Alcohol and ability to consent

Not some horny man he's not responsible for not having sex with you.

Yes, really he is. Any time you have sex with someone you are responsible for it regardless of how horny you feel. If, when you get drunk, you lose the ability to decide if someone has consented or not I would seriously suggest not getting drunk.
 
It's about what you reasonably believe at the time... which takes into account your level of intoxication. It's not about a set objective standard which applies at all times - eg. what a reasonable sober person would believe.


But this law doesn't say that it's if the man reasonably be lived she consented it's moving it more towards she was drunk therefor could not consent even if she did

Your point about acting normally on a night out and then having no recollection - why's that at all relevant to this..? Just because you have no recollection doesn't mean you couldn't have consented at the time :confused:.

Because it would indicate that I was so intoxicated that my consent was not valid but it would certainly have appeared valid to anyone I gave it to.

But if in the morning I had no recollection and didn't think I would have consented to this person then are they guilty of rape.
 
This is what I don't understand about alcohol and the people who drink it, it's almost hypocrisy.

If you make a conscious and rationally planned decision, while sober, to lose your inhibitions by ingesting copious amounts of alcohol and then placing yourself in the company of men you know are on the prowl. You have already consented. Alcohol should never be an excuse for poor decision making. People know what they're doing when they drink, they're losing their inhibitions, you cant bloody expect to use that as an excuse then can you!

It's like drink driving. You're responsible for leaving your car at home from the start. Not some horny man he's not responsible for not having sex with you.


So like you say If YOU If you make a conscious and rationally planned decision, while sober, to lose your inhibitions by ingesting copious amounts of alcohol and then placing yourself in my company when I'm horny, you have already consented to me bumming you senseless?


your words you say if you get drunk around horny men you've consented so i'm often horny, it seems from your posts you often get drunk and take often drugs.

now i should warn you be careful what you ask for, the last girl who asked for it rough had to do to the doctors with some (id like to say minor, but i'm not sure that should be accurate) tearing so you might want to book an appointment in advance if roughs your thing :)
 
Date for a while before shagging someone and you'll probably be alright. Or even better, marry the girl you want to shag.

One night stands are unfulfilling anyway.

Maybe for you, but you know, everyone's different.

There are lots of people from both sexes who are happy to not be in a relationship but still obviously like to have sex, so to suggest marrying a girl you want to have sex with seems a little.....extreme!

And I would also disagree with your statement of sober sex is 'better', I've had absolutely amazing sex while sober, drunk or high, it just depends who you are with.

But I have to say, high is best :p
 
So like you say If YOU If you make a conscious and rationally planned decision, while sober, to lose your inhibitions by ingesting copious amounts of alcohol and then placing yourself in my company when I'm horny, you have already consented to me bumming you senseless?


your words you say if you get drunk around horny men you've consented so i'm often horny, it seems from your posts you often get drunk and take often drugs.

now i should warn you be careful what you ask for, the last girl who asked for it rough had to do to the doctors with some (id like to say minor, but i'm not sure that should be accurate) tearing so you might want to book an appointment in advance if roughs your thing :)

:eek:


The answer to your question is; while in a state of complete sobriety if one makes a plan to take a substance which knowingly alters many aspects of their state of mind including their sexual inhibitions, and then place themselves at a place and at a time where people are knowingly on the prowl for sex, then yes they have consented to what's knowingly going to happen. They have consented to the fact that fourty-two guys (who are also drunk I might add) will naturally make an advance and in the morning this person will say "I had no say in what happened".
 
Last edited:
Maybe for you, but you know, everyone's different.

There are lots of people from both sexes who are happy to not be in a relationship but still obviously like to have sex, so to suggest marrying a girl you want to have sex with seems a little.....extreme!

And I would also disagree with your statement of sober sex is 'better', I've had absolutely amazing sex while sober, drunk or high, it just depends who you are with.

But I have to say, high is best :p

It's ok - I'm practising to be a Tory - if you can't beat 'em!

All this is just a back door to promoting thier moral values - pretty soon it'll be too risky to have sex outside marriage. Once this is implemented, they'll probably make extra-marital sex illegal.
 
:eek:


The answer to your question is; while in a state of complete sobriety if one makes a plan to take a substance which knowingly alters many aspects of their state of mind including their sexual inhibitions, and then place themselves at a place and at a time where people are knowingly on the prowl for sex, then yes they have consented to what's knowingly going to happen. They have consented to the fact that fourty-two guys (who are also drunk I might add) will naturally make an advance and in the morning this person will say "I had no say in what happened".

so you agree if you get drunk and encounter a gay man its perfectly acceptable for him to **** you as you have already consented to sex by simply being drunk in his presence?
 
:eek:


The answer to your question is; while in a state of complete sobriety if one makes a plan to take a substance which knowingly alters many aspects of their state of mind including their sexual inhibitions, and then place themselves at a place and at a time where people are knowingly on the prowl for sex, then yes they have consented to what's knowingly going to happen. They have consented to the fact that fourty-two guys (who are also drunk I might add) will naturally make an advance and in the morning this person will say "I had no say in what happened".

Jesus Christ!
 
so you agree if you get drunk and encounter a gay man its perfectly acceptable for him to **** you as you have already consented to sex by simply being drunk in his presence?

You keep making the conditions narrower.

I'm only drunk between 3-4 times a year and only in the company of absolutely trustworthy friends who have shown no interest in penetrating my anus in the 10-15 years I've known them. There is no exhibit to inhibit.

If I get drunk then go to a gay rave and get even more drunk I have placed myself where gay sex is the exhibit. And then if I keep drinking enough to actually not know what the **** is going on and not be able to verbally deny entry, sorry but It's my fault.
 
Last edited:
Asim almost, almost had a point. But then went full crazy. Damn.

My point from previous threads on this one still stands. Why are women being absolved of any responsibility? Why is it up to a man who may be in a similar state of intoxication to judge whether the woman can consent. Why is the very drunk man sufficiently qualified to do this?

Drunk woman apparently = incapable of making a decision

Drunk man = master of judgment and maker of fine decisions
 
Seems like an interesting move which would make prosecutions easier to prove. Is it workable though and would it just lead to arguments over what "severely" constitutes?

Terrible idea, it basically translates to "if a couple have sex after touching alcohol the man has committed statutory rape" >.>
 
Actually ... as dumb as ^ idea is (LOL), a periodic app with the users location, would use hardly any battery power and could be uploded to a site, or lat/longs on an email.

Google Maps history is pretty much this, with regards at least to being in a certain location at a certain time.
 
Jesus Christ!

Well, indeed.

It's this sort of attitude, which is not unique to Asim, which may necessitate such a law.

And I say that whilst not entirely comfortable (or, at least, not being entirely sure how I feel about it) with the idea that inebriation will, in law, then be able to be used to deny ability to consent, but won't deny ability to decide whether to drive, or fight, or whatever - seemingly a legal imbalance.
 
When a woman supposed not to be able to consent while drunk, that doesn't imply that she resisted the sexual encounter, she went along with it, enjoyed sex but next day decided it was a bad idea after all.

Same can happen to a man, he can be drunk, have sex with a woman and next day claim she raped him while he was intoxicated, despite him participating and enjoying sex.

Next time any one of you having sex after having a drink remember, you are being raped. That also goes for married people - see rape in marriage.
 
Well, indeed.

It's this sort of attitude, which is not unique to Asim, which may necessitate such a law.

And I say that whilst not entirely comfortable (or, at least, not being entirely sure how I feel about it) with the idea that inebriation will, in law, then be able to be used to deny ability to consent, but won't deny ability to decide whether to drive, or fight, or whatever - seemingly a legal imbalance.

The attitude that you can't say anything, or you're victim blaming is a bad one too, as people often see whatever you're saying, completely disregard it and put "it's the victim's fault" in its place. They then proceed to lose their minds and start foaming at the mouth about what "you" have "said".
 
Back
Top Bottom