Alcohol, Consciousness, Rape and Consent

The Corinthian

Let me put forward three cases.

The first involves a woman, unconscious drunk, who then has sex (or sex is had with her) by a man:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-10883603

The second involves a male friend of mine who once went on the piss with his girlfriend. When they got home they began to have sex, with his girlfriend going on top and straddling him. Next think he knew it was morning and his girlfriend was cold towards him. Eventually she told him that shortly after she got on top he let out a snore - he was out cold. So she finished herself off on him and went to sleep. Before anyone asks, yes this is physically possible.

The third case is a hypothetical scenario which takes the second and reverses the roles/genders.

Now, and IMO, the first case is rape. However, most would not see the second as rape (creepy, yes, but not rape). The third, oddly, I suspect more people would see as rape than the second.

So where do we draw the line in such scenarios? Once consent is given, must you remain capable of giving/revoking it thereafter until sex has ended? How much responsibility should someone who does end up having sex / being raped have given they were the one's who got drunk? Can alcohol affects our capacity to consent to sex even before unconsciousness - and if so at what point? And if so, can one retrospectively accuse one of rape the next morning?

Discuss.

I'd consider all three as rape. For me, the acceptance towards sex must be a conscious decision made by both parties. It cannot be assumed. Consent through conscious word or action must be there.

In regards to your second example, a friend told me of his first time having sex. He'd been playing around with a female friend when they were both 15. Just kissing, and touching. She was more experienced than he was, but hadn't had any for some time. She got horny and decided that she wanted the full deal. While he was protesting, and trying to push her off (she was rather larger and stronger than him), she unbuckled his trousers, did the grinding routine, and eventually got him ready enough for the rest of the sex. The thing that worried him the most though was there was no condom, and he didn't want to have a child. (which they didn't, although she later went around the school telling everyone that he got her pregnant.)

Now, he admitted that he didn't really want to have sex with her for his first time. Sure,. he was a boy and boys want sex, but he wasn't attracted to her. But as any guy knows its relatively easy to make a penis go erect. And due to her size, strength and being on top she had full control over the situation.

The belief that a woman can't rape a guy is unrealistic and unbelievably sexist. Unfortunately a lot of people still consider it to be so.

In regards to drink, for myself I hate having sex while drunk (or under any influence). And I avoid women that are drunk. Firstly, the consent issue, (because I've heard similar stories in college & on the media), and secondly the sex is usually pretty terrible.

metrovelvet

I would also consider all three being rape.

looksee

If two people get drunk together, why would you regard the person who was 'raped' (male or female) as somehow the victim because they were unconscious/incapable while the other person was not in control of his/her self either. Why would you 'forgive' drunkenness in one person but not in the other?

metrovelvet

Because one was unconcious?

Would you exempt someone who forced themselves on someone because they were drunk?

Would you exempt a driver who caused an accident because they were drunk?

Would you take seriously the statements, words, marriage proposals,oaths, dnr signatures of a person who was drunk?

The Corinthian

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd consider all three as rape. For me, the acceptance towards sex must be a conscious decision made by both parties. It cannot be assumed. Consent through conscious word or action must be there.

But the second and third cases included a conscious decision made by both parties - it's only afterwords, during coitus, that one lost consciousness. This is not to excuse or validate it, only to point out that you need to define why it is rape more accurately.

The belief that a woman can't rape a guy is unrealistic and unbelievably sexist. Unfortunately a lot of people still consider it to be so.

That is true, and certainly an angle for discussion.

metrovelvet wrote: »

I would also consider all three being rape.

Why? Give us your reasoning why all three qualify as rape.

looksee wrote: »

If two people get drunk together, why would you regard the person who was 'raped' (male or female) as somehow the victim because they were unconscious/incapable while the other person was not in control of his/her self either. Why would you 'forgive' drunkenness in one person but not in the other?

An interesting point. However, the reason would likely be that the person who was 'raped' is not even conscious and no longer in a position to give, withhold or revoke consent, while the person carrying out the 'rape', while drunk is still conscious and capable of such choices.

At the same time, alcohol, drugs and other such substances will affect one's capacity to be responsible for one's actions. Nonetheless, we are still held accountable for them in many cases. For example, one may choose to drive home drunk, then pass out at the wheel, causing an accident. Even though unconscious at the time of the accident, they are still held accountable for the choice made while conscious.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

But the second and third cases included a conscious decision made by both parties - it's only afterwords, during coitus, that one lost consciousness. This is not to excuse or validate it, only to point out that you need to define why it is rape more accurately.

That is true, and certainly an angle for discussion.

Why? Give us your reasoning why all three qualify as rape.

An interesting point. However, the reason would likely be that the person who was 'raped' is not even conscious and no longer in a position to give, withhold or revoke consent, while the person carrying out the 'rape', while drunk is still conscious and capable of such choices.

At the same time, alcohol, drugs and other such substances will affect one's capacity to be responsible for one's actions. Nonetheless, we are still held accountable for them in many cases. For example, one may choose to drive home drunk, then pass out at the wheel, causing an accident. Even though unconscious at the time of the accident, they are still held accountable for the choice made while conscious.

Because in the examples you gave none of them were concious.

In the second example, he started out concious, but once that stops so does consent. Besides which, in all fairness what kind of person keeps going on someone passed out. She may not know it he may not know it, but she did something wrong there.

drkpower

metrovelvet wrote: »

Because in the examples you gave none of them were concious.

In the second example, he started out concious, but once that stops so does consent. Besides which, in all fairness what kind of person keeps going on someone passed out. She may not know it he may not know it, but she did something wrong there.

It may be 'wrong' or 'icky' (it certainly is, in my view) but is it/should it be legal?

The question is whether and in what circumstances consent given before being incapacitated binds the person when incapacitated. Of course, people give consent in these circumstances all the time. A surgical procedure being the most obvious example. A person cannot revoke consent once anaesthetised and accepts this in the knowledge of their impending/likely incapacity. So moving back to the sex/rape question, is the consent given by one party in the knowledge of their impending/likely incapacity? Possible, but doubtful (unless s/he regularly passes out during sex, after alcohol). So that makes the consent non-binding in the event of incapacity, right? Maybe not.

Going back to a medical analogy, lets take a situation where someone gives consent to a procedure where it is not anticipated that they become incapacitated, but they subsequently become incapacitated. Does that bind the person? Can the doctor perform the procedure?

Lets take a couple of examples:
1. Patient consents to insertion of IV cannula; very shortly afterwards, within seconds, unexpectedly, they fall asleep?
2. Patient consents to vaginal examination; very shortly afterwards, within seconds, unexpectedly, they fall asleep?

My view on both of these is that while best practice would state that the doctor should wake the patient up and re-confirm consent, it is entirely legal to perfomr the procedure in both of these hypotheticals. Therefore, as a general rule, in the situations 2 & 3 described by the OP, I would not consider it to be rape. Of course, each factual set of circumstances is different (and is key).

metrovelvet

drkpower wrote: »

It may be 'wrong' or 'icky' (it certainly is, in my view) but is it/should it be legal?

The question is whether and in what circumstances consent given before being incapacitated binds the person when incapacitated. Of course, people give consent in these circumstances all the time. A surgical procedure being the most obvious example. A person cannot revoke consent once anaesthetised and accepts this in the knowledge of their impending/likely incapacity. So moving back to the sex/rape question, is the consent given by one party in the knowledge of their impending/likely incapacity? Possible, but doubtful (unless s/he regularly passes out during sex, after alcohol). So that makes the consent non-binding in the event of incapacity, right? Maybe not.

Going back to a medical analogy, lets take a situation where someone gives consent to a procedure where it is not anticipated that they become incapacitated, but they subsequently become incapacitated. Does that bind the person? Can the doctor perform the procedure?

Lets take a couple of examples:
1. Patient consents to insertion of IV cannula; very shortly afterwards, within seconds, unexpectedly, they fall asleep?
2. Patient consents to vaginal examination; very shortly afterwards, within seconds, unexpectedly, they fall asleep?

My view on both of these is that while best practice would state that the doctor should wake the patient up and re-confirm consent, it is entirely legal to perfomr the procedure in both of these hypotheticals. Therefore, as a general rule, in the situations 2 & 3 described by the OP, I would not consider it to be rape. Of course, each factual set of circumstances is different (and is key).

Ok. I passed out twice in grand central station. I had health insurance.

A cop carried me up the escalators and phoned an ambulence. I came to in the hospital.

The ambulence sent me a bill for 700 dollars. The insurance company sent me a check for 25 dollars to cover it.

I argued with EMS that because I was not concious, I did not consent or ask for their services so I should not be billed but I will give them what my health insurance company thinks their services was worth and they accepted that.

Note I was not drunk when I passed out.

As for some of your medical examples, isnt that why you have to sign health care proxy's? Ive had to sign them everytime ive been hospitalised.

Also you have to be careful with your terminology. There are different levels of being unconcious and concious sedation, asleep and passing out.

Wibbs

I've had women wake me up with some downstairs delight and even sex. I did not give my consent before they started, but it was implied by dint of the fact they were my sexual partner. Now if they tried that and I wasnt happy and asked them to stop and they didnt then that's different. I wouldnt see the last two as rape or anything like it. In the case of either gender.

metrovelvet

Wibbs wrote: »

I've had women wake me up with some downstairs delight and even sex. I did not give my consent before they started, but it was implied by dint of the fact they were my sexual partner. Now if they tried that and I wasnt happy and asked them to stop and they didnt then that's different. I wouldnt see the last two as rape or anything like it. In the case of either gender.

What if they weren't partners?

The Corinthian

The Corinthian wrote: »

But the second and third cases included a conscious decision made by both parties - it's only afterwords, during coitus, that one lost consciousness. This is not to excuse or validate it, only to point out that you need to define why it is rape more accurately.

Next think he knew it was morning and his girlfriend was cold towards him. Eventually she told him that shortly after she got on top he let out a snore - he was out cold. So she finished herself off on him and went to sleep.

However you stated that she was aware that he was out cold (unconscious). While they might have begun together, they sure as hell didn't progress through the middle and end together. Sex is a consensual action throughout the whole process...

Let me put it this way, if I was having sex with a woman (mutual consent), and pulled myself out, gagged her and then proceeded to have anal with her, would I be in the right to do so? The initial consent does not give permission for the whole experience.

Usually, consent is given in stages throughout the whole experience. In kissing, in the changing of positions, in the offering of toys, handcuffs etc. Consent is a continuous exercise both through word and gesture/action.

If one party is unconscious then how can true consent be given? Its like someone arguing that date rape drugs are acceptable since the girl has shown interest in the club/pub. Completely and utterly Horrible... imho.

looksee

metrovelvet wrote: »

Because one was unconcious?

Would you exempt someone who forced themselves on someone because they were drunk?

Would you exempt a driver who caused an accident because they were drunk?

Would you take seriously the statements, words, marriage proposals,oaths, dnr signatures of a person who was drunk?

I see what you are saying, but the drunk driving business is irrelevant here. I am saying that if two people get drunk together, knowing there is a possibility they may have sex, then it is arguable that they are equally responsible for the consequences.

This does not include situations where someone deliberately gets someone else drunk, or it is understood that they have no intention of having sex. Yes, I know they would be hard to prove, but its pretty difficult to prove what happened when someone cries rape in a situation where they say 'I met a guy at a bar and we had a few drinks, then we went back to his apartment and drank some more, and I know we were both pretty drunk but I don't remember what happened next except he raped me.'

I can't see (a) how that can be rape, it is just as likely to be consensual, and (b) why it matters that much, if you get that drunk, you accept the consequences, just as a drunk driver has to accept any consequences there may be.

metrovelvet

looksee wrote: »

I see what you are saying, but the drunk driving business is irrelevant here. I am saying that if two people get drunk together, knowing there is a possibility they may have sex, then it is arguable that they are equally responsible for the consequences.

This does not include situations where someone deliberately gets someone else drunk, or it is understood that they have no intention of having sex. Yes, I know they would be hard to prove, but its pretty difficult to prove what happened when someone cries rape in a situation where they say 'I met a guy at a bar and we had a few drinks, then we went back to his apartment and drank some more, and I know we were both pretty drunk but I don't remember what happened next except he raped me.'

I can't see (a) how that can be rape, it is just as likely to be consensual, and (b) why it matters that much, if you get that drunk, you accept the consequences, just as a drunk driver has to accept any consequences there may be.

Right. Ok that's a bit different and more ambiguous than lack of conciousness.

I wouldnt call that rape either.

ApeXaviour

The Corinthian, the latter two, while not average are not rape. Consent was given.

Klaz, the examples and analogies you gave are not relevant, those things require separate consent. If someone has consented to vaginal penetration, then falls asleep during it, why would consent for that specific act be suddenly retracted?

To give the closest example I can from personal experience, I've fallen asleep during massages... I consented to getting that massage (in some cases paid for it). To suggest the masseuse was then forcing a massage upon me against my will is IMHO wholly ridiculous. The natural logical step from that is that said person should be fired and possibly charged.

