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

Irish Times Article on Consent.

Options
1356

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,885 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    jam_mac_jam wrote: »
    No, if her actions or words give consent then she can give consent, just because you are drunk does not mean you cannot give consent. It is not rape to have sex with a drunk person.
    If she is too drunk to say yes or no then yes it is rape and he should know that.

    well in the aricle the conversation is
    Johnny: Yeah but I heard that if the girl is drunk and even if she says that she’s enjoying it at the time, it’s still rape. Is that true?

    Richie: Well the legal definition of rape is penetrating someone without consent. A person incapacitated through drink or drugs would be considered too wasted to give consent. So yes, if she’s drunk, you’re vulnerable in the eyes of the law.

    Johnny: That’s f**ked up! So if you go out and you both get drunk you can’t have sex? Isn’t that, like, 90 per cent of how people have sex in Ireland? Get drunk first and then shag?

    Neil: Yeah, sure everyone drinks.

    Richie: I don’t drink.

    Gareth: Yeah, but we’re not trying to have sex with you. [Room laughs]

    Richie: Nobody is saying you can’t have sex. The law says if your partner is heavily intoxicated, though, they can’t give consent. That’s the definition that matters in the courts. And this isn’t just about penetrative sex. We’re talking about all sexual behaviours.

    Johnny: Yeah but what’s the difference between normal levels of drunkenness and being too drunk? How can you tell?

    [Silence]

    Richie isn't as clear cut as you are now stating anyway


  • Options
    #63
    jam_mac_jam
    Registered Users Posts: 4,719 ✭✭✭jam_mac_jam


    Riskymove wrote: »
    well in the aricle the conversation is



    Richie isn't as clear cut as you are now stating anyway

    I suppose it depends on your definition of heavily intoxicated


  • Options
    #64
    Plopsu
    Registered Users Posts: 671 ✭✭✭Plopsu


    RayCun wrote: »
    I have no idea what the legal burden of proof is for "I was too drunk to know if the person I was having sex with wanted to have sex with me".



    The class wasn't about the law. It was about understanding consent and personal responsibility.

    Do you have any problem with the statement

    "I am responsible for making sure that I only have sex with people who want to have sex with me."

    If you agree with that statement, do you agree that it's a good idea to discuss it in class and make sure everyone understands what it means?

    Not what was asked... but you already knew that. :rolleyes:
    When you actually answer the question I asked, I'll be sure to reciprocate.


  • Options
    #65
    Ri_Nollaig
    Registered Users Posts: 2,297 ✭✭✭Ri_Nollaig


    jam_mac_jam wrote: »
    No, if her actions or words give consent then she can give consent, just because you are drunk does not mean you cannot give consent. It is not rape to have sex with a drunk person.
    If she is too drunk to say yes or no then yes it is rape and he should know that.

    But this 'speaker' said:
    Richie wrote:
    Well the legal definition of rape is penetrating someone without consent. A person incapacitated through drink or drugs would be considered too wasted to give consent. So yes, if she’s drunk, you’re vulnerable in the eyes of the law..

    So, he just told that class room of boys the very opposite.
    That if both were drunk, than she cannot consent, therefore it is rape. He was called up on that but deflected on an answering.


  • Options
    #66
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,885 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    RayCun wrote: »
    You are expected to only have sex with people who want to have sex with you.

    I certainly don't see that as the message in the article. It clearly implies that even if the woman was to indicate that she wanted to have sex that the male would be "vulnerable in the eyes of the law" if she was drunk

    and your view seems to be that a man, even a drunk one, should be expected to recognise this line



    so I suppose my question is if the legal view is as set out above or not

    I.e. can someone who is "drunk" legally give consent even if they can physically express it?

    or is that only where someone is clearly incapacitated and unable to express consent that the line would be crossed?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,885 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    jam_mac_jam wrote: »
    I suppose it depends on your definition of heavily intoxicated

    well quite, but I am interesting in knowing in what the actual legal interpretation is


  • Options
    #68
    jam_mac_jam
    Registered Users Posts: 4,719 ✭✭✭jam_mac_jam


    Ri_Nollaig wrote: »
    But this 'speaker' said:



    So, he just told that class room of boys the very opposite.
    That if both were drunk, than she cannot consent, therefore it is rape. He was called up on that but deflected on an answering.

    Key word there being incapacitated.

    Well the legal definition of rape is penetrating someone without consent. A person incapacitated through drink or drugs would be considered too wasted to give consent. So yes, if she’s drunk, you’re vulnerable in the eyes of the law..


  • Options
    #69
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    Ri_Nollaig wrote: »
    But this 'speaker' said:



    So, he just told that class room of boys the very opposite.
    That if both were drunk, than she cannot consent, therefore if is rape. He was called up on that but defected on an answering.

    No, he said
    A person incapacitated through drink or drugs would be considered too wasted to give consent
    The law says if your partner is heavily intoxicated, though, they can’t give consent

    There is no clear line of demarcation between 'tipsy', 'drunk', and 'heavily intoxicated'.


  • Options
    #70
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    Riskymove wrote: »
    I certainly don't see that as the message in the article. It clearly implies that even if the woman was to indicate that she wanted to have sex that the male would be "vulnerable in the eyes of the law" if she was drunk

    and your view seems to be that a man, even a drunk one, should be expected to recognise this line



    so I suppose my question is if the legal view is as set out above or not

    I.e. can someone who is "drunk" legally give consent even if they can physically express it?

    or is that only where someone is clearly incapacitated and unable to express consent that the line would be crossed?

    If someone is so drunk that you're not sure if they actually want to have sex with you, don't have sex with them.

    Perhaps stop thinking of it as "can I be prosecuted for this?", and instead wonder "does this make me a scumbag?"


  • Options
    #71
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,885 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    RayCun wrote: »
    If someone is so drunk that you're not sure if they actually want to have sex with you, don't have sex with them.

    you really do have a problem answering the actual questions raised don't you?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    Riskymove wrote: »
    you really do have a problem answering the actual questions raised don't you?

    You seem to be fixated on what will stand up in court.

    It's not like drink driving where a certain blood alcohol level means you are guilty.

    You can't say "we both took blood tests. My blood alcohol level was X and hers was Y. Therefore I decided that she was sober enough to consent/I was equally incapable of giving consent. Therefore I should be found not guilty."

    If you're not sure if someone is capable of consenting, don't have sex with them. Would that really be so hard?


  • Options
    #73
    Ri_Nollaig
    Registered Users Posts: 2,297 ✭✭✭Ri_Nollaig


    jam_mac_jam wrote: »
    Key word there being incapacitated.

    Well the legal definition of rape is penetrating someone without consent. A person incapacitated through drink or drugs would be considered too wasted to give consent. So yes, if she’s drunk, you’re vulnerable in the eyes of the law..

    I don't see how thats the key word at all and instead completely ambitious, its just another way of saying 'drunk'.
    Level of drunkenness does not matter does it? As that would be impossible to measure in this context.

    Yes, if the 'boy' was completely sober and knew exactly what he was doing/taking advantage.
    No one would argue what is happening there.

    But the above statement is also applying this if both parties are equally as drunk/incapacitated but concluding that its only the boy's fault for not assessing the situation.


  • Options
    #74
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,885 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    RayCun wrote: »
    You seem to be fixated on what will stand up in court.

    project all you like if it makes you feel better

    the question was raised by the kids and the answers in the article were based around how the court viewed the situation

    that is what we are discussing


  • Options
    #75
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    Ri_Nollaig wrote: »
    But the above statement is also applying this if both parties are equally as drunk/incapacitated but concluding that its only the boy's fault for not assessing the situation.

    It was a class of boys.

    He was saying to them, "Take responsibility for your actions"


  • Options
    #76
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,023 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    c.p.w.g.w wrote: »
    So leaving you front door wide open and having your house robbed, what would the guards says, or your insurance for example. Your'd be told you were stupid for doing such a thing

    I don't think the guards and your insurance are the same thing though. Because the insurance may suspect that there has not been a robbery at all, and that you are trying to scam money from them.

    If there has been a robbery, then whether your door was locked or not is irrelevant to how serious the crime was.

    And unlike rape, there is an obvious financial reason for potentially suspecting fake insurance declarations - both in the sense that the alleged victim may not be a victim, but also that the insurance company may be more likely to refuse to believe anything that is not completely proven, just so as to avoid paying out.


  • Options
    #77
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,885 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    RayCun wrote: »

    If you're not sure if someone is capable of consenting, don't have sex with them. Would that really be so hard?

    in most situations of course not, perfectly reasonable

    the issue raised by the kid is where the man actually believes there is consent


  • Options
    #78
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    Riskymove wrote: »
    project all you like if it makes you feel better

    the question was raised by the kids and the answers in the article were based around how the court viewed the situation

    that is what we are discussing

    What the presenters were discussing was
    It’s up to you to know how to behave if you’re ever in that situation. And remember, the law only becomes a consideration if there’s an allegation. I don’t want you to get the impression that any woman that has sex while drunk – even if she can’t remember every detail – will automatically go to the gardaí. I’m just saying you should always take responsibility for your own actions in this area.

    They aren't lawyers, and they aren't addressing a class full of law students.

    They're talking about how not to be a scumbag.


  • Options
    #79
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    i wonder if it is the best angle to come at it from, though?

    "lads, protect yourselves. don't be in a position where this is going to arise."

    and how does that compare to every other piece of advice given to teenagers about everything they're going to have to come to grips with at that stage of their lives?

    to be clear, as stated, its positive that young ppl are being posed these questions.

    the fear that youngfellas up and down the country are going to be all a sudden entrapped into allegations of rape doesn't strike me as very realistic

    but consistently eliding the questions around the problems with and realities of an idealised consent model does nobody any good

    and after it all, it doesnt get a single step closer to the central issues that currently exist in these type of cases- you cant prove consent, and you cant prosecute a he-said-she-said based on a desire to see prosecution rates rise or historical justice done.


  • Options
    #80
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    Riskymove wrote: »
    in most situations of course not, perfectly reasonable

    the issue raised by the kid is where the man actually believes there is consent

    No, it wasn't.


  • Options
    #81
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    RayCun wrote: »
    What the presenters were discussing was



    They aren't lawyers, and they aren't addressing a class full of law students.

    They're talking about how not to be a scumbag.



    im not sure that your constant whittling of the matter down to scumbags vs non scumbags is a better method of getting teenagers to empathically engage in a meaningful way with this complex and fluid topic


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    dusty bin
    Registered Users Posts: 149 ✭✭dusty bin


    RayCun wrote: »
    What the presenters were discussing was



    They aren't lawyers, and they aren't addressing a class full of law students.

    They're talking about how not to be a scumbag.

    Actually, Elaine Byrne is a barrister. Richie Sadlier is not to my knowledge.


    But the main question, causing confusion to the teenagers, and to myself and a few others here, is : If both parties are drunk, both consent whilst drunk, then why is only one side supposed to be responsible?


  • Options
    #83
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,885 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    RayCun wrote: »
    They aren't lawyers, and they aren't addressing a class full of law students.

    They're talking about how not to be a scumbag.

    we are just going around in circles

    the kid raised a question, Richie gave his view on the legal position

    some of us are discussing that


    I don't have any issue with the main aim of the conversation around taking responsibility but that doesn't negate the other discussion


  • Options
    #84
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    Deleted User wrote: »
    im not sure that your constant whittling of the matter down to scumbags vs non scumbags is a better method of getting teenagers to empathically engage in a meaningful way with this complex and fluid topic

    Am I talking to teenagers now?


  • Options
    #85
    Sleepy
    Registered Users Posts: 24,158 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


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

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

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


  • Options
    #86
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    RayCun wrote: »
    Am I talking to teenagers now?

    youre not engaging with anybody now, merely engaging in gotcha rhetoric, but even if i thought you were earnestly doing so im not sure you've earned your terse patronising tone tbh


  • Options
    #87
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    dusty bin wrote: »
    But the main question, causing confusion to the teenagers, and to myself and a few others here, is : If both parties are drunk, both consent whilst drunk, then why is only one side supposed to be responsible?

    I don't agree that that is the main question.

    As I see it, the point of the classroom discussion was to work through the idea

    "I am responsible for making sure that I only have sex with people who want to have sex with me."

    Do you agree with that statement?


  • Options
    #88
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,885 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    RayCun wrote: »
    I don't agree that that is the main question.

    As I see it, the point of the classroom discussion was to work through the idea

    "I am responsible for making sure that I only have sex with people who want to have sex with me."

    Do you agree with that statement?

    but we all agree...

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


  • Options
    #89
    Ri_Nollaig
    Registered Users Posts: 2,297 ✭✭✭Ri_Nollaig


    RayCun wrote: »
    I don't agree that that is the main question.

    As I see it, the point of the classroom discussion was to work through the idea

    "I am responsible for making sure that I only have sex with people who want to have sex with me."

    Do you agree with that statement?

    yes
    When that person is sober and knows what they are doing.

    However:
    Richie: Don’t you think drunken people should be offered some protection by the law? There are loads of cases where really drunk people have been taken advantage of by people who knew that what they were doing was wrong at the time.

    What if BOTH parties are drunk and consent was assumed.
    That was the question.


  • Options
    #90
    Blud
    Registered Users Posts: 415 ✭✭Blud


    RayCun wrote: »
    I don't agree that that is the main question.

    As I see it, the point of the classroom discussion was to work through the idea

    "I am responsible for making sure that I only have sex with people who want to have sex with me."

    Do you agree with that statement?

    That wasn't the point of the classroom discussion though. Nobody disputed that, so it wasn't discussed. Nobody disputed it in this thread either.

    I suspect you know this. I'm not sure why you are posting in a manner as to construct your own moral high ground when the issue people are trying to discuss is entirely separate.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    dusty bin
    Registered Users Posts: 149 ✭✭dusty bin


    RayCun wrote: »
    I don't agree that that is the main question.

    As I see it, the point of the classroom discussion was to work through the idea

    "I am responsible for making sure that I only have sex with people who want to have sex with me."

    Do you agree with that statement?

    I agree that I shouldnt have sex with someone who doesnt want to, obviously. I agree that I shouldnt have sex with someone more drunker than I, even if they want to have sex with me.

    What I am raising, as others have, as the teenagers have, is what if I am drunk and my partner is drunk and we both consent whilst drunk. And when i mean drunk, i dont mean tipsy, I mean drunk drunk. Why is the sole responsibility in that scenario left up to me?


Advertisement