UK Women lose right to have sex while drinking

[TC]

Under the new plans, the legal definition of consent could be rewritten to make clear that women who are drunk could not have agreed to sex.

It raises the possibility that even if a woman agreed to sex while drunk, a jury could decide she was too inebriated to give meaningful consent.


London, Monday 16.10.06

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article...omen/article.do (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23370891-details/Men+face+rape+charge+threat+unless+they+can+show+c onsent+of+drunk+women/article.do)



Ministers are planning to tighten the definition of when a woman is capable of saying whether or not she wants sex. At present, women are judged capable of deciding unless they are unconscious. After the law change, which could appear in next month's Queen's Speech, juries will be able to take into account just how drunk a woman was in deciding if she was able to give meaningful consent. This could place a responsibility on men to establish whether "yes" means "yes" after just one glass of wine.


http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article1873851.ece
-By Francis Elliott, Whitehall Editor
Published: 15 October 2006


__________________________________________________ ________




This law is being dishonestly represented as a way of increasing conviction for rape, but what it in fact does is increases the legal definition of rape to include many cases of fully consensual sex. By taking away women's right to consent to sex while drinking they effectively make all women "jailbate" as soon as they've had anything to drink in the same manner that "underaged" teenagers are: it puts their partners in legal jeprody to have consensual sex with them regardless of how much they want to.

Probably the most concerning practical consequence of the law is to effectively illigalize one-night-stands and otherwise having any sexual relations between people who meet at clubs or bars, as under those circumstances both parties have almost certaintly had something to drink. Given how effective this would be in policing the public's 'morality', I wonder if this isn't principle intent of the law anyways.

The potential for legal abuses of this law on the part of individuals is also increadible. Someone dumped by their boyfriend could drink, ask him for breakup-sex, and then call the police the next morning to get him prosecuted for "raping" her as her verbal consent was irrelevant as she had been drinking.

The possibility of someone abusing the law in such a scenario also means that anyone who wants to have sex after having drunk something would not only be asking a guy to have sex with them, but to also trust them with their lives and future, something that previously was only the case in asking someone to have unprotected sex. This effectively raises the amount of trust sex partners need to have in each other, which is another way of policing public morality and reducing people's sexual freedom. It effectively strips away the sexual freedom that condoms provide, because they allow consenting people to have sex without needing to be positive that their partners are being equally responsible without opening themselves up to personal risk; this reintroduces a new element of risk for men and robs women of the ability to take away that risk, effectively reducing their sexual freedom.

All of this rests on the sickenling paternalistic belief that women are somehow incapable of being responsible for their actions while drunk (a belief never applied to motorists!), cannot be trusted to make decisions for themselves and ought to be protected from themselves. Instead apparently the government gets to decide when you're allowed to consent to sex. The only way that people put up with this crap is because it fits into the patriarchal view of women as incapably weak and victimized, a view thats promoted under the guise of 'protecting' women when it in fact is just another way of trying to control women.

[Invader Zim]

This law is being dishonestly represented as a way of increasing conviction for rape, but what it in fact does is increases the legal definition of rape to include many cases of fully consensual sex. By taking away women's right to consent to sex while drinking they effectively make all women "jailbate" as soon as they've had anything to drink in the same manner that "underaged" teenagers are: it puts their partners in legal jeprody to have consensual sex with them regardless of how much they want to.

Or alternatively it maybe simply to make it easier to convict rapists?



Probably the most concerning practical consequence of the law is to effectively illigalize one-night-stands and otherwise having any sexual relations between people who meet at clubs or bars, as under those circumstances both parties have almost certaintly had something to drink. Given how effective this would be in policing the public's 'morality', I wonder if this isn't principle intent of the law anyways.

No, it does not. The woman would still have to bring charges against the man in question for the passing of this law to become an issue. Something which I doubt would happen in most cases.

[Whitten]

Im more concerned about mens rights in this case, it will be them (in most cases) who could easily be fausly prosecuted for rape.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 02:50 PM
Im more concerned about mens rights in this case, it will be them (in most cases) who could easily be fausly prosecuted for rape.
Exactly. That worries me much more than the slight possibility of a vast conspiricy by the government to end the right to have a one night stand.

[drain.you]

Ridiculous as always.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Like TC's post states, this would hugely demean the legal status of women. Effectively making a woman who drinks the legal equivalent of a child.

Woman: I would like to solicit a night of inebriated sexual intercourse with you, sir.
Man: Your aforementioned state negates your right to partake in said actions, madam.

[RebelOutcast]

The government is trying to reduce the number of incarcerated convicts, yet wants to up convictions for a crime which has a mandatory custodial sentence, w.t.f.

I agree with tc.

[Reuben]

tragic clown - my htoughts on this issue have since - it was broached - been exactly the same as yours - WOMEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE DRUNKEN SEX!

[Vanguard1917]

These plans should be heavily criticised and strongly opposed.

Aside from Tragic Clown's valid criticisms, such laws create a dangerous atmosphere of distrust and fear, and they reinforce our atomisation and our alienation from one another.

Women are encouraged to view every man they meet as a potential rapist, and the image projected of women is that of helpless victims in need of government protection: an extremely degraded view of both men and women.

Incidentally, in the men's toilets in a bar in London I saw a condom vending machine with a large Home Office propaganda poster telling men to make sure they 'get a yes before you have sex'. In other words: 'make sure you don't accidentally rape someone tonight'.

Men are told to see themselves as potential rapists, almost as though every man has a rapist inside of him waiting to get out. Therefore, men and women are encouraged to formalise their relationships further. Sex is seen as a legal hazard if not conducted according to rigid legal and formal rules. Condoms already come with health warnings. I woundn't be too shocked when, if such trends continue, they will soon also come with Home Office agreement forms to be signed by both parties before sexual intercourse is allowed to take place.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Does this mean that if you have consentual sex with a drunk girl then you are more likely to go to jail if she says she didnt remember consenting to the police?

Or does it mean if a guy is in court charged with rape and the women says she was drunk then the guy will be more likely to be found not guilty?

I think this is just another case of the state policing our lives. Its bad for everyone who like drinking and sex.

[mauvaise foi]

Bourgeois laws on rape are always hypocritical because under capitalism, all sex is rape (I'm not an MIMer, by the way, but they're dead right on this one). No one can give true consent in a society dominated by the production of commodities.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Are you celibate?

[TC]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 16 2006, 03:46 PM

Or alternatively it maybe simply to make it easier to convict rapists?

No it doesn't.

Rapists, which is to say people who have sex with someone despite being refused, are not affected by this law.

Rather, it makes it possible to convict non-rapists, people who have sex with mutual consent , of rape!


No, it does not. The woman would still have to bring charges against the man in question for the passing of this law to become an issue. Something which I doubt would happen in most cases.


That worries me much more than the slight possibility of a vast conspiricy by the government to end the right to have a one night stand.


No it still has the effect of illigalizing drunken sex...although naturally people would only be convicted if charges were brought, they would be committing a crime either way. The same is true of statuatory rape; its a crime to have consensual sex with someone below the age of consent but naturally convictions only occur if this is brought before the courts.

What this means is that, regardless of whether or not someone is actually charged with it, the possible risk of them being charged and convicted of this psudo-rape is enough that if they value their lives they wouldn't be able to have sex with anyone who has had anything to drink, since doing so puts them at risk for future criminal prosecution (they are basically accepting that this person, or hypothetically anyone aware of it, could legally ruin their lives and they'd be trusting them not to do so).

This means that, like underaged teenagers, women who have had anything to drink are effectively 'jail bait' and would be unable to find legal partners, since having sex would put their partners at risk (and likewise, overage people will refuse underaged people on the basis that its not worth the risk; by introducing this risk it violates underaged people's rights, likewise this violates women's rights).


Bourgeois laws on rape are always hypocritical because under capitalism, all sex is rape (I'm not an MIMer, by the way, but they're dead right on this one). No one can give true consent in a society dominated by the production of commodities.

That was very stupid.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 02:15 PM
Given how effective this would be in policing the public's 'morality', I wonder if this isn't principle intent of the law anyways.

It is probably is the intent of the law; given past patterns of behaviour anyway. The persecution youngsters who like to have fun -- "Yobs" and "Chavs" if you're a Sun reader -- for instance, is another link in the chain. A chain which basically aims to strangle the democratic rights of those who aren't boring bastards. Or, as the Government would put it, those who lack "respect" -- a codeword, in my opinion, for those who shun Christian morals.

However, unlike the persecution of teenagers, I think this potential law will be harder to enforce. Making it something which will outline ideological affiliation more than anything else. Which doesn't mean it should be ignored and not attacked, of course, it just means that we're, well, lucky, in a way, that the Government, in this instance, has not managed to attack our democratic rights more effectively.

Incompetence, I suppose, has its benefits....

[mauvaise foi]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 05:04 PM

Bourgeois laws on rape are always hypocritical because under capitalism, all sex is rape (I'm not an MIMer, by the way, but they're dead right on this one). No one can give true consent in a society dominated by the production of commodities.

That was very stupid.
This coming from a person whose political statement reads:


If I can't go to Starbucks, I don't want to be part of your revolution.

Viva la Starbucks!

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by mauvaise foi+Oct 17 2006, 10:43 PM--> (mauvaise foi @ Oct 17 2006, 10:43 PM)
[email protected] 17 2006, 05:04 PM

Bourgeois laws on rape are always hypocritical because under capitalism, all sex is rape (I'm not an MIMer, by the way, but they're dead right on this one). No one can give true consent in a society dominated by the production of commodities.

That was very stupid.
This coming from a person whose political statement reads:


If I can't go to Starbucks, I don't want to be part of your revolution.

Viva la Starbucks! [/b]
Coming from anyone it's a fair comment, the idea that 'all sex is rape' shows either a fundamental misunderstanding of sex or of rape - take your pick.

[LSD]

Thorouhly disgusting.


No, it does not. The woman would still have to bring charges against the man in question for the passing of this law to become an issue.

Not nescessarily. If this law, and the rationale behind it, become socially integrated, a great many women will find themselves suddenly pressured into crying "rape" in situations where they would never think of doing so otherwise.

If people start to believe that drunken sex is implicitly rape, then they'll start to act accordingly. Not only does this weaken women's social position, but it dramatically weakens the potentcy of rape as a criminal offense.

If having drunken sex is to be considered crminally no different from forcing yourself upon a women, the latter becomes far more socially acceptable. Women will find themselves in situations where they are told that they have been "raped" but don't feel it themselves.

That reduces their likelyhood to report real rape because the criminal standard no longer has any credibliity.


Exactly. That worries me much more than the slight possibility of a vast conspiricy by the government to end the right to have a one night stand.

No one said anything about a conspiracy, merely that the bourgeois government as it is presently composed has an interest in limiting "imoral" behaviours.


under capitalism, all sex is rape

:angry: I thought we were done with this paternalistic macho poser crap.

It's such an example of the very patriarchal thinking that "MIM types" are supposed to be condemning.

The tacit assumption in the "all sex is rape" line is that all communists are men and that it is their responsibility to "protect" women from their oppressive dicks, a position which is incredibly paternalistic.

Yes, there is sexism and obviously this is a patriarchal society, but that does not mean that women are entirely incapable of consenting to voluntary acts. It disempowers women to say that no matter how liberated or how educated or informed or how political or how empowered they are, they can never truly control their own body.

How is this progressive?
How is this liberating?

Women, even in capitalism, even in patriarchy, are not "weaker"! Yes, they're oppressed, and yes, they're marginalized, but they must fight back. They must regain their own power. And they cannot do this if they are told that they can never make free choices regarding their bodies.

Would we tell this to the proletariat? hat they are so oppressed that they shouldn't even try!?

Women don't need men to "save" them from patriarchal society, they need to liberate themselves. And one of the first steps of this is siezing control of one's own body, to do with ones own body whatever one wants.

Arguing that all sex is rape implies that women are incapable of sexual desire of their own. That they are merely being used by men for the purposes of male pleasure, but that they can never want it themselves.

This is just a return to 19th century notions of female "chasitity". It turns women into sexual objects, there for the amusement of men, but not sexual beings in their own right.

This does not liberate women! It enslaves them!

Women want to fuck; they get horny and want love and fun and sex.

Saying that they are unable to do these things because they are are socially "incapable" reduces women to quivering messes waiting for men to "ride in" and "liberate them". What kind of communist says that? What kind of communist wants the oppressor to liberate the oppressed!?

Your position utterly dehumanizes women.

In terms of what men should do, they should spread the word, they should teach about communism and about liberation and then SHUT THE FUCK UP. If you want to refrain from sex because of some nutbar religious crap, fine. But don't you dare claim that its a political statement, or that it's helping woman!

That kind of paternalistic patriarchal bullshit is exactly what we are supposed to be fighting against, not reinforcing, you neo-puritanist paternalistic vanguardist Maoist little fuck!

"I'm sorry, I can't have sex with you. I believe that you are socially incapable of making rational determinations regarding you own body".

Yeah? FUCK YOU!!!!! :angry:


No one can give true consent in a society dominated by the production of commodity

What kind of bullshit is that?

Don't you see that arguing that consent does not exist makes rape acceptable?

Rape is wrong because it violates a peron's wishes for their own body. It breaches consent. If my wishes for my body, however, are entirely socially determined than they are of no more value than the socially determined wishes for my body expressed by a rapist.

That is, if what I want for my body and what a rapist wants for my body are both merely socially determined externalistic phenomena with no actual relationship to myself, then neither is more valid than the other. My desire not to be raped is only the result of a collection of social factors, it has absolutely no intrinsic relevence.

Rape is defined as the lack of consent, if consent "does not exist", than consent cannot be lacking. I.E., if consent cannot be given, then it cannot not be given.

If I am incapable of saying yes to sex, than I am incapable of saying no to sex, because if I can say no, I can say not no which is yes, but if I can't say yes then I can't say not yes which is no.

If I am incapable of giving consent, then I am incapable of withholding consent, therefore my consent cannot be breached and there is nothing wrong with you raping me. There is no intrinsic immorality in your performing an action on my vody which I do not want if that want is merely the expression of overdeterministic social factors. One set of socially determined wants is no more valid than another, and since both are entirely "overdetermined", it doesn't matter which of us is expressing whcih one.

If a being is incapable of independent consent, then that being cannot object (because any such objection is merely the expression of deterministic social phenomena) ...and rape isn't wrong.

Not to mention that you are completely dismissing personal responsibility. Not only are you, effectively, making rape acceptable, you're making the rapist no longer responsible for his rape. How can we punish him when his actions are merely the result of "social factors"?

If you dismiss independent decision making, then you dismiss accountability. No one can be held responsible for the actions they commit. What kind of society does that lead to? What kind of people does such an ideology create?

Look, there's a difference between consent based on force, and consent based on underlying social phonomena.

The former is not truly consent at all, it's aquiesance. The later, however, is merely influenced consent. That is, consent mitigated by existing circumstances.

Patriarchy is not a loaded gun, it's a pervailing social reality. It is certainly a powerful one, but it's still merely a set of assumptions, paradigms, and ideas. Women can free themselves of it.

Indeed, one of the best ways to do this is to reject patriarchal demands and assumptions and sieze control of one's own body. The making of truly independent decisions regarding one's own body is one of the most important steps in defeating patriarchal [email protected]

Advocating that all sex is rape prevents this from happening because it argues that women can never control their own body and no matter how liberated, they are never actually making decisions.

It's thoroughly ludicrous to assume that workers can fight capitalism but women can't fight patriarchy!

And no matter how socially influenced, influenced consent is not nonconsent. Equating the two is a serious error which minizes the true horror of rape.

Rape is wrong because it violates consent; if consent is given, regardless of the social phenomena that led to that consent being given, it is not rape.

It is unequal to be sure, and often when women become more aware of their exploitating they decided that, if they had the chance again, they would have made difference decisions regarding sex. But this does not mean that it was rape!

It means that they realize that they made a mistake in giving consent. That their decision was based on societal assumptions that they did nor recognize as such ...but they still gave consent.

It may be wrong, it may be unfair, but it is not rape!

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 08:15 AM
By taking away women's right to consent to sex while drinking
This is a pretty specious argument. What, now all of a sudden you believe in institutional sexism?

And you're misrepresenting the proposal. It does not, in fact, say drunk women are automatically incapable of giving consent.

You quote an entertainment paper, This is London, not the most heavyweight publication in the UK - and as we'll see in a bit, one which seems to have an axe to grind in this article:

Under the new plans, the legal definition of consent could be rewritten to make clear that women who are drunk could not have agreed to sex.

It raises the possibility that even if a woman agreed to sex while drunk, a jury could decide she was too inebriated to give meaningful consent.

Which right there it says two different things in two paragraphs. Does the proposal say "women who are drunk could not have agreed to sex" or is up to the jury to decide if that was possible or not?

My first reaction was to say this was a bad proposal, too. But then again - if someone's semiconscious, unable to clearly articulate "yes" or "no"....can that be consensual sex? Seems to me, clearly no. And there may be gray areas a bit short of that.

But under current UK law, apparently it automatically is legal to screw someone in a semiconscious daze:

At present, women are judged capable of deciding unless they are unconscious. After the law change, which could appear in next month's Queen's Speech, juries will be able to take into account just how drunk a woman was in deciding if she was able to give meaningful consent.
That's from the Independent article you also quoted.

You also quote it saying:

This could place a responsibility on men to establish whether "yes" means "yes" after just one glass of wine.

Oh come on, no jury's going to convict anyone based on one glass of wine. It may be true that it places a responsibility on men to make sure their partners are consenting; but only in the sense of what decent human beings do normally.

Other reputable newspapers describe it similarly - Sunday Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2404492,00.html) says the same:

It raises the possibility that even if a woman agreed to sex while drunk, a jury could rule that she had been too inebriated to give meaningful consent.

It will not, however, affect the “burden of proof” required for a guilty verdict in which juries would still have to be convinced “beyond reasonable doubt” that a rape had taken place, say ministers.

So in fact, the defendant would not have to prove that the woman was sober enough to consent. The prosecution would have to prove she wasn't.

So that addresses another concern I had off the top: does it change "innocent until proven guilty"? Apparently not.

Currently this decision is in the hands of the cops or judges rather than the jury, which is usually bad:

In many cases, police filter out cases involving alcohol and drugs at an early stage, advising women who admit that they were drunk at the time of the alleged incident to drop the complaint because they stand little chance of being believed in court.

Earlier this year a rape trial collapsed when the woman, a student from Aberystwyth University admitted that she had been so drunk that she could not remember if she had refused or given consent for sex.

In the case at Swansea crown court, the judge ruled that “drunken consent is still consent” — and instructed the jury to return a “not guilty” verdict, even if they did not agree. (Also Sunday Times.)

So this may actually be a good proposal, which merely closes a loophole and violates nobody's rights. Certainly it should be evaluated on the basis of what it actually says, not by pretending it bans all drunk sex.

Now, both Clown and This is London have another political agenda here, and it's not a progressive one.

The article concludes:

George McAuley, chairman of the UK Men's Movement, said men may have to resort to obtaining written 'contracts' or using their mobile phones to film their partners consenting to sex.

He said: "Radical feminists within the Labour party have made consensual heterosexual sex a dangerous minefield.

And there ya go, it's a plot by those man-hating "radical feminists." Who control the British government, apparently.

No feminist activist is quoted to counterbalance the antifeminist activist McAuley, and he's given the last word. Does tend to indicate a possible bias of the article.

And of course McAuley's paranoid fantasies about contracts and videotaped consent have no factual basis. Nobody has to prove consent; the burden of proof is still on the prosecution.

Then Clown drops the pretense of concern for women's rights pretty fast, and starts making similar arguments to her "Men's Movement" antifeminist comrade:


The potential for legal abuses of this law on the part of individuals is also increadible. Someone dumped by their boyfriend could drink, ask him for breakup-sex, and then call the police the next morning to get him prosecuted for "raping" her as her verbal consent was irrelevant as she had been drinking.

Yup, the world's just full of Jezebels who have sex with men for the express purpose of prosecuting 'em for rape.

[LSD]

My first reaction was to say this was a bad proposal, too. But then again - if someone's semiconscious, unable to clearly articulate "yes" or "no"....can that be consensual sex?

No. But there's a vast difference between "semiunconsciousness" and "drunk". For one thing, the latter is far easier to define.

If there's currently a loophole in British rape law which permits "[screwing] someone in a semiconscious daze" that can be corrected without resorting to this kind of puritanical prohibitionism.

The test for determining rape should be whether or not the victim was capable of giving consent and whether such consent was given. How much they might have drank or smoked is utterly irrelevent to that question.

If they were so drunk or high that they couldn't give consent, it's not that they were drunk that's relevent, it's that they were "semiconscious". The proximate cause of that semiunconsciousness is thoroughly irrelevent -- unless of course it was inflicted upon them by the rapist.


So this may actually be a good proposal, which merely closes a loophole and violates nobody's rights. Certainly it should be evaluated on the basis of what it actually says, not by pretending it bans all drunk sex.

Except that what is says is that alchohol (and I'm assuming other intoxicating substances) eliminate a person's ability to consent.

It also institutionalizes that cherished 19th century notion that women are implicitly "chaste" and any sexual encounter "must" be for the bennefit of the man. Clearly, the logic goes, if she was drinking that "explains" why she would "lower herself" to such "base conduct".

Men and women get drunk and screw all the time. Rape is something entirely else. And conflating the two, even incidently, does a grave disservice to women in general and to rape prosecution in particular.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Ace [email protected] 17 2006, 06:47 PM

My first reaction was to say this was a bad proposal, too. But then again - if someone's semiconscious, unable to clearly articulate "yes" or "no"....can that be consensual sex?

No. But there's a vast difference between "semiunconsciousness" and "drunk". For one thing, the latter is far easier to define.

If there's currently a loophole in British rape law which permits "[screwing] someone in a semiconscious daze" that can be corrected without resorting to this kind of puritanical prohibitionism.
How? As I pointed out, this doesn't say that drunk sex is automatically rape. It just leaves it up to the jury to decide, case by case.

If you oppose that as "puritanical prohibitionism" - what kind of loophole-closing measure would you support?


The test for determining rape should be whether or not the victim was capable of giving consent and whether such consent was given.

Yes, that's what this proposal says.


How much they might have drank or smoked is utterly irrelevent to that question.

Who says it is? There's nothing about number of drinks or amount of alcohol in any description of this proposal. No mention of smoking at all.

If you're objecting to "a jury could rule that she had been too inebriated to give meaningful consent." - I think this is hair-splitting.

It's like the distinction between "She's so drunk that she's in a semiconscious daze or otherwise unable to give consent" and "She's in a semiconscious daze or otherwise unable to give consent." A distinction without a difference.


Men and women get drunk and screw all the time. Rape is something entirely else. And conflating the two

Straw man, based on misrepresentation of the proposal by "Men's movement" antifeminists. See earlier post.

Nothing in this proposal says that it's automatically rape to "get drunk and screw."

It just corrects the current law which says it's automatically irrelevant unless she's actually unconscious.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 09:52 PM
It's like the distinction between "She's so drunk that she's in a semiconscious daze or otherwise unable to give consent" and "She's in a semiconscious daze or otherwise unable to give consent." A distinction without a difference.
Not to be a nit-picker, I pretty much agree with your position, but "semiconscious or otherwise unable to give consent" and "so drunk she's semiconscious and unable to give consent" has one vital difference the "so drunk" qualifying clause, which is utterly superfluous.

Does anyone know if this law also applies to men who are pissed off their skulls?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Severian
Oh come on, no jury's going to convict anyone based on one glass of wine.

Not one glass of wine, no. But, as it happens, The Independents cover story this morning concerned women who "binge drink". And, according to a study mentioned in the article, drinking four drinks in one sitting once every fortnight makes someone a "binge drinker".

Now, that they use four drinks as the standard here is relevant to this. Mainly because the people who this law will generally target -- young people who go out on a Friday and Saturday night -- drink far more than four drinks. For example, on Friday night I went out at about half eight and finished drinking after breakfast at around 10.

That's a lot more than four drinks and, generally speaking, that's, duration wise, not that much normal than most nights out. Most people tend to start at some time after 6 and continue until about 3 or 4 -- if they haven't got somewhere to go afterwards.

And if four drinks are being used as a kind of standard, then most young women out on the town would be, to quote the Sunday Times, "too inebriated". (They could raise the number, of course, but I doubt it would be much of a guide -- mainly because the numbers are set by people with little or no experience of this type of cultural phenomena.)

Now, you may be content with the fact that a Jury will rule on whether it is rape or not. But you really need to look at this in a wider context: young working class women who enjoy a night out are, generally speaking, portrayed in the popular media as "ladettes" who get so pissed they pass out in the gutter. And this, of course, will have an impact on the members of the Jury -- who probably won't be from the same social demographic.

So, under this law, we could have a situation where two people go for a quick jump in an alley, get spotted by the filth, breathalised and, then, the bloke would get charged with indecent exposure and statutory rape. It goes to trial, the Prosecution plays on the media stereotype, ignores the woman's testimony and, the poor fella' who just wanted to get his end away, gets instead....a vacation paid for by the State at one of Her Majesty's finest resorts.

And all because the Government wants to undermine that hard fought for right to pull a sicky when you've had a skinful. After all, lots of labour is lost when young workers are too hungover to do a days graft. And that's no good now, is it?

[pastradamus]

Just because somebodys drunk it dosent mean they are inevitably irrational.

Somebodys really gonna have to tidy up rape laws. A person living near me was accused of rape when he was 17 by the money-grabbing parents of the "victim". He was dragged to the station by police & asked to give a statement, what im getting at here is that ANY woman out there can accuse Pastradamus of raping her and Straight away im up in court without question, if she puts a good and well-orcastrated case together she stands a good chance of winning & Im in jail for 5 years.
Its a very sensitive subject.

I would agree with the topic though. This Law undermines women. It is silly that we must protect our women like we would our children and refuse to recognise them as competant adults. One of the most popular ways of meeting people is in nightclubs, bars and places of where alcohol is served, so inevitably people will have consumed alcohol and can legally be described as intoxicated (the word drunk is not a legal term, instead the term 'intoxicated' is used, this term dosent represent how intoxicated a person is but rather that he/she has consumed alcohol) and because of this law EVERY woman you meet who has consumed alcohol is a potential rape victim.

[Cryotank Screams]

I can see the reasoning in this rule, because I have a personal rule that I will not under any circumstance have sex with a guy/girl whom isn't sober because I feel like I would be taking advantage of them, however I find this rule to be stupid and pointless none the less, and could possibly infringe on men's rights.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+October 18, 2006 03:57 pm--> (Jazzratt @ October 18, 2006 03:57 pm) Does anyone know if this law also applies to men who are pissed off their skulls? [/b]
Probably it would. Laws about rape generally don't distinguish between men and women; it's just that women are a lot more likely to be raped.


Originally posted by Amusing Scrotum+October 22, 2006 06:56 pm--> (Amusing Scrotum @ October 22, 2006 06:56 pm)And, according to a study mentioned in the article, drinking four drinks in one sitting once every fortnight makes someone a "binge drinker".

Now, that they use four drinks as the standard here is relevant to this. [/b]
No, it isn't relevant. You just dragged this in at random. There's nothing in the proposal about four drinks, about "binge drinking", or anything else to make it relevant.


So, under this law, we could have a situation where two people go for a quick jump in an alley, get spotted by the filth, breathalised and, then, the bloke would get charged with indecent exposure and statutory rape.

Also dragged in at random without regard to what the proposal actually says. There's nothing in it about statutory rape, breathalyzers or blood alcohol levels, disregarding anyone's testimony, or charging anyone without the alleged victim's say-so.


Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2006 07:40 pm
Just because somebodys drunk it dosent mean they are inevitably irrational.
And again, with something the proposal doesn't actually say.

We see here (in the posts by Ace, A.S., and pastradamus) the advantage of being the thread starter. Clown creates a myth about what this proposal says - and even after evidence is presented to the contrary, people keep posting based on the myth.

Please, everybody: read my first post before you post.


[email protected]
Somebodys really gonna have to tidy up rape laws. A person living near me was accused of rape when he was 17 by the money-grabbing parents of the "victim". He was dragged to the station by police & asked to give a statement, what im getting at here is that ANY woman out there can accuse Pastradamus of raping her and Straight away im up in court without question,

I don't think it's unreasonable that any woman should be able to get an investigation. If in your example, it didn't go any further than having to give a statement....

But we are starting to get at the real questions in dispute here: not that this law is patronizing to women, but whether it makes it too easy for any man to be put away.


Pastradamus
if she puts a good and well-orcastrated case together she stands a good chance of winning & Im in jail for 5 years.

Is this a fact? From the Times of London article linked earlier:

The proposed change follows a public consultation launched by the government this year to investigate ways of combating low convictions for rape. Fewer than 6% of rape allegations result in successful convictions.
......
Police recorded 14,449 allegations of rape last year, one of the highest figures so far. Between 1991 and 2004 the number of rapes recorded rose by 247%. However, only 12% of cases actually reached court and one in 19 men was convicted.

(BTW, I'm a bit surprised by the article's assertion that rape is becoming more common in the UK. I know in the U.S. the rate is dropping, even faster than other violent crimes. Maybe the UK is still going through the process of overcoming reluctance to report the crime.)

Anyway, is it too easy or too hard to get a conviction for rape? Probably it depends. I'd guess that a lot more than 6% of those allegations were true.

On the other hand, I'm not for violating the democratic rights of the accused in the name of fighting crime - any crime. I'm just not sure that anything about this proposal, as reported, violates anyone's rights.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)No, it isn't relevant. You just dragged this in at random. There's nothing in the proposal about four drinks, about "binge drinking", or anything else to make it relevant.[/b]

It's relevant because the Government endorsed the findings of the study -- I forget which Governmental Department, possibly the Ministry of Boring Old Bastards. But that they endorsed and agreed with the study means they accept the methods used -- and that means, of course, they accept the four drinks standard as being valid as a measure of "binge drinking". And, "binge drinking" needs to be combated because it to "anti-social women", "ladettes", blah, blah, blah.

Actually, I've just dug the article out of the bin and re-read it....and it seems it was, in fact, a Governmental study. To wit: "New Department of Health for England and Wales show that .... Nine per cent of women are now classified as binge drinkers, consuming four units or more per session."

This is referred to, in other parts of the article, as an indicator of "heavy drinking", "excessive drinking" and "[a] growing drink problem". In other words, a decent measure of being blottoed.

So, they've endorsed the figures and, what's more, they touch on the issue at hand. A few of paragraphs below the declaration that four drinks in one session was "heavy drinking", the article says "A review found that in many cases women had been drinking heavily [when they got sexually assaulted]. The Government is [now] considering tighter laws so that even when a woman has consented to sex, men can be prosecuted for rape, if she was drunk at the time." (Edited because I can't be arsed to type it all.)

Fiver says the Police people used the same standard in their review. After all, I doubt different branches of the State have different standards -- at the very least, not very different.

So it's very relevant, in my view anyway. And if you bothered to look at the wider context of all this, then you'd see that it [b]is linked with current talk about "binge drinking" and all that. Indeed, the Government has already attempted to "combat" this "problem" by filling Town centres with the filth....and this looks like another measure with the same aim in mind.


Severian
There's nothing in it about statutory rape, breathalyzers or blood alcohol levels, disregarding anyone's testimony, or charging anyone without the victim's say-so.

Don't be a tit all your life, Severian.

If a woman gives consent and yet she is deemed incapable of doing so, it's statutory rape. If you are going to judge how drunk she is, you use a breathaliser -- I wonder how that's spelt properly, both s and z don't work. I didn't mention blood alcohol levels, but ditto anyway. If she's deemed too drunk to consent, then her testimony is going to be disregarded. And, if she's too drunk to have consented and her testimony doesn't matter, then they hardly don't need her "say-so" -- it doesn't matter under statutory rape laws now.

Anything else?

[Hegemonicretribution]

I agree with a lot of what has been said. This manages to infringe upon the rights of both men and women in what should be a private sphere matter only.

I personally am not sure if I have ever had sex sober, but I don't mind. Sex is not a bad thing to be hated. Sometimes when you are drunk you might do something stupid, but this is akin to a (albeit less risky) takeaway kebab. Respect for alcohol (and other substances) is something that we should all be aware of, and we should find our limits in a safe environment.

Drug-raping is a problem however, and any form of spiking should be dealt with completely.

Nobody needs to be protected, people like getting messed up and having sex, and so should be responsible for themselves.

[Morag]

I agree with AS. The fact that a woman, after a few pints or drinks, would be considered incapable of giving consent to sex, is another way of saying that all sex under such circumstances becomes akin to statutory rape. Which is ridiculous and pointless. Especially after four units of alcohol, which is only 2 pints. I drank two pints last night without thinking twice, as I've done for the last few weeks (I love uni). Does that mean at any time I was incapable of of giving consent to sex? No. What it actually means is that I am above the legal drinking age, an adult, and I can do whatever the hell I like with my body, even have strange men fuck me if I like.

The thing is maybe that the threshold is far too low. But, I'm sure Britain has date rape laws, haven't you? Where if a person is clearly inebriated, their consent is not considered an acceptable defense to having had sex with them. Some of my friends have brought charges against men because they had taken them home when they were just so gone they really didn't know what was going on or who they were with. That happens too often, but that doesn't happen very often after two pints (and if it did happen for a woman after two pints, it wouldn't matter if there was a threshold of four units or not, it would still be date rape). The date rape laws aren't perfect and leave too much to interpretation, but if the alternative is losing our right to consent at all, what's the point to trying? Could a women charge her husband with rape if they have sex after a dinner where she has two cocktails? According to the scale, she'd have had four units of alcohol and couldn't legally give consent. Or, really, if a woman is too drunk to give legal consent, doesn't that mean that a man can be too drunk to gauge consent, accepting that ones reasoning skills are inhibited while drunk? I'm going to stop here and just quote Ace, before I get too far up this things ass to see the light of day:


If people start to believe that drunken sex is implicitly rape, then they'll start to act accordingly. Not only does this weaken women's social position, but it dramatically weakens the potentcy of rape as a criminal offense.

This law is atrocious.

[kaaos_af]

Yeah, I've been in this situation. I can't see any problems whatsoever. It seems the western governments are treating their citizens more and more like high school students these days.