Broadly my view although she’s going to get into so much trouble over this

Miss Hewson, a barrister at Hardwicke Chambers, added: “It seems to me, simply factually, we all know if you’re drunk you are more likely to have accidents. So if you fall off a bar stool and hit you head and have a serous brain injury because you’re drunk people are gong to say well you chose to be drunk.

“So it does seem to me something a little sanitised about the idea that (when discussing rape) we cannot even have a discussion about the moral responsibility whatever people may want to say about the legal responsibility.”

Miss Hewson, 52, who lives in Islington, north London, dismissed what she saw as four “components” of the dominant “ideology of sexual victimisation” surrounding rape.

“The first is the idea that rape and sexual abuse is very widespread but largely unrecognised even by victims themselves who need to be taught to realise what’s really happened.

“Secondly, that it has long term damaging effects. Thirdly that its morally absolutely unambiguous, the victim is utterly innocent and the victimiser is utterly guilty and this is infinitesimal. And finally that claims of victimisation must always be respected, anything less is victim-blaming.”

337 thoughts on “Broadly my view although she’s going to get into so much trouble over this”

  1. Blimey… The ‘sisters’ are not going to like that one little bit. Any minute now she’ll be labelled a ‘self-hating woman’ or be accused of ‘accepting the misogynist hegemony’ or some such attempt to avoid a discussion.

  2. Mind you, without wishing to detract from the overall thrust of her argument, her analogy breaks down somewhat when you reflect that neither the bar stool nor the floor are sentient.

  3. True, Edward. But then a bloke in the grip of booze, adrenalin and testosterone isn’t particularly sentient either.

  4. Way back during my law degree at Warwick, during what I think was called the Sexuality and the Law module, I caused outrage by suggesting that rape of a nun was worse, and if alleged more likely to have happened, than the rape of a prostitute or serial shagger.

    I didn’t go down well with the lecturer or some of the ugly sisters, but a number of the birds on the course agreed because it was very obviously right.

    That was many years ago – I guess now I’d be thrown off the course.

  5. Edward, the police routinely warn people not to leave valuables on show in cars, and there’s definitely a feeling that if your laptop is nicked from the back seat you were sort of asking for it. Not that it excuses the thief, but you are partly to blame. Insurance companies certainly expect you to take reasonable care.

  6. She’s spot on with her first point. There’s a lot of professionals out there (and witness the current Savile witchunt) looking to whip up fear about paedos and rapists on every corner, especially when they label almost anything including bum-pinching in that category.

    She’s also right with her second. Some people react to traumatic experiences much better than others.

    Not sure I agree on the third. It’s important to be practical about avoiding rape (because you can’t teach rapists not to rape) but it is about giving or not giving consent. The only grey areas I see are with alcohol.

    Her point about victimisation is spot-on, though. The man is assumed by feminazis to be guilty. They pretty much deny that false claims get made or that in many cases women are far more susceptible to beer goggles than men and assume they got roofied.

  7. This is perfectly sensible so long as you think that being raped is in any way like falling off a bar stool.

    Does everybody on here also think it is OK for men to be anally raped, so long as they have had a drink first? Or is it just the ladies who bear this special moral responsibility?

  8. Nobody at all is suggesting that any form of rape is acceptable.

    What is being suggested is that certain actions might make one more susceptbile to being raped.

  9. “What is being suggested is that certain actions might make one more susceptbile to being raped.”

    No, the article is saying more than that, that some rape victims bear ‘moral responsibility’ for their rape. I think it is interesting that no-one ever means male rape victims in this sort of discussion, only women. I doubt any of the men here would think that they were in any way responsible should a couple of men they had a drink with decided to rape them, even if they were very casually dressed, provocatively showing off their bodies, but women, well that is a different matter.

  10. As mentioned previously, it’s one thing to fall off a bar stool when drunk, quite another for someone to take advantage of you in that condition.

    I’m all in favour of warning people that behaving in some ways is silly and risky, but just because there are some people behaving like animals doesn’t mean you can excuse them: we are supposed to be a little above those who are ruled entirely by hormones.

  11. ‘I think it is interesting that no-one ever means male rape victims in this sort of discussion, only women.’

    Possibly that’s because there isn’t an enormous industry devoted to proving that all men get raped, all the time.

  12. She is speaking truth. This is courageous but unwise in a tyranny. If she becomes any kind of threat to the power class, they will destroy her.

    The ideology under which we suffer is constructed from lies; some direct, some of ommission. If those lies are shown to be so, the whole edifice will be ruined.

    Having said that, I am sure in myself that it will crumble eventually. But Hewson is speaking, perhaps, too early in the cycle which characterises these things; fervour, consolidation, misery, regret. It took many decades to get from the Gay Hysteria (Feminism 1.0) to expressions of remorse at the treatement of Alan Turing. It seems unlikely that the current wave can collapse much more rapidly; it is believed by virtually all, of enormous use to our power classes, and a source of income and prestige. So, it will take time for it to be swept away, for people to realise the absurdity of what they came to believe under the influence of this ideology.

    Still, best of luck to her, but I hope she has nothing they can use against her because she must already be high on the list for Alinksian destruction.

  13. “This is courageous but unwise in a tyranny.”

    Tyranny? You mean the tyranny of not being allowed to rape people even if we have bought them a drink?

  14. As to Minnow’s silly comment;

    In the 90s I was heavily involved in the gay scene and socialised a lot on it as a consequence. As such, being straight, I did make a point of not giving out any wrong signals. Had I for some reason spent an evening flirting and leading somebody on, and it then went pear shaped, I would actually have thought I’d been partly responsible. Which is why I didn’t do that sort of thing.

    And just out of interest, I did have one gay friend attempt to, er, forcibly convert me in his flat after a heavy night’s drinking, so I do have some idea of the situations one can get in.

  15. “And just out of interest, I did have one gay friend attempt to, er, forcibly convert me in his flat after a heavy night’s drinking, so I do have some idea of the situations one can get in.”

    And presumably, if he had succeeded in raping you, perhaps with the help of a friend, you would have agreed that the ‘moral responsibility’ was yours, after all you did agree to go to his room.

  16. As to Minnow’s latest silly comment (between my two), no, nobody is suggesting that but the fact you have characterised it that way is a clear indication of how deeply corrupted by the new religious ideology you are. Your conceptual framework of society and sexuality is so badly skewed that in a thread like this, the likes of you and the likes of me are effectively talking different languages (the same words with radically different subjective meanings) and I suspect any argument will be rather fruitless.

  17. I agree with the moral responsibility bit; we know the world isn’t perfect and there are some shit people out there. We naturally should take steps to manage the risk that the shit people might do something shit to us. That means not leaving the laptop in the car, not leaving the kids alone while you go out for tapas, and not drunkenly throwing yourself at a bar full of men. None of this excuses the actions of the shit people though but you shouldn’t go out looking for trouble.

  18. “no, nobody is suggesting that”

    Hewson is suggesting that and many on here seem to be defending it. If you agree with me that a rape victim is never in any sense morally responsible for their attack, what are we arguing about?

  19. “A woman I’m talking with at some event says, “Let’s leave here and go to this bar,” which is a lesbian bar. We go to the bar and we’re talking and then she says, “Let’s go have coffee,” and we go to this coffee shop and end up, at three in the morning, half a block from her apartment. Finally, she says, “All right, well, goodnight.” She’s ready to go home alone and I look at her, like, “What do you mean? Aren’t we going to go back to your apartment?” “No.” “What?” And she says, “Do you think I was leading you on?” Un-fucking-believable. I can’t tell you the rage. I am, at that point, looking at her and…. All I can say is, if I had been an 18-year-old street kid instead of a 45-year-old woman, I would have stabbed her. I was completely humiliated and furious. If I had been a guy with a hard-on, I would have hit her.”

    -Camille Paglia

    Life isn’t so simple as the dogmas of Feminism, Minnow.

  20. Blue, is it only rape that is excused if the victim is drunk (and a woman, implicitly)? Or other forms of assault? Is a drunk man in a bar morally responsible if he gets beaten up for arguing about Tax Credits with a person who obviously disagrees with him?

  21. It’s – and here I’m going to sound a bit IanB – the lunatic wing of the feminist movement that insists that no woman can ever be even partly responsible for what happens to her.

    Actually, this is demaning to women.

    If IanB gets blind drunk in the company of a gay man who has designs on him and who is less controlled than he ought to be, and he gets raped, then of fucking course he bears some responsibility.

    Not criminal responsibility, just responsibility for his own failure to protect himself.

  22. The question of rape is very simple Ian, even if Camille Paglia thinks she is entitled to have sex with anyone she drinks coffee with (you don’t find that anecdote a bit mad?). If you think this is complex or a grey area, you need to have a careful think about your relationships with women.

  23. “the lunatic wing of the feminist movement that insists that no woman can ever be even partly responsible for what happens to her.”

    Can you point this wing out to me?

  24. An incapably drunk man who gets beaten up in a bar certainly bears some responsibility for what happens to him.

    Does an incapably drunk pedestrian who gets hit by a car he would normally have seen and heard coming, and been able to avoid, bear no responsibility for his injuries? Because that would be news to the courts.

  25. ‘Can you point this wing out to me?’

    I suspect it’s your mates. It’s certainly not my mother, my wife, my sister (a barrister, too), or any of the women I know, who all tend to the view that it’s your job as a woman to take some care of yourself.

    If you think this is complex or a grey area, you need to have a careful think about your relationships with sanity.

  26. “An incapably drunk man who gets beaten up in a bar certainly bears some responsibility for what happens to him.”

    You seriously believe this? If a man falls asleep in a pub because he is drunk and gets beaten up or killed, he is responsible morally for the crime? What if he falls asleep in a park because it is sunny? Still OK to beat him up?

  27. “It’s certainly not my mother, my wife, my sister (a barrister, too), or any of the women I know”

    I didn’t think it would be any women you actually knew, any real women. I doubt you think it is OK to rape your mother or sister either, even if they have had a drink or are wearing a colour or perfume that some man finds provocative. It’s those other, shadowy, women who deserve to be raped, and who gang together in feminist wings to victimise the men who, driven by hormonal rushes, occasionally need to rape a little bit. How often do you find yourself in a situation that looks ‘technically’ like rape interested?

  28. Minnow, Hewson is drawing a distinction between legal liability and mitigation. In other words, a man can be guilty of rape but,depending on his victim’s bbehaviour, he may have more to mitigate his crime than the next fellow. It’s not an attractive point since, as has been pointed out, we aspire to higher things than the beasts of the field, but nor is it without merit.

  29. Minnow, you need to have a careful think about what you believe. My relationships with women are fine, thanks.

    The key point here is that humans are emotional, social creatures and the actions of one can inspire, via emotional responses, reactions in others. We can do our best to control ourselves, and we normally do. But a rational human understands that emotional/reactive element. Feminsits, not being rational humans, don’t.

    Forget sex. Think about something else, violence. If you and I were in a bar arguing about this I could quite likely wind you up to such an extent that you thump me, just by my words.

    Legally you are responsible for initiating violence. Morally I bear some responsibility for calling you a poo-faced twerp with an unnatural relationship with your mother. (This is one reason internet arguments can get so extreme; there is no threat of the escalation to fisticuffs).

    Likewise, women or men (especially in a gay sense, see above) can act in ways which inspire emotional responses in each other; we can build expectations and imply for instance sexual interest. It thus is actually behoven upon us not to do so. Women used to understand this, but Feminism tells them that they can act and act without responsibility. Just as the fist fight can be a result of escalation of one emotional cascade, so rape can be the consequence of the sexual one.

    The man who throws the punch after being wound up is legally responsible. The rapist is legally responsible. But the moral responsibility for causing the emotional states can rest with both parties in either case. This is why in a case of male/male violence the preceding events may be considered mitigation. This used to be the case before the feminist dogma overwhelmed sexual law. And it is rational, because it takes into account the reality of how human beings are.

    If we take the recent travesty of a case of the footballer who had sex with a willing drunk woman, and went to prison for faux rape, we can see the problem with ignoring this aspect. She chose to get drunk, chose to get in a state where her morals were looser and she was willing to have sex. Only afterwards did she decide she would not have done so sober (morally irrelevant) and the court therefore absolve her of responsibility for her own actions and blame instead the footballer.

    A free agent has both rights and responsibility for their own actions. A society which places all the rights with one gender and all the responsibility with the other, as we have now, is an ideological tyranny of the most perverse kind.

  30. I haven’t used the word ‘morally’, and I don’t agree with it. Morally the blame is with the scumbag rapist/thug.

    I’m talking about a failure to take reasonable care of oneself, that reasonableness varying case by case according to the circumstances.

    Which is how the real world operates.

    Viz, there’s a difference between falling asleep in the park, and getting falling down drunk in a pub; a little bit like the differences (which you probably won’t acknowledge) between stranger rape, ‘date rape’ and rape in a relationship.

    This actually is the whole point: there are shades of grey in human behaviour, and some victim behaviour is more likely than others to lead to adverse consequences.

    We can all ask ludicrous questions – Would you stroll round Riyadh in a bikini (assuming you’re a doris)? Should you be able to? Would you get naked on all fours at a dinner party and shake your ass at the host? – but you don’t seem very keen to answer them.

    How about my real world example of the drunk hit by a car?

  31. Edward, the law already allows for different degrees of seriousness in rape cases and a degree of mitigation (did the perpetrator have good reason to believe consent was given etc). Hewson is saying something else, that women are sometimes morally responsible for the crime. In other words they are, in part, the guilty party. I think that is flat out insane.

  32. @ Minnow and others

    There is a massive difference between allocation of moral responsibility and taking precautions.

    I’ve taught self defence for a few years. I teach all my students that it’s not a great idea to be drunk unless you’re with a relatively large group of people you know, in an area you know. I tell them that getting stocious with strangers is dangerous. They are more likely to be victims of predators. Now, the law of probability says that the predators on the men are more likely to beat them up and take their stuff. The predators on the women more likely to rape them.

    This is no less than gospel truth. If someone wants to accuse me of ‘victim-blaming’ then fine. I would rather some guardian-reading twat thought that I was a chauvinist than that one of my students got harmed.

  33. @Minnow ‘I doubt you think it is OK to rape your mother or sister either, even if they have had a drink or are wearing a colour or perfume that some man finds provocative.’

    This is typical of you lot. I don’t think it’s OK to rape anyone – I think it’s vile and disgusting and I’d jail rapists for 20 years quite happily. I have daughters.

    But I also think there are things that women can do to make it less likely that they are raped – just as there are thing I can do to make it less likely I get my head kicked in in a bar – and that where they (or I) don’t take these reasonable precautions they are (or I am) at least partly the author of my own misfortune.

    Not to the extent that the culpability of the offender is compromised, just in fact.

  34. “a little bit like the differences (which you probably won’t acknowledge) between stranger rape, ‘date rape’ and rape in a relationship”

    I don’t acknowledge them. I don’t see why anybody should be allowed to rape anyone, why should their relationship to the victim make a difference? Is it really less bad for a father to rape his daughter than a complete stranger? Some people even think it is worse (imagine!).

    “Would you get naked on all fours at a dinner party and shake your ass at the host? – but you don’t seem very keen to answer [that].”

    I think it is very strange, and slightly disturbing, that you feel the need to ask that to a complete stranger.

  35. As I said above, in a legal system in which a woman can cry rape after consensual sex because she’d had a few drinks, what Hewson is saying needs to be said very loud indeed.

  36. One other point, Minnow, before I depart to do some work; you might be surprised as to how many (probably actual) rape cases are lost because of the intoxication of the victim and her concomitant unreliabilty as a witness.

    But who cares about that?

  37. “But I also think there are things that women can do to make it less likely that they are raped ”

    Yes, there are, sometimes. But sometimes all precautions fail. Sometimes a woman is just going to make a mistake and go for a drink with man who decides that that is leading him on. Even if she drinks a lot, even if she likes him sexually and flirts with him, she is not in any sense responsible should he decide to rape her. People like Hewson, who want to deny that, put your daughters art risk. Don’t encourage them

  38. Minnow, you are missing an important point here: you seem to be incapable of sharing blame, and think that a finger can only point at exactly one person.

    What many people have suggested is that one party might bear some moral responsibility for an event, while the other party also bears some (or most).

    Your reaction to moving some blame to one party is to say that there must be no blame at all left with the other. That is an absurd over-statement of the case.

    It is perfectly possible to say that person A has some responsibility for an event, and that person B has more. You might then think it sensible to punish B severely but chastise A mildly.

    For example, if I am walking along texting on my phone and get hit by a reckless driver who’s lost control of his vehicle, then the primary blame lies with the driver but I should probably bear in mind that had I been paying attention to what was going on around me I might have been able to dodge. His fault, yes, but I bear some degree of responsibility. He should be locked up, and I should be told I was an idiot.

    To say I should be able to blithely walk through life acting as I wish and expecting everything to be perfect would be absurdly naive.

  39. As to Paglia’s anecdote, it’s not “a bit mad” at all. She was polemically trying to describe how people actually feel; that the phenomenon of “leading on” is a real one and inspires great anger in those who are victims of it, either accidentally or deliberately. Humans respond very badly to being wound up; it’s a humiliation and we are programmed as animals to respond to that aggressively.

  40. “As I said above, in a legal system in which a woman can cry rape after consensual sex because she’d had a few drinks”

    Why would she do that, do you think? Because she really really wants to spend hours at the police station, weeks and months in court with a tiny possibility of conviction?

    Anyway, Hewson did not mention false allegations of rape, so I don’t see why what she has said needs to be said in this context? I think you have a bee in your bonnet that is drowning out the actual topic of conversation. Hewson is talking about women who have actually been raped.

    By the way, and just out of curiosity, how many unfounded accusations of rape have you been the victim of?

  41. “it’s not “a bit mad” at all. She was polemically trying to describe how people actually feel”

    It only seems sane if you think that feelings of murderous rage towards a woman who has coffee with you but will not then sleep with you are in any way understandable. Do you?

  42. Minnow,

    Hewson is saying something else, that women are sometimes morally responsible for the crime. In other words they are, in part, the guilty party. I think that is flat out insane.

    Quite.

    Interested,

    How about my real world example of the drunk hit by a car?

    The analogy doesn’t really work. If the driver tried to avoid the drunk, how does that compare with an alleged rapist? “I’m really trying not to fuck you but it’s impossible to brake or swerve in time when I’m travelling at this speed.” If the driver didn’t try to avoid the drunk then clearly he is guilty – not sure what value there is in saying the drunk shouldn’t have been standing where he was.

  43. “Minnow, you are missing an important point here: you seem to be incapable of sharing blame”

    Let’s be really clear about this, I am not saying that blame cannot be shared in any circumstance, only that there is no share of blame between a rapist and his victim. If you think differently, you need to be very careful how you approach women because you are almost certainly a danger to them whether you know it or not.

  44. Minnow, in your comment at 11.44 I think you’re eliding something which is an absolute defence with mitigation. They’re fundamentally different things.

    As for your moral culpability argument, I agree with Ian on the reality of human relationships and repeat: it’s not an attractive point because we aim to be better than that, but our passions can be inflamed. Yes, we’re responsible for that, but we’re also entitled say, “hang on a minute, I didn’t do this in a vacuum, I lost my self-possession for x, y, z reasons”.

  45. It only seems sane if you think that feelings of murderous rage towards a woman who has coffee with you but will not then sleep with you are in any way understandable. Do you?

    I said this would be fruitless.

    She is describing in colourful terms the real emotions that human beings have in response to humiliation. It’s not hard to understand, Minnow.

  46. She feels murderous because she expected to have sex after having a drink and a coffee?

    Yeah, completely understandable. Christ, I feel like murder if someone doesn’t have sex with me after I open the door for them.

  47. I think we also need to remember that Hewson did not say that being drunk is some kind of invitation to rape; she used drunkeness leading to an accident as an example of being responsible, to show that one’s own actions can lead to undesirable consequences.

    She then goes on to say that a rape victims actions (nothing to do with drunkenness in the quotes) may be partly responsible for a subsequent rape situation.

    Different paragraphs.

  48. UKL-

    Yeah, completely understandable. Christ, I feel like murder if someone doesn’t have sex with me after I open the door for them.

    Now this is the kind of thing that makes me feel murderous in a debate. You are deliberately, wilfully, and with malice aforethought entirely misrepresenting what was meant in the above quote.

    You’re not a stupid man. You can read and understand. Stop being so fucking dishonest.

  49. Also, having just reread Hewson’s comments, Minnow, she’s NOT saying women are responsible for being raped. She’s saying that we should be prepared to calibrate and apportion moral culpability, where legal liability is established.

  50. I often feel murderous towards other motorists. I’ve always kept a lid on it, though. But if I didn’t, if I snapped, and beat up another motorist, I’d then be properly convicted of the assault. My motive for the attack is irrelevant to my legal liability, but it’s highly relevant for the sentencing judge to know whether I just randomly beat people up or whether I’m just a bit more complex than that.

  51. In Paglia’s own words, she felt like hitting or stabbing a woman she had spent a few presumably pleasant hours with because, instead of inviting Paglia home, the woman called it a night.

  52. “She is describing in colourful terms the real emotions that human beings have in response to humiliation.”

    The ‘humiliation’ in question is someone not wanting to have sex with her after having coffee with her. If you think that is a reasonable description of ‘humiliation’ or that murderous anger is an appropriate response, you need to think on.

  53. “She’s saying that we should be prepared to calibrate and apportion moral culpability”

    That’s right, between a rape victim and her rapist. Are you comfortable with that?

  54. “She then goes on to say that a rape victims actions (nothing to do with drunkenness in the quotes) may be partly responsible for a subsequent rape situation.”

    Quite.

  55. “Yes, we’re responsible for that, but we’re also entitled say, “hang on a minute, I didn’t do this in a vacuum, I lost my self-possession for x, y, z reasons”.”

    Why so mealy mouthed? Say what you mean: ‘I didn’t rape her in a vacuum, I lost my self-possession for x, y, z reasons’.

  56. Dear God, Feminists. It’s like arguing with a brick wall.

    I know I will regret trying to explain this, but “coffee” is not the key concept here. It is that a certain sequence of events are a form of social signalling.

    Look, suppose I buy a woman at the office some flowers. There might be several interpretations. But the key concept here isn’t the plants. It’s what they mean in a social context; for instance as a romantic advance. Not the fact that they are the modified leaves of angiosperms, or something. It’s not “flowers”, it’s the social context.

    Likewise, it’s not the bloody coffee itself, it’s the social and behavioural interpretations of the sequence of events Paglia describes. Actions have a social interpretation, they aren’t just actions.

    And like I said, even you guys are really fully aware of this and are just being vexatious in your argumentation for debating purposes. Stop it.

  57. Minnow: so you are saying that in most circumstances blame is to be shared, but there is some quality to rape which means that the normal rules do not apply.

    Can you articulate what that special quality is? If not, I think it entirely valid to assume that blame is capable of apportionment.

    I should also be very interested to know what it is about rape perpetrated by other men that makes me personally a danger to women. Or is it your black-and-white thinking again? Do you consider that if I think a woman might be in the slightest degree culpable, I am therefore blameless and can act free of any moral judgement and behave sociopathically?

  58. “I know I will regret trying to explain this, but “coffee” is not the key concept here. It is that a certain sequence of events are a form of social signalling.”

    Only if you are as loopy as Paglia. Having a drink and then a coffee with someone is not a ‘social signal’ that you are offering them sex. It need only mean you enjoy drinking coffee with them and talking to them. To feel murderous rage towards someone who has coffee but not sex with you is extremely disturbed.

    “Look, suppose I buy a woman at the office some flowers. There might be several interpretations. But the key concept here isn’t the plants. ”

    And if she took them but then still refused to have sex with you? Would the red mist descend?

  59. Yes, Minnow, I am. That’s the whole point, what separates people like you from people like me, and why (I suspect) we scare the hell out of each other.

    And btw, I’m not suggesting a rape victim, even one who has unambiguously and shamelessly led her attacker on while herself in drink, should be scorned and humiliated. But my sympathies for such a victim are less than they would be for one who is as pure as the driven snow, just as my condemnation of her attacker would be more muted.

  60. “Minnow: so you are saying that in most circumstances blame is to be shared, but there is some quality to rape which means that the normal rules do not apply.”

    I am saying that in many circumstances there is a share of blame, but in violent crimes against the person, there isn’t. That includes rape. The rapist is guilty, the rape victim not. I don’t think there is any grey area here. A rape is never required. A rape is never justified. Nobody deserves to be raped and nobody is entitled to rape.

  61. “And btw, I’m not suggesting a rape victim, even one who has unambiguously and shamelessly led her attacker on while herself in drink”

    Blimey.

  62. It’s funny, on some blogs I visit people bang on about ‘rape culture’ and the like and I tell them that they are paranoid and melodramatic, and then I come here and, well, streuth!

  63. Minnow: ” I think it is interesting that no-one ever means male rape victims in this sort of discussion, only women. “

    You don’t speak for me. You don’t know that I don’t mean that.

  64. “You don’t speak for me. You don’t know that I don’t mean that.”

    Do you? Do you think that a soldier who gets drunk with some other soldiers and is then raped by them is partly responsible for his own rape?

  65. Minnow’s behaviour here is why I take the view it’s pointless arguing with progressives and we just need to focus on destroying them as a movement. They just keep lying. You can’t reason with them. It’s a total waste of time.

  66. “Minnow’s behaviour here is why I take the view it’s pointless arguing with progressives and we just need to focus on destroying them as a movement. They just keep lying.”

    That would have more weight if you could point to a lie, Ian.

  67. Seriously? I’ve just pleaded guilty to rape, and I say, “I didn’t do it in a vacuum”, and you think I’m being mealy-mouthed because I didn’t instead say, “I didn’t rape her in a vacuum”?

    Youre betraying a lack of proportion, as well as a want of judgment.

  68. Im glad they disturb you. That signals that people like you know there is still opposition.

    On the other hand, people like you disturb me, and I suppose you can take an equal and opposite comfort from that.

    As to what I assume is your insinuation that I’m a rapist who doesn’t yet know it, well, whatever.

  69. Minnow-

    That would have more weight if you could point to a lie, Ian.

    “Having a drink and then a coffee with someone is not a ‘social signal’ that you are offering them sex.”

    It’s a lie. YOu know you’re lying. Paglia has deliberately set up a situation which is socially contextualised. Shut up about the fucking coffee. It’s the “two lesbians, late in the night, after many hours” in a context where this is seen as “pairing up” or whatever you want to call it. If you refuse to even accept the parameters of the initial scenario, you are lying. Of course the night as described would be seen as a sexual come-on. This is why Paglia described it.

    I will try this one more time.

    Say you work in an office. One day, a female colleague asks you in a slightly awkward, nervous way, if you’d like to go to the pictures. You have no romantic/sexual interest in her. How do you respond?

    A) Yes, I’d like to see that movie.

    B) Gently and kindly say no.

    If you answered (A), you either suffer some cognitive socialisation dysfunction like Aspergers or you’re a twunt, because you’re supposed to realise in this social context that she fancies you and is asking you out on a date. So if you go with her, being not interested, you’re building her up to let her down, which is cruel.

    It’s not the movie, or the coffee. It’s how one acts expecting reasonable interpretations by the other person. The office colleague hasn’t said she fancies you but expects the offer of a date to imply that. You by going to the movie are expressing a reciprocal tentative interest.

    The chain of events described by Paglia is the same. In her social world of the time, spending time in that way is seen as an invitation.

    I must be mad sitting here actually typing this. I know damned well that Minnow if he responds will just do another “A is not A”. But here goes…

    *Post Comment*

  70. Likewise, it’s not the bloody coffee itself, it’s the social and behavioural interpretations of the sequence of events Paglia describes. Actions have a social interpretation, they aren’t just actions.

    Yes, I do understand that the substance isn’t in itself the point, thanks very much.

    My point is that getting into a murderous rage seems a bit strong. If someone calls it a night with me, despite what I thought were very promising signals, I think “she’s not up for it, I thought I’d get my end away but evidently that’s not going to happen tonight, oh well, I’ll ask if we can do this again” – I don’t feel like rape or murder. I don’t believe I’m an automaton. Maybe some people have anger and/or rejection ‘issues’?

  71. “That signals that people like you know there is still opposition.”

    Opposition to the idea that rape is always unjustified? Yes, I realise that exists now, although people have been telling me it for a long time, I have to admit.

  72. The interpretation of “sharing” blame based on the idea that there is a given finite quantity of blame that needs to be apportioned is misguided.

    The fact that the victim may be drunk or provocative doesn’t make the perpetrator’s behaviour less blameworthy but it does implicate the victim through carelessness or stupidity.

    This seems so obvious that I apologise for posting something this axiomatic.

  73. ““Having a drink and then a coffee with someone is not a ‘social signal’ that you are offering them sex.”

    It’s a lie. YOu know you’re lying.”

    No, I am not lying. It is possible, highly probable, that people will enjoy ones company without wanting to have sex with you. Sometimes in those circumstances you have ulterior motives or aspirations, but very, very often (in my experience) the other person does not share them but simply wants to enjoy an evening. This seems even more likely to me if you happen to be a world famous intellectual. I am astonished that you find this so unlikey, or have such trouble grasping the fact that a woman who shares drinks and coffee with you is not culpably leading you on.

  74. “I think IanB’s right – trying to argue with the likes of minnow is pointless.”

    You could try Julia. I notice that you did not reply to my question about the soldiers. Does that mean I can speak for you on that point after all?

  75. “The fact that the victim may be drunk or provocative doesn’t make the perpetrator’s behaviour less blameworthy but it does implicate the victim through carelessness or stupidity.”

    Meissen, how drunk does a woman need to be before she is implicated in her own rape? And what constitutes culpably ‘provocative’ behaviour towards a rapist?

  76. Minnow, there’s that lack of judgment/proportion thing again.

    I haven’t said that a girl giving a chap the come-on justifies his raping her. What I’ve said is that he’s entitled to say, “this is why I lost my self-possession. I am therefore not as bad as the man who rapes in a vacuum”, and, I’ve added, that for my part, I would consider such a man less dangerous and less worthy of contempt, and his victim less worthy of sympathy.

    Im

  77. “The office colleague hasn’t said she fancies you but expects the offer of a date to imply that. You by going to the movie are expressing a reciprocal tentative interest.”

    Let’s say that’s true and let’s say that I am. After the lights go up on the inevitably disappointing movie and I decide after all that I prefer not to spend more time with this nervous office colleague, would she be entitled to feel murderous rage? If the sex roles were reversed and in this scenario I, driven by fury, raped her when she decided to go home after the film, would she be, in part, to blame? The logic of your position seems to demand a ‘yes’.

  78. It is possible, highly probable, that people will enjoy ones company without wanting to have sex with you. Sometimes in those circumstances you have ulterior motives or aspirations, but very, very often (in my experience) the other person does not share them but simply wants to enjoy an evening.

    Maybe it’s platonic for them or they change their mind or they are on the fence about it at that particular time or they prefer to go on N dates / get to know someone before having sex or whatever, feeling like stabbing seems like an extreme response to not getting one’s rocks off.

  79. “I haven’t said that a girl giving a chap the come-on justifies his raping her.”

    In that case (and leaving aside what you might mean as a ‘come-on’), she cannot be said, as Hewson claims, to be morally implicated in the crime.

    “What I’ve said is that he’s entitled to say, “this is why I lost my self-possession. I am therefore not as bad as the man who rapes in a vacuum””

    He is not entitled to lose self possession at all. None of us are. And I am surprised that some people think it is less contemptible to rape people they know, people who can reasonably be expected to trust them to some degree and may even assume that they are protected by them, than to rape strangers.

  80. Opposition to the idea that rape is always unjustified?

    Okay, I’ll be the first person to say, here, that in some cases there is a “justification” for what, currently, would probably, if not be charged as rape, called it in the media reports. Although I’d hope it wouldn’t result in a conviction.

    Two people go out on a date. They have a bit to drink. Social inhibitions are lowered. They have a bit more to drink. End up at one of their flats. Copulation occurs. This is the way much of humanity has behaved for some considerable time.

    Next morning, the female decides that she went too far and claims that she was incapable, through alcoholic intoxication, of consenting. Hence she was raped.

    There is a significant meme that she is correct. And, one, I think that Minnow agrees with (happy to be wrong about this.)

    Strictly, under SOA03 s75(2)(f), she would have to have been forced to take the drink or roofied to be raped but we’re looking at a deliberate shifting of the Overton Window here.

  81. Minnow: Meissen, how drunk does a woman need to be before she is implicated in her own rape? And what constitutes culpably ‘provocative’ behaviour towards a rapist?

    Woman? My posting was not specific as to sex.

    I think your slip is showing.

  82. Surreptitious, the case you describe is not rape, so it is beside the point. The definition of rape used by every individual and organisation I can think of is very clear. I think you are wrong that there is significant support for people who make false allegations of rape.

  83. “Woman? My posting was not specific as to sex.”

    Woman or man, the question stands and I am interested in your answer.

  84. The definition of rape used by every individual and organisation I can think of is very clear.

    Hardly. See Guardian articles and various other “date rape hysteria” passim.

    I think you are wrong that there is significant support for people who make false allegations of rape.

    You clearly operate within a very very narrow frame of information. As there are extreme feminists that claim that all male / female sex and many women who claim that all pornography and all prostitution are “rape” then, no, I think that there is considerable support for people who would claim “rape” in circumstances that don’t meet SOA03, s1(1) b & c.

    JuliaM is a regular collator of this.

  85. “Hardly. See Guardian articles and various other “date rape hysteria” passim.”

    No, even the Guardian that, god knows, can be pretty flaky, takes a conventional view of rape. ‘Date rape’ is just rape with someone you know. It is still rape according to the usual definitions.

  86. Minnow, I said our rapist is entitled to say that x is why he lost his self-possession. I did not say that he is entitled to lose his self-possession. I agree that nobody is entitled to lose their self-possession. Where you and I part company is that I understand it happens and, depending on the circumstances, it can be more or less blameworthy. It may not be possible to justify it, but it may be possible to understand it and thereby to mitigate it. Thus, our rapist is guilty in law. He has no defence, because his actions cannot be justified. But he might have mitigation which involves casting aspersions on the utter purity of his victim.

    A victim can be a victim in law, yet less deserving of sympathy than some others.

    Youre

  87. “But he might have mitigation which involves casting aspersions on the utter purity of his victim.”

    Of course he can argue like this but it will only have any traction if we agree that the ‘purity’ of the woman in question is to the point. I don’t know whether you are saying it is or it isn’t. I think that the moral status of a woman is irrelevant to whether or not you are allowed to rape her, or the seriousness of the crime if you do rape her. I don’t think courts should be in the business of weighing up the moral status or ‘purity’ of victims at all. Unless they are Sharia courts, of course.

  88. I think I should just point out that neither Hewson nor anyone else is saying that some state of drunkeness makes it acceptable to rape a woman, so that whole strand of the argument (including the imaginary soldiers) is irrelevant. She simply uses a drunken accident as an example of self culpability, then goes on separately to discuss that prior actions by a woman may cause her to bear some measure of personal responsibility for an ensuing rapey situation. Different things.

    ****

    Separate to that, however, we must remember that the Feminocracy consider women who consensually have sex while drunk not responsible for their actions and thus rape victims. Hence, the footballer case which was brought on the basis that the faux victim was too drunk to fuck- though the actual verdict ended up being a bizarre interpretation of consent apparently arbitrarily invented by the jury.

    This is not just the case here, other countries under the Feminocracy have similar laws, e.g. Canada who make that explicit in law (a drunk woman who has sex is not responsible, a drunk man who has sex is responsible).

  89. Just as a note:

    RAINN “The nation’s largest anti-sexual violence organization.
    One of “America’s 100 Best Charities” -Worth magazine”

    Verbal consent must be obtained both in each instance of sexual intimacy and as the level of sexual intimacy increases (e.g., moving from kissing to petting, from petting to oral sex, from oral sex to intercourse or anal sex, etc.).

    Therefore, under the RAINN definition (remember the strap line), all that needs to change in the little vignette I described for at least one major anti-rape organisation to describe it as “acquaintance rape”, is for there to have been what in UK law might be considered a “reasonable assumption of consent” rather than explicit verbal consent.

    Please note that I did not, at any point, state that there had been explicit verbal consent, yet you agreed this was not rape. I happen to think you are right. But not everybody does.

  90. “then goes on separately to discuss that prior actions by a woman may cause her to bear some measure of personal responsibility for an ensuing rapey situation. ”

    So what ‘prior actions’ do make a woman complicit in her own rape, do you think? ‘Rapey situation’ sounds like so much more fun that plain old ‘rape’, doesn’t it?

    “we must remember that the Feminocracy consider women who consensually have sex while drunk not responsible for their actions ”

    I will email the Feminocracy with my protest immediately. Where can I find them? Are they based in the same building as the Feminazis?

  91. Yes. You can get the address of the Fawcett Society, Feminista, Object, Rape Crisis, etc etc etc from an internet near you.

    So what ‘prior actions’ do make a woman complicit in her own rape, do you think?

    Well, just to close the circle, we’re back with “leading on”, which everyone male and female understood until the Feminocracy declared it verboten.

  92. Does an incapably drunk pedestrian who gets hit by a car he would normally have seen and heard coming, and been able to avoid, bear no responsibility for his injuries? Because that would be news to the courts.

    If it was an accident, then the pedestrian may well be partly, or even wholly, responsible. If the driver hit him on purpose, then the driver is responsible.

    I don’t understand this argument about leading someone on. Suppose I tell you that I want to have sex with you, but I want to have a few drinks first. And then after a few drinks I tell you I’ve changed my mind and I don’t want sex with you any more. Am I then partly responsible if you decide to rape me? No I am not. If you’ve paid for my drinks, I ought to refund you. But that’s all.

    Certainly there are things one can do to reduce the risk of various assaults. Not going out drinking is one of them. But that doesn’t make anyone who does go out drinking morally responsible for assaults on them.

    It’s very simple. “No” means “no”. And passing out means “no” too.

  93. “Well, just to close the circle, we’re back with “leading on”, which everyone male and female understood until the Feminocracy declared it verboten.”

    ‘Leading on’ being …?

  94. “It’s very simple. “No” means “no”. And passing out means “no” too.”

    It does seem simple, doesn’t it? But in a world where some people think it is understandable to want to stab someone who has had drinks with you but not wanted to fuck you, it turns out to be more complicated.

  95. “It’s very simple. “No” means “no”. And passing out means “no” too.”

    And carrying on without explicit verbal consent also means “no”. According to RAINN. Which is rather less simple.

  96. Ian B,

    Separate to that, however, we must remember that the Feminocracy consider women who consensually have sex while drunk not responsible for their actions and thus rape victims.

    At or beyond a level of “drunk” one cannot legally consent – one does not have capacity to consent. So the question is, how drunk? Merely merry or falling down drunk? Some men have been convicted of rape because they had sex with women so drunk they could barely stand. Do you object to those convictions?

    Hence, the footballer case which was brought on the basis that the faux victim was too drunk to fuck- though the actual verdict ended up being a bizarre interpretation of consent apparently arbitrarily invented by the jury.

    You’ve referred to that case twice now but haven’t posted an URL or a name.

