Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Blood Alcohol level to determine ability to consent? MOD Note in Post #1
Options
Comments
-
My concern would be what they determine "drunk" to be.
Absolutely and to use the complainant in the Ched Evans case as an example again: she was seen walking into a hotel unaided, showing enough lucidity to know she left a pizza outside before setting off to retrieve it. She was also wearing borrowed wedges and seemed to have no bother walking in them at that point. She did struggle in them when they were buying food, but sober women heading off out at night can be seen struggling to walk in heels each and every night before they ever have a drink. It's bizarre that that woman was deemed to in such a state of intoxication that she could not possibly have consented to have sex with Evans.0 -
If one were in the habit of picking up women at clubs on a regular basis, I see no way past getting her to sign a consent form, having her blow into a tube (phnar phnar) and maybe recording that consent on video. Whatever else gets recorded is neither here nor there. This may of course put a damper on proceedings. The bottom line is, if a woman had a few drinks and she regrets her one night stand, she can call rape. Unless you can get her to sign a form, blow into a measuring device and state on video that she is doing this willingly.
I wonder what will happen if a man tries to invoke this law?0 -
In a case like that one from Wales I would still say that if the woman was genuinely too drunk to remember if they had sex or not, and also concerned enough about it to report it to the police, then I don't think they guy should have been having sex with her. It certainly raises questions about his morals anyway.
She did not report it to the police, she reported it to the uni counselor stating "Something happened". The report said the uni counselor then contacted the police, when questioned she said should could not remember what she agreed too.
Why does it raise questions about his morals? Equally he could of been in a similar state of intoxication the drunk leading the drunk so to speak. Only difference was he appeared to remember what happened she did not.I still think there has to be some kind of other evidence presented. So, if they get a taxi and the driver makes a statement that she was passed out in the back then that would count for something. Combine that with evidence that they had sex and also the accusation of rape then I think there would be a good chance that the man is guilty there.
I really think you need to listen to what you are saying......
"I think there would be a good chance the man is guilty"
There can be no reasonable doubt to convicted someone! Are you insane?I think there is a genuine fear amongst young men that they will be falsely accused of rape and will be convicted without having a fair chance to defend themselves.
It's something that needs to be discussed and dealt with.
As with all crimes the onus is with the DPP to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has taken place...
As a result there are always going to be people that will not be convicted simply due to the fact it is impossible to know beyond a reasonable doubt, as sad as this might be this is a harsh reality especially among rape cases.
However what definitely should not happen is someone being convicted of rape where there is any ambiguity what so ever around what actually transpired.0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »She did not report it to the police, she reported it to the uni counselor stating "Something happened". The report said the uni counselor then contacted the police, when questioned she said should could not remember what she agreed too.
Why does it raise questions about his morals? Equally he could of been in a similar state of intoxication the drunk leading the drunk so to speak. Only difference was he appeared to remember what happened she did not.
I really think you need to listen to what you are saying......
"I think there would be a good chance the man is guilty"
There can be no reasonable doubt to convicted someone! Are you insane?
As with all crimes the onus is with the DPP to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has taken place...
As a result there are always going to be people that will not be convicted simply due to the fact it is impossible to know beyond a reasonable doubt, as sad as this might be this is a harsh reality especially among rape cases.
However what definitely should not happen is someone being convicted of rape where there is any ambiguity what so ever around what actually transpired.
Surely, a man must realize that if a woman is totally hammered he probably shouldn't have sex with her?
It should be pretty obvious to anyone when consent has or has not been given?
So if you continue when you are unclear on whether or not you have consent to continue then you must know you are potentially heading for trouble.
It's not like these women are trying to trick men into having sex with them so that they can then turn round and accuse them of rape. If an accusation is made then the situation has to be looked at and the question of whether or not the woman was able to consent is a valid one.0 -
Surely, a man must realize that if a woman is totally hammered he probably shouldn't have sex with her?
It should be pretty obvious to anyone when consent has or has not been given?
So if you continue when you are unclear on whether or not you have consent to continue then you must know you are potentially heading for trouble.
It's not like these women are trying to trick men into having sex with them so that they can then turn round and accuse them of rape. If an accusation is made then the situation has to be looked at and the question of whether or not the woman was able to consent is a valid one.
I think you are being very naive.
Also this is extremely sexist and biased.
Two people meet in a club they are both drinking and probably drunk, all over each other, they go back to his or her does not matter.
Next morning they wake, sore heads both not really sure what has happened the night before.
I see no mention of "Did the man give consent?" Or she should of known not to have sex with a man when he is drunk, I doubt very much in cases like this it is even talked about.
You also say "Surely, a man must realize that if a woman is totally hammered he probably shouldn't have sex with her?"
The argument around this law is that if you are drunk you cannot give consent so even agreeing to or suggesting you have sex can still result in a rape scenario.0 -
Advertisement
-
dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »If one were in the habit of picking up women at clubs on a regular basis, I see no way past getting her to sign a consent form, having her blow into a tube (phnar phnar) and maybe recording that consent on video. Whatever else gets recorded is neither here nor there. This may of course put a damper on proceedings. The bottom line is, if a woman had a few drinks and she regrets her one night stand, she can call rape. Unless you can get her to sign a form, blow into a measuring device and state on video that she is doing this willingly.
I wonder what will happen if a man tries to invoke this law?
Of course another problem is that there's nothing to stop a woman from telling you that she hasn't been drinking.
I think there is a lot of fear that guys will be "tricked" into sex and will then be accused of rape. I can't imagine that this is something that would happen very often.
You have to see it from the girls point of view. I am a man and there are plenty of times when I've gotten blind drunk on a Saturday night and don't remember getting home and don't remember the exact details of the evening. If I were to wake up one Sunday in some random guys bed with a sore bum then I'd probably freak out. Honestly, I'd feel like I had been taken advantage of and I'd be pretty damn furious and would want to get the police involved.
Now, I think there would be an argument there that I should not have gotten so drunk that this would happen to me. At the same time I would expect some kind of punishment for someone who takes advantage of a person in that kind of state.0 -
It's not like these women are trying to trick men into having sex with them so that they can then turn round and accuse them of rape. If an accusation is made then the situation has to be looked at and the question of whether or not the woman was able to consent is a valid one.
I do not think is most cases anyone is out to trick someone, though I bet it happens.
I only ever heard of one case of this kind of thing in my town without going into details an allegation was made Guardi called, people interviewed.
In the end the girl basically told guardi she made the whole thing up, she had been suffering from some mental health issues which I think was the only reason she in turn did not go to jail over making false allegations.
These kind of things do happen!0 -
Surely, a man must realize that if a woman is totally hammered he probably shouldn't have sex with her?
And what of a drunk man who a woman has sex with. Should he be extended the same protection you seem to think women deserve?It should be pretty obvious to anyone when consent has or has not been given?
So if you continue when you are unclear on whether or not you have consent to continue then you must know you are potentially heading for trouble.
Look, nobody believes a paralytic woman who is pretty much unresponsive, at the stage of talk gibberish, is in a state were she can sexually consent. I don't don't think I have seen anyone argue that in fact. However, the law is starting to suggest (if it hasn't already) that even if consent is given unequivocally, if the woman is deemed to have been drunk, then that consent is an irrelevance.It's not like these women are trying to trick men into having sex with them so that they can then turn round and accuse them of rape. If an accusation is made then the situation has to be looked at and the question of whether or not the woman was able to consent is a valid one.
The hard cold truth is that in some cases a woman might just be an arsehole, they exist you know and so you can't simply have a law that pretty much makes a man automatically guilty of based on a BAC or even, as has been suggested, an expert's back calculation.
Seems to me that some are trying to make it a situation where men accused of rape are guilty until proven innocent.0 -
You have to see it from the girls point of view. I am a man and there are plenty of times when I've gotten blind drunk on a Saturday night and don't remember getting home and don't remember the exact details of the evening. If I were to wake up one Sunday in some random guys bed with a sore bum then I'd probably freak out. Honestly, I'd feel like I had been taken advantage of and I'd be pretty damn furious and would want to get the police involved.
.
And what if all evidence shows you are the one that dragged this guy out of the club and that it was all your idea?0 -
Thread still populated by posters who either haven't read or chose to ignore for convenience the further information provided by electro-bitch dozens of posts ago.0
-
Advertisement
-
NachoBusiness wrote: »And what of a drunk man who a woman has sex with. Should he be extended the same protection you seem to think women deserve?
Look, nobody believes a paralytic woman who is pretty much unresponsive, at the stage of talk gibberish, is in a state were she can sexually consent. I don't don't think I have seen anyone argue that in fact. However, the law is starting to suggest (if it hasn't already) that even if consent is given unequivocally, if the woman is deemed to have been drunk, then that consent is an irrelevance.
The hard cold truth is that in some cases a woman might just be an arsehole, they exist you know and so you can't simply have a law that pretty much makes a man automatically guilty of based on a BAC or even, as has been suggested, an expert's back calculation.
Seems to me that some are trying to make it a situation where men accused of rape are guilty until proven innocent.
No. I am not saying that at all.
All the evidence should be looked at and judged in an unbiased manner.0 -
Thread still populated by posters who either haven't read or chose to ignore for convenience the further information provided by electro-bitch dozens of posts ago.
Unspecific nonsense.
Sure I just linked to the complete report a few posts back.
If there is a point you want to make, make it.0 -
-
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »And what if all evidence shows you are the one that dragged this guy out of the club and that it was all your idea?
If it was clearly all my idea then I would expect the case to be thrown out of court.
If I was deliberately making a false accusation then I would expect to be punished for that.
That's for the court to decide though.
The discussion around blood alcohol level as an indicator of consent is happening because something like that will allow the court to make a better and more informed decision.
Someone makes an accusation. It goes to trial. The prosecution may be able to prove that the accuser was so completely wasted that they could not give consent and were subsequently taken advantage of.
I understand the fear of being falsely accused but it's not a reason to throw out potential evidence.0 -
Sure.NachoBusiness wrote: »
If there is a point you want to make, make it.
The argument still being made is that a girl can have a couple of drinks, sleep with a guy, regret it and cry rape, and if her BAC is above a certain level, then it is rape.
This argument isn't anywhere near an accurate hypothetical based on the recommendations of the report, and electro-bitch explained why.0 -
I understand the fear of being falsely accused but it's not a reason to throw out potential evidence.
Ah here. Who's talking about throwing it out??
As we are NOW courts consider how much alcohol was in the system of a complainant.
What this is about is not making a BAC a smoking gun.0 -
NachoBusiness wrote: »Unspecific nonsense.
Sure I just linked to the complete report a few posts back.
If there is a point you want to make, make it.
The point is Nacho, just when it looked like the discussion might actually go somewhere (you did bring up an interesting point with the drugs consumed in the Ched Evans case), it circles back around to the same mind-numbing shyte that is this -ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Rape is a very serious and grotesque crime...
It should not include someone who made a mistake, had sex with someone who now wishes he or she did not, but they now have an ace up their sleeve! I was drunk therefore I can say it was rape and the law will now back them up!
How many dozen times is regret after having had consensual sex going to be equated to rape?One eyed Jack wrote: »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)One eyed Jack wrote: »And I've never once said that any claim of rape would be legitimate if the person had any alcohol in their system. The proposal relates to consent and the capacity to consent. After that, if it has been established that the person had no capacity to consent, then they could be charged with rape, which would be at the discretion of the DPP, just like the spousal rape laws and the statutory rape laws.
...
What you're talking about is unrelated to the issue of legal capacity to consent, or are you again going to claim that you're not talking about false allegations of rape? You'll have to expand on the above because I'd hate to give you the opportunity to suggest I was putting words in your mouth.
There's not much point in trying to have a discussion if the same predictable as fcuk posts are going to come up again and again to the point where I needn't even type any more, I can just copy and paste what I wrote previously.0 -
This argument isn't anywhere near an accurate hypothetical based on the recommendations of the report, and electro-bitch explained why.
Don't mind electro-bitch. What she posted does not mean what she, and a few others, seems to think it does.
Dame Elish Anglioni has called for legal amendments to be embedded into legislation so that someone that is found to have been intoxicated using a (yet to be determined) BAC level (or declared to have been so by an expert using 'back calculation') would lose the capacity to consent to sex.
When someone is deemed by a court to have been unable to consent - that is Rape.0 -
NachoBusiness wrote: »Dame Elish Anglioni has called for legal amendments to be embedded into legislation so that someone that is found to have been intoxicated using a (yet to be determined) BAC level (or declared to have been so by an expert using 'back calculation') would lose the capacity to consent to sex.
When someone is deemed by a court to have been unable to consent - that is Rape.
This is the argument I think is inaccurate:The argument still being made is that a girl can have a couple of drinks, sleep with a guy, regret it and cry rape, and if her BAC is above a certain level, then it is rape.
Are you saying that, based on your reading of the report, you think that argument is accurate?0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Rape is a very serious and grotesque crime...
It should not include someone who made a mistake, had sex with someone who now wishes he or she did not, but they now have an ace up their sleeve! I was drunk therefore I can say it was rape and the law will now back them up!
Could you explain how this would improve the woman's situation from a practical point of view?
I mean, I can see why it may have mattered back in the day when any woman who wasn't a virgin was considered unfit for marriage, so perhaps the claim of rape may have reduced the harm done to her reputation. Though in fact even then it could only have been as damage limitation, when the fact was already widely known. A far better plan for the woman was to say nothing at all about it and hope her "fall" was never discovered.
But today?? Seriously - other than the seriously odd suggestion already made here that hordes of women with vendettas against unsuspecting men are just waiting to have innocents slung into jail, what possible "ace" does a woman who got drunk and had sex actually have by being able to say "oh but it doesn't count because I was drunk"?
Who actually gives a damn, these days?
The whole idea is crazy, it really is. Women who have drunken consensual sex have exactly zero to gain by accusing the man of rape. And a lot to lose, even if he's found guilty.0 -
Advertisement
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »There's not much point in trying to have a discussion if the same predictable as fcuk posts are going to come up again and again to the point where I needn't even type any more, I can just copy and paste what I wrote previously.
You're one to talk.
What you and others fail to understand is that a large chunk of cases (which many judges have come out and commented on) hinge on whether or not a woman was too drunk to consent or not. Juries often have to deliberate on that point alone and this report is attempting to take that out of their hands as once an expert has declared (via back calculation) that a woman was in such a state of intoxication that she was unable to consent to sex, it is an open and shut case as to whether she was raped or not. There is no defense possible at that stage.
Now, that would be fine if it was set at a very high level of intoxication but everything about past cases in the UK tell us that it is very unlikely that it will be and why is further legislation even needed here? Courts can currently decide to convict if they find that a woman was not in a fit state to give sexual consent already, as we know. Lets be honest, this is about pressure from lobby groups and the like regrading rape statistics and convictions not being what certain bodies would like them to be. Nothing more. It's politics.0 -
If it was clearly all my idea then I would expect the case to be thrown out of court.
Thrown out - I am sure that will make it all OK with the accused.If I was deliberately making a false accusation then I would expect to be punished for that.
Well this is the point it was not a false accusation, you simply did not know therefore assumed you where taken advantage of.Someone makes an accusation. It goes to trial. The prosecution may be able to prove that the accuser was so completely wasted that they could not give consent and were subsequently taken advantage of.
I understand the fear of being falsely accused but it's not a reason to throw out potential evidence.
This is where it get's dangerous, to legislate correctly around any of this, the idea of intoxication can very so much so that I doubt very much there will be ever any real clear cut cases unless it involves the victim going to the hospital or the evidence of intoxication to be assessed almost immediately after the incident.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »How many dozen times is regret after having had consensual sex going to be equated to rape?
In an ideal world we would be able to tell the difference if an accusation is made, but in nearly all rape cases we have the word of one individual vrs that of another.
electro already point out only 6% (or something like that)of rape cases see convictions because of this.0 -
Could you explain how this would improve the woman's situation from a practical point of view?
I mean, I can see why it may have mattered back in the day when any woman who wasn't a virgin was considered unfit for marriage, so perhaps the claim of rape may have reduced the harm done to her reputation. Though in fact even then it could only have been as damage limitation, when the fact was already widely known. A far better plan for the woman was to say nothing at all about it and hope her "fall" was never discovered.
But today?? Seriously - other than the seriously odd suggestion already made here that hordes of women with vendettas against unsuspecting men are just waiting to have innocents slung into jail, what possible "ace" does a woman who got drunk and had sex actually have by being able to say "oh but it doesn't count because I was drunk"?
Who actually gives a damn, these days?
The whole idea is crazy, it really is. Women who have drunken consensual sex have exactly zero to gain by accusing the man of rape. And a lot to lose, even if he's found guilty.
I was being facetious with the "Ace" comment but deliberate in how this legislation does not prove anything other than attempt to shift liability from one party to the next.
Also I made no mention of limiting this to women, I said he or she could make this claim and use intoxication as a defense.
Your rant on what do women have to gain, marriage reputation and all the rest is a moot point, I show no biased in who can make this claim.
The reason we usually cannot legislate for something is usually because it is far too difficult to legislate clear cut examples or cases for it.0 -
NachoBusiness wrote: »You're one to talk.
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/345/169/bc7.png
Seriously though -NachoBusiness wrote: »What you and others fail to understand is that a large chunk of cases (which many judges have come out and commented on) hinge on whether or not a woman was too drunk to consent or not. Juries often have to deliberate on that point alone and this report is attempting to take that out of their hands as once an expert has declared (via back calculation) that a woman was in such a state of intoxication that she was unable to consent to sex, it is an open and shut case as to whether she was raped or not. There is no defense possible at that stage.
This issue isn't simply about women who are victims of rape. It's just as much about men who are victims of rape, so when you're presenting scenarios, it'd be helpful if you could at least acknowledge that much, as was done in the report. The report was commissioned by the London MET Police, and was written with the perspective of supporting victims of rape, whether they are men or women.
As it currently stands in legislation regarding rape, legal consent is only one of the issues that contributes to whether a case is actually worth pursuing or not. What this proposed amendment would do, is establish whether or not legal consent was present. It doesn't help that the prosecution has to establish that consent was not present when they have to overcome the legal standard that the defence can argue that the accused was of the reasonable belief that consent was present.
What this proposal is aiming for is that if someone makes a complaint of rape, they would be subject to a BAC test to establish whether they were in a position to consent. That's all. It doesn't mean that the other person will automatically be charged with rape, and it still doesn't secure a conviction. It simply means that the prosecution has established that consent was not present. In laymans terms, yes, that would meet the standard definition of rape. In legal terms however, you're still a long way off securing a conviction as the evidence would still have to be investigated prior to any decision about a case being taken against the accused.NachoBusiness wrote: »Now, that would be fine if it was set at a very high level of intoxication but everything about past cases in the UK tell us that it is very unlikely that it will be and why is further legislation even needed here? Courts can currently decide to convict if they find that a woman was not in a fit state to give sexual consent already, as we know. Lets be honest, this is about pressure from lobby groups and the like regrading rape statistics and convictions not being what certain bodies would like them to be. Nothing more. It's politics.
So you don't know yet what level they would set the BAC at, and yet you're already getting your knickers in a twist about it? It could actually be set at a high enough level that it could still be high enough to suggest that even though the victim had consumed alcohol, they were still lucid enough to meet the legal standard for consent. The reason for further legislation and clarification of the standard required to prove consent was or was not present is precisely because current standards are only based upon past cases. This metric would do away with that uncertainty. Courts currently base the decision to acquit (or in Scotland "not guilty" or "not proven"), or convict on the basis of a judgement call on which side were able to make the better case. Often, that's simply down to a judgement call based on character assessment drawn from evidence presented. The defence can literally shred an alleged rape victim on the stand, and make them look like they're making the whole thing up. It's their job, and they're pretty damn good at it.
The prosecution however, has to overcome all sorts of prejudices in order to even make a reasonable case and often times a case simply isn't worth pursuing because the chances of a conviction are simply slim to none. This report didn't come from lobby groups, and wasn't commissioned by lobby groups. It was commissioned by the MET Police of London to see what more could they be doing to better help the victims of rape. It isn't about increasing criminal convictions for rape, the whole report is about improving standards and making sure that victims of rape are taken seriously and not just dismissed as having had sex and simply regretted it the next morning and are only now crying rape because their feelings are hurt.
If it were simply about politics, I'd be the first to say it were about politics, as I find all too often the whole gender politics and quotas and bullsh1t twisting of statistics by any lobby group or any fcuknut with an agenda, is the first thing that pisses me off as IMO so many of these self-interested lobby groups and fcuknuts have their heads firmly rammed up their own asses and can't see the bigger picture for everyone involved. They often reduce everything down to big conspiracy theories and everyone's against them, etc, etc.
That's not what's happening here.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »What this proposal is aiming for is that if someone makes a complaint of rape, they would be subject to a BAC test to establish whether they were in a position to consent. That's all. It doesn't mean that the other person will automatically be charged with rape, and it still doesn't secure a conviction. It simply means that the prosecution has established that consent was not present. In laymans terms, yes, that would meet the standard definition of rape. In legal terms however, you're still a long way off securing a conviction as the evidence would still have to be investigated prior to any decision about a case being taken against the accused.
This is what you think it means...
And let me clarify you don't yet know what it means neither does anyone else. There is too much ambiguity around this.
1. BAC test what is going to be deemed an intoxication level?
2. Did they drink alcohol after they had sex or before?
3. How long after would this test need to be carried out for it to determine anything useful?
I have read the proposal around this, the minute we legislate around a BAC number for consent then the law will need to be adhered too it.
I see no other way this can be interpreted...0 -
I wonder how bloods would be interpreted if all this were to come to pass. I'd be face down in my own drool after a glass of wine, but presumably my blood levels would be interpreted as so minimal that I could consent to anything.0
-
I wonder how bloods would be interpreted if all this were to come to pass. I'd be face down in my own drool after a glass of wine, but presumably my blood levels would be interpreted as so minimal that I could consent to anything.
One glass of wine?
Interesting - I got these tickets to a wine tasting night next fri...........0 -
Of course another problem is that there's nothing to stop a woman from telling you that she hasn't been drinking.
I think there is a lot of fear that guys will be "tricked" into sex and will then be accused of rape. I can't imagine that this is something that would happen very often.
You have to see it from the girls point of view. I am a man and there are plenty of times when I've gotten blind drunk on a Saturday night and don't remember getting home and don't remember the exact details of the evening. If I were to wake up one Sunday in some random guys bed with a sore bum then I'd probably freak out. Honestly, I'd feel like I had been taken advantage of and I'd be pretty damn furious and would want to get the police involved.
Now, I think there would be an argument there that I should not have gotten so drunk that this would happen to me. At the same time I would expect some kind of punishment for someone who takes advantage of a person in that kind of state.
Not quite like that. A woman could have a few drinks, maybe wear beer goggles to an extend but be by no means absolutely plastered and unable to make the call.
She then wakes up beside a guy and he doesn't quite look as dishy in the cold light of day. Some could freak or regret it and now when she accuses him of rape, he has to prove she was sober and consented. That is impossible, unless he has some evidence. How is he going to get that?
My comments about breathalyzing your partner and getting them to sign a consent form were only half joking. Because that would be the only way to prove it.
Other than that this would mean a woman who had a few drinks (we're not talking blind drunk here) and wakes up beside someone who may have looked different at 2am in the club, can now put all the onus on proving his innocence on the male. It is guilty unless proven otherwise.
And again, if a man came forward? He'd be laughed out the police station.
I also want to make clear that no one in their right mind should go and sleep with anyone who is to drunk to stand up and that goes for all sexes, but now bringing in permitted levels and automatic assumption of male guilt is just nonsense. And again, what are those limits? If they are the drink driving limits I will be guilty of rape if the missus had 2 glasses of wine. Can she have me done for rape or the other way round? Technically yes. In that case we're both guilty and would get life without parole.0 -
Advertisement
-
dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »Not quite like that. A woman could have a few drinks, maybe wear beer goggles to an extend but be by no means absolutely plastered and unable to make the call.
She then wakes up beside a guy and he doesn't quite look as dishy in the cold light of day. Some could freak or regret it and now when she accuses him of rape, he has to prove she was sober and consented.
But again, no-one has attempted to explain why a sane woman would do that to a man she never met before and had no particular beef with?
She wakes beside a guy she is ashamed of having slept with, OK, and does what? Goes to the police and stands up in court so that as many people as possible know that she did that??
Or gets the hell out of there as fast as possible and tries to forget all about it, or at most, shamefacedly admits the sordid truth to her best mate?
The idea that the first option might seem preferable is about as plausible as the idea that marital rape laws are dangerous because they inevitably lead to false rape accusations between loving couples.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement