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

hatrickpatrick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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?

There's a difference between suggesting that social attitudes should change, and criminalising what is normal behavior for thousands of young men and women on a weekly basis.

Or do you think people go to Coppers just for the chats? :rolleyes:

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.

It's not about progression. A lot of people would never even have met if they hadn't hooked up in a club. Nightclub culture is part of going to college, and drinking in those clubs is part of that. Whether that's a good thing or not is debatable, but at the moment it's reality.

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!

That's an extreme case. If someone comes on to you, initiates sex (as in they come on to you first) and then regrets it the next day and says "if I'd been sober I wouldn't have done it", that's still their own fault. It's nobody else's responsibility to police someone's bad decisions, drunk or not.

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

You'd get nowhere. So why should sex be any different?

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.

If you regard saying yes when drunk and later saying that you wouldn't have if you were sober, that's not rape. It's making a stupid decision while drunk and expecting others to take responsibility for it.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Education rather than legislation is what's needed in this area. I can't conceive of a universe where this is a workable law, and it definitely has damaging implications. Bad idea, bad bad bad.

hatrickpatrick

Demetrius Unsightly Shopkeeper wrote: »

Education rather than legislation is what's needed in this area. I can't conceive of a universe where this is a workable law, and it definitely has damaging implications. Bad idea, bad bad bad.

Education indeed. Particularly in the area of so many idiots believing that the absence of resistance is consent. Not sure how that became any kind of cultural meme but it's utterly absurd. That whole Steubenville thing in the states revolved around people saying "well she didn't resist!" - of course she didn't resist ye f*ckin' muppets, she was unconscious. It truly sickens me that so many don't understand that.

However, I do stand by what I said about yes meaning yes. The idea that you can consciously make a bad decision while drunk and then disclaim all responsibility for that on the basis that you were drunk is absolutely absurd. It doesn't work that way for any other drunken action (starting a fight, driving and hitting somebody, vandalism, theft) so why should it work that way for initiating or consenting to sex?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Education indeed. Particularly in the area of so many idiots believing that the absence of resistance is consent. Not sure how that became any kind of cultural meme but it's utterly absurd. That whole Steubenville thing in the states revolved around people saying "well she didn't resist!" - of course she didn't resist ye f*ckin' muppets, she was unconscious. It truly sickens me that so many don't understand that.

However, I do stand by what I said about yes meaning yes. The idea that you can consciously make a bad decision while drunk and then disclaim all responsibility for that on the basis that you were drunk is absolutely absurd. It doesn't work that way for any other drunken action (starting a fight, driving and hitting somebody, vandalism, theft) so why should it work that way for initiating or consenting to sex?

Agree totally. Education is needed in BOTH those areas. Maybe I'm getting old but it seems like it's more sorely needed now than was before. I can't get into it too much but young people these days have atrocious understanding of consent, especially where alcohol is concerned and especially where the likes of "no means no even if she agreed to come back to your room/let you kiss her" is concerned.

hatrickpatrick

Demetrius Unsightly Shopkeeper wrote: »

Agree totally. Education is needed in BOTH those areas. Maybe I'm getting old but it seems like it's more sorely needed now than was before. I can't get into it too much but young people these days have atrocious understanding of consent, especially where alcohol is concerned and especially where the likes of "no means no even if she agreed to come back to your room/let you kiss her" is concerned.

Don't think you're getting old, don't think it's a new thing either, think like police brutality it's just become far easier to publicise these incidents with social media and the Internet. That's certainly my hope, anyway.

To be honest I don't like "no means no" because that doesn't address the fact that the absence of no still doesn't mean yes. But I draw the line at suggesting that yes can also mean no if someone has regrets, that just creates a social minefield which leads to nothing but hurt and bitterness.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Don't think you're getting old, don't think it's a new thing either, think like police brutality it's just become far easier to publicise these incidents with social media and the Internet. That's certainly my hope, anyway.

To be honest I don't like "no means no" because that doesn't address the fact that the absence of no still doesn't mean yes. But I draw the line at suggesting that yes can also mean no if someone has regrets, that just creates a social minefield which leads to nothing but hurt and bitterness.

Think it could be that, possibly also the oft remarked upon sense of entitlement that young folks these days have, possibly also too easy exposure to hardcore pornography at too young an age (though that's only one, relatively minor factor imo, and I'm in no way anti-porn).

I don't know how common an attitude it is in real life, but certainly in some of the wackier sections of the internet I have seen this notion of "I changed my mind about how good an idea that was, it's now retroactively a rape", being put forward apparently completely ingenuously and sincerely, and it's jaw dropping.

One eyed Jack

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

There's a difference between suggesting that social attitudes should change, and criminalising what is normal behavior for thousands of young men and women on a weekly basis.

Or do you think people go to Coppers just for the chats? :rolleyes:

Who's criminalising normal behaviour exactly? Any legislation for this would only come into play if one party claims they were raped. I'm sure the same would apply to patrons of the George.

It's not about progression. A lot of people would never even have met if they hadn't hooked up in a club. Nightclub culture is part of going to college, and drinking in those clubs is part of that. Whether that's a good thing or not is debatable, but at the moment it's reality.

You're kidding me? "Nightclub culture"?? Part of going to college?

Now who's looking to protect the poor little lambykins college students from themselves while they get off their tits?

"Part of the culture" indeed, where have I heard that before?

That's an extreme case. If someone comes on to you, initiates sex (as in they come on to you first) and then regrets it the next day and says "if I'd been sober I wouldn't have done it", that's still their own fault. It's nobody else's responsibility to police someone's bad decisions, drunk or not.

You're suggesting that random girls hanging off you when they're drunk is an extreme case, and yet you're the person arguing that it goes on in Coppers and college nights and all the rest of it?

I'm not within an asses roar of Coppers and I can tell you it goes on in every every nightclub up and down the country, nothing special about Coppers in that respect.

It's your responsibility to police your own actions, and if you have sex with drunk people, well, you shouldn't be surprised when shìt hits the fan. You may not see someone else's welfare as your responsibility, and that's where our opinion really differs in a nutshell - you're prioritising getting your end away over your responsibility towards someone who isn't in control of their own actions.

I won't get all "Moral Mary" on you for it, but it's just not something I'd do myself.

You'd get nowhere. So why should sex be any different?

Because they're two entirely different scenarios - you wouldn't rape a car.

If you regard saying yes when drunk and later saying that you wouldn't have if you were sober, that's not rape. It's making a stupid decision while drunk and expecting others to take responsibility for it.

No, that's not rape, but if someone says they were raped, then that's not the same as saying they wouldn't have had sex if they weren't drunk. I'm not in the business of helping people make stupid decisions when they were incapacitated that work to my advantage and then washing my hands of any responsibility for their welfare afterwards either. That's also not rape, and there's nothing criminal about it, but it's still a shìtty thing to do to another human being IMO.

Eugene Norman

Alcohol has been used for years as a social lubricant.

