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

This has actually really made me very very annoyed with how they are singling out women, but nothing about men. And what if a woman's blood alcohol level is over the limit they say, but also the man's? Does it immediately become rape, even though he was in the exact same condition as her?

DeadHand

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Yes, because women live to make fake rape claims. :rolleyes:

Feeble, dishonest contribution..

Do you want to argue with the point I made in my post or are you content to continue with the misrepresentation, snark and prejudice?

PopePalpatine

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Yes, because women live to make fake rape claims. :rolleyes:

It happens a lot more than it ever should.

PopePalpatine

DeadHand wrote: »

Feeble, dishonest contribution..

Do you want to argue with the point I made in my post or are you content to continue with the misrepresentation, snark and prejudice?

A cursory look on Google tells me that estimates of false rape reports range from 2 to 10%. Around the lower bound of that range, that's no more than false accusations for other crimes.

PopePalpatine

PopePalpatine wrote: »

A cursory look on Google tells me that estimates of false rape reports range from 2 to 10%. Around the lower bound of that range, that's no more than false accusations for other crimes.

You should never judge anything on statistics you found online - that is 2% - 10% of rape cases that have been proven to be false. I'm not saying that it happens all the time, because that would be stupid and inaccurate, but it does happen and, likely, it isn't reported on or discovered.

DeadHand

PopePalpatine wrote: »

A cursory look on Google tells me that estimates of false rape reports range from 2 to 10%. Around the lower bound of that range, that's no more than false accusations for other crimes.

Maybe because idiotic proposals like the one we are discussing do not yet exist as law.

NachoBusiness

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You implied it was already a law..

Ha. Are you kidding me? I implied nothing of the sort.

From the OP:

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Be interested to hear how others feel about this and if you would support such a law in this country..

A new report in the UK is calling for a blood alcohol level to be set in order to able to determine if a woman had the ability to consent to sex or not.

This seems a ludicrous suggestion to me for many reasons, not least of which is how could they even be sure when the alcohol was consumed, before or after the sex had taken place. Crazy proposal. Hope it's seen as such.

Nothing I said suggested this was already a law.

How am I doing any knee-jerking? What's high-horsey about common sense? If you don't want to put yourself at risk of being accused of rape - don't have sex with drunk people. That's not rocket science, and there's your personal responsibility right there - responsibility for yourself.

People have sex when drunk. Deal with it. It neither means they were a rapist, nor indeed, raped.

.. just because someone has a few drinks doesn't mean their complaint of rape should be so easily dismissable.

Nobody said it should, you are strawmanning.

One eyed Jack

NachoBusiness wrote: »

People have sex when drunk. Deal with it. It neither means they were a rapist, nor indeed, raped.

Oh, well if that's the standard you choose to adopt - people put themselves in a position where they can be accused of rape when they choose to have sex with drunken strangers. Deal with it.

Nobody said it should, you are strawmanning.

Any scenarios you come up with on the basis of this proposal where you make claims you can't back up, is strawmanning. If I suggested you deal with that too, then there's nothing else to discuss here.

PopePalpatine

DeadHand wrote: »

Maybe because idiotic proposals like the one we are discussing do not yet exist as law.

And like Samaris said, that's extremely unlikely to happen. There's bound to be a few people on whatever committee is deciding on this who will point out that different people get drunk at different rates.

Greenmachine

A box of breathalyzers. Next wedding gift sorted.

If it is made law, presume they should also consider it a defence if the accused did not know she was too drunk to consent, or reasonably believed she was sober enough to consent. Much like the current law on consent itself.

Adamantium

The_Valeyard wrote: »

F*ck off and let adults be adults.

No, just stop talking, you're making too much sense and that is why I NEED you to stop. :pac:

end of the road

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Be interested to hear how others feel about this and if you would support such a law in this country..

A new report in the UK is calling for a blood alcohol level to be set in order to able to determine if a woman had the ability to consent to sex or not.



Source.

This seems a ludicrous suggestion to me for many reasons, not least of which is how could they even be sure when the alcohol was consumed, before or after the sex had taken place. Crazy proposal. Hope it's seen as such.

I also see no mention from the barrister how she feels about a woman having sex with a drunk male and whether she would feel that this too should automatically qualify as rape. Not surprising though.



MOD NOTE - It should go without saying, but no rape jokes. Zero tolerence on this.

its a load of nonsense. different women will have different alcohol limits. could a man use the same law if he was raped by a woman? probably not. such a law would be abused, and anything that can potentially cause any abuse of the systems to deal with a serious crime like this have no place

hatrickpatrick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you don't want to put yourself at risk of being accused of rape - don't have sex with drunk people. That's not rocket science, and there's your personal responsibility right there - responsibility for yourself.

In a society in which the vast majority of college socialising involves drinking sessions and nightclubs, this essentially equates to "don't hook up in college".

Were this advice followed, many relationships which went on to become loving marriages with kids and houses would never have been possible in the first place. It's totally unrealistic.

Not giving a damn what other people choose to do is not sticking my head in the sand either btw, and just because someone has a few drinks doesn't mean their complaint of rape should be so easily dismissable.

Of course it shouldn't, but there are two issues at play here. The first, which everyone would accept, is that having sex with someone who has not consented is never ok, drunk or not. That I absolutely 100% agree with, and shame on any scumbags who don't.

The second issue, which is what this is really about, is that if no means no (which it does), then yes also means yes. ANY other decision I make, whether egged on by someone else or not, is my own responsibility whether I was drunk or not. I can't go into court and claim "your honour, I was too drunk to knowingly drive that car, ergo the injuries I caused when I drunkenly crashed it are not my fault". In the same way, I shouldn't be able to say "I initiated sex but because I was drunk, it's somebody else's fault that I regret it".

Adamantium

Amazing how a progressive society, that once was puritanical and probably wouldn't have hook ups in college, would want to go back to the very same thing that it dragged it self out of.


Looks like there's yearning for some women to reclaim the lack of responsibility they had once enjoyed, I suppose selfishly it wasn't all that bad from some women's point of view back in the old days. Everything is allowed in theory, but nothing is permitted in practical terms.

Time to take responsibility, as well with your new found freedom.

Do you want to be equal of not? Yes or no are the only answers on the table.

One eyed Jack

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In a society in which the vast majority of college socialising involves drinking sessions and nightclubs, this essentially equates to "don't hook up in college".

I'm not even sure where you're getting that from but I can't say it's been my experience. Nevertheless, we're not just talking about drunken hook-ups in college, we're talking as you quite rightly point out about society as a whole, and what's wrong with suggesting that social attitudes need to change?

Were this advice followed, many relationships which went on to become loving marriages with kids and houses would never have been possible in the first place. It's totally unrealistic.

Again, you're going to need something beyond anecdotal evidence before you can expect me to take that claim at face value. It doesn't say much for society if you think the only way it progressed was because people got drunk and had sex and ended up staying with each other. I'd say that was more unrealistic myself than the idea that the vast majority of relationships in Irish society weren't initiated upon drunken hook-ups.

Of course it shouldn't, but there are two issues at play here. The first, which everyone would accept, is that having sex with someone who has not consented is never ok, drunk or not. That I absolutely 100% agree with, and shame on any scumbags who don't.

The second issue, which is what this is really about, is that if no means no (which it does), then yes also means yes.

Not when you're drunk it doesn't, as you lack the mental capacity to consent to sex. Now I was never the sharpest pencil in the box, but I can still bloody tell when someone is drunk, or has had too much to drink, and I can choose to avoid putting myself in a situation which has the potential to go badly wrong.

You don't need a breathalyzer to be able to judge that someone is too drunk to consent to sex if they're dragging off your tie to hold themselves up!

ANY other decision I make, whether egged on by someone else or not, is my own responsibility whether I was drunk or not. I can't go into court and claim "your honour, I was too drunk to knowingly drive that car, ergo the injuries I caused when I drunkenly crashed it are not my fault".

Actually you can, I'm just not sure how far you'd get with that defence though.

In the same way, I shouldn't be able to say "I initiated sex but because I was drunk, it's somebody else's fault that I regret it".

That's not the same thing at all really, because you wouldn't be simply claiming you regret having sex, you'd be claiming you were raped. Very different scenario actually.

nokia69

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's not the same thing at all really, because you wouldn't be simply claiming you regret having sex, you'd be claiming you were raped. Very different scenario actually.

the same thing according to some feminists

nokia69

Whitepepper wrote: »

Presumably those who would be in favour of this law would then be fully supportive of people being approached and asked to have sex in a sober setting.

strange thing to say

you do know that people who never drink have normal sex lives

tritium

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Not when you're drunk it doesn't, as you lack the mental capacity to consent to sex. Now I was never the sharpest pencil in the box, but I can still bloody tell when someone is drunk, or has had too much to drink, and I can choose to avoid putting myself in a situation which has the potential to go badly wrong.

And what about when both parties have been drinking? Is it so easy to tell then? Would something like this seem reasonable in that scenario?

One eyed Jack

tritium wrote: »

And what about when both parties have been drinking? Is it so easy to tell then? Would something like this seem reasonable in that scenario?

Why wouldn't it?

Either party could claim they were raped under those circumstances, but then there would be other factors would be considered if this were an actual experience and not simply just a thought experiment.

This is what I meant earlier when I said we could introduce an infinite number of scenarios here, but for all the claims that legislation like this is an insult to men and women, I actually find it more insulting to men and women that there are people would assume that either men or women wouldn't be able to have sex without getting drunk enough to the point where they weren't sure if they freely and willingly consented or not.

What is actually so difficult about the idea that you shouldn't encourage sex with people who are drunk? I'll leave it up to the Courts to determine what happens when both people are drunk and one of them claims they raped, because it's impossible to tell either way what way that would go without much more context.

hatrickpatrick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not even sure where you're getting that from but I can't say it's been my experience. Nevertheless, we're not just talking about drunken hook-ups in college, we're talking as you quite rightly point out about society as a whole, and what's wrong with suggesting that social attitudes need to change?

There's a difference between suggesting that social attitudes should change, and criminalising what is normal behavior for thousands of young men and women on a weekly basis.

Or do you think people go to Coppers just for the chats? :rolleyes:

Again, you're going to need something beyond anecdotal evidence before you can expect me to take that claim at face value. It doesn't say much for society if you think the only way it progressed was because people got drunk and had sex and ended up staying with each other. I'd say that was more unrealistic myself than the idea that the vast majority of relationships in Irish society weren't initiated upon drunken hook-ups.

It's not about progression. A lot of people would never even have met if they hadn't hooked up in a club. Nightclub culture is part of going to college, and drinking in those clubs is part of that. Whether that's a good thing or not is debatable, but at the moment it's reality.

Not when you're drunk it doesn't, as you lack the mental capacity to consent to sex. Now I was never the sharpest pencil in the box, but I can still bloody tell when someone is drunk, or has had too much to drink, and I can choose to avoid putting myself in a situation which has the potential to go badly wrong.

You don't need a breathalyzer to be able to judge that someone is too drunk to consent to sex if they're dragging off your tie to hold themselves up!

That's an extreme case. If someone comes on to you, initiates sex (as in they come on to you first) and then regrets it the next day and says "if I'd been sober I wouldn't have done it", that's still their own fault. It's nobody else's responsibility to police someone's bad decisions, drunk or not.

Actually you can, I'm just not sure how far you'd get with that defence though.

You'd get nowhere. So why should sex be any different?

That's not the same thing at all really, because you wouldn't be simply claiming you regret having sex, you'd be claiming you were raped. Very different scenario actually.

If you regard saying yes when drunk and later saying that you wouldn't have if you were sober, that's not rape. It's making a stupid decision while drunk and expecting others to take responsibility for it.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Education rather than legislation is what's needed in this area. I can't conceive of a universe where this is a workable law, and it definitely has damaging implications. Bad idea, bad bad bad.

hatrickpatrick

Demetrius Unsightly Shopkeeper wrote: »

Education rather than legislation is what's needed in this area. I can't conceive of a universe where this is a workable law, and it definitely has damaging implications. Bad idea, bad bad bad.

Education indeed. Particularly in the area of so many idiots believing that the absence of resistance is consent. Not sure how that became any kind of cultural meme but it's utterly absurd. That whole Steubenville thing in the states revolved around people saying "well she didn't resist!" - of course she didn't resist ye f*ckin' muppets, she was unconscious. It truly sickens me that so many don't understand that.

However, I do stand by what I said about yes meaning yes. The idea that you can consciously make a bad decision while drunk and then disclaim all responsibility for that on the basis that you were drunk is absolutely absurd. It doesn't work that way for any other drunken action (starting a fight, driving and hitting somebody, vandalism, theft) so why should it work that way for initiating or consenting to sex?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Education indeed. Particularly in the area of so many idiots believing that the absence of resistance is consent. Not sure how that became any kind of cultural meme but it's utterly absurd. That whole Steubenville thing in the states revolved around people saying "well she didn't resist!" - of course she didn't resist ye f*ckin' muppets, she was unconscious. It truly sickens me that so many don't understand that.

However, I do stand by what I said about yes meaning yes. The idea that you can consciously make a bad decision while drunk and then disclaim all responsibility for that on the basis that you were drunk is absolutely absurd. It doesn't work that way for any other drunken action (starting a fight, driving and hitting somebody, vandalism, theft) so why should it work that way for initiating or consenting to sex?

Agree totally. Education is needed in BOTH those areas. Maybe I'm getting old but it seems like it's more sorely needed now than was before. I can't get into it too much but young people these days have atrocious understanding of consent, especially where alcohol is concerned and especially where the likes of "no means no even if she agreed to come back to your room/let you kiss her" is concerned.

hatrickpatrick

Demetrius Unsightly Shopkeeper wrote: »

Agree totally. Education is needed in BOTH those areas. Maybe I'm getting old but it seems like it's more sorely needed now than was before. I can't get into it too much but young people these days have atrocious understanding of consent, especially where alcohol is concerned and especially where the likes of "no means no even if she agreed to come back to your room/let you kiss her" is concerned.

Don't think you're getting old, don't think it's a new thing either, think like police brutality it's just become far easier to publicise these incidents with social media and the Internet. That's certainly my hope, anyway.

To be honest I don't like "no means no" because that doesn't address the fact that the absence of no still doesn't mean yes. But I draw the line at suggesting that yes can also mean no if someone has regrets, that just creates a social minefield which leads to nothing but hurt and bitterness.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Don't think you're getting old, don't think it's a new thing either, think like police brutality it's just become far easier to publicise these incidents with social media and the Internet. That's certainly my hope, anyway.

To be honest I don't like "no means no" because that doesn't address the fact that the absence of no still doesn't mean yes. But I draw the line at suggesting that yes can also mean no if someone has regrets, that just creates a social minefield which leads to nothing but hurt and bitterness.

Think it could be that, possibly also the oft remarked upon sense of entitlement that young folks these days have, possibly also too easy exposure to hardcore pornography at too young an age (though that's only one, relatively minor factor imo, and I'm in no way anti-porn).

I don't know how common an attitude it is in real life, but certainly in some of the wackier sections of the internet I have seen this notion of "I changed my mind about how good an idea that was, it's now retroactively a rape", being put forward apparently completely ingenuously and sincerely, and it's jaw dropping.

One eyed Jack

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

There's a difference between suggesting that social attitudes should change, and criminalising what is normal behavior for thousands of young men and women on a weekly basis.

Or do you think people go to Coppers just for the chats? :rolleyes:

Who's criminalising normal behaviour exactly? Any legislation for this would only come into play if one party claims they were raped. I'm sure the same would apply to patrons of the George.

It's not about progression. A lot of people would never even have met if they hadn't hooked up in a club. Nightclub culture is part of going to college, and drinking in those clubs is part of that. Whether that's a good thing or not is debatable, but at the moment it's reality.

You're kidding me? "Nightclub culture"?? Part of going to college?

Now who's looking to protect the poor little lambykins college students from themselves while they get off their tits?

"Part of the culture" indeed, where have I heard that before?

That's an extreme case. If someone comes on to you, initiates sex (as in they come on to you first) and then regrets it the next day and says "if I'd been sober I wouldn't have done it", that's still their own fault. It's nobody else's responsibility to police someone's bad decisions, drunk or not.

You're suggesting that random girls hanging off you when they're drunk is an extreme case, and yet you're the person arguing that it goes on in Coppers and college nights and all the rest of it?

I'm not within an asses roar of Coppers and I can tell you it goes on in every every nightclub up and down the country, nothing special about Coppers in that respect.

It's your responsibility to police your own actions, and if you have sex with drunk people, well, you shouldn't be surprised when shìt hits the fan. You may not see someone else's welfare as your responsibility, and that's where our opinion really differs in a nutshell - you're prioritising getting your end away over your responsibility towards someone who isn't in control of their own actions.

I won't get all "Moral Mary" on you for it, but it's just not something I'd do myself.

You'd get nowhere. So why should sex be any different?

Because they're two entirely different scenarios - you wouldn't rape a car.

If you regard saying yes when drunk and later saying that you wouldn't have if you were sober, that's not rape. It's making a stupid decision while drunk and expecting others to take responsibility for it.

No, that's not rape, but if someone says they were raped, then that's not the same as saying they wouldn't have had sex if they weren't drunk. I'm not in the business of helping people make stupid decisions when they were incapacitated that work to my advantage and then washing my hands of any responsibility for their welfare afterwards either. That's also not rape, and there's nothing criminal about it, but it's still a shìtty thing to do to another human being IMO.

Eugene Norman

Alcohol has been used for years as a social lubricant.

How are they suggesting this be enforced. Should every potential sexual activity need a breathalyser test?

the_monkey

Not surprised the SS big brother police pedophile UK state would implement this.

So lets say a girl is under the limit, she has one last Bacardi Breezer just before Johnny slips the Johnny on .... Johnny gives her the breathalyser and shes OK ...

She consents.

but wait alcohol takes a while to take effect, during the act she becomes over the limit and Johnny is a rapist.

Absolutely LUDICROUS !!!!

Eugene Norman

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Who's criminalising normal behaviour exactly? Any legislation for this would only come into play if one party claims they were raped. I'm sure the same would apply to patrons of the George.





You're kidding me? "Nightclub culture"?? Part of going to college?

Now who's looking to protect the poor little lambykins college students from themselves while they get off their tits?

"Part of the culture" indeed, where have I heard that before?





You're suggesting that random girls hanging off you when they're drunk is an extreme case, and yet you're the person arguing that it goes on in Coppers and college nights and all the rest of it?

I'm not within an asses roar of Coppers and I can tell you it goes on in every every nightclub up and down the country, nothing special about Coppers in that respect.

It's your responsibility to police your own actions, and if you have sex with drunk people, well, you shouldn't be surprised when shìt hits the fan. You may not see someone else's welfare as your responsibility, and that's where our opinion really differs in a nutshell - you're prioritising getting your end away over your responsibility towards someone who isn't in control of their own actions.

I won't get all "Moral Mary" on you for it, but it's just not something I'd do myself.





Because they're two entirely different scenarios - you wouldn't rape a car.





No, that's not rape, but if someone says they were raped, then that's not the same as saying they wouldn't have had sex if they weren't drunk. I'm not in the business of helping people make stupid decisions when they were incapacitated that work to my advantage and then washing my hands of any responsibility for their welfare afterwards either. That's also not rape, and there's nothing criminal about it, but it's still a shìtty thing to do to another human being IMO.

I'd like you definition of drunk here? Is it totally wasted or a bit merry. And how could anybody else tell the drunk from the overly drunk in most cases?