PistoldPete2 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 You need to check the definition of rape in English law. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 defines it thus: Rape (1)A person (A) commits an offence if Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyram Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 As for your statement " what you're really saying is that women who get drunk cant expect to be protected by the law", well I have never said that and I dont think its true. But it does weaken the severity of any crime that may be committed if the other party did not actively dissent; how can the other party know he was committing a crime? It makes it less wilfully a crime, just like the murder / manslaughter divide . And it must raise questions as to whether a crime has been committed at all ; who hasnt had sex when drunk? I believe now the onus is on whoever is being accused to be SURE he has consent first, according to the law. I don't think doing it anyway and using well she was pissed as an excuse is acceptable now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animal is a Ram Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I think what Pistold is trying to say is - correct me if I'm wrong here - but there's clearly different severity, that aren't defined in law. ie. If rape was committed under duress (knife/gunpoint/etc) then the victim is clearly going to be hit harder by this than the victim who was raped as a result of being passed out. Putting both of these under the umbrella term 'rape' would, on the face of it, suggest that both cases are of an equal severity, but the offender would/should have a longer jail term for the violence aspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyram Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 You have to go back to the beginning. Did you get consent? If the answer is no, then gun or no gun, knifepoint or not, then the act is rape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I think what Pistold is trying to say is - correct me if I'm wrong here - but there's clearly different severity, that aren't defined in law. ie. If rape was committed under duress (knife/gunpoint/etc) then the victim is clearly going to be hit harder by this than the victim who was raped as a result of being passed out. Putting both of these under the umbrella term 'rape' would, on the face of it, suggest that both cases are of an equal severity, but the offender would/should have a longer jail term for the violence aspect. Yes, the offender would be liable for added prison time for any aggravating criteria. That is defined in law (as is 'consent' since the 2003 Act as it happens). But no distinction in intent is made as with murder / manslaughter because you can't have sex with someone by accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 you can't have sex with someone by accident. I have and boy did I regret it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daaave Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 What doesn't sit well with me is the fact that, in my understanding, there is a point of intoxication where someone becomes too drunk to consent. This suggests that even if consent were to be clearly obtained, the onus is on the 'initiator' to judge whether or not the other party has reached this point of intoxication. Now throw 5-6 pints into the equation on their side too and how is a reliable judgement call supposed to be made? Perhaps I've misunderstood but having heard the phrase 'too drunk to consent' that's what I've taken from things. edit: should add I know nothing about this particular case so this point may not be strictly relevant, just wanted to wade in on the general debate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyram Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 No such thing as accidents. Actions which can be avoided lead up to the end product. That's what one of my bosses says constantly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 What doesn't sit well with me is the fact that, in my understanding, there is a point of intoxication where someone becomes too drunk to consent. This suggests that even if consent were to be clearly obtained, the onus is on the 'initiator' to judge whether or not the other party has reached this point of intoxication. Now throw 5-6 pints into the equation on their side too and how is a reliable judgement call supposed to be made? Perhaps I've misunderstood but having heard the phrase 'too drunk to consent' that's what I've taken from things. edit: should add I know nothing about this particular case so this point may not be strictly relevant, just wanted to wade in on the general debate There is and always has been a reliable call. You keep it in your trousers, go home, whack off and go to sleep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animal is a Ram Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 You have to go back to the beginning. Did you get consent? If the answer is no, then gun or no gun, knifepoint or not, then the act is rape. That's not being disputed. I mean - 'rape' and, 'violent rape' - the difference between the intent to cause harm, and what, where alcohol is concerned, can sometimes be an error of judgement. Maybe this is where the murder/manslaughter switch is meant - as one is intent to kill, the latter is intent to harm, but death happens in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 No such thing as accidents. Actions which can be avoided lead up to the end product. That's what one of my bosses says constantly. Tell your boss they are talking out their arse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyram Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 It depends on if you think rape is a violent act or not. After all, somebody's body is being violated. All things considered I'd rather get my face kicked in than be invaded in the worst way possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daaave Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 There is and always has been a reliable call. You keep it in your trousers, go home, whack off and go to sleep. This is all well and good, but people aren't going to stop having sex with people they meet on a night out, so for me there is an issue here. I'd like to read a more reasoned response if you could provide one. For now I'll expand my point. There seems to be a point at which someone becomes intoxicated to give legally binding (perhaps the wrong word but you get my point) consent. When this point is reached would appear to be somewhat arbitary, is it based on alcohol/drug blood levels? Anyway, it's by the by because unless you keep a brethalyser by your bed there's not really a sure fire way to know how intoxicated any individual is. Obviously if they're drifting in and out of consciousness that's a bit of a clue but I'm not talking about that. Not everyone reacts the same to high levels of intoxication, some might get louder, some quieter etc. So my point is, if you were to meet someone at say 2am on a Saturday morning in a club, no way of knowing how much they've drunk or if they've taken anything, how are you supposed to decide whether they've reached the point of being too intoxicated to consent? Perhaps I might be making a bit much of this, because I've no idea how intoxicated one would need to be to reach this point. Maybe it would only be once someone is struggling to stand or drifting in and out of consciousness and if so then I've no issue at all. But if this is not the case, it seems to me that you're suggesting the only way to avoid potentially "accidentally raping" (sorry, I'm loathe to write that but can't think of a better way to phrase it) someone, even if you were to obtain express consent prior, is by avoiding engaging in sexual activity with anyone if there's any suggestion they're intoxicated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyram Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 So use your own judgement. If in doubt, don't do it. Go home. Is that so hard to do? And doing the deed with someone you've only just met is a definate no- no for me anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 This is all well and good, but people aren't going to stop having sex with people they meet on a night out, so for me there is an issue here. I'd like to read a more reasoned response if you could provide one. For now I'll expand my point. There seems to be a point at which someone becomes intoxicated to give legally binding (perhaps the wrong word but you get my point) consent. When this point is reached would appear to be somewhat arbitary, is it based on alcohol/drug blood levels? Anyway, it's by the by because unless you keep a brethalyser by your bed there's not really a sure fire way to know how intoxicated any individual is. Obviously if they're drifting in and out of consciousness that's a bit of a clue but I'm not talking about that. Not everyone reacts the same to high levels of intoxication, some might get louder, some quieter etc. So my point is, if you were to meet someone at say 2am on a Saturday morning in a club, no way of knowing how much they've drunk or if they've taken anything, how are you supposed to decide whether they've reached the point of being too intoxicated to consent? Perhaps I might be making a bit much of this, because I've no idea how intoxicated one would need to be to reach this point. Maybe it would only be once someone is struggling to stand or drifting in and out of consciousness and if so then I've no issue at all. But if this is not the case, it seems to me that you're suggesting the only way to avoid potentially "accidentally raping" (sorry, I'm loathe to write that but can't think of a better way to phrase it) someone, even if you were to obtain express consent prior, is by avoiding engaging in sexual activity with anyone if there's any suggestion they're intoxicated? Yes I think I am struggling to understand the level of intoxication needed to be unable to remember how you got somewhere when you wake up. I have been almost that drunk once or twice, but still able to recall snippets. When Ive been that drunk ive not really been able to stand. It does presnet a probem, young people on a night out on the pull are bound to have consumed some alcohol, so weher doe sthe line get crossed? If a girl says no, nobody has a right to assume she means yes. But if she says yes , but might have said no if she had been totally sober, what is a boy to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daaave Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I'm not sure if I'm not putting my point across clearly or what. As I say I've no idea what point of intoxication one would become legally unable to provide consent, so I personally would only be able to make a judgement it if there are obvious signs of high levels of intoxication such as a great deal of slurring, struggling to walk/stand up etc. If those signs aren't there it doesn't necessarily mean they are not extremely intoxicated though does it? Once again, I'm unsure at what point of intoxication express consent is no longer considered as consent in the eyes of the law and perhaps for stand up, respectful, law abiding folk the line would appear very clear. My concern is that this being grey area (to me and I imagine many others) allows people to dismiss and trivialise rape in cases where the victim was extremely intoxicated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 This is all well and good, but people aren't going to stop having sex with people they meet on a night out, so for me there is an issue here. I'd like to read a more reasoned response if you could provide one. For now I'll expand my point. There seems to be a point at which someone becomes intoxicated to give legally binding (perhaps the wrong word but you get my point) consent. When this point is reached would appear to be somewhat arbitary, is it based on alcohol/drug blood levels? Anyway, it's by the by because unless you keep a brethalyser by your bed there's not really a sure fire way to know how intoxicated any individual is. Obviously if they're drifting in and out of consciousness that's a bit of a clue but I'm not talking about that. Not everyone reacts the same to high levels of intoxication, some might get louder, some quieter etc. So my point is, if you were to meet someone at say 2am on a Saturday morning in a club, no way of knowing how much they've drunk or if they've taken anything, how are you supposed to decide whether they've reached the point of being too intoxicated to consent? Perhaps I might be making a bit much of this, because I've no idea how intoxicated one would need to be to reach this point. Maybe it would only be once someone is struggling to stand or drifting in and out of consciousness and if so then I've no issue at all. But if this is not the case, it seems to me that you're suggesting the only way to avoid potentially "accidentally raping" (sorry, I'm loathe to write that but can't think of a better way to phrase it) someone, even if you were to obtain express consent prior, is by avoiding engaging in sexual activity with anyone if there's any suggestion they're intoxicated? Surely, the guiding principle here, as with any sexual activity involving intoxication or not, is if you have doubts, don't do it. Exercise self-control. Respect the other person's body. Easier said than done perhaps but really not so difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 As a man are you even capable of having sex if you are at the point where you won't remember much in the morning? I struggle to keep it up after around 7 pints! after that trying to stuff a flop on in there ends up being boring and off to sleep I go And if you're not and she is that pissed then come on, shouldn't really be going there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animal is a Ram Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Surely, the guiding principle here, as with any sexual activity involving intoxication or not, is if you have doubts, don't do it. Exercise self-control. Respect the other person's body. Easier said than done perhaps but really not so difficult. Paradox though. Self-control flies out the window where alcohol is concerned. I've never been one to subscribe to this 'LAD culture' i.e. go out with the main aim to get totally rat arsed and/or 'smash a bird'. Hell, I've never even 'pulled'.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Hell, I've never even 'pulled'.. You need to get them more pissed first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.