How are they suggesting this be enforced. Should every potential sexual activity need a breathalyser test?

the_monkey

Not surprised the SS big brother police pedophile UK state would implement this.

So lets say a girl is under the limit, she has one last Bacardi Breezer just before Johnny slips the Johnny on .... Johnny gives her the breathalyser and shes OK ...

She consents.

but wait alcohol takes a while to take effect, during the act she becomes over the limit and Johnny is a rapist.

Absolutely LUDICROUS !!!!

Eugene Norman

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Who's criminalising normal behaviour exactly? Any legislation for this would only come into play if one party claims they were raped. I'm sure the same would apply to patrons of the George.





You're kidding me? "Nightclub culture"?? Part of going to college?

Now who's looking to protect the poor little lambykins college students from themselves while they get off their tits?

"Part of the culture" indeed, where have I heard that before?





You're suggesting that random girls hanging off you when they're drunk is an extreme case, and yet you're the person arguing that it goes on in Coppers and college nights and all the rest of it?

I'm not within an asses roar of Coppers and I can tell you it goes on in every every nightclub up and down the country, nothing special about Coppers in that respect.

It's your responsibility to police your own actions, and if you have sex with drunk people, well, you shouldn't be surprised when shìt hits the fan. You may not see someone else's welfare as your responsibility, and that's where our opinion really differs in a nutshell - you're prioritising getting your end away over your responsibility towards someone who isn't in control of their own actions.

I won't get all "Moral Mary" on you for it, but it's just not something I'd do myself.





Because they're two entirely different scenarios - you wouldn't rape a car.





No, that's not rape, but if someone says they were raped, then that's not the same as saying they wouldn't have had sex if they weren't drunk. I'm not in the business of helping people make stupid decisions when they were incapacitated that work to my advantage and then washing my hands of any responsibility for their welfare afterwards either. That's also not rape, and there's nothing criminal about it, but it's still a shìtty thing to do to another human being IMO.

I'd like you definition of drunk here? Is it totally wasted or a bit merry. And how could anybody else tell the drunk from the overly drunk in most cases?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Who's criminalising normal behaviour exactly? Any legislation for this would only come into play if one party claims they were raped. I'm sure the same would apply to patrons of the George.

But there is a strong and clear implication if this passes. If rape is alleged, a BAC test is carried out and it's deemed the plaintiff was too drunk to consent, then it follows that ANYBODY with that same amount of alcohol in their blood was incapable of consent.

Like statutory rape. A 15 year old can argue that they consented to or actively pursued a sexual relationship with an adult, but by virtue of their age they are deemed incapable (which, it goes without saying, I agree with).

Like drink driving. Someone can argue "I can hold my drink, I was driving at 25pmh" or whatever, it doesn't matter.

It's a bonkers idea to legislate for, and it does criminalise very normal behaviour.

Again: education, from a reasonably young age, about issues around alcohol and consent is a pressing need. I know the RCCs in this country have an education programme, but it needs to be on every curriculum and not dependent on them.

darkpagandeath

Would this be the same kind of people using the logic. Better one man be falsely accused of rape than one rape being unreported.

One eyed Jack

Eugene Norman wrote: »

I'd like you definition of drunk here? Is it totally wasted or a bit merry.

Everyone's individual standards for "drunkenness" or intoxication are going to differ, so the only honest answer I can give is that I use my best judgment. It seems to have served me well so far.

And how could anybody else tell the drunk from the overly drunk in most cases?

Most people seem to be able to tell the difference, and I have very little sympathy for those that I believe are capable of being able to tell the difference, but choose to plough ahead anyway. That's just asking for trouble and complete abdication of their own personal responsibility, trying to put responsibility for their actions on the other person.

Eugene Norman

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Everyone's individual standards for "drunkenness" or intoxication are going to differ, so the only honest answer I can give is that I use my best judgment. It seems to have served me well so far.





Most people seem to be able to tell the difference, and I have very little sympathy for those that I believe are capable of being able to tell the difference, but choose to plough ahead anyway. That's just asking for trouble and complete abdication of their own personal responsibility, trying to put responsibility for their actions on the other person.

You seem to be interested in personal anecdotes and virtue signalling rather than a discussion of this particular law. As someone who is well out of this game I don't think I could have told when I wasn't if someone was -- extreme cases aside -- overly drunk", very drunk, or just mildly drunk because everybody was drunk at the end of the night. The assumption in your posts is there is one sober or near sober partner taking advantage of someone who is too drunk for their own good. In practice people falling out of a nightclub enjoined together were equally drunk as I recall, and while this led to embarrassment for both parties the next day it's a bit much to criminalise youthful transgressions. It's also absurd to accuse one party of criminality without the excuse of drunken impairment of judgement when that very impairment in judgement of the other party makes the crime.

Sub-textually these laws seem like they are designed to criminalise only the male, for taking advantage of a female. There's a whiff of Victorian moralising about the difference between male and female desires, the drunken male is the predator acting to his nature, the drunken female is the prey acting against hers

The Highwayman

So if someone get into a car pissed, get stopped by the cops and gets done for drunk driving, will they get off because they were unable to make the decision correctly No, of course not.
However you meet a girl go home to her place you shag (not rape) leave, don't call her back she gets pissed off, and 2 days later the cops call to your place of work and arrest you for rape? I'd laugh at this crap but unfortunately it's becoming a reality. Thank God I'm not young anymore.

darkpagandeath

The Highwayman wrote: »

So if someone get into a car pissed, get stopped by the cops and gets done for drunk driving, will they get off because they were unable to make the decision correctly No, of course not.
However you meet a girl go home to her place you shag (not rape) leave, don't call her back she gets pissed off, and 2 days later the cops call to your place of work and arrest you for rape? I'd laugh at this crap but unfortunately it's becoming a reality. Thank God I'm not young anymore.

The worst part is even it its proven it was not Rape, It ruins the man's life.

The Highwayman

darkpagandeath wrote: »

The worst part is even it its proven it was not Rape, It ruins the man's life.

I completely agree, look at the recent Rolling Stone magazine story and the fallout from that and lives ruined.

Even though the story was completely false, feminist belief is only because of patriarchy and all women who make a rape allegation should be believed first and the man proven innocent later.
No wonder the MRA and MIGTOW movements are on the rise.

darkpagandeath

The Highwayman wrote: »

I completely agree, look at three recent Rolling Stone magazine story and the fallout from that and lives ruined.

Aye it's the assumption that the man is always to blame in some way. Even if it turns out the woman completely made stuff up it still puts doubts.

One eyed Jack

Eugene Norman wrote: »

You seem to be interested in personal anecdotes and virtue signalling rather than a discussion of this particular law.

That's the second time today I've come across that phrase 'virtue signalling', no idea what it meant, so I just looked it up there now. Seems to be the new 'go-to' phrase for 'anyone who disagrees with me'. It's about as meaningful then as that other nonsense phrase bandied about here lately, you know the one, the 'p' word - "privilege".

