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
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Exactly.
well there has been many times i have gone out with my friends after work, had way to many drinks and turned up at my girlfriends in the middle of the night because she lives near the town center and i live miles away, many of those times we have ended up having sex, does this count as rape??? i mean by what some of you are saying if i was a woman, then it would be rape, but as a man does this mean i am always ok to give consent?
You may have inadvertently created a monster with that suggestion.
Imagine the potential to those who have an eye on your wallet/purse.
Politicians would sell it as both public protection and job creation.
The "rape squad" would be everywhere. Any behaviour of a sexual nature would see the production of a breathalyser. ( A health and safety measure, of course. A potential rape could be moments away ).
Fines would be imposed for fraternising with someone who is "over the limit". This could also extend to the issuance of a "sex licence" (at a cost, of course), with the potential for penalty points on the licence for such misdemeanours.
That time of year would result in a well advertised "Pissed and Pillage Prevention" campaign with random breath tests on the doors of pubs and nightclubs throughout the land.
If anyone connected with Westminster or the ACPO is reading this, the genie might have left the bottle already.
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED !
So if a woman isnt completely totally stone cold sober even if she consents its rape?
There is obviously a spectrum between going out with your long term partner for a few drinks at the local and then home for a bit of fun - and forcing yourself on a woman who cant even move she's so drunk.
This is a legal judgement about rape allegations, not the police questioning men and women about every sexual encounter they've had.
Of course that also brings up issues of the barriers to rape being reported, and women who may feel they can't report a rape because they were drunk.
even if the victim does report the rape and goes on to court, she will be cross-examined and asked to go over the alleged assault in detail again and again. and like jim v mentioned, she will no doubt have her past sexual history examined (even though it's irrelevant) - and they will use the fact that she has agreed to having sex in the past to say that she would've been more likely to consent with the defendant, too.
ok going off on a slight tangent now..!
I got this from the "Child & Woman Abuse Studies Unit". So basically rape can only be commited by a man.... so much for equal opportunities. :chin:
There isn't a offence of a woman raping a man. The offence of rape is gender biased. Only a man can rape a woman. It actually states in the law that a person can only commit an offence of rape if "he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with his penis".
And yes, I realise how stupid this must sound but its the law. If a woman raped a man, it would be regarded as sexual assault. Personally, I don't agree with this and have strong views that a offence of rape committed by women should be introduced.
Where alcohol is involved, many women don't report rape purely because of the fact that the police are reluctant to take cases any further and juries are reluctant to convict because as previously stated, the jury cannot convict unless they are sure 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the rape actually took place. This is difficult especially where a woman has been drinking. Should it be like this though? Why should women feel as though they can't report a crime purely because they had a few to drink?
I think judges adopting such an approach is absolutely ridiculous. It is only going to stop more women reporting a crime.
Alot of us girls have done it, had one too many. Its quite easy to have one too many and crash out as soon as you hit the pillow. If a woman is unconcious, then she clearly cannot give consent. A woman has to be awake to consent to sex.
On the other hand, there is the fact that alcohol loosens your inhibitions and alot of girls out there, do regret the night before. That can't be classed as rape if at the time of the event, you were able to give consent.
A thing that I feel quite strongly about is HOW the woman came to be intoxicated in the first place. There are many men out there that encourage women to become more drunk, for example, they might buy them some drinks. This could seen to be encouraging the victim to become drunk in the hope that sex would follow. Also, if a man is aware that if the woman is sober she wouldn't agree to intercourse but yet encourages her to drink more/waits for her to become drunk , does that make it rape? Surely a man who is aware of this fact is taking advantage of her intoxication?
One of the first jobs I had here was having to read and report on the whole sexual offences act - not a nice week.
I'm talking about rape, not sexual assault.
Explain, I might possibly have mistyped something
The point I was trying to make was that rape cannot be committed by a woman. A woman cannot be labelled a 'rapist'.
And I'm aware of the penalties.
In regards to using objects, this would amount to an 'Assault by penetration' offence which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Therefore, a woman can be sent down for assaulting a man but cannot be labelled a rapist.
Yea, I think that's the loophole. It might seem odd for someone to do it, but rape is about having power over another person isn't it? Like male male rape and sexual assault for example, will often involve forcing the victim to ejaculate, which further makes the victim feel like they're somehow compliant.
What I would be interested to know, is how many rapes occur when the victim was drunk? Becuase again, I think making more people aware of the power of alcohol will have more impact on the actual rapes (rather than convictions) than changing the criteria for what constitutes rape to make it easier to convict.
What if a man honestly didn't realise he was raping the woman, if he was so intoxicated himself (i.e., they're both half passed out). Like I said earlier, there are infinite amount of degrees, and the law only sees black and white pretty much.
Yeah, what I'm saying is it is inappropriate that the act makes that distinction, but at least under this act the assualt by penetration carries the same possible sentence - which it wasn't even close to before this act.
I do agree with you though. Personally, I believe that an offence of a woman raping a man should be introduced.
Aye, I know all that. The issue I have with it is that there is probably alot of people out there that believe that rape is a more serious offence than that of a sexual assault/assault by penetration. I don't think it helps that the sexual assault offence is so wide. I mean, a sexual assault can be anything from a touch, to penetration (although of course, this isn't the case for assault by penetration).
I am aware that the intention and sentence is the same though. I just have an issue with the labels. If a woman rapes a man, she should be labelled a rapist just like men are if they rape a woman.
Well the reason I said woman rapists would have less serious life chance implications, is that say a person, male or female, has the choice of either having the conviction of 'rape' by their name or 'sexual assualt', naturally sexual assault is the one they'd prefer. Although both are inexcusable, sexual assault doesn't make your stomach drop and that sick, angry feeling you get when someone says the word 'rape'.
In the same way that (I would guess) that female perpetrators of domestic abuse are more likely to get away with it. There's an attitude that men should be able to defend themselves, which makes them less likely (and perhaps more embarrassed) to report it, and less likely to believed/taken seriously by the authorities.
Yeah, and God forbid if she was wearing a short skirt at the time.
That's a load of rubbish.
Man and woman meet at bar have twelve vodka each and have sex, man is well aware she is very drunk and has had twelve drinks......rapist ? (woman is also aware man has had 12 drinks and is very drunk) - bollocks - because he didn't ensure consent ? In this situation do you really think that man and woman would have sensibly discussed consent - no but both quite possibly wanted to have intercourse.
Its a very tricky situation, because you have to be carfeul women aren't frightened to report rapes because they were drunk / on drugs etc.... but you cant introduce a drinking like law - you are over the limit for consensual sex to night go home...nah.
But at the same time, if in the moring after if both people cant remember agreeing to sex, who is the rapist - the man because technically the woman cant have raped.
The whole situation is pretty fucked up but introducing an alcohol limit for sex is so fucking stupid its untrue.
:yes: alcohol is seen as being the new 'short skirt'.
eta: http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2043570,00.html
Jesus Christ, try reading it again. I've said three times now that I never suggested an alcohol limit for sex.