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

RayM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How do you define 'sane' exactly?

I think it's safe to assume that his definition of 'sane' closely resembles a box of frogs.

strobe

NachoBusiness wrote: »

LOL. Talk about trying to distance yourself from your own posts. This was you, right?







Eh, so if users on this thread are "playing the victim", "weird fantasising" and need to "cool our jets" then I would suggest then so do you.

It's quite telling when someone thinks somebody adjusting their opinion upon gaining new information is some kind of "gotcha moment".

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Tetrayog wrote: »

Ah now elekro, you went from its bonkers to cool your jets people.

It's bonkers for Reason A, cool your jets for Reason B.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

strobe wrote: »

It's quite telling when someone thinks somebody adjusting their opinion upon gaining new information is some kind of "gotcha moment".

And I said in the post which he failed to quote, I still don't think legislating for this is a good or workable idea.

NachoBusiness

strobe wrote: »

It's quite telling when someone thinks somebody adjusting their opinion upon gaining new information is some kind of "gotcha moment".

Oh come on, if that user wasn't an established member they would have been lambasted for what they did. Come onto a thread suggesting users are "weird fantasizing", "playing the victim" and need to "cool their jets" for expressing the same views which they had earlier in the thread? And now someone jumps to their defense because a user dared call them on it and used an 'lol' as they did it. The audacity.

Usual cliquish nonsense around here. Nothing changes.

One eyed Jack

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Oh but you do as you keep suggesting that people should not have sex when drunk. What is that if not putting expectations on how people behave.

You understand the difference between a suggestion and an expectation? I suggest you stop talking nonsense, but I don't expect you will, not any time soon anyway.

Exactly, but yet you say this out of one side of your mouth (that adults need to take personal responsibility) but yet out of the other side of your mouth you say that if a woman has had three drinks and decides to have sex with a sober man, she has legally been raped as she will have legally incapable of giving consent. Now, what were you saying about us all being adults again?

I never mentioned anything about the number of drinks a woman has. Anything I've said has been focussed on the blood alcohol content, which makes the number of drinks, or the hours she spent drinking, irrelevant, once she is under the BAC threshold. If she is over the BAC, then that still doesn't justify her being raped. They're two different things rape and binge drinking. Guess which one is legal and which one isn't?

Pointing out how much a woman has had to drink is not taking personal responsibility for your own actions, it's trying to shift the responsibility onto someone else. That's why this proposal is necessary, so that piss poor justifications for having sex with women who have no capacity to consent doesn't come down to "she was drunk sure, it's her fault, she told me she wanted sex!", etc.

So, if I have three drinks tonight and decide to kill someone, that is not an informed choice? If I decide to drive a car after three drinks, is that not an informed choice?

I'll tell you what that is, it's a strawman, not even close to being on the same spectrum as a charge of rape, which is why fatal offences, sexual offences, and motoring offences are all treated differently under the law and will have different conditions attached to each offence. You cannot for example use consent as a justification for murder, and you cannot use consent as a justification for driving while intoxicated or under the influence of drugs.

You're God damn right it's entitlement. People are entitled to have a few drinks and have sex if they wish without be labelled criminals by you or anyone else. Paralytic drunk, different story, but we have other laws that already cover that. It's farcical and ludicrous that you feel that a person should not legally be able to consent to sex after having a few drinks. What kind of message do you think that sends? Don't you understand that this would teach people that they don't need to have personal responsibility when they have been drinking.

You're entitled to your drinks. You're not entitled to have sex with another person without their consent. The whole point of this proposal, if it must be spelled out to you again, is that currently there isn't any distinction in legislation regarding sexual offences between tipsy and paralytic. It's completely open to interpretation by either the defence, or the prosecution, and it is the accused who is on trial, not the alleged victim.

The message it sends is that men shouldn't stick their dick in drunk girls. You care to argue against that? I'd like to see your argument. Don't you understand yet that rape and binge drinking are two different things? One is illegal, the other one isn't.

What kind of message do you think you're teaching people when you say you're entitled to have sex with drunk people because they drink and they should be more responsible for their behaviour? You have some funky ideas about personal responsibility. Here's a hint - it means taking responsibility for your own actions, regardless of the actions of others.

Head firmly in the sand. This is not just about you having a different opinion. This is about you believing something that is illogical. You want to drinking while drunk to be treated the same way driving while drunk. Like I said before: idealistic tripe.

Nope, I don't. I'm using BAC as it relates to drink driving as a comparison to how BAC would relate to rape. A comparison - they're not the same, but they share similarities. In this case the BAC standard is the similarity, but that's where the comparison ends.

If a woman cannot legally give consent because she has consumed an amount of alcohol which has put her over the limit, then why should her personal feelings come into it?

I think by now you should understand the difference between drinking habits and rape. I don't think you honestly mean that to sound like a woman's feelings are irrelevant when she does not want to have sex with you, but that's unfortunately the way it sounds. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt though and put it down to a poor choice of words.

I mean, on one hand you suggest she incapable of giving consent when she has reached a certain BAC level and then on the other hand you are saying she can. Which is it?

I never said any such thing. I'm not defending something I didn't say.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Oh come on, if that user wasn't an established member they would have been lambasted for what they did. Come onto a thread suggesting users are "weird fantasizing", "playing the victim" and need to "cool their jets" for expressing the same views which they had earlier in the thread? And now someone jumps to their defense because someone dared to call them on it and use an 'lol' as they did it.

Usual cliquish nonsense around here. Nothing changes.

Not the same views as I expressed at all at all. Nowhere in any of my posts is there even an implication that this is a bad idea because it will facilitate women to easily, vindictively, falsely and successfully accuse men of rape. Show me where I said that.

NachoBusiness

Demetrius Unsightly Shopkeeper wrote: »

Not the same views as I expressed at all at all. Nowhere in any of my posts is there even an implication that this is a bad idea because it will facilitate women to easily, vindictively, falsely and successfully accuse men of rape. Show me where I said that.

I never said you said that. Don't put words in my mouth please.

The only view you highlighted in your post (which you sneered at others for having) was regarding the possibility that a BAC level could lead to a man being charged with rape and so THAT is why I quoted your previous posts as you yourself had being just as reactive to the possibility of this being made law as everyone else was.

Here is your post and I have emboldened the ONLY viewpoint of others that you referenced in it:

Demetrius Unsightly Shopkeeper wrote: »

I know it involves a lot of boring reading, which cuts into your "slagging feminism" time, but you might want to actually know what you're playing the victim over before you start your weird fantasising.

It's proposed that something that's already a part of case/common law is written into statute law to provide clarification. A rape case is not going to be based on the fact that a woman had three pints, that wouldn't get to court. 6% of rape cases result in conviction, ye can cool your jets over this shíte that false allegations of rape are suddenly going to be automatically result in conviction because of this. Jesus.

And so I am not sure why you're asking me where it is that you said this law would be: "a bad idea because it will facilitate women to easily, vindictively, falsely and successfully accuse men of rape" as I never said you said such a thing. Fine, you changed your mind from what you thought earlier. No problem with that but why not just come on and say as much. What's with the need to tell people to cool their jets and stop playing the victim when you had previously reacted the same way, to the ONLY view you referenced in that post at least.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

NachoBusiness wrote: »

And so I am not sure why you're asking me where it is that you said this law would be: "a bad idea because it will facilitate women to easily, vindictively, falsely and successfully accuse men of rape" as I never said you said such a thing. Fine, you changed your mind from what you thought earlier. No problem with that but why not just come on and say as much. What's with the need to tell people to cool their jets and stop playing the victim when you had previously reacted the same way, to the ONLY view you referenced in that post at least.

Because those are the views that I was (I thought clearly) responding to in the post you took exception to, which are views that are nowhere expressed in any of my posts. In my discussion with OEJ I was (again I thought clearly) criticising writing into legislation an arbitrary level of intoxication over which consent is presumed impossible because it criminalises by proxy (which is definitely a term I used) consensual sexual activity.

My objection to this, which I clearly stated, is that it sends a confusing message to young people in an already confusing area (I gave examples of how it's demonstrably confusing) about the meaning and value of consent; and that the confusion in this area would be better sorted out by education.

My objection to this was most certainly not the false, insidious, and most definitely playing-the-victim notion that you can already get a rape conviction easier than a dog license, and that the problem with this recommendation is that women would abuse it in their hundreds out of malice and be successful when they do.

If that is not clear from my posts, then that's down to me communicating or you interpreting what I meant badly, not to me flipflopping

ETA: given your highly selective quoting of my posts when you called me out, no offence but I'm inclined to think it's your interpretation that's at least part of the problem

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Tortilla Chip wrote: »

You said the proposed law was bonkers, to which you would have replied with condescending derision had someone else said it as illustrated by your reaction to other posters criticising the proposed law.

Oh go and re-register. I've read the report, I still think the proposed law is bonkers, that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to criticise people for thinking it's bonkers for COMPLETELY DIFFERENT REASONS AND WITHOUT READING THE REPORT.

How is that so difficult for you?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Tortilla Chip wrote: »

You were criticising people for making it known that it was a crazy law, the same opinion that you had. How about quit being so nasty to people and discuss opinions reasonably without throwing around insults, is that too much to ask?

Are you being serious? If two people say they don't like going into Starbucks, person a because they think the coffee is bad and person b because they think it's run by the Illuminati, do they have the same opinion?

NachoBusiness

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You understand the difference between a suggestion and an expectation? I suggest you stop talking nonsense, but I don't expect you will, not any time soon anyway.

Nice swerve of the question. If I had used the word suggest, you would have swerved it still, lets not pretend otherwise.

I never mentioned anything about the number of drinks a woman has.

And I never said you did. I used three drinks over ninety minutes as the bar as that is the number that would put most people over the drink driving limit, as I made clear in the post after you inferred that you felt both BAC limits should be the same. Again, you know that and so all you are doing is swerving yet another question.

Anything I've said has been focussed on the blood alcohol content, which makes the number of drinks, or the hours she spent drinking, irrelevant, once she is under the BAC threshold. If she is over the BAC, then that still doesn't justify her being raped. They're two different things rape and binge drinking. Guess which one is legal and which one isn't?

Rape and binge drinking are different things? Fascinating.

You're entitled to your drinks. You're not entitled to have sex with another person without their consent.

Ah here. You have to be on a wind up. Here's what I actually said:

NachoBusiness wrote: »

People are entitled to have a few drinks and have sex if they wish without be labelled criminals by you or anyone else. Paralytic drunk, different story, but we have other laws that already cover that. It's farcical and ludicrous that you feel that a person should not legally be able to consent to sex after having a few drinks.

You see, no mention of someone being entitled to have sex with another person without their consent, but sure hyperbole is always reached for by the barrel scrappers when there's feck all left to be scraped.

The message it sends is that men shouldn't stick their dick in drunk girls. You care to argue against that? I'd like to see your argument.

I have already done so. There is drunk and there is paralytic. Most people would agree that people having sex with the latter is rape, even with mumbled consent (as I have already said) and we have laws to prosecute people under if they have sex with someone who has deemed to have been unable or incapable giving consent. However, what you are proposing here is that someone that has an amount of alcohol in their blood which would make it illegal for them to drive, should also mean that they are legally incapable of giving sexual consent and that is ludicrous as adults are fully aware of their actions after a few drinks and should be fully entitled to consent to sex if they so wish.

I never said any such thing. I'm not defending something I didn't say.

That's exactly what you said, all be it inadvertentl when you claimed that a woman who was legally incapable of consent would only have been raped if she reports it as such. You see, on one hand you are saying that sex with a drunk person has to be rape because a woman is not capable of informed consent when drunk (your words) and then on the other hand you are saying that if she doesn't make an accusation of rape, then she wasn't. Can't you see the contradiction here? How you are claiming a woman who is over the BAC limit is not capable of giving consent but yet at same time saying she is, all be it after the event. You're in effect giving her license to retrospectively consent to sex, while the guy sits in his boxers bricking it I suppose. Give it some thought. The penny might drop eventually.

Nope, I don't. I'm using BAC as it relates to drink driving as a comparison to how BAC would relate to rape. A comparison - they're not the same, but they share similarities. In this case the BAC standard is the similarity, but that's where the comparison ends.

Ha. Another back tracker Don't you recall saying the following earlier in the thread:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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).

SeanW

RayM wrote: »

I have never encountered a sane, rational person who thinks feminism is a 'hate movement'.

You're absolutely right:

This vile creature, is a feminist, but not a hate monger.
(She's still in her job in Goldsmiths University btw)

The former prime minister of Iceland tried to censor the Internet around feminist principles ... is not part of a hate movement.

Constant demands for sexism to be enshrined in law, in politics etc, the use of the Swedish model on sex work, demands for women to be excluded from prison for most crimes, yep, nothing hateful there.

So far as I am aware, Paul Elam has no influence outside limited segments of the MRI movement, itself practically a non-entity. They have zero inlfuence in poltics, can claim zero legislative victories in any area that I am aware of.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Tortilla Chip wrote: »

Do you or do you not believe it is a good idea to declare an act of sexual intercurrent to be rape if one or more participants are over the blood alcohol limit?

Do you object to this law on the basis that it will make false rape convictions (which women collect like beanie babies) even easier to get than they are now?

hatrickpatrick

Demetrius Unsightly Shopkeeper wrote: »

Do you object to this law on the basis that it will make false rape convictions (which women collect like beanie babies) even easier to get than they are now?

Personally I object to it on the principle that it re-enforces several toxic societal memes, the most ridiculous of which being that your behaviour while drunk is not your own responsibility.

Yes means yes, drunk or not. Yes only means no if the yes was coerced, not if it was made under the impaired judgement of beer goggles or E-uphoria - in the same way as ANY other decision I make under the aforementioned conditions is my own responsibility and nobody else's.

One eyed Jack

NachoBusiness wrote: »

What's with the snide baiting? Seriously.

Fine, you have changed your mind somewhat on the topic but what's with the sudden change in attitude to how you were at the start of the thread. You jump on here today telling people to cool their jets and stop playing the victim after and now this inference that users here feel women in general love making false rape allegations. I haven't seen any posts inferring such a thing. Seems you're just spoiling for a row tbf.

False rape allegations are bound to be part of any discussion where changes to the laws regarding rape are concerned.

Now Nacho, that's the pot calling the kettle black if ever I saw it.

With regard to your earlier post, this is the only part at this point worth responding to, and I already addressed it in an earlier post, the post you quoted, but selectively left out the bit where I addressed it -

NachoBusiness wrote: »

I have already done so. There is drunk and there is paralytic. Most people would agree that people having sex with the latter is rape, even with mumbled consent (as I have already said) and we have laws to prosecute people under if they have sex with someone who has deemed to have been unable or incapable giving consent. However, what you are proposing here is that someone that has an amount of alcohol in their blood which would make it illegal for them to drive, should also mean that they are legally incapable of giving sexual consent and that is ludicrous as adults are fully aware of their actions after a few drinks and should be fully entitled to consent to sex if they so wish.

Here -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The whole point of this proposal, if it must be spelled out to you again, is that currently there isn't any distinction in legislation regarding sexual offences between tipsy and paralytic. It's completely open to interpretation by either the defence, or the prosecution, and it is the accused who is on trial, not the alleged victim.

FWIW btw, I would initiate a zero tolerance policy on people having sex with anyone who has any level of alcohol or drugs in their system. That would influence men to keep it in their pants in order to protect themselves from any allegations of untoward behaviour directed at them from all these hordes of women that some men would have us believe are chomping at the bit to make false allegations of rape against men because they regret having had sex with them!

That would also mean of course that men would have to approach women sober if they want to have sex with them, without the "social lubricant" that would present any problems with legal consent.

Most men don't need a woman to be drunk before they approach them, so I'm interested to know why you are so insistent upon your perceived entitlement to have sex with girls who are drunk? Is this the only scenario in which you could hope to have sex with a girl?

I would suggest you grow a set tbh, there's nothing to be proud of in getting your rocks off with drunk girls. I'm actually embarrassed when I see grown men hovering about the club hoping for a sniff of some bambi-legged young one that can't hold her drink, and if a zero tolerance policy were what it takes to deny any woman the opportunity to label all men as creepy fcuks on the basis of the behavior of a minority of embarrassing types that never grew up, then I'm all for introducing legislation that does so.

hatrickpatrick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Most men don't need a woman to be drunk before they approach them, so I'm interested to know why you are so insistent upon your perceived entitlement to have sex with girls who are drunk? Is this the only scenario in which you could hope to have sex with a girl?

It has to do with Irish social life. Especially for young people, and students - clubs, concerts, house parties and college events tend to be where they meet new people and socialise. Most people who attend the aforementioned are drunk to some degree. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but it's reality, so it follows that if you make these laws a reality, you essentially make one of the main venues for young people to meet, no-go areas for hooking up. That is patently absurd.

You've said yourself that what I've described in Coppers happens every night of the week up and down the country - having said that, you surely aren't going to repeat your claim that my argument is purely anecdotal and that going out for drinks is not a major staple of most young peoples' social lives?

hatrickpatrick

Tortilla Chip wrote: »

It's disingenuous and quite underhanded to suggest he said he was entitled to sex with drunk women, no one made such a claim. If two consenting adults want to have sex while drunk then they should be entitled to do so.

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

Eugene Norman

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Now Nacho, that's the pot calling the kettle black if ever I saw it.

With regard to your earlier post, this is the only part at this point worth responding to, and I already addressed it in an earlier post, the post you quoted, but selectively left out the bit where I addressed it -





Here -





FWIW btw, I would initiate a zero tolerance policy on people having sex with anyone who has any level of alcohol or drugs in their system. That would influence men to keep it in their pants in order to protect themselves from any allegations of untoward behaviour directed at them from all these hordes of women that some men would have us believe are chomping at the bit to make false allegations of rape against men because they regret having had sex with them!

That would also mean of course that men would have to approach women sober if they want to have sex with them, without the "social lubricant" that would present any problems with legal consent.

Most men don't need a woman to be drunk before they approach them, so I'm interested to know why you are so insistent upon your perceived entitlement to have sex with girls who are drunk? Is this the only scenario in which you could hope to have sex with a girl?

I would suggest you grow a set tbh, there's nothing to be proud of in getting your rocks off with drunk girls. I'm actually embarrassed when I see grown men hovering about the club hoping for a sniff of some bambi-legged young one that can't hold her drink, and if a zero tolerance policy were what it takes to deny any woman the opportunity to label all men as creepy fcuks on the basis of the behavior of a minority of embarrassing types that never grew up, then I'm all for introducing legislation that does so.

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

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


In practice men will just shy away from feminists.

hatrickpatrick

Cold War Kid wrote: »

Is it definitely proposed by feminists, also? The notion of men as the aggressors, women as requiring protection (and incapable of sexually assaulting men) goes back to long before feminism, and sure as heck isn't just propagated by women.

It's an example of one of the many gender roles feminists are happy to benefit from, despite claiming to oppose gender roles as a concept. Gender roles suddenly become acceptable when the issue is domestic violence, rape, or individual men behaving like douchebags.

To be fair though, I don't think this particular idea is pedalled as much by feminists as it is by people who fail to understand what young peoples' social lives are like. You had One Eyed Jack claiming earlier in the thread that my argument over students' socialising generally revolving around drink-based parties was purely anecdotal. Anyone who's been out on a Friday or Saturday night at a club run by a college society knows that it's true, whether they approve of it or not. Therefore, the reason someone might argue that they can only score with drunk people isn't because they need to prey on anyone, but because they and their friends rarely socialise without alcohol. I know many people who fit into that category. These proposals essentially make it illegal for them to have sex at all without a radical lifestyle change.

We can argue in a different thread about the causes and issues around binge drinking culture, but to deny that it is a reality for many young people is moronic.

One eyed Jack

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It has to do with Irish social life. Especially for young people, and students - clubs, concerts, house parties and college events tend to be where they meet new people and socialise. Most people who attend the aforementioned are drunk to some degree. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but it's reality, so it follows that if you make these laws a reality, you essentially make one of the main venues for young people to meet, no-go areas for hooking up. That is patently absurd.

Hey I made the same argument about the smoking ban over 10 years ago, because I enjoyed being able to smoke in the bar, in the club, whatever, and whaddya know? The clubs are still open, still packin' 'em in, etc. It's become socially unacceptable to smoke now. The same would happen if there was a zero tolerance policy on getting off with people who are off their faces. If people then wanted to have sex, they would have to approach people without drooling all over them, ie - they would have to modify their behaviour and choose between drinking, or having sex.

The same rules would apply to women as to men btw, just in case that wasn't clear - if a man is intoxicated, then a women should be prohibited from approaching him for sex.

You've said yourself that what I've described in Coppers happens every night of the week up and down the country - having said that, you surely aren't going to repeat your claim that my argument is purely anecdotal and that going out for drinks is not a major staple of most young peoples' social lives?

Of course it is, as is going out for drugs, and going out for sex. Neither of us are saying that's right, as you point out above, so let's actually do something practical about that rather than relying upon people to regulate themselves when they have only their own interests in mind?

I have no time for selfish people that only think of what they're entitled to, without acknowledging that they have a responsibility towards other people in society. Those sort of people need to be shown that their behaviour is socially unacceptable. Most people get the idea and are able to regulate themselves, but there's always that minority who spoil everything for everyone else with their own selfish, entitlement attitude.

Eugene Norman

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Hey I made the same argument about the smoking ban over 10 years ago, because I enjoyed being able to smoke in the bar, in the club, whatever, and whaddya know? The clubs are still open, still packin' 'em in, etc. It's become socially unacceptable to smoke now. The same would happen if there was a zero tolerance policy on getting off with people who are off their faces. If people then wanted to have sex, they would have to approach people without drooling all over them, ie - they would have to modify their behaviour and choose between drinking, or having sex.

The same rules would apply to women as to men btw, just in case that wasn't clear - if a man is intoxicated, then a women should be prohibited from approaching him for sex.





Of course it is, as is going out for drugs, and going out for sex. Neither of us are saying that's right, as you point out above, so let's actually do something practical about that rather than relying upon people to regulate themselves when they have only their own interests in mind?

I have no time for selfish people that only think of what they're entitled to, without acknowledging that they have a responsibility towards other people in society. Those sort of people need to be shown that their behaviour is socially unacceptable. Most people get the idea and are able to regulate themselves, but there's always that minority who spoil everything for everyone else with their own selfish, entitlement attitude.

Actually by the alcohol level you want to define as non-consensual drinking your "selfish entitlement attitude" includes most people, in or out of relationships, since sex doesn't stop after marriage (or long term relationships), nor does drinking, nor does both together.

hatrickpatrick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Hey I made the same argument about the smoking ban over 10 years ago, because I enjoyed being able to smoke in the bar, in the club, whatever, and whaddya know? The clubs are still open, still packin' 'em in, etc. It's become socially unacceptable to smoke now. The same would happen if there was a zero tolerance policy on getting off with people who are off their faces. If people then wanted to have sex, they would have to approach people without drooling all over them, ie - they would have to modify their behaviour and choose between drinking, or having sex.

But who wants to make it socially unacceptable to score on a night out? That's preposterous and you know it's preposterous.

The same rules would apply to women as to men btw, just in case that wasn't clear - if a man is intoxicated, then a women should be prohibited from approaching him for sex.

And that's equally moronic, particularly given the number of lads who are too shy to make an approach without dutch courage.

What you're talking about is attempting to force a social change through legislation. This ignored the painful transition period you would be inflicting on people. If you must, change the culture before you change the law on this.

Of course it is, as is going out for drugs, and going out for sex. Neither of us are saying that's right, as you point out above, so let's actually do something practical about that rather than relying upon people to regulate themselves when they have only their own interests in mind?

I'm not saying it's right, nor am I saying it's bad. There's nothing wrong with it in my view, personally I don't enjoy it myself but that's just because I don't enjoy it. I'm not passing judgement on others who do, unlike yourself.

I have no time for selfish people that only think of what they're entitled to, without acknowledging that they have a responsibility towards other people in society. Those sort of people need to be shown that their behaviour is socially unacceptable. Most people get the idea and are able to regulate themselves, but there's always that minority who spoil everything for everyone else with their own selfish, entitlement attitude.

That minority should not be allowed to spoil it for everyone, they should be dealt with individually without inconveniencing anyone else.

I take it you support minimum alcohol pricing for the same reason?
I'm coming at this from a socially libertarian point of view, in case that wasn't clear. The less rules there are governing consensual behaviour between adults, the better.

Rough Sleeper

One eyed Jack wrote: »

FWIW btw, I would initiate a zero tolerance policy on people having sex with anyone who has any level of alcohol or drugs in their system. That would influence men to keep it in their pants in order to protect themselves from any allegations of untoward behaviour directed at them from all these hordes of women that some men would have us believe are chomping at the bit to make false allegations of rape against men because they regret having had sex with them!

That would also mean of course that men would have to approach women sober if they want to have sex with them, without the "social lubricant" that would present any problems with legal consent.

Most men don't need a woman to be drunk before they approach them, so I'm interested to know why you are so insistent upon your perceived entitlement to have sex with girls who are drunk? Is this the only scenario in which you could hope to have sex with a girl?

I would suggest you grow a set tbh, there's nothing to be proud of in getting your rocks off with drunk girls. I'm actually embarrassed when I see grown men hovering about the club hoping for a sniff of some bambi-legged young one that can't hold her drink, and if a zero tolerance policy were what it takes to deny any woman the opportunity to label all men as creepy fcuks on the basis of the behavior of a minority of embarrassing types that never grew up, then I'm all for introducing legislation that does so.

RIP in peace sense, 13.8 bya to the fifth of June in the year of our Lord 2015.

Not only is this the worst post of the year, it may very well be the worst post of the decade.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Personally I object to it on the principle that it re-enforces several toxic societal memes, the most ridiculous of which being that your behaviour while drunk is not your own responsibility.

Yes means yes, drunk or not. Yes only means no if the yes was coerced, not if it was made under the impaired judgement of beer goggles or E-uphoria - in the same way as ANY other decision I make under the aforementioned conditions is my own responsibility and nobody else's.

That is not what it would be designed to address (and I emphasise, AGAIN, that I don't agree with this being explicitly legislated for and a limit for being too intoxicated to consent being written in stone).

From the report:

‘If, through drink (or for any other reason) the complainant has temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have intercourse on the relevant occasion, she is not consenting, and subject to questions about the defendant’s state of mind, if intercourse takes place, this would be rape. However, where the complainant has voluntarily consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remains capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse, and in drink agrees to do so, this would not be rape. We should perhaps underline that, as a matter of practical reality, capacity to consent may well evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious. Whether this is so or not, however, is fact specific, or more accurately, depends on the actual state of mind of the individuals involved on the particular occasion’.

Also from the report, the type of situation the statute is intended to address

The Court of Appeal in the case of H40 allowed the prosecution’s appeal against the judge’s terminatory ruling, stating that the jury should have been allowed to decide whether the complainant had capacity to consent and, if she had, whether she had consented. The case involved a 16 year old girl, drunk and separated from her friends on New Year’s Eve who ended up in a car with strangers and who was digitally penetrated and raped. Because she could not remember whether she had actually said the words ‘yes’ or ‘no’, the defence argued that the possibility of her consenting could not be excluded. This argument was accepted by the Judge and the case terminated.

One eyed Jack

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But who wants to make it socially unacceptable to score on a night out? That's preposterous and you know it's preposterous.

