nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

NachoBusiness

Be interested to hear how others feel about this and if you would support such a law in this country..

A new report in the UK is calling for a blood alcohol level to be set in order to able to determine if a woman had the ability to consent to sex or not.

A rape report has suggested that courts should assume that women who are drunk cannot consent to sex.

The findings were concluded yesterday by Dame Elish Angiolini, who suggests that blood tests should be carried out by police to determine whether a woman was too drunk and therefore unable to consent when a claim of rape is made.

The barrister within her recommendations is also suggesting that the Sexual Offences Act 2003 be amended to cover the grey area covering rape cases where alcohol is involved.

Source.

This seems a ludicrous suggestion to me for many reasons, not least of which is how could they even be sure when the alcohol was consumed, before or after the sex had taken place. Crazy proposal. Hope it's seen as such.

I also see no mention from the barrister how she feels about a woman having sex with a drunk male and whether she would feel that this too should automatically qualify as rape. Not surprising though.

MOD NOTE - It should go without saying, but no rape jokes. Zero tolerence on this.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

One eyed Jack

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

This is what you think it means...

It's not just what I think it means. That is how the laws are interpreted by the Justices in the UK and Ireland -

The one thing the law in neither country says, however, is that if a man has sex with a woman who is not consenting it is always rape.

Source: The Law of Rape in the UK and Ireland

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

And let me clarify you don't yet know what it means neither does anyone else. There is too much ambiguity around this.

Let me clarify for you - I know what it means. You on the other hand, clearly don't.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

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...

I don't think you have, otherwise you wouldn't have interpreted it the way you did and you would have understood why the proposal was made.

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. 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.

No, he doesn't, and no, she can't, and no, he is innocent until proven otherwise -

In the UK as in Ireland the issue of ‘reasonable belief’ is present. In all three pieces of legislation the term reasonable belief was specifically inserted to rectify the fact that previously any belief that she consented was sufficient. If a man knew the woman did not consent, or was reckless about it, it was rape but if he believed she did it was not rape, irrespective of what the victim actually wanted. In the case of Morgan, where a man invited 3 men to his house to have sex with his wife, saying that she would struggle and resist but that was all part of her enjoyment, the judge direct the jury that a genuine belief as to consent was sufficient. It was felt in reforming the law that if the belief had to be reasonable this would remedy the problem. The UK law goes further than the Irish law however and indicates a series of scenarios in which consent will be presumed to be absent irrespective of the accused’s belief, reasonable or otherwise. So if the victim was asleep or unconscious, was drugged, had a physical disability meaning they couldn’t convey consent, was unlawfully detained and so on, the accused cannot claim a reasonable belief as to consent. And rightly so.

Source: The Law of Rape in the UK and Ireland

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

And again, if a man came forward? He'd be laughed out the police station.

No, he wouldn't, I guess if you've never needed to use many of the support systems available for male victims of rape in Ireland, you wouldn't be aware of the support within An Garda Siochana already. This is from a recent submission by the Rape Crisis Network Ireland to the Garda Policing Plan for 2015 -

RCNI recognizes that An Garda Siochana has put in place some measures to address the difficult area of sexual crime, and that there are many officers at all levels sincerely committed to improving the experience of survivors and also to efficient and timely investigation of these crimes. Recent very positive developments include the incorporation of many “Rape and Justice in Ireland” recommendations into the Garda Policy on the Investigation of Sexual Crime, Crimes against Children and Child Welfare (2010). These relate to ongoing contact between victims and An Garda Siochana, the provision of accurate information to the victim, a prohibition on dissuasive behaviour by members of An Garda Siochana, an emphasis throughout on compassion and sensitivity, including on the timing of the formal Garda statement by the victim. In addition, the Policy addresses the management of sex offenders, sets out the procedure to be followed in sexual cases by all members but especially those who are specially trained Special Victim Interviewers, and sets out a policy of regular contact between designated liaison officers and relevant NGO’s at local level.

Garda Special Victim Interviewers’ role is to interview in specially structured and reassuring surroundings, victims who are children under the age of 14 and vulnerable adults (primarily). All SVI’s are required to complete an intensive training course before they can take up their duties, and numbers of these officers have now grown significantly. General training for all members now takes account of sexual violence issues to a greater extent, and there are high level interviewing courses available which are aimed at officers interviewing victims of serious crimes, including sexual crimes.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

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.

No, and no. The only nonsense being put forward here is your own ill informed assumptions.

ShowMeTheCash

volchitsa wrote: »

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?

The why does not matter! You are getting caught up in semantics!

volchitsa wrote: »

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??

OK again semantics... Are you saying every allegation ever made came from mentally stable individuals?

volchitsa wrote: »

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.

What are you on about?
You seem to be in some kind of spin with yourself.
No one is saying that this would be the norm, no one is saying a normal well adjusted person will go out get smashed have sex then accused the participant for rape.

But you cannot legislate for only the happy path or plausible.

NachoBusiness

volchitsa wrote: »

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.

I despair at posts like the above. Are you really that naive? I could post hundreds of cases over the years here were women did precisely what you are suggesting above isn't plausible. Even just looking at today's news there is one such case. Seriously, wake up and quit acting like anyone that dares to voice a concern about the proposed laws potentially leading to a rise in false rape convictions, are really just some kind of paranoid misogynist. Cases like the one below might not seem very "plausible" to you, but for the men falsely accused they are not only plausible but very much a reality.

Woman cried rape after man she had first date train sex with ran away at his stop

A woman falsely told police she had been raped after having sex with a man on a train after their first date.

Karen Farmer, 35, made the complaint after the man ran away from her once they got off the train at his stop.

She told officers the 23-year-old man had been 'aggressive and controlling' but CCTV footage showed the pair having consensual sex on the train from Glasgow to Blantyre.

Farmer, from Paisley now faces jail after pleading guilty at Glasgow Sheriff Court to falsely claiming she was raped and causing police to devote their time and services in an investigation she knew was false.

The court heard that on August 14, 2012, Farmer and a the man went on a date in Glasgow city centre.

Procurator fiscal depute Collette Fallon said that Farmer was under the impression that she would be staying the night with the man.

The pair later boarded a train at Glasgow Central station that was going to Blantyre - where her date lived.

While on the rain, they were captured on CCTV "engaging in consensual sex".

Miss Fallon said that when they got off of the train at Blantyre, the man told Farmer he needed the toilet but ran away from the station.

Farmer, visibly upset, looked for him and eventually asked to borrow someone's phone to text her date.

In the message she said: "Thanks for the night that I paid for for you to leave me in Blantyre."

The message also said: "For you to use me like that has made me feel so low.

When she got to Central station she told police she had been sexually assaulted on the train and taken to a police station.

volchitsa

NachoBusiness wrote: »

I despair at posts like the above. Are you really that naive? I could post hundreds of cases over the years here were women did precisely what you are suggesting above isn't plausible. Even just looking at today's news there is one such case. Seriously, wake up and quit acting like anyone that dares to voice a concern about the proposed laws potentially leading to a rise in false rape convictions, are really just some kind of paranoid misogynist. Cases like the one below might not seem very "plausible" to you, but for the men falsely accused they are not only plausible but very much a reality.

You've missed the point, unsurprisingly. Those women weren't drunk, and it wasn't just a case of regretting having had sex with the man (the beer goggles effect mentioned earlier). I never said no woman would ever try to get revenge on a man. That isn't the scenario that I was replying to, which was about someone getting drunk and sleeping with someone they wouldn't otherwise have given the time to day to.

The woman on the train, for example, didn't know the guy was going to run off, so she was hardly going to go and get drunk before having sex with him so that if he did run off - well, surely the problem with your attempt at extrapolation is clear to anyone with half a brain?

Lagraso

volchitsa wrote: »

You've missed the point, unsurprisingly. Those women weren't drunk, and it wasn't just a case of regretting having had sex with the man (the beer goggles effect mentioned earlier). I never said no woman would ever try to get revenge on a man. That isn't the scenario that I was replying to, which was about someone getting drunk and sleeping with someone they wouldn't otherwise have given the time to day to.

The woman on the train, for example, didn't know the guy was going to run off, so she was hardly going to go and get drunk before having sex with him so that if he did run off - well, surely the problem with your attempt at extrapolation is clear to anyone with half a brain?

It seems the woman on the train regretted having sex and was so angry with him that she falsely accused him if rape. These things do happen. People need to be protected by the law against false rape accusers.

dr.fuzzenstein

volchitsa wrote: »

You've missed the point, unsurprisingly. Those women weren't drunk, and it wasn't just a case of regretting having had sex with the man (the beer goggles effect mentioned earlier). I never said no woman would ever try to get revenge on a man. That isn't the scenario that I was replying to, which was about someone getting drunk and sleeping with someone they wouldn't otherwise have given the time to day to.

The woman on the train, for example, didn't know the guy was going to run off, so she was hardly going to go and get drunk before having sex with him so that if he did run off - well, surely the problem with your attempt at extrapolation is clear to anyone with half a brain?

But if a woman like that now has a few drinks, the man is guilty of rape. Under the proposed legislation he is guilty.

volchitsa

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

But if a woman like that now has a few drinks, the man is guilty of rape. Under the proposed legislation he is guilty.

No, not unless he goes back a second time and thinks she is up for it again, despite his appalling treatment of her the first time around. First time, she wasn't drunk, and if she had been, then the situation would have been different anyway, closer to the girl in Wales where the footballer was found guilty of rape.

In other words, if she's drunk, then the question of consent is a real one, whether or not this law is passed. That some men refuse to see that there can actually be an issue of consent when the woman is drunk is a bit shocking to be frank.

NachoBusiness

volchitsa wrote: »

You've missed the point, unsurprisingly. Those women weren't drunk, and it wasn't just a case of regretting having had sex with the man (the beer goggles effect mentioned earlier). I never said no woman would ever try to get revenge on a man.

Yes you did. Here is what you wrote:

volchitsa wrote: »

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??

That woman was drinking and did feel ashamed at what she did. She felt used and decided to flasely claim he raped her because he was not "chivalrous" to her.

Either way, the point which you seem to be missing is that this woman wanted to make this man pay for clearing off after she shagged him and so falsely claimed he raped her as a means of vengeance. Had there been a BAC law in place and she was over it (I get that we have no idea what that is yet) she could just have given a sample and said to the Police that she doesn't that she was sober enough to give consent in the first place.

Thank God the CCTV on that train was working by the way.

volchitsa

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Yes you did. Here is what you wrote:

That woman was drinking and did feel ashamed at what she did. She felt used and decided to flasely claim he raped her because he was not "chivalrous" to her.

Either way, the point which you seem to be missing is that this woman wanted to make this man pay for clearing off after she shagged him and so falsely claimed he raped her as a means of vengeance. Had there been a BAC law in place and she was over it (I get that we have no idea what that is yet) she could just have given a sample and said to the Police that she doesn't that she was sober enough to give consent in the first place.

Thank God the CCTV on that train was working by the way.

Go back to the beer goggles scenario, which was the one I was responding to. That's nothing like the train example, where the woman didn't regret having sex with a guy she didn't like, she regretted having been treated like dirt by a man she did like - and decided to punish him for that. That has nothing to do with alcohol, and if she had been drunk, the question of consent and judgment would indeed have been raised by her defence, and she might well have won, even without this law - like the girl in Wales and the footballer.

You really seem worried by the idea that picking up an unknown drunk woman might cause you legal problems. I'd suggest that the proposed law isn't the only way that sort of behaviour causes problems, and like OEJ said way back, the only solution to that is a change in society's attitudes, as there was with drink driving me or with smoking in public.

One eyed Jack

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

But if a woman like that now has a few drinks, the man is guilty of rape. Under the proposed legislation he is guilty.

What part of this are you having difficulty with?

The one thing the law in neither country says, however, is that if a man has sex with a woman who is not consenting it is always rape.

Under the proposed amendment to current legislation, it is simply a means to establish the presence or absence of consent. Nothing more.

The Highwayman

volchitsa wrote: »

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.

Unfortunately this is exactly the case, false rape allegations are popping up all over the internet. Most famous at the moment is the Rolling Stone Magazine story about a girl in UVA, not just one guy nearly had his life ruined but five!
Even though the story is now believed to be completely false mud sticks.
Furthermore crazy 3rd wave feminists think a man and also these men are guilty until proven innocent no matter what crazy mixed up story some woman comes out with.
Universitys in the states are drawing up characters to deal with the mythical rape culture, where a guy has no right to bring whiteness, ask questions or show any evidence to defend himself. If there is a rape allegation he will be thrown to the wolves, maybe because the girl regrets what she did or believe it or not the guy simply didn't call her back, yes it has happened, just for not calling her back.
Maybe take a look at Reddit's MRA sub reddit, its a scary world for anyone with a young son. By the time he grows up these 'feminist' ideas will be here too

Cold War Kid

The Highwayman wrote: »

Unfortunately this is exactly the case, false rape allegations are popping up all over the internet.

