Blood Alcohol level to determine ability to consent? MOD Note in Post #1

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

One Eyed Jack can't get the idea out of his head that this is about sober men wanting to prey on "vulnerable" drunk women, as opposed to guys who recognise that for a lot of Irish people, the only real place they get to socialise with new people is in venues where drink is present as described in my previous post.

No Patrick, I'm well able to recognise that for a lot of people, thare are any number of opportunities for them to socialise, and there are any number of venues where they can socialise, and in the places where alcohol is present, they can be encouraged to drink responsibly (I also don't get the whole "pre-drinks" nonsense that's crept in lately?), and they can be encouraged to be responsible when it comes to sex, as in if someone is intoxicated or has other substances taken, it's generally not a good idea to have sex with them. That way, both men and women who want sex are going to have to be more responsible in their drinking habits, and they're going to make more of an effort to be sociable with each other, and they'll discover too that men and women aren't some alien species that need to be put on pedestals, etc.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

That's all a bit Theresa May. The BAC level for drunk driving is one or two drinks, and of course there is no way of knowing how many drinks were consumed.

With the BAC, there's no need to know how many drinks were consumed, that's the whole point of it.

For the most case, although your sordid view of life is nasty men outside nightclubs chasing near comotose women, this would criminalise a dinner date with some wine taken. Even for married couples or long term relationships because rape is rape and previously consent doesn't imply continuous consent. In theory all social drinkers could be criminalised.

My sordid view of life? Have you read the amount of shyte from some quarters suggesting that a qualification like this in the consent laws regarding rape would mean "spiteful, vindictive" women would have sex with guys so they could claim they were raped? Or that all those women who had sex with men "and then regretted it" would claim they were raped?

I think you may want to review how you define 'sordid'.

As for married couples, spousal rape laws already exist, and nobody suggested at the time that they would criminalise all husbands as rapists, or as one poster put it - "unconvicted rapists". In theory, no social drinkers could be criminalised, rapists could be criminalised is the point that you and other posters seem to consistently be missing.

In practice men will just shy away from feminists.

This proposal has got nothing to do with femininsm, jesus!

Honestly, is the idea of encouraging people not to have sex with people who cannot legally give consent so crazy and so abhorrent that the alternative is more palatable?

Actually, that might not be a bad idea if it encouraged immature men to keep to themselves, you might be on to something there - if a man is that afraid of women, then why would they ever want to have sex with them?

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

I'm having a few drinks with my wife at the moment. Better sleep in the spare room in case One Eyed Jack has me up in front of a Judge first thing Monday morning.

Appropriate username for your post at least. Look up the spousal rape laws. It wouldn't be up to me at all, it would be at the discretion of the DPP.

Rough Sleeper wrote: »

Just to point out where your reasoning falls down here, because you've been making this mistake from the start.

Obviously you're saying that this law is there to deal with people who rape intoxicated women. If there's an absolute standard with regards to blood-alcohol content then it would be very easy to prosecute genuine rapists.

So, in a vacuum, that sounds fair. But people are saying this law would be wide open to abuse. As there are a small minority of men who rape, there are a small minority of women who would abuse this law to vilify and criminalise men. And doing so would be facile with these new laws in place.

You're saying that this is tough luck, they knew the law and they should face the consequences. Deal with it.

But you're putting the cart before the horse here.

Before a law is enacted we should obviously explore the moral ramifications of its implementation. So before the legislators do anything you have to ask if it's reasonable for a man to be considered a rapist, the lowest of the low, if he had sex with a lucid women, which by all reasonable standards was consensual, but he had a blood-alcohol content over 0g/L. You can't use the radically altered definition of a rapist under your proposed law to justify radically altering the definition of a rapist. It's like saying that it's reasonable to bring in a law where you can be hanged for cycling on the footpath because if you were to cycle on the footpath when this law were in place it would be a hangable offence.

Your reasoning is completely circular.

Your logic is flawed and demonstrably so -

You cannot equate rape with a false allegation of rape. They come under two completely different legal statutes. One is rape, the other is the act of lying about being raped. If you're fond of analogies, try this one on for size - you're comparing apples and oranges.

