Blood Alcohol level to determine ability to consent? MOD Note in Post #1

NachoBusiness · 03-06-2015 2:20pm #1

Be interested to hear how others feel about this and if you would support such a law in this country..

A new report in the UK is calling for a blood alcohol level to be set in order to able to determine if a woman had the ability to consent to sex or not.

A rape report has suggested that courts should assume that women who are drunk cannot consent to sex.

The findings were concluded yesterday by Dame Elish Angiolini, who suggests that blood tests should be carried out by police to determine whether a woman was too drunk and therefore unable to consent when a claim of rape is made.

The barrister within her recommendations is also suggesting that the Sexual Offences Act 2003 be amended to cover the grey area covering rape cases where alcohol is involved.

Source.

This seems a ludicrous suggestion to me for many reasons, not least of which is how could they even be sure when the alcohol was consumed, before or after the sex had taken place. Crazy proposal. Hope it's seen as such.

I also see no mention from the barrister how she feels about a woman having sex with a drunk male and whether she would feel that this too should automatically qualify as rape. Not surprising though.

MOD NOTE - It should go without saying, but no rape jokes. Zero tolerence on this.

aaronjumper · 03-06-2015 2:23pm

Nightclubs just became obsolete if this goes through.

Banjo String · 03-06-2015 2:23pm

Whys it only covering women though?

Surely I'm not the only one that's ever had the beer goggles on at some point in my life

PARlance · 03-06-2015 2:25pm

aaronjumper wrote: »

Nightclubs just became obsolete if this goes through.

And chippers a lot busier... Would you like medium, large or a consent meal

Not a NSA agent · 03-06-2015 2:26pm

Why is it only women who are unable to consent when drunk? Can they be held responsible for anything they do when they are drunk?

Bit insulting to women to think that if they have a few drinks they need to be protected from themselves.

Greenmachine · 03-06-2015 2:26pm

"Blow in this bag". Sorry, I am afraid I will not be able to continue this.

The Backwards Man · 03-06-2015 2:28pm

I see people every weekend (male and female) who shouldn't be allowed to consent to a taco chip. Tackle the problem of people constantly getting into states where they haven't a ball's notion what they're doing first.

The_Valeyard · 03-06-2015 2:28pm

Ridiculous idea. And a bit sexist. And would this apply to lesbian or gay folks?

F*ck off and let adults be adults.

suicide_circus · 03-06-2015 2:29pm

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

Why is it only women who are unable to consent when drunk? Can they be held responsible for anything they do when they are drunk?

Bit insulting to women to think that if they have a few drinks they need to be protected from themselves.

Because woman are perpetual victims. Patriarchal rape culture reigns supreme

anncoates · 03-06-2015 2:29pm

I may be completely off the wall here, but I suspect this wouldn't have any bearing on 99.999% of drunken rides, lads. Just a wild hunch, like I say.

Anyway, on with the ranting.

minidazzler · 03-06-2015 2:30pm

It's doubtful this passes through, what threshold do they set? If your BAC is at x amount after y hours you were raped. If not you weren't? There is no scientifically viable test for this as it's not gonna be a contemporary test of BAC. One barrister pointing out that the alleged victim had pints after leaving and the whole law would be thrown into flux.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo · 03-06-2015 2:32pm

So if this goes through on a non gender basis pretty much the majority of people will be deemed in the eyes of the law as rapists...???

osarusan · 03-06-2015 2:36pm

Ridiculous idea.

Potential-Monke · 03-06-2015 2:38pm

What a chat up line. "Here luv, would ya blow into this before you blow that?"

NachoBusiness · 03-06-2015 2:38pm

anncoates wrote: »

I may be completely off the wall here, but I suspect this wouldn't have any bearing on 99.999% of drunken rides, lads. Just a wild hunch, like I say.

Anyway, on with the ranting.

..discussion.

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

Why is it only women who are unable to consent when drunk? Can they be held responsible for anything they do when they are drunk?

Yes, that point was made by Julia Hartley Brewer here.

hatrickpatrick · 03-06-2015 2:39pm

Why "women"? Why does this archaic double standard still exist? Sex is something two people do together, not something a man "does" to someone else.

This wording implies automatic male responsibility if both are locked. F*ck that and anyone who thinks like that.

Samaris · 03-06-2015 3:25pm

Ugh. The only way I can see this working is if it's proved beyond any doubt that one party was too pissed to consent -and the other one wasn't-. But so many issues with this.

Firstly, how do you go about determining the blood alcohol level? Take a sample in the morning and extrapolate backwards? Some people process alcohol faster or slower, so that's a bloody unreliable method when someone's good character hangs in the balance. Imagine being classed as a rapist because someone's blood processes alcohol slower, and so it's extrapolated backwards to "Jays, they were catatonic", when actually they were perfectly awake and coherent.

People react differently to alcohol. A "lightweight" could be hammered after a couple of drinks, and someone could take advantage of this deliberately and in a calculated manner. But their blood test will show that they only were at "X" amount, and thus are considered to have given consent.

It -is- legally dodgy to put all the blame on the male automatically, and it's not really something that should be done wholesale by the law. It's true that the majority of cases of rape -are- male on female, but it's by no means 100%, and this law could just make men who are sexually assaulted even more reticent about coming forward. In our society, it would take serious guts for a man to say that they had been raped because they were too intoxicated to give consent, because I can only imagine the slagging he'd get.

TL:DR - This is a bad idea.

valoren · 03-06-2015 3:51pm

So if I had a one night stand with a lady who was over this blood alcohol limit but it was consensual then technically I have raped her?

Samaris · 03-06-2015 3:55pm

valoren wrote: »

So if I had a one night stand with a lady who was over this blood alcohol limit but it was consensual then technically I have raped her?

Under this proposed law, if it stands as is, I assume so.

One eyed Jack · 03-06-2015 3:58pm

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Be interested to hear how others feel about this and if you would support such a law in this country..

A new report in the UK is calling for a blood alcohol level to be set in order to able to determine if a woman had the ability to consent to sex or not.

Source.

This seems a ludicrous suggestion to me for many reasons, not least of which is how could they even be sure when the alcohol was consumed, before or after the sex had taken place. Crazy proposal. Hope it's seen as such.

It's only one of 46 proposals -

The report does however identify a number of areas where change is required, culminating in a list of 46 recommendations, half of which are applicable to the police alone: eight apply to both the police and CPS jointly and three applicable to the CPS alone. These recommendations address areas including resourcing, improved training, enhanced victim care and a broader spectrum of partnership working.

It's not like anyone is suggesting guilty until proven innocent here, and during an investigation is when police would be able to determine the various circumstances pertaining to each case.

This whole situation would only arise in a case where someone claims they were raped, so it's not as though it actually will cause nightclubs up and down the UK to shut down due to going out of business when nobody dares get drunk!

I also see no mention from the barrister how she feels about a woman having sex with a drunk male and whether she would feel that this too should automatically qualify as rape. Not surprising though.

Not surprising that you would come to that conclusion either having not actually read the report, but basing your assertions on a newspaper article.

More knee-jerking in response to perceived knee-jerking... not surprising though.

conorhal · 03-06-2015 4:06pm

So I go 'downstairs' and find a chastity belt locked by a breathalyzer or something?

Utterly daft and unenforceable nonsense. Also, if a woman with a certian blood alcohol level is incapable of consent, surely it follows that some bloke that's rat arsed drunk is incapable of commiting rape since his blood alcohol level negates his personal responsibility as surely as it negates the ability to consent?

hynesie08 · 03-06-2015 4:13pm

Will both parties be tested? I mean if a guy is showing up at no alcohol and she's 4 times the limit you MIGHT have an argument, but this seems like a completely unworkable way to circumvent the he said/she said stuff.

NachoBusiness · 03-06-2015 4:27pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's only one of 46 proposals..

So what? Actions are already been taken on back of the review and so it wouldn't matter a jot if the proposal were only one of a hundred and forty six.

It's not like anyone is suggesting guilty until proven innocent here, and during an investigation is when police would be able to determine the various circumstances pertaining to each case.

Eh, if someone is found to be at an alcohol level that deems them to have been legally unable to give sexual consent, then of course this law would mean, not only guilty until proven innocent but, that they were guilty full stop, as in they wouldn't even be able to legally claim innocence.

This whole situation would only arise in a case where someone claims they were raped, so it's not as though it actually will cause nightclubs up and down the UK to shut down due to going out of business when nobody dares get drunk!

What do you mean by "only"? I fail to see how that would make such a law insignificant.

Not surprising that you would come to that conclusion either having not actually read the report, but basing your assertions on a newspaper article.

More knee-jerking in response to perceived knee-jerking... not surprising though.

Like I said above. The report is already being acted upon and so nothing whatsoever 'knee jerk' about my reaction.

Alias G · 03-06-2015 4:33pm

I wonder would it be feasible to dual modify my penis as a breathalyser. Win win.

One eyed Jack · 03-06-2015 4:39pm

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Like I said above. The report is already being acted upon and so nothing whatsoever 'knee jerk' about my reaction.

Nooo, nothing knee-jerk at all -

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Be interested to hear how others feel about this and if you would support such a law in this country..

It's not even a law in the UK yet, let alone any possibility of it becoming a law in this country.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't be too troubled even if it were to become a law in this country as I have never been interested in having sex with anyone who was drunk, and unless you're completely socially clueless, or simply just don't care that a random stranger is just too drunk to be having sex with them, well I can't say I'd have much sympathy for someone who puts themselves in that situation.

mariaalice · 03-06-2015 4:47pm

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I see people every weekend (male and female) who shouldn't be allowed to consent to a taco chip. Tackle the problem of people constantly getting into states where they haven't a ball's notion what they're doing first.

But if you did that people would not have the excuse of saying I only did it because I was drunk, using alcohol as a way of giving themselves permission do what they did, and people would have to take responsibility for them selves. As a bonus there would be less violence.

NachoBusiness · 03-06-2015 4:50pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not even a law in the UK yet, let alone any possibility of it becoming a law in this country.

Nobody claimed either of those things and so you are arguing with yourself.

The Metropolitan police commissioned this report and so the calls and proposals therein are worthy of discussion.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't be too troubled even if it were to become a law in this country as I have never been interested in having sex with anyone who was drunk, and unless you're completely socially clueless, or simply just don't care that a random stranger is just too drunk to be having sex with them, well I can't say I'd have much sympathy for someone in that situation.

For someone whining about other people's knee jerk reactions, you sure are doing a lot of your own, with a hefty slice of high horsing thrown in. Look, many people get drunk just so they can have sex or end up deciding to when drunk. You can stick your head in the sand about this if you wish, but it's the reality of life and just because someone has a had a few drinks and decided to have sex after that does not, and should not, mean they were raped.

DeadHand · 03-06-2015 4:54pm

This could criminalize and destroy the lives of a lot of decent young men on the whim of vindictive women should it come to pass.

An undemocratic, unfair proposal.

PopePalpatine · 03-06-2015 5:04pm

DeadHand wrote: »

This could criminalize and destroy the lives of a lot of decent young men on the whim of vindictive women should it come to pass.

An undemocratic, unfair proposal.

Yes, because women live to make fake rape claims. :rolleyes:

Lollipops23 · 03-06-2015 5:06pm

Bull****, I've had plenty of daycent sexy time while hammered.

I've also had hook ups I wish I hadn't while hammered. I take responsibility for that- as I've never been blackout.

If someone is unconscious or incapable of expressing clear consent to sex, then don't do it. Simple really.

One eyed Jack · 03-06-2015 5:08pm

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Nobody claimed either of those things and so you are arguing with yourself.

The Metropolitan police commissioned this report and so the calls and proposals therein are worthy of discussion.

You implied it was already a law by asking would anyone support such a law, and then went on to ask would anyone support such a law in this country. That's not me being a pedant, that's my reading exactly what you wrote and the question you were posing. It's knee-jerking and jumping to speculation that we both know could involve an infinite number of potential scenarios.

For someone whining about other people's knee jerk reactions, you sure are doing a lot of your own, with a hefty slice of high horsing thrown in. Look, many people get drunk just so they can have sex or end up deciding to when drunk. You can stick your head in the sand about this if you wish, but it's the reality of life and just because someone has a had a few drinks and decided to have sex after that does not, and should not, mean they were raped.

How am I doing any knee-jerking? What's high-horsey about common sense? If you don't want to put yourself at risk of being accused of rape - don't have sex with drunk people. That's not rocket science, and there's your personal responsibility right there - responsibility for yourself.

Not giving a damn what other people choose to do is not sticking my head in the sand either btw, and just because someone has a few drinks doesn't mean their complaint of rape should be so easily dismissable.

That was the whole point of the report being commissioned from a victim-centred perspective, because all too often people who are raped, their claims are all too easily dismissed because they were drunk at the time.

It's not me is sticking my head in the sand here.

03-06-2015 5:10pm

This has actually really made me very very annoyed with how they are singling out women, but nothing about men. And what if a woman's blood alcohol level is over the limit they say, but also the man's? Does it immediately become rape, even though he was in the exact same condition as her?

DeadHand · 03-06-2015 5:17pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Yes, because women live to make fake rape claims. :rolleyes:

Feeble, dishonest contribution..

Do you want to argue with the point I made in my post or are you content to continue with the misrepresentation, snark and prejudice?

03-06-2015 5:24pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Yes, because women live to make fake rape claims. :rolleyes:

It happens a lot more than it ever should.

PopePalpatine · 03-06-2015 5:25pm

DeadHand wrote: »

Feeble, dishonest contribution..

Do you want to argue with the point I made in my post or are you content to continue with the misrepresentation, snark and prejudice?

A cursory look on Google tells me that estimates of false rape reports range from 2 to 10%. Around the lower bound of that range, that's no more than false accusations for other crimes.

03-06-2015 5:27pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

A cursory look on Google tells me that estimates of false rape reports range from 2 to 10%. Around the lower bound of that range, that's no more than false accusations for other crimes.

You should never judge anything on statistics you found online - that is 2% - 10% of rape cases that have been proven to be false. I'm not saying that it happens all the time, because that would be stupid and inaccurate, but it does happen and, likely, it isn't reported on or discovered.

DeadHand · 03-06-2015 5:28pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

A cursory look on Google tells me that estimates of false rape reports range from 2 to 10%. Around the lower bound of that range, that's no more than false accusations for other crimes.

Maybe because idiotic proposals like the one we are discussing do not yet exist as law.

NachoBusiness · 03-06-2015 5:36pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You implied it was already a law..

Ha. Are you kidding me? I implied nothing of the sort.

From the OP:

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Be interested to hear how others feel about this and if you would support such a law in this country..

A new report in the UK is calling for a blood alcohol level to be set in order to able to determine if a woman had the ability to consent to sex or not.

This seems a ludicrous suggestion to me for many reasons, not least of which is how could they even be sure when the alcohol was consumed, before or after the sex had taken place. Crazy proposal. Hope it's seen as such.

Nothing I said suggested this was already a law.

How am I doing any knee-jerking? What's high-horsey about common sense? If you don't want to put yourself at risk of being accused of rape - don't have sex with drunk people. That's not rocket science, and there's your personal responsibility right there - responsibility for yourself.

People have sex when drunk. Deal with it. It neither means they were a rapist, nor indeed, raped.

.. just because someone has a few drinks doesn't mean their complaint of rape should be so easily dismissable.

Nobody said it should, you are strawmanning.

One eyed Jack · 03-06-2015 5:48pm

NachoBusiness wrote: »

People have sex when drunk. Deal with it. It neither means they were a rapist, nor indeed, raped.

Oh, well if that's the standard you choose to adopt - people put themselves in a position where they can be accused of rape when they choose to have sex with drunken strangers. Deal with it.

Nobody said it should, you are strawmanning.

Any scenarios you come up with on the basis of this proposal where you make claims you can't back up, is strawmanning. If I suggested you deal with that too, then there's nothing else to discuss here.

PopePalpatine · 03-06-2015 5:58pm

DeadHand wrote: »

Maybe because idiotic proposals like the one we are discussing do not yet exist as law.

And like Samaris said, that's extremely unlikely to happen. There's bound to be a few people on whatever committee is deciding on this who will point out that different people get drunk at different rates.

Greenmachine · 03-06-2015 6:06pm

A box of breathalyzers. Next wedding gift sorted.

03-06-2015 6:17pm

If it is made law, presume they should also consider it a defence if the accused did not know she was too drunk to consent, or reasonably believed she was sober enough to consent. Much like the current law on consent itself.

Adamantium · 03-06-2015 6:23pm

The_Valeyard wrote: »

F*ck off and let adults be adults.

No, just stop talking, you're making too much sense and that is why I NEED you to stop. :pac:

end of the road · 03-06-2015 6:24pm

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Be interested to hear how others feel about this and if you would support such a law in this country..

A new report in the UK is calling for a blood alcohol level to be set in order to able to determine if a woman had the ability to consent to sex or not.

Source.

This seems a ludicrous suggestion to me for many reasons, not least of which is how could they even be sure when the alcohol was consumed, before or after the sex had taken place. Crazy proposal. Hope it's seen as such.

I also see no mention from the barrister how she feels about a woman having sex with a drunk male and whether she would feel that this too should automatically qualify as rape. Not surprising though.

MOD NOTE - It should go without saying, but no rape jokes. Zero tolerence on this.

its a load of nonsense. different women will have different alcohol limits. could a man use the same law if he was raped by a woman? probably not. such a law would be abused, and anything that can potentially cause any abuse of the systems to deal with a serious crime like this have no place

hatrickpatrick · 03-06-2015 6:25pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you don't want to put yourself at risk of being accused of rape - don't have sex with drunk people. That's not rocket science, and there's your personal responsibility right there - responsibility for yourself.

In a society in which the vast majority of college socialising involves drinking sessions and nightclubs, this essentially equates to "don't hook up in college".

Were this advice followed, many relationships which went on to become loving marriages with kids and houses would never have been possible in the first place. It's totally unrealistic.

Not giving a damn what other people choose to do is not sticking my head in the sand either btw, and just because someone has a few drinks doesn't mean their complaint of rape should be so easily dismissable.

Of course it shouldn't, but there are two issues at play here. The first, which everyone would accept, is that having sex with someone who has not consented is never ok, drunk or not. That I absolutely 100% agree with, and shame on any scumbags who don't.

The second issue, which is what this is really about, is that if no means no (which it does), then yes also means yes. ANY other decision I make, whether egged on by someone else or not, is my own responsibility whether I was drunk or not. I can't go into court and claim "your honour, I was too drunk to knowingly drive that car, ergo the injuries I caused when I drunkenly crashed it are not my fault". In the same way, I shouldn't be able to say "I initiated sex but because I was drunk, it's somebody else's fault that I regret it".

Adamantium · 03-06-2015 6:37pm

Amazing how a progressive society, that once was puritanical and probably wouldn't have hook ups in college, would want to go back to the very same thing that it dragged it self out of.

Looks like there's yearning for some women to reclaim the lack of responsibility they had once enjoyed, I suppose selfishly it wasn't all that bad from some women's point of view back in the old days. Everything is allowed in theory, but nothing is permitted in practical terms.

Time to take responsibility, as well with your new found freedom.

Do you want to be equal of not? Yes or no are the only answers on the table.

One eyed Jack · 03-06-2015 6:53pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In a society in which the vast majority of college socialising involves drinking sessions and nightclubs, this essentially equates to "don't hook up in college".

I'm not even sure where you're getting that from but I can't say it's been my experience. Nevertheless, we're not just talking about drunken hook-ups in college, we're talking as you quite rightly point out about society as a whole, and what's wrong with suggesting that social attitudes need to change?

Were this advice followed, many relationships which went on to become loving marriages with kids and houses would never have been possible in the first place. It's totally unrealistic.

Again, you're going to need something beyond anecdotal evidence before you can expect me to take that claim at face value. It doesn't say much for society if you think the only way it progressed was because people got drunk and had sex and ended up staying with each other. I'd say that was more unrealistic myself than the idea that the vast majority of relationships in Irish society weren't initiated upon drunken hook-ups.

Of course it shouldn't, but there are two issues at play here. The first, which everyone would accept, is that having sex with someone who has not consented is never ok, drunk or not. That I absolutely 100% agree with, and shame on any scumbags who don't.

The second issue, which is what this is really about, is that if no means no (which it does), then yes also means yes.

Not when you're drunk it doesn't, as you lack the mental capacity to consent to sex. Now I was never the sharpest pencil in the box, but I can still bloody tell when someone is drunk, or has had too much to drink, and I can choose to avoid putting myself in a situation which has the potential to go badly wrong.

You don't need a breathalyzer to be able to judge that someone is too drunk to consent to sex if they're dragging off your tie to hold themselves up!

ANY other decision I make, whether egged on by someone else or not, is my own responsibility whether I was drunk or not. I can't go into court and claim "your honour, I was too drunk to knowingly drive that car, ergo the injuries I caused when I drunkenly crashed it are not my fault".

Actually you can, I'm just not sure how far you'd get with that defence though.

In the same way, I shouldn't be able to say "I initiated sex but because I was drunk, it's somebody else's fault that I regret it".

That's not the same thing at all really, because you wouldn't be simply claiming you regret having sex, you'd be claiming you were raped. Very different scenario actually.

nokia69 · 03-06-2015 6:58pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's not the same thing at all really, because you wouldn't be simply claiming you regret having sex, you'd be claiming you were raped. Very different scenario actually.

the same thing according to some feminists

nokia69 · 03-06-2015 7:28pm

Whitepepper wrote: »

Presumably those who would be in favour of this law would then be fully supportive of people being approached and asked to have sex in a sober setting.

strange thing to say

you do know that people who never drink have normal sex lives

tritium · 03-06-2015 7:55pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Not when you're drunk it doesn't, as you lack the mental capacity to consent to sex. Now I was never the sharpest pencil in the box, but I can still bloody tell when someone is drunk, or has had too much to drink, and I can choose to avoid putting myself in a situation which has the potential to go badly wrong.

And what about when both parties have been drinking? Is it so easy to tell then? Would something like this seem reasonable in that scenario?

One eyed Jack · 03-06-2015 8:16pm

tritium wrote: »

And what about when both parties have been drinking? Is it so easy to tell then? Would something like this seem reasonable in that scenario?

Why wouldn't it?

Either party could claim they were raped under those circumstances, but then there would be other factors would be considered if this were an actual experience and not simply just a thought experiment.

This is what I meant earlier when I said we could introduce an infinite number of scenarios here, but for all the claims that legislation like this is an insult to men and women, I actually find it more insulting to men and women that there are people would assume that either men or women wouldn't be able to have sex without getting drunk enough to the point where they weren't sure if they freely and willingly consented or not.

What is actually so difficult about the idea that you shouldn't encourage sex with people who are drunk? I'll leave it up to the Courts to determine what happens when both people are drunk and one of them claims they raped, because it's impossible to tell either way what way that would go without much more context.

Blood Alcohol level to determine ability to consent? MOD Note in Post #1

Comments