- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 70,246
- Reaction score
- 274,168
Well that is not something that I have ever said. As far as I'm concerned both sexes can be guilty of sexual assault or rape. It's not possible to state categorically that the male is always at fault and the female isn't. It always depends on the facts of the case.
JMO if a man sexually assaults a drunk woman, the man is at fault even if the woman was responsible for her own intoxication. If a woman sexually assaults a drunk man, the woman is at fault even if the man was responsible for his own intoxication.
I think it's quite horrid for that quoted man to say that it's unjust that intoxicated rape victims are not held responsible for their assault.
It is a given that you will get drunk if you consume a lot of alcohol so getting drunk is your choice and you're responsible for that. Getting sexually assaulted is not an inevitable consequence of getting drunk. It's not your choice and you're not to blame for being a victim of assault. MOO.
That said, if both were equally drunk, incapable of genuine consent and unable to remember what happened but happened to have sex anyway, then it might end up being pointless for them to sue each other as nothing could be proven anyway. Sometimes it might sometimes be better just to assume it was more or less consensual and chalk it up as a learning experience not to get so drunk next time. Children are unable to consent to sex legally, but in many countries there's an age gap rule and if two children have sex, (being nearly the same age and neither has the power advantage over the other) it's not usually a crime. If two equally incapacitated adults have sex while neither has the edge over the other, maybe it could be thought as similar? Doesn't have to be a man and a woman, it could be two men, or two women, or more than two people.
I guess it depends on what the sexual act consisted of too. Is it two stupidly drunk people doing things mutually to each other or one person doing things to another who might have been unconscious and did not participate much or at all? Was one person more functional than another? Who penetrated whom? It's probably easier for a conscious man to have vaginal intercourse with an unconscious woman than the other way around so that could be partly why you get more of those allegations. Did anyone get hurt, forced or restrained? Was anyone manipulated into getting a more intoxicated state so that they could be more easily taken sexual advantage of?
JMO
"JMO if a man sexually assaults a drunk woman, the man is at fault even if the woman was responsible for her own intoxication. If a woman sexually assaults a drunk man, the woman is at fault even if the man was responsible for his own intoxication. "
I totally agree with the above statements. But what I have a problem with is the following:
A drunk couple has CONSENSUAL sex, and the males is accused of rape because a drunk female cannot consent. BUT WHY ISN'T THE FEMALE CHARGED SINCE THE MALE WAS DRUNK TOO? That is really biased and unfair, imo. Girls are not held responsible for their 'drunken decisions' but males are.
"I think it's quite horrid for that quoted man to say that it's unjust that intoxicated rape victims are not held responsible for their assault. "
I think he was trying to shock people to make a point. And I think it is a valid point. We do not hold drunk females responsible for their decisions to consent to sex because we say they were impaired. But we do hold drunk males responsible for their decisions to have consensual sex when they are drunk. WHY? Tell me why that is equitable?
And I am not talking about a drunk male actually forcing a female or tricking her. Just two drunk people AGREEING to have sex. That makes the male a rapist and the female a victim, even though both gave consent and both were drunk. PLease tell me how that is fair.