Alcohol and ability to consent

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.

Well at least you're consistent.

It's still nonsense, though.

Getting so drunk you're unable to prevent "sex" (rape) is not giving consent for someone to do sex (rape) to you.
 
Well at least you're consistent.

It's still nonsense, though.

Getting so drunk you're unable to prevent "sex" (rape) is not giving consent for someone to do sex (rape) to you.

If you lay on the floor completely passed out and someone starts humping you, it's a rape, no doubt. But isn't the problem with this law, which I haven't read that women can start screaming rape at almost any occasion? And due to these laws being so incompetent how many men have been accused without a proof?

I think metal chastity pants is the best solution, or something high tech carbon graphite. Something you cannot take off easily.
 
If you lay on the floor completely passed out and someone starts humping you, it's a rape, no doubt. But isn't the problem with this law, which I haven't read that women can start screaming rape at almost any occasion? And due to these laws being so incompetent how many men have been accused without a proof?.

Maybe. But the problem with the current laws is that, what, 10% or less of reported rapes are successfully prosecuted.

I'm simply not believing that more than a fraction of those reports which don't end in conviction are false. A more robust consent law should help this, and should be clearer guidance for men who are in a potentially rapey situation.
 
Well at least you're consistent.

It's still nonsense, though.

Getting so drunk you're unable to prevent "sex" (rape) is not giving consent for someone to do sex (rape) to you.

What's with all the denial these days. I know rape shouldn't happen there's no excusing a rape, but denying that rapists are out there taking advantage of situations like a drunken guy with a tight looking anal cavity too drunk to even make decisions in a gaybar is part of the problem. It's amazing people don't see reality.

The longer we deny that being drunk causes many allegations of rape the longer this nonsense will go on. I don't understand how such a ridiculous substance is even legal.
 
Last edited:
Maybe. But the problem with the current laws is that, what, 10% or less of reported rapes are successfully prosecuted.

I'm simply not believing that more than a fraction of those reports which don't end in conviction are false. A more robust consent law should help this, and should be clearer guidance for men who are in a potentially rapey situation.

We don't want a strict country like the Muslims have. What we need is to educate people and promote good behaviour, not ban everything.

I think women find rape if they're looking for trouble.

One thing is when you are a promiscuous woman hanging out drunk with god knows who, you can easily scream rape every other day.

Other thing is when you are a normal woman who goes to work and home and gets raped on the way, then it's a crime like every other and it's solution depends on the successful investigation by the police.
 
What's with all the denial these days. I know rape shouldn't happen there's no excusing a rape, but denying that rapists are out there taking advantage of situations like a drunken guy with a tight looking anal cavity too drunk to even make decisions in a gaybar is part of the problem. It's amazing people don't see reality.

The longer we deny that being drunk causes many allegations of rape the longer this nonsense will go on. I don't understand how such a ridiculous substance is even legal.

What you're saying is that "rape happens", and you're using that as a reason not to tighten up controls on rape because, you say, victims can change their behaviour not to be in the firing line of rapists.

That's putting the responsibility on the victim, and failing to protect potential victims. To what benefit?
 
What you're saying is that "rape happens", and you're using that as a reason not to tighten up controls on rape because, you say, victims can change their behaviour not to be in the firing line of rapists.

That's putting the responsibility on the victim, and failing to protect potential victims. To what benefit?

"Tighten up controls on rape"?

What is a "control on rape" exactly?

The longer people think there are invisible external "controls" which stop a rapist rapin, which can apparently be "tightened" by external forces, the longer this nonsense goes on sadly. The only control on a rapist committing a rape is himself they alone are the only and ultimate control.

In fact I know of a magical invisible control mechanism that does exist, it's called inhibition, and alcohol takes it away.
 
Last edited:
I have another comic solution. If you plan having sex with a new partner, all involved need to apply for a permit. Everything else is rape! I mean it wouldn't be too bad. I rarely do things in a hurry.
 
"Tighten up controls on rape"?

What is a "control on rape" exactly?

The longer people think there are invisible external "controls" which stop a rapist rapin, which can apparently be "tightened" by external forces, the longer this nonsense goes on sadly. The only control on a rapist committing a rape is himself they alone are the only and ultimate control.

In fact I know of a magical invisible control mechanism that does exist, it's called inhibition, and alcohol takes it away.

Laws might not stop some rapists, it's true, but they can help to provide justice when those rapes happen

It can also act as guidance for situations where attitude may cause some to not realise the rights and wrongs of their actions.

30 years ago, it was acceptable to slap your female insubordinates on the arse in the workplace. We now realise that this was, whilst fun, actually not an acceptable act.

There are many men who don't see that having sex with a barely coherent woman might be wrong. The law changing to say it is acts educationally in that regard.

As I said earlier, I'm not sure I'm 100% happy about such a law, due to the strange nature of it's removal of adults' ability to consent to their actions when it comes to sex, but not other activities. But I can see that it is potentially beneficial overall.
 
Technically only a man can commit rape. So yes, in this case only the man would be charged.

Women can only be done for sexual assault.

Not true , statuary rape applies to women having sex with someone underage , I forget what age exactly but it applies all the same .
 
Maybe. But the problem with the current laws is that, what, 10% or less of reported rapes are successfully prosecuted.

I'm simply not believing that more than a fraction of those reports which don't end in conviction are false.

You don't need to be convicted for an accusation of rape to ruin your life. If you work in a school for example, and your colleagues/boss, or even worse one of the parents, were to find out you'd been accused of rape, do you think they would wait and see if you were actually convicted before you lost your job?

Even if it wasn't somewhere as sensitive as a school, how many employers do you actually think would continue to employ a rapist*


* After all, there's no smoke without fire, and as evidence by many previous threads on here, most people believe that even a not-guilty result means you did it, there just wasn't enough evidence to prove it.

A more robust consent law should help this, and should be clearer guidance for men who are in a potentially rapey situation.

The problem is, other than having independent witnesses, it's impossible to a) prove consent, and b) prove that the person was mentally fit to give consent

The only foolproof solution I can really see is designated "sex booths" where you both have to sign in, and sign out (witnessed by someone), after being breathalised.

Laws might not stop some rapists, it's true, but they can help to provide justice when those rapes happen

It can also act as guidance for situations where attitude may cause some to not realise the rights and wrongs of their actions.

That's great, except those laws are heavily weighted against men - hardly justice.

Sober man and drunk woman have sex, she regrets it, cries rape - man = guilty (this I agree with).

Drunk man and drunk woman have sex, she regrets it, cries rape - man = guilty (why does the man maintain responsibility whilst drunk, whereas the woman doesn't?)

Drunk man and sober woman have sex, she regrets it, cries rape - man = guilty (see above).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom