WILL ANYONE ACTUALLY READ WHAT I WROTE? Susan, where did you get the idea that I think men are justified in raping women? I was only saying that girls stupid enough to get drunk beyond comprehension and who can't even remember what happened the night before have no right to cry rape.
78 comments
Because women who may not comprehend what they are doing deserve to have their bodies used against their will..
For the love of Pete, Slowly Die in a fucking Fire.
Yet you, as a man, can go out and get absolutely wasted with a reasonable expectation that some douchebag is NOT going to decide you will be his sperm receptacle that night. You do not get the finger wagged at you for flirting. You do not get told "Don't do this, you might get raped, don't do that, you might get raped, don't go here, don't wear that" on and on ad nauseam. (Then, if you fail to do X amount of things, you get blamed). For you, there exists NO cultural meme that says if you report a violation of your body, it will be assumed that you are lying.
You operate under an incredible amount of privilege which is not often extended to women, so shut up and listen to what they are saying.
On what grounds?
The law protects people from being harmed--incapacitated or not. The mere fact that a woman is drunk is no defence to a rape charge, and it certainly doesn't make her body "fair game." To think that it does is not just sickening, but outrightly uncivilised behaviour.
MASSIVE FAIL.
While I do find the people who seem to think getting drunk beyond comprehension is their idea of a fun time to be hugely, hugely misguided, it's also not really a very good reason to rape them, is it?
Try again, sir.
...girls stupid enough to get drunk beyond comprehension and who can't even remember what happened the night before have no right to cry rape.
...where did you get the idea that I think men are justified in raping women?
Getting drunk when you're not with a buddy to look out for you is stupid enough, but you actually think that makes it okay to be raped?
Die in a fucking fire, shit for brains dickhead! >:/
@a mind far far away
I move that anyone that uses this line should immediately forfeit his rights to his penis, and as such, should have it removed. With a rusty hacksaw, preferably.
No right? Okay, so the guys are wrong for raping but the victim should just shut up about it. Why stop at being drunk? A woman that stays at home alone and then gets raped should have known better. Or maybe a woman who dares to show their ankles or eyes in public should know better.
A woman does herself no favors by getting stupidly drunk but it does not make the crime any less of a crime. So, as a victim of the rape, the woman has every right to report it.
Yes, but if you left your garage door open or house door unlocked for a few minutes and then got robbed, I'd bet the farm you'd be calling the cops. And the hell of it is, I'd think you were right!
Man, what a douche.
@Will: It is perfectly possible to rape a sober woman. You just have to be physically strong enough to overpower her. The element of surprise is generally necessary, as physically weaker members of the fairer sex tend to carry mace.
It's still not justifiable, but it is definitely possible. I'm surprised you honestly never realized this.
Wonder how ol' Chris feels about women who get slipped rohypnol or GHB so they pass out and can't remember what happened.
I disagree with those yelling DIAF, though. I think Chris should pass out and be gang-raped himself, so the police can explain to him how he can't cry rape.
Clearly the argument that Chris is trying to make here is that the girl is unable to remember whether or not she consented, so cannot claim she was raped. This of course is ridiculous, if she was so drunk she can't remember the circumstances surounding the sex, then she was obviously in no way capable of giving consent. In exactly the same way as a child or an animal or a dead person is not capable of giving consent, it's wrong on the same level.
While it isn't particularly smart to get completely smashed at a party full of strangers, no one deserves to be raped. If someone passes out and can't consent or fight back, and you come along and have sex with that person while they're unconscious, you've just committed rape. It might not be the exact same as a stranger violently attacking a woman out on the streets, but the fact remains that someone was being violated -- if she doesn't want to have sex with you and you go ahead and do it anyway, it's rape. YOU chose to take advantage of her. It doesn't matter how drunk she got or whether getting wasted is a good idea -- the guy is still guilty of penetrating her against her will.
Under your logic, a 2-year-old who is molested has no right to "cry rape" because he or she didn't understand what was going on.
Now go die in a fire, you sick fuck.
The perpetrator should surely be pursued and punished if the victim is incapacitated or not. However, is it safe to say that a victim, incapacitated at the time, would not make the best witness? Discuss.
@786417
That's not the point, nor is it anywhere near it. It's not whether the person would get away with it or not, he's saying that a girl who gets drunk is essentially asking for it, and shouldn't be able to press rape charges. It's not a matter of legality, it's a matter of morality.
What about men that get drunk beyond comprehension? If some guy came along and fucked them in the ass would that be ok too?
If during the period of inebriation the man was a willing buttboy, then yes, that would be okay.
Otherwise we run into the issue of deciding post coitus that a given instance of sexual penetration was rape. Lame.
Clearly the argument that Chris is trying to make here is that the girl is unable to remember whether or not she consented, so cannot claim she was raped. This of course is ridiculous, if she was so drunk she can't remember the circumstances surounding the sex, then she was obviously in no way capable of giving consent. In exactly the same way as a child or an animal or a dead person is not capable of giving consent, it's wrong on the same level.
I call shenanigans. The woman could have consented to and engaged in the sexual act while inebriated prior to being completely smashed.
"sex" with someone who is unable to give express consent is, by definition of law, rape. The alleged drunk girls does not need to say no. If she is incapacitated, she is unable to consent and, therefore, it is rape, you unsympathetic bitch. Hope you never get caught under the ifluence of cold medicine by a rapist. By your standards, you'll get what you deserve.
I think Chris here is trying to say that, if a woman becomes promiscuous and actively pursues sex with a man while she is drunk , but it turns out that she was so drunk she can't remember what happened afterward, then consenting-while-drunk sex with her shouldn't be considered "rape."
He's just having a hard time saying it.
WILL ANYONE ACTUALLY READ WHAT I WROTE? Susan, where did you get the idea that I think men are justified in stealing other people's belongings? I was only saying that guys stupid enough to get drunk beyond comprehension and who can't even remember what happened the night before have no right to cry theft when someone takes their wallet.
"I was only saying that girls stupid enough to get drunk beyond comprehension and who can't even remember what happened the night before have no right to cry rape."
Consent under duress, or consent given while completely smashed -- especially if she's so far gone as to black out -- don't count as actual consent, and she has *every* right to cry raep on your pathetic ass.
I would personally feel like a rapist if I wasn't around on the rebound to buy her breakfast or something.
Fucking jerk, get gang raped.
I think that he's pointing out one simple fact: if the woman is not confident that it happened against her will (that whole lack of clear memory of the incident), then where's the proof that it was rape, not consensual intercourse?
Just because she wouldn't sleep with the person normally, doesn't prove that she didn't say "yes" whilst drunk. And last time I checked, the fact remains that the onus of proof is upon the accuser, not the accused.
@John_in_Oz
Answer: The facial hair fooled the gaydar. If they would have put out before marriage, this would never have happened.
So what you guys are saying is that if I were at a party, bar, club, or whatever, I have to turn down all offers of Happy Fun Time from women who are not clearly fully sober and under no evident effects of any inebriating substances? If I were not to turn down these offers, I would be considered a rapist?
Just making sure, 'cause it seems to me an unreasonable expansion of the term rape .
@Pedantic Twit
There's a difference between someone that's buzzed, or a little drunk, and someone that's completely hammered and incoherent. In the first case, I'd still call it questionable, but she should still be capable of informed consent. Second case, not so. Personally, I'd look at it as "Should this person be driving?" If the answer is yes, she's in good enough shape to make her decisions. Otherwise, stay away.
[EDIT] Not to say that this is always gonna happen or bomb-proof. Just a rule of thumb I see as an ideal situation.
Being drunk and getting raped
Yes, we will blame the victim in every case, and make excuses for the criminal. Right? Whaddya mean, just one of them?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
