Does rape culture really exist?

Do we really need a rape thread on TSR every week?
Anyone else not bored of it?

Don't you dare misrepresent my point on this issue, to hide behind a cloak of disingenuous moralism. I didn't say anything you implied in #1.

You said "What if a person is so intoxicated that they can barely form words or are losing consciousness, and other such situations where people's understandings seem...blurred",

which implies that if a woman consents to sex when she's drunk, and a man has sex with her, then she's absolved from her own responsibility for getting drunk and that it's the man's fault.

This is an utterly and totally perverse opinion to have. There are manifold cases of women using their being drunk as an excuse to accuse men of raping them even though they gave their consent.

Being drunk is never an excuse, and if you think that it absolves women from their own responsibility, and that it's the man's fault (or that he's a rapist ffs) for having sex with her, then your moral compass is totally and utterly off the radar.

That also answers #2. As for #3, I said that if she's drinking with a man (which is, you know, what usually happens in these situations) then the man cannot be blamed for how drunk she gets.

The woman controls how much she drinks, not the man. The guy isn't forcing it down her throat. If the she blames the man for how much she drinks then she has no self-control.

If it is the woman's fault she had sex and the sex is deemed rape...then according to you its her fault. Not misrepresenting. I restated what you said just you don't like what you are actually saying. Sorry but thats simply fact.

What I did imply is that sex afterwards is on the man because (unless he is also very drunk) he should have known, in the particular case I gave, that the woman was not capable of consenting. So yes, it is his fault. Clearly if someone can barely form the words to express themselves you cannot consider them capable of consenting.

1. Don't pretend thats what I said or implied.

2. Go ahead and show a 'manifold of cases' where women 'used their being drunk' to accuse men of raping them where it wasn't legitimate and they undoubtedly were abusing the system

Being drunk is not an excuse? Excuse for who? Absolves of what responsibility? Women do not have a responsibility to do anything. It is in fact the man's fault for having sex with the woman. She did not force him to. Unless you are suggesting that women do merely by being drunk? Or maybe you're suggesting that men can't not have sex with a drunk woman? I don't know what you are trying to say, but if a man can recognize that a woman is very drunk he should know that she cannot consent to sex and should therefore not have sex with her. Similarly for women if the situation is reversed.

NO. I said that if she accuses the man of rape, when it's clearly her fault that she got too drunk and gave consent for him to have sex with her, then it's immoral to do so. This is a man's life we're talking about. Not once did I say that a woman deserves to be raped because she's drunk. Get a life.

Well, you didn't actually make it clear that "the woman was not capable of consenting". You said "so intoxicated that they can barely form words", which could mean anything. Whatever that is, it isn't "clear".

Quick Google search, easy case: http://metro.co.uk/2009/03/25/too-drunk-woman-accuses-man-of-rape-574619/ I don't know how this ended, but this sort of thing happens all the time. Women claim to have been "too drunk to consent" - which is balls, because there's no such excuse: for example, people aren't alleviated from blame when they commit crimes, or alienate their friends, when drunk because it's understood that they were responsible for their own intoxication. Similarly, with "too drunk to consent", it's the woman who was drinking too much. It may be immoral for a man to sleep with a drunk girl, but it's not rape. **** off if you think that.

So what exactly then were you saying when you said it was a woman's fault? If it is her fault that a man had sex with her, and the sex was rape (again as I just said) then it is her fault she was raped.

We are not talking about one or the other. Again, I will say that if a woman cannot form words or can barely form words it should be obvious she cannot consent to sex. So yes, it is on the man who chose to have sex with a woman whom he knew, or should have know, could not (and therefore did not) consent to sex.

Not being able to form words is pretty indicative of not being able to consent. So yes. That was very clear. I apologize if it was too...complicated for you.

You don't seem to understand the difference between something that is rape and just being accused of rape. I will ask again for you to show where the woman was purposefully taking advantage of the system where she knew it was not actually rape. You also cannot show merely one instance as you claimed it happens 'manifold'. Good luck.

Just because somebody is very drunk, it doesn't mean that there wasn't consensual agreement between the two partners - or that the man, who in these circumstances is usually intoxicated also (as in the case I linked), had an exploitative intent towards her.

This is just presumption of guilt, which is bull**** misandry. I meant that the woman has complete control over how intoxicated she can get, and that if she gets so drunk that she consents to have sex with a man without realizing it (in the same way that, in reverse, a man gets blackout and has sex with a woman), it's not rape, and she is completely responsible for ending up in bed with him.

Now, if the woman was unable to form words and made no indication of consenting then that would be an assault, and the man could be blamed, yes. But if you're calling a man having sex with a drunk girl "rape" then it devalues the term.

I don't care about "the system", you brought that red herring into the fold. I'm talking about ethics. Women accusing men of rape because they got too drunk and regret who they woke up with is an appalling case of affairs, and implies the they have no free will when managing their own intoxication levels.

They should probably protect your weak-mindedness then, given that this isn't an answer to my refutation.

I will repeat. I did not say just 'very drunk' - I said "so drunk that they can barely make words" this means that there is essentially no way that the woman, or man, could consent in that condition. I don't care what you think about 'very drunk' because that is not a concrete state.

Ps - exploitative intent is irrelevant.



I completely disagree. If you are so drunk that you don't even know what you are doing then you cannot be said to be consenting. As you are not freely choosing between multiple options knowingly. Therefore, no consent. This would apply similarly to both men and women.

Where, again, was there a presumption of guilt? Like I said earlier in the thread, I believe that there are certain facts about when something is and is not rape regardless of anyone's opinion on when it is. If there is no consent then it is rape. Therefore, if consent cannot be given it must be rape.



Please don't get involved when you clearly don't know what you are talking about. 1. it would be Rape not assault. And that was my example that you objected to in the first place! Go back and re read everything! Nowhere did I just say any person who is drunk is incapable of consent.



The italicized and the bold are contradictory. You brought up accusations. I did not bring up the system. You cannot make an accusation without bringing in 'the system'. You opened that door. If we are talking about accusing then we have to look into the system.

....I am done with you. You clearly do not even understand the mechanisms that you are attempting to engage in. Goodnight!

x

I will say, like someone earlier, that I think that Suetonius is a perfect example of why people still say and feel there is a rape culture even in modern, 'first world', 'liberal' countries/societies.

I will say, like someone earlier, that I think that Suetonius is a perfect example of why people still say and feel there is a rape culture even in modern, 'first world', 'liberal' countries/societies.

But for it to be a rape 'culture', wouldn't it need to be more developed in the sense that people get girls drunk intentionally for the purpose of making them have sex?

But for it to be a rape 'culture', wouldn't it need to be more developed in the sense that people get girls drunk intentionally for the purpose of making them have sex?

Have you heard of roofies?

Nope.

You have honestly never heard of date rape drugs?

As was mentioned earlier there is a tendency to victim blame, saying that the woman shouldn't have dressed a certain way, walked a certain route, been out so late, etc. All of these seem to excuse the fault of the actual rapist and put it instead on the victim. This definitely seems, to me, to be a form of accepting of rape. It may not be full acceptance but it certainly is a form of acceptance to a degree.

There are also issues such as sexual entitlement etc. I don't have any studies off the top of my head but the whole, 'friend zone' thing, and 'girls only go for nice guys' state of mind seems to be indicative that merely by being 'nice' a person deserves sex, which is implicitly rape-like.

These are just two examples off the top of my head really quickly.

I can think of no better example than the Steubenville rape case in the US where all the media focused on was the poor football players and how they are losing so much of their livelihood for a 'stupid mistake' and even some outlets outed the poor young girl. Not to mention all the abuse she got even while anonymous through internet comments, social media, etc.