Regardless, I don't mind personal anecdotes, it's the doomsday scenarios and the "this is bad news for everyone" scenarios, and the "they're criminalising kids, Joe" arguments that wreck my bulb. Nobody is criminalising anyone with this law.

If you want to actually have a discussion on this law without leaping to doomsday scenarios and the 'fall of society' due to people being more mindful of their alcohol intake and being just that little teensy bit more conscious of their behaviour, well, I'm not sure that's really such a bad thing? Is it?

As someone who is well out of this game I don't think I could have told when I wasn't if someone was -- extreme cases aside -- overly drunk", very drunk, or just mildly drunk because everybody was drunk at the end of the night.

Well that's why I said it was down to the individual to use their best judgment, and I have little sympathy for those people I believe could tell when someone is intoxicated to the point where having sex with them would be irresponsible. I'm certainly no paragon of virtue, but we all have our deal breakers, and I always preferred to err on the side of caution in these matters. I've never been in the situation where drunken sex seemed like an appealing prospect, and I can only speak for myself.

Other people have their own standards, and that's their business. I don't make these laws, and they're not likely to trouble me any time soon, and before you suggest that "Oh so you wouldn't give a damn then if a guy was accused of raping a girl as long as it's not you?", well think about that - was the guy thinking about the girl's welfare when he chose to have sex with her?

(you can switch the genders about whatever way you like there and I'd still say the same thing, except that a girl cannot be charged with rape if the victim is a man, so a man could be charged with rape of another man, and a woman could be charged with rape of another woman, you get the idea - a woman can only be charged with sexual assault if the victim is a man)

The assumption in your posts is there is one sober or near sober partner taking advantage of someone who is too drunk for their own good. In practice people falling out of a nightclub enjoined together were equally drunk as I recall, and while this led to embarrassment for both parties the next day it's a bit much to criminalise youthful transgressions.

Nobody is criminalising youthful transgressions. Rape can not be categorised as 'youthful transgressions'. The assumption that one party is taking advantage of another in their inebriated state isn't exactly jumping to ridiculous conclusions, it's just as valid an assumption as anyone who feels ****ty the morning after the night before is going to be claiming they were raped.

It's also absurd to accuse one party of criminality without the excuse of drunken impairment of judgement when that very impairment in judgement of the other party makes the crime.

Nobody has accused anyone of criminality here yet, so it's absurd to be using the excuse of intoxication for impaired judgment either way. One person's impaired judgment doesn't justify the behavior of another due to impaired judgment. That's why we have the judicial system to arbitrate between circumstances and take all factors of every individual case into account.

That way we avoid half the made-up silly scenarios already posited in this thread.

Sub-textually these laws seem like they are designed to criminalise only the male, for taking advantage of a female. There's a whiff of Victorian moralising about the difference between male and female desires, the drunken male is the predator acting to his nature, the drunken female is the prey acting against hers

I haven't got my sub-text reading glasses on, so I'm not seeing what you're seeing, but for what it's worth, I think you're seeing what you want to see. I don't think there's any criminalising men here at all, and the only Victorian moralising I see going on is people here arguing that men's behaviour should be excused, while women should be held responsible for 'getting themselves in such a state'.

Perhaps that's the, ehh, what was it again? Oh yes - 'virtue signalling' you talked about earlier.

Just when I was getting used to ye olde 'white knight', 'pseudo-feminist' nonsense, they went and changed it all up again. Things should always stay the same, always, that way my own little world doesn't fall apart at the seams while I try to make sense of it all.

NachoBusiness

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nobody has accused anyone of criminality here yet, so it's absurd to be using the excuse of intoxication for impaired judgment either way. One person's impaired judgment doesn't justify the behavior of another due to impaired judgment. That's why we have the judicial system to arbitrate between circumstances and take all factors of every individual case into account.

You started off this thread by accusing users of not reading the report and yet here you are coming out with the above claptrap which quite clearly shows that you haven't a bull's notion of what the inevitable consequences would be should the points of law proposed be written into British law.

One eyed Jack

NachoBusiness wrote: »

You started off this thread by accusing users of not reading the report and yet here you are coming out with the above claptrap which quite clearly shows that you haven't a bull's notion of what the inevitable consequences would be should the points of law proposed be written into British law.

You tell me then what you think will be the inevitable consequences would be, if the proposals you object to are written into UK law?

I'm quite certain the author of the report has quite a few decades more legal experience than you do, but I'm all ears as to what you might suggest this would mean for UK society, even Irish society were it to be introduced here.

How many people do you think would genuinely give two fcuks?

hatrickpatrick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Who's criminalising normal behaviour exactly? Any legislation for this would only come into play if one party claims they were raped. I'm sure the same would apply to patrons of the George.

If drunken sex is going to = rape, then it is indeed criminalising normal behaviour.

You're kidding me? "Nightclub culture"?? Part of going to college?

Absolutely. Have you ever walked down Harcourt St on a Friday or Saturday night? Or indeed a Wednesday?

Now who's looking to protect the poor little lambykins college students from themselves while they get off their tits?

Not too sure what you mean.

"Part of the culture" indeed, where have I heard that before?

Not sure, where?

You're suggesting that random girls hanging off you when they're drunk is an extreme case, and yet you're the person arguing that it goes on in Coppers and college nights and all the rest of it?

I'm suggesting that very drunk sex happens all the time after nightclubs, not someone being drunk enough to the point of being unconscious - which I agree is drunk.

You're telling me you've never seen a couple leaving a club in a situation where both of them are clearly pissed? Do you imagine they then go home and sleep in separate beds? :rolleyes:

I'm not within an asses roar of Coppers and I can tell you it goes on in every every nightclub up and down the country, nothing special about Coppers in that respect.

So we're agreed that it's typical behaviour for a large section of the population, particularly the student population, to go out, get drunk, and try to score?

What are we arguing about then?

It's your responsibility to police your own actions, and if you have sex with drunk people, well, you shouldn't be surprised when shìt hits the fan. You may not see someone else's welfare as your responsibility, and that's where our opinion really differs in a nutshell - you're prioritising getting your end away over your responsibility towards someone who isn't in control of their own actions.

If two people are drunk, then by your logic neither of them are in control of their own actions. I'm curious as to how, in that scenario, one can be described as an aggressor and one a victim. It makes no sense.

I won't get all "Moral Mary" on you for it, but it's just not something I'd do myself.

It's actually not something I'd do either, but I go out every week with friends from all over the country and most of them have pulled in nightclubs while drunk, both male and female. I consider none of them to be rapists for this, just average college students.

Because they're two entirely different scenarios - you wouldn't rape a car.

You're not getting the analogy. If my actions when drunk are my responsibility, then all my actions while drunk are my responsibility, from initiating sex to driving a car. It makes no sense to say that the former is something I can accuse someone else of forcing me to do even though I actually initiated it, just because I was drunk, but not the latter.

Either neither are my responsibility, or both.

No, that's not rape, but if someone says they were raped, then that's not the same as saying they wouldn't have had sex if they weren't drunk.