Rape is a strong word and it's unfair to those who were actually raped to belittle it with such minor incidences over semantics.

AFAIK in law a man cannot be physically raped by a woman as it requires penetration.

ApeXaviour

ApeXaviour wrote: »

Klaz, the examples and analogies you gave are not relevant, those things require separate consent. If someone has consented to vaginal penetration, then falls asleep during it, why would consent for that specific act be suddenly retracted?

Fair enough. I guess the examples were a fair bit out. Personally I follow the lines that consent must be conscious, and once that consciousness ends, then consent should be received before continuing.

Although I'll admit its never happened to me. I've never had a partner fall asleep during sex with me, nor I with them.

To give the closest example I can from personal experience, I've fallen asleep during massages... I consented to getting that massage (in some cases paid for it). To suggest the masseuse was then forcing a massage upon me against my will is IMHO wholly ridiculous. The natural logical step from that is that said person should be fired and possibly charged.

The difference being that with massage there is the expectation that you will fall asleep during it. I can't remember ever expecting to fall asleep during sex. Just as with any activity where you're expecting some degree of relaxation to be involved, there is also the expectation of the possibility of falling asleep. I've fallen asleep while getting my hair washed, but I was woken when it was time to cut my hair.

Rape is a strong word and it's unfair to those who were actually raped to belittle it with such minor incidences over semantics.

I don't see it as belittling. As with any word there are degrees of severity.

AFAIK in law a man cannot be physically raped by a woman as it requires penetration.

Then heterosexual men never have sex, since by your definition sex could only occur for the woman, or any male gay sex.

metrovelvet

Yes but in massage falling asleep is very much an acceptable possibility. Plus they are legally bound by all sorts of rules and regulations.

During sex it's not quite the same thing. For one thing the awake party can do things. I'll get sinister if you'll forgive me. For example, they can remove protection, take body samples, leave marks, do examinations. And in so doing while the unconcious party remains unconcious, not only denies them power of consent, but does not allow them to be a witness to the sex act of which they are a part.

Truley

metrovelvet wrote: »

Yes but in massage falling asleep is very much an acceptable possibility. Plus they are legally bound by all sorts of rules and regulations.

During sex it's not quite the same thing. For one thing the awake party can do things. I'll get sinister if you'll forgive me. For example, they can remove protection, take body samples, leave marks, do examinations. And in so doing while the unconcious party remains unconcious, not only denies them power of consent, but does not allow them to be a witness to the sex act of which they are a part.

Then there are cases whereby the conscious party is equally hammered, surely they could argue diminished responsibility too. They could say they were not in a condition to realise/understand the partner was passed out, and make an adequate judgement on it. Does it then boil down to a case of whoever was drunker/ first to pass out was the victim?

Then again there have been rape cases where the victim wasn't necessarily unconscious but semi-consicous, or fully aware during the act only to lose memory after. It's a very tough call to make, so to be honest I don't have a strong opinion on it.

ApeXaviour wrote: »

AFAIK in law a man cannot be physically raped by a woman as it requires penetration.

What about cases of female on male child abuse, for example the incest case in Roscommon whereby a mother was forcefully having sex with her underage son. Surely that would be considered rape?

vicecreamsundae

i wouldn't consider the second two scenarios rape.
consent is a very grey area when alcohol enters the occasion. but bearing in mind, in this scenario they are a couple in a sexual relationship, and both decided to have sex [although drunk at the time], i personally dont feel like "finishing" when the other person fell asleep is rape, in the same way that I don't feel like it's rape when a boyfriend wakes his girlfriend up with head, or vice versa. the context of their relationship makes a big difference, and of course all relationships are different -there are relationships where one of the partners would not be cool with that kind of thing, and in those cases the other partner should be aware of that, but from my experience i wouldnt consider it rape.

i do think consent while drunk is hugely problematic. there's just no failsafe way of telling how drunk someone is -sometimes a person might not seem drunk at all, but the next day will admit they remember absolutely nothing, and sometimes someone will seem really drunk, but actually know what they are doing. when one person is much more drunk than the other, it's easy to point the finger and say they took advantage of the other, but often both parties and drunk and it's impossible to say one person was responsible.

messy.

drkpower

metrovelvet wrote: »

Ok. I passed out twice in grand central station. I had health insurance.

A cop carried me up the escalators and phoned an ambulence. I came to in the hospital.

The ambulence sent me a bill for 700 dollars. The insurance company sent me a check for 25 dollars to cover it.