I'm not altering the definition of a rapist by any stretch, this proposal is simply introducing a tangible metric by which consent can actually be measured, which does away with a lot of the grey area where a victim of rape has to prove they didn't consent to sex. That puts the victim on trial, and not the accused. The accused has the defence of reasonable belief, which covers a whole spectrum of vague definitions from tipsy to paralytic, and where the defence says the victim was lucid enough to consent, the prosecution has to prove that they weren't.

Slow sets? To 160 BPM sets by Carl Cox, was it? By '95 the second Summer of Love had happened, acid house had been and gone, hardcore was in full swing and trance was just around the corner. It's regarded as one of the most hedonistic times in modern history.

Reading this, I couldn't help but be reminded of the opening lines from the book "A Tale of Two Cities" -

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.

Written in 1859.

One of my other favorite novels is "The Picture of Dorian Gray", by Oscar Wilde, written in 1891. That was hedonism, and anyone who says the 90's are regarded as one of the most hedonistic times in modern history clearly has no idea what they're talking about. I presume you picked that up from somewhere else so I'm not going to lay the blame squarely on your shoulders, but jesus christ, I wouldn't go parading around the notion that the 90's were in any way, shape, or form one of the most hedonistic times in modern history.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Zero tolerance on anybody having sex with alcohol in their system??

Tell me One eyed Jack, why is it that you took issue when I inferred that you would see someone that had consumed three drinks over ninety minutes as being incapable of consent if you would actually initiate a "zero tolerance" policy? That makes zero sense. That's like saying: 'How dare you say I said I would have a problem with someone throwing three stones at my house' one minute and then the next minute saying 'I have a serious problem with anyone who throws so much as one stone at my house'.

I'm not defending something I never said. I never said that someone who consumed three drinks over ninety minutes would be incapable of consent. The rest seems to be something you came up with yourself. Good luck with that then.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Ha.. and this from the chap who suggests he has an egalitarian view to the proposed point of law. Pull the other one mate.

Egalitarian me hole. Seriously, you need to start reading what I write instead of coming up with stuff I never said, let alone even suggested. In fact, I think I was pretty damn clear about it -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'd also like to make absolutely clear one thing btw - I never said the law was gender neutral, nor would I ever want it to be. I happen to think that a gender blind judiciary or gender neutral laws would be an unmitigated clusterfcuk of a judicial system. Thankfully I'll be long dead and buried before we even get within a mile of such a system in this country.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

I didn't see anyone suggest there were hordes of women chomping at the bit to make false allegations of rape. Seen a few posts implying that had been said mind but you'll always get such hyperbole in these discussions as it's oft used as a tool to discredit those who have made arguments not so easy to retortable (is that even a word?). Tis classic deflection you see, but a highly effective one, has to be said.

So you did see it then? Ok, I'll let you have the semantics ball if it keeps you amused.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

With regards to false rape allegations: if you instill in people that they are unable to truly consent to sex when they have been drinking (so much as a snifter according to OEJ) then they will inevitably begin to see themselves as victims whenever they regret sexual encounters they have had whilst under the influence. 'Oh my God, I can't believe I.. wait a minute, the law says I was unable to consent, how dare that man do those shameful things to me'.

Once again, with feeling this time -

I'm not defending something I never said. The rest seems to be something you came up with yourself. Good luck with that then.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Many rape allegations (both false and geuine) don't even get as far as a court because there is not enough evidence and so it's a given that if there was a BAC count in any way similar to that of drink driving, that would deem a person incapable of consenting to sex, the numbers would sky rocket. It's common sense. It's not about women waiting in the wings to make false allegations, it's about, as the article I posted earlier the thread suggests, treating women like children. You treat people like children long enough and sure enough they will start acting like them.

Aaaaand, once again -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There's been a quite a bit of accusations levelled at these proposals that they would criminalise men and treat women like children, but if those same people don't want to be treated like criminals, and they don't want to be treated like children, then the solution to that too is simple - don't behave like criminals, and don't behave like children. It's actually not that difficult, and it is the essence of personal responsibility, and the vast, vast majority in society can manage that much, so why should anyone else expect to be held to a different standard because it might mean they might have to take some responsibility for their own behaviour?

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Oh my good sweet loving Lord Jesus.

I am NOT saying you specifi-fcuking-cally said that someone with three drinks over ninety minutes would be unable to consent. I said that because it was something that would defiantly but someone over the drink drive limit, which was something you suggested you would agree with the BAC with to consent being set at. And every single question I put to you where I use that example, you start whinging that you never said three drinks over ninty minutes. It beggars belief as you also say you would initiate a zero tolerance policy if you could so why are you even arguing this point?? Like I have said a few times now, it can only be to swerve the question I put to you.

Tell you what: go back over all the questions I posed to you where I mentions three drinks and then put a teaspoon. I mean, seeing as you have a zero tolerance policy, it shouldn't matter. I shall look forward to answering all my swerved questions.

Ahh right, I see where you're coming from now. Again, I thought the use of the word I was self-explanatory there, as in I would initiate a zero-tolerance policy on people who were intoxicated being able to consent to sexual activity. That doesn't mean of course that I would expect that such a policy would realistically be implemented in law, merely that it would be my suggestion.

(for the purposes of context, we're not talking about marriages here or any other scenarios, simply the two strangers meeting in a club scenario. Let's at least try and keep this one between the goalposts to avoid any further hyperbole or confusion)

Heavens to Murgatroyd...

I was referring to this line, from your post:



I presumed by using to words people and anyone you were coming at this from an egalitarian point of view and your 'zero tolerance policy' would be extended to men shagging women, men shagging men, women women, etc etc but I stand corrected and shall from this point on never dare to imply that you hold egalitarian views in this regard. Sexist and chauvinistic it is.

Ah, right. Sexist and chauvinistic it is indeed. I'd hate anyone to think I could ever be feminist, or egalitarian for that matter. I wouln't hold it against people for identifying as feminist or egalitarian, but it adds no particular weight or value to their opinions as far as I'm concerned. It's the equivalent of "as a parent", like that gives their opinion any extra credibility. It doesn't.

Hypothetical scenario here, to those who support laws like this.
If I'm completely and utterly off my face locked but still conscious and perfectly coherent, and I walk up to someone on Grafton Street, give them €100 and say something like "here, I don't need this, I'm feeling generous" or whatever.

We can argue about whether the stranger accepting the gift is a w@nker or not, but would everyone agree that accusing him of robbing me the next morning is completely ludicrous?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Hypothetical scenario here, to those who support laws like this.
If I'm completely and utterly off my face locked but still conscious and perfectly coherent, and I walk up to someone on Grafton Street, give them €100 and say something like "here, I don't need this, I'm feeling generous" or whatever.

You can be one or the other extreme, you can't be both, and that's the problem with subjective standards like "off my face locked" and "conscious and perfectly coherent". An arbitrary standard metric would determine pretty quickly whether you were or were not legally incapacitated.

We can argue about whether the stranger accepting the gift is a w@nker or not, but would everyone agree that accusing him of robbing me the next morning is completely ludicrous?

I really don't know what kind of comparison you're trying to draw here, but then that's probably because I don't place any particular value on money anyway, I'm a bit of a philanthropist that way.

My wife however doesn't share my philanthropist sentiment and so I prefer to leave the finances to her. That way she can deal with the headaches that come with such responsibility. It works for her, and it works great for me. If I were given responsibility for our finances, I'd be giving it all away.

There's a hell of a difference between that though, and sex, so for example if said stranger on Grafton Street coerced you into giving him a blow job in your inebriated state, then he would be a scumbag, as you would be in no condition to consent if the zero tolerance standard were introduced.

If said stranger raped you in your inebriated state, would you still be of the opinion that his behavior was your responsibility?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As for married couples, spousal rape laws already exist, and nobody suggested at the time that they would criminalise all husbands as rapists, or as one poster put it - "unconvicted rapists". In theory, no social drinkers could be criminalised, rapists could be criminalised is the point that you and other posters seem to consistently be missing.

In practice, all social drinkers having sex are committing a criminal act and one need only say the word and it becomes a criminal conviction.

Your logic is flawed and demonstrably so -

You cannot equate rape with a false allegation of rape. They come under two completely different legal statutes. One is rape, the other is the act of lying about being raped. If you're fond of analogies, try this one on for size - you're comparing apples and oranges.

Where did I say anything about false rape allegations? Under your proposed law any claims of rape are legitimate if the person making ther claim had any alcohol in their system.

There are men who steal, men who rape, men who kill, men (and, to a lesser extent, women) who do all three - so is it that much of a stretch to assume that there would be some men out there who would abuse this extremely exploitable law for their own ends?

Consider the scenario - I'll put it in bullet point thingies so you can stop me if I'm misrepresenting you at any point

- a man invites a woman over to his house to "chill and watch Netflix"
- the woman knows this is an invitation to come over and have sex, which she's down with
- the man and woman have a small amount of alcohol, enough to make them slightly tipsy
- they both give verbal consent and have sex
- the man goes to the Guards, says he's been raped
- black-and-white outcome, the woman is clearly a rapist

Rape is rightly considered an abhorrent crime, not far below murder and on a level with in the eyes of some. Can you think of a single other serious crime where the burden of proof required to secure a conviction is so abysmally low? If your friend gave you a lift when you had a pint in you do you think it would be OK that he could be done for kidknap, because it might make it easier to secure convictions in abduction cases?

Even if it made it easier to secure a conviction in the case of what would currently be considered a "genuine" rape, I think the vast majority of people would need serious convincing that it's alright to land someone with a very serious conviction over what most would consider an apparently trivial matter. And again, your argument seems to be that it's alright to bring in this law because once it's in place they'd be committing a crime and it's their own fault for doing so. It's absurd.

I'm not altering the definition of a rapist by any stretch

Under current law, the woman in the scenario above is not a rapist. Under your proposed law/social engineering scheme, the woman is a rapist. What does that say to you about the definition of rape?

this proposal is simply introducing a tangible metric by which consent can actually be measured, which does away with a lot of the grey area where a victim of rape has to prove they didn't consent to sex.

You are making the grave error of equating a simple solution with a good one. I won't insult your imagination by coming up with solutions to complex problems that are both simple and ridiculous.


I really don't know if you actually believe half of what your posting. Ten years ago I would have assumed that you were proposing some sort of thought experiment, the reason for which would be revealed in due course. But since then I've come to realise that there are actually people out there who think that the world is ruled by a race of alien lizard people, and the NWO use commerical airliners to spread mind-altering for some unknown yet sinister end. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with the the esoteric thought experiment thing.

Reading this, I couldn't help but be reminded of the opening lines from the book "A Tale of Two Cities" -



Written in 1859.

One of my other favorite novels is "The Picture of Dorian Gray", by Oscar Wilde, written in 1891. That was hedonism, and anyone who says the 90's are regarded as one of the most hedonistic times in modern history clearly has no idea what they're talking about. I presume you picked that up from somewhere else so I'm not going to lay the blame squarely on your shoulders, but jesus christ, I wouldn't go parading around the notion that the 90's were in any way, shape, or form one of the most hedonistic times in modern history.

I'm sure you know what you're on about, but I can't hear you over the sound of Ultimate Slow Dance Sets 93 - 97 (come to think of it, is that a really obtuse way of referring to trip-hop?).

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Lol. Sure you would. I'm sure your were destitute going into that marriage and the only thing holding you back from being a Tibetan monk is your family. Oh if only you could've given it all away before you were trapped into marriage. Maybe you were drunk.

I'd hate to give you the opportunity of suggesting I was 'virtue signalling' again, so I won't. I'll leave you to your ill informed judgements and I'll address what little of your post is actually on topic -

Eugene Norman wrote: »

You come across as both self righteous and self delusional. And your arguments presume the conclusion (you always describe drunken sex as "rape" when that is what needs to be proven).

Whatever about the first sentence, the second sentence is definitely incorrect -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I haven't missed the point of it at all then in that case. I'm well aware of the potential consequences, as should everyone who should be encouraged to think about what they may be letting themselves in for before they think drunken sex seems like a good idea at the time.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't think they're at all related. One situation is someone regretting sex. The other is where they have been raped, and if someone commits rape, and they are found by a Court of Law to have committed rape, then they should expect to have sanctions imposed upon them.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nope, they should only be labelled criminals if it is proven in a Court of Law that they committed rape following an allegation of rape made by a complainant. Otherwise, by all means play on, your own business and all that. You're an adult after all, so you're capable of making the choice to have sex while drunk. If someone feels that you have committed rape against them however, and makes an allegation of rape against you, that too is your own business, and if you're telling me to butt out now, then it stands to reason that you shouldn't expect I would have any sympathy for you having put yourself in that position where you were aware of the possible consequences.

....

Nobody's criminalising consensual behaviour that happens hundreds of times every weekend, it's the non-consensual behaviour needs to be criminalised that doesn't happen hundreds of times every weekend. I'd prefer if the law wasn't necessary at all tbh, but because drunken sex is always messy, and because people see their behaviour as completely justifiable, then the law is necessary to indicate where the line has to be drawn.

I presume I don't need to post any more examples of where I am able to differentiate between drunken sex and rape?

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Like all puritans it's not enough for you to live a dull life (which is fine I do so myself) but the fear of the Puritan is that somewhere someone is having fun and must be legislated against. The laws you want would proscribe sexual activity even in long term relationships, after a few drinks, and if strict liability is applied some curtain twitcher will be able to shop his neighbours if he suspects them of having sex after a glass or two of wine. Regardless of their consent, suspicion of drunkeness would jail one of them.

Just because you admit to being a putitan, don't assume anyone who doesn't fcuk drunk girls is a puritan. Someone somewhere who is in no capacity to consent to sex isn't having a lot of fun as you put it if they are not free to give consent. See Patrick's earlier example of the "off his face but coherent" dichotomous position. A defence legal counsel would argue Patrick was coherent and consensual to having sex. The prosecution would then have to prove that Patrick was off his face and in no condition to consent.

The rest of that paragraph is just knee-jerking nonsense as a person has to make a complaint of rape before their ability to consent even comes into question.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

A week or two after the state stopped disallowing gay marriages, two decades after it stopped same sex consensual intercourse (based on spurious moral arguments) you want the State to criminalise all sex except stone cold sober sex based on equally spurious moral arguments about the supposed harm to society of Jack and Jill trying it on after a glass of wine or two, quietly drank at home on their own time.

In case you missed it the... actually numerous times now -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nobody's criminalising consensual behaviour that happens hundreds of times every weekend, it's the non-consensual behaviour needs to be criminalised that doesn't happen hundreds of times every weekend. I'd prefer if the law wasn't necessary at all tbh, but because drunken sex is always messy, and because people see their behaviour as completely justifiable, then the law is necessary to indicate where the line has to be drawn.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

The totalitarians are always with us, they just change their spots every generation.

The self-entitled in every generation never change their spots.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

This is an insane argument on two fronts.

1) it doesn't matter if you think the limit you suggest isn't going become law, you are still arguing for that limit on a discussion thread. Therefore of course people are going to argue against that. Furthermore why would we assume that you didn't think your insane suggestion wouldn't become law? If somebody comes on here and says "skangers should be sterilised" he doesn't get to worm away from that argument by saying "that my opinion but I don't think it could become law, stop picking on me". And you believe that this limit should be law, even if you don't expect it to become law. If you want the law then that's your position. That's what you are arguing for. Regardless of what you expect to happen.

I haven't argued anything. I've offered my opinion as part of a discussion. When I want to actually argue something, it won't be on Boards, it'll be in a place where the discussion may actually influence policy. I've never, ever once said to anyone "stop picking on me", I leave that to the self-entitled types that don't want to hear that having sex with people who are in no position to give consent is a bad idea. Says much more about their attitude than it does mine really, they'll be the same people then that expect sympathy when things go tits up for them. I was never one to say "I fcuking told you so", but I sure as hell won't be reaching for the tea and biscuits.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

2) any possible future law really isn't going to (re)distinguish between marriage, long term relationships and casual sex when it comes to rape. Consent was assumed in marriage but feminists argued against that, correctly. Any subsequent redefinition of rape will apply to marriage, as much as any other sexual relationship.

You really are struggling with a very simple concept -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Rape isn't being redefined. Consent is being defined, because for far too long it's been a grey area in sex offence legislation. The new proposals are by no means perfect, but that's all they are at the moment - proposals, which require further discussion. That's why I'm not getting my knickers in a twist about this proposal, because I would support it, but it appears that quite a good many people wouldn't. I imagine more people again don't particularly care either way.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

The problem here isn't us. It's you not understanding your own dumb position and crying "hyperbole" and "shifting of goal posts" when the logic of your position is pointed out to you.

Well Eugene if your contributions just now aren't good examples of hyperbole, I think you're going to have to revise how you define hyperbole, and if your previous effort isn't an example of "shifting the goalposts" with very little on topic of consent, then I'm not sure your ideas of logic are very much up to scratch either. Instead of jumping to ill-informed conclusions, perhaps you could read what I wrote previously and then there wouldn't be any confusion about my position.