Rapists Targeting Drunk Women...not rape?

[mummabear]

I am sure I am misinterpreting this because it seems like you are implying being raped is punishment for having a couple drinks, which I know can't be right.

No but some are arguing that someone drinking cannot consent (and we are talking about people who are consenting at the time not people being unconscious or are forced against their will) and it is up to other people not themselves to protect themselves.

Even while you are drunk you are responsible for your choices, and that includes having willing sex with someone you wouldnt have sober.

 

[disneychrista]

No but some are arguing that someone drinking cannot consent (and we are talking about people who are consenting at the time not people being unconscious or are forced against their will) and it is up to other people not themselves to protect themselves.
Even while you are drunk you are responsible for your choices, and that includes having willing sex with someone you wouldnt have sober.

I agree. Just because someone has been drinking does not make them unable to consent. I will say that there is a level of drunkenness that makes it possible the person is unaware of their actions but this is an extreme and a "couple drinks" doesn't normally get one there.

 

[luvsJack]

Do you believe that people that drink and drive should not be punished since they do not have full mental capacity to male good decisions?

One has nothing at ALL to do with the other.

Someone who gets drunk and drives are endangering other people.

An intoxicated woman who is raped is being endangered by a criminal.

You are blaming the victim here. Having a few drinks is not “asking for it”. You do realize this don’t you?

 

[ronandannette]

One has nothing at ALL to do with the other.

Someone who gets drunk and drives are endangering other people.

An intoxicated woman who is raped is being endangered by a criminal.

You are blaming the victim here. Having a few drinks is not “asking for it”. You do realize this don’t you?

In defense of @mummabear , she is NOT blaming the victim. Her comments are sort of a continuation of an exchange we had up-thread about the difficulty of cogently applying a standard of competency for consent/responsibility to drunk victims and drunk perpetrators. It's a legal conundrum although certainly the ethical/moral implications are easier to discern.

 

[mummabear]

One has nothing at ALL to do with the other.

Someone who gets drunk and drives are endangering other people.

An intoxicated woman who is raped is being endangered by a criminal.

You are blaming the victim here. Having a few drinks is not “asking for it”. You do realize this don’t you?

You are confusing three scenarios.
In one a sober person takes advantage of a very drunk person (whether they got them drunk or not)
In another a drunk person attacks another person who is clearly not consenting (whether they be saying no or is unconscious etc)
And finally there is the third (that we have been discussing in this thread) where both people are drunk and willingly engage, sometimes the "victim" even initiates the encounter. This is who I am saying cannot withdraw consent in the morning, this is what I am saying is not rape, regret ot all you want but you cannot say that drunk boys are responsible for drunk girls choices, because if the drunk girls are not capable of making good decisions then neither are the boys. We can't be telling girls that they can get as drunk as they want and that they have no responsibility for the choices they make while in that state.

 

[PollyannaMom]

You are confusing three scenarios.
(1) In one a sober person takes advantage of a very drunk person (whether they got them drunk or not)
(2) In another a drunk person attacks another person who is clearly not consenting (whether they be saying no or is unconscious etc)
(3) And finally there is the third (that we have been discussing in this thread) where both people are drunk and willingly engage, sometimes the "victim" even initiates the encounter. This is who I am saying cannot withdraw consent in the morning, this is what I am saying is not rape, regret ot all you want but you cannot say that drunk boys are responsible for drunk girls choices, because if the drunk girls are not capable of making good decisions then neither are the boys. We can't be telling girls that they can get as drunk as they want and that they have no responsibility for the choices they make while in that state.

The problem comes when the accuser says it was 2 and the accused says it was 3!

If they were both drunk, how does the law determine whether each one is telling the truth, outright lying, or really not remembering because of the drinking?

 

[luvsJack]

You are confusing three scenarios.
In one a sober person takes advantage of a very drunk person (whether they got them drunk or not)
In another a drunk person attacks another person who is clearly not consenting (whether they be saying no or is unconscious etc)
And finally there is the third (that we have been discussing in this thread) where both people are drunk and willingly engage, sometimes the "victim" even initiates the encounter. This is who I am saying cannot withdraw consent in the morning, this is what I am saying is not rape, regret ot all you want but you cannot say that drunk boys are responsible for drunk girls choices, because if the drunk girls are not capable of making good decisions then neither are the boys. We can't be telling girls that they can get as drunk as they want and that they have no responsibility for the choices they make while in that state.

You didn’t ask me about three scenarios. You asked me about drunk drivers.

There has to be a way to protect the girl that gets drunk, whether intentionally or because some guy gets her that way, from being raped. If that means that an intoxicated person cannot give consent then so be it.

And here is the problem with your scenario. What keeps the guy who was not drunk, who purposely got the girl drunk so he could rape her from saying he was drunk too? It is very easy to act drunk so, witnesses to how he was acting early wouldn’t be reliable. So then we have put the burden of proof back on her.

And if we want to say she shouldn’t have gotten drunk in the first place, well then you have the girl who thought she was drinking soft drinks all night or some kind of virgin drink but something was slipped to her. Is it her fault too?

Rape victims in these kinds of scenarios have enough guilt and self doubts about coming forward now. We don’t need to add to it.

 

[ronandannette]

You didn’t ask me about three scenarios. You asked me about drunk drivers.

There has to be a way to protect the girl that gets drunk, whether intentionally or because some guy gets her that way, from being raped. If that means that an intoxicated person cannot give consent then so be it.

And here is the problem with your scenario. What keeps the guy who was not drunk, who purposely got the girl drunk so he could rape her from saying he was drunk too? It is very easy to act drunk so, witnesses to how he was acting early wouldn’t be reliable. So then we have put the burden of proof back on her.

And if we want to say she shouldn’t have gotten drunk in the first place, well then you have the girl who thought she was drinking soft drinks all night or some kind of virgin drink but something was slipped to her. Is it her fault too?

Rape victims in these kinds of scenarios have enough guilt and self doubts about coming forward now. We don’t need to add to it.

The legal definition of competency/consent doesn’t protect anybody from anything. It’s a point of law to be used in prosecution after the fact.

Unfortunately, women are vulnerable to sexual predators and exploiting women who are drunk is an opportunity many of them take. Should a woman be at risk simply by being in an environment where she can (willingly or unwillingly) consume alcohol? Certainly not but that doesn’t change the fact. Enacting a somewhat illogically one-sided legal definition of consent won’t change any of that, not that the idea in itself is bad. It will add an additional tool for prosecutors to use in bringing perpetrators to justice and that’s positive. I doubt it will make any real improvements in a struggle that’s been on-going since the dawn of time though.

 

[disneychrista]

Rape is always going to be a case of he said she said. I’ve been following a case locally where a young man has been charged with 4 different counts of rape. 3 trials later he was found not guilty of 2 of the counts, guilty on 1 (at the third trial) and hung on the fourth. Why is it so difficult to prosecute? Because these young girls willing meet up with this guy and went to secluded places with him. Even with DNA evidence all it proves is they had sex.

 

[luvsJack]

The legal definition of competency/consent doesn’t protect anybody from anything. It’s a point of law to be used in prosecution after the fact.

Unfortunately, women are vulnerable to sexual predators and exploiting women who are drunk is an opportunity many of them take. Should a woman be at risk simply by being in an environment where she can (willingly or unwillingly) consume alcohol? Certainly not but that doesn’t change the fact. Enacting a somewhat illogically one-sided legal definition of consent won’t change any of that, not that the idea in itself is bad. It will add an additional tool for prosecutors to use in bringing perpetrators to justice and that’s positive. I doubt it will make any real improvements in a struggle that’s been on-going since the dawn of time though.

Not protect as in beforehand but to give them the ability to seek justice. Protect their rights after the assault.

In this state, an intoxicated person cannot give consent so the law is there. So I am unsure of what you mean by enacting anything. It hasn't done away with the crime, of course, but it has, I believe, made things somewhat better. I live in a town with two universities and a community college. Lots of college age folks out in the clubs and at parties. Lots of vulnerable, young girls that do get manipulated when they are intoxicated or even assaulted. That law gives them the voice they need to come forward.

 

[PollyannaMom]

I typed:

Some enterprising programmer is going to come up with a "consent app" pretty soon.

Then I figured I'd Google first. - Yep, someone actually has.

 

[disneychrista]

I typed:

Some enterprising programmer is going to come up with a "consent app" pretty soon.

Then I figured I'd Google first. - Yep, someone actually has.

I thought next there is going to be some digital waiver that is giving consent.

Honestly, I think that that is going a bit far. I broke up with a guy in high school (30+ years ago) because he'd ask every time before he would kiss me "May I kiss you?" Every time. I think he even asked before he held my hand the first time too. I understand in some circumstance affirmative consent makes sense. I am more of a I'll tell you to stop/no if I don't want you to kiss me, touch me, etc.

 

[Wendy31]

You are confusing three scenarios.
In one a sober person takes advantage of a very drunk person (whether they got them drunk or not)
In another a drunk person attacks another person who is clearly not consenting (whether they be saying no or is unconscious etc)
And finally there is the third (that we have been discussing in this thread) where both people are drunk and willingly engage, sometimes the "victim" even initiates the encounter. This is who I am saying cannot withdraw consent in the morning, this is what I am saying is not rape, regret ot all you want but you cannot say that drunk boys are responsible for drunk girls choices, because if the drunk girls are not capable of making good decisions then neither are the boys. We can't be telling girls that they can get as drunk as they want and that they have no responsibility for the choices they make while in that state.

Guys like Brock Turner are scum, but I agree w/ this point.

A person is responsible for his/her actions while drunk - whether you're getting behind the wheel of a car or going to bed w/ someone. A girl who gets drunk & agrees to have sex (whereby through verbal or nonverbal consent) while drunk is responsible for her choice to do so - whether or not she has regrets in the morning.

In the 3rd scenario, it's very unfair & one-sided to hold the drunk guy responsible for his actions but not hold the drunk girl responsible for her actions.

A drunk girl can most definitely get raped, but a drunk girl is also responsible for the choices she makes while she's drunk.

I can't even remember why now, but DD (a sophomore in college) & older DS (a freshman in college) & I were actually talking about this earlier today. And this is a bit off-topic...

Girls *are* vulnerable. Drunk girls are even more vulnerable. And, when you choose to go somewhere & get wasted or choose to go to some kind of event where there's a likelihood of something getting put in your drink, then you're putting yourself in a vulnerable situation.

(DISCLAIMER: I'm not saying AT ALL that a drunk girl who gets raped is at fault like in the Brock Turner case.)

A girl should be able to get as drunk as she wants & nothing happen to her. A girl should be able to get drunk & not have to worry about what she might do while drunk. But you can't guarantee that something won't happen - that you won't get attacked or have some jerk take advantage of you. Additionally, you can't guarantee that you yourself won't make a decision you'll regret the next day. So you have to take care of yourself.

Years ago, I was walking in the city w/ my dad. I started crossing at a crosswalk. Dad stopped me because he thought the car that was driving toward the crosswalk was coming too fast & was too close. I said, "He has to stop. I have the right of way." And Dad replied, "Well, you can be right, but you'll still be dead."

That kinda stuck w/ me, & I think of that when I think of girls getting falling-down drunk at parties & in bars & ending up in tragic situations. It's not their fault, but they're still raped. And guys who sexually assault drunk girls should be punished to the full extent of the law - but, then, the girl has to go through the trial as well.

I don't want any of that to happen to DD.

I hope DH & I are raising DD to make good choices & smart choices. (EDITED TO ADD - I know you can make good & smart choices & tragic things still happen - that's not what I'm talking about.)

And I hope we're raising DS to be the guy to take the drunk girl home.

I love this song & this video -

Drunk Girl

"Take a drunk girl home
Let her sleep all alone
Leave her keys on the counter, your number by the phone
Pick up her life she threw on the floor
Leave the hall lights on walk out and lock the door
That's how you know the difference between a boy and man
You take a drunk girl home..."

 

[luvsJack]

Guys like Brock Turner are scum, but I agree w/ this point.

A person is responsible for his/her actions while drunk - whether you're getting behind the wheel of a car or going to bed w/ someone. A girl who gets drunk & agrees to have sex (whereby through verbal or nonverbal consent) while drunk is responsible for her choice to do so - whether or not she has regrets in the morning.

In the 3rd scenario, it's very unfair & one-sided to hold the drunk guy responsible for his actions but not hold the drunk girl responsible for her actions.

A drunk girl can most definitely get raped, but a drunk girl is also responsible for the choices she makes while she's drunk.

I can't even remember why now, but DD (a sophomore in college) & older DS (a freshman in college) & I were actually talking about this earlier today. And this is a bit off-topic...

Girls *are* vulnerable. Drunk girls are even more vulnerable. And, when you choose to go somewhere & get wasted or choose to go to some kind of event where there's a likelihood of something getting put in your drink, then you're putting yourself in a vulnerable situation.

(DISCLAIMER: I'm not saying AT ALL that a drunk girl who gets raped is at fault like in the Brock Turner case.)

A girl should be able to get as drunk as she wants & nothing happen to her. A girl should be able to get drunk & not have to worry about what she might do while drunk. But you can't guarantee that something won't happen - that you won't get attacked or have some jerk take advantage of you. Additionally, you can't guarantee that you yourself won't make a decision you'll regret the next day. So you have to take care of yourself.

Years ago, I was walking in the city w/ my dad. I started crossing at a crosswalk. Dad stopped me because he thought the car that was driving toward the crosswalk was coming too fast & was too close. I said, "He has to stop. I have the right of way." And Dad replied, "Well, you can be right, but you'll still be dead."

That kinda stuck w/ me, & I think of that when I think of girls getting falling-down drunk at parties & in bars & ending up in tragic situations. It's not their fault, but they're still raped. And guys who sexually assault drunk girls should be punished to the full extent of the law - but, then, the girl has to go through the trial as well.

I don't want any of that to happen to DD.

I hope DH & I are raising DD to make good choices & smart choices. (EDITED TO ADD - I know you can make good & smart choices & tragic things still happen - that's not what I'm talking about.)

And I hope we're raising DS to be the guy to take the drunk girl home.

I love this song & this video -

Drunk Girl

"Take a drunk girl home
Let her sleep all alone
Leave her keys on the counter, your number by the phone
Pick up her life she threw on the floor
Leave the hall lights on walk out and lock the door
That's how you know the difference between a boy and man
You take a drunk girl home..."

I love that song too!

Don’t get me wrong. Girls should be taught to make good choices and try to prevent bad things from happening. Whether it’s either staying sober or making sure a trusted friend is staying that way to look out for you. No different than not walking into dark alleys or staying out of certain areas of town.

I just think that the laws need to be there to protect the drunk party in the aftermath. The victim shouldn’t have to face questions of whether they were sober or how much they had to drink.

 

[disneychrista]

Add me to a fan of Drunk Girl. I am pretty sure I cried the first time I heard it.

A girl should be able to get drunk & not have to worry about what she might do while drunk.

Honestly, I think everyone should at least think about what they might do if they drink too much.

Girls should be taught to make good choices and try to prevent bad things from happening.

EVERYONE, boys, girls, and every one in between should be taught basic human decency to prevent bad things from happening.

 

[mummabear]

The problem comes when the accuser says it was 2 and the accused says it was 3!

If they were both drunk, how does the law determine whether each one is telling the truth, outright lying, or really not remembering because of the drinking?

It is an incredibly difficult law to write, if not impossible. It is also extremely difficult to have a process that does not further traumatize potential victims while remaining the right of the accused to remain innocent until proven guilty.

You didn’t ask me about three scenarios. You asked me about drunk drivers.

There has to be a way to protect the girl that gets drunk, whether intentionally or because some guy gets her that way, from being raped. If that means that an intoxicated person cannot give consent then so be it.

And here is the problem with your scenario. What keeps the guy who was not drunk, who purposely got the girl drunk so he could rape her from saying he was drunk too? It is very easy to act drunk so, witnesses to how he was acting early wouldn’t be reliable. So then we have put the burden of proof back on her.

And if we want to say she shouldn’t have gotten drunk in the first place, well then you have the girl who thought she was drinking soft drinks all night or some kind of virgin drink but something was slipped to her. Is it her fault too?

Rape victims in these kinds of scenarios have enough guilt and self doubts about coming forward now. We don’t need to add to it.

I did ask you about drunk drivers and you didnt answer.
So if poor drunk Suzie decides to get in the car and drive do you feel she is not responsible for that choice? And if you do why is it that you feel that she doesnt hold responsibility, then if instead of driving she decides to have sex with frat bit fred, does she not hold responsibility?

There are loopholes to all sorts of laws. We cannot sacrifice some people to protect others.
Blood samples could be taken in the morning if it is reported. You know detectives could investigate.

Not protect as in beforehand but to give them the ability to seek justice. Protect their rights after the assault.

In this state, an intoxicated person cannot give consent so the law is there. So I am unsure of what you mean by enacting anything. It hasn't done away with the crime, of course, but it has, I believe, made things somewhat better. I live in a town with two universities and a community college. Lots of college age folks out in the clubs and at parties. Lots of vulnerable, young girls that do get manipulated when they are intoxicated or even assaulted. That law gives them the voice they need to come forward.

So what you are saying is that the girl would also be guilty of assault if the other person was drunk?

I just think that the laws need to be there to protect the drunk party in the aftermath. The victim shouldn’t have to face questions of whether they were sober or how much they had to drink.

*drunk parties.

At the end of the day it is a dangerous message to tell girls they should be able to get as drunk as they want and to expect other people to be responsible for their safety. Assault is far from the only danger to drunk people.

We need to remember that there are not only legal implications in these scenarios. Colleges are coming down hard on boys for these sorts of drunken encounters, with lifelong consequences under very questionable processes.

 

[jaybirdsmommy]

At the end of the day it is a dangerous message to tell girls they should be able to get as drunk as they want and to expect other people to be responsible for their safety. Assault is far from the only danger to drunk people.

We need to remember that there are not only legal implications in these scenarios. Colleges are coming down hard on boys for these sorts of drunken encounters, with lifelong consequences under very questionable processes.

My son will go to college (hopefully) in a couple of years. It scares me to think that if he goes to a party, gets drunk and ends up sleeping with an equally drunk girl that if she sobers up the next day and regrets the choices she made the night before - she is automatically the victim and he is a criminal. She gets support, counselling, etc, and he gets kicked out of school and potentially a spot on the sex offender registry.

Yes, women should be able to get drunk and not worry about their safety. However, they should not be able to get drunk and not worry about the consequences of their decision to do so and the choices they make while under the influence.

 

[Hikergirl]

My son will go to college (hopefully) in a couple of years. It scares me to think that if he goes to a party, gets drunk and ends up sleeping with an equally drunk girl that if she sobers up the next day and regrets the choices she made the night before - she is automatically the victim and he is a criminal. She gets support, counselling, etc, and he gets kicked out of school and potentially a spot on the sex offender registry.

Yes, women should be able to get drunk and not worry about their safety. However, they should not be able to get drunk and not worry about the consequences of their decision to do so and the choices they make while under the influence.

I agree it's a terrifying thought for mothers of sons.
At the same time, it is equally terrifying that if my dd goes out and gets drunk and raped that her rapist could face no consequences because my dd willingly drank.
I guess my 2 ds's should stay in NY (at least until the loophole is closed) and my dd should move to @luvsJack state.

 

[LittleMissMagic]

My son will go to college (hopefully) in a couple of years. It scares me to think that if he goes to a party, gets drunk and ends up sleeping with an equally drunk girl that if she sobers up the next day and regrets the choices she made the night before - she is automatically the victim and he is a criminal. She gets support, counselling, etc, and he gets kicked out of school and potentially a spot on the sex offender registry.

This thread makes it seem like a scenario like that is the norm, something happening all of the time. It is not. I would venture to say that 99% of regretful (both parties) drunk sex is recorded as only a shameful memory and reported to only the best friend circles. That is normal.

Reporting rape is not easy and not something to do just to get back at someone because you feel regretful. Actually getting the rapist charged and convicted for rape is pretty difficult to do. You need to go as soon as possible to a medical center and complete a rape kit. You need to go to the police and file a report. You have a very short window to get this done. This is not something that most college girls just sober up and do - this is something that girls do when they're seriously traumatized but also level-headed enough to make these decisions. And then on top of that - it's pretty embarrassing for the victim. She has to publicly own up to what has happened and deal with the consequences of people potentially hating her for turning the other party in. This is not something to do on a whim.

Sure, maybe there's a girl out there for vengeance, but I don't think she's common.

 

[jaybirdsmommy]

I agree it's a terrifying thought for mothers of sons.
At the same time, it is equally terrifying that if my dd goes out and gets drunk and raped that her rapist could face no consequences because my dd willingly drank.
I guess my 2 ds's should stay in NY (at least until the loophole is closed) and my dd should move to @luvsJack state.

I completely agree with you. It's a different scenario when it's a sober attacker actually targeting drunk girls. A woman should be able to go out, walk alone at night, wear whatever she wants, go wherever she wants, and yes, get drunk without having to worry about being attacked.

BUT, if she gets drunk and has a consensual encounter with someone, she also needs to recognize that she did consent. No matter how she feels about it the next day. Everyone makes bad decisions while drunk, a lot of them have the potential to ruin someone's life. Why is this the one decision that leaves the person that made it the victim and the person she made it with the criminal?

I guess, like others have pointed out, there are two different scenario's here. One where the women is actually a victim because someone took advantage of her knowing she was impaired and the other where she made a choice and regretted it the next day and needs to find someone else to blame. It's the second one that scares me for my sons.