Women are, by definition, unable to take their drink

Remove all ads!

Thanks for clearing that up, Beren - it seemed odd at a first reading, but I think I get it now. It's not as revolutionary as I had originally assumed.

 

@Aldeth:

Exactly.

@Beren:

That's not so different from teachers and other school officials searching students when something is missing. They typically have students remove their clothing themselves, thought, sometimes including underwear, which actually may be even more traumatic, invasive and generally harmful than removing it for them. Same for what the police or other services do, but it's easily allowed in the name of looking for a couple of bucks. And if they do it wrong, it's still just improper search, no sex offence charges. I believe that's wrong and any officer who searches a cross-gender person without express allowance in the law should face obligatory sexual assault charges. Same for teachers, employers and others.

@Martaug:

I think a smart plaintiff's lawyer could come up with a nice emotional distress lawsuit in that case. But it would take a stupid man to want to have anything to do with that woman anymore.

Still, I believe anyone should have the right to have intercourse stop and not to go further. Continuing against the will of one of the participants doesn't differ too much from ordinary rape, although it's not the same as breaking through resistance in some violent way. Still, a high standard of "pull off" notice should be required. Something pretty much unequivocal.

@Aldeth:

Yes, I was going to say something about not pulling off fast enough.

I believe evidence of sex is not enough to sentence someone for rape. Imagine:

Prosecution: We have evidence of intercourse taking place on this and that day.
Defence: There was intercourse but it was consensual.
Prosecution: Oh really?

And you're cooked because you have no proof. Where's the allegation of innocence? They should also be able to prove the use of force. And it being difficult is no excuse. The accused should never be forced to prove anything and he should be able to walk away a free man if nothing is proved to him. The accuser's word isn't really proof enough, even if the accused looks like a thug or perv. Or both.

@NOG:

Hmmm... The last one you could get from consensual rough sex. Damn, in those cases, the guy is really screwed if she suddenly starts crying rape.

 

if she were to say that her attacker were wearing a condom or using lubricant to make it less painful for himself on forced entry most of those would not be present anyway, or present in only small amounts

 

Yet one more reason to save sex for marriage.

 

There have been cases of victims begging offenders to use condoms and courts interpreting that as consent to sex.

 

I never heard of that one before. What is the rationale of the court? That someone who doesn't want to have sex wouldn't ask someone to put a condom on? The idea that if rape is inevitable, that the victim at least doesn't want to get pregnant or risk contracting an STD doesn't enter as an alternative explanation?

 

Some kind of accepting the fact that rape will take place... leading the court to the conclusion that if it was accepted as such, then it wasn't coerced. But that's BS reasoning. Coming to terms with what's going to happen is far from consent yet.

I could agree that the kind of, "Well, I don't want it to happen but if it is, then let me at least enjoy the sex," thinking would be a sign of acceptance and no longer dissent. Morally, the victim couldn't really claim to have been raped. However, the offender would still have had bashed through someone's resistance at least in his own mind. That would be criminal, I think.

However, if the guy is less than well-mannered when asking sex from a stranger and she says "at least use a condom" and complies, I don't think that's rape. Even if she's scared inside.

 

Actually, there was a row about a single case a while ago in the US, but I believe it was struck down and the man was charged.

 

It appears that the British courts have decided that drunk women can consent to sex.

 

And that's why those judges are on the appellate court where, apparently, common sense does count for something.

 

I agree. As long as someone agrees to something, without being forced in any way, that someone should be held accountable for their actions, and not their opinions. Just to make it clear, alcohol is not a "force", and neither is persistent asking, by the man in this case.

 

If sleeping with a woman under the influence constituted rape, then lock most British men up right now. I'm glad that this bull**** decree has been put out to grass by a sensible judge and jury.

 

Not only was the law sexist, but I can also see how it could be easily abused. While I have never picked up a girl at a bar and had sex with her that same night, I can say that I have gone to bars with my girlfriend and that we later had sex. What happens if you get into a fight the next morning, are she says, "I'll get him."

I just don't see how this legislation would ever work. It seems even difficult to write the legislation to say it would rape if you deliberately got the woman drunk to have sex with her, because how would you measure that? I've bought a woman a drink at a bar before, so would that qualify as trying to get her drunk?

 

Agreed. Unless there is direct and malicious intent to get drunk a person who does not know the effect of alcohol, or lying about the alcohol content in a drink (you can't always tell and sometimes you trust the person).

Yes. The kind of volume that would make me make such stupid decisions would have knocked me over already. But some people lose their control sooner than they do their physical manoeuvrability. In a normal case, I would worry not about vitiated consent but about inability to communicate dissent.

As a rule, however, you shouldn't merely stop when there is no communication of dissent; you simply shouldn't start when there's no clear communication of consent. It should be different if the two people in question engage in sexual intercourse habitually, have occasionally done so, and when they have not yet before the first occurence while drunk. In the latter case, proceeding without clear communication of consent should be criminal unless the one who proceeds is also roaring drunk, meaning it's no longer a sober person having intercourse with a drunken one, but two drunks having sex with each other. If you see a drunken woman lying down and almost passed out, you don't ask if she will have sex with you; you just stay away. On the other hand, if she has the motoric ability to accost you or cooperate with you more or less actively, then she's sober enough to make her decisions - unless of course she was maliciously induced into that state by fraud (e.g. lying about alcohol content). Whoever lies about the content of alcohol in a drink he's giving a person he wants to have sex with, knowing that the person will not consent while sober, is already committing rape in his mind. It doesn't matter if he's using alcohol or illegal drugs.

(Disclaimer: Of course, this doesn't mean I've started accepting the legitimacy of premarital sex. )

 

Depends on what you mean by "legitimacy", doesn't it? I would like to hope you wouldn't challenge it's legality, for example.....