I am male and I want some perspective, especially from the women of the board. I have not given my name because I am not sure I can ask this very genuine question without offending.

There seems to be an out for many women to claim rape based soley on the fact that they were drinking and sobered up to regret a decision to have sex. I absolutely understand that if someone says "no" whether they are sober, drunk, or otherwise impaired that there is never any excuse for her to be forced, prodded, coerced or in any way convinced to have sex. This is her decision and her decision alone and should be respected. Period.

But the drinking part adds such a gray area that I think can be used against men far too easily. What if she has a couple of drinks and agrees to sex? What if she has a few and initiates sex? What if they are both a little tipsy? I agree that the morg blames the victim far too easily. i also agree that there are men, many men, who are very willing to take advantage of a woman who has had too much to drink. BUT I also think that there are far too many instances where regret turns to rape. There are too many instances where responsibility for ones morality is excused because of the choice to drink.

So I guess i have not asked a specific question but you get the idea. Thoughts?

I can tell you that any decent person, man OR woman, would not have sex with someone that is at this point of intoxication.

Alcohol and regrets are a common thing that go hand in hand. You are correct though, I had a male friend in HS that was accused of rape, simply because he and the girl were caught by her father in the back seat of a car. She didn't want to be in trouble.

I guess to fix the gray area, don't put yourself in a situation where there is a possiblity. Have responsible, consentual sex that doesn't require copious amounts of alcohol...unless it is with someone you are familiar with and know it is safe to do so.

SilkRose (not logged in) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can tell you that any decent person, man OR
> woman, would not have sex with someone that is at
> this point of intoxication.
>
> Alcohol and regrets are a common thing that go
> hand in hand. You are correct though, I had a
> male friend in HS that was accused of rape, simply
> because he and the girl were caught by her father
> in the back seat of a car. She didn't want to be
> in trouble.
>
> I guess to fix the gray area, don't put yourself
> in a situation where there is a possiblity. Have
> responsible, consentual sex that doesn't require
> copious amounts of alcohol...unless it is with
> someone you are familiar with and know it is safe
> to do so.

And girls need to mean no when they say it instead of worrying about seeming too eager and boys need to accept that a girl means it if she says no

i was with a woman that i had just met.... (i was traveling the country for 300 days out of the year) and she got sh$$faced and when i didnt make a move... she asked me if i was gay.... i said no... i just didnt want to take advantage of her.... and another time i was with this girl and we had just started.... and she said no.... so..... i stopped... so hard(hehehe) to do.... but i did...i figure she should have said no to start with... and i mean we had STARTED!! AHH the memories!! :)

Well, I understand that it can be frustrating to have someone say "no" at the height of excitement.

But in the case of women who tend to get "all hot and bothered", and then say no... Well... Believe it or not, its often because a lot of women really just want to hug and kiss someone. They just want to feel like someone thinks they're pretty, or even loves them. Quite a few of them are more interested in that, than they are in actual sex, especially if they haven't had many good sexual encounters. As in maybe their former partners were a bit inconsiderate?

Or sometimes, like in my case, they know they tend to fall in love when they have sex, and they don't want to risk developing feelings for someone who won't love them back.

They want SOME affection, but not "all" of it. You'd be surprised how many women (even in today's day in age) still don't ACTUALLY like to have sex unless they are at least sure both of them are sorta in love.

Again, I'm one of them, lol. There's a few conditions-- if my parter is very considerate and cares what I like, then sure, sex is great! But I also have the condition that we have to at least be in love.

Like many women, I LOOOOOOOVE to kiss. Man, when you are talking about a euphoric emotional high.... Kissing can actually be BETTER than sex! When I'm all wrapped up in my big "kissing high", and he suddenly pulls away (most guys quit kissing when they get ready to have sex) and starts trying to do something that I don't like to do unless I'm in love... It kinda throws a buckett of cold water on the high, and brings everything to a reality-based screeching halt! And then I'm like,

"Wait, what the hell am I doing??? I don't love you, and I'm pretty sure you don't love me either! I don't think so... Get off me!!" lol.

And I will make my intentions VERY clear, from day 1 that I don't like sex when I'm nto in love. I don't do one-night stands. And if a man ever pretended to love me just to get in my pants... Oooooooooo, big mistake!! I would seriously give up my whole paycheck just to hire some thug willing to beat him beyond recognition, lol.

My Italian grandpa (rest his soul) had mafia ties... Can you tell? lol.



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2010 11:21PM by melissa3839.

The problem is often that both people are intoxicated. There were some interesting discussion on this at the time of the William Kennedy Smith case. Add to that that some girls say no when they mean yes and some boys figure that the girls doesn't really mean no, you have a recipe for disaster.

When you have two adults, they both have to be willing to take responsibility when one or both fail to do so, it's inevitable that someone will get hurt. It is unfortunate that some can't take no for an answer. It is unfortunate that some can't take resposibility for their actions. It is unfortunate that many refuse to realize or acknowledge that alcohol changes and impairs our judgement.

I am not an expert, but I have been sexually assaulted while I was tipsy. I have also woken up next to a guy wondering what on earth I was thinking.

Personally, for me, the difference is that I absolutely and vehemently, to the point of violence did not want to be sexually assaulted. I didn't ask for that. I happen to know that I never once even considered the guy.

Waking up next to a guy who was probably not the best of choices? Well, I own that. I could usually remember how it had happened, and that it takes two to tango. But the environment I was in wasn't the sort in which that sort of thing would reflect badly on me. I made a stupid choice, so?!?

Some guy trying to rape me? That was his bad, not mine. He deserved the police on is doorstep. There's a huge difference between me saying "yes" to a guy I like more because I've had a few pints, and me saying "no".

Having said that, if in my environment ALL sex was a sin, I don't know what guilt might have done to my personal integrity to save my flaming backside. I didn't get blamed for the sexual assault. If you wanted to, you could say that the fact that I smiled at the guy while telling him where to go, was a come-on, but that would take it too far. At the end of the day, I didn't have anything to lose by standing up in court and calling him a criminal. I was right.

I would have lost my integrity doing the same to a guy I took home. But if all of my friends and family were to tell me that I was immoral for taking a guy home, I don't know if I would have the integrity to stand up, and admit it. Sorry, but where I'm from it's not a terrible sin to take someone you like home, so I don't know what I would do if it were.

I think Cecily addressed what i was trying to ask fairly well so far. Where is the line in the sand? Where does the womans responsibility end? First drink? Does it depend if he is drunk? Violence and force are obvious no nos. If she is obviously out of control drunk, taking advantage is still pretty obvious no no, but as much as as the other case? I think so but do you? What if she is out of control but all over a guy? Is he still the one responsible?

Kudos to Cecily for recognizing and accepting the difference in her own experience. There is regret and there is injustice where does each of you feel that one ends and the other begins?

persons can't legally consent to sex, meaning that any sexual contact with such a person could be construed as sexual assault or rape - even if that person seems to agree to or even initiates sex.

Basically, sex with anyone who has to be drunk to agree to sleep with you is always a bad idea.

This topic keeps being painted as women as victim, male as perpetrator.

With violent rape, it makes sense to present it that way, but not so much in drunk sex. Males may still be more of the aggressor overall drunk sex, but there are plenty of drunk men having sex with women who may not be as drunk as the guy.

I went to a Utah high school, and there was a lot of drinking in my high school. Most sex happened while drunk it seemed.

In some of the scenarios in the other thread, even if the woman wants sex, it's rape if she's drunk. But not much is mention at all about drunk guys wanting sex, so he too was raped.

In this narrow band of rape types, that has nothing to do with force, it's to do with wanting sex but being drunk, force has nothing to do with it. So why is it painted as women victim, guy perpetrator?

As far as drunk sex, and calling it rape goes, I "had my chastity stolen" by a woman rapist in high school.

I think that there are many guys out there that had sex, AND wanted it, while too drunk to make good decisions. They aren't painted as victims of rape. But if WANTING sex doesn't matter, being too drunk is what matters, why paint the women as victims and assume that it's accurate?

If being too drunk and wanting sex, finding a willing partner and having sex, is rape... then a lot of women belong in prison for rape too.

who is unable to legally consent who is the victim.
Yes, there are male victims of rape, especially underage males, and these women perps have gone to prison for it.

BadGirl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> who is unable to legally consent who is the
> victim.
> Yes, there are male victims of rape, especially
> underage males, and these women perps have gone to
> prison for it.


I'm not meaning underage males. I'm talking about grown adults who willingly want to have sex, but are too drunk to make a great decision, and may regret it in the morning.

Yes, I agree that there are some women who cry rape because they're horrified by their decision. However there are still plenty of and far too many actual rapes perpetuated on women (and possibly men -- but I kind of thought alcohol made it a little difficult for men to -- um -- get into a performance state -- am I wrong about that?) when they are actually unable to consent. I believe it generally comes down to who was drunker in the situation -- if she's unconscious or close to it -- it's rape. If she's drunk and says no and he doesn't stop -- it's rape. If she says yes and regrets it in the morning -- it's a bad choice. And if she's underage, drinking or not, it's rape.

Rebeckah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> but I kind of thought alcohol made it a
> little difficult for men to -- um -- get into a
> performance state -- am I wrong about that?) when
> they are actually unable to consent.

My own guess on that is that if the guy has had some "performance issues" at times, alcohol may affect it negatively. If it always works no problem, alcohol won't change it. That has been my experience, and what I've heard in guy talk.

I'm not well educated as to the male physiology. Sometimes I amaze myself with the basic stuff I just don't know. ;)

I take it y'all have never heard the term "whiskey dick."

After a certain amount of alcohol, it doesn't matter if it always works, if it works most of the time, sometimes, or once every 17 years... it just ain't gonna work. I've had drunken sex where we were both too hammered to... finish. Literally, just going through the motions, too numb to feel much.

Bottom line, drunk sex is, in general, not very good and therefore, not advisable on that count alone.

FYI - Men don't have to be able to "perform" to be raped. Do I need to explain that further?

as victims.
If, as Rebekah says, the person was too drunk to consent or resist, it does not matter whether they are male or female, they have a case for rape.
The same as if the person were asleep. It's forcible rape. Forcible, not statutory.

IMHO, it's a person's responsibility to be aware of his/her surroundings and not to get into a situation where the grey area exists.

I'm now married, but when I was single I never, ever would drink more than a single drink going out to a bar or to a party unless I was with a couple of friends, simply so I could stay aware of what was going around me. I generally would never go out without a group period, simply for safety.

I was firm with saying no. And yes, there were guys who would try to pull a "women say no but mean yes" routine, and whatever it would take, I would leave.

If the guy who I was interested in seemed tipsy/drunk, I'd make a mental note to try flirting with him at some other time when he was sober. Nothing wrong with "hey, I think you're cute" but being firm not to allow it to go further that night. The clear "no" rule continued to apply.

Besides, a guy who would want me to have sex from the get go? Wasn't a guy I'd be interested in for a relationship.

DNA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This topic keeps being painted as women as victim,
> male as perpetrator.

I think that pretty much sums up the feminist worldview- men are the oppressors and women are the victims. The problem is that gender relations tend to be much more complicated than that and such an overly simplistic approach often has the effect of unfairly demonizing and hurting men when it's applied to actual situations such as these, especially in the modern western world. If feminists focused their efforts on areas of the world where women are truly oppressed (and there are plenty of those still around) then they might be able to actually accomplish quite a bit of good.

H. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DNA Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This topic keeps being painted as women as
> victim,
> > male as perpetrator.
>
> I think that pretty much sums up the feminist
> worldview- men are the oppressors and women are
> the victims. The problem is that gender relations
> tend to be much more complicated than that and
> such an overly simplistic approach often has the
> effect of unfairly demonizing and hurting men when
> it's applied to actual situations such as these,
> especially in the modern western world. If
> feminists focused their efforts on areas of the
> world where women are truly oppressed (and there
> are plenty of those still around) then they might
> be able to actually accomplish quite a bit of
> good.


With all due respect, some of the more extreme examples of second-wave feminism have taken that approach, but today's feminism recognizes such a view as harmful to both men and women. I think you would find most feminists strongly disagreeing with the demonizing of men.

It's a sad and wrong stereotype that men are "always up for it", which makes it much more difficult for a male rape victim to speak out. Especially if the rapist was a woman. Such rapes rarely get reported.

On the other hand, women are considered "sluts" if they enjoy sex, or have a one-nightstand. But it's more "acceptable" for a woman to be the victim of a rape than it is for a man.

Feminism these days is about changing such harmful gender stereotypes, and raising awareness that they still exist. It's not about "gaining the upper hand", but about equality.

It's such a complicated thing.

Of course no means no, don't blame or shame the victim, etc.

But a woman also has a responsibility to not enter into situations where she can be easily victimized.

It reminds me of the case of the baseball player who was out drinking for hours with friends including a particular woman, they came back to his apartment, they were both completely plastered, and sexual intercourse occured. He was crucified for being a rapist--but what about the woman's choices? There wasn't any point in that chain of events where she thought, "I know where this is going to lead; time to stop the ride and get off if I don't want that to happen?" Is he really in the same class of offenders as someone who stone-cold-sober pulls a random woman into an alley and rapes her?

Like I said, a complicated thing.

I think it's right to teach girls that they own their bodies and that no one ever has the right to touch them without their permission--but also that there are men who will take advantage if they render themselves vulnerable, and they need to be aware of that and make smart choices about alcohol and drugs.

And boys/men need to be taught that they must be in charge of their genitalia, not the other way around, and also to make smart choices about alcohol and drugs.

I think you make some interesting and good points here, but sadly the majority of reported rapes (at least in the UK) were perpetrated by someone the victim knew and trusted, like a boy/girlfriend, relative, friend etc.

According to UK statistics, I am far more likely to become the victim of domestic violence than assault by a random stranger, yet I'm not on constant alert when I'm with my boyfriend, but am wary about walking through badly lit streets. I am in a potentially dangerous situation every day. It's called "living together", but arguably if he were to assault me that would be more acceptable, because I never addressed this dangerous situation? For me the argument that someone is less culpable because the victim got into a potentially dangerous situation, doesn't quite work.

While I am all for being careful and taking responsibility for one's safety, I am also very much for teaching boys and girls that it's just plain wrong to touch someone against their will. Don't say 'no', unless you mean it, and if someone says 'no'- stop.

Good point and food for thought, as far as what actually constitutes 'dangerous circumstances.' I would agree with your last point about the message we should be teaching young people, and add that we should do our best to make them understand that too much alcohol usually = less able to say no ourselves, or heed another person's no. And that the results of THAT are often catastrophic in one way or another.

The best sex I ever had was when I was highly intoxicated and probably should regret it, but I just can't and don't want to :X

Unless some man was in a helpless physical state, e.g. practically or fully unconscious, and yet still had an erection (really??), I don't know how most women could physically force a man to have intercourse. Now, if a woman uses a strap-on dildo and the man is physically helpless, sure, I can see how a woman could rape a man, but I'd bet it's a pretty rare situation.

This is the strangest thread. Alcohol involvement or not, force is force. If anyone, man or woman, is physically unable to consent, then it's rape, statutory or not (not age related).

No woman or man "asks for it" or can possibly accept blame in a rape.

This is such a weird discussion.

Serena Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Unless some man was in a helpless physical state,
> e.g. practically or fully unconscious, and yet
> still had an erection (really??), I don't know how
> most women could physically force a man to have
> intercourse. Now, if a woman uses a strap-on
> dildo and the man is physically helpless, sure, I
> can see how a woman could rape a man, but I'd bet
> it's a pretty rare situation.
>
> This is the strangest thread. Alcohol involvement
> or not, force is force. If anyone, man or woman,
> is physically unable to consent, then it's rape,
> statutory or not (not age related).
> No woman or man "asks for it" or can possibly
> accept blame in a rape.
>
> This is such a weird discussion.


A lot of this discussion, and the discussion on the last thread, is about people who get drunk and have sex. Some think that even if you were very willing to have sex, if you were too drunk it's rape. So it's not all about force in this discussion.

So because guys can willingly go along, but be too drunk to make great informed decisions, it should count as rape just as much as when it happens to a women who willingly goes along, but is too drunk.

But now to your point of can a guy be forced, oral sex is rape.

but just drunk, even sloshed? No, if you're drunk and you screw someone, it's not rape, unless you were forced into it, not even statutory rape. I've never, ever heard of this. Alcohol certainly can lower one's inhibitions, but if you're still conscious and not protesting or being forced, no, I couldn't call it rape.

Seriously, DNA? You're trying to be funny, right? A blow job is not rape, even if the guy supposedly doesn't want it. What a silly analogy. Rape is a pretty serious thing to be poking fun at.

Forcible rape.
This is about someone being incapacitated and another person takes advantage of that. It's exactly how the "date rape" drug is used.

A woman could use an object, or otherwise sexually assault the man. Just as a man would rape another man.
You seem to have a very narrow concept of sexual assault.