andrewducker | Responsibility

What I mean is - if the default state for women stopped being assumed to be consent, then yes, the world would become a more dangerous place for the kind of "perfectly ordinary" rapists who, now, get to just assume that women are available for sex.

You seem to think that men not being allowed to assume all women are sexually available until they prove otherwise is a bad, dangerous thing. I'm really not sure why.

You seem to think that men not being allowed to assume all women are sexually available until they prove otherwise is a bad, dangerous thing.

Not at all. Let me clarify exactly what I think:

1. If a woman gets incredibly drunk and takes home a person (note: gender non-specific) who she otherwise wouldn't sleep with, and shags that person, and the next morning thinks: "What the fuck was I thinking?" then it's her own fault for getting so drunk that her judgement was impaired. I've been on both sides of this one, and I think neither party was guilty of any crime because stupidity and horniness are not crimes.

2. If a woman gets incredibly drunk, a person offers to walk her home, then makes a pass at her, then they shag, and she doesn't resist along any step of the way, and the next morning she thinks: "What the fuck was I thinking? I totally didn't want to do that!" then the companion is a twat, and she's had a bad thing happen to her, but it's not rape. It's a bad person doing a bad thing to someone, in the same way that she might have fallen asleep in the pub and had someone write stuff on her face. Yes it should be discouraged. But not through charging said opportunistic bastard with rape.

3. If a woman gets incredibly drunk, and someone walks her home, makes a pass at her, she resists, and is then forced into sex, then it's rape.

I don't think anyone should assume sexual availability on anyone else's part, ever. I would point out, also, that many people, of both sexes (and with reference to either sex) assume sexual availability on the other person's part; this belief and attitude is by no means exclusive to men re: women.

I don't think anyone should assume sexual availability on anyone else's part, ever

If you argue that "she didn't resist" is the same as "she consented", you are, in fact, arguing that it's okay to assume sexual availability. (Scenario two in your own argument.) And that makes me feel extremely uncomfortable.

I would point out, also, that many people, of both sexes (and with reference to either sex) assume sexual availability on the other person's part; this belief and attitude is by no means exclusive to men re: women.

No: I've just discovered that, in fact, I need to avoid getting drunk with you, too, if you take it as read that someone who doesn't resist has consented to sex. The number of people on my friends-list I am never getting drunk with is rising by a much higher rate than I'm happy with. (Not that I'm saying you would force sex on me when I was too drunk to resist: just that I evidently couldn't trust you to be backup or witness if I did get too drunk for my own safety, if your feeling is that a woman too drunk to resist has consented by default.)

PS:

I evidently couldn't trust you to be backup or witness if I did get too drunk for my own safety

I must say I actually take things further than that: that is to say, if you're someone who would, unchecked, allow themself to become so drunk that they wouldn't think straight, rather than look out for you once you were slaughtered I'd just make sure you didn't get that drunk. I'd far rather pull you away from the bar while you were still only half-cut than pull you away from (or give evidence later for) a would-be molestation.

To clarify, the reason I wouldn't class the second scenario as a crime is not because I don't think a person should be punished for behaving in that way, but because without being aware of the inner thoughts of the person at the time, there's no way in retereospect to distinguish between it and the first scenario with regard to the mind-set of the 'rapist'.

but because without being aware of the inner thoughts of the
person at the time, there's no way in retereospect to distinguish between
it and the first scenario with regard to the mind-set of the 'rapist'.

To clarify, why do you feel that a man should be allowed to assume that if he doesn't know what the woman's inner thoughts are (ie, if she hasn't told him yes or no) he should be allowed to assume that she consented? And why do you feel it would be dangerous if men were not allowed to assume, sans evidence, that a woman's inner thoughts are always consenting to sex?

If you argue that "she didn't resist" is the same as "she consented"

I think I just made it very clear that I don't think the two are the same. I just think that, from a legal perspective, when someone does not remember what happened, there's absolutely no way to distinguish - indeed, there isn't even any way to distunguish whether or not she resisted. Regretting something isn't the same as not wanting it at the time, and we have no way of knowing whether she did or not. I think that convicting someone of one of the most horrific crimes (in my opinion) on the books without hard evidence is just something you cannot do without overwhelming, or at least significant, circumstantial evidence. I haven't seen the specific case you're referring to, but it doesn't sound as though there was in this case any evidence at all.

I also agreed that I don't think it's all right to take advantage of someone in an inebriated state, whether or not they say no, nothing, or even yes - although as stated previously I think many people have been in the latter or the three situations. I don't think it's acceptable behaviour and I would never allow a friend of mine to go home with someone if I thought they weren't in full possession of their faculties. What I'm saying is that I think that is the type of problem this is: a social ill. Something your friends should watch out for. Something there should be posters up for in the loos. "Are you sober enough to think straight? Watch your friends, watch that guy who's chatting your mate up." It's like unprotected sex, drug abuse, and indeed drinking too much itself. It's a societal problem that needs to be solved, but not by demonising people, branding them for life as an evil person, with literally no evidence.

Furthermore, if you don't stop using gender-specific pronouns with regard to this I'm going to start to assume that you're just being sexist. Not all sexual predators (or opportunistic bastards) are male, and regardless of the way the law sees it, rape isn't only committed by men against women.

Responsibility

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject