, I would have to say that you are entirely out of order.

You took what was a particularly interesting, insightful AND harmonius discussion about a VERY sensitive topic and turned it into a witch-hunt against those who disagreed with your view. You have a habit of vicious name calling in debates which I find detestable, whether or not I agree with the points youre making. You also have a habit of completely discounting others points of views (no matter how well they support why they feel the way they do, or whether or not they display a view at all and simply ask questions (questions which you never answer)).

In many threads on this log you play "teams", singling out the commentors you agree with and then saying why the commentors you don't agree with are blind, idiotic, hateful, trolls or even worse. How you think this is a constructive way to discuss your viewpoints is beyond me. I don't know about you but when someone raises their voice (and when I read your posts, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE SHOUTING EVEN WITHOUT CAPITAL LETTERS), my ears turn off.

People who would agree with your sentiments (and probably most that you disagree with understand your point of view, regardless of your seeming inability to respect and understand their points of view) probably won't, simply because of the way you explain your points of view.

Perhaps you may want to look at the way you discuss things...or perhaps not. I just felt the need to let you know.

The age of consent for women in Chile is 12. If you rely on legal definitions of rape, then it should be just fine to have sex with 12 year olds in Chile. This is why your "legal definition is all that matters" stance is so dangerous. It only works if the law is reasonable (I think we can both agree that Chile's is not).

Jessica – I agree with EJ. This thread is out of control.

As long as no one further insults me or misrepresents my arguments, I will (again) stop posting.
).

"You find out later, after the fact, that she was 15. (She doesn't look it.) Technically, you have committed rape - that's a fact and you can't get around it."

EJ, You only invoked the 30-year-old man after I called you on it; before then, you addressed everyone. And as for the 12-year-old, note that I posited that age as the extreme minimum, in a similar manner to how 20 is an extreme maximum. Almost all 12-year-olds aren't mature enough to consent; almost all 20-year-olds are.

Noname: about the legal thing, I was going to mention that 50 years ago, spousal rape was legal in the US and Canada (I have no idea about the rest of the world, but I'm positive it wasn't more progressive), and even today, some states in the US consider marriage a mitigating factor in rape cases.

Sure, EJ, I'll repeat that:

"Why is this guy responsible for making sure your friend doesn't do anything drunk she wouldn't sober, while she isn't and gets to play at being a victim?"

I wasn't involved in the discussion about rape and consent at that time, I was just discussing it in moral terms. For what it's worth I agree with noname that it's daft to consider inebriated consent as invalid. But I'll rephase my earlier comment in your language as it might help.

Let's assume that you're right and that these guys are rapists, because the women they had sex with were drunk. But it's not that simple because 'rape' isn't the only crime that's taken place. Most of the 'victims' are going to be in trouble with the law too - either for incitement or being an accessory. And, no, being drunk isn't a defence they have available, anymore than it's a defence to a charge of rape.

So why doesn't this cut both ways?

Eschew, I'm SO sorry that I sound like I'm yelling to you.

From now on, I won't post, for fear of offending you.

Incidently, I was hoping to ask you if any of the posters have a lisp? I assume you know since you can magically "hear" us speaking through our posts.

By the way, if you think this was a "mature" discussion with everyone beating up on TH, then you betray your own prejudices. I cannot believe the comments here - that men should be able to double-team drunk women without any consequences at all. I'm not yelling, but maybe I should be.

I have only called people idiots when they deserve it. Saying "it's not rape" when it clearly is and then backtracking and saying "well, it IS rape, but it shouldn't be, legally" IS idiotic. That's my opinion. Last I checked, we were allowed to post opinions.

As least I'm not posting that 30 year old men should be able to sleep with 12 year old girls and boys....

Noname, I couldn't care less what they do in Chile.

This incident occurred in America. In America, it's legally rape. In America, it's also legal rape to have sex with a 12 year old. If Chile wants to do things differently, then I assure you I won't be raising my children in Chile.

First you guys accuse me of being a snotty American for wanting to apply American laws to an American situation. Now you want me to insist that everyone else on earth changes their laws to suit Americans. I'm not going to.

As least I'm not posting that 30 year old men should be able to sleep with 12 year old girls and boys....

Yeah, but neither am I, so your righteous indignation is somewhat misplaced.

This incident occurred in America. In America, it's legally rape.

So why the universal claim about 15-year-olds? Why is it that Americans feel free to say "If you do XYZ, you're a criminal," when XYZ is only illegal in the US? The Canadian and European bloggers and commenters I've talked to have always been keen on making sure people understand which country they're talking about. It's only Americans, I think, who universalize their own parochialism.

