Women are, by definition, unable to take their drink

Remove all ads!

It appears that the British government has determined that women who drink get horny and can't control themselves. Then the next morning realize they have been raped.

 

I have (techincally) one word in reply: Date rape.

Men, especially young men, bloody well should vbe reminded that "No" is not a hiden yes - it means NO, not "I just got to give her a few morte drinks" or "I just got to keep persuading her" or anything but no

Majority of rapes are not committed by strangers - it's friends, classmates, boyfriends... People who would never consider themselves to be rapists. But they do not realize that what they do can be and is rape in many cases.

Here is a very good "checklist" type of a questionnaire as to what precisely consent is when it comes to sex - and yes, I know it is posted in a feminist forum, but that was the fastest link i could find.

In short, making sure the activity is consensual = not so bloody obvious as people think.

 

Yes, date rape is a serious problem. Yes, men and women need to respect that "No" means "No."

But for the British government to take away anyone's right to say "Yes" based solely upon one's state of inebriation is patently absurd. Why, when rape is a crime that is usually committed by men, is it that WOMEN's rights are being abrogated?

 

The US has, for quite some time, laid a law that you cannot consent when drunk. Any guy who sleeps with an intoxicated woman is in danger of being nailed for rape (even if he was drunk himself, outdated laws and all).

Though most women won't use it, it's there. I remember being warned all through highschool and college about that little catch, could never understand how it was the guy's fault if they both got drunk and had sex and come morning she decided she wanted no part of it... oh well.

 

How would you prove that the woman was drunk at the time of sex? How could you enforce this? I mean, if she wakes up the next morning and claims she was raped, and the basis for the claim was that she had consented while drunk, how can she possibly prove she was drunk when she has sobered up the next morning? Sure, witnesses at the bar could claim they saw her leave with the guy and she looked drunk at the time, but the guy could claim that he waited to have sex until she sobered up. I cannot see how you can ever get beyond a he-said she-said case, and I would like to think that you can't convict someone on the basis of that.

Now, I'm not claiming that a woman cannot be raped while drunk - something like Arabwel suggests would be rape - if the guy is intentionally getting her drunk with the idea of sleeping with her, because he doesn't think she'll consent when sober, it may be rape. But if you go to a bar and ask a woman home with you and she says yes, then how the hell is that rape? If no means no, shouldn't yes mean yes?

 

The law is very traditional, it tends to be very sympathetic to women in that sort of situation (unless it was with a celebrity, in which case she's nothing more then a golddigger or such).

Generally all that is needed is a matching semen sample, as the jury is expecting the guy to claim she consented. Unless you can just destroy the woman's reputation, her word is rarely on trial. I.E. Mr. Kobe Bryant's trial was spent smearing the girl's reputation, Kobe claimed the sexual was consenual, but his lawyers where more interested in indirectly attacking her word, by attacking her morality.

The girl doesn't even need the... burtalizations that often come with forcible rape, as just because she didn't struggle doesn't mean she wanted to have sex, there may have been a reason she complied.

 

i look at it from a different view, and dont get me wrong i hate rapists and think that anyone who willfully rapes a woman should be strung up from the larger of their testicles.

consent is consent, ragardless of any other factors, if your incapable of handling your drink, dont drink, there is an age limit on alcohol for a reason, and after the age of 18 you are considered to be a mature adult who can handle the consequences of any of your actions. you cannot call rape to make yourself feel better or look better to your peers if you regret your actions from the night before.

influence can be taken from other contexts if you want to really beat the dog on this. theoretically a man can argue that he was unfit to give consent because a woman was so gorgeous that his hormones took control.

 

And what of a man being unable to handle his alcohol? Could he make the same allegation, or would he be laughed out of the courtroom? (One reason why I don't drink.)

In womanese:
Yes = No
Maybe = No
No = No
...
It's a funnier joke with respect to other subjects, like "can I go out with my buddies?" But in this case it only means that every woman has the right to arbitrarily change their minds and cry rape whenever they feel like it. Real rape is traumatic and horrible, but women who make false allegations dishonor those who have actually gone through such a horrendous experience.

This law is a joke, and not a very good one. As Shoshino says, if you've not the confidence in your judgement when drunk on such an important issue, then you might want to know and respect your limit. That said, a woman who sobers up at any point during the act and suddenly says no should be obeyed without question and with apologies. But she doesn't get to cry rape unless he continues over her objections.

The key word is 'no'. If she says it and means it, it's rape. If she says it and doesn't mean it, she's being a b**** and deserves to go unsatisfied when the guy leaves to play it safe. If she says yes, you can't blame the guy. If she's unable to say no or at least convey it, I'll f***ing gut the b******.

 

This is just a load of balls and hot air. It's never going to actually happen in any realistic situation, so it's not even worth debate.

 

@Ilmater's Suffering:

The lawyer in me rebels, really. It's a bad idea to be negligent in making sure the partner also wants it, granted. But a man can't be held criminally responsible because a woman was in an internal conflict or didn't want the act but nonetheless agreed without the use of force or threat. No means no but it must be a communicated no.

And I'm not defending men here. You know I'm against sex between unmarried persons.

@Ara:

Agreed. But women, especially young women, often enjoy the thrill of getting close to it but not yet there and fail to estimate their drinking stamina. Having sex with someone who isn't responding is rape. Mixing a drink more powerful than it appears or lying about the alcohol volume or effect is also rape in this case. But if it's regular drinks, each incident needs to be considered individually. If someone knows the effect of alcohol and isn't deceived about the volume of drinks he or she is getting, then having sex that otherwise wouldn't be had is simply putting out.

...And inducing a woman to put out is not rape. It's abominable, granted, but it's not rape. Isn't putting out bad, anyway?

That would be an excellent argument against premarital sex...

I agree with what you say and I believe that's a strong reason why people shouldn't be having sex unless with their own spouses and still giving a damn about the partner's feelings. But when a woman goes along with the act with no coercion on the part of the man, then it's not rape in the legal sense.

In the moral sense, I believe exerting pressure of any kind to obtain sex is wrong. Even for married people. Even the "show me you love me" kind of pressure. But you can't really put the whole blame on the man in such encounters. A woman who consents to sex in that kind of circumstances should come to terms with the fact she put out and now regrets it. Or that she was mistaken and the threat wasn't there.

It's not like sex is rape unless consent is communicated beyond error. Rape is when there is dissent or when consent is obtained by force or threat.

From the article:

That's how alcohol works. Especially on noobs.

If it works for her, it should work for him. In that kind of construct, I sense the idea that men want sex and are chief beneficients of it, while women graciously if somewhat reluctantly consent to give and are benefactors.

Here's the news: Sex takes two people. Women want sex. Some women want it more than some men.

What if a woman got a man drunk and had sex with him? I've known women who can't drink more than men and I know men who don't want sex with anything that moves. Would it be rape only if the girl were ugly?

Hey, what's creepy? Make sure there is no misunderstanding? Come on. However, playing accordingly in the absence of force is consent. Reasons may vary, as the enjoyment of the act, but there is consent. Of course, if she shivers under touch and doesn't return romantic or sexual gesture and shows no initiative of her own, then she's obviously conflicted and not comfortable, and should not be had sex with. And it would take a creepy guy to proceed.

But there's no rape if someone participates in the act, shows initiative and generally enjoys sex, even if he or she didn't want it with that exact person. Obtaining sex by force even from an otherwise willing person is still rape, but come on, dissent takes more than internally conflicted consent or uncommunicated internal opposition.

 

Uhm, I think it's encouraging women not to drink, cause you see, if law works by preventing, then reasonable guys won't hunt in bars and the like anymore because of the fear of being charged of rape.
Also, cunning girls could make very good use of this law, like when the police took compromising pictures of a married man with a prostitute (like in the movies!). It really opens up a wide set of new possibilities. That means it stinks! The only good thing is that it shows how people think, and that without external opinions groups can be really close-minded.
Now that I think of it, this law somehow proves that its makers (English society?) discriminate women. Why has to be women the ones that can't be drunk when it's obvious it's the males that are those who can't control themselves, drunk or not?
If anything, a law should restric them, not women.
Besides, I think this would restrict consume of alcohol by women too much for it to be approved...

 

Reducing the frequency of drunken sex wouldn't be bad, actually...

By the way, I forgot to mention that many women actually can't take their drink in which they aren't much diffrent from men. See any club for lots of groping and making out that wouldn't otherwise take place. I think a person without a couple of such episodes is a rare find.

 

We are moving towards this here in Sweden as well. Have been several cases where drunk women have had sex/been raped by someone and the man having sex/rapist was not convicted due to lack of evidence and the public outrage has been immense. As it is now it is impossible to convict a man for rape if there are no signs of violence and all they have to go on is the word of the woman. This is bad because I am sure some rapists will go free, the alternative is worse however imo and that is that any woman regretting having drunken sex for whatever reason can charge the man for rape and he will be convicted on the word of the wmoan alone. Even if they slept together and there are not a bruise on hte woman in question.

 

I'm not trying to say a man should be responsible to make sure his partner's sober (though I'm willing for him to get nailed if he ignored signs she was drugged). Rape cases just rely so heavily on empirical evidence, if she tells the police come morning she's been raped and they find your semen in her (assuming since when both people are drunk, typically A. no birth control is used or B. birth control is used improperly), you've already got one foot in the grave (if she's still got alcohol in the blood, you're really in trouble).

Technically, when you have two inhibited people having sex, they're both raping each other, but you're never going to get the court room to see things that way. The U.S. has always been more conservative then Europe and our legal system has always reflected that conservative protective nature towards women. The laws opperate under the social assumption that sexual activity is much more harmful to women then men.

 

I agree with what joacqin says.

@Ilmater's Suffering:

Hmm... Actually, this is off-topic, but I wonder how they collect sperm samples from you. Our police has been known to use prostitutes for this, but what if they accuse a devoted Catholic who won't masturbate? Obtaining such a sample by force would entail forcing ejaculation, which would already be a form of rape. Then again, they can probably just compare DNA or something.

I agree with that assumption. However, drunk sex could be planned and executed by a woman as well as a man. I don't think abusing someone's willingness to put out is rape in any circumstance in the legal sense. Morally it may be (morally, peer pressure is rape and therefore some large groups of people are collective rapists, so...), but legally not really.

 

Chev, that is collected from the sperm is DNA and that can be acquired via blood and other bodily fluids beyond semen.

 

The capability to degrade alcohol lies in mitochondria. Mitochondria comes from, only, the edd, i.e. your mother. (just your regular random useless biological fact from your onboard bio guy)

 

Uh, yeah they can just compare DNA. The 'criminal' sperm sample is collected from the woman's...erm, from the woman, and DNA from a suspect is as simple as a swab in the mouth. Using prostitutes for collection is simply unnecessary, and I wonder if perhaps your police using it isn't some sort of "benefit" to encourage participation.

While it's more likely that a woman will be harmed by forceful rape - i.e. the damage that can be done to the organs - an enthusiastic female rapist can "break" a man's penis. So it's not as one-sided as you may think. And the psychological damage is equal, based mostly on the individual's personality. Unless, of course, you want to argue that women are more fragile.

 

Hehe, for whatever reason, they seemed to need a sperm sample rather than DNA. Maybe it was cheaper?

I'm not saying the damage done by rape isn't equal for both genders but I think women are indeed more likely to suffer from erm... complications in their sex lives. But I don't like the one-sided approach to drunken sex. Rape becomes rape because of the offender proceeding without consent or achieving it by force. If the consent is half-hearted or in error, it's not rape. With that kind of law in place, you would go to jail for having sex with someone you aren't hot enough for the person is sober. Because you won't go to jail if she still likes you after sobering up. And a woman's right to pursue happiness doesn't include the option to put in jail all the guys she feels creepy for having sex with.

Besides, alcohol makes you more inclined to experiment, less inhibited, less demanding etc but it doesn't give you the very idea itself. It won't compel you to have sex with someone so completely against your wishes and desires if you're still able to perform the act in a more or less competent way. If you don't want to put out, no amount of alcohol will make you (unless we're talking about alcohol first timers or people with issues) and if someone not hot enough gets in your pants because you've had one drink too much to tell hot guys from ugly guys, then that's surely not rape. Same way a guy could accuse a woman for not being so hot when he's no longer roaring drunk.

[ March 15, 2006, 02:20: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Chev, please! You're ruining the fantasies of frat-boys everywhere!

Ahem...

I question how effective that change to the law will be in practice. If it doesn't do anything about the "genuine belief" or "genuine but mistaken belief" defences to rape, it's a useless amendment (as far as legal repercussions, at least).

It can be a difficult thing to infer consent in the absence of an outright "yes" or "no". If this law encourages people to assume that the default response is "no", then that's a good thing, because it reverses the original burden from proving resistance to proving consent. If someone's so wasted that they can't give a clear indication of consent or even string a few words together, a person should be wise or decent enough to know better than to proceed. If they aren't, then they deserve to be charged with rape - even though they may not be punished.

On a potentially less serious level, having fewer people wake up with hangovers and morning-after regrets that can have much graver repercussions can't be a bad thing, IMO.

Yes, I realise I am being gender-neutral, despite the fact that it's mostly male offenders and female victims. Both men and women can rape, both men and women can be (and are) raped, and it is not limited solely to heterosexual intercourse, either.