If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
It's not always rape if a woman is drunk, says judge
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Full Story
I realise this topic is going to produce a lot of different answers and differing opinions, Im just intrested to hear what other people think of this?
I have to say I do think this judge has a point. However this is in no way condoning rape only that being drunk doesnt mean a person is incapable of giving consent.
Do you agree with this judge or think he is talking out his arse ?
:thumb:
I realise this topic is going to produce a lot of different answers and differing opinions, Im just intrested to hear what other people think of this?
I have to say I do think this judge has a point. However this is in no way condoning rape only that being drunk doesnt mean a person is incapable of giving consent.
Do you agree with this judge or think he is talking out his arse ?
:thumb:
0
Comments
As for whether a woman can consent, how drunk is 'drunk'? Are we talking 3 pints or 15 double vodkas?
Daily Mail 27th March 2007:
Plans include a 'sex breathalyser' law under which a woman who had consumed a certain amount of alcohol would legally no longer be able to consent to sex.
Cant see that working somehow :no:
This is a tough one... There have been several occasions when I (as a bloke) have had no recollection of meeting a woman, ending up going back to mine/hers etc, doing the deed, only waking up in the morning finding myself laying next to her and having to ask her name/what happened/where did we meet etc etc. Hardly something to be proud of, but if this type of situation is common, where exactly do we draw the line with women/consent etc etc?
Obviously I gave consent, but not remembering the whole thing is a bit :yeees: I'm sure it's a rare thing, but I would surmise that the above situation may have been used as grounds for rape by women before.
Personally there is no way I'd end up doing something with a woman if she is obviously beyond reasonably drunk (unless I was that drunk I had no idea, similar to the above scenario)...
When it comes to the law i have no idea. If they can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did it then i guess they have no choice but to let him go. Kinda grey area though.
Personally, I think it does depend on how drunk someone is. And not every drunk woman wants sex and I don't think they can make decisions like that.
How on earth would that be set out though? If everybody has a different tolerance and you meet a girl in a bar and she's had, say 3 glasses of wine when the guidlines say "Thou shalt not have carnal relations after more than 2 glasses of wine"... are you to write that off as a Paradise Lost?
It would just be impossible to work it out...
- If a woman is too drunk to give consent, then it is rape.
- However, if a woman is drunk and is able to give consent - even if she would not normally when sober - then it is not rape.
Although it's very wishy washy, in a way I can see his point. People make drunken mistakes, and they shouldn't amount to rape. However, the guy he let free, the girl said she was throwing up and passed out, and woke up to the guy having sex, which is undisputedly rape, but apparnetly that was the trial judges fault?? I don't really understand the legal system.
One of the comments:
I have to agree really, women have to take measures to make sure they're safe, because the law isn't a deterrent to these monsters. In cases like this where many variables can affect it - for example, if the man was drunk and didn't have his wits about him, he may not stop to consider whether the woman was too drunk to legally give consent, which in court won't stand up. I mean, in one case, if someone punches someone and they are blinding drunk, then the drunkness is no defence. If a woman 'gives consent' (whatever that means) and she is blind drunk, but still able to give consent, then in court should that mean that her decision wasn't valid, (thus absolving her responsibility). Two sides of the coin really.
If a woman has passed out or is so drunk she can barely string two words together, she can't give consent. If a woman is pretty drunk but still able to talk, and gives consent, then I don't think it can be classed as rape in the same way. Because if it is, how could you be sure that they were sober enough for their consent to be ok. Like the marriage thread, the point is that the law needs a black and white line, even if it isn't a black and white matter.
What happens to people who give consent but don't really want to? There are so many gradients, and unfortuately without complicating the law beyond practicality, it's always just going to be a guide. And, in the UK (at the minute anyway), people are innocent until proven guilty (unless you're a terror suspect...), and so that line is always going to be on the side that more guilty will walk free vs. innocent people being wrongly convicted.
But again, why did the judge rubbish the other conviction? If she'd passed out how the hell could she give consent? Maybe the government, the police and the CPS need to take more responsibility for the atrocious conviction rate, and work up some effective ways of making women safer, rather than fudging what constitutes rape to make it easier to convict for the sake of targets.
Because we dont really know how drunk she was, we dont know what sort of signals she gave to the man...because she cant remember.
Setting a number of drinks limit is totally unworkable, there just needs to be more dedicated rape police teams to take evidence, and far better handling of the cases through the CPS.
But again, people have different tolerances, so you could get a lightweight who is trashed after a bottle of wine going by the same guidelines as the hardcore drinker who could get through three bottles and they'd be in a similar state.
One of these two people would lose out, if going by the guidelines.
It is just unworkable - too many variables.
Also - how many people know how many drinks a prospective parter has!? Again, it's pretty much immaterial as everybody is different! What - should we take a BMI index on a PDA and keep tabs on the number of units consumed?! Remember the strength of drinks vary wildly, and so who really knows what has been consumed?
Well yes, if you are using it to prove whether or not someone actually raped someone. I am suggesting that such a (publicised) guideline be used as evidence to whether or not a man made reasonable effort to gain consent, rather than whether or not the woman was in a fit state to consent. It would be a small part of any case, but I think one that would cut the cases of people having technically raped someone without knowing or thinking that they had.
Bears. Shit. Woods?
*awaits kermit*
Although I have to say I can't stand the attitude that if you are advising women to be careful, you are implying that it's somehow their own fault.
Incidentally, did people know that date-rape drugs are actually used more to rob people nowadays, than they are to rape them? Slip a quick one in their drink, they wake up the next day thinking they've drunk too much and lost their phone or wallet.
I wouldn't know how to go about it, but personally, I won't touch cocaine because of the drugs education I had - it's very very bad was what it came down to basically - but alcohol is just seen as fun and sometimes sexy (bailey's advert).
But a woman can make sure she's safe by sticking to a few guidelines - staying with her friends etc. etc. and only drinking 2 or 3 if they know they'll be half paraletic at 5.
well, that would depend on if they're both men, and what your definition of rape is.
Judging by the number of people who take illegal drugs regardless of that "education" I wouldn't cite it as a good example tbh. And it's funny, but it's illegal to advertise alcohol as getting you in with the opposite sex, so God knows how they're all allowed to. That Bacardi adverts was banned recently though, after it was accused of promoting irresponsible drinking.
For example a friend of mine was raped whilst drunk; but she had gone to bed to sleep it off and woke up being raped in her own bed. It's not the fact she was drunk that made it rape, more the particular situation. (If that makes sense).
I do think girls should be more responsible with drinking. No one should ever end up alone when drunk anyway; there should always be a sober person around to keep an eye out if people do insist on getting completly shit-faced.
It's always going to be a grey area.
why do they both have to be men? i mean woman can rape men,
:yes: But how often do you hear about that?
that’s not really the point, the law should be there to protect everyone, not just those that are more likely to need to be protected
But I don't really think that was the intent of the law. I think the idea is if the woman is too drunk to give consent it's definitely rape.
Well as far as I know it's a bit technical, but I thought rape was defined by penetration of the vagina or anus by a penis. Therefore technically, a woman cannot 'rape' a man, but she can force him into sexual intercourse, and I think in court it amounts to the same charge. Useless statistic, but IIRC one in five rapes have a male as a victim. (Mostly approximated from male rape by other males in a prison environment if the source was accurate).
Rape is an ever changing legal thing. It used to be defined by sexual intercourse by force (hence if the woman didn't resist, it wasn't rape) where it was non consensual (again, what counts as consent - apparently according to recent legal documents, not saying 'I consent' doesn't necessarily mean you don't consent).
How do you pigeon hole a crime like rape in order to convict people anyway? Wouldn't we all rather that the rate of rapes falls, rather than the conviction rate increase? (if we had to choose between them). Which is why more emphasis should be put on looking at the environments where rape takes place, and trying to make sure women (and men) are protected. I think the legal system has been trying to blow smoke over it, but at the end of the day it's so incredibly hard to convict someone. If the two of you are alone in a bed, for example, and you say 'no', how will anyone in court ever know that?
Another fact, most rapes are carried out by people the victim knows and possibly trust. Just getting intimate and then taking it further than the victim wants. Rape from a complete stranger in a dark alleyway is rare, I expect because it's so easy to prove it was rape.
At the end of the day though, although it's not an ideal system, the law can only help so much, and it does rely on ordinary people to look out for themselves.
a woman is raped if she does not consent to the sexual act - so when the victim has been drinking..you need to consider when it would be deemed that she has drunk so much that she is no longer capable of providing VALID consent and everyone has a different tolerance to alcohol so really it would depend on each individual case. but you also need to consider how the 'rapist' is meant to measure whether she's giving valid consent or not.
i also read that a review of rape allegations found that 13% of women who alleged rape were 'unsure' whether a rape had actually taken place (or whether they had consented) - largely because of alcohol.
it's hard to judge really..because the conviction rates are clearly appauling at the minute, but you also need to avoid miscarriages of justice.
if i do well in my essay i'll let you read it if you like. :razz:
So how does a woman rape a man though? I mean, my definitions may be outdated, is it now basically rape is non consensual sex (but then, how do you define sex?) - or would she have to use an external 'item' to penetrate the man... again, as far as my knowledge went rape was defined as non consensual penetration (so the victim is the one being penetrated)