  97. Its no point arguing with the Minnows of this world – they are utterly convinced that a woman can do what ever she likes and nothing bad should ever happen to her, however egregious her behaviour. Whereas all men know that there are some things you just don’t do, if you fancy keeping all your teeth, kneecaps and indeed life.

    My theory is that its down to chivalry – down the ages women have (to a some extent) been protected from violence by men, whereas men never have. Thus men have never had the concept that they ‘ought’ to be safe from violence, they just had to take practical steps to avoid it. Thus you see the disconnect in some (not all) women who think they can do whatever and nothing bad should ever befall them, because that is ‘the way of things’ whereas men are only too aware of what bad things can happen, and need to be aware of them at all times.

  98. “they are utterly convinced that a woman can do what ever she likes and nothing bad should ever happen to her, however egregious her behaviour”

    No, I just don’t think a woman should be raped. Surely we can agree on that. I don’t know what behaviour could possibly merit raping someone.

    “Whereas all men know that there are some things you just don’t do, if you fancy keeping all your teeth, kneecaps and indeed life.

    Women know these things too, having coffee with someone and ‘looking attractive’ are nor usually considered to be among them.

    When did you last get a tooth knocked out because you had a drink with someone and then told him you didn’t want to fuck him?

  99. So the question is, how drunk? Merely merry or falling down drunk? Some men have been convicted of rape because they had sex with women so drunk they could barely stand.

    The letter of UK law is not quite that flexible.

    If you dope her (or him if you swing that way) without their consent, you are a rapist. Even if you just use alcohol.

    If they are “asleep or otherwise unconscious at the time of the relevant act”, you are a rapist.

    If they are as drunk as a skunk, lord or judge, falling down or barely standing up – providing they are not quite unconscious – then, well … You may still be a rapist but the “evidential presumptions about consent” (SOA03 s75) do not cover that particular arena.

    Yet you, and Minnow (unless my assumptions are wrong) would clearly categorise that as rape. And, in some US states, a woman who is “legally intoxicated” (whatever that means – I’d presume in some cases it is as weak as it is for DUI offences) cannot consent. Even if the intoxication is consensual and mutual and explicit verbal consent is provided.

  100. “Yet you, and Minnow (unless my assumptions are wrong) would clearly categorise that as rape.”

    It is rape if consent isn’t given or is denied or if the victim is incapable of consent. Is that so hard?

  101. SE,

    Well, as a rule of thumb, I think if a person is falling down drunk they wouldn’t have ‘capacity’ to consent. It’s conceivable but I don’t know how likely that they might have capacity even though they are barely able to stand let alone walk.

    The question of capacity to consent is particularly relevant when a complainant is intoxicated by alcohol or affected by drugs.

    In R v Bree [2007] EWCA 256, the Court of Appeal explored the issue of capacity and consent, stating that, if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant’s state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape. However, where a complainant had voluntarily consumed substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether to have intercourse, and agreed to do so, that would not be rape. Further, they identified that capacity to consent may evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious. Whether this is so or not, however, depends on the facts of the case.

    … Prosecutors and investigators should consider whether supporting evidence is available to demonstrate that the complainant was so intoxicated that he/she had lost their capacity to consent. For example, evidence from friends, taxi drivers and forensic physicians describing the complainant’s intoxicated state may support the prosecution case. …
    – From the CPS Policy and Guidance, Rape and Sexual Offences: Chapter 3: Consent.

  102. Minnow,

    So you say that in violent crimes there is never any blame to be attached to the victim?

    It is never appropriate to say to someone who, say, wanders into a known gang neighbourhood by himself at night while slightly drunk and talks loudly on his phone about how much cash he’s just taken out of the bank, “That was a bit stupid, wasn’t it? You really shouldn’t have done that”? The police should never advise against that sort of behaviour?

  103. “The police should never advise against that sort of behaviour?”

    Advise against by all means, but do not claim that the man who gets murdered by the gang is morally guilty of his own murder.

    Not that the things are analogous anyway. The sort of reckless behaviour women are being accused of here is going out for coffee with men that they don’t necessarily want to have sex with, or drinking with men, or flirting with men and then changing their minds about them and not wanting to have sex, or wearing clothes that some men find provocative.

  104. A better analogy Pellinor would be if you were mugged walking down a street in London only to be told by the police (and the commenters on this blog) ‘come on, what did you expect to happen wearing a nice suit like that on the street, you must have known that it would attract muggers, if you really didn’t want it, you wouldn’t make yourself look like you might have money’.

  105. It is rape if consent isn’t given or is denied or if the victim is incapable of consent. Is that so hard

    Yes. Actually, it is surprisingly hard.

    Because there are a whole range of definitions both of “giving consent” and of “incapable of consent”. Neither of which are as simple or as consistently applied as you insist.

    I have given examples of organisations and jurisdictions where the rules about what constitutes “consent” are different.

    Equally, there are differences in what constitutes “capable of consent”. Conscious or unconscious we agree on. But – impaired? One drink, two drinks or twenty? Some blood alcohol content level (I’ll bet even you don’t take a blood alcohol metre on your dates!)

    You refuse to admit that there is both legal variation and a variation in opinions on these subjects. In this, you are not just wrong but wilfully and maliciously misrepresenting not just reality but other people’s opinions. Which is par for the course in this sort of discussion.

    By the way – if you bothered to read what I wrote you would have noted that my point was a legal one and that I quite specifically stated “You may still be a rapist but …”

  106. @PaulB

    ‘It’s very simple. “No” means “no”. And passing out means “no” too.’

    I haven’t followed the whole thread closely, but I think this is just a statement of the bleeding obvious.

    Has anyone said no means anything other than no, or it’s OK to rape people who have passed out?

    All we (or certainly I) am saying is that some measure of responsibility – not legal, or moral, but de facto – rests on the shoulders of anyone who puts themselves in a position where they are vulnerable to attack.

    It I collapse drunk outside the tube station tomorrow, with my briefcase by my side, is my condition really utterly irrelevant if I wake up to find it gone?

    This is not to equate the loss of a briefcase with rape, but merely to suggest that I would be culpable in some way – not legally, nor morally – for the theft of my briefcase, because it could not have happened without my collapsing drunk.

    I don’t subscribe to the ‘leading on’ argument, but I do think there are probably occasions where drunk men make honest mistakes as to consent, for which they get no relief from the courts, just as there are cases where drunk women consent and then change their minds afterwards.

    Back to the grindstone, now!

  107. @Minnow

    ‘A better analogy Pellinor would be if you were mugged walking down a street in London only to be told by the police (and the commenters on this blog) ‘come on, what did you expect to happen wearing a nice suit like that on the street, you must have known that it would attract muggers, if you really didn’t want it, you wouldn’t make yourself look like you might have money’.’

    This is EXACTLY what I would say, and I did say it to my brother when he was mugged just down from Brixton tube a couple of years back.

    It is exactly what the police say to people, too: don’t leave your valuables on display etc

    That’s because it’s just commen sense – a quality you are lacking.

  108. Well, as a rule of thumb, I think if a person is falling down drunk they wouldn’t have ‘capacity’ to consent.

    Yet, as we are talking about banging somebody up, potentially for life, should we be talking about rules of thumb? Or something a little more explicit? Or should we leave it up to the jury?

    Noting, as well, your case law point doesn’t even apply throughout the UK. Other jurisdictions not just may but do differ.

    And, you’ll note, I have yet to express my opinion on what the rules should be, as opposed to what they are. in various places.

  109. I suppose the footballer case Ian B has mentioned a couple of times is the one we discussed at length here. If so, I hope he’s in a minority of one in thinking the jury wrong to convict.

  110. This will seem slightly unfair, especially as me and Interested had a bit of a barney about him saying much the same to me-

    But I can’t help but feel that many of the men who tend to think all this is very clear cut may have little experience with the area of casual sex, and have probably mostly dealt with rather more formal dating and what we now call sex “in the context of a committed relationship”, hence for instance the failure to grasp the Paglia example and thinking things should be easy and very clear cut regarding drunk people who’ve only known each other for an hour or two falling into bed and maybe later regretting it.

    The law is a formal system and it deals very badly with such grey areas of human social interaction. It is still really very old fashioned, as our ruling class is. Add to that that most of Feminist theory has been developed by women who are clearly rather abnormal themselves, suffering from sexual phobias and not involved in the mating or dating scenes at all and you get the current mess.

    And hence in the “Footballer Thread”, all I was trying to say was that it is not at all clear when someone is too drunk to fuck, and have been involved in sexual situations when I and others have been as drunk as the woman in that case apparently was, and these are not unusual, and if you prosecuted everyone too drunk to fuck there’d be half the population in prison. But the mantra kept coming back, “well I would know, I wouldn’d have sex with her” etc.

    So like I said, I can’t help but feel that the people who are in favour of this kind of sexual interpretation are probably people who’ve tended to follow the cautious middle-class-matronly dating and being cautious thing and are thus rather oblivious of the social signalling that goes on in more rapid sexual encounters, etc, in which there is besides all else more capacity for misconstrual of intentions.

  111. Hmmmm, not sure about the “drunken consent isn’t consent” thing. I mean drunken rape is still rape, isn’t it?

  112. A drunk person can take responsibility for their actions whilst drunk. How? Because they weren’t drunk when they started to drink.

    Whilst sober you decide to not drink too much or to get rat-arsed. If you find yourself getting rat arsed too often when you didn’t plan on doing so, you still take responsibility for your actions because you can not drink at all.

  113. Yet (if we are talking about the same case as Ian) McDonald was acquitted. Were the jury wrong in that aspect of the case?

    The mens’ behaviour seems to have been different but was her ability to consent different? Although she clearly went back to the room with McDonald and ?

    As usual, Unity seems to be on the ball (sorry).

  114. “And hence in the “Footballer Thread”, all I was trying to say was that it is not at all clear when someone is too drunk to fuck”

    This is just not true, it is glaringly obvious to anyone with any experience. I admit that very young people, drunk for the first time, may get out of their depth here, but no grown man with any experience of the world can. If she is so drunk that she doesn’t know what she is doing, you will know it, If you still have sex with her, you are a rapist. When someone is drunk to the point if incapacity, it is very very obvious.

  115. “A drunk person can take responsibility for their actions whilst drunk.”

    Yes they can, to some degree. Although you cannot enter a business contract. Why not do you suppose?

  116. SE,

    Yet, as we are talking about banging somebody up, potentially for life, should we be talking about rules of thumb?

    It’s my personal viewpoint (hence “I think”) and I wasn’t talking about the law there specifically (hence “rule of thumb” instead of “the law says”) that someone falling over drunk is probably not in a position to legally consent to sex. Then in a particular jurisdiction here is what the CPS guidance says about the law. And that is my understanding of the law.

    Or something a little more explicit? Or should we leave it up to the jury?

    Surely if such a case ends up in court it will be left up to a jury (if the jurisdiction uses juries) to decide the facts, among them whether the alleged victim had capacity to consent. They’ll look at the evidence, including for example witness descriptions and CCTV footage of the alleged victim’s behaviour, if available. I don’t know what could be done to improve on this, which is not to claim that nothing can be done.

    And, you’ll note, I have yet to express my opinion on what the rules should be, as opposed to what they are. in various places.

    Er… ok, so noted.

    PaulB, I thought it might be that one, but I didn’t recall we had discussed it.

  117. Minnow: that is exactly what I and others said to a friend about his mugging experience in Miami, and what police posters near the university say about going home after nights out.

    So if the analogy is exact, and my view is how people react to the mugging side of it, why does it not apply to rape?

  118. Pellinor, I am simply surprised that you consider your friend to be, ‘morally’ a mugger rather than a victim of crime.

  119. Minnow: “No, I just don’t think a woman should be raped. Surely we can agree on that. I don’t know what behaviour could possibly merit raping someone. ”

    Of course women shouldn’t be raped. No behaviour ‘merits’ rape. No-one is saying they should. In an ideal world, women wouldn’t be raped, no-one would ever be murdered, walking down a dark alley waving a wallet full of twenties wouldn’t get me mugged. But we don’t live in an ideal world. We live in the real one. Where all of those things can and do happen, every day to large amounts of people. And in a the real world one can take certain precautions against those things happening. And if you don’t take those precautions, and something bad does happen, you bear a slight responsibility (to yourself) for it occurring. That in no way lessens the moral responsibility for the criminal, its not a zero sum game. By taking some responsibility yourself you don’t take any from him (or her) for his crimes. That is what we are saying – the responsibility for a crime can equal more than 100%.

    It is split thing – there is responsibility to yourself, and responsibility to not harm others, and they are not linked. Ergo the criminal is 100% responsible for his actions towards the victim, but the victim can still bear some of the responsibility we all have to protect ourselves.

  120. This is just not true, it is glaringly obvious to anyone with any experience.

    Another untrue statement. It is simply not the case that anyone can be sure of such a thing or even agree where the dividing line is. This is simply the arrogance of the moralist (that’s you that is) who is sure in his/her own heart that they have an objective view of matters which are utterly subjective.

    I admit that very young people, drunk for the first time, may get out of their depth here, but no grown man with any experience of the world can.

    And here we are again. The man, even when himself drunk, is the one with agency, and only the man has agency. Indeed, however drunk he may be, he cannot rid himself of his agency.

    I think I mentioned this anecdote in the other thread, but what of the girl who dragged me into bed in a dressing room (was working in theatre you see) after a night drinking in multiple venues, when I was barely capable of standing, and the last thing I remembered was her fumbling with my cock in the vain hope of getting some response before I passed out? She fancied me more than I fancied her you see, and it turned out that the excessive drinking to commiserate with her over splitting up with her psychopathic boyfriend was a cunning ruse to seduce me.

    Was she a rapist? Would anyone care? The law doesn’t. It all explicitly states males as aggressors and females as victims. Was it a sexual assault, or just one of those things? Do you care, Minnow? You don’t, do you? It doesn’t affect your moral sensibilities at all, does it? I’m a bloke, I can deal with it. No harm done after all.

    Anyway, I’ve been traumatised ever since. Where do I apply for my compensation?

  121. Pellinor, ISTM you’re conflating / confusing risk with responsibility. I’m sure we can all agree that certain behaviour carries a degree of risk, e.g. wandering through a known-to-be dodgy neighborhood flashing the cash. But does that person bear “moral responsibility” for being left bloody in the gutter, missing an iPhone, wallet, and his fancy trainers? That’s what the argument is about. I think he risked being attacked. I don’t think he is responsible for the behaviour of his attackers. I think he should be free to wander about talking on his iPhone.

    I think it was James Pickles who said of a rape victim that she was “asking for it” because she was wearing a mini-skirt at the time of the offence. It’s that kind of suggestion springing to mind, I think.

  122. @UKL

    I would agree with that (risk vs responsibility). Where we might (we might not) part company is that I then get rather annoyed when eg policemen tell young students that it would be in their better interests not to engage in ‘risky’ behaviour and get excoriated in the press for ‘victim-blaming’ and being ‘apologists for rape’.

    Especially when telling, say, young male students not to walk through dodgy areas of town in their flashiest clothes, drunk, and gabbing on their iPhone would be regarded as nothing more than straightforward common sense.

  123. UKL-

    “Rape

    (1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
    (a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
    (b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
    (c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.”

    Sexual Offences Act 2003

    Whole thing is gendered.

  124. Ian B,

    But I can’t help but feel that many of the men who tend to think all this is very clear cut may have little experience with the area of casual sex, and have probably mostly dealt with rather more formal dating and what we now call sex “in the context of a committed relationship”, ….

    So like I said, I can’t help but feel that the people who are in favour of this kind of sexual interpretation are probably people who’ve tended to follow the cautious middle-class-matronly dating and being cautious thing and are thus rather oblivious of the social signalling that goes on in more rapid sexual encounters, etc, in which there is besides all else more capacity for misconstrual of intentions.

    Let’s face it, you are utterly clueless about the sex lives of other commenters, you just think something is so, therefore anyone who disagrees has something wrong with them, been brainwashed by the feminist hegemony or whatever.

    Maybe Ian we just disagree with you, eh? I for one don’t feel rage when after a date or a casual encounter involving a few drinks and flirting, even kissing or groping, if I don’t have sex that evening despite thinking all the signs were there.

    What happens to you Ian? “She touched my knee and played with her hair the fucking bitch! Bloody feminists. I’ll show her! Last time I buy anyone a coffee.”

  125. Was she a rapist? Would anyone care? The law doesn’t. It all explicitly states males as aggressors and females as victims.

    citation needed.

    SOA03 S1 “Rape”:

    (1)A person (A) commits an offence if—

    (a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

    Please note that this is not the usual “he means he or she” – the “his penis” is sufficient. Identical language in s5, Rape of a Child under 13.

    Women can, of course, commit other sexual offences. Which we are regularly told are not as serious as rape.

  126. “Another untrue statement. It is simply not the case that anyone can be sure of such a thing or even agree where the dividing line is.”

    It really is. When someone is so drunk as to be incapable of consent you will know it. have you never been in the company of a very drunk person, I mean someone too drunk to know where they are? Did you really think that it would be OK to fuck that person if you chose to? Have you ever (I asked before but you didn’t answer) been unfairly accused of rape by a woman you slept with?

    “The man, even when himself drunk, is the one with agency, and only the man has agency. Indeed, however drunk he may be, he cannot rid himself of his agency.”

    Both have agancy. When a man is incapable with drink, though, he is generally incapable of having sex. people can have sex with him, though. I assume that you would not consider it rape if a woman anally raped a man with a bottle if he were in such a state? If she assumed that his failure to say ‘no’ indicated consent?

    “and the last thing I remembered was her fumbling with my cock in the vain hope of getting some response before I passed out? … Was she a rapist? Would anyone care? The law doesn’t. ”

    She wasn’t a rapist, but it was certainly a sexual assault. The law does care if you care to prosecute. If it doesn’t bother you, then it doesn’t matter. If it does (and I get the distinct impression that it did) you are entitled to seek justice. Yes, I care when men are assaulted too. Why should it be either or?

  127. Ok, i’ll bite: Im a big fan of well-designed women wearing mini-skirts. And thus far I’ve managed to avoid being accused of rape. But the point about a mini-skirt is that it’s deliberately sexually provocative. The woman wearing it has declared to the world that she wants to be perceived as sexually alluring. She may in fact be very buttoned-up, but her clothing says otherwise. Let’s say she agrees to a fumble against a skip with a local Dave, he, passions inflamed, proceeds to have sex with her after she’s said ‘no’. Ok, he’s raped her. She told him to stop, he didn’t. Sure, that’s clear enough. He’s guilty of the offence, and she’s guilty of the non-offence of provocatively leading him on. Rightly enough, she can’t be sent to prison and rightly enough he can. And equally rightly, the rest of us can regret her fate without indulging her in the fantasy that her case is on a par with the proverbial woman dragged into a bush by a stranger.

  128. “And equally rightly, the rest of us can regret her fate without indulging her in the fantasy that her case is on a par with the proverbial woman dragged into a bush by a stranger.”

    What if that stranger were also wearing a mini-skirt? Fair enough then? Or what if the rapist found women in long skirts sexually exciting? Should we limit our sympathy for the women then? What kind of clothing is sexually unprovocative enough for you Edward? Would a burqa do it, or is it still a come on if you can see the eyes?

  129. Ian, SE, as I imagine you are well aware, there are at least four offences in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 of which three can be committed by women as well as men. I’m not sure what is of such a great concern re the existence of a gendered rape offence.

  130. It really is. When someone is so drunk as to be incapable of consent you will know it. have you never been in the company of a very drunk person, I mean someone too drunk to know where they are?

    The other alternative explanation as I proffered in the Footballer Thread is that people who say absurd generalisations like this don’t have much experience of serious drinking. I am otherwise baffled as to how anyone can have such a simplistic and naive view of the matters we are discussing.

    It’s worth remembering in the Footballer case that nobody has any idea what mental state she was in. The only evidence was that she stumbled and was unsteady in securit camera footage. This is routine when drunk. Thousands of sexual encounters every weekend occur in such states, after pubs and clubs, at parties, and so on. The idea that some gnome with a magic breathalyser can ascertain which of those people are too drunk and where too drunk precisely is is absurdly utopian and, as I said, seems to me to be indicative of a lack of experience of some or all elements of the particular social experience we are discussing.

    Both have agancy. When a man is incapable with drink, though, he is generally incapable of having sex.

    And this is a Toytown level of simplistic as well.

  131. I assume that you would not consider it rape if a woman anally raped a man with a bottle if he were in such a state?

    Whether I would consider it rape, or not, it isn’t. It is s2 “Assault by penetration”.

  132. “The other alternative explanation as I proffered in the Footballer Thread is that people who say absurd generalisations like this don’t have much experience of serious drinking. ”

    Regrettably I have plenty of experience of drink. I have never found it at all confusing as to whether a woman was sober enough to know what she was doing. But, as a general rule, to protect you, Ian, as well as the women you meet, if you are asking yourself ‘is this woman too drunk to consent to sex’, if you are not quite sure whether you are raping her or not, if you think it is a ‘grey area’ it would be a good idea to put it off until the next date. If you can control the fury that is.

  133. Why, did she turn you down as well?

    It’s a Camille Paglia quote, you twerp. It’s describing her (polemically described) emotions, not mine.

    Anyhoo, I just want to make the point again, since nobody has really addressed it; this is about moral rather than legal responsibility. Everyone agrees who is legal responsible- the rapist.

    The issue is that by our actions, we induce mental states in others. The example I gave was winding somebody up until they lose their temper and thump you. In that case, legally, the thumper is legally responsible but the thumpee, who did the winding up, bears some causative blame for inducing the thumper’s state of anger.

    Likewise a woman may, by her actions, inspire a state of sexual expectation or arousal in a man which would not have otherwise existed. This does not justify a subsequent rape, but it is to some degree causative and thus while the legal responsibility is clear- with the rapist- some level of moral responsibility lies with she who by her actions induced the arousal within him; which may be to some degree mitigation.

    To put it bluntly then, acting as a cocktease may backfire. This was the point of the Paglia quote. If you lead somebody on, you have not only aroused sexual expectations and emotions in them, but when they get the slapdown they are going to feel humiliated and angry. This can lead to violence, force and rape. So, it is better not to arouse such states in other people and, if you do, you bear some degree of moral responsibility for the consequences. That’s the basic point, I think.

  134. “Likewise a woman may, by her actions, inspire a state of sexual expectation or arousal in a man which would not have otherwise existed. This does not justify a subsequent rape, but … some level of moral responsibility lies with she who by her actions induced the arousal within him; which may be to some degree mitigation.”

    Describe a case Ian where you think the woman’s actions morally mitigate the rapist.

    For Paglia, and you seemed to agree, it was having a drink or two and coffee with someone, but you may have different standards. I really hope you do.

  135. UKliberty: no, I don’t think I am.

    If you take a risk, then I think you are somewhat responsible if the risk crystallises. If I prod a cat, then I am in some way responsible for the scratch on my hand.

    I think the situation changes in one sense if the risk comes about due to the actions of another moral agent: one can very well say that a potential rapist has choice of whether to act morally or not, whereas a cat doesn’t. But I think that philosophical distinction doesn’t stand the real-world test very well. If you know that doing X risks suffering Y, then if you do X and Y happens then it’s partly your fault whatever X and Y are. If you know muggers exist, then acting as if they didn’t because you think they shouldn’t is culpable, in just the same way as poking a cat – or firing a gun in avalanche country – is culpable.

    It’s a small degree of culpability compared to that borne by the mugger, I admit, but it’s not zero.

  136. I have never found it at all confusing as to whether a woman was sober enough to know what she was doing.

    The problem comes when you find out that your appraisal of that varies from a bunch of people in an oak panelled courtroom studying security camera footage and deciding whether she looks too wobbly or not. What can I do to make you grasp that you are not a God of Objective Assessment Of Other Peoples Blood Alchohol Levels?

    But, as a general rule, to protect you, Ian, as well as the women you meet, if you are asking yourself ‘is this woman too drunk to consent to sex’, if you are not quite sure whether you are raping her or not, if you think it is a ‘grey area’ it would be a good idea to put it off until the next date.

    And here we see the problem. We’re not discussing “dating” but real events in the messy reality of socialising where drunk people get off with each other. And, note, again, how sex biased you are; you’re “protecting” the woman from sex, “protecting” me from a ruinous criminal accusation. The threats are utterly biased against men, as is the Feminist intention.

    I will also remind you and UKL again, since you both appear to be a bit hard of thinking, that the “fury” you are trying in this utterly dishonest way to apply to me is a quote by Camille Paglia.

    And this is what annoys me about you folks. It’s like your pathologically incapable of an honest discussion.

  137. But Pellinor, avoiding rapists isn’t like avoiding the dangerous part of town, they predate everywhere. A woman incurs the ‘risk’ simply by being a woman and acting with the same freedoms as any man. It really sin’t the same sort of thing. You might as well say that black people in Alabama were courting violence if they went to the polls and voted. That they were in some sense morally guilty for their lynching.

  138. “What can I do to make you grasp that you are not a God of Objective Assessment Of Other Peoples Blood Alchohol Levels?”

    You don’t need to be. If you are not sure if you are raping a woman or not, you are in the wrong place. You really should not be having sex if you are not quite certain that it isn’t rape,. This is rally the very first rule of sexual manners. If you don’t know it, you are a danger to women.

    “And, note, again, how sex biased you are; you’re “protecting” the woman from sex”

    No, I am protecting women from sexual assault and rape from those (thankfully very few) men who do not understand where the line is. Men like you.

    “I will also remind you and UKL again, since you both appear to be a bit hard of thinking, that the “fury” you are trying in this utterly dishonest way to apply to me is a quote by Camille Paglia.”

    Which you endorsed as a natural reaction to a woman not sleeping with you if you buy her a coffee. If you don’t agree with Paglia, why quote her? I said I thought it was mad, you said you thought it was quite natural as I recall.

  139. sam,

    Where we might (we might not) part company is that I then get rather annoyed when eg policemen tell young students that it would be in their better interests not to engage in ‘risky’ behaviour and get excoriated in the press for ‘victim-blaming’ and being ‘apologists for rape’.

    There’s nothing inherently wrong with saying “this behaviour increases or mitigates the risk of this offence” – the words in themselves, on their own terms, are fine. We say, “don’t leave your car unlocked, your windows undone, don’t walk through dodgy areas late at night chatting on your flash new phone.”

    In terms of rape I think there is a wider context that needs to be taken into account – I can’t presently articulate it to my satisfaction, unfortunately, I can only say it is a particularly horrible offence against a person not an object and it mostly happens to women (including equivalent offences here), and there is a background of society not taking it particularly seriously, so we have to be careful re language and conflating risk with responsibility etc.

  140. “If you know muggers exist, then acting as if they didn’t because you think they shouldn’t is culpable, in just the same way as poking a cat – or firing a gun in avalanche country – is culpable.”

    This is absurd, you simply have to act as if they don’t exist. You cannot avoid the streets in London, or stay in after dark, or carry no valuables. And at some point, you will be mugged (me, twice in the middle of the day on a busy street central London street) just as you will be burgled and pickpocketed. The guilt is not shared, it is all in one place. My god, if I came here and argued that we should not blame burglars because of the social conditions that drive them to crime I would be denounced as an ultra left lunatic, but this exculpation of muggers so long as muggees ‘recklessly’ carry money on them is much further out there.

  141. And no Minnow, I’ve never been accused of rape.

    Well, good luck to you Ian, but it is obviously just a matter of time.

  142. Minnow, I don’t usually resort to personal insults on blogs, but you’re a po-faced twerp and your methods of argumentation, when you’re not deliberately or absurdly confusing qualitatively different things, range from the snide to the frivolous.

  143. You don’t need to be. If you are not sure if you are raping a woman or not, you are in the wrong place. You really should not be having sex if you are not quite certain that it isn’t rape,. This is rally the very first rule of sexual manners. If you don’t know it, you are a danger to women.

    And here’s the glory of it. The woman consents, her BAL is higher than some arbitrary figure, and you’ve no way of knowing that it is post-hoc rape. But it’s your responsibility to make sure of that impossible test.

    And this is Feminist dogma at its most pernicious. The man is held responsible for the voluntary and active behaviour of a woman, because “he should have known” something impossible to know. Do you see, Minnow? You are asking somebody to be “quite certain” of soemethng they cannot possibly know!

    ***
    I’ve already just posted at length to explain again the Paglia quote but I daresay you are going to totally fucking ignore it in favour of your dishonest “sex for coffee” invention.
    ***
    I also may as well add that I’m these days in my late 40s, live a quiet life, and my party days staggering around Soho are long over, so (a) my anedcotes are from the salad days of liberalism and (b) none of this applies to me or my current behaviour. I don’t even drink any more. I may as well add that I have never hurt anyone, raped anyone, and have poured more blind drunk people into cabs to get them safely home than I’ve had hot dinners. Not that that’s going to stop you convincing yourself I’m some kind of evil mysoginist rape fiend or whatever your white knight intuition is telling you.

  144. “And here’s the glory of it. The woman consents”

    If she consents it isn’t rape. If she just says ‘yes’ mechanically to question phrase she evidently doesn’t understand, it isn’t consent. It is not hard to get, it is not a fine line. Ask her what time it is. If she doesn’t understand or can’t answer you, it is rape. I offer these little life hacks for free. The fact that they are needed is beyond belief.

    “I may as well add that I have never hurt anyone, raped anyone”

    Ian, you have explained at length that you do not know, that you think it is impossible to know, whether women who have been drinking are capable of informed consent, so really, you cannot be this confident. And you should not take up work in a tattoo parlour either.

  145. Sigh.

    Minnow. I will spell this out again for the slow of mind.

    It is impossible to know whether a court will subsequently declare somebody unable to consent based on their assessment of an unknown level of intoxication.

    Your patronising certainty is enormously dangerous when enacted as law. It creates an entrapment situation of every drunk sexual encounter; every student fumble may be post-hoc declared a rape or assault, even though both parties gave active consent at the time.

    Nobody in the footballer case knew how drunk the woman was. There is no actual objective measure of it, and all they could do was subsequently run with their feelings in a court room. This is not just law. Your tests proposed are entirely lacking in utility; they are easy things to say on a blog. In practice, where this line actually is, nobody can know. You are a damned fool to think otherwise.

  146. Minnow says:
    November 1, 2013 at 5:10 pm

    And no Minnow, I’ve never been accused of rape.

    Well, good luck to you Ian, but it is obviously just a matter of time.

    Unbelievable..!!

  147. My god, if I came here and argued that we should not blame burglars because of the social conditions that drive them to crime I would be denounced as an ultra left lunatic, but this exculpation of muggers so long as muggees ‘recklessly’ carry money on them is much further out there.

    I’m rapidly starting to think that you’re trolling, but for the moment, I’ll bite.

    No one is exculpating muggers. No one is exculpating rapists. A few people are saying that there are risk-bearing behaviours that make it more likely that you will be the victim of a predator.

    Now, we can all gather round and sing kum by yah and pretend that this doesn’t happen, which helps no-one, or we can indulge in some fantasy that because no one ever deserves to be raped or mugged (and they don’t, ever, I think everyone’s been pretty fucking clear on that point) their behaviour does not affect how much of a potential victim they are. Personally I don’t find either of those delusions all that helpful. Of course we can’t eliminate all risk, but we can take steps to mitigate some risks. And doing so does not imply liability.

    @UKL, I take your point, and I kind of know where you’re going (or at least where I think you’re going), I just think there’s a world of difference between saying something silly like “don’t come moaning to us if you wear a short skirt and then get raped” and saying “it’s probably a good idea not to get paralytic with a bunch of strange men.”

  148. @ Minnow
    There is a crime called “behaviour leading to or liable to cause a breach of the peace”
    So your claim that someone who is beaten up is always totally innocent is wrong in law as well as in fact

  149. Minnow: “You could try Julia. I notice that you did not reply to my question…”

    Well, why should I? I’ve seen no end of US websites I like and enjoy ruined by the actions of griefers like you, and how they suck in regular commenters who assume they are acting in good faith and genuinely desire an exchange of ideas (they never are, they just want to blogsterbate frantically).

    It’s the same reason I don’t wrestle in the mud with a pig – we both get dirty but for the pig, it’s a bonus…

  150. With a nod to Surreptitious Evil:

    “Two people go out on a date. They have a bit to drink. Social inhibitions are lowered. They have a bit more to drink. End up at one of their flats. Copulation occurs. This is the way much of humanity has behaved for some considerable time.

    Next morning, the female decides that she went too far and claims that she was incapable, through alcoholic intoxication, of consenting. Hence she was raped.”

    So much for “Equality”
    i) Doesn’t a male need to consent?
    ii) Can’t a male claim to have been “incapable, through alcoholic intoxication, of consenting” ?
    ii) Is it impossible for the male to have been raped by the female?

    Apologies if these points have already been raised, I almost lost the will to live after studiously reading about twenty of Minnows’ comments & the subsequent replies, I just scrolled to the bottom of the page…

  151. And this also, though the word lie heavy upon your hearts:
    The murdered is not unaccountable for his own murder,
    And the robbed is not blameless in being robbed.
    The righteous is not innocent of the deeds of the wicked,
    And the white-handed is not clean in the doings of the felon.
    Yea, the guilty is oftentimes the victim of the injured.
    And still more often the condemned is the burden bearer for the guiltless and unblamed.
    You cannot separate the just from the unjust and the good from the wicked;
    For they stand together before the face of the sun
    even as the black thread and the white are woven together.
    And when the black thread breaks, the weaver shall look into the whole cloth,and he shall examine the loom also.

  152. @ Kahlil Gibran
    Complete and utter bullshit
    So the children murdered in Lockerbie by some psychopath who put a bomb on a plane are accountable?
    Your tripe may sound like philosophy but is just tripe.

  153. This is for Minnow’s benefit, if nobody else’s. I spend my time with a woman who has not only been raped but has been raped on more than one occasion. You may find that shocking, but she doesn’t. It’s a reflection of the place, the circumstances & the culture she came from. But I think you’d have to agree, she’s likely got a whole lot more personal experience of the subject than you have. She’s never left me in any doubt she accepts personal responsibility for putting herself in the situations these events occurred. You have your very narrow, polarised views because you’re fortunate enough to live in a world where the incidence of rape is extremely low. It gives you the luxury of having those views & one imagines, living a life that reflects them without incident. To her, your attitude is simply not a survival strategy. It’s got nothing whatsoever to do with the rights or wrongs of raping someone. It’s whether you wish to be raped or not. She would say, if you don’t, don’t put yourself in the situation where you’re at risk. Don’t expect other people to be your guardian or act in your best interest. it’s your responsibility, not theirs.

  154. You guys ‘debating’ the minnow, just Google swordfighting the fart for an explanation of what’s been going on

  155. Late to the debate-(if talking to a brick wall counts as debate)–been busy today.

    Ok Minnow lets start with a case that Julia reported on a year or two ago.

    Essex girl, pissed, is on her way home in the early hours and meets three blokes going in the opposite direction. These blokes don’t do anything, they don’t bother her but she approaches them and cheerfully and enthusiastically offers them a each a blow job. She offers them–they don’t ask or suggest–she spontaneously offers. Job done she goes on her way still cheerful.
    Next morning she wakes up hungover and with a very different attitude to the previous nights events. Goes in to work and when the boss wants to know why she is late she tells him (and the rest of the office) that she was sexually assaulted by three men–but she doesn’t want to do anything about it. Her colleagues pressure her–“they might do it to someone else”–so she goes to the bluebottles. Unfortunately for her one of the trio has recorded the whole incident on his phone. No case to answer. Where those three men rapists Minnow?. When she initiated the whole caper and asked and indeed cajoled them to be involved?. She was drunk and (lets say ’cause I don’t know) they were sober–so are they rapists in your little feminist fantasyland?.
    Oh and don’t bother with “They could see she was drunk so they should have turned her down”. Even if they had that offers them no protection thanks to the way the law has been perverted by femmi-poisoners like you.There was another case where two blokes where eating their chips outside a chip shop one night when a girl 2 weeks short of 16, drunk and done up to the nines approaches them and offers them a blow job ( must have been a special on). These blokes gently said no thanks and pointed out that it is not a good idea for a young women to be going around drunk and offering blow jobs to strange men. Far from being grateful for their sage advice the girl throws a shit fit of rage (must have been the rejection)and stalks off in high dudgeon. She tears her clothes and finds the coppers and tells them that she has been sexually assaulted by two men outside a chip shop. Luckily for the 2 blokes this was one of those rare occasions when CCTV actually caught the entire incident on film. Otherwise they would have been in deep shit for behaving entirely correctly.
    No one should ever be accused of a crime or unsupported accusation alone. Nor should any women’s statements about whether or not she was drunk and to what degree be accepted without objective corroboration.

  156. Nice. Let’s normalise rape, bloke in spain, hide the women in case they provoke violence. Did you ever ask if your supposed friend was ‘alright’?

    Also, hide children. And the poor.

    “Sometimes I walk around thinking everyone deserves a good old rape, just to confirm that it can be justified that the idiots deserve it.”

    Minnow, you’re lost here, these guys are scum.

  157. Don’t give us any of your sanctimonious shite Arnald. You are an arse-kissing follower of a fucking death cult that has butchered 150 million people in the last 100 years and ruined the lives of tens of millions more. To call you scum is an insult to scum.

  158. The case of the footballer made sense to me: the girl pretty much consented to sex with first guy before they got to the hotel, but not with the second guy who just helped himself once the first was finished. A lot of assumptions in there of course, but I think that was the reasoning.

  159. Bob,

    i) Indeed. But she is accusing him, possibly utterly correctly, of rape. He is accusing her of sexual assault.
    ii) Only, to rape, if he is a gayer.
    ii) 😉 Yes, legally. Morally, Minnow’s point somewhere above about the broken bottle up the anus is apposite. I consider that equivalent to rape (whether it is being done to a bird or a bloke.) Possibly slightly worse (deliberate malicious wounding). However, I recognise that it isn’t “rape”, therefore for a significant number of people it simply cannot be as bad.

  160. Where does this “moral responsibility” end? They shouldn’t walk through a rough neighbourhood. They shouldn’t get drunk. They shouldn’t wear mini-skirts. Should they leave the house? Should they wear burqas? Just trying to get an idea of when someone reasonably bears this responsibility for having a crime committed against them.

  161. “Where does this “moral responsibility” end? They shouldn’t walk through a rough neighbourhood. They shouldn’t get drunk. They shouldn’t wear mini-skirts. Should they leave the house? Should they wear burqas? Just trying to get an idea of when someone reasonably bears this responsibility for having a crime committed against them.”

    Its like lots of those difficult grey area problems, you’ll know it when you see it. Should a woman get drunk? Of course, if she wants. Should she get drunk on her own, wearing a miniskirt, in a dodgy pub, and then attempt to walk home alone? Not if she values her safety.

    There are no hard and fast rules.

  162. Where does this “moral responsibility” end? They shouldn’t walk through a rough neighbourhood. They shouldn’t get drunk. They shouldn’t wear mini-skirts. Should they leave the house? Should they wear burqas?

    No, none of those things confer moral responsibility. As I pointed out above, Hewson’s example of drunkenness causing injury is in a separate paragraph to the rape discussion and should not be conflated to imply that drunkenness makes a woman morally responsible for rape.

    We live in a society of universal rights. A person who is drunk, in a rough neighbourhood or has their property (whether a rolex watch or a nice pair of knockers) on display is not morally responsible for being mugged or raped. A woman has a right to walk anywhere in a mini-skirt and not be raped.

    (An additional point here; a miniskirt is anyway within the gamut of “normal clothing” anyway. It may be abnormally provocative in Saudi Arabia, but not Britain. NB This does not morally justify rape in Saudi either.)

    Walking through a rough area is unwise. I was once mugged in such an area, taking a shortcut away from the road. I felt stupid afterwards; thus I might be judged to have some “practical responsibility” for putting myself in a risk situation, but not moral responsibility. The fault is entirely with the mugger (or rapist) for being a criminal shit.

    Where we may enter a sphere of moral responsibility is what I tried to say above; when the victim has actively encouraged the mental states which lead to violence in the aggressor. Hence my example of being grossly insulting to someone, leading them to hit me. Knowingly acting in a way that will induce violence in the other person leads me to moral responsibility when they lose their temper at me.

    This is where the concept of “leading on” becomes significant. If a woman has by her own choice acted in ways which imply some significant sexual interest, leading to his arousal and expectations, perhaps then to slap him back- causing humiliation and anger- then she may be judged to have some moral responsibility if, hypothetically, he snaps and rapes her.

    But no, staggering home from the boozer with her tits half out is not a situation in which she has any moral responsibility whatsoever. Being an easy victim for a rapist does not make her responsible for the rape in any degree.

  163. “then she may be judged to have some moral responsibility if, hypothetically, he snaps and rapes her”

    I snapped the other day and shouted at the kids. Once I snapped and threw a coffee mug on the floor. I snapped with a girlfriend once and called her a bitch in front of some friends. But snap raping someone? Nah, can’t see how that happens. That puts you in very special company Ian.

  164. Just to add, the interesting thing to watch here is the deployment of the standard Witch Hunter Methodology; if any questions your beliefs, methods etc, just point at them and declare that they must be a witch as well.

  165. @Ian
    “A woman has a right to walk anywhere in a mini-skirt and not be raped.”
    Sorry mate, but no-one has a “right” to do anything, except in a purely legal sense. If you choose to put yourself at risk, no “rights” on earth are going to make the slightest difference.
    Which is why the crap Minnow’s peddling is so incredibly dangerous. Despite all her talk about moral responsibility & the rights of women, none of it will make the slightest difference to a woman being at risk of being raped. If “society” or whatever amorphous group she thinks is in some way “responsible” really was we simply wouldn’t be having this discussion. Society isn’t able safeguard people everywhere, every minute of their lives. So all this discussion has been about is how to apportion blame after a woman’s been raped. It’s not been about avoiding rape.
    And that point does make me wonder about some ‘feminists’ themselves. People like Minnow. Do they really want less women to be raped? Or does every woman mislead into thinking their own actions should not have consequences suit their agenda?

  166. If some kind of guardian angel arrived on Earth and was able to put a stop to all rapes by magic means, far from rejoicing, the femministas would be very upset . Because they would lose their main instrument to peddle their hatred of men. If no women were being raped their entire demonization campaign would collapse. Indeed it can’t even keep going now on the number of actual rapes that happen–they have to massively inflate the numbers with the endless deceitful bullshit they peddle.
    As for women walking the streets in revealing gear–yes, they have a right to do so–and the vast majority of men respect that.But if evil doers step in then that “right” is worth exactly zero. Since evil-doers exist then women would be wise to think tactically and many do. But the femmis couldn’t give a shit about that–they want all men tarred with the same brush as a few evil doers–as if the existence of Lucretia Borga means that every woman should be treated as a potential poisoner. No, wait a minute–she was only lead into it by those nasty men around her. Isn’t it always the way?.

  167. Oh, what you’re describing is quite common. The benefits of the supposed solution to a problem become more attractive than the dis-benefits of the problem itself. An ideal outcome is then; the ‘solution’ exacerbates the problem, requiring yet more ‘solution’ to be applied. Ad infinitum.
    See much of policy.advocated by interest groups. Which is to support the interest of the interest group. Problems solved are not optimum outcomes.

  168. BIS, you don’t seem to understand what a right is.

    A right is a universalised entitlement, effectively. You have a right not to be murdered, raped, stolen from, etc etc. This is the basis of western law. Other people may violate that right- murderers, rapists, muggers etc. But the right remains. The law and all our standards of behaviour only exist “in a legal sense”. This is oxymoronic.

    I’m surprised I even have to explain something so obvious, to be frank.

  169. No, Ian, you do not have a right for those things not to happen to you. There is an obligation on others not to do them to you & you have a right that the state, society, whatever should take what action it can to prevent them happening. But you can’t have a “right” because it’s totally unenforceable. You can’t say to the mugger in the street, “You mustn’t rob me because you’re infringing my rights.” Well, you can if you want to be a comedy victim. The person you’re talking to, by definition, doesn’t subscribe to the rights system. Any right must have the matching obligation to honour that right or it’s just so much hot air. So you can have a right to go about your affairs unimpeded with the state where the state (etc) can discharge its obligation to ensure that right. It’s an arrangement between you & the state (etc), Which the mugger is not party to.
    Which is the whole danger of the Minnow argument. That protection can be assured beyond the point that protection can be assured.

  170. BIS, you really don’t seem to understand what a right is. Because-

    ” There is an obligation on others not to do them to you & you have a right that the state, society, whatever should take what action it can to prevent them happening.”

    That is precisely what a right is! You seem to be using a false definition of a right as some kind of certainty that nobody else will be able to aggress against you (and thus violate your right). That’s simply false. No system can ensure that, no system of rights has ever tried. It simply offers deterrance and punishment for violations.

    Take a property right in your house. It does not guarantee that no burglar will break in. It is simply a statement that the house is recognised as yours and nobody else is allowed to break in. And if they do, you can (a) defend it and (b) expect the legal system to punish the violator.

    You can’t say to the mugger in the street, “You mustn’t rob me because you’re infringing my rights.”

    Well you can, even if it won’t have an effect. What the right does is entitle you to (a) proportionately defend yourself and (b) set the law (either State or private) on the mugger for doing so.

    A right isn’t some hypothetical immunity from violation. It is a definition of what constitutes a violation and thus what entitles retribution by law, self defence, etc etc. You’re using a straw man definition of a right in order to deny the existence of said rights which is frankly a bit disappointing.

  171. ” You’re using a straw man definition of a right in order to deny the existence of said rights which is frankly a bit disappointing”

    No, I’m pointing out that your so called rights are worthless. Nonexistent at the point you most need them. No-ones taking the slightest notice of them. Right to defend oneself? Who needs it? Either you can or you can’t.
    What you’re talking about is how the law is going to look at things after everything’s over. What woman gives a flying fuck about that when she’s being raped? What she needs is not to be raped, not an arguing point for lawyers.

  172. To return to the original subject, Hewson was claiming that some rape victims bear some share of “moral responsibility” for their rape. It’s not quite clear what she means by the term, and I suspect that a good part of the disagreement on this thread is because of different interpretations.

    I think we all agree that some behaviours, including getting drunk in the company of strangers, are more risky that others. And we all agree that a person who voluntarily takes risks is to some extent responsible when those risks go wrong. For example, a heavy drinker who develops oesophageal cancer bears some responsibility for his condition.

    I think most of us agree that the responsibility of a rapist for his rape is different in kind from this sort of responsibility. So it doesn’t make sense to try to apportion responsibility between the rapist and his victim.

    Ian B seems not to be included in that “most of us”. His concern seems to be that there is a continuum of possible acts, only the far end of which is legally rape, and it’s impossible to know whether some borderline acts will be deemed to constitute rape or not. Whereas the exact position of the borderline doesn’t matter to those of us who are satisfied, not least from McDonald’s acquittal in the footballer rape case Ian refers to, that in practice it’s well beyond any behaviour we might consider excusable.

    Oh, and Mr Ecks’ rant about “femministas” is utterly wrong.

  173. BIS, if you don’t accept the concept of legal rights at all, fair enough, but that’s not much use to any discussion among those who do.

    Paul B-

    His concern seems to be that there is a continuum of possible acts, only the far end of which is legally rape, and it’s impossible to know whether some borderline acts will be deemed to constitute rape or not.

    That is not my position at all, and dear God I’ve written it down enough times. Again; legal rape is legal rape, and that’s it. But in some situations the victim may bear some moral or “causative” responsibility for the situation. That would not change the legal position, but may be considered either legal or everyday mitigation

    Further, there are some situations defined purely by the law (and in some cases very recent Feminist written laws) which are not rape at all. One such example is the recent Feminist laws declaring a drunk woman’s consent invalid and thus any consensual sex she engages in to be rape, as was the case for the prosecution in the Footballer Case. (The actual legal judgment pretty much everybody considered rather perverse; it did not support the prosecution case or the woman’s complaint since she and her Feminist ideology driven lawyers intended both the men she chose to have sex with to be declared rapists).

    A second example would be a 15 year old girl who has an enthusiastic and loving sexual relationship with a teacher. This is not rape either, even though the law claims it is.

    And just to clarify this once more; a woman who is drunk, alone in a dark alleyway and wearing revealing clothing etc who is raped is not one iota responsible for the rape, either legally or morally, or in any general causative sense.

  174. One such example is the recent Feminist laws declaring a drunk woman’s consent invalid

    Please stop talking rot. Once again,

    The question of capacity to consent is particularly relevant when a complainant is intoxicated by alcohol or affected by drugs.

    In R v Bree [2007] EWCA 256, the Court of Appeal explored the issue of capacity and consent, stating that, if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant’s state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape. However, where a complainant had voluntarily consumed substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether to have intercourse, and agreed to do so, that would not be rape. Further, they identified that capacity to consent may evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious. Whether this is so or not, however, depends on the facts of the case.

    … Prosecutors and investigators should consider whether supporting evidence is available to demonstrate that the complainant was so intoxicated that he/she had lost their capacity to consent. For example, evidence from friends, taxi drivers and forensic physicians describing the complainant’s intoxicated state may support the prosecution case. …
    – From the CPS Policy and Guidance, Rape and Sexual Offences: Chapter 3: Consent.

    A second example would be a 15 year old girl who has an enthusiastic and loving sexual relationship with a teacher. This is not rape either, even though the law claims it is.

    She cannot consent in the legal sense because her age is less than the age of consent, therefore (assuming no ‘reasonable belief in consent’) it is rape according to English law; what in some jurisdictions is or was called “statutory rape”. The offence of rape is predicated on consent; some people cannot consent in the legal sense because of their age, intoxication, or disability etc.

    I’m sure you know that, therefore what you mean must be not that “this is not rape”, but “this is not rape according to Ian B”.

  175. “In R v Bree [2007] EWCA 256, the Court of Appeal explored the issue of capacity and consent, stating that, if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant’s state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape. However, where a complainant had voluntarily consumed substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether to have intercourse, and agreed to do so, that would not be rape. Further, they identified that capacity to consent may evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious. Whether this is so or not, however, depends on the facts of the case.”

    So IanB is correct: a man may sleep with a drunk women, who gave her consent, and retrospectively it may be decided she was actually too drunk to be able to give consent, so anything she may have said at the time is irrelevant. Thus the law can indeed declare a drunk woman’s consent invalid. But never a drunk man’s consent of course.

  176. No, it means it is not rape. That a foolish law declares something to be something that it is not does not make it so. That indeed is why the qualifier “statutory” has to be bodged on the front of the word “rape”. Because it is not actually rape.

    Until not so long ago, a 20 year old man having gay sex was below the age of consent, so if he did so consensually it would be “statutory rape”. But it would not actually be rape, because that is not what rape is. The word “rape” is entirely inappropriate.

    A term like “unlawful sex” would be appropriate, but not the word “rape”. Because these examples are not actually rape. A rape has occurred when one party has not entered into some sexual activity voluntarily. The fact that a legal system refuses to recognise their volition is neither here nor there. It is just proof of a bad law, not proof of rape.

    It is worth remembering that the so-called “age of consent” does not give a young adult any more power of consent than she or he already had. A 14 year old forced into sex is being raped regardless of their age. What it actually does is deny them any choice, not provide a capacity for it.

    Rape is rape. Consensual sex is not rape. It is pretty straightforward.

    As to the drunk sex law, when you cut out all the verbiage you get back to two things. Firstly, that it makes the issue of consent one in the gift of a subsequent court proceedings which in practise means, as I said, that a woman can shout rape after consensual sex if she was drunk. There is no way “friends, taxi drivers(!) or “forensic physicians”” can define how drunk means non-consenting. It is arbitrary. Considering that the Footballer prosecution were using mere stumbling and slurring as that line, the fact is that thousands of people every year are in a lottery situation of possibly committing imaginary feminist rape and it’s pure chance whether they end up in court for it.

    Secondly, note the gendered language in the explanation. Firstly it reinforces the Feminists’ antiquated Victorian mindset that sex is a man thing that is done to women who consent or not. Secondly, it reinforces the repellent idea that intoxication relieves women of responsibility for their actions, but not men. A man who is drunk when he commits imaginary rape cannot use that as a defence; it is his fault for being drunk. Not so the woman.

    If you support man-hating laws made by man hating idealogues, fine. But don’t pretend that they are just or reasonable. They are not.

  177. Jim,

    So IanB is correct: a man may sleep with a drunk women, who gave her consent, and retrospectively it may be decided she was actually too drunk to be able to give consent, so anything she may have said at the time is irrelevant. Thus the law can indeed declare a drunk woman’s consent invalid.

    It can and sometimes does, but sometimes it does not – as you yourself (implicitly) pointed out in the footballer thread when you posted links to two articles each about a case where the defendant had been found not guilty of the offence of rape in such circumstances.

    If you are the same Jim.

  178. It can and sometimes does, but sometimes it does not

    …and nobody can possibly know which outcome will be decided by a later court at the time of the sexual encounter.

  179. @UKL: well it was you who said IanB was ‘talking rot’ when he said the law declares drunk women’s consent invalid, now you admit the law can do such a thing. Which is it to be? Rot or correct?

    And I notice you studiously ignored the point that the law does not give men any similar leeway on the giving of consent due to drunkenness. A mere oversight on your part no doubt.

  180. “So IanB is correct: a man may sleep with a drunk women, who gave her consent, and retrospectively it may be decided she was actually too drunk to be able to give consent”

    No, Ian is wrong. Read the part you quoted again. A woman cannot give consent if she is incapacitated beyond the point where that is possible. The same would go for hiring a plumber.

  181. “A man who is drunk when he commits imaginary rape cannot use that as a defence; it is his fault for being drunk. ”

    Does this really need spelling out again? The difference is that raping someone is a crime, being raped isn’t. You do not need a ‘defence’ for being raped. If a man finds that he cannot stop raping when he u=has had a few, it is his responsibility not to drink, because, you see, he is the one committing crimes. I know that seems to you horribly unfair Ian, but it is quite normal.

  182. “That indeed is why the qualifier “statutory” has to be bodged on the front of the word “rape”.”

    I don’t believe that the word is used in UK law, Ian. But I am impressed that you are willing to take your ‘rape victims are asking for it’ rhetoric into the realm of paedophilia. Do you draw a line, or do you think all children are complicit in sex acts with adults?

  183. Ian B,

    No, it means it is not rape. That a foolish law declares something to be something that it is not does not make it so.

    If we’re talking about criminal offences there is what the law says and here is what our opinions are. Your opinion is that it isn’t rape, despite you stating it as a matter of fact.

    A rape has occurred when one party has not entered into some sexual activity voluntarily. … Rape is rape. Consensual sex is not rape. It is pretty straightforward.

    The point is the other party may be of such a state of mind or understanding that he or she cannot meaningfully volunteer – she cannot legally consent.

    Can a five year old consent? Can a ten year old? Can someone roofied? Because they can all say “yes”, can’t they?

    I’ll make it easy for you: they cannot legally consent. And that is what we’re talking about. That is what the offence is predicated on. If you can understand that someone roofied cannot consent – I fucking hope so – you must surely be capable of understanding that someone intoxicated by alcohol may not be able to consent.

    A 14 year old forced into sex is being raped regardless of their age.

    The offence is not predicated on force and there is no dispute here about force, so that’s irrelevant. Our dispute hinges on the meaning of consent, and what state of mind can give consent (or not).

    http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/consent/#a03

  184. “You do not need a ‘defence’ for being raped”

    No. But you do get a ‘get out of jail free’ card if the sex you freely consented to at the time proves to be something you regret in the morning, or your boyfriend/husband finds out about your drunken one night stand.

    ‘Oh it was rape, I was too drunk to consent officer!!’

    Whereas no man can retrospectively cry rape due to his incapacity to consent after having had regrets about his drunken activities.

  185. Would you think it reasonable, Ian, if a man challenged in court a contract that he had signed when in an advanced state of inebriation? The contract would be invalid if the signatory were drunk. Is that intolerable too? Another example of the evil feminocracy robbing men of their age-old right to sell time shares to drunk, drugged or otherwise mentally incapacitated people?

  186. Jim,

    @UKL: well it was you who said IanB was ‘talking rot’ when he said the law declares drunk women’s consent invalid, now you admit the law can do such a thing. Which is it to be? Rot or correct?

    Jim, you qualified your statement, Ian did not. Therefore I did not wholly disagree with you, even as I disagreed with Ian. I even quoted – again – what the law actually says. So yes, I stand by saying it is rot to claim there are “recent Feminist laws declaring a drunk woman’s consent invalid,” because there aren’t. Once again, hopefully for the final time, what the law says is that,

    if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant’s state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape. However, where a complainant had voluntarily consumed substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether to have intercourse, and agreed to do so, that would not be rape.

    And I notice you studiously ignored the point that the law does not give men any similar leeway on the giving of consent due to drunkenness. A mere oversight on your part no doubt.

    I didn’t bother to address it, because it seems pretty obvious to me that it’s open for men to make similar complaints – there doesn’t seem to be anything in law to stop them.

  187. “No. But you do get a ‘get out of jail free’ card if the sex you freely consented to at the time proves to be something you regret in the morning, or your boyfriend/husband finds out about your drunken one night stand.”

    First of all, no you don’t. You have to prove in a court of law that you were raped. Secondly, why do you think that a woman who merely regretted her choice of sexual partner would want to send the following day in a police station and the weeks or months in the courts making a case that will typically fail? A woman who has sex with someone she doesn’t much like does not face any dire social consequences any more.

    And a man has the same recourse He can argue that he was sexually assaulted. I am sure you have considered this when you have regretted sex with someone. No? Why not? Are women just much more vindictive than men?

    As someone said above, it is just so easy to stay outside the bounds of any possible accusation of rape, minimal decent behaviour towards women is so easy, that it is very strange when people get so het up about where the line might be.

  188. @Minnow: “A woman cannot give consent if she is incapacitated beyond the point where that is possible.”

    Precisely. And the law defines that point arbitrarily and retrospectively. Ergo it is entirely possible for a man to have consensual (at the time) sex with a drunken woman, who then regrets her actions, cries rape, and the law will retrospectively annul her previous consent because they have decided she was too drunk to legally consent, even if she did verbally at the time.

    Thus a man, who may well be as drunk as the woman in question, needs to be able to determine exactly a moveable point beyond which verbal consent may no longer be legal consent, and which will most likely only be defined at some later point in time. And he will be given no leeway in his decision making process for his incapacity due to drink at any time.

    Thus the law says a woman may verbally consent, but not necessarily be held responsible for that consent, but a man is responsible for his actions come what may. Do you not see just the teensy bit of unfairness in all of this?

  189. Jim,

    Whereas no man can retrospectively cry rape due to his incapacity to consent after having had regrets about his drunken activities.

    It is open to men to make such a complaint, assuming for pedants’ sake they were penetrated by a penis, or they could make a complaint about, for example, being caused to engage in sexual activity without consent.

  190. “First of all, no you don’t. You have to prove in a court of law that you were raped. Secondly, why do you think that a woman who merely regretted her choice of sexual partner would want to send the following day in a police station and the weeks or months in the courts making a case that will typically fail? A woman who has sex with someone she doesn’t much like does not face any dire social consequences any more.”

    No you don’t have to prove anything in court. You just turn up at the police station and they will fall over themselves to believe you, because the feminists have told the police that women never lie about rape, despite the evidence all showing they very often do. A woman scorned and all that. And the man in question will be arrested (assuming she knows who he is), his face splashed all over the press as being arrested for ‘rape’, and huge amounts of police time will be wasted in making enquiries into a ‘crime’ that never happened. And the ‘victim’ will most likely walk free from any consequences of these false allegations, as very few cases ever make it to court. Even so there are enough documented cases to make it clear that such behaviour is not uncommon. And the reasons are always the same few scenarios – a result of a drunken ONS being discovered by a partner and the only way out being to say she was raped, or vindictiveness due to being dumped, regret over things done drunk that they didn’t like when sober, or just bat sh*t craziness (there are women who falsely cry rape multiple times and the police have to investigate every single one as though it were gospel).

  191. The problem here is that the “what the law says” argument is irrelevant. We all agree about what the law says. What we’re arguing about is whether the law is reasonable or not.

    The problem is, we live in a society whose ruling class is dominated by a gender bigotry. It thus makes laws designed to entrap one gender. As an example, imagine a society predicated on a race bigotry. It might make a law that sex between a black man and a white woman is rape; because no white woman in her right mind would let a nigger violate her.

    So then the likes of Minnow and UKL would be “it’s rape, the law says so, that’s the end of it” and we’d see black men being dragged through the courts by white women who had regretted bedding them after the lust had subsided, and foolish justifications about how they hadn’t really consented, and rape is rape is rape and so on.

    The key point as I’ve intimated before is a conceptual framework that causes the followers of this bigotry to be incapable of viewing reality in rational terms. We know the origin of Feminism; it arose out of an hysterical Victorian puritan wave that characterises male lust as a form of corruption, and women the victims of it. Until we can shift this antiquated nonsense and expel its followers from positions of power, we’re going to be stuck with these futile arguments which portray a view of the world predicated on claptrap.

    Progressives love laws which act like Russian Roulette; loads of people do something (have sex, smoke dope, be gay, look at porn, whatever) and some randomly get horridly ruined for doing so. All I can think to say is that frankly anyone who cannot comprehend the injustice of a law which- in an horrific echo and inversion of Denning’s infamous “no means yes”- allows a court to decide that “yes means no” (or, that “yes” is null) is beyond hope.

    I will just repeat again in the hope of making you see this; any number of young people this year are going to fall into bed after parties, pubbing and clubbing, and so on, and every time that happens the man and only the man is vulnerable to a claim that not-rape is actually rape and be utterly ruined by it. The injustice of this is profound.

  192. “Precisely. And the law defines that point arbitrarily and retrospectively. Ergo it is entirely possible for a man to have consensual (at the time) sex with a drunken woman, who then regrets her actions, cries rape”

    It is quite possible, but the woman would be committing a crime. Rape is hardly unique here, I could make false allegations of any crime against anyone. Why would a woman cry rape because she regretted sex though? Do you do that?

    “No you don’t have to prove anything in court. You just turn up at the police station and they will fall over themselves to believe you, because the feminists have told the police that women never lie about rape”

    You really do have to prove it all in front of a jury. You think the police are under the thumb of the feminist movement? Have you ever met a policeman?

  193. “The problem here is that the “what the law says” argument is irrelevant. We all agree about what the law says. What we’re arguing about is whether the law is reasonable or not.”

    I am glad that we agree on something, but still amazed that you think it unreasonable that the law forbids you to have sex with people who are incapacitated by drink, drugs, illness etc.

    I notice that you do not object to the law protecting people from buying time shares while drunk, or getting tattoos.

  194. “All I can think to say is that frankly anyone who cannot comprehend the injustice of a law which- in an horrific echo and inversion of Denning’s infamous “no means yes”- allows a court to decide that “yes means no” (or, that “yes” is null) is beyond hope.”

    Just to reiterate, this is also true of contact law, not only rape. Do you find that horrific too?

  195. I notice that you do not object to the law protecting people from buying time shares while drunk, or getting tattoos.

    You’ve never asked me that. Do you want me to comprehensively review every law in the land, or something?

    I would recommend not making any meaningful decision while drunk, but if you do, it’s your own fault. I think most people recognise, or at least used to, that if you woke up after a binge with KISS MY ARSE written across your forehead, that really is your responsibility.

  196. “And so on, and so on. Presumably if you’re drunk, you shouldn’t be held responsible for lying about rape either, or does that principle not apply?”

    Yo should always be held responsible for criminal actions Ian, including raping people. Presumably you think that man falsely accused of rape is to a degree morally responsible for the crime, for letting himself get into the position where he could be so accused? In which case, I don’t see what you are so upset about. Let him serve his time!

  197. “I would recommend not making any meaningful decision while drunk, but if you do, it’s your own fault. I”

    Not under UK law, where contracts entered into drunk are invalid.

  198. I am glad that we agree on something, but still amazed that you think it unreasonable that the law forbids you to have sex with people who are incapacitated by drink, drugs, illness etc.

    We aren’t talking about incapacitated. We’re talking about some degree of drunk. Which is a state in which millions of people every year have sex. They often go out drinking precisely with the intention of seeking a sexual encounter. I can think of one female (platonic) friend who actively avoided having sex while sober because she was too inhibited without a few drinks inside her.

    But not to worry, Minnow and UKL will be in every bedroom and every courtroom with their precise measure of how long a piece of string is, to ensure justice is always done.

  199. UKL, I really am not sure I want to hear Ian’s views on sex with children. Not sure I am steeled enough for it.

  200. “We aren’t talking about incapacitated. We’re talking about some degree of drunk.”

    No we are not. The bar is very high. You have to be so drunk that you are incapable of giving meaningful consent, that is you cannot understand what is happening to you.

  201. “It is quite possible, but the woman would be committing a crime. Rape is hardly unique here, I could make false allegations of any crime against anyone. Why would a woman cry rape because she regretted sex though? ”

    It being crime doesn’t stop it, just Google false rape allegation and see how many cases come up. And thats just the ones that make it to court. As many if not more get dropped without a court case. And rape is unique – if I accuse you of stealing my car I’d have to a) show I had a car to be stolen, b) that it had gone missing, and c) some reasonable evidence as to why I think you nicked it. And even then the police might not do anything – ask the bloke whose van was nicked by gypsies and he found it at their camp but they refused to do anything about it.

    Whereas if you turn up at a police station accusing me of rape I WILL get arrested, DNA taken etc etc, however sketchy your accusation is. And while you may be a very well adjusted individual who would never use that power for wrong, there are many not so well adjusted women who are quite capable of doing so, and do, sometimes repeatedly.

  202. Can a five year old consent in this sense? Can a ten year old? Can someone roofied?

    Well, this is way off topic but we’re up against the before and after puberty thing. Before puberty humans don’t have sex drives, so it becomes not so much a matter of consent as desire. I don’t think a five year old would want to have sex. I’m not sure they’re even capable of it without injury. What I can remember from that age is knowing very clearly when I didn’t like something and wanted it to stop, as with invasive medical examinations of my bottom of which I had many, so I think even then I was capable of saying no, except I didn’t have a right to tell the doctor to get his finger out of my bumhole. But I would have if I could have.

    So, yes, they can exercise refusal of consent. Which is what matters really, it’s the right to say no, not yes. What child abuse victims suffer is a lack of a right to refuse, not to consent.

    Which anyway has little bearing on a 15 year old who is raring to go with her hunky math teacher, or whatever, since she is sexually adult, and mentally entirely capable of knowing what wets her knickers and what doesn’t.

    Which is why the wise thing would be to do what Hewson says and drop the age to 13.

  203. No we are not. The bar is very high. You have to be so drunk that you are incapable of giving meaningful consent, that is you cannot understand what is happening to you.

    None of which applied in the Footballer case. The prosecution were happy with “stumbling” and “slurring”.

  204. “Presumably you think that man falsely accused of rape is to a degree morally responsible for the crime, for letting himself get into the position where he could be so accused?”

    Yes if he’s done something stupid, like pick up a drunken slapper in a pub and then having sex in an alleyway. Or sleeping with multiple women at the same time while claiming to be faithful to each. Thats opening opening him up to a greater likelihood of a false allegation of rape. So if you have any sense you wouldn’t do that. You’d have sex with women you know well, monogamously, who are sober. In either case neither woman ‘should’ falsely accuse him of rape. But the former is more likely that the latter.

    If on the other hand he never even laid a finger on her, or even knows her (plenty of cases like that where a false allegation has been made against a complete stranger, including IanB’s taxi driver example above), then no, the victim bears no responsibility at all.

  205. Presumably you think that man falsely accused of rape is to a degree morally responsible for the crime, for letting himself get into the position where he could be so accused?

    I think you’re not reading anything I’m writing. I’ve repeatedly stated that a woman (or indeed man) who is vulnerable is not in any way morally responsible for being raped. Let me quote myself-

    And just to clarify this once more; a woman who is drunk, alone in a dark alleyway and wearing revealing clothing etc who is raped is not one iota responsible for the rape, either legally or morally, or in any general causative sense.

    How much more clear can I be?

  206. Ian B,

    I can think of one female (platonic) friend who actively avoided having sex while sober because she was too inhibited without a few drinks inside her.

    No-one is saying capacity to consent is necessarily lost after a couple of drinks. I’ve posted as much at least three times.

    But not to worry, Minnow and UKL will be in every bedroom and every courtroom with their precise measure of how long a piece of string is, to ensure justice is always done.

    I never suggested it was an easy determination in all circumstances – we haven’t got past your disagreement that such circumstances are even conceivable.

    Can someone roofied consent?

  207. I have no idea about “roofies” to be frank, UKL. My drug taking period was very old school; dope, bit of speed, bit of acid.

    From a quick websearch you seem to be buying into this “rape drug” thing which if it happened would be illegal anyway- basically, poisoning- but according to Wiki, it seems there isn’t any more evidence of it actually happening than there is of the Dirty Sanchez. So maybe a bit of an urban myth there and not very relevant to the discussion.

  208. No-one is saying capacity to consent is necessarily lost after a couple of drinks. I’ve posted as much at least three times.

    And yet you also persist in declaring a certainty of where this line is, despite never defining it. How long precisely is this piece of string of yours, UKL?

  209. I have no idea about “roofies” to be frank, UKL. My drug taking period was very old school; dope, bit of speed, bit of acid.

    From a quick websearch you seem to be buying into this “rape drug” thing which if it happened would be illegal anyway- basically, poisoning- but according to Wiki, it seems there isn’t any more evidence of it actually happening than there is of the Dirty Sanchez. So maybe a bit of an urban myth there and not very relevant to the discussion.

    I didn’t suggest anything about its frequency, did I? For the record IIUC it’s not nearly as frequent as people believe but not wholly a myth because such substances have been detected in the blood of complainants. I merely asked if someone who was roofied can consent – you appear to be avoiding the question. I’m sure you must be aware of how roofies are supposed to work and I’m equally sure you are aware of the thrust of my argument, where I’m going with this.

    If it needs spelling out:
    Is it possible for a person to consume a substance or combination of substances such that he or she is rendered unable to “exercise refusal of consent”?

  210. Well, that would depend on how responsible you think people are for intoxicating themselves. Anyone intoxicated is in a different mental state than sober. That’s why people intoxicate themselves. People drink or take drugs with the deliberate intention of being different to how they are sober. Being more uninhibited perhaps, or more stimulated, or more dopey, or whatever.

    So when somebody is intoxicated they have chosen to have a different mind. And if that different mind says yes, then that’s what you have to go with.

    I mean, it’s the whole point of taking drugs, which includes alcohol. But I have no idea about “roofies”. I have no experience of taking them. Presumably if I toook them, it would be because I wanted to be the kind of person who makes the kind of choices “roofied” people make. In so doing, if it makes me less likely to refuse sex, that’s a choice I made by taking the “roofie” so I am responsible for that.

    OTOH, if somebody else put them in my beer, I’ve been drugged/poisoned and nothing I do thereafter is my fault. That would be the distinction.

  211. “You (and Minnow) keep insisting you know where the line is.2

    I know where the line is which is why I can say for certain that I have never raped anyone, while you have to admit that you may have raped on at least one occasion.

  212. I mean, it’s the whole point of taking drugs, which includes alcohol. But I have no idea about “roofies”. I have no experience of taking them. Presumably if I toook them, it would be because I wanted to be the kind of person who makes the kind of choices “roofied” people make. In so doing, if it makes me less likely to refuse sex, that’s a choice I made by taking the “roofie” so I am responsible for that.

    OTOH, if somebody else put them in my beer, I’ve been drugged/poisoned and nothing I do thereafter is my fault. That would be the distinction.

    I’m surprised you didn’t know this but when someone claims to have been ‘roofied’ they mean that someone put something in their drink(s) absent their knowledge or consent, it doesn’t mean they have drugged themselves. Or they might claim their drink was ‘spiked’ which could include a drug or additional, stronger alcohol.

    OTOH, if somebody else put them in my beer, I’ve been drugged/poisoned and nothing I do thereafter is my fault. That would be the distinction.

    We’re not talking about “fault” or “poisoning” at this point, we’re talking about who is capable of consent or in your words exercising refusal of consent.

    Anyone intoxicated is in a different mental state than sober.

    Oh!

  213. “So when somebody is intoxicated they have chosen to have a different mind. ”

    Is there anything at all that we should not therefore feel free to do to a drunk person, so long as they are not actively asking us not to? Buy a kidney off them perhaps? Is that OK?

  214. I know where the line is which is why I can say for certain that I have never raped anyone, while you have to admit that you may have raped on at least one occasion.

    A) Neither you nor UKL have actually provided any means to know where this line is other than apparently the feeling of certainty in your little heart.

    B) No, I’ve never raped anyone. Admittedly I didn’t have Minnow there in the bedroom every time I had sex to give me a thumbs up or thumbs down, but I don’t think the absence of that actually leads to the conclusion that I am a rapist.

    C) Do you have a tall black hat with a buckle? Do you tour superstitious villages pointing at old ladies with cats and saying, “That one, over the there! I just know it! Look at that wart on her nose!”?

  215. “Is it possible for a person to consume a substance or combination of substances such that he or she is rendered unable to “exercise refusal of consent”?”

    Surely, that’s an unanswerable question. It would depend on why the person had consumed the substances. If, as many people do, they’ve consumed the substances to reduce their own inhibitions, how can they be “unable to exercise refusal of consent”?” Who would know? Who, other than they, can know how uninhibited they intended to be? The only fair point of judgement would be if they were unconscious. And even then…
    Maybe, amongst all the other nonsense rights being discussed, there should be a right to be pissed. As you seem to be denying that right.

  216. UKL-

    Sigh. If somebody has been drugged against their will, they are already aggressed against and it’s already a criminal act, so anything afterwards just compounds that. The loss of “consent” has already occurred at the moment of drugging.

    Look, this is entirely diversionary. We’re talking about people who get themselves drunk, have a shag, then claim it was rape the next morning.

  217. You (and Minnow) keep insisting you know where the line is.

    I suggested people who are “falling down drunk”, “slurring” words, stumbling and/or “barely able to stand”, are behind the line.

  218. “A) Neither you nor UKL have actually provided any means to know where this line is other than apparently the feeling of certainty in your little heart.”

    I have, it is easy: can she tell you her name, where she is and the time when you ask? If not, she cannot consent to sex, she is incapacitated, you will be raping her. Most people don’t have to be taught these things. But some do it seems.

  219. “No, I’ve never raped anyone.”

    You just do not know this is true. By your own admission you have had sex with a number of women but are not able to judge whether all of them were in a condition to consent. If you don’t know where the line is you cannot say you haven’t crossed it.

  220. “Look, this is entirely diversionary. We’re talking about people who get themselves drunk, have a shag, then claim it was rape the next morning.”

    No, we are talking about women who get drunk and meet a predatory man who rapes her while she is incapable.

  221. Then you are criminalising many sexual acts at parties, after clubbing, etc, in which both parties may be to some degree slurring or stumbling. And we’re back with the law as Russian Roulette for that reason, and because this isn’t actually quantified. How slurring? How unsteady? People react to alcohol in different ways. None of this is the least bit defined at all. No person can be sure how drunk is too drunk according to your law, until they find themself in court.

    And, arguing this point is really not the point anyway. This is Progressive lawmaking, and its purpose is not justice but entrapment, the same as the drugs laws or that other great Proggie invention, the gross indecency law that could get a man arrested for doing something somebody else thinks is a bit poofy.

  222. “Maybe, amongst all the other nonsense rights being discussed, ”

    Yes, it really is PC gone mad when you can’t rape drunk women every now and then, isn’t it?

  223. Yes, it really is PC gone mad when you can’t rape drunk women every now and then, isn’t it?

    Ah, the desperation is strong in this one.

  224. “Then you are criminalising many sexual acts at parties, after clubbing, etc, in which both parties may be to some degree slurring or stumbling.”

    Nobody is arguing that ‘slurring and stumbling’ are the benchmarks. If they don’t know who and were they are and cannot tell the time, they are incapacitated. Frankly, I think it is very squalid that a man would think about trying to have sex with someone approaching this condition, but we live in a squalid world very often. Again, would it be OK to remove the kidney from someone who consented while very drunk? Is it only rape that you think is OK in those circs?

  225. Ian B,

    Sigh. If somebody has been drugged against their will, they are already aggressed against and it’s already a criminal act, so anything afterwards just compounds that. The loss of “consent” has already occurred at the moment of drugging.

    It doesn’t “just compound that” if someone then has sex with that person, it’s one of the worst things they could do to that person.

    Look, this is entirely diversionary. We’re talking about people who get themselves drunk, have a shag, then claim it was rape the next morning.

    It is not “diversionary” at all, it’s speaking to the point about who can consent, what consent means in the context and when consent is meaningful. See, until now you’ve appeared to disagree someone can be in such a state. It’s what the disagreement has largely been about.

  226. Oh lawks, I missed this-

    By your own admission you have had sex with a number of women but are not able to judge whether all of them were in a condition to consent. If you don’t know where the line is you cannot say you haven’t crossed it.

    That might be because nobody thought there was any such line until recent Feminist lawmaking, and the line was thus conjured ex nihilo long after my partying years. But as I have pointed out, you can’t tell me where this line is either.

    I can however confidently say that no woman I have ever had sex with has considered herself raped, which is a pretty good indication. But I admit that, of course, it is impossible to know whether the Court Of Minnow might subsequently decide on behalf of one or more of them that they were, regardless of what they think of the matter.

    Because, of course, women don’t actually have minds of their own. Minnow is there to do their thinking for them.

  227. “Again, would it be OK to remove the kidney from someone who consented while very drunk? Is it only rape that you think is OK in those circs?”

    Quite honestly, Minnow, your analogy is laughable.

    They’re having sex not surgery. If the drunken woman enjoys the fuck she’s just got a result. Bit damp round the knickerly regions, no harm done & maybe hazy but happy memories the next day. She’s not missing internal organs.

    And, Minnow, I do deeply distrust your motivations.

  228. “That might be because nobody thought there was any such line until recent Feminist lawmaking”

    They certainly did. Kingsley Amis wrote a novel about it in the 60s.

    “I can however confidently say that no woman I have ever had sex with has considered herself raped”

    No you can’t. If you don’t now whether she consented or not, you just don’t know if you raped her. Call them up and ask.

  229. “Yes, it really is PC gone mad when you can’t have consensual sex with a drunk women and not run the risk of getting arrested because she’s her changing her mind afterwards isn’t it?”

    Fixed your post for you.

  230. “Quite honestly, Minnow, your analogy is laughable.They’re having sex not surgery.”

    Which is why it is an analogy. The point about consent is the same. You seem to be implying that a person cannot give meaningful consent to surgery while drunk, but denying the same can be true for sex. Why?

    “If the drunken woman enjoys the fuck she’s just got a result.”

    Yes, but if she has been raped, she has been raped. And I mistrust your motivations too. Men who argue against the possibility that drunk women can be raped are generally of a certain type.

  231. “Yes, it really is PC gone mad when you can’t have consensual sex with a drunk women and not run the risk of getting arrested because she’s her changing her mind afterwards isn’t it?”

    Are you running into this problem a lot Jim? You think it was just sex, she thinks it was rape?

  232. UKL, it really is very simple. If a person puts themself in a different mental state by taking drugs (or whatever) they are responsible for what they do in that mental state. If something else puts them in that state (sneaking drugs into their drink, or perhaps medical delirium) they are not. It really isn’t that hard to understand.

    That’s why if, say, a person gets drunk and insults their best friend, they feel guilty the next day and say sorry. They don’t say, “it’s not my fault, I was drunk!” though they may offer that as mitigation in the apology. But if they have an illness and are delirious and run down a hospital corridor almost naked shouting nonsense[1], it’s not their fault and nobody expects an apology.

    [1] I did this, age 12. Bacterial meningitis. I’d been out cold then just as they were about to do the lumbar puncture I leapt up off the table and made good my escape.

  233. bis,

    It would depend on why the person had consumed the substances. If, as many people do, they’ve consumed the substances to reduce their own inhibitions, how can they be “unable to exercise refusal of consent”?”

    Because they are “in a different mental state than sober” – they might be beyond that state they broadly ‘aimed for’. They might be so uninhibited that they agree to do something they would not have otherwise freely consented to whether sober or in that state they broadly aimed for. This is what the dispute is about: what consent means; if someone in such a state can consent.

  234. Minnow,

    Earlier, you said (to Ian):

    And no Minnow, I’ve never been accused of rape.

    Well, good luck to you Ian, but it is obviously just a matter of time.

    and now you follow up with (again respondong to Ian):

    “No, I’ve never raped anyone.”

    You just do not know this is true. By your own admission you have had sex with a number of women but are not able to judge whether all of them were in a condition to consent. If you don’t know where the line is you cannot say you haven’t crossed it.

    May I suggest that your tone is sounding increasingly bizarre!?

  235. No no no Minnow. I know that everyone I’ve ever had sex with has consented. All I can’t know is whether your magic feminist conscience would subsequently declare one or more of them to be imaginary rape.

    Look, I appreciate that being a member of the cult you really don’t have the conceptual framework to see beyond the madness. But you really should make the effort to at least try.

  236. “UKL, it really is very simple. If a person puts themself in a different mental state by taking drugs (or whatever) they are responsible for what they do in that mental state.”

    We are talking about things being done, not things they are doing. You are suggesting that if someone has been drinking, we should feel free to do whatever we please to them so long as they lack the capacity to ask us not to. Such as remove a kidney.

  237. “No no no Minnow. I know that everyone I’ve ever had sex with has consented.”

    You have argued, at length, that consent is irrelevant to you so long as they have been drinking, so you will understand my scpeticism.

  238. “May I suggest that your tone is sounding increasingly bizarre!?”

    Come on PF, would you let Ian babysit your daughters. Given his views on rape and consent? Honestly?

  239. Ian B,

    UKL, it really is very simple. If a person puts themself in a different mental state by taking drugs (or whatever) they are responsible for what they do in that mental state. If something else puts them in that state (sneaking drugs into their drink, or perhaps medical delirium) they are not. It really isn’t that hard to understand.

    Well perhaps you’ll be kind enough to spell it out for me. If say a woman unknowingly gets into that state and a man has sex with her, the man has committed rape, but if the woman knowingly gets into that same state and a man has sex with her, it isn’t rape?

  240. “Are you running into this problem a lot Jim? You think it was just sex, she thinks it was rape?”

    Nope, you can count the number of sexual partners I have had on one hand, and I’d be happy for any of them to take the stand on my behalf as character witnesses. And I suspect that IanB could say the same thing (the character part, not the counting – I’m guessing he’d need considerably more hands than the average person!).

    Nice ad hom though.

  241. Minnow said:

    You have argued, at length, that consent is irrelevant to you so long as they have been drinking, so you will understand my scpeticism.

    I doubt it, in the context of the above I’m not really sure that anyone would (understand your scepticism that is)?

  242. “I’m guessing he’d need considerably more hands than the average person!”

    Given that he doesn’t bother with modish ‘feminist’ ideas like consent, you may be right.

  243. You guys love your anecdotes. My friends and I once exited a Soho club in the early hours and were saying our goodbyes when we noticed a young woman being sick. She was very unsteady, looked completely lost and was sick again. A man approached her, asked if she was ok and asked if she wanted to come back to his place where he would take care of her. She mumbled something, I don’t know what. He put his arm around her and began to walk her away. We thought this could end badly for her so we went over and said we were her friends and we’d look after her. He argued a bit and then walked away.

    Imagine just for the sake of argument he wanted to have sex with her. Did we ruin the fun of two freely consenting adults? Would it have been rape? Should we have just let him get on with it?

  244. “I doubt it, in the context of the above I’m not really sure that anyone would (understand your scepticism that is)?”

    Then let me explain. Ian has insisted that he does not accept the idea that a woman may be too drunk to consent to sex. He feels free to have sex with any drunk woman who is not actively opposing the act. If as he claims he has frequently had sex with women who drink heavily it is very likely that he has, on at least one occasion, had it when she did not consent or even perhaps realise what he was doing. He doesn’t think it is rape (of course) but I doubt he bothered to ask her. What is it to him?

  245. Come on PF, would you let Ian babysit your daughters. Given his views on rape and consent? Honestly?

    I’m sorry Minnow but whatever your conceptual positions are on discussion above, the implications of the more presumptuous and accusatory tone have nothing to merit them.

    Jim puts it far more eloquently that I do here:

    Nope, you can count the number of sexual partners I have had on one hand, and I’d be happy for any of them to take the stand on my behalf as character witnesses. And I suspect that IanB could say the same thing (the character part, not the counting – I’m guessing he’d need considerably more hands than the average person!).

    Nice ad hom though.

  246. Jim-

    And I suspect that IanB could say the same thing (the character part, not the counting – I’m guessing he’d need considerably more hands than the average person!).

    I didn’t mean to give that impression. I’ve been mostly a relationship kinda guy. But my years in theatre were in a millieu where various situations happened to me and others, and there was a lot of drinking and so on.

    The funny thing for Minnow and his raving ad homs is that, for all my many faults, I think it’s safe to say that if you asked any woman I knew then, they’d say I was a trustworthy sort of fellow who, if I said, “you’re a bit the worse for wear, come and crash at my place”, would know they’d get a safe night’s sleep to sleep off the drink, probably in my bed with me on the floor.

    But for Minnow, there are only two sorts of men; those like him who have a progressive consciousness and a suit of shiny white armour, and the Rape Conspiracy. There’s no grasp of other kinds of people or lifestyles or, most importantly, of the messiness of human relationships in reality. There’s just a ruleset which they apply to everybody else; it’s absolutist, dogmatic and very, very scary.

  247. “I’m sorry Minnow but whatever your conceptual positions are on discussion above, the implications of the more presumptuous and accusatory tone have nothing to merit them.”

    I doubt you have daughters then. But I can assure you that no parent would let a man like Ian take care of their children given his views on rape and consent. And no government agency would allow him to work with children either. He is definitely high risk.

  248. ” they might be beyond that state they broadly ‘aimed for’.”
    Think it’d be worth trying that one on a drink driving pull, UK Lib? “I thought I’d had the amount to drink I was broadly aiming for, ossifer. So I’m not responsible for my actions past that point.”
    And this is a very appropriate analogy. The law does not accept drunkenness as a defense against drunk in charge. No matter how much you’ve drunk. Even if you’ve only essayed out on the road after you’ve drunk so much as to impair your judgement. For very good reason.

  249. “The funny thing for Minnow and his raving ad homs is that, for all my many faults, I think it’s safe to say that if you asked any woman I knew then, they’d say I was a trustworthy sort of fellow who, if I said, “you’re a bit the worse for wear, come and crash at my place”, would know they’d get a safe night’s sleep to sleep off the drink, probably in my bed with me on the floor.”

    Until the night you felt like having sex with one of them, because you would feel entitled to, wouldn’t you? If she had consented to run the risk I mean? If they knew that you considered it a matter of choice for you (and only you) they might not pace so much trust.

    “But for Minnow, there are only two sorts of men”

    No, there are many kinds of men, among them rapists and non-rapists. But there is no grey area between those two categories.

  250. “Well perhaps you’ll be kind enough to spell it out for me. If say a woman unknowingly gets into that state and a man has sex with her, the man has committed rape, but if the woman knowingly gets into that same state and a man has sex with her, it isn’t rape?”

    Yes pretty much in my book. If person A drugs woman B and then sleeps with her I’d say thats rape because he has both induced the intoxication without her consent, and taken advantage of that fact. If Person A drugs woman B but does nothing, and person C subsequently sleeps with her (not knowing she’s been drugged) then that, may or may not be rape, depending on the circumstances. If woman B takes drugs or drink voluntarily and ends up sleeping with A,C and D, then again, it might be rape it might not, depending on the circumstances.

    No-one is saying that a drunk woman can’t be raped. Of course they can. But equally what we are saying is that it should not be possible for a drunk woman to decide to have sex, but then, post facto, decide that it wasn’t consensual at all, and cry rape, and the law back up her change of heart. Because that puts all men, many of whom will be as drunk as the woman in question, in an impossible position.

  251. “And this is a very appropriate analogy. The law does not accept drunkenness as a defense against drunk in charge.”

    It is not a good analogy at all. The drunk driver is committing a crime. A woman who is raped is the victim of crime,. Why you cannot see the difference is beyond me. You do not have to offer a ‘defence’ for being raped (well, in the civilised world you don’t, but on blogs like this …).

  252. “But equally what we are saying is that it should not be possible for a drunk woman to decide to have sex, but then, post facto, decide that it wasn’t consensual at all, and cry rape”

    This is already a crime, it entails prison time. What more do you want? Why does this get you so worked up?

  253. I doubt you have daughters then. But I can assure you that no parent would let a man like Ian take care of their children given his views on rape and consent. And no government agency would allow him to work with children either. He is definitely high risk.

    I’m sorry Minnow, but this is all sounding increasingly detached from any reality.

    I would judge anyone’s suitability to baby sit on what I personally actually knew of them (rather than on some internet blog conversation!). The real world and all that? As I suspect might those who know Ian.

  254. “I would judge anyone’s suitability to baby sit on what I personally actually knew of them (rather than on some internet blog conversation!).”

    Of course, but any social worker who did know Ian’s views on rape who allowed him to work with children or vulnerable adults and did not prevent it would be grossly negligent. People like Ian are usually good at disguising their feelings and views in the real world, of course and that is a constant problem for social workers (they are rarely forgiven by the tabs when they get it wrong). But the markers are there because when they are detected they are fairly reliable. Ian is a walking red flag. Of course, by his own account, if you did know his views and still left him alone with your children, whatever he chose to do to them would be partly your own fault.

  255. @Minnow: no that isn’t a crime. If a woman drinks heavily, consents to sex, wakes up with regrets for what she has done, and claims rape, the law backs her up. Just as they did in the case of the footballer mentioned. Both men who slept with the girl were prosecuted for rape. Now only one was found guilty, the other not. So according to you the woman should now face charges for perjury for the case that was found to be consensual? Because according to you thats a crime. She’s claimed a rape occurred that a court has declared consensual.

  256. “@Minnow: no that isn’t a crime. If a woman drinks heavily, consents to sex, wakes up with regrets for what she has done, and claims rape, the law backs her up.”

    Jim, it doesn’t. She is committing a prosecutable crime. I don’t know why you think this isn’t the case, but it is. If you imagine that the jails are full of ‘innocent’ rapists, you are frankly deluded. Rape is the most difficult of all serious crimes to prosecute and the one with the lowest conviction rate.

  257. Minnow’s hat gets taller and taller with every comment.

    It is indicative though of the kind of people we’re dealing with. Anyone who doesn’t follow a particular ideology is declared an enemy; note how in his fury at not winning the argument, he’s now decided I’m a danger to children and “high risk”. In his own scary, malformed mind, I’ve already committed some number of rapes.

    It always gives me a chill when I read stuff like this. It’s a reminder of the kind of people who generate witch hunts. A few decades ago, the likes of Minnow would have been saying the same of anyone questioning the dogma on homosexuality.

    “People like Ian are usually good at disguising their feelings and views in the real world, ”

    “Walking red flag”

    etc etc.

    Lawks.

  258. OK, why hasn’t the woman in the footballer case not been prosecuted for perjury? Why is every woman who claims rape, but the guy is acquitted, not so prosecuted? They have all claimed rape where a court has found none happened. Why are they not in prison themselves?

  259. Anyway, ignoring for the moment Minnow’s paranoid fantasies, let’s just deal with this strange distinction-

    ” The drunk driver is committing a crime. A woman who is raped is the victim of crime,. Why you cannot see the difference is beyond me.”

    -which keeps coming up, which boils down to “if you harm somebody else when drunk, you are responsible, but if you harm yourself when drunk, you are not”.

    It’s a very curious distinction, because it couples two things- responsibility and consequences- which are not actually coupled. It’s about actions. Either you are responsible for your actions, or you are not. The consequences are separate from that.

    But it leads to the interesting idea that if you fall downstairs when drunk and break your leg, it’s not your fault. But if you fall downstairs onto somebody else and break their leg, then you are responsible.

    Which makes no sense at all. Though to be fair, it makes as much sense as anything else Minnow has come out with.

  260. bis,

    Even if you’ve only essayed out on the road after you’ve drunk so much as to impair your judgement. For very good reason.

    If you can “impair your judgement” through drink why can’t judgement be impaired such that the consent you gave in that state is void?

    Jim,

    No-one is saying that a drunk woman can’t be raped. Of course they can. But equally what we are saying is that it should not be possible for a drunk woman to decide to have sex, but then, post facto, decide that it wasn’t consensual at all, and cry rape, and the law back up her change of heart.

    What you’re in effect saying is that consent isn’t contingent on the state of mind but how the state of mind was reached. Which seems unreasonable.

  261. “note how in his fury at not winning the argument, he’s now decided I’m a danger to children and “high risk”. In his own scary, malformed mind, I’ve already committed some number of rapes.”

    Ian, you are high risk whether you know it or not. The sociology on this is very sound. It doesn’t mean that you have committed rapes although you cannot say for sure that you haven’t, which is a red flag in itself), but your views make you a risk, because you have said that you would feel free to have sex with certain vulnerable people on the assumption of consent. of course, your reject the idea that these people are vulnerable, or that consent (in the sense we use it) is necessary, but these are classic attitudes of predatory men. You would not be allowed to work with children or vulnerable adults if you were on record with your views. I am sure you think that just another symptom of the ‘feminocracy’ cramping the style of men who might just want a sexy time with the Lolita charges, but the rules are there because they work.

  262. “-which keeps coming up, which boils down to “if you harm somebody else when drunk, you are responsible, but if you harm yourself when drunk, you are not”.”

    No Ian, the difference is that a rape victim is not ‘harming herself’, she is being harmed. I know you are very resistant to this idea, but it is quite clear. If you harm yourself when drunk, you are responsible, but being raped is in a totally different category. It is disturbing that you cannot see that.

  263. “OK, why hasn’t the woman in the footballer case not been prosecuted for perjury?”

    I don’t know, but she could be if she lied to the court (she may not have).

    “Why is every woman who claims rape, but the guy is acquitted, not so prosecuted?”

    I don’t know, but plausible explanations might be that the CPS can’t be arsed to prosecute or that in some cases the charges just couldn’t be proven. so no case would be likely to succeed.

    Why does this upset you so much. Do you think men are very vulnerable to charges of rape? Do you feel vulnerable? I am really curious. It is very rare, after all.

  264. Minnow – your comments (at 2.38pm) almost sound incredulous?

    “Good at disguising their feelings” (presumptuous maybe?!). “a walking red flag?”.

    Listen, I appreciate that you may well work in some part of social services where you see things that are particularly unpleasant; and which may quite understandably have influenced both the type of narrative we have seen above, and the real time and effort you have contributed to this blog article?

    But for the rest of us – I’m sorry but many of us simply don’t live in that kind of world – so, please forgive me if your comments at 2.38 seem somewhat let’s just say fanciful?

  265. “But for the rest of us – I’m sorry but many of us simply don’t live in that kind of world – so, please forgive me if your comments at 2.38 seem somewhat let’s just say fanciful?”

    Because you don’t, it is very easy to imagine that abusers are walking devils, easily recognised. But many of them think they are entirely reasonable and justified, even protective (especially men who abuse children). Some of the best work in this area is helping men (usually young men) to recognise that they are a danger to women. Some men just will not of course. Ian is clearly a danger, whether he knows it or not. In fact, he is so close to the text book example, that it is almost funny.

  266. @UKL: “If you can “impair your judgement” through drink why can’t judgement be impaired such that the consent you gave in that state is void?”

    You could argue that, but the corollary is that if you drink yourself into a state where your judgement is impaired and drive home and kill someone, then you’re not responsible for your actions. Which I don’t think you want to happen.

    The point is that you are responsible for drinking full stop. If you start to drink, and fail to stop at the sensible point, and do something you wish you hadn’t, and that you would never do if sober (like running over someone in your car) it matters not that you are not of sound mind at the point of the accident, all that matters is that you were of sound mind when you started drinking, and anything that occurs subsequently is your responsibility.

    Lets use a less emotional case than rape. Lets say I get steamingly drunk and decide that someone I have never met before is my best friend ever and I want to give them a large sum of money, and write them a cheque for £1000. They cash the cheque. Is that theft? Could I go to the police and claim I would never have given them £1000 if I was sober, so it must be theft and would they mind awfully if they arrested the person in question immediately?

  267. Jim,

    OK, why hasn’t the woman in the footballer case not been prosecuted for perjury? Why is every woman who claims rape, but the guy is acquitted, not so prosecuted? They have all claimed rape where a court has found none happened. Why are they not in prison themselves?

    Hnnnggg…

    Is there a suspicion they lied under oath or misled the authorities? Or do you think that after every acquittal the accuser should be prosecuted?

  268. Christ almighty Minnow. It really is like you’ve read nothing I’ve written, but in reality what it is is that you can’t fit what I’ve written into a narrow prescribed conceptual framework, so you rewrite it into something that fits that framework. Let’s look-

    you cannot say for sure that you haven’t, which is a red flag in itself

    I quite clearly stated that I have never raped anyone and am entirely sure of that. What I cannot say is that somebody might have been more drunk than you think people should be allowed to be when having sex. You cannot say how drunk that is, so it is impossible for me to know whether anything I have ever done fits this unknown criterion.

    you would feel free to have sex with certain vulnerable people on the assumption of consent.

    Except that i said several times the exact opposite, which is that vulnerability does not entitle rape, and even quoted myself saying it, which you ignored.

    of course, your reject the idea that these people are vulnerable, or that consent (in the sense we use it) is necessary, but these are classic attitudes of predatory men.

    I said the exact opposite of that.

    You would not be allowed to work with children or vulnerable adults if you were on record with your views. I am sure you think that just another symptom of the ‘feminocracy’ cramping the style of men who might just want a sexy time with the Lolita charges, but the rules are there because they work.

    And if I were a litigious type, you’re now basically slandering.