How reliable are these? Couldn't there possibly be false allegations of false allegations?

You need to understand women being dubious of the regularity of this occurrence when we know nobody of the sort and wouldn't dream of doing such a thing. Not denying it happens, but querying the assertion that it's such a regular occurrence.
Men who are sick of men being misrepresented would understand I'd have thought.

I can only imagine the woman-hating venom that's to be found on the MRA sub Reddit tbh.

Before someone loses their sh-t, I am not trying to annoy anyone, but "Women are so prone to making false allegations of rape" does grate.

I don't agree with hardline feminism at all btw - I can't stand it in fact.

NachoBusiness

volchitsa wrote: »

You really seem worried by the idea that picking up an unknown drunk woman might cause you legal problems.

Stop trying to make this personal please. Thanks.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What part of this are you having difficulty with?

Are you serious? Quoting a blog that has many people below it pointing out errors.

Here is the actual law:

Rape

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and

(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

Ergo, if you have sex with someone who is deemed incapable of consent and you know they are (drunk).. you are guilty of raping them.

One eyed Jack

The Highwayman wrote: »

Unfortunately this is exactly the case, false rape allegations are popping up all over the internet. Most famous at the moment is the Rolling Stone Magazine story about a girl in UVA, not just one guy nearly had his life ruined but five!
Even though the story is now believed to be completely false mud sticks.
Furthermore crazy 3rd wave feminists think a man and also these men are guilty until proven innocent no matter what crazy mixed up story some woman comes out with.
Universitys in the states are drawing up characters to deal with the mythical rape culture, where a guy has no right to bring whiteness, ask questions or show any evidence to defend himself. If there is a rape allegation he will be thrown to the wolves, maybe because the girl regrets what she did or believe it or not the guy simply didn't call her back, yes it has happened, just for not calling her back.
Maybe take a look at Reddit's MRA sub reddit, its a scary world for anyone with a young son. By the time he grows up these 'feminist' ideas will be here too

It's only a scary world for anyone who is so paranoid to the degree that they lament the fact that they may be 'denied' their 'entitlement' to have sex with women for fear that a woman might make a false claim of rape against them.

Let's be honest (as Nacho said earlier) -

What sort of fcuked up mentality is that?

You talk about "crazy 3rd wave feminists" and tell people to have a look at Reddit MRA's as if they're actually not some bunch of quite frankly sad and pathetic bastards that have no respect for women and promote their own funky notions like women's only purpose in life is to fcuk 'men' (I use the term loosely in reference to these MRA fcukwits) over.

But of course women have all the 'power' and are 'denying' these 'men' their 'sexual freedom', so best chance for sex is to hover around and/or help the process along, and then have sex with women when they're drunk?

That doesn't sound creepy at all at all, and how dare anyone suggest something which threatens your 'sexual freedom', eh?

Y'know what, I have a young son, who I have brought up to respect women, and he has no problems socialising, and I sure as hell can guarantee you he'll never come out with some of the bitterness and shìtty attitudes I've seen directed against women in this thread.

What must have happened to someone to turn them so bitter and entitled?

One eyed Jack

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Stop trying to make this personal please. Thanks.

Are you serious? Quoting a blog that has many people below it pointing out errors.

Here is the actual law:

Ergo, if you have sex with someone who is deemed incapable of consent.. you are guilty of raping them.

All errors have been corrected in the article. And I have an idea that the author may be more well clued in on the law than you are -

Vicky Conway is a senior lecturer in criminal law at the University of Kent and author of The Blue Wall of Silence on police accountability and the Morris Tribunal. Her third book, Policing Twentieth Century Ireland is published by Routledge. She specialises in policing, miscarriages of justice and criminology.

You are not necessarily guilty of rape even in the absence of consent. That was the point being made. Do try to keep up.

NachoBusiness

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You are not necessarily guilty of rape even in the absence of consent. That was the point being made. Do try to keep up.

Sigh.

That's pertaining to the rare case of when someone honestly believes that the person was giving their consent. If however all three criteria points above are met, then that is rape in the eyes of the law.

Let me spell it out for you further:

If a law is brought in with regards to a BAC, then a man would have to prove that he honestly thought the woman was sober and nowhere near the BAC which makes someone incapable of consenting to sex (which would of course be nigh on impossible if he was drinking with her).

You are clutching at straws here, honestly. Do you even know that in the UK there is "Conditional Consent"? For example, if a man agrees to wear a condom and doesn't, he can be charged with rape in the UK.

The point here is, should this law come in and a BAC is set at say even three times the driving BAC limit, then any man that has sex with a woman that he knowingly believes to be drunk, would be guilty of rape.

Tell me, OEJ, you keep saying now (in fairness you have little else to say as all your other points have been torn apart) that if a BAC limit was set for consensual sex, that a man having sex with her would not necessarily make him guilty of rape. Okay so, well then tell us what else you believe would have to go along with that to see a man charged with rape. Other of course than the accusation itself.

One eyed Jack

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Sigh.

That's pertaining to the rare case of when someone honestly believes that the person was giving their consent. If however all three criteria points above are met, then that is rape in the eyes of the law.

It's not quite as simple as that, at all, and well you know it, because the language you're using suggests to me you're edging into goalpost shifting territory again.

Let me spell it out for you further:

If a law is brought in with regards to a BAC, then a man would have to prove that he honestly thought the woman was sober and nowhere near the BAC which makes someone incapable of consenting to sex (which would of course be nigh on impossible if he was drinking with her).

No, he wouldn't. He has reasonable belief on his side.

You are clutching at straws here, honestly. Do you even know that in the UK there is "Conditional Consent"? For example, if a man agrees to wear a condom and doesn't, he can be charged with rape in the UK.

I'm not the one that's either constructing strawmans with tabloid stories of sexual activity while sober, or trying to wedge in FUD about false claims of rape when you absolutely know by now that this proposal is only with regard to determining consent.

So much for trying to keep it between the goalposts.

The point here is, should this law come in and a BAC is set at say even three times the driving BAC limit, then any man that has sex with a woman that he knowingly believes to be drunk, would be guilty of rape.

Why didn't you say what the law actually states instead of using the word 'drunk'? Because you know you are correct in stating that having sex with someone 'knowingly incapable of consent' actually meets the standard for possibly being charged with rape, because that is a criminal offence, and not just reasonable belief any more.

Tell me, OEJ, you keep saying now (in fairness you have little else to say as all your other points have been torn apart) that if a BAC limit was set for consensual sex, that a man having sex with her would not necessarily make him guilty of rape. Okay so, well then tell us what else you believe would have to go along with that to see a man charged with rape. Other of course than the accusation itself.

It would be completely dependent upon the circumstances of every individual case, and you know this already, or at least you should know this already as I've said as much from the beginning of this thread.

I really don't get what you're at here Nacho tbh, are you looking to have a discussion about this one single proposal regarding consent, or are you just looking to score points? Point scoring you can save it. Discussion I'm all ears (unless you go off shifting goalposts again).

dr.fuzzenstein

volchitsa wrote: »

No, not unless he goes back a second time and thinks she is up for it again, despite his appalling treatment of her the first time around. First time, she wasn't drunk, and if she had been, then the situation would have been different anyway, closer to the girl in Wales where the footballer was found guilty of rape.

In other words, if she's drunk, then the question of consent is a real one, whether or not this law is passed. That some men refuse to see that there can actually be an issue of consent when the woman is drunk is a bit shocking to be frank.

"Define drunk" would be the point for me though.
What BAC would be the limit? If it is the drink driving limit, thousands of people every weekend would be technically guilty of rape.

volchitsa

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

"Define drunk" would be the point for me though.
What BAC would be the limit? If it is the drink driving limit, thousands of people every weekend would be technically guilty of rape.

That's a very different objection to the ones being made upthread though! And has already been replied to, so set your mind at rest. It's not a matter of being in charge of a motorized vehicle, it's a question of being sufficiently aware of ones surroundings to be able to give consent. Two entirely different levels of blood alcohol.

(Though you're wrong anyway, they would only be at risk of being found guilty if the woman then accused them of rape - not the same thing at all. As with marital rape, where after all, husbands don't "ask" their wives consent, yet accusations only ever occur in a specific context, not by accident.)

Lagraso

Cold War Kid wrote: »

How reliable are these? Couldn't there possibly be false allegations of false allegations?

You need to understand women being dubious of the regularity of this occurrence when we know nobody of the sort and wouldn't dream of doing such a thing. Not denying it happens, but querying the assertion that it's such a regular occurrence.
Men who are sick of men being misrepresented would understand I'd have thought.

I can only imagine the woman-hating venom that's to be found on the MRA sub Reddit tbh.

Before someone loses their sh-t, I am not trying to annoy anyone, but "Women are so prone to making false allegations of rape" does grate.

I don't agree with hardline feminism at all btw - I can't stand it in fact.

Should a person be dubious that rapists exist because they don't know any?

Has anyone said "women are so prone to making false allegations here"?

The fact of the matter is some women do make false rape allegations, that needs to be considered when drafting legislation.

Very Bored

If this was unisex and comes to pass then it would effectively mean that my wife has raped me many, many times...

dr.fuzzenstein

volchitsa wrote: »

That's a very different objection to the ones being made upthread though! And has already been replied to, so set your mind at rest. It's not a matter of being in charge of a motorized vehicle, it's a question of being sufficiently aware of ones surroundings to be able to give consent. Two entirely different levels of blood alcohol.

(Though you're wrong anyway, they would only be at risk of being found guilty if the woman then accused them of rape - not the same thing at all. As with marital rape, where after all, husbands don't "ask" their wives consent, yet accusations only ever occur in a specific context, not by accident.)

I do say technically, because should this be signed into law, it would have to be defined, just like drink driving. The law cannot say "yeah, she was kinda drunk, but not really, really drunk, but she's a bit of a lightweight, so she might not have known what she was doing whereas another woman would not have been affected". The law would have to state "A BAC of X means a woman is unable to give consent".
That means if a woman has a BAC of X, she cannot give consent, no matter how lucid she seems to be. That means the man is technically guilty of rape when sleeping with her. You can't argue that point.
And I still object to the original sentiment

women who are drunk cannot consent to sex

This law assumes that ALL women are helpless vulnerable and ALL men are predatory sex beasts who will use any opportunity to pounce, regardless of what the reality may be.
A bit like car insurance, were male drivers get loaded because they are male. It is a little bit different with the law, though, you cannot pre-load automatic guilt on all males simply because they are male. Because "all are equal before the law" would no longer apply.
I'm not saying that women routinely go around accusing men of rape all the time, I'm objecting to the premise of the law.
Yes, you can wheel out statistics that most rapes are committed by men, but then we are back at car insurance again. Because some scumbag raped a woman, does it mean I will? If a question of consent arises, why is the basic presumption that I am automatically guilty and have to defend myself? Maybe I was drunk and she took advantage of me.
It is the principle of the law that I object to and find offensive.

Very Bored

The part I don't get is when does the woman take responsibility for being drunk herself? Obviously if some scumbag follows a woman because she's drunk knowing she's not cognisant of what's going on and not physically able to defend herself then he deserves to be thrown into a pit like the animal he is. But what about when a woman throws herself at a man after she's had a few drinks? What level of drunk is too much and why is it not considered too much also for men? Also, how is a layman supposed to judge how much someone has drunk?

SeanW

volchitsa wrote: »

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?

Well, there's your first clue, Sherlock, if she does have any kind of "beef" a liberal definition of rape and/or a low standard of evidence makes a rape claim a "free shot".

NachoBusiness wrote: »

I despair at posts like the above. Are you really that naive? I could post hundreds of cases over the years here were women did precisely what you are suggesting above isn't plausible. Even just looking at today's news there is one such case. Seriously, wake up and quit acting like anyone that dares to voice a concern about the proposed laws potentially leading to a rise in false rape convictions, are really just some kind of paranoid misogynist. Cases like the one below might not seem very "plausible" to you, but for the men falsely accused they are not only plausible but very much a reality.

As the old saying goes, "Hell hath no fury ..." Nacho's post is a perfect example.

NachoBusiness

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not quite as simple as that, at all, and well you know it, because the language you're using suggests to me you're edging into goalpost shifting territory again.

You're obsessed with using that expression. No goalposts were moved. You obviously don't even understand what it means as all did was point out the only possible way having sex with a person who has not been given informed consent would not mean automatically being guilty of rape. How in the name of God can that be shifting of the goalposts.

No, he wouldn't. He has reasonable belief on his side.

LOL. Yeah, of course he does and no court will want him to support his contention that he thought a woman was sober. He shall have 'reasonable belief'. He'll be grand...

Of course he will have to produce evidence to support his plea ffs. Are you saying the first thing that comes into your head or what.

I'm not the one that's either constructing strawmans with tabloid stories of sexual activity while sober, or trying to wedge in FUD about false claims of rape when you absolutely know by now that this proposal is only with regard to determining consent.

So much for trying to keep it between the goalposts.

Again with this strawman and moving goal post sh1te. The tabloid story was relevant. It was about as far away from a strawman or moving of goalposts as you can get. A woman who had been drinking and having sex with a man got p1ssed off with him after he took off and decided to falsely accuse him of rape. Quite obviously, were this to have occurred and there been a BAC consent law in place, no doubt she would have exploited that in order to have the chap charged. He witnessed her drinking and so would have known she was unable to consent and so all three points of the rape law criteria would have been well and truly M'Lord.

It would be completely dependent upon the circumstances of every individual case, and you know this already, or at least you should know this already as I've said as much from the beginning of this thread.

I really don't get what you're at here Nacho tbh, are you looking to have a discussion about this one single proposal regarding consent, or are you just looking to score points? Point scoring you can save it. Discussion I'm all ears (unless you go off shifting goalposts again).

So you're not going to answer the question then. No bother.

AudreyHepburn

This is ludicrous on many levels;

Firstly the potential for this kind of legislation to be abused ie with false allegations is huge. Not to mention the amount of cases of mistaken accusations that could stem from it, simply because the woman involved may have had one too many.

Secondly, why should it only apply to women? Just because a woman gets drunk does not make her an innocent little victim, or incapable of knowing what she wants and going for it.

And why should a man not be considered a victim in a similar situation - men are, shockingly enough, not just evil beings out to hurt us innocent women nor does being male preclude you from being the victim of a crime.

If a woman can not be held be responsible for her actions when drunk, even if she should be, why should men not be afforded the same right?

ShowMeTheCash

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not just what I think it means. That is how the laws are interpreted by the Justices in the UK and Ireland -
Source: The Law of Rape in the UK and Ireland

Why are you posting a link to what the current law means now?
We are discussing what the proposed change could mean not what the current law states?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Let me clarify for you - I know what it means. You on the other hand, clearly don't.

You are losing credibility

You mention in a previous post about scoring points.

I tell you that you do not fully understand the full implications of what this amendment could mean and you retort with posting a link to what the current law means by ways of trying to demonstrate you fully understand the implications of the proposed change. :rolleyes:

Did you even read the article?
The article talks about what consent means i.e. You cannot assume consent and gives a number of colourful scenarios!

The proposed amendment around BAC testing is to try and physically demonstrate someone incapable of giving consent.

This does not support your stance.

Let me try and break this down as myself and others just can't seem to get through to you.

Woman goes out to a night club, she has too much to drink.
She meets a lad outside the chippy who also has had way too much to drink.
She tells him "Let's go back to your're place.
The land back both hammered fumble around have sex then fall asleep.

An hour later she wakes - She had little to no recollection how she got there, who he is, she is naked and see used condoms on the floor.
The lad is comatose on the bed.
She freaks out get's dressed and leaves, calls her friend crying said she thinks something bad has happened. Her friend freaks out calls the Guards they lift her take her to the station to make sure she is OK.
They give her a BAC test...
For argument sake let's say she is still pretty drunk 4 times the limit to drive.

If the law is amended that a BAC test can be used to determine whether a person is able to give consent what do you think the outcome of this is going to be?

NachoBusiness

Excellently summed up by Professor Jonathan Turley.

English Dame Proposes New Rule For Rape Cases That Women Cannot Consent When Intoxicated

The English court system is considering a controversial new report by Dame Elish Angiolini that would establish a rule that women cannot be viewed as consenting to sex if they are found to be intoxicated. The report is pushing an amendment of the Sexual Offences Act to establish the rule.

The current law allows the jury to decide such questions in the specific context of the case. They use their common sense and their view of the credibility of the witnesses. However, Dame Elish, a former Lord Advocate in Scotland, wants woman’s incapacity to consent to be a codified exception “embedded in legislation.”

Once police determine that a woman is intoxicated, they would consider any sex as unconsented and thus rape. Conversely, the new rule could effectively gut the ability of the accused to argue consent. The new effort is heralded by Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders who said that with the sweeping change rape victims would no longer be “blamed” by society if they are too drunk to consent or if they simply freeze in terror.

The problem is that it could foreclose the key defense in such cases and denies jurors the ability to make this determination in the context of the case. In 2007, a court ruled that a woman could consent to sex even if drunk which is the standard approach in such cases. Intoxication can lead to a determination of incapacity and often does. However, there are different levels of intoxication and cases have different facts of when and how consent was given. Moreover, the level of legal intoxication is falling in many countries with the crackdown on drunk driving. It is not clear what level of intoxication would be viewed as per se foreclosing consent defenses. There is also the question of whether the same standard should be applied to the men if both parties are intoxicated — negating intent to rape.

Dame Elish admits that the various changes would required a “radical change” in the way they treat victims, but it could be equally radical in terms of the due process accorded such cases. I think that she is clearly correct in getting police to document the level of intoxication after a report by the victim is an important step and should be a regular practice. She is also clearly correct that at some level of intoxication there cannot be consent. However, the rule presents a far more sweeping rule and could clearly limit the core defense in such cases.

I am very sympathetic to the overall report which identifies some clear problems in staffing, resources, and handling of cases. She is also right that there appears to be no clear rule established for handling cases involving alcohol consumption. The problem is drawing a codified line in such cases that would be both consistent and clear and fair. There may be a good reason why intoxication is recognized as a critical factual determination but not codified in this sense. It is the type of contextual element that touches on some many elements of credibility and facts both preceding and during the sexual encounter. That does not mean that some codification could not be done but it is fraught with dangers if it is meant to curtail the defense of consent in my view.

dr.fuzzenstein

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Woman goes out to a night club, she has too much to drink.
She meets a lad outside the chippy who also has had way too much to drink.
She tells him "Let's go back to your're place.
The land back both hammered fumble around have sex then fall asleep.

An hour later she wakes - She had little to no recollection how she got there, who he is, she is naked and see used condoms on the floor.
The lad is comatose on the bed.
She freaks out get's dressed and leaves, calls her friend crying said she thinks something bad has happened. Her friend freaks out calls the Guards they lift her take her to the station to make sure she is OK.
They give her a BAC test...
For argument sake let's say she is still pretty drunk 4 times the limit to drive.

If the law is amended that a BAC test can be used to determine whether a person is able to give consent what do you think the outcome of this is going to be?

Exactly that.
The law dictates that the male is automatically at fault here, since she was drunk.
It does not take into account that he did not force her, he could not determine her BAC, he was equally (or more) intoxicated, the fact is:
She had too much to drink=He is guilty of rape.
No potential, nothing to do with existing law, no argument about women being vindictive or not, no nothing, the above formula comes into effect and nothing short of a signed statement of consent and officially witnessed breathalyser printout can change that.

AudreyHepburn

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Why are you posting a link to what the current law means now?
We are discussing what the proposed change could mean not what the current law states?

You are losing credibility

You mention in a previous post about scoring points.

I tell you that you do not fully understand the full implications of what this amendment could mean and you retort with posting a link to what the current law means by ways of trying to demonstrate you fully understand the implications of the proposed change. :rolleyes:

Did you even read the article?
The article talks about what consent means i.e. You cannot assume consent and gives a number of colourful scenarios!

The proposed amendment around BAC testing is to try and physically demonstrate someone incapable of giving consent.

This does not support your stance.

Let me try and break this down as myself and others just can't seem to get through to you.

Woman goes out to a night club, she has too much to drink.
She meets a lad outside the chippy who also has had way too much to drink.
She tells him "Let's go back to your're place.
The land back both hammered fumble around have sex then fall asleep.

An hour later she wakes - She had little to no recollection how she got there, who he is, she is naked and see used condoms on the floor.
The lad is comatose on the bed.
She freaks out get's dressed and leaves, calls her friend crying said she thinks something bad has happened. Her friend freaks out calls the Guards they lift her take her to the station to make sure she is OK.
They give her a BAC test...
For argument sake let's say she is still pretty drunk 4 times the limit to drive.

If the law is amended that a BAC test can be used to determine whether a person is able to give consent what do you think the outcome of this is going to be?

Exactly the problem...women are automatically going be assumed to be innocent victims no matter what the circumstances.

And how do you actually put a figure on capacity to consent where alcohol is concerned anyway....it affects everyone differently. Where two or three drinks is enough make me very tipsy indeed another woman might take twice or three times that to feel any affects.

It's just too hard to quantify.