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

ShowMeTheCash

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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).

Bit of a difference between being fit to drive a potentially lethal weapon and being with it enough to know you want to have sex!

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

It is a nonsensical argument...
I am too drunk to give consent even if I am saying yes I want sex...
Is like saying I was too drunk to realise I should not drive - That will not swing as a defense when you are up in front of a judge for drink driving!

You say this would be not an issue unless a complaint of rape is made but in reality what we are saying is this.
If you got drunk and took a guy back to your place had sex with him, even if this was your idea, wake the next morning in a bit of a daze think to yourself "What have I done, I would never have done this sober".
This person now has a case to accuse this guy of rape...
Equally the guy could wake, take one look at her and say "What have I done, I would never have done this sober" and should equally be able to make the same complaint...

Both get convicted of raping each other!

hatrickpatrick

PopePalpatine wrote: »

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"?

I'd call that sexual assault rather than rape, but that's just me.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Just as an fyi, I'm going through the report now (OneEyedJack linked it above) and there's a lot in it about improving police and social attitudes to, and resources for, male victims. Could do with that sort of thinking in Ireland.

RGDATA!

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'd call that sexual assault rather than rape, but that's just me.

Curious why you'd make that distinction?

One eyed Jack

NachoBusiness wrote: »

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.

You understand that the whole point of a legal standard to determine consent is that it does away with much of the subjective guesswork you're talking about? What we're talking about here is consent in a legal context, not simply the idea that you have five pints and you're still good to go or whatever. The law doesn't care whether you feel you're ok to consent or not, in the same way as the law uses a standardised BAC level to determine whether you are capable of driving or not. It doesn't matter what you feel then whether you're capable of consenting or not, or whether you're capable of driving or not. Legally speaking, once your blood alcohol level is above a certain threshold, whether you'd five harvey wallbangers or five pints, it doesn't matter. Your BAC, is all that matters in a legal context regarding consent.

I prefer not to drive when I want to drink, avoids that whole messy business of having to judge whether I'm capable of driving or not, and in just the same way, I prefer to avoid having sex when I'm either drunk, or the person who wants to have sex with me is drunk - I'd sooner just avoid that whole grey area of determining consent when I'm not 100% in control of my own faculties.

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'.

I may need to look up what 'idealistic tripe' means if you think it means that a person is naive who chooses not to put themselves in a position where as much as they might want to have sex with someone, they choose not to because they have determined that person is in no condition to have sex. It's yourself is actually showing scant regard for both your own welfare and the welfare of the other person or persons if you prioritise having sex over knowing the full and possible consequences of your actions.

I can understand of course when you're balls deep in someone that the last thing on your mind is, well, anything else really, but you shouldn't expect much in the way of sympathy then when your priority was getting your balls wet over whether that person or persons was legally capable of giving consent or not. It would be extremely naive on your part to expect anyone to have sympathy for you if the sh1t hits the fan after the fact, when you had every opportunity to consider the possible consequences beforehand.

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.

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

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.

You say that like it's a bad thing encouraging people to avoid having sex with people when they're drunk, or when the person they intend to have sex with is drunk, and then you call me naive? Sure what could possibly go wrong, right?

I don't know the BAC threshold yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is the same level for drunk driving, 50mg. Of course it would be signifigant if both parties were drunk, but I'll leave that to the Courts to adjudicate on rather than speculate about the various possible scenarios.

Demetrius Unsightly Shopkeeper wrote: »

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 not based on how many pints you consume though, it's based on your blood alcohol content level. Because it's based on BAC, five pints in an hour is going to be very different from five pints in five hours. It's really not that confusing when practically every young person I know at least has a smartphone and they can download an app which will give them an idea at least of their BAC.

You remember here a few weeks ago in another thread the suggestion was made that young people should have drug testing kits available that they could test what their pills contain before they consume them, well the suggestion that they use an app to test their BAC is no bigger a deal and no more impractical than the suggestion that they carry a few condoms on their person so that they protect themselves.

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.

