Irish Times Article on Consent.

Riskymove wrote: »

but we all agree...

eh, read back to the beginning of the thread. Apparently its political correctness gone mad.

Riskymove wrote: »

the problem is you cannot see that we are discussing one particular element raised in the article.....and we are not even making a call on it or disagreeing, simply trying to understand the actual position

perhaps ask on the Legal Discussion forum

Ri_Nollaig wrote: »

consent was assumed.

Assuming consent is obviously a problem, don't you agree?

Very few people are that stupid that they need consent explained to them. Its as basic as giving somebody a class in not stealing things. The only area where there's any debate is when there is alcohol and/or drugs involved, and even then the line is really pretty obvious. It is not OK to have sex with somebody who is unconscious. Well d'uh. The question really is, to what extent does the way alcohol affects our judgement/desire affect our consent?

I would put it like this: I have ended up fooling around with a woman after 4 or 5 pints that I probably wouldnt have fancied much sober. Alcohol loosened my standards and I thought "A **** it, sure a bit o fun" - Did that woman rape me? To me the answer is obviously no: Alcohol isnt that powerful a dissociative. It is powerful enough to let me slip my standards, but not powerful enough to make me do something I dont actually want at some level. Ive never gotten pissed and woken up next to a bloke for example.

Are there actually any significant number of men that think shagging a woman while shes unconscious is OK? WHat I think is happening is that bad judgements and regrettable alcohol-fuelled decisions are being lumped in with genuine cases of sexual assault by a minority of idealogues. Its like getting a class on stealing from an anarchist who beleives 'All property is theft'.

Lots of people claim to be in favour of personal responsibility, but when asked to take responsibility for their own actions, suddenly it becomes all about what other people are doing.

Why are you responsible for your actions? Because they are your actions.

Sleepy wrote: »

IANAL, but if I were, my standard defence to an accusation of rape in a case where the victim was "too intoxicated to consent" would be to lodge a counter-allegation of sexual assault on behalf of my client on the basis of them also being too intoxicated to consent to the same act.

I may be reaching but it'd seem a logical defence and one that would most likely see both cases dropped pretty quickly as while there are few enough victims of rape that are brave enough to press charges in the first place, it's a safe assumption that there are even fewer prepared to press charges and then have to defend themselves from similar charges.

Levels of intoxication are almost impossible to judge without a breath or blood test (and even then we all know people who can appear perfectly coherent whilst at twice the legal limit for driving) so no court would be able to convict one party without also convicting the other (unless evidence exists that can irrefutably prove the quantities of alcohol consumed and / or courts are allowed to accept "expert" (or otherwise) testimony regarding the, frankly unknowable, level of intoxication of both parties).

It would be unlikely to be entertained as a defence to rape at all. They’d be two separate cases and an allegation against you wouldn’t have any bearing on a case where you’re making an allegation against the person who has made a complaint against you. There’s no guarantee either case would even go to trial, and if it was established that all you were doing was making a complaint in retaliation for a complaint being made against you, you could find yourself still facing an allegation of rape and attempting to pervert the course of justice.

It would also be very likely to damage your own credibility in the case against you. That’s why any lawyer would advise you when you’re in a hole, don’t keep digging and making things worse for yourself.

suicide_circus wrote: »

two intoxicated teens have sex and both regret it the next morning.

only one teen can be charged with rape if the other goes to the cops.

male privilege.

Wait a minute, you said they both regretted having sex, where did one teenager accusing the other of rape come into that scenario?

tritium wrote: »

And should everyone be held equally responsible for their own actions?

Everyone is held equally responsible for their own actions. If a woman accuses a man of rape, she is responsible for accusing him of rape. It’s a jury that determines whether or not he should be found guilty of rape.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

a .




But

Very drunk Boy has sex with very drunk girl, neither can genuinely remember whether consent was given. Why is the Boy responsible?

original sin.

suicide_circus wrote: »

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

No they can't. Not on the basis of regretting it. depends on consent not if they are drunk. It is not illegal to have sex with drunk people

not on the basis of regretting it but that was not my point. all things being equal, only one party is capable of being charged with rape.

No they are not.

"Elaine: Okay, but remember the absence of a no doesn’t mean the presence of a yes. Silence isn’t consent."

Should a guy ask for consent first or should the woman? Could the guy asking be considered pressurizing?

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

No they are not.

A woman can not be charged with rape.

Hoboo wrote: »

A woman can not be charged with rape.

So what? What’s the point of this that keeps being brought up? A woman can be charged with aggravated sexual assault which carries the same maximum term as rape under section 4 - life imprisonment.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So what? What’s the point of this that keeps being brought up? A woman can be charged with aggravated sexual assault which carries the same maximum term as rape under section 4 - life imprisonment.

then why aim consent classes at boys?

suicide_circus wrote: »

any number of reasons, panic, vindictiveness, parents find out, i dunno its hypothetical.


same rules means if two underage kids have sex the boy is a statutory rapist.

No he isn’t.

the boys in the IT piece were making this case and i think they had a point.

I don’t think they had a point because their assumptions were based upon an entirely hypothetical scenario, it’s a terrible way to make a point as it’s not in any way tied to reality.

but in sexual behavior of this kind there are always risks...girls risk pregnancy, boys risk a rape charge.

Becoming pregnant isn’t a criminal offence, rape is.