Anon #1 said:
But what if the guy also has a memory loss, was intoxicated etc., what if all the things you said about the girl could be applied for the guy as well? I mean, they were both drunk and I don’t think the guy started it, it could have happened spontaneously, without “the guy taking advantage of her”, especially when she mentioned there were flirting goin on. Why should I defend the “rapist”? Not at all! But I wouldn’t call that guy a rapist unless I have a valid argument, that’s all.
Anon #2 said:
I agree with that anon because it is also possible that while drunk, it was actually the girl who started sex with him. I was a witness of a similar situation at one party, and since the girl has a memory loss, you can’t really tell who started the sex, can you? That argument “she would not have done it while sober” means nothing cause in the case you don’t know, people act differently while being drunk. I’m not defending anyone but it is unfair to call him a rapist, when it is 50:50.
These are the last questions I am going to post about the anon who wrote in and whose story prompted this discussion about consent and intoxication. I find this completely invalidating to the person who submitted the original question. She was intoxicated and could not give consent. Rape occurred. We can be sure it was rape because she confirms this sexual activity was not wanted. Boom, there you have it.
To address anon #1, you have no idea if he was drinking at all. All she said was that she was. You “don’t think the guy started it” based on… well, nothing. You feel sure it was spontaneous because she had flirted with him in the past, so she probably wanted to fuck, right? You’re blaming the victim, and that is disgusting. The valid argument for calling that guy a rapist is that he raped somebody. End of story. I don’t know why you find this so hard to believe, given that it happens all the time.
To address anon #2, you said,
That argument “she would not have done it while sober” means nothing cause in the case you don’t know, people act differently while being drunk.
That actually means everything, because that’s how rape gets reported. You’re become sober, and you categorize your experience as rape because you would not have consented if you had been capable of doing so. People do act differently when they’re drunk—that’s why the law says intoxicated people are not capable of giving consent. You actually have no idea what happened to this person, other than that she was intoxicated, is clearly traumatized now, and confirms she would not have given consent while sober. But because you have seen another woman in your lifetime initiate sex while drunk, you assume that applies to all of us, and apparently this one in particular.
Honestly, I don’t care if this person writes back in and tells me she got naked, danced on a table, and begged this man to have sex with her. She was drunk. She cannot give legal consent. If once she is sober, she says the sex was unwanted, it was rape. That’s all.
If you do not understand this point and you would like to further victim blame, please do so off anon so I can respond to you privately. I am not posting any more of these questions here.