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

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

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.

But there is a strong and clear implication if this passes. If rape is alleged, a BAC test is carried out and it's deemed the plaintiff was too drunk to consent, then it follows that ANYBODY with that same amount of alcohol in their blood was incapable of consent.

Like statutory rape. A 15 year old can argue that they consented to or actively pursued a sexual relationship with an adult, but by virtue of their age they are deemed incapable (which, it goes without saying, I agree with).

Like drink driving. Someone can argue "I can hold my drink, I was driving at 25pmh" or whatever, it doesn't matter.

It's a bonkers idea to legislate for, and it does criminalise very normal behaviour.

Again: education, from a reasonably young age, about issues around alcohol and consent is a pressing need. I know the RCCs in this country have an education programme, but it needs to be on every curriculum and not dependent on them.

darkpagandeath

Would this be the same kind of people using the logic. Better one man be falsely accused of rape than one rape being unreported.

One eyed Jack

Eugene Norman wrote: »

I'd like you definition of drunk here? Is it totally wasted or a bit merry.

Everyone's individual standards for "drunkenness" or intoxication are going to differ, so the only honest answer I can give is that I use my best judgment. It seems to have served me well so far.

And how could anybody else tell the drunk from the overly drunk in most cases?

Most people seem to be able to tell the difference, and I have very little sympathy for those that I believe are capable of being able to tell the difference, but choose to plough ahead anyway. That's just asking for trouble and complete abdication of their own personal responsibility, trying to put responsibility for their actions on the other person.

Eugene Norman

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Everyone's individual standards for "drunkenness" or intoxication are going to differ, so the only honest answer I can give is that I use my best judgment. It seems to have served me well so far.





Most people seem to be able to tell the difference, and I have very little sympathy for those that I believe are capable of being able to tell the difference, but choose to plough ahead anyway. That's just asking for trouble and complete abdication of their own personal responsibility, trying to put responsibility for their actions on the other person.

You seem to be interested in personal anecdotes and virtue signalling rather than a discussion of this particular law. As someone who is well out of this game I don't think I could have told when I wasn't if someone was -- extreme cases aside -- overly drunk", very drunk, or just mildly drunk because everybody was drunk at the end of the night. The assumption in your posts is there is one sober or near sober partner taking advantage of someone who is too drunk for their own good. In practice people falling out of a nightclub enjoined together were equally drunk as I recall, and while this led to embarrassment for both parties the next day it's a bit much to criminalise youthful transgressions. It's also absurd to accuse one party of criminality without the excuse of drunken impairment of judgement when that very impairment in judgement of the other party makes the crime.

Sub-textually these laws seem like they are designed to criminalise only the male, for taking advantage of a female. There's a whiff of Victorian moralising about the difference between male and female desires, the drunken male is the predator acting to his nature, the drunken female is the prey acting against hers

The Highwayman

So if someone get into a car pissed, get stopped by the cops and gets done for drunk driving, will they get off because they were unable to make the decision correctly No, of course not.
However you meet a girl go home to her place you shag (not rape) leave, don't call her back she gets pissed off, and 2 days later the cops call to your place of work and arrest you for rape? I'd laugh at this crap but unfortunately it's becoming a reality. Thank God I'm not young anymore.

darkpagandeath

The Highwayman wrote: »

So if someone get into a car pissed, get stopped by the cops and gets done for drunk driving, will they get off because they were unable to make the decision correctly No, of course not.
However you meet a girl go home to her place you shag (not rape) leave, don't call her back she gets pissed off, and 2 days later the cops call to your place of work and arrest you for rape? I'd laugh at this crap but unfortunately it's becoming a reality. Thank God I'm not young anymore.

The worst part is even it its proven it was not Rape, It ruins the man's life.

The Highwayman

darkpagandeath wrote: »

The worst part is even it its proven it was not Rape, It ruins the man's life.

I completely agree, look at the recent Rolling Stone magazine story and the fallout from that and lives ruined.

Even though the story was completely false, feminist belief is only because of patriarchy and all women who make a rape allegation should be believed first and the man proven innocent later.
No wonder the MRA and MIGTOW movements are on the rise.

darkpagandeath

The Highwayman wrote: »

I completely agree, look at three recent Rolling Stone magazine story and the fallout from that and lives ruined.

Aye it's the assumption that the man is always to blame in some way. Even if it turns out the woman completely made stuff up it still puts doubts.

One eyed Jack

Eugene Norman wrote: »

You seem to be interested in personal anecdotes and virtue signalling rather than a discussion of this particular law.

That's the second time today I've come across that phrase 'virtue signalling', no idea what it meant, so I just looked it up there now. Seems to be the new 'go-to' phrase for 'anyone who disagrees with me'. It's about as meaningful then as that other nonsense phrase bandied about here lately, you know the one, the 'p' word - "privilege".

Regardless, I don't mind personal anecdotes, it's the doomsday scenarios and the "this is bad news for everyone" scenarios, and the "they're criminalising kids, Joe" arguments that wreck my bulb. Nobody is criminalising anyone with this law.

If you want to actually have a discussion on this law without leaping to doomsday scenarios and the 'fall of society' due to people being more mindful of their alcohol intake and being just that little teensy bit more conscious of their behaviour, well, I'm not sure that's really such a bad thing? Is it?

As someone who is well out of this game I don't think I could have told when I wasn't if someone was -- extreme cases aside -- overly drunk", very drunk, or just mildly drunk because everybody was drunk at the end of the night.

Well that's why I said it was down to the individual to use their best judgment, and I have little sympathy for those people I believe could tell when someone is intoxicated to the point where having sex with them would be irresponsible. I'm certainly no paragon of virtue, but we all have our deal breakers, and I always preferred to err on the side of caution in these matters. I've never been in the situation where drunken sex seemed like an appealing prospect, and I can only speak for myself.

Other people have their own standards, and that's their business. I don't make these laws, and they're not likely to trouble me any time soon, and before you suggest that "Oh so you wouldn't give a damn then if a guy was accused of raping a girl as long as it's not you?", well think about that - was the guy thinking about the girl's welfare when he chose to have sex with her?

(you can switch the genders about whatever way you like there and I'd still say the same thing, except that a girl cannot be charged with rape if the victim is a man, so a man could be charged with rape of another man, and a woman could be charged with rape of another woman, you get the idea - a woman can only be charged with sexual assault if the victim is a man)

The assumption in your posts is there is one sober or near sober partner taking advantage of someone who is too drunk for their own good. In practice people falling out of a nightclub enjoined together were equally drunk as I recall, and while this led to embarrassment for both parties the next day it's a bit much to criminalise youthful transgressions.

Nobody is criminalising youthful transgressions. Rape can not be categorised as 'youthful transgressions'. The assumption that one party is taking advantage of another in their inebriated state isn't exactly jumping to ridiculous conclusions, it's just as valid an assumption as anyone who feels ****ty the morning after the night before is going to be claiming they were raped.

It's also absurd to accuse one party of criminality without the excuse of drunken impairment of judgement when that very impairment in judgement of the other party makes the crime.

Nobody has accused anyone of criminality here yet, so it's absurd to be using the excuse of intoxication for impaired judgment either way. One person's impaired judgment doesn't justify the behavior of another due to impaired judgment. That's why we have the judicial system to arbitrate between circumstances and take all factors of every individual case into account.

That way we avoid half the made-up silly scenarios already posited in this thread.

Sub-textually these laws seem like they are designed to criminalise only the male, for taking advantage of a female. There's a whiff of Victorian moralising about the difference between male and female desires, the drunken male is the predator acting to his nature, the drunken female is the prey acting against hers

I haven't got my sub-text reading glasses on, so I'm not seeing what you're seeing, but for what it's worth, I think you're seeing what you want to see. I don't think there's any criminalising men here at all, and the only Victorian moralising I see going on is people here arguing that men's behaviour should be excused, while women should be held responsible for 'getting themselves in such a state'.

Perhaps that's the, ehh, what was it again? Oh yes - 'virtue signalling' you talked about earlier.

Just when I was getting used to ye olde 'white knight', 'pseudo-feminist' nonsense, they went and changed it all up again. Things should always stay the same, always, that way my own little world doesn't fall apart at the seams while I try to make sense of it all.

NachoBusiness

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nobody has accused anyone of criminality here yet, so it's absurd to be using the excuse of intoxication for impaired judgment either way. One person's impaired judgment doesn't justify the behavior of another due to impaired judgment. That's why we have the judicial system to arbitrate between circumstances and take all factors of every individual case into account.

You started off this thread by accusing users of not reading the report and yet here you are coming out with the above claptrap which quite clearly shows that you haven't a bull's notion of what the inevitable consequences would be should the points of law proposed be written into British law.

One eyed Jack

NachoBusiness wrote: »

You started off this thread by accusing users of not reading the report and yet here you are coming out with the above claptrap which quite clearly shows that you haven't a bull's notion of what the inevitable consequences would be should the points of law proposed be written into British law.

You tell me then what you think will be the inevitable consequences would be, if the proposals you object to are written into UK law?

I'm quite certain the author of the report has quite a few decades more legal experience than you do, but I'm all ears as to what you might suggest this would mean for UK society, even Irish society were it to be introduced here.

How many people do you think would genuinely give two fcuks?

hatrickpatrick

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.

If drunken sex is going to = rape, then it is indeed criminalising normal behaviour.

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

Absolutely. Have you ever walked down Harcourt St on a Friday or Saturday night? Or indeed a Wednesday?

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

Not too sure what you mean.

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

Not sure, where?

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 suggesting that very drunk sex happens all the time after nightclubs, not someone being drunk enough to the point of being unconscious - which I agree is drunk.

You're telling me you've never seen a couple leaving a club in a situation where both of them are clearly pissed? Do you imagine they then go home and sleep in separate beds? :rolleyes:

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.

So we're agreed that it's typical behaviour for a large section of the population, particularly the student population, to go out, get drunk, and try to score?

What are we arguing about then?

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.

If two people are drunk, then by your logic neither of them are in control of their own actions. I'm curious as to how, in that scenario, one can be described as an aggressor and one a victim. It makes no sense.

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

It's actually not something I'd do either, but I go out every week with friends from all over the country and most of them have pulled in nightclubs while drunk, both male and female. I consider none of them to be rapists for this, just average college students.

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

You're not getting the analogy. If my actions when drunk are my responsibility, then all my actions while drunk are my responsibility, from initiating sex to driving a car. It makes no sense to say that the former is something I can accuse someone else of forcing me to do even though I actually initiated it, just because I was drunk, but not the latter.

Either neither are my responsibility, or both.

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.

That's what this article is suggesting. That if you're over a certain level of drunkenness, it was rape - regardless of who initiated, and whether you actively, consciously consented or not. That's what I have an issue with. If I'm drunk, I still have agency and I still control my own behaviour. I shouldn't be able to hook up with a woman, then wake up the next day and say "****, I cheated on my girlfriend while drunk - well, I was drunk so she took advantage of me. Rape!"

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 agree that a sober person taking advantage of a drunk person is a sh!tty thing to do. And that two drunk people having sex is probably a stupid idea. But neither should be a crime.

Yet that's what this article is proposing.

One eyed Jack

Demetrius Unsightly Shopkeeper wrote: »

But there is a strong and clear implication if this passes. If rape is alleged, a BAC test is carried out and it's deemed the plaintiff was too drunk to consent, then it follows that ANYBODY with that same amount of alcohol in their blood was incapable of consent.

Like statutory rape. A 15 year old can argue that they consented to or actively pursued a sexual relationship with an adult, but by virtue of their age they are deemed incapable (which, it goes without saying, I agree with).

Like drink driving. Someone can argue "I can hold my drink, I was driving at 25pmh" or whatever, it doesn't matter.

It's a bonkers idea to legislate for, and it does criminalise very normal behaviour.

It's introducing an arbitrary standard, just like the statutory laws, I really don't see what's bonkers there. People ignore these arbitrary standards all the time, and they're only relevant when something actually happens or someone makes a complaint. It's easily avoided by not putting themselves in that situation. What's actually bonkers is suggesting that they couldn't have not put themselves in that situation, especially when you're suggesting that educating people would help them avoid that situation.

What use is educating people if they're just going to ignore it anyway?

Again: education, from a reasonably young age, about issues around alcohol and consent is a pressing need. I know the RCCs in this country have an education programme, but it needs to be on every curriculum and not dependent on them.

Sex education of any sort I've seen in this country is utter shyte. There's no two ways about it. You have people here suggesting that alcohol is the "social lubricant" and people have entered long term relationships and marriage and so on from drunken sex, arguing as though alcohol was almost a necessary component in the sexual encounter between adults. Can these people really not have sex if they're not drunk?

Education isn't enough on it's own, seriously. There needs to be a massive shift in attitudes towards alcohol, and it's happening alright among more and more young people that they aren't needing alcohol and are perfectly able to socialise and yes have sex without it. That's happening naturally, not because of some laws or education that says abstinence only or whatever else. It's happening because younger people aren't growing up using alcohol as a social crutch before they decide to have sex with someone. They're behaving like the adults are supposed to behave!

ThinkProgress

A gentleman always carries a breathalyzer!

jank

Obviously the next step is for the state to legislate this recommendation. Give all males who reach the age of consent a free pocket breathalyzer. They will also be mandated to attend brain washing re-education seminars, where they will learn that male sexuality is a sin and needs to be 'controlled' under the scope of what some pencil pusher in the department of health deems appropriate.

Once made aware of the facts that men are inherently evil and that women are inconstant ever present danger from a culture of rape, they will then authorised to 'have sex' with a girl/woman using pre-approved the '10 steps to sexual consent' health and safety measures. Failure to comply with these regulations will involved fines and/or jail time for repeat offenders. The problem will thus be solved.

silverfeather

I agree people should be considerate of one another and not take advantage etc.

But Perhaps it should be illegal for people (both men and women) to drink to that level where they are no longer non compos mentis? I think that would really benefit society. Just think about that. No more drunken mistakes.

I have never been drunk in my life, i don't really drink (very very occasionally). How people can act so differently baffles me.

The female bashing in this thread is ridiculous. If a girl is passed out leave her alone!

DoYouEvenLift

The wording is hilariously patronising to women, how do feminists not take issue with this? It's basically equating to adult women not being on the same level as adult men with decision making and accountability. This would put women somewhere in between children and men.


If a woman gets drunk and decides to get in her car and plough into another car or pedestrian then she is held fully accountable for her choices and actions so why then would this be any different for sex?


Adults shouldn't even be getting blackout drunk anyway, what kind of loser even does that past their teenage/early twenties. Just have a few drinks to enjoy yourselves, have some fuking self control.

Eugene Norman

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's the second time today I've come across that phrase 'virtue signalling', no idea what it meant, so I just looked it up there now. Seems to be the new 'go-to' phrase for 'anyone who disagrees with me'. It's about as meaningful then as that other nonsense phrase bandied about here lately, you know the one, the 'p' word - "privilege".

Regardless, I don't mind personal anecdotes, it's the doomsday scenarios and the "this is bad news for everyone" scenarios, and the "they're criminalising kids, Joe" arguments that wreck my bulb. Nobody is criminalising anyone with this law.

If you want to actually have a discussion on this law without leaping to doomsday scenarios and the 'fall of society' due to people being more mindful of their alcohol intake and being just that little teensy bit more conscious of their behaviour, well, I'm not sure that's really such a bad thing? Is it?





Well that's why I said it was down to the individual to use their best judgment, and I have little sympathy for those people I believe could tell when someone is intoxicated to the point where having sex with them would be irresponsible. I'm certainly no paragon of virtue, but we all have our deal breakers, and I always preferred to err on the side of caution in these matters. I've never been in the situation where drunken sex seemed like an appealing prospect, and I can only speak for myself.

Other people have their own standards, and that's their business. I don't make these laws, and they're not likely to trouble me any time soon, and before you suggest that "Oh so you wouldn't give a damn then if a guy was accused of raping a girl as long as it's not you?", well think about that - was the guy thinking about the girl's welfare when he chose to have sex with her?

(you can switch the genders about whatever way you like there and I'd still say the same thing, except that a girl cannot be charged with rape if the victim is a man, so a man could be charged with rape of another man, and a woman could be charged with rape of another woman, you get the idea - a woman can only be charged with sexual assault if the victim is a man)





Nobody is criminalising youthful transgressions. Rape can not be categorised as 'youthful transgressions'. The assumption that one party is taking advantage of another in their inebriated state isn't exactly jumping to ridiculous conclusions, it's just as valid an assumption as anyone who feels ****ty the morning after the night before is going to be claiming they were raped.





Nobody has accused anyone of criminality here yet, so it's absurd to be using the excuse of intoxication for impaired judgment either way. One person's impaired judgment doesn't justify the behavior of another due to impaired judgment. That's why we have the judicial system to arbitrate between circumstances and take all factors of every individual case into account.

That way we avoid half the made-up silly scenarios already posited in this thread.





I haven't got my sub-text reading glasses on, so I'm not seeing what you're seeing, but for what it's worth, I think you're seeing what you want to see. I don't think there's any criminalising men here at all, and the only Victorian moralising I see going on is people here arguing that men's behaviour should be excused, while women should be held responsible for 'getting themselves in such a state'.

Perhaps that's the, ehh, what was it again? Oh yes - 'virtue signalling' you talked about earlier.

Just when I was getting used to ye olde 'white knight', 'pseudo-feminist' nonsense, they went and changed it all up again. Things should always stay the same, always, that way my own little world doesn't fall apart at the seams while I try to make sense of it all.

You didn't really answer any of my points and you are clearly, as it happens, virtue signalling. Which is basically promoting your own morality. You wouldn't do this.

In the midst of this you contradict yourself more than once. This isn't about criminalising people but it's about "rape". But rape is being redefined so it clearly is about criminalising people.

And you miss my major point, that both sides would probably be equally drunk but only one side is excused, the other is a rapist.

Lastly you prove my sub text with your "counter argument" that women are blamed today for getting in a state. But earlier you said the law was gender neutral.

tritium

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'm afraid you've utterly missed the point of the proposal. Regardless of whether its regret induced or not any claim would be tested against blood alcohol level under this proposal and consent would hinge on that-alcohol level above threshold =rape, no more questions m'lud.

Tbh, unless one party is clearly less drunk than the other (either gender) this is unworkable nonsense driven by a social engineering agenda. The aim of a proposal like this is more about trying to artificially drive up the conviction rate because some groups argue its too low rather than justice in any sense of the word.

One eyed Jack

Eugene Norman wrote: »

You didn't really answer any of my points and you are clearly, as it happens, virtue signalling. Which is basically promoting your own morality. You wouldn't do this.

Well if suggesting to men that they don't fcuk drunk women is 'virtue signalling', I'll happily put that in semaphore if it makes the message any more clearly understood. I'm actually not promoting my own morality if I was invited by the OP to give an opinion on the subject.

(for a while there I thought virtue signalling was the idea of going along with the moral majority opinion in order to be seen as a 'good person', I'm so glad it's not that now as I'd hate to think I went along with group think just to be popular when it made absolutely no sense to me to do so)

In the midst of this you contradict yourself more than once. This isn't about criminalising people but it's about "rape". But rape is being redefined so it clearly is about criminalising people.

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.

You can't criminalise someone when they haven't broken the law btw, and a BAC test would only be relevant in a case where first of all a person had reported they were raped. If a person doesn't have sex with someone who has consumed substances which impaired their ability to consent freely, then they can't be criminalised for something they haven't done. It's not rocket science we're trying to get our heads around here. I would consider that an important message in any form of sex education (which as I pointed out earlier - people will freely ignore too!).

And you miss my major point, that both sides would probably be equally drunk but only one side is excused, the other is a rapist.

Your major point only has any merit if one person makes a complaint of rape against another. The complainant would also have to have a BAC level above a certain threshold (no source for that yet, but if it's 50mg in Ireland for drink driving, I would presume the same for consent to sex).

Lastly you prove my sub text with your "counter argument" that women are blamed today for getting in a state. But earlier you said the law was gender neutral.

Perhaps you read that wrong. Some people here are making the argument that consent is consent regardless of whether the person is drunk or not. The argument they put forward is that the fact the person is drunk is their own responsibility, they shouldn't be able to claim they were raped if they consented to sex when they were drunk. That's where I was coming from in saying that other people were suggesting that the person at fault is the person who gets drunk, not the person who chose to have sex with them. I look at it differently - the person who chooses to engage in a sexual act with someone who is drunk, is actually the person who is at fault. Rather simple solution - don't have sex with drunk people. Let them get blotto if they want, but the responsibility is on the person who doesn't want to risk being accused of rape or sexual assault to say no if a drunk person offers to have sex with them.

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?

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.

tritium wrote: »

I'm afraid you've utterly missed the point of the proposal. Regardless of whether its regret induced or not any claim would be tested against blood alcohol level under this proposal and consent would hinge on that-alcohol level above threshold =rape, no more questions m'lud.

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.

Tbh, unless one party is clearly less drunk than the other (either gender) this is unworkable nonsense driven by a social engineering agenda. The aim of a proposal like this is more about trying to artificially drive up the conviction rate because some groups argue its too low rather than justice in any sense of the word.

That's certainly one way of looking at it. The other is that it's being proposed to try and reduce the whole legal grey area around the idea of consent in cases where the victim's judgement was impaired to the point where they could not freely give consent according to a standard defined in legislation already.

The report is here btw just in case you wanted a read of it yourself, and it outlines a lot more than just the one specific idea that was jumped on by the media -

Report of the Independent Review into The Investigation and Prosecution of Rape in London

PopePalpatine

What is it about this topic that's attracting new posters with suspiciously similar views?

_Redzer_

Jaysus I've been raped heaps of times then according to this

tritium

PopePalpatine wrote: »

What is it about this topic that's attracting new posters with suspiciously similar views?

Eh, no. I think you'll find its the usual posters on both sides.

Anyone unusual seems to have postcounts in the hundreds

Not seeing too many new regs, but guess I might if they disagreed with me.....

NachoBusiness

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Some people here are making the argument that consent is consent regardless of whether the person is drunk or not.

No, they are saying that someone can give sexual consent when at certain level of drunkenness. I don't think anyone is of the opinion that someone mumbling agreement to sex while paralytic should qualify as consent and that is where you fail to make any distinctions. To you drunk is drunk and it's black and white but the reality is that it's far from that. As users have said, if drunkenness alone meant a legal inability to consent, then the vast majority of people have raped and been raped.

That's where I was coming from in saying that other people were suggesting that the person at fault is the person who gets drunk, not the person who chose to have sex with them. I look at it differently - the person who chooses to engage in a sexual act with someone who is drunk, is actually the person who is at fault. Rather simple solution - don't have sex with drunk people. Let them get blotto if they want, but the responsibility is on the person who doesn't want to risk being accused of rape or sexual assault to say no if a drunk person offers to have sex with them.