Yeah, anything that sounds like you're a party pooper never went down well with people who were more interested in themselves and getting laid. This thread alone is evidence of that fact. Young people are nearly easier to get through to though than adults who have grown up with the idea that they're not doing any harm to anyone and it's the other persons problem if they wake up in the morning feeling butthurt after the night before.

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".

Well that's a whole can of worms that I have some insights on alright, some which are fairly depressing (girls feeling pressured to kiss each other to titillate the boys, etc, the likes of spunout.ie giving advice about threesomes for teenagers, etc), could go on, but it wouldn't end well. Young people get contradictory and confusing messages from everywhere, but the best we can do is try and guide them through the myriad of sexual exploration balancing their responsibility for themselves and other people, with their enthusiasm to explore their boundaries.

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.)

There isn't a barge pole long enough to even go near this one tbh. It's not up to me to tell someone how they should or shouldn't feel or to invalidate how they do feel. The amount of times I get asked by people I've met who have been raped, wtf do I know about rape, I choose to back down rather than risk what to me would come off like a pissing contest. I'd simply find it crass, perhaps because I don't feel a need to share my experiences.

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.

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

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

This is an incredibly dangerous law to suggest.

One eyed Jack

_Redzer_ wrote: »

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

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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

Rape jokes, fun for the whole fraternity.

nokia69 wrote: »

not if you're a man

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

Male on male rape, it happens.

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:

That'll be the whole third wave feminist conspiracy there of course, right? Nothing at all to do with the fact that men making jokes about being raped has anything to do with male victims of rape not being taken seriously.

nokia69

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Male on male rape, it happens.

you know well what I mean

a man and a woman are both equally drunk, they have sex, the next day the woman can cry rape but not the man

so much for equality

Rough Sleeper

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Rape jokes, fun for the whole fraternity.

Seems pretty clear that those were jokes about how ridiculous they found the proposal rather than any attempt to make light of rape itself.

Eugene Norman

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You understand that the whole point of a legal standard to determine consent is that it does away with much of the subjective guesswork you're talking about? What we're talking about here is consent in a legal context, not simply the idea that you have five pints and you're still good to go or whatever. The law doesn't care whether you feel you're ok to consent or not, in the same way as the law uses a standardised BAC level to determine whether you are capable of driving or not. It doesn't matter what you feel then whether you're capable of consenting or not, or whether you're capable of driving or not. Legally speaking, once your blood alcohol level is above a certain threshold, whether you'd five harvey wallbangers or five pints, it doesn't matter. Your BAC, is all that matters in a legal context regarding consent.

I prefer not to drive when I want to drink, avoids that whole messy business of having to judge whether I'm capable of driving or not, and in just the same way, I prefer to avoid having sex when I'm either drunk, or the person who wants to have sex with me is drunk - I'd sooner just avoid that whole grey area of determining consent when I'm not 100% in control of my own faculties.




I may need to look up what 'idealistic tripe' means if you think it means that a person is naive who chooses not to put themselves in a position where as much as they might want to have sex with someone, they choose not to because they have determined that person is in no condition to have sex. It's yourself is actually showing scant regard for both your own welfare and the welfare of the other person or persons if you prioritise having sex over knowing the full and possible consequences of your actions.

I can understand of course when you're balls deep in someone that the last thing on your mind is, well, anything else really, but you shouldn't expect much in the way of sympathy then when your priority was getting your balls wet over whether that person or persons was legally capable of giving consent or not. It would be extremely naive on your part to expect anyone to have sympathy for you if the sh1t hits the fan after the fact, when you had every opportunity to consider the possible consequences beforehand.





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






You say that like it's a bad thing encouraging people to avoid having sex with people when they're drunk, or when the person they intend to have sex with is drunk, and then you call me naive? Sure what could possibly go wrong, right?

I don't know the BAC threshold yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is the same level for drunk driving, 50mg. Of course it would be signifigant if both parties were drunk, but I'll leave that to the Courts to adjudicate on rather than speculate about the various possible scenarios.





It's not based on how many pints you consume though, it's based on your blood alcohol content level. Because it's based on BAC, five pints in an hour is going to be very different from five pints in five hours. It's really not that confusing when practically every young person I know at least has a smartphone and they can download an app which will give them an idea at least of their BAC.

You remember here a few weeks ago in another thread the suggestion was made that young people should have drug testing kits available that they could test what their pills contain before they consume them, well the suggestion that they use an app to test their BAC is no bigger a deal and no more impractical than the suggestion that they carry a few condoms on their person so that they protect themselves.





Yeah, anything that sounds like you're a party pooper never went down well with people who were more interested in themselves and getting laid. This thread alone is evidence of that fact. Young people are nearly easier to get through to though than adults who have grown up with the idea that they're not doing any harm to anyone and it's the other persons problem if they wake up in the morning feeling butthurt after the night before.





Well that's a whole can of worms that I have some insights on alright, some which are fairly depressing (girls feeling pressured to kiss each other to titillate the boys, etc, the likes of spunout.ie giving advice about threesomes for teenagers, etc), could go on, but it wouldn't end well. Young people get contradictory and confusing messages from everywhere, but the best we can do is try and guide them through the myriad of sexual exploration balancing their responsibility for themselves and other people, with their enthusiasm to explore their boundaries.





There isn't a barge pole long enough to even go near this one tbh. It's not up to me to tell someone how they should or shouldn't feel or to invalidate how they do feel. The amount of times I get asked by people I've met who have been raped, wtf do I know about rape, I choose to back down rather than risk what to me would come off like a pissing contest. I'd simply find it crass, perhaps because I don't feel a need to share my experiences.





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

So the State is going to decide that people over the drunk driving limit are not capable of consent to sex? That's basically a totalitarian society.

A_Sober_Paddy

Banjo String wrote: »

Whys it only covering women though?


Surely I'm not the only one that's ever had the beer goggles on at some point in my life

Technically in the eyes of the law, a female CANNOT rape a man...which is something that needs changing

NachoBusiness

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You understand that the whole point of a legal standard to determine consent is that it does away with much of the subjective guesswork you're talking about? What we're talking about here is consent in a legal context, not simply the idea that you have five pints and you're still good to go or whatever. The law doesn't care whether you feel you're ok to consent or not, in the same way as the law uses a standardised BAC level to determine whether you are capable of driving or not. It doesn't matter what you feel then whether you're capable of consenting or not, or whether you're capable of driving or not. Legally speaking, once your blood alcohol level is above a certain threshold, whether you'd five harvey wallbangers or five pints, it doesn't matter. Your BAC, is all that matters in a legal context regarding consent.

Yes, of course I understand that. Al the questions I put to you were based on that. It is indeed the whole point of the thread that the above has been proposed. I find it bizarre that you would even ask me this tbh.

I prefer not to drive when I want to drink, avoids that whole messy business of having to judge whether I'm capable of driving or not, and in just the same way, I prefer to avoid having sex when I'm either drunk, or the person who wants to have sex with me is drunk - I'd sooner just avoid that whole grey area of determining consent when I'm not 100% in control of my own faculties.

Eh, that's facinating. Now perhaps you could answer the questions I put to you..

I may need to look up what 'idealistic tripe' means if you think it means that a person is naive who chooses not to put themselves in a position where as much as they might want to have sex with someone, they choose not to because they have determined that person is in no condition to have sex.

No, I said you were posting idealistic tripe not because you yourself choose not to have sex with someone who is drunk but because you naively expect others not to either.

It's yourself is actually showing scant regard for both your own welfare and the welfare of the other person or persons if you prioritise having sex over knowing the full and possible consequences of your actions.

So anytime a person has had sex when they were drunk, they were showing "scant regard" for themselves and the other person? What unadulterated rubbish.

I can understand of course when you're balls deep in someone that the last thing on your mind is, well, anything else really, but you shouldn't expect much in the way of sympathy then when your priority was getting your balls wet over whether that person or persons was legally capable of giving consent or not.

