Rape double standard?
So I just read this thread/post and want to know who you think was raped here.
While I can sympathise with the poster and she was put in a difficult position and can fully understand why you would say she was raped I cant help but feel as though were the roles reversed it would still be the male being accused of rape because the female is drunk regardless of the fact should would be the person coercing and physically pressuring/forcing him into sex.
In both scenarios, the male is the rapist/sexual assaulter/etc even though society teaches males that as the sober individual you are held accountable for having sex with drunk women regardless of what she says or does. So why does the female in question not hold any responsibility for having sex with a drunk male?
Is it because he held her down? To that I would say what if a drunk girl held you down? Sure you push her away but just because you don't doesn't mean you're not being raped, no means no after all and we don't judge female rape with how forcefully resilient she was. If for you it comes down to the guy not pushing her away then said guy in the scenario was drunk, I'm sure she could have mustered enough strength to push him off or wriggle free or even kick him if needs be.
Or perhaps my assumptions about this double standard are not correct, what do you think?
Spoiler
While I can sympathise with the poster and she was put in a difficult position and can fully understand why you would say she was raped I cant help but feel as though were the roles reversed it would still be the male being accused of rape because the female is drunk regardless of the fact should would be the person coercing and physically pressuring/forcing him into sex.
In both scenarios, the male is the rapist/sexual assaulter/etc even though society teaches males that as the sober individual you are held accountable for having sex with drunk women regardless of what she says or does. So why does the female in question not hold any responsibility for having sex with a drunk male?
Is it because he held her down? To that I would say what if a drunk girl held you down? Sure you push her away but just because you don't doesn't mean you're not being raped, no means no after all and we don't judge female rape with how forcefully resilient she was. If for you it comes down to the guy not pushing her away then said guy in the scenario was drunk, I'm sure she could have mustered enough strength to push him off or wriggle free or even kick him if needs be.
Or perhaps my assumptions about this double standard are not correct, what do you think?
Whether or not he was drunk, she didn't force herself upon him. In this instance, the female is not in the wrong (on any level).
She says the male held her down, even after she asked him to let her go.
I don't see where the confusion is? He was in the wrong.
That doesn't mean to suggest the man is always in the wrong, but in this instance, he was.
She says the male held her down, even after she asked him to let her go.
I don't see where the confusion is? He was in the wrong.
That doesn't mean to suggest the man is always in the wrong, but in this instance, he was.
Original post by Vikki1805
Whether or not he was drunk, she didn't force herself upon him. In this instance, the female is not in the wrong (on any level).
She says the male held her down, even after she asked him to let her go.
I don't see where the confusion is? He was in the wrong.
That doesn't mean to suggest the man is always in the wrong, but in this instance, he was.
She says the male held her down, even after she asked him to let her go.
I don't see where the confusion is? He was in the wrong.
That doesn't mean to suggest the man is always in the wrong, but in this instance, he was.
You missed what I was getting at. It's not confusion of whether she was raped it's the idea that were the roles reversed and a drunk female coerced and physically imposed herself upon a male sexually chances are the outcome would be the same i.e. male raped female because she was drunk.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by So Instinct
It's not confusion it's the idea that were the roles reversed and a drunk female coerced and physically imposed herself upon a male sexually chances are the outcome would be the same i.e. male raped female because she was drunk.
If a woman were drunk and forcing herself upon a man and he accepted the invitation, then yes, I think a lot of people would say he's in the wrong.
I think it's because people assume the guy could handle himself and physically stpo the woman in that situation, whereas a woman may not be able to physically restrain a man (as per the OP).
I'm not saying I agree with this, but that's often the thought process behind these scenarios.
Moved to Society.
Original post by Vikki1805
If a woman were drunk and forcing herself upon a man and he accepted the invitation, then yes, I think a lot of people would say he's in the wrong.
I think it's because people assume the guy could handle himself and physically stpo the woman in that situation, whereas a woman may not be able to physically restrain a man (as per the OP).
I'm not saying I agree with this, but that's often the thought process behind these scenarios.
I think it's because people assume the guy could handle himself and physically stpo the woman in that situation, whereas a woman may not be able to physically restrain a man (as per the OP).
I'm not saying I agree with this, but that's often the thought process behind these scenarios.
No that's not what the post is about either.
I'm saying reverse the situation in the original post. As in, drunk female coerced and physically imposed herself on a male who didn't want sex but was too meekly to forcefully push said female off (not that he should have to anyway).
My problem would be that the male would be assumed to have raped the female in that situation too simply because she was the drunk, her actions wouldn't really be significant. Therefore a double standard, people may disagree with it on here but society seems to work that way or at least is firmly heading in that direction in my opinion.
No means no though, it shouldn't be about 'who can look after themselves'. You said you didn't agree with that though so fair enough on that point.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by So Instinct
No that's not what the post is about either.
I'm saying reverse the situation in the original post. As in, drunk female coerced and physically imposed herself on a male who didn't want sex but was too meekly to forcefully push said female off (not that he should have to anyway).
My problem would be that the male would be assumed to have raped the female in that situation too simply because she was the drunk, her actions wouldn't really be significant. Therefore a double standard, people may disagree with it on here but society seems to work that way or at least is firmly heading in that direction in my opinion.
No means no though, it shouldn't be about 'who can look after themselves'. You said you didn't agree with that though so fair enough on that point.
I'm saying reverse the situation in the original post. As in, drunk female coerced and physically imposed herself on a male who didn't want sex but was too meekly to forcefully push said female off (not that he should have to anyway).
My problem would be that the male would be assumed to have raped the female in that situation too simply because she was the drunk, her actions wouldn't really be significant. Therefore a double standard, people may disagree with it on here but society seems to work that way or at least is firmly heading in that direction in my opinion.
No means no though, it shouldn't be about 'who can look after themselves'. You said you didn't agree with that though so fair enough on that point.
If someone (drunk or not) is forcing themselves onto another person who has said 'no', then said person is in the wrong. Whether they are male or female, to force themselves on someone else is wrong.
Why does she say "wasn't not consensual" instead of "was consensual". She seems a bit retarded and the lack of paragraphing made my eyes hurt.
If i'm reading it correctly, this girl didn't want to kiss the guy but did so anyway. She didn't want to sleep with the guy, but went upstairs with him and allowed him to take all of her clothes off among other things. Also, apparently she feels like she may be making it up? Wtf..
Seems like the kinda girl who gets drunk, sleeps with someone consensually, regrets it, talks to her friends about it who tell her she was raped, then becomes convinced she was.
Legally though he would not be in the wrong even if he initiated the contact, unless she was too drunk to consent
If i'm reading it correctly, this girl didn't want to kiss the guy but did so anyway. She didn't want to sleep with the guy, but went upstairs with him and allowed him to take all of her clothes off among other things. Also, apparently she feels like she may be making it up? Wtf..
Seems like the kinda girl who gets drunk, sleeps with someone consensually, regrets it, talks to her friends about it who tell her she was raped, then becomes convinced she was.
Original post by Vikki1805
If a woman were drunk and forcing herself upon a man and he accepted the invitation, then yes, I think a lot of people would say he's in the wrong.
Legally though he would not be in the wrong even if he initiated the contact, unless she was too drunk to consent
(edited 9 years ago)
In the above scenario I'd say the guy was at fault, since like you say, he held her down and didn't stop when she said no. If the genders were reversed, I'd say the woman was at fault.
I don't think it's rape for letting a drunk person have sex with you - it's bad manners if you think they'll regret it, but the idea that something becomes somehow okay just because you're drunk too is crazy.
I don't think it's rape for letting a drunk person have sex with you - it's bad manners if you think they'll regret it, but the idea that something becomes somehow okay just because you're drunk too is crazy.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
