Rape or.......
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
By just getting drunk a woman does not give up responsbility. If she did not give consent to penetration before getting drunk then she cannot give it when incapable of making that decision. It is not something that she does. The act of penetration is something that the man does to her.
So she surrenders nothing, certainly not responsbility, as the onus is on the man not to do some act where informed consent was not given. Her drunkenness is material merely to the lack of consent.
You lose no rights nor obligations by being drunk.
So, yes, the responsbility is on the shoulders of the one person, the man penetrating.
Look at it by way of another penetrative act. You were too drunk to lock the front door when you came in. A burglar enters you house. Does your drunkenness somehow make the offence less culpable? Further, if the burglar is drunk does that make his (or her in this case) actions less culpable?
Sorry for not making my point clear enough for your earlier. I thought I had. There was no intent to avoid the question. Just the opposite.
What if you're drunk and invite another drunk person in and then have him prosecuted for trespassing because you can't remember giving permission.So she surrenders nothing, certainly not responsbility, as the onus is on the man not to do some act where informed consent was not given. Her drunkenness is material merely to the lack of consent.
You lose no rights nor obligations by being drunk.
So, yes, the responsbility is on the shoulders of the one person, the man penetrating.
Look at it by way of another penetrative act. You were too drunk to lock the front door when you came in. A burglar enters you house. Does your drunkenness somehow make the offence less culpable? Further, if the burglar is drunk does that make his (or her in this case) actions less culpable?
Sorry for not making my point clear enough for your earlier. I thought I had. There was no intent to avoid the question. Just the opposite.
obob said:
Derek Smith said:
By just getting drunk a woman does not give up responsbility. If she did not give consent to penetration before getting drunk then she cannot give it when incapable of making that decision. It is not something that she does. The act of penetration is something that the man does to her.
So she surrenders nothing, certainly not responsbility, as the onus is on the man not to do some act where informed consent was not given. Her drunkenness is material merely to the lack of consent.
You lose no rights nor obligations by being drunk.
So, yes, the responsbility is on the shoulders of the one person, the man penetrating.
Look at it by way of another penetrative act. You were too drunk to lock the front door when you came in. A burglar enters you house. Does your drunkenness somehow make the offence less culpable? Further, if the burglar is drunk does that make his (or her in this case) actions less culpable?
Sorry for not making my point clear enough for your earlier. I thought I had. There was no intent to avoid the question. Just the opposite.
What if you're drunk and invite another drunk person in and then have him prosecuted for trespassing because you can't remember giving permission.So she surrenders nothing, certainly not responsbility, as the onus is on the man not to do some act where informed consent was not given. Her drunkenness is material merely to the lack of consent.
You lose no rights nor obligations by being drunk.
So, yes, the responsbility is on the shoulders of the one person, the man penetrating.
Look at it by way of another penetrative act. You were too drunk to lock the front door when you came in. A burglar enters you house. Does your drunkenness somehow make the offence less culpable? Further, if the burglar is drunk does that make his (or her in this case) actions less culpable?
Sorry for not making my point clear enough for your earlier. I thought I had. There was no intent to avoid the question. Just the opposite.
markcoznottz said:
...How drunk is drunk by the way, what's the milligrams in a girls blood before she is unable to give consent, 'drunk' is quite a vague description.
Totally agree with this.And totally agree with full anonymity for both sides until (if) the man is found guilty (equally I'm not sure a woman's name should be guaranteed anonymous in al situations either).
zygalski said:
Derek Smith said:
zygalski said:
As for the case, it all seems extremely vague.
How on Earth can you ruin two lives on the basis of "I can't remember"?
So if a woman is drugged to the extent that she can't remember then tough?How on Earth can you ruin two lives on the basis of "I can't remember"?
oyster said:
zygalski said:
Derek Smith said:
zygalski said:
As for the case, it all seems extremely vague.
How on Earth can you ruin two lives on the basis of "I can't remember"?
So if a woman is drugged to the extent that she can't remember then tough?How on Earth can you ruin two lives on the basis of "I can't remember"?
Regrettably this is a situation where genuine victims are now less likely to receive justice as a direct result of the many bandy legged fame chasing trollops who have allowed themselves to be spit roasted by second rate pigbag kickers in Travelodges with the sole intention of being "in the papers" and making some money so they can stop stacking shelves at LIDLs.
A tragedy for real victims.
A tragedy for real victims.
Soovy said:
Regrettably this is a situation where genuine victims are now less likely to receive justice as a direct result of the many bandy legged fame chasing trollops who have allowed themselves to be spit roasted by second rate pigbag kickers in Travelodges with the sole intention of being "in the papers" and making some money so they can stop stacking shelves at LIDLs.
A tragedy for real victims.
Very true, I agree Soovy. A tragedy for real victims.
TheHeretic said:
If a woman gives up responsibility of consent when they get really drunk, why is an equally drunk man, in bed with the equally drunk woman, the bearer of the responsibility? I'll give an example, as in my post above, (please note, there is no mention of short skirts, alleys, etc).
