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
12357…11

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    I think we all know the solution here. Issue women with sex licenses. Random checkpoints on the roads to catch the ones doing the walk of shame and breathalyser them. If they're over a certain limit you can presume they were drunk riding the night before and they get three points on the license. Rack up twelve points over a three year period and they get vagina clamped.


  • Options
    #123
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    What part of "I don't think they are related" are you having difficulty with?

    If someone is raped, they are raped. They are not responsible for someone else's actions and so they have nothing to be remorseful for.

    Regretting having had consensual sex is an entirely different scenario. Plenty of times I've regretted having had sex with someone, but they didn't rape me because I was making an informed choice to have sex with them at the time, one which I later regretted. The other person can not be convicted of rape on the basis that I regret having sex with them.

    Your question presents two completely different scenarios.

    Hard to know if you are being deliberately obtuse or you are really this stupid?

    Bet let me try and break this down.
    How does a court of law distinguish between someone that simply regrets there actions and claims to have been raped vrs someone that was raped if alcohol consumption becomes the driving factor for the conviction?

    If alcohol consumption becomes the benchmark for law then there is no distinction all they need do is report they had sex even if she said "I agreed to it" the police would still need to arrest him as according to the law she was raped!


  • Options
    #124
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,124 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    You have completely missed the point of what this legislation would mean...

    If the law states that after x units of alcohol any adult is no longer in a fit state to have consenting sex you are effectively outlawing drunken sex.

    Man and wife of 20 years, wife lands back drunk jumps on her husband, he is committing a crime by having sex with her according to the law..

    One eyed Jack's argument of a rape complaint needs to happen for it to be rape does not change anything.

    Like drunk driving home and not getting caught, the fact that the guardi cannot prove it does not change the fact you broke the law by doing it.

    Oh for heaven's sake, this is getting stupid! No it's nothing like drunk driving, because it's about consent. You can't give consent for someone to drive home drunk.

    If you want a comparison, it's like S and M. Something that would normally be assault can be consented to. If there's any doubt afterward, over whether consent was given, is it reasonable just to assume that it was? I'd say it's up to the person doing the beating to have some evidence that the person being beaten was consenting, and it's hardly shocking to expect that.

    Why do some men here have an issue with ascertaining that a woman has consented, and is able to consent, before having sex with her? It's quite worrying really.


  • Options
    #125
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    Hard to know if you are being deliberately obtuse or you are really this stupid?

    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Now I was never the sharpest pencil in the box, but I can still bloody tell when someone is drunk, or has had too much to drink, and I can choose to avoid putting myself in a situation which has the potential to go badly wrong.


    Does that help?
    Bet let me try and break this down.
    How does a court of law distinguish between someone that simply regrets there actions and claims to have been raped vrs someone that was raped if alcohol consumption becomes the driving factor for the conviction?


    The whole point of the proposal is that a court of law doesn't have to concern itself with whether the person regrets having had sex or not. If they were legally incapacitated, then they weren't legally able to give consent even if they were standing in front of the person screaming "take me now!".

    If alcohol consumption becomes the benchmark for law then there is no distinction all they need do is report they had sex even if she said "I agreed to it" the police would still need to arrest him as according to the law she was raped!


    If a person makes a report to the authorities that they were raped, and their BAC is above a certain threshold, then they were legally incapable of consent, and so the person who had sex with them without legal consent can indeed be charged with rape as the sex was legally non-consensual.

    That is just another risk that person chooses to take when they choose to have sex with someone who is intoxicated.


  • Options
    #126
    Triangla
    Registered Users Posts: 818 ✭✭✭Triangla


    Consenting adults both have a few drinks and have sex and this could now lead to a rape conviction for the guy?

    Completely crazy, is it wrong to just educate people that getting drunk can lead to some stupid decisions that you as an adult are accountable for these decisions.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Oh for heaven's sake, this is getting stupid! No it's nothing like drunk driving, because it's about consent. You can't give consent for someone to drive home drunk.

    If you want a comparison, it's like S and M. Something that would normally be assault can be consented to. If there's any doubt afterward, over whether consent was given, is it reasonable just to assume that it was? I'd say it's up to the person doing the beating to have some evidence that the person being beaten was consenting, and it's hardly shocking to expect that.

    Why do some men here have an issue with ascertaining that a woman has consented, and is able to consent, before having sex with her? It's quite worrying really.

    You are talking through you hat and obviously do not understand what the law is or basic logic for that matter.

    The law needs to stand true.
    If it is deemed that after a certain consumption of alcohol an adult is no longer capable of giving consent then it automatically becomes a crime for another adult to engage in sexual activity with that individual.
    Whether it is a boyfriend girlfriend, husband wife even if he or she consented it does not matter... Bid like a minor consenting it is null and void does not matter.
    The law cannot be vague..

    What part of this is difficult for you to understand?


  • Options
    #128
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    If a person makes a report to the authorities that they were raped, and their BAC is above a certain threshold, then they were legally incapable of consent, and so the person who had sex with them without legal consent can indeed be charged with rape as the sex was legally non-consensual.

    That is just another risk that person chooses to take when they choose to have sex with someone who is intoxicated.

    OK your not stupid you do actually understand this.

    How many husbands and wivies do you think have went out had a skin full landed home who are in a loving and committed relationship had sex?

    You are effectively saying this is technically now a crime!


  • Options
    #129
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,124 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    You are talking through you hat and obviously do not understand what the law is or basic logic for that matter.

    The law needs to stand true.
    If it is deemed that after a certain consumption of alcohol an adult is no longer capable of giving consent then it automatically becomes a crime for another adult to engage in sexual activity with that individual.
    Whether it is a boyfriend girlfriend, husband wife even if he or she consented it does not matter... Bid like a minor consenting it is null and void does not matter.
    The law cannot be vague..

    What part of this is difficult for you to understand?
    As a matter of interest - do you believe there is a level of blood alcohol beyond which a person is incapable of giving consent or not?

    A simple yes or no will do.

    (The question of whether that person decides to go to the police the next day or not is a separate issue, and entirely dependent, I'm sure you'll agree, on the nature of that relationship in general.)


  • Options
    #130
    NachoBusiness
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,389 ✭✭✭NachoBusiness


    volchitsa wrote: »
    And what sort of eejits are men that they can't refuse sex with a woman they should know has something against them?

    Ha. Talk about victim blaming.

    Oh and by the way, men don't even need to have sex with a woman for them to get falsely accused of rape.


  • Options
    #131
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    OK your not stupid you do actually understand this.

    How many husbands and wivies do you think have went out had a skin full landed home who are in a loving and committed relationship had sex?

    You are effectively saying this is technically now a crime!


    Nope, I'm not saying anything is a crime. The proposal being put forward has nothing to do with husbands and wives or boyfriends and girlfriends who have sex. The possibility of spousal rape is already addressed in Irish legislation I linked to earlier.

    The proposal being put forward in the report in the UK is related to defining consent in a legal context where an allegation of rape has been made by one party against another.

    Husbands and wives, husbands and husbands, wives and wives, boyfriends and boyfriends, girlfriends and girlfriends, partners, other halves, significant others and so on and so forth, will still be able to have sex without fear of being criminalised for it.

    In fact, the vast majority of people in society will still be having sex regardless of the new proposals, because the only time it will ever arise is if someone makes an allegation of rape against someone if they have been raped.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    volchitsa wrote: »
    As a matter of interest - do you believe there is a level of blood alcohol beyond which a person is incapable of giving consent or not?

    A simple yes or no will do.

    (The question of whether that person decides to go to the police the next day or not is a separate issue, and entirely dependent, I'm sure you'll agree, on the nature of that relationship in general.)

    A single level that can be applied to everyone?
    Of course not, I am not completely stupid!

    People are comparing drunkenness levels around driving a car where any slight impairment of judgement could cause death.

    You give someone who has never drank alcohol 4 pints you might find them on the bathroom floor.

    You give 4 pints to someone with a reasonable tolerance of alcohol you might be hard pushed to know they where even drinking!


  • Options
    #133
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,586 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    .


    In fact, the vast majority of people in society will still be having sex regardless of the new proposals, because the only time it will ever arise is if someone makes an allegation of rape against someone if they have been raped.

    I agree with this, but that doesn't mean it's not important.

    I'm interested in just how much weight would be given to the BAC reading.

    In some cases, where sex is admitted but the issue is whether it was consensual or not, there is a lot of 'he said, she said',and it is very difficult to ascertain what happened and prove that a rape occurred.

    Under the proposed new law, would it be a case of 'he said, she said' but the BAC reading is above level X so we don't need the 'he said' any more because the combination of 'she said' and BAC means guilt is automatic?


  • Options
    #134
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,786 ✭✭✭SeanW


    then they weren't legally able to give consent even if they were standing in front of the person screaming "take me now!".
    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    The proposal being put forward in the report in the UK is related to defining consent in a legal context where an allegation of rape has been made by one party against another.
    By this standard, any man who has ever scored in a bar or nightclub is a rapist. Or ever had drunken sex with any woman. Ever.

    And you wonder why sane people thing feminism is a hate movement?


  • Options
    #135
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,786 ✭✭✭SeanW


    osarusan wrote: »
    I'm interested in just how much weight would be given to the BAC reading

    ...

    Under the proposed new law, would it be a case of 'he said, she said' but the BAC reading is above level X so we don't need the 'he said' any more because the combination of 'she said' and BAC means guilt is automatic?
    I'm not sure how the BAC reading will be taken since there will obviously undoubtedly be a delay between the act and the report, but yes, in theory the BAC reading would be absolute. BAC over the threshold = man guilty of rape, regardless of circumstance with no defence.

    Since it is not reasonable to assume that people will stop having drunken sex, this creates a state of affairs where a large proportion of heterosexual men will be un-convicted rapists, depending on the good nature of the woman not to report him.


  • Options
    #136
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Nope, I'm not saying anything is a crime. The proposal being put forward has nothing to do with husbands and wives or boyfriends and girlfriends who have sex. The possibility of spousal rape is already addressed in Irish legislation I linked to earlier.

    The proposal being put forward in the report in the UK is related to defining consent in a legal context where an allegation of rape has been made by one party against another.

    Husbands and wives, husbands and husbands, wives and wives, boyfriends and boyfriends, girlfriends and girlfriends, partners, other halves, significant others and so on and so forth, will still be able to have sex without fear of being criminalised for it.

    In fact, the vast majority of people in society will still be having sex regardless of the new proposals, because the only time it will ever arise is if someone makes an allegation of rape against someone if they have been raped.

    You are wrong!
    The allegation part is of no consequence. If it can be defined that someone was not in the state of mind of give consent then effectively anyone having drunken sex is committing a crime.
    An allegation is only important with regards bringing the crime to the attention of the Guards.

    So technically what you are saying it was not a crime until an allegation is made? Therefore allegation + alcohol = crime


  • Options
    #137
    NachoBusiness
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,389 ✭✭✭NachoBusiness


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    I don't expect you or anyone else to do anything.

    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.
    We're all adults here and we're all big enough and bold enough to be able to decide for ourselves whether we want to take the risk of having sex with a stranger we just met in the club who has a few drinks taken. If you're making an informed choice to have sex with someone, then you know what you're doing.

    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?
    A person who's judgement is impaired is not making an informed choice.

    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'd simply say you were blinded by your own sense of entitlement.

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

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

    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 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?


  • Options
    #138
    blue note
    Registered Users Posts: 4,520 ✭✭✭blue note


    No-one is saying we shouldn't have drunken sex, they're saying men shouldn't have sex with drunk women. It's fine for women to get drunk and have sex if they want or to have sex with heavily intoxicated men, whether they're drunk or not. And it's fine for a drunk man to have sex, just not with a drunk woman.

    Go equality!


  • Options
    #139
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    blue note wrote: »
    No-one is saying we shouldn't have drunken sex, they're saying men shouldn't have sex with drunk women. It's fine for women to get drunk and have sex if they want or to have sex with heavily intoxicated men, whether they're drunk or not. And it's fine for a drunk man to have sex, just not with a drunk woman.

    Go equality!

    :eek: Someone tell Iona!!!!


  • Options
    #140
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    Just to be clear folks, this is what is being proposed:
    However, while ‘free agreement’ (consent as defined by section12) is absent when the complainer is incapable of consenting because of the effect of alcohol or any other substance, the prosecution must still prove that the defendant had no reasonable belief that the complainer consented. So in such cases it is necessary for the Crown to establish that the complainer was ‘incapable’ as a result of intoxication (and the evidential burden for that is appropriately high) and that the accused must reasonably have known this

    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.


  • Options
    #141
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,124 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    NachoBusiness wrote: »
    Ha. Talk about victim blaming.
    Except that is my point, I'm not the one saying men are such eejits, I don't think they are.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,124 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    SeanW wrote: »
    By this standard, any man who has ever scored in a bar or nightclub is a rapist. Or ever had drunken sex with any woman. Ever.

    And you wonder why sane people thing feminism is a hate movement?

    ok, this conversation is over.


  • Options
    #143
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,124 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    A single level that can be applied to everyone?
    Of course not, I am not completely stupid!

    People are comparing drunkenness levels around driving a car where any slight impairment of judgement could cause death.

    You give someone who has never drank alcohol 4 pints you might find them on the bathroom floor.

    You give 4 pints to someone with a reasonable tolerance of alcohol you might be hard pushed to know they where even drinking!
    There are physical limits all the same, to do with body mass in particular. If it's possible to define a limit beyond which someone's driving ability is somewhat impaired (drink driving laws) it's clearly possible to define a level beyond which the majority of women will be practically unconscious and thereby unable to grant consent. We're not talking about a glass or two here.

    It's exactly like the example I gave of unusual sexual practices earlier : if people are going to do something that could potentially be dodgy (ie have sex with a drunken stranger) it's not excessive to expect them to take more care in how they proceed than if they either weren't drunk or were in a relationship with the person.

    All this stuff about a couple getting drunk one night and finding themselves up in court next day because the Feminism Police had heard them having sex in a drunken state is as silly as the recent warnings that all marriages would be invalidated if SSM were allowed to pass - a transparent attempt at scaremongering that only convinces those who were already diehard believers anyway.


  • Options
    #144
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,869 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    SeanW wrote: »
    And you wonder why sane people thing feminism is a hate movement?

    By this standard, so's the "Men's Rights Movement", made up of delightful people like Paul "she was BEGGING to be raped" Elam.


  • Options
    #145
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    From the Bree case, in Scottish law, which is what the recommendation in this report is drawing on
    ‘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’.

    I'm still at most ambivalent about this being written into legislation though I have to say. I think it's something that would be better addressed through education, I think it'll be misrepresented in the media in a way that damages the credibility of rape convictions in public consciousness (just look at what's been happening in this thread like), and I think it will send a confusing message about consent.


  • Options
    #146
    RayM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,973 ✭✭✭RayM


    SeanW wrote: »
    And you wonder why sane people thing feminism is a hate movement?

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


  • Options
    #147
    Sierra 117
    Registered Users Posts: 629 ✭✭✭Sierra 117


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

    There are definitely feminists out there who treat feminism as if it's a hate movement. They're a minority, of course, but sadly they're also the loudest.


  • Options
    #148
    NachoBusiness
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,389 ✭✭✭NachoBusiness


    Demetrius Unsightly Shopkeeper wrote: »
    Just to be clear folks, this is what is being proposed:

    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.

    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.

    LOL. Talk about trying to distance yourself from your own posts. This was you, right?
    Demetrius Unsightly Shopkeeper wrote: »
    I can't conceive of a universe where this is a workable law, and it definitely has damaging implications. Bad idea, bad bad bad.
    Demetrius Unsightly Shopkeeper wrote: »
    If a girl has had five pints, gets raped, and then it's deemed that the amount she had to drink made her incapable of consent, then tomorrow night when I go out, have five pints and come home and have sex with my boyfriend, how can I possibly be capable of consent? That's a bonkers message to send to young people in an already very confusing area.
    Demetrius Unsightly Shopkeeper wrote: »
    It's a bonkers idea to legislate for, and it does criminalise very normal behaviour.

    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.


  • Options
    #149
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    NachoBusiness wrote: »
    LOL. Talk about trying to distance yourself from your own posts:

    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.

    A) I've read the actual recommendations since making those posts.
    B) I was responding to OEJ's fairly unqualified support for it, which I still respectfully disagree with. In the context of a specific response to those points and a discussion about the mutability of consent dependent on external circumstance, I stand by those posts.
    C) Nothing says "You make a good point" like an ad hominem retort including "lol"


  • Options
    #150
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    osarusan wrote: »
    I agree with this, but that doesn't mean it's not important.

    I'm interested in just how much weight would be given to the BAC reading.

    In some cases, where sex is admitted but the issue is whether it was consensual or not, there is a lot of 'he said, she said',and it is very difficult to ascertain what happened and prove that a rape occurred.

    Under the proposed new law, would it be a case of 'he said, she said' but the BAC reading is above level X so we don't need the 'he said' any more because the combination of 'she said' and BAC means guilt is automatic?


    Well as it's only a proposal, and I haven't really seen it fleshed out yet, I imagine what the author was aiming for was a standard where it could be decided that consent was either present or absent depending upon an absolute and tangible metric as opposed to the current defence of reasonable belief - "s/he was well up for it your honour, sober as a judge", where the prosecution has then to prove that s/he wasn't in any state to give consent.

    SeanW wrote: »
    By this standard, any man who has ever scored in a bar or nightclub is a rapist. Or ever had drunken sex with any woman. Ever.


    And people wonder why they're not taken seriously with those sort of hyperbolic leaps in logic. That's not any standard that's either being proposed, or one that I'm currently aware of.

    And you wonder why sane people thing feminism is a hate movement?


    How do you define 'sane' exactly?

    I'm just trying to establish a baseline here because our perspective differs wildly, notwithstanding the fact that this report has fcukall to do with feminism, and if you read it you'd know that. It has to do with victims of rape, be they male or female. The kneejerk media only focused on one single aspect of it and completely ignored the rest, but it's not like the tabloid media to report things without context, is it?

    SeanW wrote: »
    I'm not sure how the BAC reading will be taken since there will obviously undoubtedly be a delay between the act and the report, but yes, in theory the BAC reading would be absolute. BAC over the threshold = man guilty of rape, regardless of circumstance with no defence.


    You're not sure of anything really, but that hasn't stopped you leaping to all sorts of conclusions.

    Since it is not reasonable to assume that people will stop having drunken sex, this creates a state of affairs where a large proportion of heterosexual men will be un-convicted rapists, depending on the good nature of the woman not to report him.


    Does that even sound sane when you read it back? Seriously?

    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    You are wrong!
    The allegation part is of no consequence. If it can be defined that someone was not in the state of mind of give consent then effectively anyone having drunken sex is committing a crime.
    An allegation is only important with regards bringing the crime to the attention of the Guards.

    So technically what you are saying it was not a crime until an allegation is made? Therefore allegation + alcohol = crime


    No, that's blatantly what you're implying I said, no 'technically' anything about it. I haven't said any such thing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    Tetrayog wrote: »
    Dig up. :D

    Do I really have to explain to you the difference between "I have very strong reservations about this because it would be a difficult law to work, sends a confusing message about consent, and will be misrepresented" and "This is a feminist conspiracy that means that every decent man who has sex with a girl who's had two pints will definitely, definitely get convicted of rape in the very likely event that she's a crazy bitch"?

    Because if I do you'll have to give me a while to work out how to get down to that simple and yet weirdly abstract level of logic, it's like explaining the difference between walls and biscuits.


Advertisement