[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.

[arkades]

I can only offer myself up as an anecdote, but:

I was at grad school at Boston University in the very, very recent past and was lectured on the fact(?) that even a single alcoholic beverage precludes consent during their mandatory Title 9 intro. I can't find any thing regarding their sexual assault policies (other than "we do not allow or condone sexual assault") on their website, though.

[thaumasiotes]

Here, as mainstream as media channels get: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/12/colle...

Relevant points include: (1) some schools' policies are worded so as to "lead to a young man being found responsible for a sexual offense simply if the complainant establishes that she had any degree of intoxication"; and (2) even where the policy would appear to be stricter than that, administrators frequently use the "she had 1 beer" standard when judging male students. An example in the article involves a college switching the basis for its adjudged punishment from nonconsent to presence-of-alcohol when the poor boy involved sought help from a lawyer to force the school to consider his abundant evidence of consent. (The punishment stood; only the official basis for it changed.)

I'll provide some other quotes from the article in a series of comments (since the unified comment was rejected for being too long):

[danieltillett]

Here is Stanford's policy [1]. There is nothing about drinking heavily or being highly intoxicated. The policy just says "if intoxicated by drugs and/or alcohol".

1. http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/b6c0fa0511ba6bd299a0c17b60d41a56...

[bitwize]

I once saw a poster that said something like "Bob is drunk. Allison is drunk. Allison can't consent."

While a poster is not a statement of policy, it nevertheless is intended to communicate the standard that should be applied: that sex with a woman who is "drunk" (not "incapacitated" or even "significantly intoxicated") is rape, but this standard does not apply to a drunk man.

[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.

[thaumasiotes]

If you are accused of raping a girl on the sole grounds that she was drunk when you had sex, then the fact that you were also drunk should be grounds for a counterclaim of rape against her.

Obviously, that would be ridiculous. But so far as I have read, only Brown's policy explicitly takes the position you advocate, that while the female being drunk casts blame on the male, the male being drunk casts even more blame on the male. ("A charged student’s use of any drug, including alcohol, judged to be related to an offense will be considered an exacerbating rather than a mitigating circumstance.")

[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.

[chris_wot]

Well, this is why it goes before a court. There needs to be proof or lack of reasonable doubt that the victim was intoxicated.

[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

[techdragon]

So the FBI does not consider female and male perpetrators who engage in non-consensual sex with a male victim only using the victims natural external genitalia?

This seems pretty stupid.

Can anyone corroborate this claim? As in do they not or actively refuse to prosecute these incidents? Or are they "sexual assault" but not "rape"?

[maaku]

FBI's definition does not apply in England.

[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.