    Now I appreciate that you’re angry at not winning the argument and, ironically, I bear some responsibility for provoking that emotion in you. But I would suggest that you calm down, have a cup of tea, and get a grip. If you cannot win a debate by honest means, it might be better for you not to engage in them. If on the other hand you make a habit of getting your rocks off by accusing people you do not know on the internet of being rapists and paedophiles, I pity you.

    What we do see here though is the dangerous nature of the progressivist mind. Anyone who disagrees with the dogma is proving themselves to be a vessel for evil; and so we move rapidly to denunciation. It also does kind of illustrate the interesting point about moral responsibility for subsequent violent behaviours though.

    If we were in the same physical space I’d probably have thumped you by now, and onlookers would probably have considered that you deserved it. If you cannot behave decently, I seriously recommend that you shut the fuck up.

  269. No Ian, the difference is that a rape victim is not ‘harming herself’, she is being harmed.

    No no no. We’re discussing whether a woman who consensually engages in sex when drunk is responsible for that choice or not. We already agreed about 1000 comments ago that if she’s raped, she’s raped. What we’re interested in is whether a court can decide that a drunk woman’s “yes” actually should have been “no”, and thus that her drunken choice of “yes” was an act of self harm.

  270. ““And this is a very appropriate analogy. The law does not accept drunkenness as a defense against drunk in charge.”

    Minnow -It is not a good analogy at all. The drunk driver is committing a crime. A woman who is raped is the victim of crime,”

    UKLib – “If you can “impair your judgement” through drink why can’t judgement be impaired such that the consent you gave in that state is void?”

    Well our drink driving laws seem to very clear on this. The analogy holds, because being intoxicated whilst driving is indeed a crime. If impaired judgement due to intoxication served to exonerate the driver, it wouldn’t be a crime. So the law would seem to say that even whilst intoxicated, to any level of intoxication*, a person is still held responsible for their actions.

    *Worth noting: People have been convicted of drunk in charge of a motor vehicle whilst the vehicle was stationary & they were unconscious. It was not even necessary to prove ‘intent to drive’.

  271. Jim,

    You could argue that, but the corollary is that if you drink yourself into a state where your judgement is impaired and drive home and kill someone, then you’re not responsible for your actions. Which I don’t think you want to happen.

    Like Ian you conflate (A) what you do to someone with (B) what is done to (or with) you.

    Lets say I get steamingly drunk and decide that someone I have never met before is my best friend ever and I want to give them a large sum of money, and write them a cheque for £1000. They cash the cheque. Is that theft? Could I go to the police and claim I would never have given them £1000 if I was sober, so it must be theft and would they mind awfully if they arrested the person in question immediately?

    I don’t know, but let’s say you sign a contract while steaming drunk (Minnow suggested this example a few times but AFAICS no-one has responded). AIUI under English law you would not have ‘capacity’ to agree to the contract therefore it isn’t legally binding.

  272. UKL-

    Like Ian you conflate (A) what you do to someone with (B) what is done to (or with) you.

    You’re still making the mistake of treating the woman as a passive vessel. This is a problem indeed with the term “consent”. What we’re talking about is a situation in which a woman actively participates in sex, but after sobering up that choice is negated by her being drunk at the time. Sex isn’t something that is “done to” women. Think in terms of participation.

  273. Ian B,

    We’re discussing whether a woman who consensually engages in sex when drunk is responsible for that choice or not.

    What we’re stuck on is whether she has the state of mind such that she can meaningfully consent. This is what the dispute hinges on.

  274. “AIUI under English law you would not have ‘capacity’ to agree to the contract therefore it isn’t legally binding.”
    Sounds like bollocks to me. Any transaction is a contract so you could say the verbal contract you had with the cab driver to get you home, pissed from the pub, was void when you arrived at your door.
    Under *normal* circumstances, a court would probably look at the nature of the contract & whether the other party could reasonably believe the person was capable of making the contract, in the circumstances. Which would seem to put our pissed potential rape victim on dodgy ground because as many drunk women consent to sex as cab drivers haul drunks.
    But, thanx to Minnows everywhere, this isn’t the *normal* world, is it?

  275. UKL,

    I’ve got this vague recollection that we’ve been around this mulberry bush before and I argued that active participation is meaningfully consent. If you’re fucking a ragdoll, it isn’t. In practical terms there’s a pretty clear line between drunk and comatose; people tend to snap between the two. I know. I’ve been there.

  276. “No no no. We’re discussing whether a woman who consensually engages in sex when drunk is responsible for that choice or not.”

    No we are not. We are discussing women who are raped while drunk. You simply deny the possibility of that. Nobody who meaningfully consents to sex has been raped.

  277. “Lets use a less emotional case than rape. Lets say I get steamingly drunk and decide that someone I have never met before is my best friend ever and I want to give them a large sum of money, and write them a cheque for £1000. They cash the cheque. Is that theft?”

    Another poor analogy. Better would be, suppose you go and get steaming drunk at a party. At the point when you have not quite passed out, but have no idea what is going on, someone takes your cheque ebook, fills out a cheque and then tells you to sign the line, would that be theft. You can argue the case, but the law is quite clear that it would be a crime. Actually, you wouldn’t even have to be very drunk.

  278. Minnow, you can’t solve the problem by stating your answer as a precondition. We’re discussing what constitutes rape, so you can’t start with the presumption that the person has been raped. Not one person on this thread has denied that a person can be raped while drunk. What we’re discussing is whether being drunk means you’ve been raped even if you consented at the time.

  279. “Well our drink driving laws seem to very clear on this. The analogy holds, because being intoxicated whilst driving is indeed a crime. If impaired judgement due to intoxication served to exonerate the driver, it wouldn’t be a crime.”

    That’s right, because driving while drunk is a crime. But being raped isn’t as crime. Being raped makes you the victim of crime, so there is no analogy. You must surely see that a rape victim does not require ‘exoneration’, unless she is being prosecuted by the Taliban.

  280. The actual legal judgment pretty much everybody considered rather perverse

    No, pretty much everybody who concerned themselves with the facts of the case considered the verdict sensible. The jury found that if you pick up a drunk woman on the street at 4am and persuade her to get in a taxi with you, go to your hotel room, take her clothes off, and get into bed with you, it’s reasonable to suppose that she’s consenting to sex unless she makes it clear that she isn’t. But if you enter someone else’s hotel room, and there’s a woman you’ve never met before in the bed there, it’s not reasonable to suppose that she’s consenting to sex with you unless she’s makes a clear and sober declaration that she is.

    why hasn’t the woman in the footballer case not been prosecuted for perjury?

    Her evidence was that she couldn’t remember what had happened. The verdict doesn’t mean that she lied. Even in a different case where the accused can be innocent only if the complainant has lied, an acquittal may often mean only that the jury couldn’t be sure that she’s telling the truth, not that it’s sure that she’s lying.

    Here’s a pretty close analogy to the footballer case: you go out and get very drunk, then go home to bed. In the morning you’ve got a sore arse, and realise that you’ve been fucked, though you can’t remember it. You complain to the police, who identify a suspect from CCTV footage. They question the man; he says that he followed you home in the hope that you might be up for it, found the door unlocked and you in bed, and had sex with you with your consent. You however are sure that you would not have consented. Should the man be prosecuted? Should the jury convict?

  281. “What we’re discussing is whether being drunk means you’ve been raped even if you consented at the time.”

    No, the point has been throughout whether there is such a thing as ‘meaningful consent’, in other words, is it still consent if you are so drunk as to not understand what you are consenting to. You deny that this is possible. The law is clear that if you consent, even when drunk, it is not rape so long as the woman understands what she is consenting to.

  282. “I quite clearly stated that I have never raped anyone and am entirely sure of that.”

    Only so long as you reject the usual social and legal definition of rape. Of course, I realise that you do not consider what you do rape, but that is very common among rapists, even some that even you would consider criminals (the at-knife-point-against-women-who-dress -modestly-and-don’t-drink type).

  283. Me:

    You would not be allowed to work with children or vulnerable adults if you were on record with your views. I am sure you think that just another symptom of the ‘feminocracy’ cramping the style of men who might just want a sexy time with their Lolita charges, but the rules are there because they work.

    Ian:

    And if I were a litigious type, you’re now basically slandering.

    Earlier Ian (with the sweaty palms):

    Which anyway has little bearing on a 15 year old who is raring to go with her hunky math teacher, or whatever, since she is sexually adult, and mentally entirely capable of knowing what wets her knickers and what doesn’t.

  284. Only so long as you reject the usual social and legal definition of rape.

    Er, no. I have never raped anyone, unless you include the word rape to mean “whatever Minnow imagines to have happened” which is not congruent with reality.The usual social and legal definition of rape does not include a couple of twentysomethings having consensual sex, mostly on multiple occasions.

    You’re going to have to get over this Minnow.

    Regarding the age of consent laws, millions of teenagers violate them. Sex is a normal activity for a 15 year old, and sexually she or he is not a child. Indeed, the SOA 2003 came with issued instructions that they should not be prosecuted when both participants were underage- and indeed the government said it would block private prosecutions of such by angry parents.

    I referred to the 15yo/teacher because of the recent Megan Stammers case which was about as consensual as one could possibly imagine, and thus though unlawful was not in any meaningful sense “rape”.

    Now, if you really want to prosecute everyone who has sex while not entirely sober, go ahead. You’ll be throwing most of every year’s university students in prison, and millions of other people who pick each other up in bars, go to parties, share a few bottles of wine, etc. Not to mention that girl on the X Factor who auditioned with a song she’d written about waking up in a strange bed with a memory blackout. But so long as you think that all that is the “usual social and legal definition of rape”, you go right ahead. Your self righteous disconnect from reality will no doubt bear you onwards against the complaints by the rape conspiracy.

  285. Minnow. Are you willfully thick or is it a natural talent?
    The analogy holds because the law judges a person is responsible for their actions when intoxicated. In this case, being in charge of a motor vehicle. From that follows, they are liable for any consequences whilst so doing. It makes no distinction whether they’re male or female. The crime aspect is not relevant although the principal applies to numerous other offenses. See below.
    We also seem to have established that a man having sex with a woman is responsible for his actions, irrespective of whether he’s intoxicated or not. Irrespective of the level of intoxication.
    But for some peculiar reason, when it comes to women, all of a sudden there’s a level of intoxication where they’re no longer responsible. Although no-one seems to be able to define what that level is, at the time. it can only be established after she’s sobered up & had a little think. Saying “Yes please! Do!” can be changed to “No!.”, retrospectively. Even, as IanB so accurately points out, sex is not necessarily a passive activity for the woman & she could have been actively participating.
    So, as women cannot apparently be trusted to drink, would you approve the denial of their right to drink? it would make us all a lot safer.

    (Sorry not to reference a gay situation above but it’s complicated enough already).

  286. “Er, no. I have never raped anyone,”

    I hope not, but you have said, as I understand it, that you do not require ‘meaningful consent’ when you have sex with drunk women, that you consider their willingness to drink and be alone with you to be consent in itself so long as they do not explicitly ask you to stop. So you just cannot be sure that you have never raped someone. If you do not believe there is a ‘line’ how can you feel confident that you have never crossed it?

  287. “The analogy holds because the law judges a person is responsible for their actions when intoxicated. In this case, being in charge of a motor vehicle. From that follows, they are liable for any consequences whilst so doing.”

    The analogy does not hold, because being held liable for your actions (the consequences of committing a crime) is not the same as being liable for actions that are taken against you (getting raped). If I get drunk and shoot someone, I am liable. But if I get drunk and then am shot, I am not. It isn’t so hard is it?

    “We also seem to have established that a man having sex with a woman is responsible for his actions, irrespective of whether he’s intoxicated or not. ”

    No, he isn’t. If he hasn’t given meaningful consent he is being assaulted. If your girlfriends decide to stick a dildo in your arse while you are very drunk and publish the pics on Facebook, you have a right to complain unless you wanted them to do it.

    “Saying “Yes please! Do!” can be changed to “No!.”, retrospectively.”

    No it can’t. Why does this have to be repeated? That is not allowed, it is not legal.

    “So, as women cannot apparently be trusted to drink, would you approve the denial of their right to drink? it would make us all a lot safer.”

    It would only make it safer for those men who cannot be certain that they are not rapists. The rest of us find this line incredibly easy to walk. If you are anxious about it, apply this rule of thumb: if you are asking yourself whether a woman is too drunk to know what she is doing, the gentlemanly thing is to escort her home, not to fuck her. Is it so hard? Such an infringement of your rights?

  288. Because every such sexual encounter has involved two adults indulging enthusiastically and consensually in sexual activity, you nasty little twerp. Have you ever actually had sex? I mean, with somebody else.

  289. “I referred to the 15yo/teacher because of the recent Megan Stammers case which was about as consensual as one could possibly imagine”

    You characterised it as:

    ” a 15 year old who is raring to go with her hunky math teacher, or whatever, since she is sexually adult, and mentally entirely capable of knowing what wets her knickers and what doesn’t.”

    Which is pretty much why you would never be considered fit to work with children or vulnerable adults. You should accept you are a risk and change. Denial could make things very bad for you in the long run. Seek help.

  290. “Because every such sexual encounter has involved two adults indulging enthusiastically and consensually in sexual activity, you nasty little twerp. ”

    I think that is unlikely, but I hope it is true. People who do not recognise certain categories of rape are not very reliable at saying whether they have raped someone. Every police specialist understands this. It is quite common.

  291. “the complaints by the rape conspiracy.”

    Ah, the conspiracy! Who are the conspirators Ian? Who are they conspiring against and with what aims in mind? What motivates their evil?

  292. Also-

    Ah, the conspiracy! Who are the conspirators Ian? Who are they conspiring against and with what aims in mind? What motivates their evil?

    You seem to have not grasped this. I was talking about the rape conspiracy that you and Feminist ideology believe in.

  293. “You’ve heard the slogan “Rape Culture”, Minnow? That.”

    I have heard it. I thought it was a bit silly until I came here. Never met people before (outside of the CJS) who would defend rape or demand that rape victims be judged for ‘purity’ or ‘exonerate’ themselves for their complicity in the crime. Things look different now.

  294. I have no idea what relevance the Countryside Jobs Service has to this. And here we are 325 comments in, and you haven’t actually understood a damned word anyone else has written, Minnow. Congratulations.

    I cannot help but suspect that you’ve been on a course or two.

  295. @jim It’s still going on, isn’t? Sheesh!
    It is a bit like standing on the bridge of the Titanic as it heads towards the iceberg & listening to the officers arguing about what the band should be playing.

    As far a as women not being raped is concerned, it’s a very simple choice problem. There is no set of men that can be guaranteed not to rape women. Therefore the only strategy open that reduces the chance of a women being raped is she takes responsibility for her own safety & doesn’t put herself in a position of increased risk. Minnow’s whole argument falls to pieces because whatever attitude it would be preferable for men to have, there’s no possibility any woman can be certain she’s with a man with the preferred attitude. So all men are the same potential risk.
    So cheer up, Ian. Despite Minnow’s accusations, you’re no more potential danger than anyone else. But unfortunately, your ‘rights’ thing falls at the same fence. The one person who will not be respecting the woman’s rights is the one who rapes her. So whether they exist or not is immaterial.

  296. Ian B,

    I’ve got this vague recollection that we’ve been around this mulberry bush before and I argued that active participation is meaningfully consent. If you’re fucking a ragdoll, it isn’t. In practical terms there’s a pretty clear line between drunk and comatose; people tend to snap between the two. I know. I’ve been there.

    There’s more of a spectrum to the short term effects of alcohol consumption than [completely with it]-[unconsciousness].

    As the judge said in the footballer case:
    There are two ways in which drink and/or drugs can affect an individual who is intoxicated. First, it can remove inhibitions. A person may do things when intoxicated which she would not do, or be less likely to do if sober. Secondly, she may consume so much alcohol and/or drugs that it affects her state of awareness. So you need to reach a conclusion upon what was the complainant’s state of intoxication, such as you may find it to be. Was she just disinhibited, or had what she had taken removed her capacity to exercise a choice? A woman clearly does not have the capacity to make a choice if she is completely unconscious through the effects of drink and drugs, but there are various stages of consciousness, from being wide awake to dim awareness of reality. In a state of dim and drunken awareness you may, or may not, be in a condition to make choices. So you will need to consider the evidence of the complainant’s state and decide these two questions: was she in a condition in which she was capable of making any choice one way or another? If you are sure that she was not, then she did not consent. If, on the other hand, you conclude that she chose to agree to sexual intercourse, or may have done, then you must find the defendants not guilty.

  297. 328 posts so far, and many of the commentators still see the problem as being crusading feminists, and the risk that a man might be tried for rape if they fuck a drunk woman they’ve never previously met.

    Out in the real world, the problem is that rape is common and fewer than 1% of rapes result in a conviction.

    What we need is a cultural change, so that the social norm is to be careful about consent. How are we going to promote that?

  298. “So cheer up, Ian. Despite Minnow’s accusations, you’re no more potential danger than anyone else.”

    Take comfort Ian, your friends on here think you are only averagely dangerous to women. In this world, I think that is considered complimentary.

  299. Minnow said:
    “your friends on here think you are only averagely dangerous to women. In this world, I think that is considered complimentary.”

    Minnow, I don’t want to reopen this, but BIS very light heartedly said “you’re no more potential danger than anyone else”…

    Surely there is absolutely nothing for anyone to quibble with in that statement.

    Try thinking about it for a second (or even try using a calculator?): Most men (ie 99%+?) are quite clearly not at all “dangerous” to women (ie in the context of the discussion above). Hence may I suggest that your use of “average” may unfortunately perhaps say more about your attitude (or sociological or text book teaching, as you alluded to above?) to all of this than any “reality”?

    Perhaps you see things in a way that the vast majority of people (here and elsewhere) would simply never recognise?

    Anyway, that’s enough from me – as others have said, this thread long ago outlived its usefulness.

  300. “Take comfort Ian, your friends on here think you are only averagely dangerous to women. In this world, I think that is considered complimentary.”

    Do you take comfort in the fact that most neutral observers stumbling across this think you are barking mad insane?

    Just FYI I would prefer to leave my daughters with Ian B for a week (whoever he is, at least he is rational) than with you for a minute. You are blatantly crazed in the head.

  301. Try thinking about it for a second (or even try using a calculator?): Most men (ie 99%+?) are quite clearly not at all “dangerous” to women (ie in the context of the discussion above). Hence may I suggest that your use of “average” may unfortunately perhaps say more about your attitude (or sociological or text book teaching, as you alluded to above?) to all of this than any “reality”?

    OK, let’s think about that. The Home Office reports (page 99) that 3.7% of women say they have been raped since the age of 16. That’s about 600,000 women. I’ll give you two options:

    i) These rapes are being carried out by relatively few men, about 0.37% of men say, committing about 10 rapes each. Then there are about 60,000 multiple rapists in the population. And last year there were 3,692 prosecutions for rape, resulting in 2,333 convictions. This is not the picture of trigger-happy prosecution some commentators allege.

    or

    ii) These are mostly not “rape rapes”, they’re just the sort of misunderstanding that could happen to anyone. In that case, the perpetrators should be about as numerous as the victims. So about 3.7% of men are dangerous to women, in the perception of the women themselves.

  302. Hi Paul,

    To be honest, my 99% was plucked out of thin air (hence the question mark) mainly to firmly counter the idea of “average” (which one associates with notions of nearer 50%)?

    If the Home Office report is reliable – then, simply dealing with “the numbers” and without giving it too much thought, I would suggest that somewhere between 1) and 2) is most likely – prob skewed nearer 2)? [ although 3) – gang rapes..?? ]

    And which might then suggest “some” number equal or higher than 96%??

  303. Pingback: Tim Worstall In Numbers | Tim Worstall

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *