Guys. Would you want to know? Would you ever be able to forgive me?

I see everything from a guy's view, being one myself.



Yes, it exhibited poor judgement and was immature, as people tend to be when they are (I presume she's, what... 19 or 20?). My point was that you judge the two separately, and considering she did not consent her moral culpability is the same as if nothing had happened, both from a moral and a legal perspective.



I think my approach is absolutely about weighing things up. What would the reaction be if this guy had stabbed her or shot her? Concern over her wellbeing, or irritation and disappointment about how she got there?

The superficially sexual character of the offence shouldn't obscure the fact that this it is a gravely serious physical and mental violation, and it isn't reasonably foreseeable that someone will rape you if you say no, and the relative of gravity of the two things should be a bit of a no-brainer in terms of the approach

(would be the same as if my partner, who does a lot of mountain climbing, was badly injured doing an ascent he knew was much harder... it would kinda be secondary to making sure he was okay)

As I've said, you examine the circumstances, and even if it happened 100% as the OP has described it, for an involved party hearing that description, it sounds very, very dubious. Therefore to try and say an OH that isn't 100% supportive and believing is a bad person is just unfair. And reverse the roles, as an exercise if you would, do you honestly believe your opinion on the matter would be the same? I mean, swap the OP to a male, the other person in the bed to a female. Do you, in your heart of hearts believe they would recieve the same benefit of the doubt?

If we were to make another analogy.

Say you have a friend, a friend who has a history of playing with fire. One day their shed burns down, and they were the only one inside. Of course your first concern is for their health, but if they then claim that they don't know what happened, how the shed burnt down, but matches are found in there. Would there be no suspicion.

I agree, first concern is for the wellbeing of the friend, but such suspicion is healthy and natural in a situation where the story is, how to put it, not unbelievable, but rather, sails close to the wind? So to then judge this man on that suspicion is unfair, in my opinion.

Our actions have consequences, YOU chose to become intoxicated with alcohol in the first place, knowing it would cloud your judgement, a chain of YOUR OWN decisions led to this taking place, you didn't leave, you got back in the bed, you didn't try to stop him, you allowed him to finish in your mouth. Grow up and take responsibility, tell your boyfriend. Like I said, our actions have consequences, now go, go face the consequences of YOUR actions.

I think the fundamental biological differences make it harder for me to visualise the reverse, but having thought about it, it does seem like it's more dependent on relationship status. But I would emphasise that your relationship status confers no greater or lesser culpability for being raped, though it does speak to judgement and consideration for the feelings of others if the bf would have a problem with it.

As I said in my edit, I do find it hard to visualise, being gay. We have a completely different relationship dynamic,
I find it hard to imagine a situation where I wouldn't trust my partner on what he said, especially if it was of the magnitude of rape. Perhaps it's as much a decision to emphatically believe, but considering we have a life together, contemplating marriage and children, I suppose we wouldn't have got this far if I didn't trust his judgement and character.



Interesting analogy, and I can see what you mean insofar as the circumstances make it a bit nebulous, but the alternative (that his gf is the type of person who would fabricate a rape accusation to avoid responsibility for a one-off infidelity / he wrongly throws doubt on her claim) is pretty grim.

I think he's entitled to come to his own conclusions about her judgement in terms of what lead to her being there, and their suitability based on that (that she doesn't exercise reasonable judgement drinking, when to go home etc, not getting into guys beds who are likely to make a pass), but I don't think you can really question the claim itself without undermining the whole basis of trust in the relationship, which isn't undermined in quite the same way by a drunken error of judgement.

Funny, you telling someone to take responsibility for their actions when you're excusing a rapist of culpability for his actions. That's usually only an attitude I hear from teenage boys, and even then not seriously.

If someone drinks alcohol, do they deserve to be raped? If they make an error of judgement, do they deserve to be raped? Looking at the chain of causation, whose decision was the final causative factor that could have prevented it from happening? The victim or the rapist?

Or would I be right in assuming that your view on this, sexuality and women and alcohol rolled up into one situation, is coloured by a certain religious persuasion?

First of all, let us remove the word rape. The OP was not raped, she was sexually assaulted. A serious issue, but it is not rape.

I think it's worth reiterating your mistaking the situation for rape.

Can you think of a reason that you would stay in bed, with someone who is trying to get with you, who is masturbating,

and then by all appearance, allow them to ejaculate onto you?

Just playing devil's advocate, but the situation seems less than straight forward.

If the act was VOLUNTARY and NOT forced, then it is not rape, no matter how much she regrets it, she consented to it by not stopping him.

Actually forcing your penis into another person's mouth is most emphatically rape. From S1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003

1Rape

(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.



I don't mean to be patronising or hostile, but it's worth you knowing what the law is vis a vis sexual offences if you're going to offer such an emphatic opinion.



I can foresee that if I was far from home, extremely drunk, it was 0 degrees outside with no public transport, I might be less than enthusiastic to jump straight out of bed if I knew it meant walking through the snow for hours.



There's no way a reasonable observer would infer from her conduct that she consented. She expressly denied consent, she was drunk, she said nothing to encourage him, and simply failing to stop someone cannot be read as anything like consent, from a legal perspective or even from a human perspective where the subject of one's advances usually reciprocates. Even indubitably willing partners aren't usually up for having someone cum in their mouth with no foreplay while they're lying half-asleep in bed.



I think the point is that it's wholly plausible. There's nothing in there that's inconsistent with the claim that she didn't consent, and not knowing her personally or seeing any solid reason to doubt her account, I'd be inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt

Ahh, that moment when someone makes assumptions, and I get the pleasure of whipping the floor with them. Most certainly a good start to the morning, well, lets see here - please point me to where I excused the so called rapist. If the act was VOLUNTARY and NOT forced, then it is not rape, no matter how much she regrets it, she consented to it by not stopping him. She admits this over and over again, if she however, had tried to stop him when he was on top,or did not get back into the bed and he chased her, it would be a different story and he could be accused of rape. We don't even know if this is the whole story, who's to say the OP is telling us the complete unbias truth? Afterall she was drunk and doesn't remember it properly. And to your last point, you would be wrong in assuming so, my view is my own, it is not influenced by my religion, it is simply influenced my view on morality and by my philosophy. Now, pleasestop making assumptions, fool.

Someone who is intoxicated is unable to give consent (just as someone who is underage is also unable). A sex act involving someone who does not give consent, or is considered to be unable to to give consent, is rape. You might not agree with that, but that is how the law is interpreted in the UK.

Someone who is intoxicated is unable to give consent (just as someone who is underage is also unable). A sex act involving someone who does not give consent, or is considered to be unable to to give consent, is rape. You might not agree with that, but that is how the law is interpreted in the UK.

Your argument is based on the assumption that whatever the law says, is right. A year ago in Nottingham if you injured a burglar he/she could take you to court. Over a century ago, if you failed in suicide, you were killed (fail in logic). Not so long ago, slaving people because of their skin was fine in America, not so long ago, Women had hardly any rights. The law at times is flawed, rape law is flawed, did you know by law a man cannot be raped? Can you not see the failure in that logic? The OP chose to get drunk, and in that state she consented, because by your definition, drunk sex is rape? Hmm.

Again with the assumptions, what an ignorant fool, just because my last name is 'Mahmood', you automatically think i'm some religious nut?

You're taking it to hypotheticals, the OP never stated that she was afraid, you're ignoring the context of the situation, they'd been good friend for a long time,

she had resisted before, and he showed no act of violence, also you've hardly addressed anything from my previous comment,

therefore, if your next comment is the same, I will feel there is no reason to reply.

Edit:Insulting me will not make you win this argument, or mocking me, you are simply diverting.

Someone who is intoxicated is unable to give consent (just as someone who is underage is also unable). A sex act involving someone who does not give consent, or is considered to be unable to to give consent, is rape. You might not agree with that, but that is how the law is interpreted in the UK.

“If, through drink (or for any other reason) the complainant has temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have intercourse on the relevant occasion, she is not consenting.

However, where the complainant has voluntarily consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remains capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse, and in drink agrees to do so, this would not be rape"

Hmmm indeed. My "argument" was actually a simple statement of how the law is interpreted in the UK. And I didn't know that "by law a man cannot be raped" because the law says (since 2003) that is possible. So yes, I do see the failure in your logic - do you?