Dave and Betty are at a party, and they get equally, and absolutely hammered. They have a lustful fancy for each other, and skulk off to an upstairs bedroom where they proceed to fu...<censored>... where they finally retrieve the gerbil, then they fall asleep on the bed. In the morning, both hungover and feeling crappy, they get up. Dave, having no recollection of the night, as he was absolutely hammered, gets arrested. The reason he is arrested? Because equally, Betty also has no recollection of the night.
So, why is the woman excused of any need to bear responsibility for getting drunk, etc, whereas the man, equally drunk, bears the full brunt of the responsibility?
And it is why the conviction rate of recorded 'rapes' is so low.Dave and Betty are at a party, and they get equally, and absolutely hammered. They have a lustful fancy for each other, and skulk off to an upstairs bedroom where they proceed to fu...<censored>... where they finally retrieve the gerbil, then they fall asleep on the bed. In the morning, both hungover and feeling crappy, they get up. Dave, having no recollection of the night, as he was absolutely hammered, gets arrested. The reason he is arrested? Because equally, Betty also has no recollection of the night.
So, why is the woman excused of any need to bear responsibility for getting drunk, etc, whereas the man, equally drunk, bears the full brunt of the responsibility?
Many women seem rather keen on retrospective withdrawel of consent.
Yes of course if a woman is insensible through drink then she cannot give consent obviously but in 95% of these cases that is not the level of intoxication we are talking about.
TheEnd said:
Another mysterious case of drink spiking.
Haven't got the statistics to hand but use of Rohpynol is I think a bit of a urban myth from what I have read. Ordinary drinking would account for most of the 'blackout' stories you hear, particularly given an empty stomach and the lower tolerance generally that women have for alcohol. Whatever about fairness, I don't think this is a particularly difficult moral or legal minefield to negotiate.
If it appears that the person you're considering having sex with is completely s
tfaced, don't do it.
If you drink in such a way that it renders you incapable of assessing someone's capacity for consent, drink less or drink alone.
Or even more plainly, don't have sex with people you don't trust. Ignoring this will usually end badly one way or another.
If it appears that the person you're considering having sex with is completely s
tfaced, don't do it.If you drink in such a way that it renders you incapable of assessing someone's capacity for consent, drink less or drink alone.
Or even more plainly, don't have sex with people you don't trust. Ignoring this will usually end badly one way or another.
oyster said:
zygalski said:
Derek Smith said:
zygalski said:
As for the case, it all seems extremely vague.
How on Earth can you ruin two lives on the basis of "I can't remember"?
So if a woman is drugged to the extent that she can't remember then tough?How on Earth can you ruin two lives on the basis of "I can't remember"?
Im sorry, but having been through this s
te in person, Im rather bitter on this.I said/they said IS NOT evidence.
Innocent until prooven guilty needs to be maintained. The burden of proof has to be established. You dont just get to wander around accusing and have some automatic right to be presumed truthful. "Oh but its too hard for a woman to proove rape!"...well tough. Try being on the other end of that when some lying b
h is trying to ruin your life and aswell as society automatically presuming you guilty, the law is 90% against you aswell.Do you want to know what the one defence a bloke has against women who pull this stuff? Its that they are usually too dumb, too arrogant and/or too ignorant to realise they dodged a bullet and they go out and do the same s
t again. That and that alone builds the evidence and the case against them. Bitter? Hell, yes!
JagLover said:
TheEnd said:
Another mysterious case of drink spiking.
Haven't got the statistics to hand but use of Rohpynol is I think a bit of a urban myth from what I have read. Ordinary drinking would account for most of the 'blackout' stories you hear, particularly given an empty stomach and the lower tolerance generally that women have for alcohol. Spiking is the catch all excuse for s
t behaviour and acting like an unpaid hooker.I recently came across a comment - I forget where - that part of the sexual revolution of the 60's was that sex ceased to be seen as something men did to women and became something that men and women did together. I don't think the law on competency to give consent yet recognises that change in attitudes.
The way I look at it, is if a man has sex with a drunk woman where he can't be sure she is fully consenting, then he is taking a risk much in the same way someone over the limit may take a gamble on driving home.
If he gets caught, he has broken the law.
Is the male sex drive really so powerful that if a man can see there may be a consent issue, he can't just stop.
If he gets caught, he has broken the law.
Is the male sex drive really so powerful that if a man can see there may be a consent issue, he can't just stop.
freecar said:
JagLover said:
TheEnd said:
Another mysterious case of drink spiking.
Haven't got the statistics to hand but use of Rohpynol is I think a bit of a urban myth from what I have read. Ordinary drinking would account for most of the 'blackout' stories you hear, particularly given an empty stomach and the lower tolerance generally that women have for alcohol. Spiking is the catch all excuse for s
t behaviour and acting like an unpaid hooker.Ask any doctors and they've never seen any traces of any sedatives apart from alcohol and whatever drugs they knowingly took themselves.
When blokes get drunk and wake up in a hedge, they had a wild night. When women do the same, it was someone else's fault.
Try telling that to women though, they'll make you feel like you've just trodden on their baby.
Blue Cat said:
Is the male sex drive really so powerful that if a man can see there may be a consent issue, he can't just stop.
Is the female urge to drink themselves silly so powerful that they will render themselves unable to remember if they gave consent or not? Both parties need to take responsibility, but it seems that some on this thread want to treat women like children, whereby responsibility is excused under certain circumstances. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff