New Rape Laws
- Thread starter Schlong&Stable
- Start date
Solution for this is get video proof of consent on you smart phone with the object of your desire (male/female/other) stating what they will and won't permit and the date and time.
If they aren't capable of this they are too drunk.
If they don't want to be videoed admitting they want to engage in this activity with you, probably best not to anyway.
If they aren't capable of this they are too drunk.
If they don't want to be videoed admitting they want to engage in this activity with you, probably best not to anyway.
Except that later part does not to apply to victims does it and because of that we create more victims.
Again a false dichotomy. We change the system.
Not specifically no, but you did mention how they dress as if it matters and I dont really think it should.
So let's see answers to this
We have two pairs one sober man one drunk woman, one sober woman and one drunk man.
Now each of these pairs meet are attracted to each other at the time and go home and have sex.
Each drunk person (man and woman) "consents" at the time, verbally and physical making no attempt to stop the intercourse.
Each of the drunk partners is very drunk, not to the point of being catatonic and lying there, but heavily slurring unable to walk very straight and in a state where you definitely wouldn't trust them to drive, use a cooker or anything that could be dangerous.
The next morning both sober partners are happy with the events of last night.
Both drunk partners heavily regret what happened and do not remember consenting or much of the night except some fragments of memory of the sex.
So the question;
Pairing A, sober man and drunk woman, is the sober male a rapist and the drunk female a rape victim?
Pairing B, sober woman and drunk man, is the sober woman a rapist and the drunk male a rape victim?
Answers and reasons please
We have two pairs one sober man one drunk woman, one sober woman and one drunk man.
Now each of these pairs meet are attracted to each other at the time and go home and have sex.
Each drunk person (man and woman) "consents" at the time, verbally and physical making no attempt to stop the intercourse.
Each of the drunk partners is very drunk, not to the point of being catatonic and lying there, but heavily slurring unable to walk very straight and in a state where you definitely wouldn't trust them to drive, use a cooker or anything that could be dangerous.
The next morning both sober partners are happy with the events of last night.
Both drunk partners heavily regret what happened and do not remember consenting or much of the night except some fragments of memory of the sex.
So the question;
Pairing A, sober man and drunk woman, is the sober male a rapist and the drunk female a rape victim?
Pairing B, sober woman and drunk man, is the sober woman a rapist and the drunk male a rape victim?
Answers and reasons please
So the question;
Pairing A, sober man and drunk woman, is the sober male a rapist and the drunk female a rape victim?
Pairing B, sober woman and drunk man, is the sober woman a rapist and the drunk male a rape victim?
Answers and reasons please
Pairing B, the woman isn't a rapist because UK law doesn't really allow it. However she has committed a serious sexual assault as the man in question would deemed unable to consent.
Would it actually make it to court? Probably not due to a whole host of factors which have little to do with law and lots to do with societal factors.
To me, they are equal.
Moorov Doctrine - where more than one crime has happened and the circumstances are so similar and the accused has been identified in at least one of the crimes, that each crime can be used to corroborate the other.
I do agree with what you are saying but its a tricky one due to the stigma attached to anyone genuinely innocent of the accusation in sexual crimes.
The possible way around it is for the police to present evidence to a court that other instances may have occurred and ask for the anonymity of the accused to be lifted if their evidence is strong enough.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
I'm not completely clear what you're saying here - that proceeding to have sexual intercourse while intoxicated being a risk isn't something that applies to victims?
If we can change the system to be entirely fair then of course that's what we should be doing but practically and pragmatically we've also got to deal with the system as it is just now. The court system is going to continue to deal with cases that are already in process so the accused being named is the lesser of two evils as it stands. By all means get the system changed to be better but remember that it's not going to be sorted instantaneously.
Indeed it is tricky, what you're suggesting might work although there are likely to be issues with presenting a strong enough case to allow the lifting of anonymity if the situation in question is one persons word against another. That's always likely to be a problem in sexual assault cases as with few exceptions it's normally a matter between consenting adults without other parties being involved.
The law absolves all responsibility on the alleged "victim" in regards to being responsible for things that occur when intoxicated. It does not give the same leeway to the alleged "accused".
A man gets intoxicated and is held responsible for his actions.
A woman gets intoxicated and is not held responsible for her actions.
Either judgement is impaired or it is not.
There is a clear bias here that is discriminatory and has been put into place to address failures in judicial and policing systems. Therefore, we create another layer of victims. As to the later part again it is a false dichotomy. There are adequate procedures in place if the judicial system and the police can't discipline their members who don't do their jobs then that is something that should be enforced. I fail to see why people are named and shamed before trial because the police and judicial system can't keep their house in order.
Last edited:
Agree with all this.
I personally feel it needs to be considered though even if its to rule it out as an option as the current situation is horrific for anyone accused of a sexual crime if they did not do it....
I'm sorry, but did you just suggest that there's an equivalence between a rapist and his victim? The law holds you responsible for committing a crime, but not for being the victim of one. Which is correct.
The law defines that a woman cannot be held responsible for her decision making when drunk but that a drunk man can be held responsible for his decision making and also appraising the decision making ability of a woman.
Why should there be any implication that a man's mental faculties are superior (and indeed fully intact no less) to a woman's when drunk, when this clearly would not apply to any other drink related issue such as drink driving?
edit - as an example scenario;
Two people have drunken intercourse, girl subsequently wakes up and regrets it and says she was raped.
She goes to the police and says 'I was so drunk I didn't even know what was going on' the assumed position is 'Oh, well then you couldn't have given consent, you were probably raped'.
The police call in the guy and he says 'I was so drunk I didn't even know what was going on' and the assumed position is 'Oh, well you should have realised how drunk you were and how drunk she was and that she wasn't able to give consent, so you are a rapist'
Why is it fair to assume the guy in that situation had any better control or judgement than the female to the point that he can be charged and possibly even convicted of rape because of it?
Last edited:
but if you're both equally drunk and so both equally incapable of consenting, which of you is the rapist and which is the victim?