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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Alcohol, Consciousness, Rape and Consent

2456

Comments

  • #32
    ApeXaviour
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,523 ✭✭✭ApeXaviour


    I once passed out while giving a blood sample (for research)... the nurse monitored my blood-pressure but continued to take the blood sample, as it should be.


  • #33
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    What's with the eye rolling?

    In the medical context, there is a witness even if the patient does fall asleep, so that the procedure is followed as it should be.

    In the bedroom, there is no witness, if the only witness is unconcious.

    What are you talking about...?:D

    The vast majority of straightforward medical procedures are performed by a doctor alone, with no chaperone. There is no witness. Even with sensitive examinations such as a vaginal or rectal exam, most of thes eexaminatuions in the GP setting are performed by the doctor alone.

    The 'rolleyes' are an attempt to express my exasperation at your lack of knowledge and coherence, yet your inability to recognise same.

    This discussion would be a lot more fruitful woth someone else, im afraid.


  • #34
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    drkpower wrote: »
    What are you talking about...?:D

    The vast majority of straightforward medical procedures are performed by a doctor alone, with no chaperone. There is no witness. Even with sensitive examinations such as a vaginal or rectal exam, most of thes eexaminatuions in the GP setting are performed by the doctor alone.

    The 'rolleyes' are an attempt to express my exasperation at your lack of knowledge and coherence, yet your inability to recognise same.

    This discussion would be a lot more fruitful woth someone else, im afraid.

    Hmnn...that's not very good manners.

    Im sorry but I have enough experience with doctors and hospitals to say that is not true in the US or in France. It might be true in Ireland, I dont know. I walked of an exam once in Ireland because of this, because there was no med witness there. I've never come across that lack of protocol anywhere else. Hence one of my many reasons for avoiding Irish healthcare as much as possible.


  • #35
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Let me put forward three cases.

    The first involves a woman, unconscious drunk, who then has sex (or sex is had with her) by a man:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-10883603

    The second involves a male friend of mine who once went on the piss with his girlfriend. When they got home they began to have sex, with his girlfriend going on top and straddling him. Next think he knew it was morning and his girlfriend was cold towards him. Eventually she told him that shortly after she got on top he let out a snore - he was out cold. So she finished herself off on him and went to sleep. Before anyone asks, yes this is physically possible.

    The third case is a hypothetical scenario which takes the second and reverses the roles/genders.

    Now, and IMO, the first case is rape. However, most would not see the second as rape (creepy, yes, but not rape). The third, oddly, I suspect more people would see as rape than the second.

    So where do we draw the line in such scenarios? Once consent is given, must you remain capable of giving/revoking it thereafter until sex has ended? How much responsibility should someone who does end up having sex / being raped have given they were the one's who got drunk? Can alcohol affects our capacity to consent to sex even before unconsciousness - and if so at what point? And if so, can one retrospectively accuse one of rape the next morning?

    Discuss.

    All three of these are rape in my book.

    Once your friend went unconcious, consent could no longer be assumed IMO.

    If a man had done to woman what his GF did there's no question he'd be done for rape so why should your senario be any different?

    Alcohol does not give anyone permission to have sex with some-one without verbal consent.


  • #36
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    Hmnn...that's not very good manners.

    Im sorry but I have enough experience with doctors and hospitals to say that is not true in the US or in France. It might be true in Ireland, I dont know. I walked of an exam once in Ireland because of this, because there was no med witness there. I've never come across that lack of protocol anywhere else. Hence one of my many reasons for avoiding Irish healthcare as much as possible.

    This IS Ireland. Therefore, the Irish system & Irish law is what is relevent. And i have an awful lot of experience of the Irish healthcare and legal system.;) Why you continue to talk about essentially irrlevenent situations in France or the US is beyond me.

    Clearly you dont like my 'manners'. And I find discussing this complex issue with you pointless. Lets part ways.


  • #38
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    What if one of them fell asleep during foreplay?


  • #39
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    All three of these are rape in my book.

    Once your friend went unconcious, consent could no longer be assumed IMO.

    If a man had done to woman what his GF did there's no question he'd be done for rape so why should your senario be any different?

    Alcohol does not give anyone permission to have sex with some-one without verbal consent.

    Consent was given. The consensual act had begun. The question is whether falling asleep necessarily acts as an automatic revocation of consent.

    Noone has provided an example of another area/act where falling asleep during an act/procedure automatically acts as a legal revocation of consent to that act, whereby the doer of the act is legally obliged to cease doing the act. Do you have any such example?


  • #40
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    Driving?


  • #41
    ApeXaviour
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,523 ✭✭✭ApeXaviour


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    Driving?
    no


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    Once your friend went unconcious, consent could no longer be assumed IMO.
    But consent had been given. In fairness it would seem a fairly safe bet (especially with a couple) that consent would not have been revoked half way though the act.
    If a man had done to woman what his GF did there's no question he'd be done for rape so why should your senario be any different?
    There appears to be a question though, unless you hadn't read the thread, and there does not appear to be a consensus as yet. This would be a very boring thread otherwise.
    Alcohol does not give anyone permission to have sex with some-one without verbal consent.
    Absolutely, but this is not what I described in either of the latter two scenarios - verbal consent was given.

    From what I'm getting here, there appears to be a view by the 'rape positive' side that consent is only valid so long as the capacity to give or revoke it is available. The 'rape negative' side of the argument, is arguing both that consent has been given and also that if one drinks, they need to be responsible for their actions to a great extent.

    On that note, this article is interesting. Will we need to bring breathalyzers to nightclubs in the future?


  • #43
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    Thinking about this, if consent had been given I doubt a judge would see it as rape.

    However, if one party falls asleep, its hardly sex anymore and more like masterbation, imo.

    As for that article, that is very sinister and kind of weird. Although in a British context, I can see what they are at.

    Its been pointed out to me that this is Ireland and theres little relevancy to talking about laws in foreign countries.


  • #44
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    Thinking about this, if consent had been given I doubt a judge would see it as rape.
    He certainly didn't. My only comment on this story is that agree or not with the judge in question, I find it more than a little disturbing that those disagreeing with him would seek his censor for expressing it.
    However, if one party falls asleep, its hardly sex anymore and more like masterbation, imo.
    That's it's pretty creepy is a given, but not really what we're discussing though.
    As for that article, that is very sinister and kind of weird. Although in a British context, I can see what they are at.
    TBH, if the law were to go in that direction it won't be long before foreplay requires a solicitor to be present. Sex would end up with an exchange of contracts rather than fluids.
    Its been pointed out to me that this is Ireland and theres little relevancy to talking about laws in foreign countries.
    This is a general discussion on the moral, ethical and legal definition of what constitutes rape, so It's relevant in so far as it's food for the discussion, even if it does not apply to Ireland.

    As for UK law applying to Ireland, that's quite conceivable, up until recently we basically copied their laws all the time.


  • #45
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    With that law in place, women will hesitate to drink, in order to reassure the men around her. Its an indirect prohibition. On the plus for the guys side thats the end of buying the ladies drinks.

    Its a really stupid ott legislation law.


  • #46
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #47
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    And the other half would never have been born...


  • #48
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    I think it would depend on which court, which judge, and the performance of the lawyers.


  • #49
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Under this reasoning, it would be impossible for a person in a relationship to be considered raped after they consent to foreplay. Consent to foreplay is consent to foreplay and nothing else. If a person decides at any stage of a sexual act that they want to stop and the other person forces them to continue, that is rape.

    Consent is usually communicated to the other person through active and conscious engagement in a particular act. I'm sure we've all been there with a partner when you both gradually realise how far the other person wants to go. Even in a relationship, one or both partners might not always want full sex. If a person falls asleep, they may or may not have wanted to have full sexual intercourse but they can't exactly express their consent any more. If their partner continues on after they've fallen asleep, it's weird, creepy and bordering on rape. But I can see why others wouldn't see it that way.

    Good thread idea, The Corinthian. It's a very grey area.


  • #50
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    On that note, this article is interesting. Will we need to bring breathalyzers to nightclubs in the future?

    Isnt that article is from 2006? I presume this idea was shelved. Rightly so, as it seems like an impossible law to implement, nevermind the inredible injustices that would result from imposing a certain level of drunkenness which automatically vitiates consent. As we all know, the outward manifestation of drunkenness can be a very different thing to the amount consumed or the blood concentration of alcohol.


  • #51
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    With that law in place, women will hesitate to drink, in order to reassure the men around her. Its an indirect prohibition.
    I think it would return us to pre-sexual revolution dating habits and a marked increase in the traditional safe-sex option (i.e. prostitutes).
    On the plus for the guys side thats the end of buying the ladies drinks.
    Soft drinks cost as much if not more in Irish pubs. On the plus side, the decline in beer drinking women may result in belly tops worn in the Summer that don't remind one of a lava lamp.
    drkpower wrote: »
    Isnt that article is from 2006? I presume this idea was shelved. Rightly so, as it seems like an impossible law to implement, nevermind the inredible injustices that would result from imposing a certain level of drunkenness which automatically vitiates consent. As we all know, the outward manifestation of drunkenness can be a very different thing to the amount consumed or the blood concentration of alcohol.
    I presume the idea behind such a law would be to increase the rate of convictions in rape cases. As presently, as the article stated, only a tiny number secure a conviction because rape cannot be proven, making sex with someone who is over a certain level in terms of drunkenness rape would make it easier to prosecute.
    taconnol wrote: »
    Consent is usually communicated to the other person through active and conscious engagement in a particular act. I'm sure we've all been there with a partner when you both gradually realise how far the other person wants to go. Even in a relationship, one or both partners might not always want full sex. If a person falls asleep, they may or may not have wanted to have full sexual intercourse but they can't exactly express their consent any more. If their partner continues on after they've fallen asleep, it's weird, creepy and bordering on rape. But I can see why others wouldn't see it that way.
    Ahh, but it the latter two examples, consent for coitus had been given and consciousness was only lost after it had commenced. Losing consciousness would effect the affected party's capacity to revoke consent during the act - which while rare, does take place.


  • #53
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    taconnol wrote: »
    Under this reasoning, it would be impossible for a person in a relationship to be considered raped after they consent to foreplay. Consent to foreplay is consent to foreplay and nothing else. If a person decides at any stage of a sexual act that they want to stop and the other person forces them to continue, that is rape.

    Consent is usually communicated to the other person through active and conscious engagement in a particular act. I'm sure we've all been there with a partner when you both gradually realise how far the other person wants to go. Even in a relationship, one or both partners might not always want full sex. If a person falls asleep, they may or may not have wanted to have full sexual intercourse but they can't exactly express their consent any more. If their partner continues on after they've fallen asleep, it's weird, creepy and bordering on rape. But I can see why others wouldn't see it that way.

    Good thread idea, The Corinthian. It's a very grey area.

    Also complicated by how responsible you hold the inebriated but concious party for their actions.


  • #54
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    I think Taco was referring to the foreplay example there.


  • #55
    Herbal Deity
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭Herbal Deity


    Neither of the last two are necessarily rape IMO, but it is very context dependant.

    Like, what does it mean to 'finish oneself off'? A couple of extra thrusts? A few minutes of extra thrusting? Manoeuvring the asleep party into different positions? Changing the nature of the sex act? (e.g. switching from vaginal sex to anal or oral sex)

    I think that what is key is that if the awake party finishes themselves off, that they do not change anything about the nature of sex they were having when the other person fell asleep. Just going on a little longer so you're satisfied seems perfectly reasonable to me, and I really can't see how anyone would have a problem with that if they fell asleep.

    However, if the person fell asleep during foreplay, then the person who is awake does not have consent to proceed to penetrative sex and it is rape to continue.

    Of course, in a relationship, a couple should perhaps talk about these things. I certainly wouldn't have a problem with my gf doing anything to me, bar hurting (or waking!) me, to get herself off while I was asleep. I can't imagine too many people would be bothered with allowing the person they love and trust the same privilege. (Furthermore, I have read quite a number of posts on forums about sex where people have explicitly asked their partners to have sex with them while they sleep)


  • #56
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    Not to mention sexsomnias.


  • #57
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #58
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Well, I think it's important to make a distinction between different sexual acts. Just because someone wants to have foreplay with someone, doesn't mean they want to have sex or any other sexual act for that matter. If two people were having sex and then one partner decided they want anal sex and forced the other person, would you still say that it wasn't rape?

    Also, they didn't say "stop" because in some instances they were asleep!
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Well OK yes that is slightly different. Still though, person A is fully aware that person B is not capable of voicing their desire to withdraw consent, which they may possibly want to do (a person having the right to withdraw consent at any time they so wish) and person A is taking advantage of this. Plus, if I consent to have sex with someone, I would normally say that I'm consenting to engage in a sexual act where I am awake. I don't think that's the same as me consenting to having sex with that person after I fall asleep.

    No, I wouldn't call it rape. Sexual assault?
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Ahh, but it the latter two examples, consent for coitus had been given and consciousness was only lost after it had commenced. Losing consciousness would effect the affected party's capacity to revoke consent during the act - which while rare, does take place.
    Yes, I suppose that is the crux of the issue. I believe a person has the right to remove their consent at any point while engaging in sexual relations (I sound like a barrister now) with someone else. I don't see it as a video game where you get to the next level and then the next level etc. And someone can say "OK I don't want to do sexual act A any more, let's do B or C now".

    I would say that many people (me included) often find it difficult to grasp the concept of being raped/sexually assaulted by someone we know. And it's even harder to conceptualise being raped by a partner or spouse. Rape within marriage only became a recognised offence in this country a few years ago. The idea of the stranger lurking in the bushes is more clear cut.
    metrovelvet wrote: »
    Also complicated by how responsible you hold the inebriated but concious party for their actions.
    Oh there's another whole can of worms!


  • #59
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Ok. No you're right or at least technically you're right, but the possibility can't be ruled out that if someone consents to foreplay and falls asleep, that implicit consent was not made for the full sex act, anal, vaginal or what the hell, lets include oral.

    Or in the case of young or inexperienced people, or virgins.

    Also context is important. There are more flexible boundaries within relationship. If there is trust. You can always have a bad marriage where these things get exploited and that cant be ruled out either.


  • #60
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    taconnol wrote: »
    Oh there's another whole can of worms!
    Relevant nonetheless. Loss of consciousness is simply the extreme case of where alcohol affects one's capacity for sexual consent. There is no reason to argue that it should be limited to this level.

    What I'm asking is at what point are we responsible for one's choices (to drink, etc.)? If a woman goes to a certain nightclub on Harcourt st, knocks back vodka and Red's to beat the band until she is only semi-conscious (and thus of dubious capacity to consent) and ends up sleeping with the creature from the black lagoon, is that rape or should she share responsibility?

    And if drunkenness absolves one from responsibility, how can the aforementioned creature from the black lagoon be held accountable given that he was likely to be plastered also?


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Relevant nonetheless. Loss of consciousness is simply the extreme case of where alcohol affects one's capacity for sexual consent. There is no reason to argue that it should be limited to this level.

    What I'm asking is at what point are we responsible for one's choices (to drink, etc.)? If a woman goes to a certain nightclub on Harcourt st, knocks back vodka and Red's to beat the band until she is only semi-conscious (and thus of dubious capacity to consent) and ends up sleeping with the creature from the black lagoon, is that rape or should she share responsibility?

    And if drunkenness absolves one from responsibility, how can the aforementioned creature from the black lagoon be held accountable given that he was likely to be plastered also?

    I dont think being drunk does. Ask any battered spouse or child.

    However, the otherside of this would be a case like marilyn monroe who was so doped out of it the night before she dies she was incapable of consent. My only answer could be take it on a case by case basis. Not ideal, but what else is there?

    I think being unconcious does.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement