@110, I just wanted to add to Prudie's answerthe only thing I would have added was that the LW might want to cut back on her drinking if she often finds that she can't remember what happened the night before.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/dear_…

Edited for clarity:
The only thing I would have added to Prudie's answer was that the LW might want to cut back on her drinking if she often finds that she can't remember what happened the night before.

"For all he knows his wife gives amazing head. (Cue the straight men who'll tell your husband that he should be happy he's getting blowjobs at all, that you wouldn't catch them complaining if they were getting regular and enthusiastic blowjobs eight years into their marriages, etc.)"

Oh! Sorry, but I guess I missed my cue! But even before the cue, I couldn't help thinking about the last time my very beautiful but non-GGG wife gave me a blowjob... It seems like yesterday -- if yesterday were to feel like a generation ago... In fact, George Bush was president, and I don't think any of us imagined that some day, there would actually be another president with the same name, just as I couldn't imagine that this sweet girl I loved so much would simply cease all oral activity after our wedding day. I certainly never imagined that almost 2 decades and 4 kids later, she'd admit that she never even liked kissing, but did it, as she said, "...because I wanted you to marry me."

Sometimes we never know just how good we have it. And sometimes, we're so blinded by "love" or whatever to fool ourselves into thinking someone will give more than they've ever intended to give.

Mesdames -

Well, that's the thing (or one of several) - we were given no context about what has gone on for the last six years. Is this the only time since then she's been drinking, or drunk? How has his observation of the agreement been? And the letter gave the relationship a static feel, as if Incident B took place within a year of Incident A. If there has been no change in the tone of the agreement in six years, during which time the relationship ought to have grown and changed, why not?

Then, too, exactly how is "a night of partying and drinking" (isn't that a semi-tautology?) *very similar to* "attending a friend's wine tasting"? Now, you two are both Drinkers and I a lifelong abstainer, but I can't recall ever seeing even my alcoholic mother coming home drunk from a Wine Tasting. My best guess, although I am prepared to yield to superiour expertise, is that neither of them likely knew she was drunk, and we've no idea at all about whether he was drunk as well. If he was too impaired to be able to follow the agreement with clarity, so much for best intent.

I've seen it proposed that perhaps the best answer for this particular couple is to take sex after either of them has been drinking off the table completely - with many addenda that this is only a recommendation for this couple and not an assault upon the agency of women in general.

Put this down in the main as an area where I mind considerably less about being erased.

Oh - and while Ms Prudie may have had a point about calling the LW *prim* and *punitive* (however badly she overplayed it), what on earth is wrong with *punctilious*? If she was just searching for a third word beginning with P, surely there were superiour alternatives.

@cockyballsup and others who didn't read Dear Prudence (apologies to those who already did or don't care), this is the letter and Prudie's reply:

Dear Prudence,
My husband is kind, supportive, funny, generous, smart, and loving. However, I feel like I must divorce him. Six years ago, when we were in our early 20s and had just fallen in love, after a night of partying and drinking, he woke me up in the middle of the night and started to have sex with me. I was dozing and still drunk and, yes, I took my panties off myself. But when I realized that it was not OK for him to make advances on me in my state, I pushed him away and ran out. He later felt so bad he wanted to turn himself in for rape. I was very confused and thought at times that I was overreacting and at others that I was raped. We painfully worked through this, but the incident made my husband very reluctant about having sex. This led to an agreement that he shouldn't be afraid of coming close to me in similar situations as long as he asked my consent. This made us feel better and I felt secure again. However, we just found ourselves in a very similar situation. After coming back from a friend’s wine tasting we went to bed and he started to kiss me. I liked it and went along, only to wake up in the morning and remember only half of it. Now I am in the same painful spot I was before and I can’t fathom how he could have ignored our agreement. Should I just drop it or am I right about feeling abused?

—Confused

Dear Confused,
I understand the need for colleges to have unambiguous codes of sexual conduct for their young, horny, possibly plastered students. These often require getting explicit permission for every escalating advance. However, if two adults are in love and have frequently made love then each can assume implicit consent to throw such legalistic caution—as well as panties—to the wind. Certainly spouses are entitled to say, “Not tonight” or “Not there,” and have such a request respected. But even a married couple who have had sex hundreds of times can enjoy that alcohol might ignite a delightful, spontaneous encounter. Your approach, however, seems to be to treat your sex life as if it is subject to regulatory review by the Department of Health and Human Services. Your prim, punctilious, punitive style has me admiring your put-upon husband’s ability to even get it up, given the possibility he’ll be accused of rape—or turn himself in for it!—if one of you fails a breathalyzer test. Living in terror that expressing one’s perfectly normal sexual desire could end one’s marriage, and freedom, is itself a form of abuse. Stop acting like a parody of a gender-studies course catalog and start acting like a loving wife. If you can’t, then give the poor sap a divorce.

—Prudie

Thanks for Emily Yoffee reprint. I read the column originally, thought way-to-go-Prudie!, and am glad for chance to talk about it here rather than there.

Not only do I think Yoffee is right that there's no problem with consensual sex in a marriage after a few, or even a few too many, drinks, I think she didn't pay enough attention to that grey area of sex after several drinks before the marriage. Let's say the woman really felt taken advantage of that time in her early 20s. Nevermind whether it was a convictable crime, let's say she felt like it was rape. You go into counseling to help get over and forgive someone for neglecting you or for cheating on you. But isn't rape supposed to be so traumatic that you never want to see the jerk again? For this lady, it's more of a bargaining point, something she can use to get the upper hand the next time her husband wants to get out of doing the dishes.

I suspect that the letter is a hoax. Elsewhere on the net, there's a disagreement between Yoffee and another columnist on exactly the point of whether rape is rape where alcohol is involved. I forget which side Yoffee took, but I imagine a reader wanted to test her. Look at the original: "I feel like I must divorce him". "When I realized that it was not OK for him to make advances on me in that state". This sounds like a parody, not the real thing. It's very like how I want to ask Dr. Laura if it would be alright for me not to honor my elderly mother by checking in with her and making sure she has home care if my mother didn't want to take some calls when I was grown.

@118 I agree with your assessment that the letter reads like parody. But: "isn't rape supposed to be so traumatic that you never want to see the jerk again?"

That is a vast overgeneralization. Marital rape is related to other forms of spousal abuse. And no, the victim often isn't sure if they want to walk away. That's news to you?

@118:
The thing about the letter that grates me is that the husband most likely was in the same state as his wife both times (ok, first time she wasn't his wife).
So he makes a drunken advance, she drunkenly agrees, and suddenly he raped her?
If that was generally how rape was defined, about 40 % of my sexual encounters were rape.

@114 Um...Damn. If I wasn't making minimum wage I'd totally donate money for the sole purpose of sending you to a brothel in Nevada. (Note: If you have the money DO NOT get a hooker in Vegas, ONLY hookers at licensed brothels a short trip outside Las Vegas are legal and routinely screened for sexual diseases.) As things are though, all I can say is I'm sorry that in the context of a LTR sexual partner your wife sucks.

I wonder if you can attach a sexual needs fufillment requirement into a prenup or marriage contract. Probably not, but someday?

I thought Prudence's answer lacked a lot of nuance and played right into the hands of those who think that women lie about rape a lot, or that some women are too brainwashed to know what rape really is. (Not to mention those who think consent isn't THAT important in a long-term relationship.) I agree the letter sounded as though it was made up precisely to evoke such a response.

Re drunk sex in general, I like Cliff Pervocracy's summing-up:

"Drunk sex is kind of a tough one, in my opinion. Mostly because there's drunk and there's drunk and then there's drunk. That is, there's three scenarios:

"1) They were drinking, but that didn't change anything.
2) They were drinking to the point where one (or both) of them made decisions they wouldn't have made sober.
3) They were drinking to the point where one of them was totally incapacitated and couldn't say yes or no at all.

2 is problematic, 3 is rape, and they both seem to get lumped in willy-nilly with each other and with 1."

@111: Agreed, all the enthusiasm in the world won't make up for crappy technique, but a manifest lack of enthusiasm will throw cold water on even the most flawless execution. A lack of enthusiasm is also unlikely to lead to flawless technique in the first place.

Also, yes, whoever mentioned "hummers" had the right idea. All those encouraging noises can provide a tactile benefit as well as an emotional one.

122-- Eirene-- There's another that gets lumped together with your 3: He purposely encouraged her to drink more than she thought she should with the full knowledge that there was a good chance that if she got drunk enough she would be incapacitated to the point of agreeing to do what he knew she wouldn't do sober.

@124 -- wouldn't that be lumped with 2 rather than with 3? It wouldn't really matter if it got lumped with 3, as they're both definitely rape. It *would* matter if it got lumped with 2.

I don't myself feel that anyone should be drinking so much that they don't remember things afterward. It's not asking for rape (because that's someone else's decision), but it is asking for a good many other problems that are in one's own control.

Birth control didn't come up, either. Surely drunk sex is that much more likely to lead to unwanted pregnancy or STD transmission? The idea of being unable to remember whether a guy used a condom gives me shivers. That MIGHT be less of a problem within marriage, all depending on arrangements, but then again it mightn't.

@125:
One doesn't need to be so drunk as not to remember everything the next day to be too incapacitated to give meaningful consent.

@127: I didn't mean to imply that one did have to be that drunk for consent to be impaired. I was just saying it was a bad idea anyway. The second paragraph changes subject a bit from the first -- sorry I wasn't clearer.

@Eirene, migrationist, Crinoline, EricaP et al:
Maybe the letter was a fake, but even assuming it was, I don't think that Prudie's answer "played right into the hands of those who think that women lie about rape a lot, or that some women are too brainwashed to know what rape really is. (Not to mention those who think consent isn't THAT important in a long-term relationship.)" (Eirene @122)

It's not that I don't think marital rape exists, or that women are lying about rape or don't know it when they experience it or read about it. It's that I think that consent is generally implied by marriage, and within the context of an ongoing romantic, erotic relationship of somewhere above 6 years to a man that the lw describes as "kind, supportive, funny, generous, smart, and loving," and who is characterized as being so sensitive to his partner's feelings that he once "wanted to turn himself in for rape," when he made a pushy, alcohol-fueled advance that his then-girlfriend says she was successful at stopping ("I pushed him away and ran off.")

Now, of course everyone should always make sure that the other party is in agreement, and that all sexual activity is mutually-agreed to, but sex agreed to in a state of blackout drunkenness between two strangers is very, very different from sex implicitly consented to while in a state of blackout drunkenness between a married couple.

EricaP rightly suggests that these people drink less, but I think that a woman who would see this incident as marital rape (whether this letter is fake or not, the attitude of the lw is real enough in enough women to bear discussing), rather than a regrettable experience for which she assumes some responsibility, and who furthermore would use that interpretation to justify divorcing her husband who by her own admission has done nothing like this in 6 years, needs a reality check.

Many years ago, my then-husband and I took a cruise. One night I drank so much that upon returning to our cabin, I fell down in our closet and passed out there. Upon waking (in the bed) in the morning, I became aware that we must have had sex the night before, but I had no memory of either the sex, getting undressed, or moving to the bed. I asked my husband, who confirmed that we'd indeed had sex, and that I had been an active participant, and had a full conversation with him afterward! We joked for a while about how "memorable" the sex must have been for me to forget it so entirely, but that's a classic blackout. FWIW, that was one of the only two blackouts of my life, and I'm generally a responsible drinker who rarely gets past the point of slightly tipsy. I can not imagine getting worked up about any part of that event except the immoderate-ness of my own drinking.

whether this letter is fake or not, the attitude of the lw is real enough in enough women to bear discussing

That's the thing. I don't believe it is, which is exactly why the letter smelled so off to me. If it wasn't a fake, I have to think there was far, far more to the story, and that these two incidents were only the tip of the iceberg. Otherwise it just makes no damn sense, even if you postulate various unpleasant things about the LW. However, the LW *did* have a point that her husband broke a previous agreement, and to that extent consent was compromised.

I will admit to having a knee-jerk "My God, no," reaction to "consent is generally implied by marriage." I certainly think married couples are apt to employ shorthand ways of expressing consent, but honestly, anyone who's been married years and years who doesn't always know whether their partner is consenting is Doing It Wrong. If nothing else, it implies such lousy sex.