So basically your attitude to a man that gets a false rape allegation thrown at him after having sex with a girl that had a few drinks is: 'tough sh1t, you shouldn't expect any sympathy given that she was drunk'.

It would be extremely naive on your part to expect anyone to have sympathy for you if the sh1t hits the fan after the fact, when you had every opportunity to consider the possible consequences beforehand.

Like I said: grossly obtuse. Men who have sex with drunk women are not raping them and so of course they should expect sympathy if that accusation gets hurled at them when they have done nothing wrong other than have drunken sex. Men take their lives over such things.

Nope, they should only be labelled criminals if it is proven in a Court of Law that they committed rape following an allegation of rape made by a complainant.

I can't believe you posted the above. This whole thread is about the fact that it would not have to be proven in law that they committed a rape if this proposed law was in effect. All that would be needed would be a BAC to show that the female was legally incapable of giving consent and you know this and so why are you making this point at this stage of the thread? Talking to you is like being on a merry-go-round as the same points keep having to be put to you and you keep coming back with these unreasonable paper thin retorts that show a complete ignorance of how men and women live their lives.

I don't know the BAC threshold yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is the same level for drunk driving, 50mg. Of course it would be signifigant if both parties were drunk, but I'll leave that to the Courts to adjudicate on rather than speculate about the various possible scenarios.

I never asked you what the BAC threshold was for this law, for the simple reason that this law doesn't bloody exist yet and it may never do (one would hope so anyway). What I asked you was what YOU feel the BAC level should be, were the proposed law to come into effect. You skirted the question, but reading between the lines it would appear that you wouldn't have a problem with it being along the lines of what it currently is for drink driving and if that's the case then all I can do is laugh. The notion that if a woman has three drinks over a 90 minute period (which would put the vast majority of women well over the drink driving limit) and then they had sex, by law now they would now have in fact been raped, is about as farcical as it gets.

I'm astonished that anyone would support such a law tbh, let alone feel it was in anyway whatsoever workable.

One eyed Jack

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Yes, of course I understand that. Al the questions I put to you were based on that. It is indeed the whole point of the thread that the above has been proposed. I find it bizarre that you would even ask me this tbh.

You clearly don't understand it if you actually think it matters what I would or wouldn't classify as the varying degrees of consent in a legal context. The introduction of a BAC for consent would do away with a lot of the grey area as to whether someone had the capacity to consent or not when they are intoxicated.

Eh, that's facinating. Now perhaps you could answer the questions I put to you..

I've been explicitly clear in all the answers I've given you so far to any questions you've asked. You just don't like the answers so you keep coming up with scenarios that try to move the goalposts out that little bit further and further. I can spare you any further wasting your time if you like because quite frankly I'm not budging on this one.

No, I said you were posting idealistic tripe not because you yourself choose not to have sex with someone who is drunk but because you naively expect others not to either.

I don't expect you or anyone else to do anything. We're all adults here and we're all big enough and bold enough to be able to decide for ourselves whether we want to take the risk of having sex with a stranger we just met in the club who has a few drinks taken. If you're making an informed choice to have sex with someone, then you know what you're doing. A person who's judgement is impaired is not making an informed choice. What you choose to do with that information is also your own business. You'd be naive to think I should give a damn if things go tits up for you.

So anytime a person has had sex when they were drunk, they were showing "scant regard" for themselves and the other person? What unadulterated rubbish.

Not sure why the inverted commas when it was you used the words "scant regard" first (I'll often borrow the words people use themselves). We have different standards, I think we've established that much already. I wouldn't call your opinion unadulterated rubbish though. I'd simply say you were blinded by your own sense of entitlement.

So basically your attitude to a man that gets a false rape allegation thrown at him after having sex with a girl that had a few drinks is: 'tough sh1t, you shouldn't expect any sympathy given that she was drunk'.

Now you're getting it.

Like I said: grossly obtuse. Men who have sex with drunk women are not raping them and so of course they should expect sympathy if that accusation gets hurled at them when they have done nothing wrong other than have drunken sex. Men take their lives over such things.

If a woman's judgement is impaired to the degree where she is legally incapable of giving consent, and the man knows that she had no legal capacity to give consent, then they shouldn't expect sympathy. They knew the possible consequences of their actions, so I wouldn't have any sympathy for them. What they do after that too is also their own business.

I can't believe you posted the above. This whole thread is about the fact that it would not have to be proven in law that they committed a rape if this proposed law was in effect. All that would be needed would be a BAC to show that the female was legally incapable of giving consent and you know this and so why are you making this point at this stage of the thread? Talking to you is like being on a merry-go-round as the same points keep having to be put to you and you keep coming back with these unreasonable paper thin retorts that show a complete ignorance of how men and women live their lives.

You're consistently missing the point that I don't particularly care what two or more legally consenting adults get up to behind closed doors, it's the adults who are incapacitated to the degree where they are incapable of legal consent that I concern myself with.

I never asked you what the BAC threshold was for this law, for the simple reason that this law doesn't bloody exist yet and it may never do (one would hope so anyway). What I asked you was what YOU feel the BAC level should be, were the proposed law to come into effect. You skirted the question, but reading between the lines it would appear that you wouldn't have a problem with it being along the lines of what it currently is for drink driving and if that's the case then all I can do is laugh. The notion that if a woman has three drinks over a 90 minute period (which would put the vast majority of women well over the drink driving limit) and then they had sex, by law now they would now have in fact been raped, is about as farcical as it gets.

You don't have to read between the lines at all if you would just read what I've written.

I'm astonished that anyone would support such a law tbh, let alone feel it was in anyway whatsoever workable.

It's a statute that doesn't need policing, because it only becomes relevant in specific circumstances where a complaint of rape is made.

SeanW

One eyed Jack wrote:

It's a statute that doesn't need policing, because it only becomes relevant in specific circumstances where a complaint of rape is made.

It all sounds quite arbitrary though.

Imagine two couples meet for a one night stand in a nightclub. all have had some level of drink.

One, the two go their separate ways in the morning and there's no more said about it.

The other, the woman regrets it and cries rape.

In this case it seems the main factor that determines whether it was rape was if the woman subsequently regretted the act. She can jump on a man one night and accuse him of rape the following day.

How exactly is this consistent with any sane definition of justice?

PopePalpatine

You make it sound like regrettable sex happens so often it's like Russian roulette.

SeanW

PopePalpatine wrote: »

You make it sound like regrettable sex happens so often it's like Russian roulette.

I'm not sure what you're getting at - the (likely) feminists pushing this are trying to make after-disco sex like Russian roulette for men.

blue note

What about a woman with a vendetta against a man who sleeps with him stone cold sober. Then knocks back a few shots and goes down to the cop shop and cries rape. Has anyone considered this?

PopePalpatine

SeanW wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're getting at - the (likely) feminists pushing this are trying to make after-disco sex like Russian roulette for men.

I don't think it's going to happen, not even in the MRA boogeyman that is Sweden.

SeanW

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I don't think it's going to happen, not even in the MRA boogeyman that is Sweden.

Legally, that's the standard being sought. Woman had anything to drink, she can cry rape. Man guilty. End of.

volchitsa

SeanW wrote: »

It all sounds quite arbitrary though.

Imagine two couples meet for a one night stand in a nightclub. all have had some level of drink.

One, the two go their separate ways in the morning and there's no more said about it.

The other, the woman regrets it and cries rape.

In this case it seems the main factor that determines whether it was rape was if the woman subsequently regretted the act. She can jump on a man one night and accuse him of rape the following day.

How exactly is this consistent with any sane definition of justice?

Why would that be any more likely than a couple meeting and the man deciding he's entitled to sex whatever she thinks, and raping the woman as soon as she's had a few drinks? If you're going to legislate based on hypothetical situations, surely you need to consider all possible outcomes and the relative likelihood of each. Not just the one that bothers you personally.

I'd say in most cases of regretted sexual encounters, the vast majority of women, like the vast majority of men, decide to put it down to drink and/or experience, and put it out of their minds. Gone are the days (thank heavens) when women had to invent an explanation for unapproved sexual encounters, which was traditionally the likeliest reason for false rape allegations.

(Unless you think hundreds of mentally ill women are wandering the streets as we speak, just looking for innocent men they can seduce and then put in prison for the hell of it.)

PopePalpatine

The contingent of feminists calling for this are about as extreme as the contingent of MRAs who get their kicks sending rape threats. I very much doubt that even if this was implemented, that this limit would kick in after a drink or two.

volchitsa

blue note wrote: »

What about a woman with a vendetta against a man who sleeps with him stone cold sober. Then knocks back a few shots and goes down to the cop shop and cries rape. Has anyone considered this?

Probably about as likely as the man with a vendetta against a woman who slips her a few drinks, rapes her and then claims they were both drunk so it's not his fault?

(And what sort of eejits are men that they can't refuse sex with a woman they should know has something against them? Or do you think these are two people with no previous history between them?)

Dr_Bill

I don't see how this can be enforced and seems like the nanny state is alive and well. So what's the blood alcohol limit supposed to be? same as the drink drive limit? One drink and your screwed or not as the case maybe... :P

volchitsa

Dr_Bill wrote: »

I don't see how this can be enforced and seems like the nanny state is alive and well. So what's the blood alcohol limit supposed to be? same as the drink drive limit? One drink and your screwed or not as the case maybe... :P

Unlikely surely. Presumably it's about being drunk and incapacitated, to the extent of being unable to give consent, not about being slightly intoxicated in charge of a vehicle which can kill people. Basically, a man can have sex with a comatose woman. The other way around would likely pose insurmountable technical problems.

Socr57

volchitsa wrote: »

Probably about as likely as the man with a vendetta against a woman who slips her a few drinks, rapes her and then claims they were both drunk so it's not his fault?

(And what sort of eejits are men that they can't refuse sex with a woman they should know has something against them? Or do you think these are two people with no previous history between them?)

Since when can you get away with rape simply because you were drunk. Being drunk is no excuse for rape as far as I'm aware.


Some of the best sex people have is between men and women who don't like each other but are sexually attracted to each other.It can be highly erotic.

One eyed Jack

SeanW wrote: »

It all sounds quite arbitrary though.

Imagine two couples meet for a one night stand in a nightclub. all have had some level of drink.

One, the two go their separate ways in the morning and there's no more said about it.

The other, the woman regrets it and cries rape.

In this case it seems the main factor that determines whether it was rape was if the woman subsequently regretted the act. She can jump on a man one night and accuse him of rape the following day.

How exactly is this consistent with any sane definition of justice?

You present two inconsistent scenarios and then expect that justice should be consistent for both?

In the first case, neither party has made a complaint of rape. In the second case, one party has made a complaint of rape - completely inconsistent scenarios where all circumstances aren't then equal, so cannot be legally treated equally.

If the man regrets it and claims they were sexually assaulted, would you be as quick to argue that whether they regret it or not is irrelevant? I wouldn't, because if someone makes a claim like that, the whole point of the report is that they should be taken seriously, and not dismissed as simply having regretted it.

If someone claims they have been raped or sexually assaulted, one of the most common claims is that they were responsible for what happened to them because they were drunk. This proposal is effectively an arbitrary way of eliminating that whole grey area of just how drunk were they and were they capable of giving consent, or were they incapacitated to such a degree where they couldn't legally have consented.

We have all sorts of arbitrary legislation already, the age of consent for example, or the drink driving laws - it doesn't matter if you say you can drive while intoxicated. If your BAC is above 50mg and you're caught driving, then there are penalties. You chose to drive, knowing you were taking a risk. You shouldn't expect any sympathy in that case either. The smoking ban is another good example of an arbitrary law - I used enjoy being able to spark up in the club, I thought the idea of a smoking ban was completely unworkable. Look how that turned out. Now it's socially unacceptable to smoke almost anywhere but your own home.

With regard to the whole idea of consent within a relationship, well up until quite recently in Ireland I'm sure you're aware that people didn't think much of the idea that it was possible for a man to rape his wife. It was also considered preposterous, until it was finally acknowledged and an amendment was passed to prohibit a man from raping his wife if she did not consent to sex -

Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act, 1990

Socr57

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You present two inconsistent scenarios and then expect that justice should be consistent for both?

In the first case, neither party has made a complaint of rape. In the second case, one party has made a complaint of rape - completely inconsistent scenarios where all circumstances aren't then equal, so cannot be legally treated equally.

If the man regrets it and claims they were sexually assaulted, would you be as quick to argue that whether they regret it or not is irrelevant? I wouldn't, because if someone makes a claim like that, the whole point of the report is that they should be taken seriously, and not dismissed as simply having regretted it.

If someone claims they have been raped or sexually assaulted, one of the most common claims is that they were responsible for what happened to them because they were drunk. This proposal is effectively an arbitrary way of eliminating that whole grey area of just how drunk were they and were they capable of giving consent, or were they incapacitated to such a degree where they couldn't legally have consented.

We have all sorts of arbitrary legislation already, the age of consent for example, or the drink driving laws - it doesn't matter if you say you can drive while intoxicated. If your BAC is above 50mg and you're caught driving, then there are penalties. You chose to drive, knowing you were taking a risk. You shouldn't expect any sympathy in that case either. The smoking ban is another good example of an arbitrary law - I used enjoy being able to spark up in the club, I thought the idea of a smoking ban was completely unworkable. Look how that turned out. Now it's socially unacceptable to smoke almost anywhere but your own home.

With regard to the whole idea of consent within a relationship, well up until quite recently in Ireland I'm sure you're aware that people didn't think much of the idea that it was possible for a man to rape his wife. It was also considered preposterous, until it was finally acknowledged and an amendment was passed to prohibit a man from raping his wife if she did not consent to sex -

w.irishstatutebook.ie/1990/en/act/pub/0032/sec0005.html#sec5"]Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act, 19

Do you think that someone regretting sex is enough of a basis to have someone convicted of rape?

One eyed Jack

Socr57 wrote: »

Do you think that someone regretting sex is enough of a basis to have someone convicted of rape?

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

Do you think getting your balls wet is enough of a basis to risk a woeful case of knob rot?

(I only ask as a guideline for risk assessment in how far you're willing to go to have sex)

volchitsa

Socr57 wrote: »

Since when can you get away with rape simply because you were drunk. Being drunk is no excuse for rape as far as I'm aware.

But that's a claim has been made by several posters here : that if a woman can be raped because she was unconscious (which is clearly true) then by analogy a man can be so drunk as to be capable of rape but incapable of controlling himself. Being drunk is certainly used as a justification for actions which are supposedly out of character. Even when they occur every time the person drinks. It's one of the problems with Ireland's justice system, IMO, and I don't mean only for sex/rape cases.

Whereas in the case of the woman, the question is whether she was physically and mentally capable of giving consent, not whether she would normally have consented to sex with this particular man. That's my understanding of what's proposed anyway.

Socr57 wrote: »

Some of the best sex people have is between men and women who don't like each other but are sexually attracted to each other.It can be highly erotic.

Totally different point. Why would a woman then decide to accuse him of rape?

As I said, those days are gone. Women, like men, can now have sex they later regret without that marking the course of the rest of their lives. So now they do like men, and put it behind them. To claim otherwise, apart from a very few specific cases, often of mentally ill women, is mostly fantasy by a few diehard women haters.

volchitsa

Socr57 wrote: »

Do you think that someone regretting sex is enough of a basis to have someone convicted of rape?

Do you think that someone regretting sex that was freely entered into is more likely to want to go to court to have the whole sordid incident picked over by third parties in court?

Or is probably going to want to forget all about it ASAP?