Now you want me to insist that everyone else on earth changes their laws to suit Americans. I'm not going to.

Quote to me the part where Noname or I say this.

Eschew, now I remember you and I understand your beef with me.

Look, I'm sorry I "called" you on the Racist thread, but you were making it sound like the board was an advertisment for a specific fighting game and therefore not racist at all - in essence that the women were characters and not archetypes. You were being misleading, IMO, and I said so.

I'm sorry you have a beef with me now, but that's really not mature to barge in here and try to single me out so you can troll me for stating my opinion.

Still, it's a free blog, as they say. You want to troll me, go right ahead.

Alon, I'm using American laws in an American situation! How am *I* being parochial?? YOU are the one who insists America change her "puritanical" laws where adults can't have sex with 12 and 15 year olds! YOU are the "parochial" one! :D

prairielily;

Why is this guy responsible for making sure your friend doesn't do anything drunk she wouldn't sober, while she isn't and gets to play at being a victim? I'm sorry she did something she regrets and is upset about it. But framing this as men 'taking advantage' of women and putting the blame squarely on him for what happened seems very patriarchal. The whole analysis seem very wedded to traditional gender roles and ideas about female sexuality. That's really what's getting my back up about the whole thread.

Are you serious? It wasn't his responsibility to see if she was sober or not, when she clearly wasn't? When she TOLD him clearly, and in succinct words, that she did NOT want to have sex under such circumstances? It wasn't his responsibility to pay attention to what she said was one of her core values when she was sober?

You know what's patriarchal? Thinking that men don't have the responsibility to pay attention to what women want, and to think that when they ignore that and take advantage, (yes, I will continue to use that term) the woman has no right to feel violated because hey, it wasn't HIS responsibility to make sure she wasn't so drunk off her ass that she fell flat on her face leaving the bar and didn't even notice.

What I said was that women and people in general can do whatever they want, and that they shouldn't need alcohol as an excuse. When you take away that need for an excuse, ie. there is TRUE sexual autonomy, you eliminate this argument, and everyone is safer when they drink.

That said, I've noticed that this thread seems polarized between people who drink and people who don't drink or rarely drink. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Oh, and Alon Levy, I live in one of those low consent age countries. When I was 14, I knew at least six girls in sexual relationships with men in their mid to late twenties. It was disgusting then, and it's disgusting now, especially considering the many studies on how young girls are pressured to have sex by older boyfriends. It was even part of my sex ed course. "Don't let your older boyfriend pressure you into doing something you're not sure you're ready to handle." Please don't defend it.

I guess what I'm really saying is that in a sexual situation, one person should not be in a position of power over the other unless it's artifically created (eg. BDSM.) When that happens, we're entering sketchy territory.

Good grief. Now some of you jokers are saying we need to change the law so you can have sex not only with women too drunk to consent, but with friggin' 12-year-olds? And the brave defenders of "sexual autonomy" aren't stepping up to say they think it's wrong?

I'm through with this thread. Lord. I can't believe I wasted time arguing with these people.

EJ, prairielily, and other sane folks: Please feel free to click on my name if you want to discuss any of this stuff further, but I'm finished with this thread.

Cheers,

TH

Alon, you are being deliberately misleading and I can't understand why.

Tom lives in America. This incident occured in America. We were talking from the framework of American laws.

I don't know why so many Europeans and Canadians want to point out how Americans are Amerocentric, but please explain to me why I SHOULDN'T use American laws to discuss an American incident???

And, I'm afraid I didn't realize it was legal to have sex with 12 year olds in America. Incidently, I've been assured that it's illegal to have sex with 12 year olds in Australia - even if the other sex partner is ALSO 12. Apparently, America isn't the only "puritanical" nation.

“Noname, I couldn't care less what they do in Chile.� - EJ

Good lord, I thought we might be done here. So rape is objectively defined by your particular area’s laws? If they change the law in your town next week, would everyone else have to change how they understand rape? Would you?

"Saying "it's not rape" when it clearly is and then backtracking and saying "well, it IS rape, but it shouldn't be, legally" IS idiotic." - EJ

I didn't backtrack, and I never said it was rape. I admitted it might legally be rape in your area. If we were arguing what rape is legally in your area, we would have been done long ago.

Thank you, Tom Head and prairielily. I was starting to feel like the last sane voice in this thread.

It's ridiculous that I have to be made to feel like a troll for calling these ideas what they are: Idiotic. I'm not going to stay here while we argue that 12 year olds should be pressured to have sex and that men should take responsibility to not have sex with drunk women, and I'm not going to "soft-pedal" my stance that rape is rape is rape. Nor will I apologize for an agressive stance against rape.