@Eirene,
The issue in this letter isn't that the boyfriend/husband failed to get consent from his girlfriend/wife, but that she gave him her consent while in a blackout ("liked it and went along, only to wake up in the morning and remember only half of it.") I agree that consent obtained from someone who is too drunk to be fully aware of what she's agreeing to, if it happens between strangers or acquaintances is either suggestive of mutual bad-decision-making (at its most optimistic) or a jerk taking advantage of a woman's incapacitation (at its more reprehensible) or a villain engineering a situation which he can use to his unscrupulous advantage (at its most sinister). I would call both the second and third scenario rape.

But yes, marriage does imply a state of mutual consent unless consent is explicitly denied (thus, "not tonight, I have a headache," rather than "honey, is it okay if I do this?") And a woman who gives her consent to her husband by "going along with" sex when she is drunk, then wakes up and doesn't remember the sex thoroughly, then decides that it must be rape and she needs to leave the marriage, is either leaving out a lot of relevant information in a letter (unless the letter is a hoax), or is trying to shift her guilt and embarrassment at having drunk to the point of blackout onto her husband.

But yes, marriage does imply a state of mutual consent unless consent is explicitly denied (thus, "not tonight, I have a headache," rather than "honey, is it okay if I do this?")

Oh, boloney. Why would you out of the blue say "Not tonight, I have a headache," if not to some kind of request? It might not be a verbal request, sure, but typically long-term couples have well understood signals of "I'm interested if you are."

@132: that's either 1 or 2. Lowering one's inhibitions may either mean "doing what one really wanted to do" or "doing what one wouldn't otherwise have chosen to do." Big difference.

@136: I do, actually. Your point?

125 Eirene-- I saw it as a progression. Your #3 is a man seeing that a woman is drunk and taking advantage of the situation where she's incapable of making a decision. I'd call that rape but would still note that he might have thought that not getting an implicit yes meant that it was O.K. In other words, he's a rapist, but I can understand where he might not know he was one. I can understand his being educated after the fact. My #4 took it a step further. In that one, there's malice in forethought. He knows he's raping her, and if he says otherwise, he's window dressing. Nocute said it better than I in 133.

Something else to throw into the mix: I understand young 20 somethings not knowing their limits when it comes to alcohol. If you're going to drink at all, you have to learn by testing how you personally react to how much alcohol. Some can handle a lot. Others can't handle much at all. But by the time you're married for 6 years, shouldn't you be past the point of not knowing how much you've had at a wine tasting? Haven't you figured out what the spit buckets are for?

Similarly, by the time you're married for 6 years, don't you pretty much know your partner's responses? Haven't you figured out what's meant by a particular sway of the hips or a move to another place in the bed? If she was really so drunk as to not be giving her consent, how would she get wet? I have to be consciously turned on for that to happen.

@134: Eirene, I don't think you understand what I mean by "implied consent within marriage." Of course, "not tonight, I have a headache" is in response to a request, whether verbal or not. The point is that unless that message (not tonight) is given (even non-verbally, with a rolling over and going to sleep in a definitive way), there is the presumption of consent. One doesn't generally wonder, within a marriage, 'what did that move of his mean? Is he interested?' And one can work on the assumption that a sexual advance will be welcomed unless it is shot down. That's the level of "implied consent" I'm talking about--as distinct from the scenario of two strangers or new acquaintances, especially when drinking is involved

@118

I also suspect that that letter is fake because it seems too perfect. It's set up to show that the LW clearly gave consent both times, and that the hubby even backed off immediately after she first said "no." Maybe it's real but I wouldn't be surprised if it's a setup.

What is the point of the fake? What is Prudie being set up for?

"Implied consent within the context of marriage" means that if he walks up behind you at the bathroom sink, nibbles your earlobe and fondles your boobs, and your response is to file sexual assault charges, he should divorce your ass, because you apparently can't tell the difference between the man you love and a complete stranger off the street.

@133: The way I see it, the problem is that she doesn't regard non-verbal consent to be valid when she is drunk, though it's apparently just fine when she is sober. Her deal with her husband is that he should feel free to approach her even when drunk, but he needs to explicitly ask for verbal consent. In my opinion, this is stupid and arbitrary. First, if she feels she is too drunk to just climb on top of him and start grinding, isn't she too drunk to say "Yes, let's" and then climb on top of him? Second, it's a stupid, arbitrary hypocritical game of Simon Says. In essence, I get to do whatever I want, and even enjoy myself doing it, but then put all the blame on you and call you a rapist after the fact because you didn't punctiliously follow a bunch of rules that I don't subject myself to.

134: That "request" can take many forms - meaning non-verbal approaches. If after six years of marriage you still insist that your husband needs to actually ask "May I?" before putting his hands on you, perhaps you shouldn't be married.

Crinoline@138: but your scenario was one person getting the other drunk enough to make a decision they'd likely regret -- not passed-out drunk, and not so drunk they couldn't go through the form of consent. I put that between 2 and 3, as basically 2-plus-intent. I also don't think there is any excuse whatsoever for 3; it's heinous whether planned or not, though obviously if planned that would be still worse. Re lubrication: that's incredibly variable from one woman to another. Lots of women, especially around ovulation, frequently have enough natural lube to be going on with even if they're not wildly aroused. Lots do far better with added lube even at the best of times.

nocutename@139: The point is that unless that message (not tonight) is given (even non-verbally, with a rolling over and going to sleep in a definitive way), there is the presumption of consent. One doesn't generally wonder, within a marriage, 'what did that move of his mean? Is he interested?'

I don't get the connection between your first and second sentence. To me it seems that a presumption of consent would imply that under some circumstances NO communication is necessary, that you can just start the proceedings, like being allowed to nudge the other person when they snore. And no, I don't think my husband and I always know what a particular move implies, though we usually do -- neither of us being mind readers, just knowing one another pretty well.

@141: the point would be to get Prudie defending various elements of rape culture, as I addressed in 122.

@142,143 (avast2006): Yes! My points exactly.

My successful and very reasonable head-giving technique improved substantially after over 15 years together when I finally watched my partner jerk himself off. My proverbial lightbulb exploded when I realized what his death-grip equivalent was and then incorporated it into my technique. He's very pleased, and he noticed the change. And tonight I applied something from the responses above. He is very thrilled tonight. Thanks all.

So to the LW who is asked to be creative: watch him jerk himself off. It may help. If not, tell him to keep fucking himself and you DTMFA.

TIWDIW, he's asking you to stick a finger or two up his asshole when you do your beej, but he's too chickenshit to come out and tell you. This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions. You're welcome.

OK, for all of those of you who are asking "if the genders were reversed, would you get mad at the woman for telling her hubby that he was bad at oral sex, but then not giving him a clue how to improve"? I can honestly say the answer is yes for me, thanks to a wonderful BF from years ago who politely but firmly insisted that I had to tell him what I liked (I hadn't complained, but I wasn't faking anything so he knew that I didn't come the first few times we had sex.) Well, I was reasonably young and awkward, but I finally stammered out a few suggestions, which he enthusiastically adopted. Magic!

Since then, I've never hesitated to give *diplomatic, polite* guidance to my partners.

Key words there being *diplomatic, polite*. Anyone who barks out criticism without any suggestions for improvement doesn't deserve a GGG partner...

avast, I hadn't picked up on that bit -- thought she had said not to approach her when drunk, period. But given that she has some trouble with gauging the appropriateness of her own responses while drunk, and ASKED for help with that, I don't think it's reprehensible that she asked him to be more careful about explicit verbal consent when she was drunk. I'm not sure it would work very well, and I'm not sure why under the circumstances anyone would have that problem anyway (yet another reason I don't think the letter sounds likely) but it wasn't an inherently terrible policy.

And didn't I just say over and over again that long-term couples do usually have nonverbal signals? You get no argument from me there. I'm just saying those signals do actually mean something. Though I wouldn't see any problem with saying "May I?", either. I'm sure plenty of people do, just as some couples say "Good morning" to each other and others don't bother saying a word until they've had coffee, and by then it seems silly to start with "Good morning."

142 is funny, but a straw man.

@149: (Sorry, working my way backwards up the thread. Maybe the Friday night beer is making me see hairs to split where there are none. Not even sure anymore what I thought was different.)

But 142, a straw man? Are you sure? Maybe in the abstract, sure. But the woman in the letter is apparently seriously thinking that she needs to divorce her husband because for the second time in six years, she willingly had sex while intoxicated with the man she knows and loves -- and she not only went along with it but enjoyed it -- but he raped her by failing to get her to say "yes" first, because enthusiastic participation is just not synonymous with actually uttering the word. Six years in and she still hasn't figured out that she loves sex with her husband, and that getting drunk is not the thing that would make her want to change her mind about that. She is so hung up on the idea that drunkenness invalidates consent, that she is treating willing drunk sex with her husband the same as if she had been roofied by a stranger. Apparently she can't tell the difference.

@150: Well, that's one reason why I thought the letter was a fake. I just can't imagine anyone I know ever acting like that. It makes no sense. Sounds as if we agree on that.

If you're looking for a response sans silliness, here:

One issue worth noting about the phrase "implied consent" is that it means different things in different contexts. In the context of driving, implied consent means that if an officer pulls you over for a sobriety test, you don't get to say no. The act of getting a license and driving on the public roads "implies" consent to that sobriety test. He gets to administer it without asking first, and resisting gets you penalties. Perhaps that is what squicks you out about "implied consent" in marriage: the idea that you don't get to say no.

That's NOT what it means in the context of marriage. (At least, not the part about not getting to say no.) In the case of marriage, it means that you have spent some time establishing a baseline of compatibility and willingness to engage in sex or other familiarities, such that you don't have to treat your partner with the same tight boundaries and deference as a stranger on the street. You've established a pact of familiarity that obviates the stranger-levels of polite distance.

In other words, you can come up behind your wife at the bathroom sink and affectionately squeeze her boobs and expect with full confidence to get a laugh and a kiss in return, rather than a hard slap and a summons to the magistrate, the way you would if you did it to someone on the bus.

Or you can initiate sex by making physical overtures, even when drunk, under the assumption that her baseline attitude of liking and wanting you sexually is not magically countermanded by the alcohol. And that her physical participation with you is at least as persuasive evidence of her consent as the word Yes would be. (Because it's not like she insists on saying Yes first when she isn't drunk.)

@151: Maybe fake, maybe not. I have heard entirely too many people argue the point quite adamantly that alcohol impairment precludes consent, period. They admit absolutely no concessions for relative sobriety level or other circumstances, and situations such as the letter writer's are the logical outcome.

@Eirene:
What really annoys me is the double-standard in the letter, fake or not.

He promised to ask for her verbal consent if she is drunk because she can't trust herself when drunk. He broke his promise when BOTH of them were drunk. Why is it that he has to shoulder the responsibility not only for his drunkeness, but also for hers?

That mind-set really gets me riled because it infantilises women: I am weak and too drunk to make a decision, but I trust you, big strong man, to make the right decision when you are just as drunk.

@avast @153:
I agree.

But people always make that point only for women: they are too drunk to consent even if they initiate.

No-one ever says it about men: "oh, yes, he made a pass at you but he was too drunk to know what he really wanted. You shouldn't have consented. Now he feels violated."

This whole mind-set feeds on the view that women are victims, and men are predators, and not fair to either sex.

@155 Isn't it because men too drunk to consent can't get enough of an erection to proceed into sex on their own ?

I've always been told that a really drunk man couldn't rape anybody. And that a drunk man can be raped by a woman, and feel legitimately violated afterwards - but not through PiV.

Would other posters, who have more experience of drunkenness and its effects on erection, care to comment ?

@155: yes, agreed. I was going to post something to that effect, but it was getting too long. No, nobody would say that about a man if a woman, even a sober woman, made a pass at poor drunk him and he took her up on it. They wouldn't call his ability to consent into question for one second. They'd just call him lucky, and they certainly wouldn't call her a predator, even though what she did was exactly what they would call "took advantage of the partner's inebriated state" if he were to do it.

The other facet of that argument is that men are supposed to be able to accurately judge the state of intoxication of the woman, and be held responsible as a rapist if he thought she was capable of consent but she recants the following day. Even if she did legitimately not remember what happened, people can be capable of surprising coherence in the moment. It's a wonder that men don't carry consent forms in triplicate and a Breathalyzer with them. But then the folks making this argument will often claim that any level of intoxication, even merely lowered inhibitions, constitutes fatal impairment of consent. As you note, this completely robs women of their sexual agency and infantilizes them. Do we need to raise the drinking age for women?

I can't tell whether the letter is some pundit trying to make that point by trying to pass off the logically unreasonable case as authentic in order to disprove it, or is she a genuine acolyte of that brand of extremism. Could go either way. But again, I have heard too many people defend this point of view in all seriousness, certainly enough to treat the letter as genuine for purposes of consideration.

@156: Not true, at least not universally - men can be perfectly capable of performing sexually even though they are too drunk to remember the following morning. Frat boy morning-after stories abound. ("Wait...I fucked WHO last night?!?")

@149, another angle: You mentioned her needing help with her responses while drunk. That's fine on general principles, with people in general. Thing is, this is her husband we're talking about. Presumably she is perfectly happy to fuck his brains out any day of the week. She knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that fucking him is entirely okay. I just don't see what it is about getting drunk that would suddenly make her all shy and demure with respect to him.

It's as if she is saying, "I only consented to that because I was drunk!! That wasn't real! There was no way I would ever consent to that if it wasn't for the booze!" This is, of course, nonsense. (If that was true, she married the wrong guy.) The reality is that she consents to sex, specifically with him, constantly and enthusiastically the rest of the time. This is the one guy in the whole world where it's basically okay to fuck him any damned time you feel like it, drunk, sober, anything. It's your husband -- you're allowed to get drunk and still want him.

Again, she seems to be applying the strict hypothetical case ("drunkenness precludes consent, period") in order to arbitrarily invalidate the consent that she happily grants the rest of the time. Since she is, according to the theory, incapable of consent while drunk, anything she does with him while drunk HAS to be rape, regardless of how much she enjoyed it or how actively she participated -- btw, this makes me wonder why a verbal "yes" while drunk is valid, but simply climbing on top of him while drunk isn't -- and regardless of the fact that she would consent in a heartbeat if sober.

In short, she has taken what used to be a reasonable set of principles and twisted them beyond recognition, and her husband is paying the price for her stupidity.

156- On the effects of drunkenness and erection--

Drink, Madam, is a great provoker of three things. Marry, nose-painting, sleep and urine. Lechery it provokes, and unprovokes; it provokes the desire, but it takes away the performance, therefore, much drink may be said to be an equivocator with lechery: it makes him, and it mars him; it sets him on, and it takes him off; it persuades him; and disheartens him; makes him stand to, and not stand to; in conclusion, equivocates him in a sleep, and giving the lie, leaves him.

In other words, lechery sometimes overcomes and gives him a bad performance rather than no performance at all. He shows up for his part, and the audience boos, rather than staying in the wings leaving them wanting to see the play.

@ sissou

Eh, depends on age/health/individual.

Alcohol affects everyone differently. Cortical inhibition and physical effects don't always correlate perfectly. So assuming a "sober" dick means a sober brain is not a safe assumption. Nor the reverse. For some people the body gets drunker (I'm like this, which is why I hate alcohol) and for some people the mind gets drunker (apparently this is common in young people especially).

It might only take a few drinks to take the wind out of a guy's sails if he's older, unfit, and smokes. But a younger, fitter, healthier guy might be blackout drunk and still able to get going. I know when I was into partying, my then-boyfriend was able to perform no matter what was in his system. Even the most infamous erection-killers seemed to have no effect at all.

Thanks, Crinoline. Shakespeare's English is pretty tough for me, though. So a drunken man could rape someone, but not for very long... good to know.

@161 thanks, mydriasis, your explanations have made it quite clear for me now.

@162 ...or maybe there are other males in the world besides yourself, who have a whole lot more nerve endings in their cock ?

Because if the only sensation that matters to you in a mouth is some sort of ring constriction, two fingers should get you off in no time. Your two fingers, of course. Good luck.

There is a distinction between a devotee and a fetishist. A dev simply has a "type" or preference, like height or hair color, for someone with an amputation or a disability, and goes through the regular process of meeting and falling in love. A fetishist does not develop a friendship with a person on a romantic level, but focuses entirely on the feature for sexual gratification. That is the scenario that is often open to manipulation and exploitation.

@162: There is a huge variety of ways to touch yourself that don't equate to a kitten lapping up milk, but if that's where your brain goes, don't blame me. (Sorry about the girlfriends, though. Maybe you should have given them better feedback.)

Two things: 1) Mostly it was an exercise in getting the suggestions flowing. "Try here" is a hell of a lot more helpful than "I dunno, be creative," and 2) a dick trained to Death Grip is not going to respond well to anything that can be done with a mouth. Mouths are capable of a lot, but jerking is not on the list. She's going to get TMJ trying to please that. (Same thing goes for pussies. This material has been covered before.)

As long as we are on the subject, though, why limit it to mouths? Handjobs are pretty awesome too. (again, stay away from Death Grip jerking. No variety there. Might as well do that yourself.) Vibrators aren't just for women, and it doesn't have to be penetration to feel really good.

Thing is, this is her husband we're talking about. Presumably she is perfectly happy to fuck his brains out any day of the week. She knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that fucking him is entirely okay. I just don't see what it is about getting drunk that would suddenly make her all shy and demure with respect to him.

As I said, it's not something that makes sense to me either, which is why I think she's a made-up parody of something from a women's studies class (a vibe Prudie got as well, though maybe not the "made-up" part). But she unequivocally DOES have the right to refuse him for WHATEVER reason, even one other people scratch their heads over. (Note: he has the right to think her reason is stupid, manipulative, unkind, whatever, and to protest for that or any reason, but not the right to override her, it being her body and all.)

Frankly, if he DID do something traumatic enough that she's still flashing back to it six years later, she probably SHOULDN'T have married him. It's just that the description of the first incident doesn't sound that bad, especially as they supposedly worked through it at the time. But the only way the scenario makes any sense to me at all (without postulating anything that's completely not in the letter) is as a PTSD thing.

Incidentally, while one's spouse is presumably the person in one's life one's said "yes" to the most often, aren't they usually also the person one's said "no" to the most often?

migrationist@155: But people always make that point only for women: they are too drunk to consent even if they initiate.

Er, no. Those who use gender-neutral phrasings in discussion of this issue get ignored by people who ASSUME everyone else always means "only for women." I didn't, and I'm pretty sure the woman I was quoting didn't.

@168, as we see in this thread, men are different, so the only solid rule for blow job givers is to figure out what the guy in front of you loves.

@168 In other words, not everyone loves deep throating as much as you do:

@22 In my experience the best BJ's I have ever got have nothing to do with deep throating.

@45 As for deep throating, it is overrated.

@76 I'm not a fan of deep-throating. It's a cool idea but doesn't feel like much.

@162: "but no one wants a bj from a kitten"

False.

My dick registers pretty much everything that a woman might do to it, from the tiniest teasing little kitty licks to a double-fisted handjob with roto-twisting action. Apparently your dick doesn't work that way. All I can say is, sorry, bro, you're missing out.

And, I literally got a bj a few months ago from a woman in a kitty costume. Lots of meowing, purring, licking, nuzzling, and crawling around. It was righteous.

@171
a) did you come from the licking & purring?
b) if not, do you call it a bj?

Genuinely curious here. What do other people think? If your partner goes down on you all the time but never long enough for you to orgasm, have you been getting lots of bjs or none at all?

@172: It takes quite a while, and the process drives me completely crazy in a good way, but I can come from light teasing licks focused on the right spot. I don't think purring alone would get me there, although it'd be a fun(ny) experiment. :-)

And to clarify, the bj @171 started out with all the teasing kitty stuff. Then kitty started getting mischievous (as kitties sometimes do), and it progressed into a bj by anyone's definition. I find that kind of progression much more enjoyable than just mouth-fucking from beginning to end.

sounds like a fun scene :-)

Some men find it easy to come from blowjobs, some don't, just like women with cunnilingus (assuming reasonably skillful partners either way). Some who don't come easily from oral sex still like it a lot as foreplay, some don't. See http://www.realadultsex.com/content/othe…

Hunter@173: what's wrong with scenario number one, where the people got drunk and did exactly what they wanted to do? For all you know that included any amount of awesome life-celebratory sex.

@119 EricaP: You nailed it!!!

@167: "But she unequivocally DOES have the right to refuse him for WHATEVER reason, even one other people scratch their heads over."

Agreed, absolutely. It's just that she _didn't_ refuse him. But then she wants to make it his fault that she didn't refuse him.

She was an active participant both times. (Well oksy, the first time she did eventually freak out and refuse him, but at first she was active.) Her reaction seems to be, "OMG! I said "Yes" (non-verbally) while I was drunk!! And you LET ME do it, you rapist bastard!!"

"he has the right to think her reason is stupid...but not the right to override her, it being her body and all."

Again agreed, it's just that he _didn't_ override her. What he did was fail to use his words. And she participated enthusiastically anyway. And that is somehow magically his fault.

The first time he probably had no idea, and was just doing what most people do: relying on non-verbal cues (being encouraged by her positive reactions, specifically, watching her take her own panties off and come back for more). And when she freaked out over what was happening, he _stopped._ The second time, he probably forgot to specifically ask because he was drunk, but also because she "liked it and went along with it." Sorry to repeat myself, but why exactly does verbally saying "Yes" while drunk constitute valid consent, but simply getting naked and actively participating is not valid? It's just totally illogical.

She wants to use the theory that people are incapable of consenting while drunk into a way to turn HER actions -- her enthusiastic participation -- into proof that her husband is a rapist. In my book, this is emotional abuse.

Clarification: maybe she doesn't _want_ to do that. But she seems so fixated on the idea, that she thinks she needs to divorce her husband as a rapist rather than admit that it's possible for her to want him and be a willing participant while drunk.

(And there is where I rejoin your opinion, that there is something distinctly PTSD about her emotional reaction. Is there some drunken episode in her past that she is fighting against in her mind? This reaction seems to have roots that predate even the first incident with her husband.)

re: deepthroating and the gag reflex (Erica and unregistered)

1. I think he meant that an overactive gag reflex prevents a good bj (in that it prevents more than just deep throating). I'd agree. Overactive is like "if I bruch my tongue with my toothbrush, I gag" which is pretty extreme but it does exist. That's going to really limit what you can do with a bj. You might still be able to please guys with a hair trigger but most guys will likely feel it's lacking (that's my guess, anyway).

2. Is deep throating overrated? Ummm maybe to some people but that's never been my experience. Most guys seem to like it but others totally lose their shit way beyond the typical vocalizations of oral.

3. Does the gag reflex serve a purpose? Are you joking?? Of course it does. It's there to prevent choking. Since unpleasant foods also induce gagging it's likely that it serves the secondary purpose of making it difficult to swallow unpleasant (therefore, probably unsafe) foods. Finally, (although this isn't really an intended purpose) a healthy gag reflex makes it possible to induce vomitting. And coming from someone who once (as a teenager) got a little carried away popping pills and was starting to feel an OD coming on... well let me tell you, trying in vain to poke around in your throat so that you can save yourself is quite the scary little experience! The 'no gag reflex' thing is great when you're giving head but it's not all sunshine and roses.

@171 seandr

Mrraww ?

Since you're into the kitty scene : what do you think of being scratched (lightly) in the back during sex ? Does it do anything to you ? I often have to fight my urges to scratch, and when I do my lover reacts strongly to it, but since he's not that talkative I wonder whether it's more delicious than painful or the contrary.

@181

Nobody has ever asked me to deep throat. It doesn't seem to be cultural here. Licking and sucking is.

@ sissou

No one's ever asked me either?

@182: If you are scratching me out of sexual arousal, it would turn me on.

If it's just misbehavior on your part, it might earn you a kitty spanking.

Hunter@183: there's nothing negative there, either. I could just as easily say that you have a weird attitude about admitting that people actually WANT to get laid -- what, they wouldn't want to if they weren't drunk? what kind of nonsense is that? That seems way more anti-pleasure than what I said. (Note: I don't think you actually think that -- but I could take that from your words as easily as you took your interpretation from mine -- or rather Cliff's.)

In so far as lowered inhibitions help people do what they really WANT to do, getting drunk is pleasant and fun. If you end up doing something you really didn't want to do, not so fun. I don't get what is odd about that attitude at all.

Oh, and incidentally, the woman who actually wrote that summing up is FAR more of a partier than I am. On another occasion, she put it a bit differently: see http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2010/05/m… where her first category is "1) Tipsy sex. This is where the woman is under the influence, but basically aware of herself; she might be a little sloppy and disihibited, but she's physically and mentally capable of saying "no" and she'll remember what happened. I'm fine with this, it's pretty normal and frankly sometimes kinda fun."

This sort of debate really devalues what rape actually is and honestly makes me really fucking angry.

@Eirene:

Aren't you contradicting yourself re being gender neutral:
@167, you say: "Er, no. Those who use gender-neutral phrasings in discussion of this issue get ignored by people who ASSUME everyone else always means "only for women." I didn't, and I'm pretty sure the woman I was quoting didn't."

And at @188 you quote : "where her first category is "1) Tipsy sex. This is where the woman is under the influence, but basically aware of herself; she might be a little sloppy and disihibited, but she's physically and mentally capable of saying "no" and she'll remember what happened. I'm fine with this, it's pretty normal and frankly sometimes kinda fun.""

@avast2006: I am getting a crush on you.

@EricaP: Your question of whether or not it counts as a blowjob if it doesn't end in orgasm is a very interesting one. I've heard men tell me that they never got blow jobs from their wives, which I interpreted to mean that their penises never went into their wives' mouths. But in one or two of those cases, follow-up questioning revealed that oral sex was part of what constituted foreplay in their marital experiences. So I wondered why they'd think that. Certainly, if a guy eats my pussy I consider that he's given me head, regardless of the ultimate outcome.

@steelcitywoman (189): I agree. But I've said my piece on this topic more than once.

189- Steelcity-- Would you tell us what rape really is? I'd like a consistent definition and one that's not based on different women's interpretations of the same action on the part of the man.

@ Crin

I think what's frustrating for steelcity (and myself) is the way the discourse on rape is going.

See, in my mind, rape means that both people (or all people, as the unfortunate case may be) know (not think/speculate/wonder) that it is a nonconsensual act.

That to me, is clear cut rape. It's not a matter of whether or not he or she resists or says "no" (if someone puts a gun to your head and says 'don't say a word' or covers your mouth in some way, we can safely assume that person knows it's not a consensual act) it's a matter of does the victim know that he/she does not want to be having sex (so not 'oh gee, I'm ambivilant but oh well') and the rapist knows that the victim does not want to engage in that act.

All of these "oh well I didn't say no because they didn't check in if it was okay" or the "tipsy sex" or the "I was too uncomfortable to say no because he's got a temper and I was afraid". These aren't clear cut. Are they bad? Yes. Do I personally consider them "rape"? No. Do they have to be called rape to be bad? No! And who came up with that binary garbage? That either it's rape(!) or it's acceptable.

The current progressive discourse on rape creates a situation where what can be deemed "rape" creeps in to all but the most protected and santized scenarios. The intent of this is to stop victim-blaming and allow women who've been truly violated from being dismissed (oh that wasn't rape therefore it wasn't bad) but it has the unintended consequence of hurting the credibility of a completely valid movement.

Why?

Because pretending a complex issue with shades of grey is a clear-cut black and white issue*

1. alienates people who care at all about truth/accuracy
2. can often offend people who have experienced the far end of the spectrum
3. can (for some) water down the meaning of words used to describe horrific acts

*See also: "my body, my choice"

@193 (mydriasis): Well said. I agree with you. I've been thinking of you a lot lately, as I've read a lot of things about the state of feminism. Just today, a friend of mine said

'"Feminist" means something different in so many ears, or is meant something different from so many mouths. I wish we had a word meaning "person believing that everyone should be free to fulfill whatever destiny or identity he/she chooses and enter into any kind of contract with any other person except where such choices impair the freedom of others."'

@ nocute

Some people like "humanist" for that, I think?

Though there are aspects of feminism I certainly do agree with, it's not enough for me to identify as one - especially with the current public perception.

As a side note, I had a look at that pervocracy blog that Eirene mentioned and found this quote in one of her "Cosmocking" posts.

How about "oh God this isn't what I wanted at all, but it's not like killing me and he seems into it and I don't want to start a lot of drama, so I'll think of England and hope he finishes up quick"? That's not exactly rape, but it's a close relative and sometimes precursor of rape, and at any rate it sure as hell isn't what sex should be.

@192/193, in my view, steelcity @189 is trolling.

No one in this thread has used the word "rape" to refer to anything ambiguous, except as discussing Prudie's letter-writer, and her bizarre use of the term. On Slog we have repeatedly hashed out that there is lots of unpleasant, high-pressure sex that is not rape. If anyone wants to claim that someone here on Slog is using the term "rape" to refer to ambiguous sex, please point out the particular post or posts.

@192 Mydriasis, Just for strict accuracy, any definition of rape also includes events where consent is not legally possible, whether or not the victim knows that he/she does not want to be having sex.

@196 (EricaP): Well, here at Slog we have repeatedly discussed the definition of rape and what we think constitutes it, and we have never come to consensus--which is okay. I doubt people will. But I don't understand what you mean by "trolling," in this context. Just because steelcity was unregistered? I think the Prudie discussion was an introduction to the topic of rape.

migrationist@190: my point was that gender-neutral descriptions, such as my first quotation from Cliff, were getting read as not gender-neutral. I never said that Cliff phrased every discussion in gender-neutral terms. My second quotation was from an entirely different context (earlier than the first, if it matters -- so if the difference actually represents any change in attitude, it was toward more gender neutrality).

mydriasis@193: there are a lot of cases where people know it wasn't consensual, but they talk themselves into thinking it wasn't rape ANYWAY. I think that's the point. See http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2012/02/w…

@ tachycardia

That's a legal definition, not my personal definition.

Where I live (gosh I'm giving so much away), age of consent for anal sex is 18. I did it when I was 17. Technically I was too young (therefore it was not "legally possible") to consent. Was it rape? Any sane person would probably say no. Was it legally rape? Stat rape, yes.

Do I think a birthday has a magic ability to turn rape into consensual sex? No. Do I think there is a point where even what appears to be consent isn't truly, legitimately consent? You bet your sweet ass I do. My point, again, is that pretending something is clear cut "duh, if she's under x years old you're a dirty pervert and it's rape, what do you not understand?" when it's absolutely not, is a problem. Equating my consensual (but not legally consensual) experience with someone grooming a toddler into 'consenting' to a sex act with his or her stepdad/grandparent/piano teacher/bus driver/etc etc etc is not in my best interests and it CERTAINLY isn't in the toddler's best interests.

That was kind of more my point.

P.S. you remember that scrubs episode with the guy that likes to answer himself questions and then answer them? Looks like I was shooting for that today. My apologies, I know it's kind of a dickish writing style and to be clear I totally respect your point of view.

@Eirene

Yeah, that's a well-documented and common phenom but how does it conflict with anything I said?

P.S. That link didn't work for me for some reason?

mydriasis@202: because I think some of the cases you're talking about are actually more like what I was talking about. Frequently the rapist knows perfectly well that the victim is just too scared to say no, for instance, and the victim eventually realizes that.

Not sure what happened with the link: it's http:// pervocracy. blogspot. com /2012/02/ why- i- didnt- just- call- cops. html with the spaces taken out.

TIWDIW, your husband is an ass. If this was a boyfriend of 6 months, he'd be a DTMFA candidate IMHO. Since it's your husband, it's worse. You're open to suggestions, and willing to do what it takes to please him, and he treats you like THAT?!! Isn't a spouse supposed to be supportive and caring? Where is the love and respect? If I were you, after that kind of feedback, I'd say "Surprise! I've decided to be creative and not give you any more head... ever. Enjoy!"

@203

Yeah I eventually found that post and read it. That's extremely clear-cut rape in my mind. She said no, he didn't listen. Very. Clearly. Rape.

She wasn't "too scared" to say no. She said no.

Situations where the victim is too scared to say no (like the one I mentioned as being an example of rape, gun to head, etc) are also rape.

@205: I wasn't arguing that Cliff's scenario was a "too scared to say no" thing. That was an example of someone starting out talking herself into thinking it wasn't rape, and then coming to a clearer understanding.

Also, you just included ""I was too uncomfortable to say no because he's got a temper and I was afraid"." in your examples of "These aren't clear cut. Are they bad? Yes. Do I personally consider them "rape"? No."

I used "too scared to say no" as a shorter version of that, and now you say "too scared to say no" is legitimately rape. That's pretty confusing. What difference do you see, other than wording?

@206, if a husband has a temper (that's a constant), and sometimes his wife enjoys sex with him, and sometimes she puts up with the sex because she doesn't want to anger him -- and those two situations look identical to him... then it's not rape. If a reasonable person can't tell if it's rape, then it's not rape. Doesn't mean everything is hunky dory. But it's not rape.

Now, a stranger puts a gun to your head and has sex with you without either of you ever saying a word... that is rape. Because a reasonable person can tell that you most likely were not interested in sex with this person and stayed quiet because of the gun

(Apologies for using 'you' rhetorically @207. I should know better, when discussing rape.)
Rephrased:
Now, a stranger puts a gun to someone's head and has sex without either person ever saying a word... that is rape. Because a reasonable outsider can tell that the gun intimidated the passive person into staying quiet and passive.

@198, I thought steelcitywoman was trolling because I thought our debate here was not about the ambiguities of consent but about why Prudie's LW had such a bizarre reaction to what was clearly not rape (as avast has pointed out).

But... re-reading more carefully, I see that people had indeed begun debating ambiguous cases. So I withdraw my accusation of trolling, with apologies.

@ Eirene

You don't see the difference between "someone is holding a gun to my head, they know I don't want this regardless of whether or not I say no explicitly" and "I'm making a prediction of what will happen if I say no that my partner isn't aware of and that is causing me to not say no"?

* Also thank you Erica for illustrating what I meant.

@207: where'd the husband come from? Mydriasis didn't say it was a husband/wife scenario. And honestly, domestic abuse is common enough that if I heard a woman say she didn't refuse sex with her partner due to being afraid of his temper, I'd darn well think she was afraid of being beaten up. In other words, not just what ordinary people think of as a hot temper AT ALL.

And you think the guy just wouldn't know that she was afraid of him? I really, really doubt that. If someone's routinely making other people afraid of their temper, they usually know damn well: they're feeding off that fear. Also, cf. what I said at 131.

I wasn't talking about the gun to the head scenario at all. I'm simply saying if I hear someone say they were too scared to say no, why would I not believe they had good reason to be afraid? Also, "I'm making a prediction of what will happen if I say no that my partner isn't aware of and that is causing me to not say no" seems to me to be a completely bizarre way to interpret "I was too uncomfortable to say no because he's got a temper and I was afraid." I have no idea how I was supposed to know you meant that.

@212, The husband/wife scenario was for the purpose of illustrating a point. I agree that the sex they're having when she is scared of him is not perfectly fine. It is definitely a problem. But it is not rape to have sex with your unhappy, scared, passive wife. It's not good, both people should get therapy... but it's not rape unless she says no and he uses some force (including the mere weight of his body) to continue anyway.

Eirene, are you saying that all sex between a (sometimes) violent husband and his (often) scared wife is rape? If she's on top, if she initiates (for fear of the bad mood he'll get into if she doesn't)... is that rape, in your view?

EricaP@215: I DID NOT BRING UP HUSBANDS AND WIVES.

Never said that you did. I was just interested in your opinion of that scenario. Apologies for offending you.

Sweet baby jesus!!!

Okay to me it seems clear cut that if you're having sex with someone because you're afraid of them* and they have a temper it's because you're making a prediction of their reaction to your "no". Unless they explicitly threaten you on that occaison (in which case it's essentially equivalent to a gun to the head).

How is that confusing?

P.S. what's wrong with Erica using Husbands/Wives to illustrate a point? It's just her wheelhouse (she's married) and they aren't some magical different form of sex partner that follows different rules than all other sex partners. At least not in terms of rape (thank god for that change).

* Yes, they might know that you're afraid of them, they might even know that your sexual decisions might be influenced by that fear in some cases but they don't know whether that is true for each individual situation. It's quite likely that one partner might be having sex out of fear while their partner doesn't know that's why they consented.

This is still bad. (Duh, it's an abusive relationship) But it isn't rape. Doesn't mean it's fair or good or ethical or ideal or nontraumatic sex. Which again, is my point. Acknowledging that consent/coersion/trauma are complex and not binary is not the same as "unless he uses violent force and you resist and verbally say no it's not a problem".