Here you go again with idealistic tripe, saying it's quite simple: 'don't have sex with a drunk people and you won't risk accusations of rape'. Not only is this extremely naive based on the fact that millions of people get drunk each weekend with an eye on having sex, but it is also grossly obtuse and shows scant regard for someone who has been accused of raping someone. You're basically saying 'tough sh1t'.

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?

Look, maybe you don't want to have sex when you're drunk, good for you, but many people enjoy sex when drunk and they shouldn't be labelled criminals because of that. Nor victims neither.

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.

Again with the 'only have sex sober' mantra.

You say above that you would support this proposal being written into law and so can I ask you, how exactly would you see it being workable? Would the BAC 'drunk' level for sex be the same as the BAC 'drunk' level for driving for example? If both parties were drunk, would that be significant? Etc.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's introducing an arbitrary standard, just like the statutory laws, I really don't see what's bonkers there. People ignore these arbitrary standards all the time, and they're only relevant when something actually happens or someone makes a complaint.

The arbitrary standard is what's bonkers. If a girl has had five pints, gets raped, and then it's deemed that the amount she had to drink made her incapable of consent, then tomorrow night when I go out, have five pints and come home and have sex with my boyfriend, how can I possibly be capable of consent? That's a bonkers message to send to young people in an already very confusing area.

It's easily avoided by not putting themselves in that situation. What's actually bonkers is suggesting that they couldn't have not put themselves in that situation, especially when you're suggesting that educating people would help them avoid that situation.

Where I mean education is necessary is in telling teenagers very early on that it IS NOT OK to get someone legless drunk so they'll fúck you when that person wouldn't fúck you sober. It IS NOT OK to go looking for the "drunkest bitchez in the club to fúck", it is creepy and predatory.

Girls are also sent pretty contradictory messages here. On the one hand "it's offensive shíte to adopt the mindset of every man is a potential rapist/get over yourself you stuck up bitch, not everyone wants to fúck you", on the other "Well you shouldn't have gone back to the house with them/let him kiss you/gotten drunk, of course you're going to get raped".

I've known of some horrible cases in my social groups over the years where the mistake a girl made was just trusting her male friends, and where those male friends could not understand why the friendship was ended because as far as they were concerned they did nothing wrong. (No charges were pressed in those cases, btw, even though apparently there's some international federation of vindictive hoors just waiting to ruin a man's life for kicks.)

Those kind of attitudes need to be sorted out by education and peer pressure, not messy laws that criminalise by proxy consensual behaviour that happens hundreds of times every weekend.

hatrickpatrick

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Jaysus I've been raped heaps of times then according to this

I genuinely struggle to think of many sexual encounters I've had in which I wasn't raped, if this is the standard used.

nokia69

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Jaysus I've been raped heaps of times then according to this

not if you're a man

the next day a drunk man can't complain, but a drunk woman can scream rape

hatrickpatrick

nokia69 wrote: »

not if you're a man

the next day a drunk man can't complain, but a drunk woman can scream rape

Until the entirely archaic definition of rape as "penetration without consent" as opposed to "intercourse without consent" is changed, this is outrageously actually true. :mad:

PopePalpatine

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Until the entirely archaic definition of rape as "penetration without consent" as opposed to "intercourse without consent" is changed, this is outrageously actually true. :mad:

I don't want to sound pedantic, but unfortunately I've heard of cases where victims are raped with inanimate objects...I'm guessing that kind of rape also falls under the definition of "intercourse without consent"?

Penny Tration

I've seen male and female friends go off and have sex when they couldn't even remember their own name. No way were the capable of consenting! Consent is supposed to be informed consent. So drunk that you can barely speak, cant remember your name and struggle to walk should make you legally incapable of consenting.

An arbitrary amount to determine your ability to consent is nuts, though. I don't imagine it'll be easily enforceable tbh. I could have five pints and happily consent to sex. My friend would be passed out on the floor after five pints.

Different people have different limits, so this seems ridiculous.

Also, it's utter bollocks that women are the only ones who can be a victim here.