This is getting my blood boiling. I'm through here. Anymore of this nonsense, and I really WILL start trolling. :D

See ya'll in another thread! :)

Now some of you jokers are saying we need to change the law so you can have sex not only with women too drunk to consent, but with friggin' 12-year-olds?

No. Some of the jokers here bring 12-year-olds as a way of demonizing people who want the age of consent to be lower than 18.

Tom lives in America. This incident occured in America. We were talking from the framework of American laws.

You made a universal claim about 15-year-olds.

Incidently, I've been assured that it's illegal to have sex with 12 year olds in Australia - even if the other sex partner is ALSO 12. Apparently, America isn't the only "puritanical" nation.

No, it's not; Poland and Australia aren't a lot better than the US. In Canada the age of consent is officially 14 (unofficially it can be stretched to 16); in France it's 15; in Germany it's 14; in Spain it's 12. None of these has a child abuse epidemic that I know of due to its not treating 17-year-olds like babies.

EJ, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

Why you are so defensive, is beyond me.

And everyone wasn't "beating up" on Tom Head, people were discussing their particular points of view.

Because Tom brought out a personal example that he knew of first hand, the debate began to bring out certain emotions in Tom. Tom mentioned this, and IMMEDIATELY Noname agreed to drop the subject and apologized if he fleshed out any harmful feelings and emotions.

Tom then gave Noname the same courtesy.

The debate died down at this point...which is when you began ferociously commenting. Re-inflaming the original thread.

Since that point, you've called people "idiots", "fucking idiots", "nitpicks", "pedophiles" and "fucking insane" in this thread alone... While taking their words out of context and melding them into a version of reality that supports your usage of those words.

Several points were made throughout this thread that you failed to recognize, much less answer.

1.)In this specific example, if the men in the van were inebriated as well, have they also been raped?

2.)You said that a woman should be allowed to give consent after the fact if she is inebriated while copulating. Since, after the fact, the woman said that she did have sex and was not raped, does that not imply that she gave consent after the fact (making T.H.'s example, not a case of rape).

3.) You likened this example to the legal example of you cannot sign a contract while drunk. But, if a lawyer allows a drunken person to sign a contract in a drunken stupor, he is not guilty of fraud. This isn't really a similar situation. If a woman assures a man time and time again (regardless of her personal level of intoxication) that she wants to have sex (but is in a black out state), how is the man supposed to know every time that she is in a black out state?

Some people hide their intoxication naturally rather well. Sure, in some instances it's easy to tell when someone is inebriated beyond belief...
But, many times friends of mine (both males and females) tell me later on they were blacked out, when I had absolutely no idea at the time that they were so drunk.

Those are all valid questions that were brought up that you failed to address in your quest to call all who disagreed with you names.

The point when I decided to post this was when you called Alon a pedophile, simply because he questioned where the age of consent should be set at... at the same time questioning your ethical assertion that "because it's illegal, that means it's ethically wrong".

He at no time said (or implied) that he wanted to have sex with a 12 year old. He never said that 30 year old men should have the right to have sex with 12 year olds. What he did say was that some 12 year olds understand the implications and emotions involved in sexual contact and would be able to meaningfully consent to having sex. He was using an extreme example to discuss the shades of grey inherent in legal ethical issues.

That doesn't make him a pedophile at all.

Perhaps you don't agree that 12 year olds should legally give consent (either does he I imagine), but likewise, he doesn't think that 18 should be the age that consent is set at... (In canada, the age of consent is 16, does that mean that Canada is a country of pedos?)

And I never said to stop posting, stop being so melodramatic.

What I did say was THINK ABOUT how you're posting.

There's a definite difference.

I'm not going to stay here while we argue that 12 year olds should be pressured to have sex and that men should take responsibility to not have sex with drunk women, and I'm not going to "soft-pedal" my stance that rape is rape is rape.

Well, as long as you freely distort the position of everyone who doesn't agree with you...

Alon, YOU made the claim that some 12 year olds are mature enough to consent with adults!!

Now you accuse ME of putting words in your mouth as a straw man? That's just low. I'm outta here.

What you mean is "legally, you have committed rape, assuming you live in the US." More enlightened countries than the US recognize that setting the age of consent at 18 is head-in-the-sand stupid and consequently set it at 16 or 14. More to the point, law or not, some people can consent in different situations from others. Some are mature enough to meaningfully consent at 12; others are only at 18.

Posted by: Alon Levy

"And the brave defenders of "sexual autonomy" aren't stepping up to say they think it's wrong?" - TH

I did. This is what I said:

"The age of consent for women in Chile is 12. If you rely on legal definitions of rape, then it should be just fine to have sex with 12 year olds in Chile. This is why your "legal definition is all that matters" stance is so dangerous. It only works if the law is reasonable (I think we can both agree that Chile's is not)."

I also made the claim some 17-year-olds can't consent. I further clarified my position when I said the age of consent should be higher than 12 (and, I should add, you did not back off even then). Different people mature at different rates. What's so hard to understand about that?

Alon, so I guess it should be up to YOU to decide which 12 year olds can consent and which 17 year olds can't?

Christ. It almost makes you miss Hujo, doesn't it? Eh, I'm following Tom's example and getting out of this. It's sickening.

Alon, so I guess it should be up to YOU to decide which 12 year olds can consent and which 17 year olds can't?

What?

Oh, and Eschew? Wanting to have sex with children is pedophilia.

Wanting other adults to have sex with children is pedophilia, too.

I wasn't trolling or tossing around insults. If it's wrong to say a 30 year old and a 15 year old having sex is pedophilia, then I'll leave it to Jess to ban me.

prairielily;

You kind of prove my point by just going on about what a bastard he was. I accept what happened was terrible for her. But why dump all the blame on him? If she didn't want to have sex under such circumstances, then she could have seen that that happened by not changing her mind about it. We get a situation where men are to blame when women do something in which they are active and willing participants because of some misbegotten chivalric notion. I'm sorry she got drunk and made a bad decision, but why is he responsible for her not preserving her virtue?

I wasn't trolling or tossing around insults.

And the greatest laugh of the day award goes to EJ...

Some questions for EJ:

"First and foremost, if a person isn't sober, they can't consent to sex."

In TH's scenario, the two fortysomething losers were drunk too. What happens when all parties are too drunk to legally give consent to sex? Would you also argue that the woman raped the two men?

"First off, they KNEW she was drunk and that she could not legally consent to sex."

First, what if they were too drunk to notice how drunk she was? Second, how can you possibly know what they knew?

"I think it's wonderful that we now don't have to take responsibility for our actions."

I don't. I think the woman in TH's scenario tried to take responsibility for what happened, but TH (and apparently you too) doesn't want to let her. I see what you think a man's responsibilty should be in such a situation, but what responsibility do you think a woman has in avoiding sex that she will regret the next day?

"In any case, her boyfriend--who wasn't either of these men--was at the party and left in tears"

If it was so obvious that she was being raped by these two men (as you say it was), why do you think the boyfriend didn't try to help her?

"Now some of you jokers are saying we need to change the law so you can have sex not only with women too drunk to consent, but with friggin' 12-year-olds?" - TH

Nope. I was pointing out a law I thought EJ and I could agree was wrong to show that law does not always equal fair morality. I thought this was important since she has consistently argued that inebriated sex is rape simply because the law (in her area) says it is.

Nobody ever said in this thread that they wanted adults to have sex with children.

If a 14 year old and a 12 year old have sex, is it pedophilia and rape?

This is a more frequent example of when the age of consent comes into play.

You are using an extreme example.

Saying that a 14 year old and a 12 year old should be allowed to consent to sex if they are mature is a far cry from advocating pedophilia.

And yeah, prairie, the guy is definitely a bastard and I wouldn't let my girlfriends hang out with him...but I'm not entirely sure he's guilty of "rape". I think that all people should be held accountable for their actions sober and drunk, and if she did consent...even drunk...then she should accept the consequences of her actions...and learn from them.

Sure the guys a bastard, but I would be hard pressed to call him a rapist.

Same thing with the guys in Tom's example.

And btw, I'm not advocating at all the consent example I gave above (the 14 year old and 12 year old), I was merely displaying that what Alon said does not make him guilty of pedophilia.

If he is a pedophile, that's another story, but what he had said when he was called a pedophile, does not make him in fact a pedophile.

That was all I was saying.

I don't think that 12 year olds should be able to legally consent to sex.

EO, I'm barely out of the age at which people are on the receiving side of pedophilia. And, in the interest of full disclosure, I should add that I've had entirely consensual sex with people who would be considered statutory rapists in large chunks of the US by virtue of their being older than 18.

Thanks Eshew Obfuscation, BTW, and all others here who tried to foster a civil, rational debate.

Jesus Christ, people. I haven't read all the comments because it started to get too infuriating for me to read in the quiet and relaxed cafe I'm writing from, but I would like to chime in at least a little bit. Sorry if it's not completely coherent with what came directly before, and sorry if it's a little all over the place -- there's so much here to respond to.

As far as I can tell, I think TH's outrage is completely right on. I think our society accepts "drunken debauchery" and such as a given, with a sort of smirking "boys will be boys" attitude. What this leads to is greater acceptance and even expectation of non-consensual sex when alchohol is involved -- only viewing something as "rape" if the woman is physically defending herself or some such. However, non-consent is just that -- if the woman doesn't consent, it is rape, pure and simple. As was mentioned before, this includes situations other than being "taken" by physical force, such as psychological manipulation or abusive behavior of someone who is for whatever reason not mentally equipped to consent.

I see evidence of this permeating our culture every day, in a very personal way. I am 22 years old and reasonably attractive, which means that frequently I can't even walk a few blocks from my house without some guy trying to get some kind of attention from me. This happens every single day. I cannot go about my daily life with that coveted "autonomy," regardless of how much I want it and how clear-headed and self-possessed I am. Women in this country, especially young women, live in a constant state of psychological duress -- I know that sounds very extreme, but it's very much true. I know this is a reviled cliche, but I'm really not sure if men can actually understand what I mean by that statement, not because I doubt their mental acuity and sensitivity, but because it's something that you can't really appreciate the extremity of unless you're in it (by virtue of being a woman) AND you've overcome enough of the kind of conditioning we get to just accept such behavior.

This state is the origin of the more extreme behavior discussed in this thread. This is why men take advantage of inebriated women -- because on some level they believe themselves to be entitled to women's attention, time, and bodies, regardless of what that woman actually, soberly wants. That is also why women put up with it, accept it, refrain from calling it "rape" -- because it's part of a larger dynamic that so permeates our everyday lives that not only are we taught to just allow these things to happen (and that our desireability as sex objects is our primary source of value), but it also just becomes tiresome to fight that battle all the time. I'm sure there's a million different stories of women allowing themselves to be manipulated into situations they don't actually want just for the sake of getting it over with, giving the men what they want so that they'll stop bothering you. The effort it takes to constantly stand up for one's own boundaries, especially if you do want to be able to go out to a party or bar once in a while, is immense, and the backlash is always unpredictable. Telling that stranger in the bar who's pestering you to fuck off might heighten the conflict -- no man likes being refused, and most of the time they rebuke your refusal with hightened attempts at persuasion (playing "hard to get," right?) or in some circumstances even physical violence.

What makes it even more confusing is that a lot of the time these pestering guys seem like perfectly nice people, charming and sympathetic in conversation, all that -- so if they're alright in all other respects, who are you to label them "sexual harrassers" and try to make them back off when they start insisting on "hooking up" or some such? ESPECIALLY if they've already "charmingly" bought you quite a few drinks? AND you probably know that they just get more insistent and maybe more physical if you refuse... and who are you to call it "rape," or even anything other than *your own* stupid drunken mistake in the morning, even if you can barely remember it?

Okay, this is getting really long-winded, but this issue is pretty damn personal for me, as it is for many others as well.

If it's wrong to say a 30 year old and a 15 year old having sex is pedophilia

Technically, 12 (probably) and 15 (certainly) is old enough to be ephebophilia, rather than pedophilia.

Back on topic, I agree with Tom and EJ on this one. If someone you want to make out with or fuck or whatever, is drunk or stoned or whacked up on Scooby snacks, you can and should leave them the hell alone. Your dick won't fall off and your vagina won't implode just because you don't get to scratch your carnal itch right then. Wait until you both are clear-eyed sober and know what exactly you want to get yourselves into, and you'll remember to ask each other about their genital warts and who puts on the condom (Tom didn't say, but I'm guessing the skeezers didn't do his friend the courtesy of wearing a raincoat).

On the other hand, I think this "retroactive consent" thing is bullshit. You either consent to the act at the time it is performed or you don't. Consent doesn't carry forward in time, and it doesn't run backwards either. (Whether or not legal action should result from an absence of consent is a different matter, and subsequent opinions should be taken into consideration then.)

The legal "purchase" drinking age in Australia is 18, on private property there is really no age limit.

Further, "children" who live in the quoted area, mostly attend private schools, so Friday and Saturday nights present the only opportunity to interact with members of the opposite sex (hence the "need" for a little confidence booster).

So you have "Fort Lauderdale" every weekend for those between 16 and 20. And the amount of alcohol consumed is enough to cause alcoholic poisoning ... which it fequently does. Sad but true.