Women are, by definition, unable to take their drink

Remove all ads!

I think that person actually deserves to be punished. But if a drunk person indicates consent, then it's her own problem if what she really feels is dissent. It might be a good idea to outlaw having sex with drunk people, though. But then what with two drunk people? Would be like the two people under the age of consent having sex with each other problem.

 

This law seems absurd. Does this extend to your wife/long term girlfriend? What about those romantic candle-lit dinners you have in the privacy of your own home, break out a bottle of Pino Noir, she gets a little tipsy but you still have sex. Is that still going to be rape? Now think if she's ALSO your wife.

This law isn't about protecting women from men, it's from protecting women from personal responsibility. A man, when drunk is still 100% responsiable for all of his actions. This law removes said responsibility from women. Sure, there might be cases when a woman has been given a stronger drink but only a moron couldn't tell that it's stronger (maybe that's just the ex-barman in me coming out). What is the waiting period on this going to be? Is it going to be the same as normal rape - in some cases 5 years since being reported where there is no way of proving the girl was intoxicated... actually - beyond reasonable doubt.

This law simply won't work, the woman will have to PROVE she was drunk whereas the man can reply that she wasn't. You can't convict somebody in that situation since the entire law depends on the girl being drunk. If there is even a shred of doubt that she was drunk then the man can not be convicted unless there are obvious signs of 'forced entry'.

 

I don't disagree that they deserve to be punished; my point was that they are unlikely to be, since the majority of alleged rapists are not convicted.

Still, I'm often puzzled by the status of drunkenness in the law. After all, you're still responsible if you punch someone when you're drunk, but not if you have sex with them? I realise that this is emotional territory (and that one is more easily influenced when intoxicated than not). Even if you're drunk, though, I think people should still bear some responsibility for their actions unless their intoxication was induced and not voluntary (for example, by drink-spiking).

That isn't to say that it's their fault, or even mainly their fault - only that their actions have in some way contributed to what has happened. It still requires motivated offenders, and those offenders deserve much worse than they're likely to get.

 

I'm sorry, people need to be responsible for their actions, smashed out of their gourd or not. Mind you there is no excuse for getting someone to drunk to take advantage of them. Ultimately, I believe that law would be unenforceable however. Using force, threat, deception or incapacitation to get sex would all class as rape...

 

Exactly right, Abomination. That's the heart of what I was trying to say earlier - anything that reduces someone's legal responsibility for themselves is a way of making them a lesser citizen, IMO.

 

To add to what Beren said, in continental tradition, voluntary intoxication doesn't as a rule reduce responsibility. It may actually increase it, although it won't upgrade the charge. Persons who don't know the effect of alcohol are treated with more leniency, but that's probably first timers and not likely in all cases. Perhaps in some situations intoxication could be used as a partial defence but that would have to be considered individually.

I doubt the British law will survive international courts. Arbitrarily picking the man as the guilty one in an encounter between two drunken people is so obvious discrimination that it won't hold.

As for common law countries, I'm sometimes worried about the way evidence is treated in rape cases. Not like this doesn't apply elsewhere. It sucks that rape is so hard to prove but this doesn't mean that people should be put in jail to make someone feel better or I don't know what. Of course, having sex only with one's spouse would largely remove the problem and it's not like I'm a great fan of making it easier for people to have easy sex without obligations, but I don't enjoy the means in which it's done.

Perhaps mistaken belief of consent could be dropped in favour of perceived indication of consent? Or rather simply indication of consent, which is what some people do and then claim rape. Subjective fears don't really make coercion. However, in cases like, "Jump out of that dress, cutie," said by an umber hulk looking man, who later says he was just playing it rough or joking, while the woman says she was too terrified to refuse, I understand there might be doubt, even if he had genuinely meant it as a joke. I still don't think rape should be claimed if the self-perceived victim doesn't say no and there's no weapon menacing or fist waving or verbal threat and the person is responding.

Also, technically, if you force a person to have sex with you and the person thinks, "let's at least have some good screwing now and tell the police in the morning," it's still rape on the part of the offender, but I have a huge problem with the victim's attitude.

 

I'm of the general belief that unless the woman in no uncertain terms says "yes" then it is possible to proceed with the rape charge. However, with this law, it appears that the woman can say yes, and then later revoke the yes on the basis that she was drunk. That's what I have a problem with. Are guys supposed to carry around breathilizers to see what she blows (no pun intended) to determine if she is capable of consent?

Also, I'd like to reiterate what chev previously pointed out. I find it hard to believe that a woman who has never picked up a guy at a bar before is going to allow herself to go home and have sex with some guy she just met, just because she had too much to drink. Chances are, she's done that before, and only this time, she has a way out if she regrets it later on.

To me, a "yes" means yes, and it would require extraordinary circumstances to rescind a yes and prosecute for rape, and being drunk to me doesn't count as an extraordinary circumstance.

 

I'd just like to point out that, in America, as far as I know, intoxicated people are held fully liable for all offenses that are "readily forseeable". I.E. drunken driving cannot be defended against by the person not being responsable for their actions. They chose to get drunk and should have taken appropriate precautions, and this applies to men and women equally. I think having sex after getting drunk at a bar is pretty forseeable, and this (concerning alcohol specifically, not sex specifically) seems like a good standard. Of course if someone slips her something, or somehow fools her into drinking something really strong, then they are then responsable for everything that happens to her, even if she walks out and drives drunk.

On a side note, women (on average) can't take as much alcohol as men because they don't produce as much of the chemical used to break down alchohol in the body. Women can't get rid of alchohol as quickly, so it builds up in their systems faster.

 

Let me ask you a question, Aldeth. If the woman doesn't say yes but let's say helps you undress, puts her arms around your neck, initiates a form of contact above or apart from what you would normally be doing, isn't that consent?

I'm not talking about a situation where you stick a gun to her haid and tell her to be active. But I'm talking about those drunken situations and all.

However, if you, let's say, come across a drunken woman who is barely responding and take advantage of her, I'm not sure if it should be called rape, but I think it should be a sex crime. It's just different when she drinks and flirts with you, goes to your flat with the intent of having sex before drunkenness kicks in. That sort of stuff.

That would have to be a yes achieved by force or from a person unable to consent. A drunk person could be considered as such if you, let's say, walk in on your drunken friend and think ah-hah, let's convince her to some banging. But not when someone drinks with you and flirts and goes to your room.

 

Well, I never picked up a drunk woman at a bar, so I can't say for sure how I'd react to that situation, but, yeah, I'd imagine that would qualifiy as consent in no uncertain terms. So I guess I have to revise my previous statement when I said she actually has to say "yes".

And I'm agreeing with your point - I think. I'm saying in a situation you describe she shouldn't be able to accuse you of rape, and the non-consent because drunk arguement is entirely bogus. And I will say again - I have never seen alcohol in the course of a single evening, turn a virgin into a woman who would go home and have sex with someone she just met that night. Doesn't happen. If she goes back to your apartment, chances are you're just the latest guy, and she's just the latest woman. The only difference is now she has an out if she regrets it the next morning.

Obviously. I'm assuming that the only thing affecting her was alcohol - that she was in no way threatened, coerced, incapacitated, or in some way forcefully compelled into her actions.

 

So this law only applies if the girl complains... right? So if she has drunk sex and doesn't regret it the guy is in no trouble?

What if the girls are lesbian? Both are drunk and one regrets it? The other girl is charged with rape?

 

@ Rally:

I'm not sure I see the difference, Beren. In both instances, the intent to assault must be present - but I'm curious: how is assault defined in this instance? Does it include only violence, or "a measure of rougher-than-usual handling" (an appalling comment from former South Australian Justice Bollen in a rape-in-marriage case)? Or does it cover any kind of physical penetration/use of force? And if the latter is the case, am I right in assuming that if that occurs, then a verdict of guilty can be returned regardless of the intent of the accused?

I'm not baiting or playing devil's advocate; I am genuinely curious about the definitions (and could be entirely wrong about them). An accused whose conduct was violent, wilful or reckless, who ignores and/or subdues physical resistance, or that has sex with an insensibly drunk or comatose person has a case to answer; there's no question about that.

Actually, Abom, I think it's probably more of a problem if one of them isn't bisexual or lesbian.

 

north carolina recently(within the last 18 months) passed a new law that says that even after intercourse has commenced if the woman changes her mind and says no , you have to stop or it is rape. talk about come here,come here ,come here... go away,go away,goaway!

 

That I can actually understand. I can also understand that the guy has every right to be pissed, but either party can change their minds at any time.

 

I agree with NOG on this one actually. However, I can see how this can cause a problem. If she decides half way through to stop, and then claims rape even if you do stop, you may have a serious problem on your hands, as there's going to be evidence that you had sex with her, well, because you did have sex with her. Still, she has the right to decide half way through to change her mind, and if she does so, you have to stop.

 

Actually, I really don't think you'd have a problem if she cried rape when you stopped. What kind of rapist would get half way through and then leave her in peace (assuming you aren't doing S&M or something)? How would she explain that there's no trauma, no semen, and (probably) none of the vaginal bruising that accompanies forced entry?

 

Well, I have to be a little blunt here, and yet try to stay within forum rules. Let's just say that some people go more than once. If she stopped you half way through on the second go-around, there would be semen, and some people get a little rough, so there could be bruising.