I argued with EMS that because I was not concious, I did not consent or ask for their services so I should not be billed but I will give them what my health insurance company thinks their services was worth and they accepted that.

Note I was not drunk when I passed out.

As for some of your medical examples, isnt that why you have to sign health care proxy's? Ive had to sign them everytime ive been hospitalised.

Also you have to be careful with your terminology. There are different levels of being unconcious and concious sedation, asleep and passing out.

Im not really sure hwat your USA story has to do with anything.
Similarly with 'health care proxies'.

My examples were of two clinical situations where a person gives verbal consent and then becomes incapacitated. Because that is directly analagous to the issue at hand.

As for my terminology, again, it is not apparent what point you are making. I have used the word 'incapacitated', which means 'lacking the capacity to' consent. That is obviously the appropriate terminology for this discussion.

Do you want to try again?

metrovelvet

drkpower wrote: »

Im not really sure hwat your USA story has to do with anything.
Similarly with 'health care proxies'.

My examples were of two clinical situations where a person gives verbal consent and then becomes incapacitated. Because that is directly analagous to the issue at hand.

As for my terminology, again, it is not apparent what point you are making. I have used the word 'incapacitated', which means 'lacking the capacity to' consent. That is obviously the appropriate terminology for this discussion.

Do you want to try again?

You gave two examples.

One was with anesthesia. I presume you meant general. Whenever I or my son had to go under GA, I had to sign consent forms. I was consenting to losing conciousness. Pretty clear.

In the second example you gave, where someone loses conciousness, hospitals are aware of this and that is why you have a healthcare proxy, a legal guardian to make medical decisions for you in the case of your incapacitation.

As far as i am aware, if you're in the middle of a rectal or vaginal exam and pass out they have to stop. And of course they will because that means something else is going on with your body that has to be looked at. If you have fainted they can wake you up. If you fell asleeo they can wake you up. If they cant wake you up then something is wrong.

Like the massage analogy, using the medical context is not apt because there are a ton of laws on what the practitioner can and cant do with a client's body.

drkpower

metrovelvet wrote: »

You gave two examples.

One was with anesthesia. I presume you meant general. Whenever I or my son had to go under GA, I had to sign consent forms. I was consenting to losing conciousness. Pretty clear..
In the second example you gave, where someone loses conciousness, hospitals are aware of this and that is why you have a healthcare proxy, a legal guardian to make medical decisions for you in the case of your incapacitation.

You might want to read my first post again. The anaesthesia analogy was one I explored but did not consider relevent to the issues at hand in this case. My latter two examples of unanticapated incapacity wer ethe analogies I considered relevent. Have another read.

Im not sure precisly what the US system is. In this jurisidcition, your next of kin has no rights whatsoever to consent on your behalf. It is also exceptionally rare for patients to execute some form of enduring power of attorney/healthcare proxy in the manner you suggest. So its not especially relevent to the case at hand.

metrovelvet wrote: »

As far as i am aware, if you're in the middle of a rectal or vaginal exam and pass out they have to stop. And of course they will because that means something else is going on with your body that has to be looked at. If you have fainted they can wake you up. If you fell asleeo they can wake you up. If they cant wake you up then something is wrong..

You are wrong. As i said before, if a patient consents to a vaginal exam, and within seconds, falls asleep, it is almost certainly legal to proceed with the examination which was anticipated and was consented for. If, once the exam is under way, the scope of the examination changes from what was anticipated and consented for, then a new consent would be needed. Waking the patient up would be best practice, though, but that is a different matter.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Like the massage analogy, using the medical context is not apt because there are a ton of laws on what the practitioner can and cant do with a client's body.

What laws are they, prey tell?:rolleyes: Name a couple of them!?
FYI, there are far more laws concerning consent in the sexual context than there are in the medical context.

metrovelvet

drkpower wrote: »

You might want to read my first post again. The anaesthesia analogy was one I explored but did not consider relevent to the issues at hand in this case. My latter two examples of unanticapated incapacity wer ethe analogies I considered relevent. Have another read.

Im not sure precisly what the US system is. In this jurisidcition, your next of kin has no rights whatsoever to consent on your behalf. It is also exceptionally rare for patients to execute some form of enduring power of attorney/healthcare proxy in the manner you suggest. So its not especially relevent to the case at hand.



You are wrong. As i said before, if a patient consents to a vaginal exam, and within seconds, falls asleep, it is almost certainly legal to proceed with the examination which was anticipated and was consented for. If, once the exam is under way, the scope of the examination changes from what was anticipated and consented for, then a new consent would be needed. Waking the patient up would be best practice, though, but that is a different matter.



What laws are they, prey tell?:rolleyes: Name a couple of them!?
FYI, there are far more laws concerning consent in the sexual context than there are in the medical context.

Ok. I have no idea what you are talking about.

But i have always had to assign a healthcare proxy when ive been hospitalised which has been twice and in the US, just to note that. And it nothing to do with next of kin either.

If someone sleeps through a vaginal exam, I doubt they are asleep and would question the doctor who didnt check that out.

Laws. If I go to the doctor for a breast check, it is outside if medical protocol for him or her to give me a rectal exam, whether i'm asleep or awake.

drkpower

metrovelvet wrote: »

Ok. I have no idea what you are talking about.

But i have always had to assign a healthcare proxy when ive been hospitalised which has been twice and in the US, just to note that. And it nothing to do with next of kin either..

A US-style healthcare proxy is almost never used here. It is a good idea mind you, but it is entirely impractical for relatively routine procedures as a binding proxy here as (as Irish law stands)it would need the patient to have received independent legal advice prior to it being executed. But this is a side-issue in respect of the current debate as they are far from standard practice and in the vast majority of cases in Ireland where my hypothetical occurs (person consents to vaginal exam, then fallls asleep), no proxy would be in place.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Laws. If I go to the doctor for a breast check, it is outside if medical protocol for him or her to give me a rectal exam, whether i'm asleep or awake.

That is an entirely different situation, where someone consents to procedure A and they are subjected to procedure B. What we are talkingabout is where someone consents to procedure A (or sex), falls asleep, and is subsequently subjected to procedure A (or sex). Are you following this?!

By the way, have you found one of those tons of laws yet?!:D

metrovelvet

drkpower wrote: »

A US-style healthcare proxy is almost never used here. It is a good idea mind you, but it is entirely impractical for relatively routine procedures as a binding proxy here as (as Irish law stands)it would need the patient to have received independent legal advice prior to it being executed. But this is a side-issue in respect of the current debate as they are far from standard practice and in the vast majority of cases in Ireland where my hypothetical occurs (person consents to vaginal exam, then fallls asleep), no proxy would be in place.



That is an entirely different situation, where someone consents to procedure A and they are subjected to procedure B. What we are talkingabout is where someone consents to procedure A (or sex), falls asleep, and is subsequently subjected to procedure A (or sex). Are you following this?!

By the way, have you found one of those tons of laws yet?!:D

My point is that the body, whether in the medical or massage context is legislated for and generally speaking, people understand the agreement. In the US when i've had 'delicate' exams, there were always two medical professionals in the room, one to do the exam, and one to be a witness.



As for healthcare proxies, what do you mean people would have to get legal advice beforehand?

drkpower

metrovelvet wrote: »

My point is that the body, whether in the medical or massage context is legislated for and generally speaking, people understand the agreement.

As I told you already, there is more law with regard to the meaning of consent in the sexual sphere than there is in the medical sphere. You arent doing a very good job of explaining the difference between consent in the sexual and medical spheres.

By the way, can you point to the 'legislation' on consent in the medical sphere that you continually point to?

metrovelvet wrote: »

As for healthcare proxies, what do you mean people would have to get legal advice beforehand?

Under Irish law, as it stands, a health care proxy (where someone assigns another individual to make treatment decisions on their behalf if they become incapacitated) in Ireland would be essentially what we call an '(enduring) power of attorney'. For it to be binding, the patient would need to be independently legally adivsed prior to executing it (rather than, for instance, being presented with it by a doctor in advance of any particular treatment). But, in any case, this aspect of our discussion is an aside and isnt especiallly relevent to the caes at hand.

metrovelvet

Ok. You explain it then.

drkpower

I am explaining 'it'......:rolleyes::rolleyes:

What part of 'it' would you like me to explain to you?

metrovelvet

drkpower wrote: »

I am explaining 'it'......:rolleyes::rolleyes:

What part of 'it' would you like me to explain to you?

You're not explaining it at all. You're just telling me what a bad job i'm doing of it.

So go ahead explain it properly. Thanks.

drkpower

metrovelvet wrote: »

You're not explaining it at all. You're just telling me what a bad job i'm doing of it.

So go ahead explain it properly. Thanks.

This is becoming irritating.

My position, clealrly explained in my detailed opening post, is that where a person consents to a medical procedure, the procedure begins and within seconds, the patient falls asleep, the doctor is legally entitled to perform that specific procedure. Similarly, my view is that where someone consents to sex, and mid-sex, falls asleep, the other party is legallly entitled to continue having sex.

You seem to take a different view; that the medical and sexual spheres are not apppropriate analogies. You have failed to explain why. You have pointed to 'legislation' that might support your position but that doesnt exist. And now you want me to explain your position.......:rolleyes:

Good luck.

metrovelvet

What's with the eye rolling?

In the medical context, there is a witness even if the patient does fall asleep, so that the procedure is followed as it should be.

In the bedroom, there is no witness, if the only witness is unconcious.

ApeXaviour

I once passed out while giving a blood sample (for research)... the nurse monitored my blood-pressure but continued to take the blood sample, as it should be.

drkpower

metrovelvet wrote: »

What's with the eye rolling?

In the medical context, there is a witness even if the patient does fall asleep, so that the procedure is followed as it should be.

In the bedroom, there is no witness, if the only witness is unconcious.

What are you talking about...?:D

The vast majority of straightforward medical procedures are performed by a doctor alone, with no chaperone. There is no witness. Even with sensitive examinations such as a vaginal or rectal exam, most of thes eexaminatuions in the GP setting are performed by the doctor alone.

The 'rolleyes' are an attempt to express my exasperation at your lack of knowledge and coherence, yet your inability to recognise same.

This discussion would be a lot more fruitful woth someone else, im afraid.

metrovelvet

drkpower wrote: »

What are you talking about...?:D

The vast majority of straightforward medical procedures are performed by a doctor alone, with no chaperone. There is no witness. Even with sensitive examinations such as a vaginal or rectal exam, most of thes eexaminatuions in the GP setting are performed by the doctor alone.

The 'rolleyes' are an attempt to express my exasperation at your lack of knowledge and coherence, yet your inability to recognise same.

This discussion would be a lot more fruitful woth someone else, im afraid.

Hmnn...that's not very good manners.

Im sorry but I have enough experience with doctors and hospitals to say that is not true in the US or in France. It might be true in Ireland, I dont know. I walked of an exam once in Ireland because of this, because there was no med witness there. I've never come across that lack of protocol anywhere else. Hence one of my many reasons for avoiding Irish healthcare as much as possible.

AudreyHepburn

The Corinthian wrote: »

Let me put forward three cases.

The first involves a woman, unconscious drunk, who then has sex (or sex is had with her) by a man:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-10883603

The second involves a male friend of mine who once went on the piss with his girlfriend. When they got home they began to have sex, with his girlfriend going on top and straddling him. Next think he knew it was morning and his girlfriend was cold towards him. Eventually she told him that shortly after she got on top he let out a snore - he was out cold. So she finished herself off on him and went to sleep. Before anyone asks, yes this is physically possible.

The third case is a hypothetical scenario which takes the second and reverses the roles/genders.

Now, and IMO, the first case is rape. However, most would not see the second as rape (creepy, yes, but not rape). The third, oddly, I suspect more people would see as rape than the second.

So where do we draw the line in such scenarios? Once consent is given, must you remain capable of giving/revoking it thereafter until sex has ended? How much responsibility should someone who does end up having sex / being raped have given they were the one's who got drunk? Can alcohol affects our capacity to consent to sex even before unconsciousness - and if so at what point? And if so, can one retrospectively accuse one of rape the next morning?

Discuss.

All three of these are rape in my book.

Once your friend went unconcious, consent could no longer be assumed IMO.

If a man had done to woman what his GF did there's no question he'd be done for rape so why should your senario be any different?

Alcohol does not give anyone permission to have sex with some-one without verbal consent.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

drkpower

metrovelvet wrote: »

Hmnn...that's not very good manners.

Im sorry but I have enough experience with doctors and hospitals to say that is not true in the US or in France. It might be true in Ireland, I dont know. I walked of an exam once in Ireland because of this, because there was no med witness there. I've never come across that lack of protocol anywhere else. Hence one of my many reasons for avoiding Irish healthcare as much as possible.

This IS Ireland. Therefore, the Irish system & Irish law is what is relevent. And i have an awful lot of experience of the Irish healthcare and legal system.;) Why you continue to talk about essentially irrlevenent situations in France or the US is beyond me.

Clearly you dont like my 'manners'. And I find discussing this complex issue with you pointless. Lets part ways.

metrovelvet

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What if one of them fell asleep during foreplay?

drkpower

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

All three of these are rape in my book.

Once your friend went unconcious, consent could no longer be assumed IMO.

If a man had done to woman what his GF did there's no question he'd be done for rape so why should your senario be any different?

Alcohol does not give anyone permission to have sex with some-one without verbal consent.

Consent was given. The consensual act had begun. The question is whether falling asleep necessarily acts as an automatic revocation of consent.

Noone has provided an example of another area/act where falling asleep during an act/procedure automatically acts as a legal revocation of consent to that act, whereby the doer of the act is legally obliged to cease doing the act. Do you have any such example?

metrovelvet

Driving?

ApeXaviour

metrovelvet wrote: »

Driving?

no

The Corinthian

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Once your friend went unconcious, consent could no longer be assumed IMO.

But consent had been given. In fairness it would seem a fairly safe bet (especially with a couple) that consent would not have been revoked half way though the act.

If a man had done to woman what his GF did there's no question he'd be done for rape so why should your senario be any different?

There appears to be a question though, unless you hadn't read the thread, and there does not appear to be a consensus as yet. This would be a very boring thread otherwise.

Alcohol does not give anyone permission to have sex with some-one without verbal consent.

Absolutely, but this is not what I described in either of the latter two scenarios - verbal consent was given.

From what I'm getting here, there appears to be a view by the 'rape positive' side that consent is only valid so long as the capacity to give or revoke it is available. The 'rape negative' side of the argument, is arguing both that consent has been given and also that if one drinks, they need to be responsible for their actions to a great extent.

On that note, this article is interesting. Will we need to bring breathalyzers to nightclubs in the future?

metrovelvet

Thinking about this, if consent had been given I doubt a judge would see it as rape.

However, if one party falls asleep, its hardly sex anymore and more like masterbation, imo.

As for that article, that is very sinister and kind of weird. Although in a British context, I can see what they are at.

Its been pointed out to me that this is Ireland and theres little relevancy to talking about laws in foreign countries.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

Thinking about this, if consent had been given I doubt a judge would see it as rape.

He certainly didn't. My only comment on this story is that agree or not with the judge in question, I find it more than a little disturbing that those disagreeing with him would seek his censor for expressing it.

However, if one party falls asleep, its hardly sex anymore and more like masterbation, imo.

That's it's pretty creepy is a given, but not really what we're discussing though.

As for that article, that is very sinister and kind of weird. Although in a British context, I can see what they are at.

TBH, if the law were to go in that direction it won't be long before foreplay requires a solicitor to be present. Sex would end up with an exchange of contracts rather than fluids.

Its been pointed out to me that this is Ireland and theres little relevancy to talking about laws in foreign countries.

This is a general discussion on the moral, ethical and legal definition of what constitutes rape, so It's relevant in so far as it's food for the discussion, even if it does not apply to Ireland.

As for UK law applying to Ireland, that's quite conceivable, up until recently we basically copied their laws all the time.

metrovelvet

With that law in place, women will hesitate to drink, in order to reassure the men around her. Its an indirect prohibition. On the plus for the guys side thats the end of buying the ladies drinks.

Its a really stupid ott legislation law.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And the other half would never have been born...

metrovelvet

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think it would depend on which court, which judge, and the performance of the lawyers.

Macha

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Under this reasoning, it would be impossible for a person in a relationship to be considered raped after they consent to foreplay. Consent to foreplay is consent to foreplay and nothing else. If a person decides at any stage of a sexual act that they want to stop and the other person forces them to continue, that is rape.

Consent is usually communicated to the other person through active and conscious engagement in a particular act. I'm sure we've all been there with a partner when you both gradually realise how far the other person wants to go. Even in a relationship, one or both partners might not always want full sex. If a person falls asleep, they may or may not have wanted to have full sexual intercourse but they can't exactly express their consent any more. If their partner continues on after they've fallen asleep, it's weird, creepy and bordering on rape. But I can see why others wouldn't see it that way.

Good thread idea, The Corinthian. It's a very grey area.

drkpower

The Corinthian wrote: »

On that note, this article is interesting. Will we need to bring breathalyzers to nightclubs in the future?

Isnt that article is from 2006? I presume this idea was shelved. Rightly so, as it seems like an impossible law to implement, nevermind the inredible injustices that would result from imposing a certain level of drunkenness which automatically vitiates consent. As we all know, the outward manifestation of drunkenness can be a very different thing to the amount consumed or the blood concentration of alcohol.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.