After reading several comments here - it is clear that many here are apparently happy with the double standard that now endangers a man to be charged with rape if it is LATER found that the woman in question was 'too drunk' to give consent. Contrast the law with the fact that should a woman drive her vehicle while drunk and end up killing other road users or pedestrians she will be held very much responsible for her actions - however if she goes out with a guy flirts with him all night and gets drunk and has intercourse with him she won't be held responsible if she has had over the 'limits'!! Anyone else see the self serving double standards here or is it just me??

Elk - have you dated several footballers - enough at any rate to justify your thinly veiled accusation that 'sexual violence' against women by footballers is rife? What evidence do you have for this - the DVD you refer to was about not SEDUCING their mates girlfriends not RAPING them as you seem to be implying. Do you understand the difference between seduction and rape or are you one of those Andrea Dworkinites that think all sex with men is rape?

The difference is Tigerman that a woman who is drunk driving a car and kills someone is at fault - she is the one that has killed ie. committed a criminal act.

In the other version where the drunk woman is raped she is not the perpetrator, the rapist is.

Rape means sex without consent. If the woman consented then it is not rape. If the woman consented and then cried rape this is not rape it is a false allegation. If the woman was drunk and could not give consent then this is rape. If a woman is flirting and does not give consent this is still rape (flirting is not a crime and even if it was rape would seem an over-the-top punishment). The rules apply equally to men who are raped - there is no difference.

It is pretty straightforward.

pelican said...
"The rules apply equally to men who are raped - there is no difference."

Then why is this not stated in any of the advocacy or outreach? Why are men not alerted to this? Is mens' consent somehow viewed as less important than that of women? Note that your description prior to this statement used exclusively (female)gendered terms. You added men only as an afterthought.

In the example I gave earlier the man concerned was not simply a rape victim. He lost control of his entire future due to that act. That is why I mentioned power and control. This is a form of rape committed as easily by women as by men. Women have the additional - over and above that of sexual gratification - motivation of pregnancy and, at least, some consequent degree of control over their victim for several decades. The long term consequences of rape are far greater for a man than for a woman. Nobody forces female rape victims to become parents.

It may interest you to know that several western nations allow women who have committed statutory rape of boys as young as twelve to collect child support from their victims. I am currently trying to find out if Australia does the same. You can rest assured that an adult male rape victim would be treated in the same way.

No Pelican you are 'demolishing' an argument that Tigerman did NOT make. He was talking about a scenario whereby the act of a woman getting drunk then later having sexual intercourse with her date could be treated *AS* having been raped because the law now deems a woman *over the limits* of being incapable of giving consent thereby putting any man who had sex with her (even though he may be as drunk or even more so than her) in danger of being prosecuted for the very serious crime of rape.
In the other scenario where she is DRIVING under the influence of alcohol and kills people she is conversley held FULLY RESPONSIBLE for her actions. In both scenarios she gets drunk - in one case she is held responsible for her actions whilst drunk in the other case she is deemed incapable of responsibility because her capacity for volitive action is legally anulled. In other words she is treated as an adult if she is drunk and driving a vehicle yet she is treated as a little child if she is drunk and driving her own body!! How screwed up is that!! Tigerman (my BF) was unable to respond as he has exceeded his posting limit. However, I am posting this on his behalf as we have discussed this issue and I know the point he was trying to make.

Thanks HRS for the fine example of asking for stats that don't exist as if this somehow supports your case.

I'll file that one under category: 2).

(Childish statistic games HRS can play to make people ignore the fact that I'm trying to pretend women are more physically violent than men, even though when they stop and think about it, they realise that's pretty stupid).

Gwallan, I'm referring to domestic violence in general. I posted some stats from NSW police, which are echoed at all the police statistical collections. For more on that, visit here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6633#100325

As far as underreporting goes, there's probably some of that, though I'd hazard a guess that it's more likely that more violence from men is underreported.

I've no doubt you can ask any police officer with any real experience on the job and they'll tell you it's men who are causing most of the fights in bars and committing physical violence against spouses.
Yes, there has been a worrying rise in female violence, but it's still nothing compared to the blokes.

Note here, I'm not talking about emotional or psychological abuse. I've no idea about either of those.

Also note that HRS just asks other people to gather evidence, despite the fact that his views are the bizarre ones. He's not only intellectually dishonest, but he's lazy, and damned if I'll scurry around for someone who refuses to do anything himself to justify his misogynist views.