No such thing as Rape Culture redux

[Toni]

Whenever I read threads like this I always wonder if people are really talking about the same things as each other. When one person says "drunken hook-up" do they really have the same picture in their mind of what that entails as the person they are talking to?

Here's a scenario which is no doubt played out thousands of times every weekend: A guy is in a bar drinking with his friends. He sees a woman he fancies. He has had enough to drink to feel brave enough to go and talk to her - this, after all, is one of the reasons he goes out drinking with his friends. The woman finds him quite attractive too, and she has had enough to drink to overcome whatever inhibitions she might normally have - that, after all, is one of the reasons she goes out drinking with her friends. One thing leads to another and they end up back at his place. They might be too drunk to drive, but they're sober enough to get each other's motor running, if you get my drift. The next morning either or both of them might (or might not) regret what they did, but if they do, the question they will ask themselves is not "What did I do last night?" but "Why did I do that?"

Here's another scenario, which probably also happens every weekend, but I hope far less frequently than the first: A guy is in a bar around closing time. He eyes up the women who are still there. One is struggling to even stay seated on her bar stool. He goes up to talk to her, not that she is very capable of talking at this point. Again one thing leads to another and they end up back at his place. The next morning she has no idea where she is or what she did the previous night.

Now either of those might be described as a "drunken hook-up". But I reckon if you polled the population very few would consider the first one to be rape, or anything close to it - even if they disapproved of the morality of the actions (which these days few would). Whereas the results of the poll would be very different if you asked about the second scenario.

Unfortunately, I think that many people would see the second situation as just a drunken hook up --after all, why else would a woman go to a bar if she wasn't looking for sex with a random stranger? And besides, he was drinking, too, so obviously if it was rape, it was mutual rape because there is only one level of drunkenness.

 

[EricK]

Whenever I read threads like this I always wonder if people are really talking about the same things as each other. When one person says "drunken hook-up" do they really have the same picture in their mind of what that entails as the person they are talking to?

Here's a scenario which is no doubt played out thousands of times every weekend: A guy is in a bar drinking with his friends. He sees a woman he fancies. He has had enough to drink to feel brave enough to go and talk to her - this, after all, is one of the reasons he goes out drinking with his friends. The woman finds him quite attractive too, and she has had enough to drink to overcome whatever inhibitions she might normally have - that, after all, is one of the reasons she goes out drinking with her friends. One thing leads to another and they end up back at his place. They might be too drunk to drive, but they're sober enough to get each other's motor running, if you get my drift. The next morning either or both of them might (or might not) regret what they did, but if they do, the question they will ask themselves is not "What did I do last night?" but "Why did I do that?"

Here's another scenario, which probably also happens every weekend, but I hope far less frequently than the first: A guy is in a bar around closing time. He eyes up the women who are still there. One is struggling to even stay seated on her bar stool. He goes up to talk to her, not that she is very capable of talking at this point. Again one thing leads to another and they end up back at his place. The next morning she has no idea where she is or what she did the previous night.

Now either of those might be described as a "drunken hook-up". But I reckon if you polled the population very few would consider the first one to be rape, or anything close to it - even if they disapproved of the morality of the actions (which these days few would). Whereas the results of the poll would be very different if you asked about the second scenario.

Unfortunately, I think that many people would see the second situation as just a drunken hook up --after all, why else would a woman go to a bar if she wasn't looking for sex with a random stranger? And besides, he was drinking, too, so obviously if it was rape, it was mutual rape because there is only one level of drunkenness.

I'm not convinced that there is all that much difference between the two sides of the argument in this thread. I think if the one side tried to construct the most "serious" scenario which they didn't consider to be rape, and the other tried to construct the least "serious" scenario they did consider rape, then they might discover they don't really have much of a disagreement at all.

Of course, there's no fun in that, so I doubt it will happen.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Which would be more akin to getting married than just having sex. We let drunks purchase food. We even let them get a cab ride home without charging the cabbie with kidnapping and theft. So why should drunk people having sex be considered as "rapists"?

You missed my point that society in general recognizes the difference between "sound/clear mind" when it comes to the ability to give informed consent and a mind altered by alcohol or drugs.Somehow, such recognition seems to not apply to individuals whose mind is altered by alcohol or drugs when it comes to consenting to sexual activities. The question is why that distinction? I would like for you to try to address it.

By the way, I have not been part of the folks who systematically will blame males and define them as rapists when it is a matter of MUTUALLY drunk hook ups. So, I am not sure why this remark :

"So why should drunk people having sex be considered as "rapists"? especially when what I was addressing is the point of society in general making distinctions between "sound/clear mind" and a mind altered by the use of alcohol or drugs. There is a clinically and scientifically demonstrated reason why drugs and alcohol are defined as "mind altering substances".

And does anyone want to see a drunk Judge presiding in a court of Law? A drunk prosecutor? A drunk defense attorney?

So now sex should be subject to the same standards as professional settings? That is really ridiculous.

I mean there is a great variety of "drunk" situations where society reacts with acknowledging that the drunk parties are not "clear of mind" and that without the drunk party needing to be unconscious or "inability to voice anything which would indicate either consent or refusal".

Yes, but being a judge, driving heavy machinery or getting a mortgage is very different than sex and should not be subject to the same strict rules.

Yet, sexual activities carry the potential for negative consequences which you need to know a drunk individual will not be able to mentally take into account. Altered minds will not process information the way a sound/clear mind individual will. In fact if drunk individuals were able to process information the way a sound/clear mind individual would, they would ask themselves " is this something I will regret tomorrow?". They do not and again because of the mental process altering effects of alcohol and drugs.

Is it that difficult to evaluate someone is drunk? Do they need to be unconscious or unable to voice anything which would indicate either consent or refusal? Well, I hope not...otherwise cops would have been wasting their time pulling over drunk drivers.

Different activities have different levels of acceptable drunkenness. We set DUI limits as we do not because people above those limits (say 0.08%) are considered as incapable to consent to drive a vehicle but because of reduction of fine motor control and reaction times than can cause an accident. To use the same standard to find that everybody above it is incapable to consent to sex is just plain stupid.

The point (you again tend to miss the INTENT of the presented point) is that a sober person can easily evaluate someone else to be drunk. Once that evaluation is done, the "sound/clear mind" party should be able to acknowledge that the drunk party's mental functions are altered. Such sound/clear mind party should be able to set aside their need for instant gratification by weighing the pros and cons of having sex with a drunk person whose ability to process their own pros and cons can only be questionable.

It is not a matter of "strict rules". It is a matter of motivating a generation of young adults (College students) living in an environment known to be fertile for the circulation and consumption of drugs and alcohol to KNOW their limits. To be resistant to peer pressure. That it is OK to have fun at a party without getting drunk even as they may be the exception. It is OK to not be conformed to mentalities who push for "you will have more fun if you get drunk"" or sex is great when you are drunk". It is also a matter of parents not ending their parenting because their kid is off to College.(that too which has not been discussed yet).

Maybe it is just me...but what is so appealing about engaging in any kind of physical intimacy with a drunk person? There you have an individual who will sound like a bumbling idiot, whose motor coordination is off, ambulation unstable and oh....the breath! Maybe one has to be drunk to find it appealing? That might explain all the mutually drunk hook ups?

You just answered your own question!

I know... that had been pointed to me in an FRDB thread where I had communicated my not finding drunk people appealing. Cannot remember who pointed it to me but they explained to me that the mutually drunk factor eliminates the experiencing of "not finding appealing".I wonder how many of those mutually drunk hook ups folks wonder later on " I cannot believe I had sex with her/him".

 

[thebeave]

For those who think that a man (but not the woman) is guilty of rape in a case of a "mutually drunk sexual hookup", what sort of punishment do you think is appropriate for his crime? Many years in prison? Probabation or community service (that seems like kind of a slap on a wrist for the crime of "rape"). I'm just kind of curious.

 

[Arctish]

For those who think that a man (but not the woman) is guilty of rape in a case of a "mutually drunk sexual hookup", what sort of punishment do you think is appropriate for his crime? Many years in prison? Probabation or community service (that seems like kind of a slap on a wrist for the crime of "rape"). I'm just kind of curious.

Is there anyone here who thinks only men can be guilty of rape in cases of mutually drunk sexual hook-up? Because if not, then this is a strawman argument that will most likely get us nowhere.

 

[RavenSky]

Whenever I read threads like this I always wonder if people are really talking about the same things as each other. When one person says "drunken hook-up" do they really have the same picture in their mind of what that entails as the person they are talking to?

absolutely agree

Second example first:

Here's another scenario, which probably also happens every weekend, but I hope far less frequently than the first: A guy is in a bar around closing time. He eyes up the women who are still there. One is struggling to even stay seated on her bar stool. He goes up to talk to her, not that she is very capable of talking at this point. Again one thing leads to another and they end up back at his place. The next morning she has no idea where she is or what she did the previous night.

I don't consider this a "drunken hook-up". I consider it clear cut rape because, as you have presented it, the guy fully intends to take advantage of her inability to consent in order to have sex with her. I would hope that no one anywhere would disagree, but after Steubenville and a few other similar cases it appears many people do still think this is a "drunken hook-up" and not rape. That is issue one that needs to be address in our society.

Here's a scenario which is no doubt played out thousands of times every weekend: A guy is in a bar drinking with his friends. He sees a woman he fancies. He has had enough to drink to feel brave enough to go and talk to her - this, after all, is one of the reasons he goes out drinking with his friends. The woman finds him quite attractive too, and she has had enough to drink to overcome whatever inhibitions she might normally have - that, after all, is one of the reasons she goes out drinking with her friends. One thing leads to another and they end up back at his place. They might be too drunk to drive, but they're sober enough to get each other's motor running, if you get my drift. The next morning either or both of them might (or might not) regret what they did, but if they do, the question they will ask themselves is not "What did I do last night?" but "Why did I do that?"

Here is where we start getting into a murky situation, in my opinion. The problem with the scenario as you have presented it is that neither party can really know how drunk the other one is, nor anything about them to predict how the other person might behave while sober. I fully agree that this is a situation that probably plays out thousands of times every weekend, with 99.99% of those "drunken hook-ups" resulting in - at worst - some embarrassment and/or regret the next day. The problem is that because the man* does not know the woman, does not know if she would have consented if she were sober, he cannot genuinely know if he has clear informed consent. So why would he take that chance? I suppose that, given the high probability there will be no adverse consequences, it is worth the risk? But is it really? Is it worth possible prison time, or arrest, or trial, or expulsion from college, or even just the accusation being made?

I don't think the person in this situation intends to rape, but this is where I go back to my earlier questions - what is so very important about a drunken hook-up with a stranger that makes it worth not having crystal clear sober informed consent from the other person?

There were several members of the (previous) board who got all sarcastic and ridiculing, pretending that my position means that it is rape if a committed couple has a few drinks and then has sex. No, it means that this committed couple know each other well enough that they know they do have crystal clean sober informed consent in spite of a few drinks before any specific sexual intercourse. But a drunken hook-up with someone you don't know very well or at all does not have that pre-drunk knowledge of consent.

There is no question whatsoever that drinking reduces inhibitions. You said it yourself in the example. It makes the guy braver and the woman more likely to say "yes" to sex. So you fully acknowledge that the very act of drinking is affecting their normal sober self-constraint. As such, I maintain that the question is not how much alcohol affects consent - any amount does - but whether the people involved know each other well enough to know they have consent in spite of the drinking.

I have no problem with casual sex as long as it is clearly (soberly) consensual. Your drunk guy approaching a drunk stranger in a bar can never have that assurance. He will most likely get lucky that the woman consents in hind-sight, so to speak, or at minimum doesn't report a rape. But why take that chance? Why not get her phone number and follow up when she's sober instead?

*yes, it could be gender-neutral (gender-reversed, gender-same) but it is usually the man accused of rape and a woman making the accusation in these situations, so I will stick with that for clarity

 

[dx713]

 

[dx713]

(...)

Here's a scenario which is no doubt played out thousands of times every weekend: A guy is in a bar drinking with his friends. He sees a woman he fancies. He has had enough to drink to feel brave enough to go and talk to her - this, after all, is one of the reasons he goes out drinking with his friends. The woman finds him quite attractive too, and she has had enough to drink to overcome whatever inhibitions she might normally have - that, after all, is one of the reasons she goes out drinking with her friends. One thing leads to another and they end up back at his place. They might be too drunk to drive, but they're sober enough to get each other's motor running, if you get my drift. The next morning either or both of them might (or might not) regret what they did, but if they do, the question they will ask themselves is not "What did I do last night?" but "Why did I do that?"

Here is where we start getting into a murky situation, in my opinion. The problem with the scenario as you have presented it is that neither party can really know how drunk the other one is, nor anything about them to predict how the other person might behave while sober. I fully agree that this is a situation that probably plays out thousands of times every weekend, with 99.99% of those "drunken hook-ups" resulting in - at worst - some embarrassment and/or regret the next day. The problem is that because the man* does not know the woman, does not know if she would have consented if she were sober, he cannot genuinely know if he has clear informed consent. So why would he take that chance? I suppose that, given the high probability there will be no adverse consequences, it is worth the risk? But is it really? Is it worth possible prison time, or arrest, or trial, or expulsion from college, or even just the accusation being made?

I don't think the person in this situation intends to rape, but this is where I go back to my earlier questions - what is so very important about a drunken hook-up with a stranger that makes it worth not having crystal clear sober informed consent from the other person?

There were several members of the (previous) board who got all sarcastic and ridiculing, pretending that my position means that it is rape if a committed couple has a few drinks and then has sex. No, it means that this committed couple know each other well enough that they know they do have crystal clean sober informed consent in spite of a few drinks before any specific sexual intercourse. But a drunken hook-up with someone you don't know very well or at all does not have that pre-drunk knowledge of consent.

There is no question whatsoever that drinking reduces inhibitions. You said it yourself in the example. It makes the guy braver and the woman more likely to say "yes" to sex. So you fully acknowledge that the very act of drinking is affecting their normal sober self-constraint. As such, I maintain that the question is not how much alcohol affects consent - any amount does - but whether the people involved know each other well enough to know they have consent in spite of the drinking.

I have no problem with casual sex as long as it is clearly (soberly) consensual. Your drunk guy approaching a drunk stranger in a bar can never have that assurance. He will most likely get lucky that the woman consents in hind-sight, so to speak, or at minimum doesn't report a rape. But why take that chance? Why not get her phone number and follow up when she's sober instead?

*yes, it could be gender-neutral (gender-reversed, gender-same) but it is usually the man accused of rape and a woman making the accusation in these situations, so I will stick with that for clarity

I basically agree with you, but we're adults with clear minds about our sexuality.
Is it fair to project that on college kids? They might WANT the inhibition lowering effect of alcohol to help them get laid. The "get each-other number and see each-other again" might not be available to them (I don't mean physically available, but made unavailable by their sober inhibitions). How do we get them to have a less inhibited view of sexuality and a more cautious view of alcohol?
I like Sabine Grant idea of the parents doing their work, but they're facing an uphill battle against social norms and peer pressure here. Plus, where does that leave those with less enlightened parents?
I still agree with you, I'm just wondering how to reconcile that with the reality of being a not-yet-fully-mature college kid...

 

[EricK]

absolutely agree

Second example first:

Here's another scenario, which probably also happens every weekend, but I hope far less frequently than the first: A guy is in a bar around closing time. He eyes up the women who are still there. One is struggling to even stay seated on her bar stool. He goes up to talk to her, not that she is very capable of talking at this point. Again one thing leads to another and they end up back at his place. The next morning she has no idea where she is or what she did the previous night.

I don't consider this a "drunken hook-up". I consider it clear cut rape because, as you have presented it, the guy fully intends to take advantage of her inability to consent in order to have sex with her. I would hope that no one anywhere would disagree, but after Steubenville and a few other similar cases it appears many people do still think this is a "drunken hook-up" and not rape. That is issue one that needs to be address in our society.

Here's a scenario which is no doubt played out thousands of times every weekend: A guy is in a bar drinking with his friends. He sees a woman he fancies. He has had enough to drink to feel brave enough to go and talk to her - this, after all, is one of the reasons he goes out drinking with his friends. The woman finds him quite attractive too, and she has had enough to drink to overcome whatever inhibitions she might normally have - that, after all, is one of the reasons she goes out drinking with her friends. One thing leads to another and they end up back at his place. They might be too drunk to drive, but they're sober enough to get each other's motor running, if you get my drift. The next morning either or both of them might (or might not) regret what they did, but if they do, the question they will ask themselves is not "What did I do last night?" but "Why did I do that?"

Here is where we start getting into a murky situation, in my opinion. The problem with the scenario as you have presented it is that neither party can really know how drunk the other one is, nor anything about them to predict how the other person might behave while sober. I fully agree that this is a situation that probably plays out thousands of times every weekend, with 99.99% of those "drunken hook-ups" resulting in - at worst - some embarrassment and/or regret the next day. The problem is that because the man* does not know the woman, does not know if she would have consented if she were sober, he cannot genuinely know if he has clear informed consent. So why would he take that chance? I suppose that, given the high probability there will be no adverse consequences, it is worth the risk? But is it really? Is it worth possible prison time, or arrest, or trial, or expulsion from college, or even just the accusation being made?

I don't think the person in this situation intends to rape, but this is where I go back to my earlier questions - what is so very important about a drunken hook-up with a stranger that makes it worth not having crystal clear sober informed consent from the other person?

There were several members of the (previous) board who got all sarcastic and ridiculing, pretending that my position means that it is rape if a committed couple has a few drinks and then has sex. No, it means that this committed couple know each other well enough that they know they do have crystal clean sober informed consent in spite of a few drinks before any specific sexual intercourse. But a drunken hook-up with someone you don't know very well or at all does not have that pre-drunk knowledge of consent.

There is no question whatsoever that drinking reduces inhibitions. You said it yourself in the example. It makes the guy braver and the woman more likely to say "yes" to sex. So you fully acknowledge that the very act of drinking is affecting their normal sober self-constraint. As such, I maintain that the question is not how much alcohol affects consent - any amount does - but whether the people involved know each other well enough to know they have consent in spite of the drinking.

I have no problem with casual sex as long as it is clearly (soberly) consensual. Your drunk guy approaching a drunk stranger in a bar can never have that assurance. He will most likely get lucky that the woman consents in hind-sight, so to speak, or at minimum doesn't report a rape. But why take that chance? Why not get her phone number and follow up when she's sober instead?

*yes, it could be gender-neutral (gender-reversed, gender-same) but it is usually the man accused of rape and a woman making the accusation in these situations, so I will stick with that for clarity

"Why not get her phone number and follow up when she's sober instead?" Ultimately, I think it is because that's not the game either of them are playing. Again, maybe we've got different scenarios in mind, but as I imagine it:
Neither of the people involved was created drunk in the bar - they both made a sober decision earlier in the day to go drinking, knowing that they would potentially be hooking up with someone if there was some mutual attraction. They're not necessarily looking for Mr or Miss Right, just Mr or Miss Right Now. Whatever regrets they have tomorrow, they'll probably do the same thing next week just as they did last week.

Just to make it clear, this is not a game I, myself, play, so I'm not in any way trying to justify my own behaviour. But it is how the game is played around here, and everybody, male or female, gay or straight, knows the rules.

How's this for a syllogism:
Nobody wants to be raped;
Some people desire mutually drunken hook-ups;
Therefore mutually drunken hook-ups are not necessarily rape - especially if they conform to the prevailing cultural norms for that sort of liaison

 

[RavenSky]

"Why not get her phone number and follow up when she's sober instead?" Ultimately, I think it is because that's not the game either of them are playing. Again, maybe we've got different scenarios in mind, but as I imagine it:
Neither of the people involved was created drunk in the bar - they both made a sober decision earlier in the day to go drinking, knowing that they would potentially be hooking up with someone if there was some mutual attraction. They're not necessarily looking for Mr or Miss Right, just Mr or Miss Right Now. Whatever regrets they have tomorrow, they'll probably do the same thing next week just as they did last week.

Just to make it clear, this is not a game I, myself, play, so I'm not in any way trying to justify my own behaviour. But it is how the game is played around here, and everybody, male or female, gay or straight, knows the rules.

How's this for a syllogism:
Nobody wants to be raped;
Some people desire mutually drunken hook-ups;
Therefore mutually drunken hook-ups are not necessarily rape - especially if they conform to the prevailing cultural norms for that sort of liaison

I think the assumption that every person who goes to a bar and gets drunk is also looking for drunken sex is a prevalent attitude and the main part of the problem. I do not know of even one woman who goes to a bar with the intent to drink and get laid that night - not even the young woman acquaintance of my daughter who, unfortunately, usually does end up fucking random strangers when she gets drunk. She is an alcoholic with severe self-esteem issues who has been flat out raped as well as had too many of the morning regrets type drunken sex - not even she goes to the bar with the intent to fuck a stranger.

I know that when I was in my 20's, I never went to the club with the intent to get laid. I went to have fun with my girlfriend and to perhaps meet a nice guy. Note, I said "meet" not "fuck". My daughter is in her 20's now, and it is no different for her. Even the suggestion that she and her friends go for drinks at the bar in order to get over their inhibitions against having sex with strangers would be met with disgust.

I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule, but I think it is a huge mistake to pretend the exceptions are the rule, and thereby excuse non-consensual "drunken hook up" sex on the pretense that the person must have gone to the club for the purposes of getting laid.

If, as you say, both people - while sober - made the decision to go to the bar to get drunk and have sex with the other - then who will be filing a rape report the next day? But as I asked earlier, when John picks up an inebriated Jane, how does Joe know whether Jane made the sober pre-drinking decision to look for a hook-up? He doesn't. For his own safety, he should not assume she did.

 

[EricK]

"Why not get her phone number and follow up when she's sober instead?" Ultimately, I think it is because that's not the game either of them are playing. Again, maybe we've got different scenarios in mind, but as I imagine it:
Neither of the people involved was created drunk in the bar - they both made a sober decision earlier in the day to go drinking, knowing that they would potentially be hooking up with someone if there was some mutual attraction. They're not necessarily looking for Mr or Miss Right, just Mr or Miss Right Now. Whatever regrets they have tomorrow, they'll probably do the same thing next week just as they did last week.

Just to make it clear, this is not a game I, myself, play, so I'm not in any way trying to justify my own behaviour. But it is how the game is played around here, and everybody, male or female, gay or straight, knows the rules.

How's this for a syllogism:
Nobody wants to be raped;
Some people desire mutually drunken hook-ups;
Therefore mutually drunken hook-ups are not necessarily rape - especially if they conform to the prevailing cultural norms for that sort of liaison

I think the assumption that every person who goes to a bar and gets drunk is also looking for drunken sex is a prevalent attitude and the main part of the problem. I do not know of even one woman who goes to a bar with the intent to drink and get laid that night - not even the young woman acquaintance of my daughter who, unfortunately, usually does end up fucking random strangers when she gets drunk. She is an alcoholic with severe self-esteem issues who has been flat out raped as well as had too many of the morning regrets type drunken sex - not even she goes to the bar with the intent to fuck a stranger.

Obviously not everybody who goes to a bar to get drunk is looking for drunken sex. But I think the vast majority of people who go to a bar, get drunk, and end up having sex (which they agreed to, even if drunk), were at least open to the possibility that it might happen.

I know that when I was in my 20's, I never went to the club with the intent to get laid. I went to have fun with my girlfriend and to perhaps meet a nice guy. Note, I said "meet" not "fuck". My daughter is in her 20's now, and it is no different for her. Even the suggestion that she and her friends go for drinks at the bar in order to get over their inhibitions against having sex with strangers would be met with disgust.

But presumably they don't end up choosing to go to bed with strangers, and so aren't really part of the discussion.

I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule, but I think it is a huge mistake to pretend the exceptions are the rule, and thereby excuse non-consensual "drunken hook up" sex on the pretense that the person must have gone to the club for the purposes of getting laid.

But I am not talking about non-consensual sex.

If, as you say, both people - while sober - made the decision to go to the bar to get drunk and have sex with the other - then who will be filing a rape report the next day?

Well I don't think they generally made the sober decision to have sex with that particular person (although I'm sure that happens too: "If he's in the pub tonight, I'm so going to make a move on him"); but they made the sober decision to let their less-than-sober self make the decision about if they would sleep with somebody, and if so, whom.

But as I asked earlier, when John picks up an inebriated Jane, how does Joe know whether Jane made the sober pre-drinking decision to look for a hook-up? He doesn't. For his own safety, he should not assume she did.

Assuming Jane is not like the unfortunate in lady in the second scenario I invented, then it is rather patronizing to assume anything other than she knows what she is doing. Getting drunk and not sleeping with people is easy (granted, I've had a lot of practice, and was born with a fair amount of natural talent in that department), and, at least around here, there are places to go, ways to dress, and ways to behave which show you aren't interested; and there are also places to go, ways to dress and ways to behave which show you are interested. And in the latter case, it seems very reasonable for Joe to assume that any consent he gets is meaningful.

 

[Toni]

"Why not get her phone number and follow up when she's sober instead?" Ultimately, I think it is because that's not the game either of them are playing. Again, maybe we've got different scenarios in mind, but as I imagine it:
Neither of the people involved was created drunk in the bar - they both made a sober decision earlier in the day to go drinking, knowing that they would potentially be hooking up with someone if there was some mutual attraction. They're not necessarily looking for Mr or Miss Right, just Mr or Miss Right Now. Whatever regrets they have tomorrow, they'll probably do the same thing next week just as they did last week.

Just to make it clear, this is not a game I, myself, play, so I'm not in any way trying to justify my own behaviour. But it is how the game is played around here, and everybody, male or female, gay or straight, knows the rules.

How's this for a syllogism:
Nobody wants to be raped;
Some people desire mutually drunken hook-ups;
Therefore mutually drunken hook-ups are not necessarily rape - especially if they conform to the prevailing cultural norms for that sort of liaison

I think the assumption that every person who goes to a bar and gets drunk is also looking for drunken sex is a prevalent attitude and the main part of the problem. I do not know of even one woman who goes to a bar with the intent to drink and get laid that night - not even the young woman acquaintance of my daughter who, unfortunately, usually does end up fucking random strangers when she gets drunk. She is an alcoholic with severe self-esteem issues who has been flat out raped as well as had too many of the morning regrets type drunken sex - not even she goes to the bar with the intent to fuck a stranger.

Obviously not everybody who goes to a bar to get drunk is looking for drunken sex. But I think the vast majority of people who go to a bar, get drunk, and end up having sex (which they agreed to, even if drunk), were at least open to the possibility that it might happen.

Being open to the possibility is vastly different than making the decision that you are going home with someone that night.

Also, if I am not mistaken, the vast majority of alcohol influenced hook ups do not result in rape charges, or even rape allegations.

I know that when I was in my 20's, I never went to the club with the intent to get laid. I went to have fun with my girlfriend and to perhaps meet a nice guy. Note, I said "meet" not "fuck". My daughter is in her 20's now, and it is no different for her. Even the suggestion that she and her friends go for drinks at the bar in order to get over their inhibitions against having sex with strangers would be met with disgust.

But presumably they don't end up choosing to go to bed with strangers, and so aren't really part of the discussion.

I thought this discussion was about whether or not rape culture exists. IMO, the assumption that any person who is at a bar drinking is at least open to the idea of having sex with a stranger is evidence of rape culture. It's the assumption that consent has already been given, merely by going to a bar and having an alcoholic beverage. Or to be honest, going to a bar.

I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule, but I think it is a huge mistake to pretend the exceptions are the rule, and thereby excuse non-consensual "drunken hook up" sex on the pretense that the person must have gone to the club for the purposes of getting laid.

But I am not talking about non-consensual sex.

It's non-consensual if either party is too drunk to be able to give meaningful consent.

If, as you say, both people - while sober - made the decision to go to the bar to get drunk and have sex with the other - then who will be filing a rape report the next day?

Well I don't think they generally made the sober decision to have sex with that particular person (although I'm sure that happens too: "If he's in the pub tonight, I'm so going to make a move on him"); but they made the sober decision to let their less-than-sober self make the decision about if they would sleep with somebody, and if so, whom.

Really? How are you basing this assumption? And what about deciding they are cruising for sex but change their minds, aren't into it or don't find anyone they fancy? Or their boyfriend texts and they get back together?

Look, once or twice a year, on pay day, I will be really, really in the mood to buy a new pair of shoes. I'll spend the day fantasizing about shoes, deciding what kind I would like to have, which outfits they might go with, which stores are likely to have shoes on sale, etc. I might go into the mall and hit every single store which sells women's shoes but the truth is that I am more likely than not to walk out with no shoes, even if I specifically have no dollar limit in mind and have several options in mind. The truth is that, despite the prep of mentally shopping and shopping on line, despite making sure I was prepared by having enough cash to cover any possible purchase--sometimes I get there and even the really cute shoes I saw online just no longer appeal to me. I just feel pretty 'meh' about walking out of any store with shoes.

But as I asked earlier, when John picks up an inebriated Jane, how does Joe know whether Jane made the sober pre-drinking decision to look for a hook-up? He doesn't. For his own safety, he should not assume she did.

Assuming Jane is not like the unfortunate in lady in the second scenario I invented, then it is rather patronizing to assume anything other than she knows what she is doing. Getting drunk and not sleeping with people is easy (granted, I've had a lot of practice, and was born with a fair amount of natural talent in that department), and, at least around here, there are places to go, ways to dress, and ways to behave which show you aren't interested; and there are also places to go, ways to dress and ways to behave which show you are interested. And in the latter case, it seems very reasonable for Joe to assume that any consent he gets is meaningful.

No, it's not patronizing: it's prudent to assume that someone who appears to be quite drunk is incapable of making a decision.

Further, perhaps you should read a bit in the threads in the lounge about friendzones. A LOT of people are not very good at reading the signals of others about whether or not someone is interested. For instance, I bet you think that women dress to look good for men. Actually, women mostly dress to impress other women. My own observation, confirmed by quite a number of friends/relatives/acquaintances of both genders is that horny guys, especially drunk horny guys are not so good at figuring out who is interested and who is not. A drunk horny guy often 'sees' signs: the way she dresses, her shoes, her hair, eye contact--real or imagined--that tell him 'she wants it' when really, she's just happy for a chance to dress up more than jeans and stained tshirt and to hang with friends. I've lead guys away from girls who weren't interested, as have quite a few other people I know.

And to be fair: I've watched girls drool over some guy who was clearly not interested but was trying to be polite, as clueless as any guy.

 

[RavenSky]

I think the assumption that every person who goes to a bar and gets drunk is also looking for drunken sex is a prevalent attitude and the main part of the problem. I do not know of even one woman who goes to a bar with the intent to drink and get laid that night - not even the young woman acquaintance of my daughter who, unfortunately, usually does end up fucking random strangers when she gets drunk. She is an alcoholic with severe self-esteem issues who has been flat out raped as well as had too many of the morning regrets type drunken sex - not even she goes to the bar with the intent to fuck a stranger.

Obviously not everybody who goes to a bar to get drunk is looking for drunken sex. But I think the vast majority of people who go to a bar, get drunk, and end up having sex (which they agreed to, even if drunk), were at least open to the possibility that it might happen.

I disagree that "the vast majority" were "at least open to the possibility" and I disagree with the idea that there is consent if they are already drunk

I know that when I was in my 20's, I never went to the club with the intent to get laid. I went to have fun with my girlfriend and to perhaps meet a nice guy. Note, I said "meet" not "fuck". My daughter is in her 20's now, and it is no different for her. Even the suggestion that she and her friends go for drinks at the bar in order to get over their inhibitions against having sex with strangers would be met with disgust.

But presumably they don't end up choosing to go to bed with strangers, and so aren't really part of the discussion.

I can only speak for my daughter - she doesn't get drunk, and she does everything within her power to make certain she is not drugged (though that did happen once, too) Obviously, I think this is a good practice on her part, but at the same time I reject the idea that she should never be allowed to get drunk because that somehow makes her fair game for some guy that she would not consent to if sober.

I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule, but I think it is a huge mistake to pretend the exceptions are the rule, and thereby excuse non-consensual "drunken hook up" sex on the pretense that the person must have gone to the club for the purposes of getting laid.

But I am not talking about non-consensual sex.

But you are. If the people involved are drunk, they are not in a position to consent.

If, as you say, both people - while sober - made the decision to go to the bar to get drunk and have sex with the other - then who will be filing a rape report the next day?

Well I don't think they generally made the sober decision to have sex with that particular person (although I'm sure that happens too: "If he's in the pub tonight, I'm so going to make a move on him"); but they made the sober decision to let their less-than-sober self make the decision about if they would sleep with somebody, and if so, whom.

So I will ask again - who is filing the rape charges the next day?

But as I asked earlier, when John picks up an inebriated Jane, how does Joe know whether Jane made the sober pre-drinking decision to look for a hook-up? He doesn't. For his own safety, he should not assume she did.

Assuming Jane is not like the unfortunate in lady in the second scenario I invented, then it is rather patronizing to assume anything other than she knows what she is doing. Getting drunk and not sleeping with people is easy (granted, I've had a lot of practice, and was born with a fair amount of natural talent in that department), and, at least around here, there are places to go, ways to dress, and ways to behave which show you aren't interested; and there are also places to go, ways to dress and ways to behave which show you are interested. And in the latter case, it seems very reasonable for Joe to assume that any consent he gets is meaningful.

It is far from patronizing to assume that a drunk person is not capable of clear, sober, informed consent. It is, however, rather self-serving for Joe to assume that any drunken *consent* he says he got is meaningful.

And I will point out yet again - IF, as you presented, Jane goes to a bar fully intending to drink and fully intending to sleep with someone (or at least, "open to the idea" as you put it), then who is filing the rape report the next day?

But on the flip-side, Joe has absolutely zero means of knowing that Jane did come to the bar with the intent to drink and have sex; and once she is drunk, he can't get that consent.

 

[RavenSky]

I think we also need to look at the concept of "drunken hook-ups" from another direction, too. This goes back to the other thread topic of the accused needing to prove s/he got consent instead of the burden being on the victim to prove s/he said "no"

As a young woman, I was in a situation wherein I had too much to drink and some guy wasn't taking "no" for an answer because he figured he could take advantage of my condition. Had I not made it a practice of only going to bars where I was well known and knew the bar staff would watch out for me, I would have almost certainly been kidnapped and raped that night. And most likely "witnesses" would have assumed he had "consent" because we had been playing pool, dancing, talking, drinking and laughing for several hours in the bar. Long story short, when the bar was closing and I was trying to leave, he insisted on walking me out even though I said "no". He also kept trying to push me to his car (saying I was too drunk to drive) and trying to kiss and touch me. I could barely stand up, so he was succeeding in maneuvering me where I didn't want to go. Again, though, I am certain that "witnesses" would have only reported a guy escorting his staggering date to his car, not recognizing that I was trying to pull away without pissing him off.

Because the bar staff knew me, they put a stop to what was happening. The last memory I have of that night is being in the parking lot trying to walk away from this guy, and one of the bartenders coming up to us. At that point, I blacked out and have no further memory of the night. I was, however, still walking and talking - the bar staff filled me in on the rest and ultimately got me home safe.

I honestly don't think that, unless you have been in that position, you can truly understand what that sort of experience is like. In spite of literally having a black-out just seconds later, I was relatively street smart enough not to get in his car. What if instead I had accept a ride home with him? I was, after all, really too drunk to drive myself. So then "witnesses" would have seen me climbing into his car. Accepting a ride home is not consent to sex.

If I had been raped that night (and even remembered it to file a police report), I can guarantee you that the armchair detectives would have said it was just "morning after" regret though. I was admittedly playing pool with him, drinking with him, laughing with him, even (hypothetically) accepted a ride home with him. Witnesses would have most likely assumed "consent" yet none of that would be actual consent to sex. The next day it would have been my word against his with far too many people calling it a "drunken hook-up" instead of "rape".

As long as we, as a society, consider "drunken hook-ups with strangers" acceptable, and pretend that drunk "consent" is actually consent, then some women will be first raped, then called liars when they report their rapes because they were drunk.

If, on the other hand, we make it the social norm to get drunk, party, dance, laugh, play pool, go to breakfast, then exchange phone numbers... we eliminate *misunderstandings* and we reduce predatory rapes. Because right now - as long as we applaud "drunken hook-ups" - we (as a jury, judge, police, neighbors, etc) have no way of telling the difference between the "drunken hook-up" and a rape.

 

[Arctish]

A LOT of people are not very good at reading the signals of others about whether or not someone is interested. For instance, I bet you think that women dress to look good for men. Actually, women mostly dress to impress other women. My own observation, confirmed by quite a number of friends/relatives/acquaintances of both genders is that horny guys, especially drunk horny guys are not so good at figuring out who is interested and who is not. A drunk horny guy often 'sees' signs: the way she dresses, her shoes, her hair, eye contact--real or imagined--that tell him 'she wants it' when really, she's just happy for a chance to dress up more than jeans and stained tshirt and to hang with friends. I've lead guys away from girls who weren't interested, as have quite a few other people I know.

I don't usually wear nail polish but last summer I decided to paint my toenails red. The next day as I was walking the dogs wearing sandals I got into a conversation with a neighbor. He commented on my toenails, and said something about how my husband must really like it. I said my husband thinks nail polish is kind of silly. My neighbor said he was talking about the color. He said having red nail polish on your toenails means "fuck me" . I told him having red nail polish on my toenails means "I want to have red toenails".

I think Toni is absolutely right about some guys seeing signals that aren't really there.

 

[ksen]

^It's true.

But sometimes we do see signals that are there.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

 

[thebeave]

I knew a woman who liked to wear a pair of high heels that she called her CFM shoes. I asked what CFM means and she said, "Come Fuck Me". I guess we do live in a rape culture.

 

[Derec]

Whenever I read threads like this I always wonder if people are really talking about the same things as each other. When one person says "drunken hook-up" do they really have the same picture in their mind of what that entails as the person they are talking to?

Yes we are.

Here's a scenario which is no doubt played out thousands of times every weekend: A guy is in a bar drinking with his friends. He sees a woman he fancies. He has had enough to drink to feel brave enough to go and talk to her - this, after all, is one of the reasons he goes out drinking with his friends. The woman finds him quite attractive too, and she has had enough to drink to overcome whatever inhibitions she might normally have - that, after all, is one of the reasons she goes out drinking with her friends. One thing leads to another and they end up back at his place. They might be too drunk to drive, but they're sober enough to get each other's motor running, if you get my drift. The next morning either or both of them might (or might not) regret what they did, but if they do, the question they will ask themselves is not "What did I do last night?" but "Why did I do that?"

Given that some people here equate ability to consent to sex with ability to drive a car, sign a mortgage or consent to an invasive medical procedure (or even incredibly being a judge or a prosecutor performing their duties) it is clear that they have this sort of situation in mind as well when they say that drunken hookups are really rape.
And given that Yu has been expelled just because some of Walker's friends said she "appeared drunk" it is clear administrators at Vassar have the same low threshold for drunken consent (however they did not expel Walker).

Here's another scenario, which probably also happens every weekend, but I hope far less frequently than the first: A guy is in a bar around closing time. He eyes up the women who are still there. One is struggling to even stay seated on her bar stool. He goes up to talk to her, not that she is very capable of talking at this point. Again one thing leads to another and they end up back at his place. The next morning she has no idea where she is or what she did the previous night.

That is far less controversial but even in this case the accuser/prosecution/college administrators should have to prove that is what actually happened and not something closer to your first scenario. Burden of proof must be on the accuser and benefit of the doubt with the accused. Anything else is tyranny!

 

[Derec]

My own observation, confirmed by quite a number of friends/relatives/acquaintances of both genders is that horny guys, especially drunk horny guys are not so good at figuring out who is interested and who is not. A drunk horny guy often 'sees' signs: the way she dresses, her shoes, her hair, eye contact--real or imagined--that tell him 'she wants it' when really, she's just happy for a chance to dress up more than jeans and stained tshirt and to hang with friends. I've lead guys away from girls who weren't interested, as have quite a few other people I know.

Sure, drunk guys (or girls) might be overly optimistic when interpreting signals. But that doesn't mean they can't consent or when they do find a person who is interested that that person's consent is invalid just because of alcohol.
Misinterpreting signals and correctly interpreting signals that you and others think are automatically invalid due to alcohol are very different things.

I don't usually wear nail polish but last summer I decided to paint my toenails red.

I always thought you were a guy, Arctish. Are you in fact a girl?
Of course, red toenail polish doesn't prove femaleness, as can be seen here.
"Rape culture", 1960s style (those women and gay guys are totally sexually objectifying these men)
Of course, you are lucky it isn't green.

I think Toni is absolutely right about some guys seeing signals that aren't really there.

Says nothing about validity of consent freely given but regretted a day (or year as in the case of Walker at Vassar) later.

 

[Bronzeage]

I knew a woman who liked to wear a pair of high heels that she called her CFM shoes. I asked what CFM means and she said, "Come Fuck Me". I guess we do live in a rape culture.

I have a pair of come fuck me engineer's boots, which make me an inch taller.