[mc32]

Those situations are more edge cases and they are quite difficult because knowing what we know about the mind, it can play tricks. For example, we may feel very happy at one moment, but something could transpire to change the feeling and that may cause us to retroactively view the initial consent (maybe they thought the person was initially someone else) in a different light --but at the same time, most people give the benefit of the doubt internally (that is, even if they are truly aggrieved, they are likely to interpret the violation as their own fault, rather than blame the perp) It can become murky.

To make the point less gender political, view this as something which happens to a same-sex couple, so that the dynamics are less obvious about sexual politics and more about either force, misinterpretation, misrepresentation or confusion or a mixture of all the above.

[CthulhuOvermind]

> To make the point less gender political, view this as something which happens to a same-sex couple, so that the dynamics are less obvious about sexual politics and more about either force, misinterpretation, or confusion or a mixture of all the above.

I like your suggestion about viewing this as same-sex couple situation. I wrote my post specifically gender-neutral so as to prepare for the inevitable accusation of sexism, and then reveal that in my example the female was the perpetrator. But I think your opinion is much better

[chris_wot]

Though it's much rarer, it is possible for a woman to rape a man.

[danieltillett]

It is not that rare when using the current standard of consent. If you include any man who has sex while drunk (and is hence incapable of giving consent) then rape of men by women is very common.

[ZeroGravitas]

Can you define drunk as you intend it in this sentence?

People seem to be very loose with this phrase recently and it's impossible to tell if they're doing so intentionally for political reasons, or if they're just not very good at communicating what they mean.

Drunk can mean someone has had 1 beer (e.g. drunk driving in many locations). It can also mean aggressively or flamboyantly out-of-character after several drinks, or it can mean basically incapacitated and in danger of choking on their own vomit.

Which part of this range were you ambigously referring to?

[danieltillett]

Thaumasiotes has already explained the situation on campus in regards what is considered drunk and consent, but even in the wider world you can only give consent when not intoxicated. The level of intoxication is not clear cut, but at least in Australia it needs to be “substantial” [1]. What exactly is substantial is up to the jury.

The US case law is much more murky as this article explains [2].

1. https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/25.%20Sexual%20Offences...

2. http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/08/opinions/cevallos-sex-cons...

[thaumasiotes]

As made explicit in the sexual assault policies of various US universities, a female is unable to consent if she's had any alcohol (the "1 beer" model of being drunk). It is not a defense, or grounds for a counterclaim, that the male might have been equally or more drunk. (I say made explicit; the "any alcohol" threshold is what's made explicit. The wording of formal policies is generally scrupulously gender-neutral, but their application isn't.)

In an actual US criminal court, I believe drunken consent is no different from any other consent.

[ZeroGravitas]

As much as I'd love to take your word on this, for me this still falls into the "they banned Christmas because of the Muslims" category of made up propaganda intended to enrage the more credulous (see the other reply for a demonstration of this).

I asked for evidence on this once before on HN, and they came up with two links. Both referred to the exact same case. And that case involved two people so drunk that neither could actually recall what happened.

That person at least provided links (admittedly they actually undermined his claims, but still). You've provided nothing but a bold assertion.

My suggestion to you and the original poster: if what you claim is true, is actually true, then a) stop using the word "drunk" as it is ambiguous, use the phrase "after one alcoholic drink", as this massively bolsters your case that the policy is ill-thought out b) have a link from a reputable source that actually backs up the reality of what you claim since on the face of it you'd expect a bigger fuss to have been made about this if it was true (much like I'd have heard about it via standard channels, not forwarded emails from racist uncles, if someone had actually banned Christmas because of the Muslims).

Edit: here's the first policy my Googling returned, it all seems very reasonable to me:

https://share.cornell.edu/education-engagement/sex-alcohol-a...

Key phrases: "drinking heavily", "highly intoxicated" and so on.

[mamon]

If you are drunk that's your fault, not any defense. I mean: drunk sex is like drunk driving, being drunk should be held against drunk person, not used in his/her favor.

[emp_zealoth]

What the actual fuck. Are those people out of their goddamn minds?

So any girl can basically claim she had one shot if she feels like ruining someone's life and make an innocent man into a "rapist"?

What if it's two lesbians that shared a beer? Do the universe collapse or something?

The arbitraryness and possibilities of malicious abuse just blow my goddamn brain.

[mirimir]

What if both parties are incapable of giving consent?

[bitwize]

Then each party is criminally liable for the rape of the other, under law. But, in practice, for heterosexual liaisons the male partner will be charged and prosecuted while the female goes free.

Disclaimer: ianal

[chris_wot]

I could be wrong about how rare it is, I don't know the statistics and I don't have any way of knowing how many men don't report the crime.

My point was that it can and does happen. I probably shouldn't have said anything about how often it occurs as I don't know.

[malandrew]

It actually occurs at a much higher rate than most think, but the strategy used by female perpetrators more often takes the form of emotional violence and coercion as opposed to physical violence.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01541620

I have personal experience with this with a former partner and the threats and coercive tactics can get really ugly, dark and traumatic.

[sambe]

Technically, under English law, I believe it isn't. The definition involves penetrative sex. It's normally something like sexual assault instead (arguably adding somewhat to gender politics).

[mc32]

It's still not entirely impossible for a person without a male reproductive organ to engage in active penetrative sex with the aid of well, sexual devices which mimic the shape or even cruder devices. That's to say, I don't believe, but could be wrong, they stipulate being naturally born or some such uneasy language.

[DanBC]

Under English law rape requires a penis.

A person could be found guilty of sexual assualt by penetration, which is equally severe. It's just not called rape.

This is in the Sexual Offences Act.

[sambe]

I believe it actually requires a penis too. Quick Google suggests this is still true.

[chris_wot]

Not true. The FBI's definition is:

"The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim." [1]

1. https://www.justice.gov/opa/blog/updated-definition-rape

[JadeNB]

> Though it's much rarer, it is possible for a woman to rape a man.

Given that it is in response to a poster who clearly knew that (as indicated by the intention of revealing the female to be the perpetrator), in a thread in which (as far as I can see) no doubt about the possibility had been expressed, is this remark adding anything?

[chris_wot]

I hope those who are disagreeing with me are doing so because I wasn't precise enough about where this can occur.

As has been pointed out, in England a woman cannot take a man, but can commit an act of penetration.

In the U.S. there is no such distinction.

[anu_gupta]

> n. I wrote my post specifically gender-neutral so as to prepare for the inevitable accusation of sexism, and then reveal that in my example the female was the perpetrator.

Not really interested in engaging with someone who merely wants to set traps for people.

[chris_wot]

I have to agree. Don't do that.

[techdragon]

Have you never used something surprising as a method to make someone think? Laying traps is implying malice that may be entirely absent.

[chris_wot]

I don't need to. I just state my position and hopefully then they consider it, which normally requires some level of thought.

[Kenji]

No, sorry. You cannot retroactively retract consent. If you said a genuine yes at the time of the intercourse and at no point you signalled you were not okay with it, you cannot just say it's rape all of a sudden. It is not. Otherwise, any person (usually female, even if you want it 'less gender political', which I personally find insincere since it plays a big role in the discussion) can screw over the person they had sex with (usually male). This is just another form of authoritarian feminism, designed to shift control even more into the hands of women. False rape allegations are not the exception, they are common, and the punishment for such false allegations is either nonexistent or very minor despite the the fact that they can destroy the accused person's life.

Where are we headed? Do men need to have the women sign a contract before sex to avoid the lies? Because that's what it's looking like to me. Kinda unromantic ;)