Pretty much yes.
New Rape Laws
- Thread starter Schlong&Stable
- Start date
Pretty much yes.
This is the trouble with alcohol. When drunk you do not have sufficient control of your faculties. Normally you are still deemed as being responsible. If you break a window whilst drunk, criminal damage. Punch someone, assault.
However somehow we've ended up with an exception. That exception is women, when plastered, don't have any sexual responsibility. All onus is put on another party. Quite frankly it's stupid and contradictory.
It all comes down to a man, whether sober or drunk, needing to have sufficient levels of judgement to deem a woman is of sound mind enough to consent. He gets the judgement wrong and he's in the crap.
The fact is drunk men, and women will want to have sex. Drunk people do not make the smartest decisions.
Why can't a sober woman before getting drunk realise this and think 'maybe I shouldn't get so hammered I don't know what I'm doing?'.
I am not really saying what is right and wrong, just an easy way to avoid getting in to trouble is to not drink until you are insensible, whatever gender you are. I do take a little issue with the latter point though, a woman should be able to dress however she wants, a short skirt shouldn't be an invitation to rape.
Doesn't this put all the onus one women though? Like so many things in life this isn't really a black and white issue where blame or responsibility is all on one person or the other.
Should people not take responsibility for their own safety?
Also look at it this way, drunk or sober man plus drunk woman leads to man judgement. Drunk or sober man plus sober woman equals no judgement required. Simple solution.
Yes, but that doesn't absolve the other party of blame if they don't. If your wallet gets robbed because you were drunk does that mean the thief should get away scot free?
Simple solutions are rarely good solutions when dealing with complex problems. We are always going to end up with situations where someone could be treated unfairly regardless of what way we cut it.
You simple solution wouldn't work though. It would effectively mean that any drunk women was fair game for rapists as they could just pretend that they too were drunk and consent was given.
It doesn't mean they're fair game at all. It would just mean that the number of instances of men making judgements would be cut and thus mistakes. Thus fewer women raped. That to me is a good situation.
Can you deny that if some women didn't get in such states of inebriation then some men wouldn't have to make the decisions and thus mistakes that they do?
What it seems to be saying is that if you are a woman and get drunk then it is your fault if you get raped? So the onus is on the woman and not the man. I can't really agree with that as we are back to victim blaming.
It's not saying that at all. It's saying in some situations it alleviates a problem whereby a person has to make a decision when they are not at the height of their mental acuity that should they make the wrong choice it is construed as rape.
So I'll ask again since you've ignored my question...would women taking responsibility for their own state of inebriation lead to a decrease in the described situation occurring and thus a decrease to rape?
But how do you know that was the actual situation and the man isn't just lying and saying was he was drunk?
I agree 100% with you that just because a woman is off her face drunk doesn't mean she is fare game or that it is her fault she is being raped but at the same time if a man is also so far off his face his judgement is equaly impaired is sociality saying he is still 100% accountable for his actions?
In short, drunk woman are not responsible but drunk men are. (yes I realise its not as black and white as this but that's how its coming across)
Doesn't seem fare to me to have it one way but not the other.
Well, it sort of is the point because it is where your simple solution falls apart.
No it's not! I'm talking about a real time decrease in rapes happening. Not a guilty party trying to get away with it. You're transfixed on the pathetic media spin of catching the guilty.
Screw it. Stopping it happening in the first place is far better!
You have still failed several times now to answer the question I've asked you.
In which case it's where the current system also falls apart, as the woman could be lying and the guy has no defence really.
Either he's sober so shouldn't take advantage so he's a rapist or he's too drunk to make proper judgement except the expectation is that he should still be able to judge anyway so he's a rapist.
I am pretty sure I answered it in post #146 with "Yes, but that doesn't absolve the other party of blame if they don't. ".
How often does that actually happen though? Is it often enough that we need to change the law in such a way that it would make women more vulnerable?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
The option of anonymity for accused unless they are found guilty?
Why would this make less victims come forward?
Victims of sexual assault can often feel isolated or think (and in fact are not infrequently told by their attacker) that if they report the assault that their story will not be believed. If the accused is named then that can be enough to show they aren't alone and give them the courage to come forward. It's also worth noting that in sexual assault cases it can be the fact that there are multiple corroborations and linking details which goes towards backing up what would otherwise be a case of one persons word against another.
If neither party is in a fit state then by law they shouldn't be having intercourse, whether that's an entirely practical or pragmatic position is another thing. I'm almost certain you're right and it's common, it was while I was at university but that doesn't necessarily make it right.
For what it's worth I think it should be applicable to both as a defence.
Ok, I'm not disputing that if you're intoxicated enough then you're not going to adequately recognise consent when given (or not). That's fine but if you're not in a position to give/receive/recognise consent then legally you've got to accept there are risks to proceeding to have sexual intercourse.
You're right, in a perfect world we'd have an even better justice system which did encourage victims to come forward and was even better at punishing the guilty (and reforming them where possible) which would hopefully lead to an even greater number of people reporting crimes and believing in the system.
However we don't have that system so based on the options as they stand then the accused being named serves a purpose and is arguably the lesser of two evils. It's not right and for the sake of equity in the process I'd prefer it wasn't this way but there is a reason for it whether you agree the rationale or not.