That's what this article is suggesting. That if you're over a certain level of drunkenness, it was rape - regardless of who initiated, and whether you actively, consciously consented or not. That's what I have an issue with. If I'm drunk, I still have agency and I still control my own behaviour. I shouldn't be able to hook up with a woman, then wake up the next day and say "****, I cheated on my girlfriend while drunk - well, I was drunk so she took advantage of me. Rape!"

I'm not in the business of helping people make stupid decisions when they were incapacitated that work to my advantage and then washing my hands of any responsibility for their welfare afterwards either. That's also not rape, and there's nothing criminal about it, but it's still a shìtty thing to do to another human being IMO.

I agree that a sober person taking advantage of a drunk person is a sh!tty thing to do. And that two drunk people having sex is probably a stupid idea. But neither should be a crime.

Yet that's what this article is proposing.

One eyed Jack

Demetrius Unsightly Shopkeeper wrote: »

But there is a strong and clear implication if this passes. If rape is alleged, a BAC test is carried out and it's deemed the plaintiff was too drunk to consent, then it follows that ANYBODY with that same amount of alcohol in their blood was incapable of consent.

Like statutory rape. A 15 year old can argue that they consented to or actively pursued a sexual relationship with an adult, but by virtue of their age they are deemed incapable (which, it goes without saying, I agree with).

Like drink driving. Someone can argue "I can hold my drink, I was driving at 25pmh" or whatever, it doesn't matter.

It's a bonkers idea to legislate for, and it does criminalise very normal behaviour.

It's introducing an arbitrary standard, just like the statutory laws, I really don't see what's bonkers there. People ignore these arbitrary standards all the time, and they're only relevant when something actually happens or someone makes a complaint. It's easily avoided by not putting themselves in that situation. What's actually bonkers is suggesting that they couldn't have not put themselves in that situation, especially when you're suggesting that educating people would help them avoid that situation.

What use is educating people if they're just going to ignore it anyway?

Again: education, from a reasonably young age, about issues around alcohol and consent is a pressing need. I know the RCCs in this country have an education programme, but it needs to be on every curriculum and not dependent on them.

Sex education of any sort I've seen in this country is utter shyte. There's no two ways about it. You have people here suggesting that alcohol is the "social lubricant" and people have entered long term relationships and marriage and so on from drunken sex, arguing as though alcohol was almost a necessary component in the sexual encounter between adults. Can these people really not have sex if they're not drunk?

Education isn't enough on it's own, seriously. There needs to be a massive shift in attitudes towards alcohol, and it's happening alright among more and more young people that they aren't needing alcohol and are perfectly able to socialise and yes have sex without it. That's happening naturally, not because of some laws or education that says abstinence only or whatever else. It's happening because younger people aren't growing up using alcohol as a social crutch before they decide to have sex with someone. They're behaving like the adults are supposed to behave!

ThinkProgress

A gentleman always carries a breathalyzer!

jank

Obviously the next step is for the state to legislate this recommendation. Give all males who reach the age of consent a free pocket breathalyzer. They will also be mandated to attend brain washing re-education seminars, where they will learn that male sexuality is a sin and needs to be 'controlled' under the scope of what some pencil pusher in the department of health deems appropriate.

Once made aware of the facts that men are inherently evil and that women are inconstant ever present danger from a culture of rape, they will then authorised to 'have sex' with a girl/woman using pre-approved the '10 steps to sexual consent' health and safety measures. Failure to comply with these regulations will involved fines and/or jail time for repeat offenders. The problem will thus be solved.

silverfeather

I agree people should be considerate of one another and not take advantage etc.

But Perhaps it should be illegal for people (both men and women) to drink to that level where they are no longer non compos mentis? I think that would really benefit society. Just think about that. No more drunken mistakes.

I have never been drunk in my life, i don't really drink (very very occasionally). How people can act so differently baffles me.

The female bashing in this thread is ridiculous. If a girl is passed out leave her alone!

DoYouEvenLift

The wording is hilariously patronising to women, how do feminists not take issue with this? It's basically equating to adult women not being on the same level as adult men with decision making and accountability. This would put women somewhere in between children and men.


If a woman gets drunk and decides to get in her car and plough into another car or pedestrian then she is held fully accountable for her choices and actions so why then would this be any different for sex?


Adults shouldn't even be getting blackout drunk anyway, what kind of loser even does that past their teenage/early twenties. Just have a few drinks to enjoy yourselves, have some fuking self control.

Eugene Norman

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's the second time today I've come across that phrase 'virtue signalling', no idea what it meant, so I just looked it up there now. Seems to be the new 'go-to' phrase for 'anyone who disagrees with me'. It's about as meaningful then as that other nonsense phrase bandied about here lately, you know the one, the 'p' word - "privilege".

Regardless, I don't mind personal anecdotes, it's the doomsday scenarios and the "this is bad news for everyone" scenarios, and the "they're criminalising kids, Joe" arguments that wreck my bulb. Nobody is criminalising anyone with this law.

If you want to actually have a discussion on this law without leaping to doomsday scenarios and the 'fall of society' due to people being more mindful of their alcohol intake and being just that little teensy bit more conscious of their behaviour, well, I'm not sure that's really such a bad thing? Is it?





Well that's why I said it was down to the individual to use their best judgment, and I have little sympathy for those people I believe could tell when someone is intoxicated to the point where having sex with them would be irresponsible. I'm certainly no paragon of virtue, but we all have our deal breakers, and I always preferred to err on the side of caution in these matters. I've never been in the situation where drunken sex seemed like an appealing prospect, and I can only speak for myself.

Other people have their own standards, and that's their business. I don't make these laws, and they're not likely to trouble me any time soon, and before you suggest that "Oh so you wouldn't give a damn then if a guy was accused of raping a girl as long as it's not you?", well think about that - was the guy thinking about the girl's welfare when he chose to have sex with her?

(you can switch the genders about whatever way you like there and I'd still say the same thing, except that a girl cannot be charged with rape if the victim is a man, so a man could be charged with rape of another man, and a woman could be charged with rape of another woman, you get the idea - a woman can only be charged with sexual assault if the victim is a man)





Nobody is criminalising youthful transgressions. Rape can not be categorised as 'youthful transgressions'. The assumption that one party is taking advantage of another in their inebriated state isn't exactly jumping to ridiculous conclusions, it's just as valid an assumption as anyone who feels ****ty the morning after the night before is going to be claiming they were raped.





Nobody has accused anyone of criminality here yet, so it's absurd to be using the excuse of intoxication for impaired judgment either way. One person's impaired judgment doesn't justify the behavior of another due to impaired judgment. That's why we have the judicial system to arbitrate between circumstances and take all factors of every individual case into account.

That way we avoid half the made-up silly scenarios already posited in this thread.





I haven't got my sub-text reading glasses on, so I'm not seeing what you're seeing, but for what it's worth, I think you're seeing what you want to see. I don't think there's any criminalising men here at all, and the only Victorian moralising I see going on is people here arguing that men's behaviour should be excused, while women should be held responsible for 'getting themselves in such a state'.

Perhaps that's the, ehh, what was it again? Oh yes - 'virtue signalling' you talked about earlier.

Just when I was getting used to ye olde 'white knight', 'pseudo-feminist' nonsense, they went and changed it all up again. Things should always stay the same, always, that way my own little world doesn't fall apart at the seams while I try to make sense of it all.

You didn't really answer any of my points and you are clearly, as it happens, virtue signalling. Which is basically promoting your own morality. You wouldn't do this.

In the midst of this you contradict yourself more than once. This isn't about criminalising people but it's about "rape". But rape is being redefined so it clearly is about criminalising people.

And you miss my major point, that both sides would probably be equally drunk but only one side is excused, the other is a rapist.

Lastly you prove my sub text with your "counter argument" that women are blamed today for getting in a state. But earlier you said the law was gender neutral.

tritium

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Who's criminalising normal behaviour exactly? Any legislation for this would only come into play if one party claims they were raped. I'm sure the same would apply to patrons of the George.





You're kidding me? "Nightclub culture"?? Part of going to college?

Now who's looking to protect the poor little lambykins college students from themselves while they get off their tits?

"Part of the culture" indeed, where have I heard that before?





You're suggesting that random girls hanging off you when they're drunk is an extreme case, and yet you're the person arguing that it goes on in Coppers and college nights and all the rest of it?

I'm not within an asses roar of Coppers and I can tell you it goes on in every every nightclub up and down the country, nothing special about Coppers in that respect.

It's your responsibility to police your own actions, and if you have sex with drunk people, well, you shouldn't be surprised when shìt hits the fan. You may not see someone else's welfare as your responsibility, and that's where our opinion really differs in a nutshell - you're prioritising getting your end away over your responsibility towards someone who isn't in control of their own actions.

I won't get all "Moral Mary" on you for it, but it's just not something I'd do myself.





Because they're two entirely different scenarios - you wouldn't rape a car.





No, that's not rape, but if someone says they were raped, then that's not the same as saying they wouldn't have had sex if they weren't drunk. I'm not in the business of helping people make stupid decisions when they were incapacitated that work to my advantage and then washing my hands of any responsibility for their welfare afterwards either. That's also not rape, and there's nothing criminal about it, but it's still a shìtty thing to do to another human being IMO.

I'm afraid you've utterly missed the point of the proposal. Regardless of whether its regret induced or not any claim would be tested against blood alcohol level under this proposal and consent would hinge on that-alcohol level above threshold =rape, no more questions m'lud.

Tbh, unless one party is clearly less drunk than the other (either gender) this is unworkable nonsense driven by a social engineering agenda. The aim of a proposal like this is more about trying to artificially drive up the conviction rate because some groups argue its too low rather than justice in any sense of the word.

One eyed Jack

Eugene Norman wrote: »

You didn't really answer any of my points and you are clearly, as it happens, virtue signalling. Which is basically promoting your own morality. You wouldn't do this.

Well if suggesting to men that they don't fcuk drunk women is 'virtue signalling', I'll happily put that in semaphore if it makes the message any more clearly understood. I'm actually not promoting my own morality if I was invited by the OP to give an opinion on the subject.

(for a while there I thought virtue signalling was the idea of going along with the moral majority opinion in order to be seen as a 'good person', I'm so glad it's not that now as I'd hate to think I went along with group think just to be popular when it made absolutely no sense to me to do so)

In the midst of this you contradict yourself more than once. This isn't about criminalising people but it's about "rape". But rape is being redefined so it clearly is about criminalising people.

Rape isn't being redefined. Consent is being defined, because for far too long it's been a grey area in sex offence legislation. The new proposals are by no means perfect, but that's all they are at the moment - proposals, which require further discussion. That's why I'm not getting my knickers in a twist about this proposal, because I would support it, but it appears that quite a good many people wouldn't. I imagine more people again don't particularly care either way.

You can't criminalise someone when they haven't broken the law btw, and a BAC test would only be relevant in a case where first of all a person had reported they were raped. If a person doesn't have sex with someone who has consumed substances which impaired their ability to consent freely, then they can't be criminalised for something they haven't done. It's not rocket science we're trying to get our heads around here. I would consider that an important message in any form of sex education (which as I pointed out earlier - people will freely ignore too!).

And you miss my major point, that both sides would probably be equally drunk but only one side is excused, the other is a rapist.

Your major point only has any merit if one person makes a complaint of rape against another. The complainant would also have to have a BAC level above a certain threshold (no source for that yet, but if it's 50mg in Ireland for drink driving, I would presume the same for consent to sex).

Lastly you prove my sub text with your "counter argument" that women are blamed today for getting in a state. But earlier you said the law was gender neutral.

Perhaps you read that wrong. Some people here are making the argument that consent is consent regardless of whether the person is drunk or not. The argument they put forward is that the fact the person is drunk is their own responsibility, they shouldn't be able to claim they were raped if they consented to sex when they were drunk. That's where I was coming from in saying that other people were suggesting that the person at fault is the person who gets drunk, not the person who chose to have sex with them. I look at it differently - the person who chooses to engage in a sexual act with someone who is drunk, is actually the person who is at fault. Rather simple solution - don't have sex with drunk people. Let them get blotto if they want, but the responsibility is on the person who doesn't want to risk being accused of rape or sexual assault to say no if a drunk person offers to have sex with them.

There's been a quite a bit of accusations levelled at these proposals that they would criminalise men and treat women like children, but if those same people don't want to be treated like criminals, and they don't want to be treated like children, then the solution to that too is simple - don't behave like criminals, and don't behave like children. It's actually not that difficult, and it is the essence of personal responsibility, and the vast, vast majority in society can manage that much, so why should anyone else expect to be held to a different standard because it might mean they might have to take some responsibility for their own behaviour?

I'd also like to make absolutely clear one thing btw - I never said the law was gender neutral, nor would I ever want it to be. I happen to think that a gender blind judiciary or gender neutral laws would be an unmitigated clusterfcuk of a judicial system. Thankfully I'll be long dead and buried before we even get within a mile of such a system in this country.

tritium wrote: »

I'm afraid you've utterly missed the point of the proposal. Regardless of whether its regret induced or not any claim would be tested against blood alcohol level under this proposal and consent would hinge on that-alcohol level above threshold =rape, no more questions m'lud.

I haven't missed the point of it at all then in that case. I'm well aware of the potential consequences, as should everyone who should be encouraged to think about what they may be letting themselves in for before they think drunken sex seems like a good idea at the time.

Tbh, unless one party is clearly less drunk than the other (either gender) this is unworkable nonsense driven by a social engineering agenda. The aim of a proposal like this is more about trying to artificially drive up the conviction rate because some groups argue its too low rather than justice in any sense of the word.

That's certainly one way of looking at it. The other is that it's being proposed to try and reduce the whole legal grey area around the idea of consent in cases where the victim's judgement was impaired to the point where they could not freely give consent according to a standard defined in legislation already.

The report is here btw just in case you wanted a read of it yourself, and it outlines a lot more than just the one specific idea that was jumped on by the media -

Report of the Independent Review into The Investigation and Prosecution of Rape in London

PopePalpatine

What is it about this topic that's attracting new posters with suspiciously similar views?

_Redzer_

Jaysus I've been raped heaps of times then according to this

tritium

PopePalpatine wrote: »

What is it about this topic that's attracting new posters with suspiciously similar views?

Eh, no. I think you'll find its the usual posters on both sides.

Anyone unusual seems to have postcounts in the hundreds

Not seeing too many new regs, but guess I might if they disagreed with me.....

NachoBusiness

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Some people here are making the argument that consent is consent regardless of whether the person is drunk or not.

No, they are saying that someone can give sexual consent when at certain level of drunkenness. I don't think anyone is of the opinion that someone mumbling agreement to sex while paralytic should qualify as consent and that is where you fail to make any distinctions. To you drunk is drunk and it's black and white but the reality is that it's far from that. As users have said, if drunkenness alone meant a legal inability to consent, then the vast majority of people have raped and been raped.

That's where I was coming from in saying that other people were suggesting that the person at fault is the person who gets drunk, not the person who chose to have sex with them. I look at it differently - the person who chooses to engage in a sexual act with someone who is drunk, is actually the person who is at fault. Rather simple solution - don't have sex with drunk people. Let them get blotto if they want, but the responsibility is on the person who doesn't want to risk being accused of rape or sexual assault to say no if a drunk person offers to have sex with them.

Here you go again with idealistic tripe, saying it's quite simple: 'don't have sex with a drunk people and you won't risk accusations of rape'. Not only is this extremely naive based on the fact that millions of people get drunk each weekend with an eye on having sex, but it is also grossly obtuse and shows scant regard for someone who has been accused of raping someone. You're basically saying 'tough sh1t'.

There's been a quite a bit of accusations levelled at these proposals that they would criminalise men and treat women like children, but if those same people don't want to be treated like criminals, and they don't want to be treated like children, then the solution to that too is simple - don't behave like criminals, and don't behave like children. It's actually not that difficult, and it is the essence of personal responsibility, and the vast, vast majority in society can manage that much, so why should anyone else expect to be held to a different standard because it might mean they might have to take some responsibility for their own behaviour?

Look, maybe you don't want to have sex when you're drunk, good for you, but many people enjoy sex when drunk and they shouldn't be labelled criminals because of that. Nor victims neither.

I haven't missed the point of it at all then in that case. I'm well aware of the potential consequences, as should everyone who should be encouraged to think about what they may be letting themselves in for before they think drunken sex seems like a good idea at the time.

Again with the 'only have sex sober' mantra.

You say above that you would support this proposal being written into law and so can I ask you, how exactly would you see it being workable? Would the BAC 'drunk' level for sex be the same as the BAC 'drunk' level for driving for example? If both parties were drunk, would that be significant? Etc.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's introducing an arbitrary standard, just like the statutory laws, I really don't see what's bonkers there. People ignore these arbitrary standards all the time, and they're only relevant when something actually happens or someone makes a complaint.

The arbitrary standard is what's bonkers. If a girl has had five pints, gets raped, and then it's deemed that the amount she had to drink made her incapable of consent, then tomorrow night when I go out, have five pints and come home and have sex with my boyfriend, how can I possibly be capable of consent? That's a bonkers message to send to young people in an already very confusing area.

It's easily avoided by not putting themselves in that situation. What's actually bonkers is suggesting that they couldn't have not put themselves in that situation, especially when you're suggesting that educating people would help them avoid that situation.

Where I mean education is necessary is in telling teenagers very early on that it IS NOT OK to get someone legless drunk so they'll fúck you when that person wouldn't fúck you sober. It IS NOT OK to go looking for the "drunkest bitchez in the club to fúck", it is creepy and predatory.

Girls are also sent pretty contradictory messages here. On the one hand "it's offensive shíte to adopt the mindset of every man is a potential rapist/get over yourself you stuck up bitch, not everyone wants to fúck you", on the other "Well you shouldn't have gone back to the house with them/let him kiss you/gotten drunk, of course you're going to get raped".

I've known of some horrible cases in my social groups over the years where the mistake a girl made was just trusting her male friends, and where those male friends could not understand why the friendship was ended because as far as they were concerned they did nothing wrong. (No charges were pressed in those cases, btw, even though apparently there's some international federation of vindictive hoors just waiting to ruin a man's life for kicks.)

Those kind of attitudes need to be sorted out by education and peer pressure, not messy laws that criminalise by proxy consensual behaviour that happens hundreds of times every weekend.

hatrickpatrick

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Jaysus I've been raped heaps of times then according to this

I genuinely struggle to think of many sexual encounters I've had in which I wasn't raped, if this is the standard used.

nokia69

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Jaysus I've been raped heaps of times then according to this

not if you're a man

the next day a drunk man can't complain, but a drunk woman can scream rape

hatrickpatrick

nokia69 wrote: »

not if you're a man

the next day a drunk man can't complain, but a drunk woman can scream rape

Until the entirely archaic definition of rape as "penetration without consent" as opposed to "intercourse without consent" is changed, this is outrageously actually true. :mad:

PopePalpatine

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Until the entirely archaic definition of rape as "penetration without consent" as opposed to "intercourse without consent" is changed, this is outrageously actually true. :mad:

I don't want to sound pedantic, but unfortunately I've heard of cases where victims are raped with inanimate objects...I'm guessing that kind of rape also falls under the definition of "intercourse without consent"?

Penny Tration

I've seen male and female friends go off and have sex when they couldn't even remember their own name. No way were the capable of consenting! Consent is supposed to be informed consent. So drunk that you can barely speak, cant remember your name and struggle to walk should make you legally incapable of consenting.

An arbitrary amount to determine your ability to consent is nuts, though. I don't imagine it'll be easily enforceable tbh. I could have five pints and happily consent to sex. My friend would be passed out on the floor after five pints.

Different people have different limits, so this seems ridiculous.

Also, it's utter bollocks that women are the only ones who can be a victim here.

ShowMeTheCash

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your major point only has any merit if one person makes a complaint of rape against another. The complainant would also have to have a BAC level above a certain threshold (no source for that yet, but if it's 50mg in Ireland for drink driving, I would presume the same for consent to sex).

Bit of a difference between being fit to drive a potentially lethal weapon and being with it enough to know you want to have sex!

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Perhaps you read that wrong. Some people here are making the argument that consent is consent regardless of whether the person is drunk or not. The argument they put forward is that the fact the person is drunk is their own responsibility, they shouldn't be able to claim they were raped if they consented to sex when they were drunk.

It is a nonsensical argument...
I am too drunk to give consent even if I am saying yes I want sex...
Is like saying I was too drunk to realise I should not drive - That will not swing as a defense when you are up in front of a judge for drink driving!

You say this would be not an issue unless a complaint of rape is made but in reality what we are saying is this.
If you got drunk and took a guy back to your place had sex with him, even if this was your idea, wake the next morning in a bit of a daze think to yourself "What have I done, I would never have done this sober".
This person now has a case to accuse this guy of rape...
Equally the guy could wake, take one look at her and say "What have I done, I would never have done this sober" and should equally be able to make the same complaint...

Both get convicted of raping each other!

hatrickpatrick

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I don't want to sound pedantic, but unfortunately I've heard of cases where victims are raped with inanimate objects...I'm guessing that kind of rape also falls under the definition of "intercourse without consent"?

I'd call that sexual assault rather than rape, but that's just me.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Just as an fyi, I'm going through the report now (OneEyedJack linked it above) and there's a lot in it about improving police and social attitudes to, and resources for, male victims. Could do with that sort of thinking in Ireland.

RGDATA!

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'd call that sexual assault rather than rape, but that's just me.

Curious why you'd make that distinction?

One eyed Jack

NachoBusiness wrote: »

No, they are saying that someone can give sexual consent when at certain level of drunkenness. I don't think anyone is of the opinion that someone mumbling agreement to sex while paralytic should qualify as consent and that is where you fail to make any distinctions. To you drunk is drunk and it's black and white but the reality is that it's far from that. As users have said, if drunkenness alone meant a legal inability to consent, then the vast majority of people have raped and been raped.

You understand that the whole point of a legal standard to determine consent is that it does away with much of the subjective guesswork you're talking about? What we're talking about here is consent in a legal context, not simply the idea that you have five pints and you're still good to go or whatever. The law doesn't care whether you feel you're ok to consent or not, in the same way as the law uses a standardised BAC level to determine whether you are capable of driving or not. It doesn't matter what you feel then whether you're capable of consenting or not, or whether you're capable of driving or not. Legally speaking, once your blood alcohol level is above a certain threshold, whether you'd five harvey wallbangers or five pints, it doesn't matter. Your BAC, is all that matters in a legal context regarding consent.

I prefer not to drive when I want to drink, avoids that whole messy business of having to judge whether I'm capable of driving or not, and in just the same way, I prefer to avoid having sex when I'm either drunk, or the person who wants to have sex with me is drunk - I'd sooner just avoid that whole grey area of determining consent when I'm not 100% in control of my own faculties.

Here you go again with idealistic tripe, saying it's quite simple: 'don't have sex with a drunk people and you won't risk accusations of rape'. Not only is this extremely naive based on the fact that millions of people get drunk each weekend with an eye on having sex, but it is also grossly obtuse and shows scant regard for someone who has been accused of raping someone. You're basically saying 'tough sh1t'.

I may need to look up what 'idealistic tripe' means if you think it means that a person is naive who chooses not to put themselves in a position where as much as they might want to have sex with someone, they choose not to because they have determined that person is in no condition to have sex. It's yourself is actually showing scant regard for both your own welfare and the welfare of the other person or persons if you prioritise having sex over knowing the full and possible consequences of your actions.

I can understand of course when you're balls deep in someone that the last thing on your mind is, well, anything else really, but you shouldn't expect much in the way of sympathy then when your priority was getting your balls wet over whether that person or persons was legally capable of giving consent or not. It would be extremely naive on your part to expect anyone to have sympathy for you if the sh1t hits the fan after the fact, when you had every opportunity to consider the possible consequences beforehand.

Look, maybe you don't want to have sex when you're drunk, good for you, but many people enjoy sex when drunk and they shouldn't be labelled criminals because of that. Nor victims neither.

Nope, they should only be labelled criminals if it is proven in a Court of Law that they committed rape following an allegation of rape made by a complainant. Otherwise, by all means play on, your own business and all that. You're an adult after all, so you're capable of making the choice to have sex while drunk. If someone feels that you have committed rape against them however, and makes an allegation of rape against you, that too is your own business, and if you're telling me to butt out now, then it stands to reason that you shouldn't expect I would have any sympathy for you having put yourself in that position where you were aware of the possible consequences.

Again with the 'only have sex sober' mantra.

You say above that you would support this proposal being written into law and so can I ask you, how exactly would you see it being workable? Would the BAC 'drunk' level for sex be the same as the BAC 'drunk' level for driving for example? If both parties were drunk, would that be significant? Etc.

You say that like it's a bad thing encouraging people to avoid having sex with people when they're drunk, or when the person they intend to have sex with is drunk, and then you call me naive? Sure what could possibly go wrong, right?

I don't know the BAC threshold yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is the same level for drunk driving, 50mg. Of course it would be signifigant if both parties were drunk, but I'll leave that to the Courts to adjudicate on rather than speculate about the various possible scenarios.

Demetrius Unsightly Shopkeeper wrote: »

The arbitrary standard is what's bonkers. If a girl has had five pints, gets raped, and then it's deemed that the amount she had to drink made her incapable of consent, then tomorrow night when I go out, have five pints and come home and have sex with my boyfriend, how can I possibly be capable of consent? That's a bonkers message to send to young people in an already very confusing area.

It's not based on how many pints you consume though, it's based on your blood alcohol content level. Because it's based on BAC, five pints in an hour is going to be very different from five pints in five hours. It's really not that confusing when practically every young person I know at least has a smartphone and they can download an app which will give them an idea at least of their BAC.

You remember here a few weeks ago in another thread the suggestion was made that young people should have drug testing kits available that they could test what their pills contain before they consume them, well the suggestion that they use an app to test their BAC is no bigger a deal and no more impractical than the suggestion that they carry a few condoms on their person so that they protect themselves.

Where I mean education is necessary is in telling teenagers very early on that it IS NOT OK to get someone legless drunk so they'll fúck you when that person wouldn't fúck you sober. It IS NOT OK to go looking for the "drunkest bitchez in the club to fúck", it is creepy and predatory.

Yeah, anything that sounds like you're a party pooper never went down well with people who were more interested in themselves and getting laid. This thread alone is evidence of that fact. Young people are nearly easier to get through to though than adults who have grown up with the idea that they're not doing any harm to anyone and it's the other persons problem if they wake up in the morning feeling butthurt after the night before.

Girls are also sent pretty contradictory messages here. On the one hand "it's offensive shíte to adopt the mindset of every man is a potential rapist/get over yourself you stuck up bitch, not everyone wants to fúck you", on the other "Well you shouldn't have gone back to the house with them/let him kiss you/gotten drunk, of course you're going to get raped".

Well that's a whole can of worms that I have some insights on alright, some which are fairly depressing (girls feeling pressured to kiss each other to titillate the boys, etc, the likes of spunout.ie giving advice about threesomes for teenagers, etc), could go on, but it wouldn't end well. Young people get contradictory and confusing messages from everywhere, but the best we can do is try and guide them through the myriad of sexual exploration balancing their responsibility for themselves and other people, with their enthusiasm to explore their boundaries.

I've known of some horrible cases in my social groups over the years where the mistake a girl made was just trusting her male friends, and where those male friends could not understand why the friendship was ended because as far as they were concerned they did nothing wrong. (No charges were pressed in those cases, btw, even though apparently there's some international federation of vindictive hoors just waiting to ruin a man's life for kicks.)

There isn't a barge pole long enough to even go near this one tbh. It's not up to me to tell someone how they should or shouldn't feel or to invalidate how they do feel. The amount of times I get asked by people I've met who have been raped, wtf do I know about rape, I choose to back down rather than risk what to me would come off like a pissing contest. I'd simply find it crass, perhaps because I don't feel a need to share my experiences.

Those kind of attitudes need to be sorted out by education and peer pressure, not messy laws that criminalise by proxy consensual behaviour that happens hundreds of times every weekend.

Nobody's criminalising consensual behaviour that happens hundreds of times every weekend, it's the non-consensual behaviour needs to be criminalised that doesn't happen hundreds of times every weekend. I'd prefer if the law wasn't necessary at all tbh, but because drunken sex is always messy, and because people see their behaviour as completely justifiable, then the law is necessary to indicate where the line has to be drawn.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

This is an incredibly dangerous law to suggest.

One eyed Jack

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Jaysus I've been raped heaps of times then according to this

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I genuinely struggle to think of many sexual encounters I've had in which I wasn't raped, if this is the standard used.

Rape jokes, fun for the whole fraternity.

nokia69 wrote: »

not if you're a man

the next day a drunk man can't complain, but a drunk woman can scream rape

Male on male rape, it happens.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Until the entirely archaic definition of rape as "penetration without consent" as opposed to "intercourse without consent" is changed, this is outrageously actually true. :mad:

That'll be the whole third wave feminist conspiracy there of course, right? Nothing at all to do with the fact that men making jokes about being raped has anything to do with male victims of rape not being taken seriously.

nokia69

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Male on male rape, it happens.

you know well what I mean

a man and a woman are both equally drunk, they have sex, the next day the woman can cry rape but not the man

so much for equality

Rough Sleeper

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Rape jokes, fun for the whole fraternity.

Seems pretty clear that those were jokes about how ridiculous they found the proposal rather than any attempt to make light of rape itself.

Eugene Norman

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You understand that the whole point of a legal standard to determine consent is that it does away with much of the subjective guesswork you're talking about? What we're talking about here is consent in a legal context, not simply the idea that you have five pints and you're still good to go or whatever. The law doesn't care whether you feel you're ok to consent or not, in the same way as the law uses a standardised BAC level to determine whether you are capable of driving or not. It doesn't matter what you feel then whether you're capable of consenting or not, or whether you're capable of driving or not. Legally speaking, once your blood alcohol level is above a certain threshold, whether you'd five harvey wallbangers or five pints, it doesn't matter. Your BAC, is all that matters in a legal context regarding consent.

I prefer not to drive when I want to drink, avoids that whole messy business of having to judge whether I'm capable of driving or not, and in just the same way, I prefer to avoid having sex when I'm either drunk, or the person who wants to have sex with me is drunk - I'd sooner just avoid that whole grey area of determining consent when I'm not 100% in control of my own faculties.




I may need to look up what 'idealistic tripe' means if you think it means that a person is naive who chooses not to put themselves in a position where as much as they might want to have sex with someone, they choose not to because they have determined that person is in no condition to have sex. It's yourself is actually showing scant regard for both your own welfare and the welfare of the other person or persons if you prioritise having sex over knowing the full and possible consequences of your actions.

I can understand of course when you're balls deep in someone that the last thing on your mind is, well, anything else really, but you shouldn't expect much in the way of sympathy then when your priority was getting your balls wet over whether that person or persons was legally capable of giving consent or not. It would be extremely naive on your part to expect anyone to have sympathy for you if the sh1t hits the fan after the fact, when you had every opportunity to consider the possible consequences beforehand.





Nope, they should only be labelled criminals if it is proven in a Court of Law that they committed rape following an allegation of rape made by a complainant. Otherwise, by all means play on, your own business and all that. You're an adult after all, so you're capable of making the choice to have sex while drunk. If someone feels that you have committed rape against them however, and makes an allegation of rape against you, that too is your own business, and if you're telling me to butt out now, then it stands to reason that you shouldn't expect I would have any sympathy for you having put yourself in that position where you were aware of the possible consequences.






You say that like it's a bad thing encouraging people to avoid having sex with people when they're drunk, or when the person they intend to have sex with is drunk, and then you call me naive? Sure what could possibly go wrong, right?

I don't know the BAC threshold yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is the same level for drunk driving, 50mg. Of course it would be signifigant if both parties were drunk, but I'll leave that to the Courts to adjudicate on rather than speculate about the various possible scenarios.





It's not based on how many pints you consume though, it's based on your blood alcohol content level. Because it's based on BAC, five pints in an hour is going to be very different from five pints in five hours. It's really not that confusing when practically every young person I know at least has a smartphone and they can download an app which will give them an idea at least of their BAC.

You remember here a few weeks ago in another thread the suggestion was made that young people should have drug testing kits available that they could test what their pills contain before they consume them, well the suggestion that they use an app to test their BAC is no bigger a deal and no more impractical than the suggestion that they carry a few condoms on their person so that they protect themselves.





Yeah, anything that sounds like you're a party pooper never went down well with people who were more interested in themselves and getting laid. This thread alone is evidence of that fact. Young people are nearly easier to get through to though than adults who have grown up with the idea that they're not doing any harm to anyone and it's the other persons problem if they wake up in the morning feeling butthurt after the night before.





Well that's a whole can of worms that I have some insights on alright, some which are fairly depressing (girls feeling pressured to kiss each other to titillate the boys, etc, the likes of spunout.ie giving advice about threesomes for teenagers, etc), could go on, but it wouldn't end well. Young people get contradictory and confusing messages from everywhere, but the best we can do is try and guide them through the myriad of sexual exploration balancing their responsibility for themselves and other people, with their enthusiasm to explore their boundaries.





There isn't a barge pole long enough to even go near this one tbh. It's not up to me to tell someone how they should or shouldn't feel or to invalidate how they do feel. The amount of times I get asked by people I've met who have been raped, wtf do I know about rape, I choose to back down rather than risk what to me would come off like a pissing contest. I'd simply find it crass, perhaps because I don't feel a need to share my experiences.





Nobody's criminalising consensual behaviour that happens hundreds of times every weekend, it's the non-consensual behaviour needs to be criminalised that doesn't happen hundreds of times every weekend. I'd prefer if the law wasn't necessary at all tbh, but because drunken sex is always messy, and because people see their behaviour as completely justifiable, then the law is necessary to indicate where the line has to be drawn.

So the State is going to decide that people over the drunk driving limit are not capable of consent to sex? That's basically a totalitarian society.