I certainly don't want to make it socially unacceptable to score on a night out, by all means I'm only delighted for my friends when they manage to hook up with a guy who isn't off his tits and has the balls to approach them without needing to be half cut to show an interest in them. My friends are only too delighted for themselves too as it happens, no beer goggles necessary.

And that's equally moronic, particularly given the number of lads who are too shy to make an approach without dutch courage.

Big enough and bold enough to have sex, just not big enough and bold enough to approach a girl sober... my heart bleeds. They need to grow up.

What you're talking about is attempting to force a social change through legislation. This ignored the painful transition period you would be inflicting on people. If you must, change the culture before you change the law on this.

Painful transition? You're joking surely? Only an immature society would object to having to grow up like many other European countries where they approach sex in a mature fashion without needing to be drunk before they approach each other for sex.

Christ in 20 years we've moved away from the hopes of a grope during the slow set, let's not pretend we're incapable of being grown-ups about this. The issue of consent would only be relevant in a case where there is an allegation of rape made against a person, but otherwise - business as usual.

I'm not saying it's right, nor am I saying it's bad. There's nothing wrong with it in my view, personally I don't enjoy it myself but that's just because I don't enjoy it. I'm not passing judgement on others who do, unlike yourself.

Look, I pass judgment upon people all the time, I am embarrassed when I see grown men behaving like children, sniffing around women and shuffling and squirming and then going for the easiest target to minimise risk of rejection.

That minority should not be allowed to spoil it for everyone, they should be dealt with individually without inconveniencing anyone else.

That's exactly what a definite and absolute criteria for consent would do - it would deal with the minority of men who rape intoxicated women and then claim they had a reasonable belief that the woman consented. Those men could then be dealt with individually.

I take it you support minimum alcohol pricing for the same reason?
I'm coming at this from a socially libertarian point of view, in case that wasn't clear.

Minimum alcohol pricing doesn't actually bother me tbh, I don't think it's a very effective measure in addressing the issue of some people who can't handle their drinking. If someone wants to drink, there's no amount of pricing drink beyond their reach will stop them.

Not quite the same as sex - if someone wants sex, then they're depending upon someone else's consent.

The less rules there are governing consensual behaviour between adults, the better.

Absolutely, I'm with you on that one! As I said earlier - it's only the non-consensual behavior I have an issue with.

Tin Foil Hat

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

Rough Sleeper

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's exactly what a definite and absolute criteria for consent would do - it would deal with the minority of men who rape intoxicated women and then claim they had a reasonable belief that the woman consented. Those men could then be dealt with individually.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your reasoning is completely circular.

Christ in 20 years we've moved away from the hopes of a grope during the slow set, let's not pretend we're incapable of being grown-ups about this.

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

volchitsa

Sierra Creek wrote: »

Telling someone to grow up and approach women sober is like telling someone to just not be depressed. Do you actually have an action plan that helps shy men become comfortable approaching women sober?

He's not giving advice to individual men though is he? He's identifying something he sees as a social problem. By your logic, the fact that people take heroin because they have horrible lives means no-one can say we should fight heroin addiction unless they have a solution for people's horrible lives first!

volchitsa

Sierra Creek wrote: »

He's telling them to grow up, plenty of people who are fully grown up are afraid to approach the opposite sex sober. Growing up isn't the issue. Telling someone to grow up when that's not the issue is about as useful as a chocolate teapot.

Out of interest are you comfortable approaching the opposite sex sober to chat them up?

Then they're not fully grown up, are they? And yes, though my chatting up strangers days are long over, I don't ever remember deliberately drinking in order to approach somebody. I have ended up in some sticky situations when I'd had a few to drink though.

None of that is really relevant though, except as an explanation of why I think OEJ has a point, even though I wouldn't go as far as he does. But I do think there's a problem in Ireland with people getting drunk instead of learning to socialize as teens. I spend a lot of time outside Ireland now, and the attitude I see in young people (children of colleagues etc) in European countries is just so much more healthy than in Ireland.

I don't think it's just a matter of individuals growing up, I think it's a whole society that needs to grow up - and that's what OEJ said initially. You're the one trying to keep it down to anecdotal level when the point was much wider.