Geez, criminals carry 'em, don't they?
Besides, I didn't know ToR was from the UK.
Baron Max
Should it be illegal to have sex with a woman under the influence of alcohol
- Thread starter Theoryofrelativity
- Start date
Geez, criminals carry 'em, don't they?
Besides, I didn't know ToR was from the UK.
Baron Max
Well done for getting the point. About time someone did!
law as Roman stated
BUT when I had no car I did carry a knife
Further precautions include:
*not opening my front door to people I do not know (I have a video/audio entry system)
I don't allow people into my home (strangers) without an appointment
I have a toffee hammer (axe handle) and horse whip by my bed
I have motion detection outside lights
I know rape can happen in a multitude of other circumstances where precautions cannot help (as I said a million times in this thread but STILL they miss it!) but certainly one can reduce the risk of some types.
Yep, and NOT drinking oneself into a stupor is one of those methods!
I have to admit to being a little crazy about rape ...I view it in much the same way as murder ...there simply ain't no excuse for it!
But I was also raised in an era when women were held in high regard, on high pedestals, and were to be protected and cherished at all costs. It seems that women don't want that no more, so....? I'm just an old fossil with silly ideals from a time far, far in the past.
Baron Max
Yep, and NOT drinking oneself into a stupor is one of those methods!
I have to admit to being a little crazy about rape ...I view it in much the same way as murder ...there simply ain't no excuse for it!
But I was also raised in an era when women were held in high regard, on high pedestals, and were to be protected and cherished at all costs. It seems that women don't want that no more, so....? I'm just an old fossil with silly ideals from a time far, far in the past.
Baron Max
agreed
Bells
Staff member
Yes. I'm missing the point but you're the one attempting to lay blame on a rape victim by saying he/she should somehow protect themselves against it by not getting drunk or allowing themselves to be drugged (which to me is hilariously sad since a person is not at fault nor have they allowed someone to slip them a GHB, for example, without their knowledge or consent), dressing appropriately.... and when I mentioned your photo, it was to point out that posting yourself in your avatar can result in people attempting to track you down or even use your photo inappropriately on the internet.. etc.. hence you are hardly one to be demanding women take precautions when you fly in the opposite direction to the very same precautions you demand of other women.
My point in regards to your thread is that it's not illegal to have sex with a woman who is under the influence of alcohol. Rape, where the woman is drunk, occurs when there is no consent and I can assure you, it is quite rare for charges to be laid as such. For one thing, they will look at the situation where the woman was drinking in and who was possibly supplying her with the alcohol. Now if a woman is so drunk that she's passed out and she is raped, she can hardly be seen as having given consent now can she? If she's so intoxicated that she cannot even walk, again, she is hardly in a position to give consent. Think of it this way, the courts would not validate a contract signed by a person who is highly intoxicated because they were not in the right frame of mind to know what exactly they were signing. Now would you demand that the court thinks differently if someone comes up to another who is obviously drunk, buys them a few more drinks in a bar and then amazingly enough he finds himself with a legal document granting him ownership of the drunk's house and all chattels. Would you think that the drunk was taken advantage of? Apply the same to a rape victim.
Not every person who is raped gets drunk knowingly. For example, a woman might have 3 - 4 drinks and each of those drinks is spiked with much more alcohol than she wanted or ordered from the bar. Is she somehow at fault? Should women simply not drink when they go out? Not even a glass of wine or two? Because some women who have been raped have had even their 2 glasses of wine spiked with alcohol because the rapist knew them and knew that they couldn't handle more than two, so spiking their drink got them drunk enough to be more accepting of their advances. Now I don't know about you or anyone else, blaming the rape victim in such a situation is quite ridiculous. I know of one woman who went to a work party where her punch was spiked without her knowledge. Each time he work mate (someone she knew and trusted) went to get her a drink, he spiked it. She did not know it contained alcohol. She was then violently raped in her own office. Now you claim that precautions should be taken, but how can a person take precautions against actions of another over which they have no control? In the majority of date rapes involving alcohol or drugs, the victim knew the rapist and he/she was not a stranger. So what precautions do you propose those victims take? After all, even you stated that you never accept a drink from a stranger or let a stranger into your home, what precautions do you take against someone you know and trust? Do you carry a knife with you just in case one of them turns on you? You claim you chose your friends carefully, so did most of the rape victims who were raped by "friends". Some were even raped by their boyfriends, husbands, best friend since high school types, etc. Some were raped by family members.
The point which has been shown to you so many times and you still fail to understand is that unless you become a recluse and never leave your home and have no friends or family around you, you cannot take any precautions against rape because there aren't any. You could be raped by a police officer who pulls you over one night for speeding, just as you could be raped in your own home by a loved one. Now you have a right to dress as you wish, drink as you wish, walk alone at night as you wish without being raped. Sure I don't walk alone at night either, but that's because of the work I used to do and the threats made against me and my family and I don't want to put them in danger. Do I not do it so I'm not raped? Hardly, since I'm more likely to be raped walking in broad daylight in a park, than when I am walking alone at night. Now do I stop going to the park? There was a woman 2 suburbs from where I live who was raped walking to the bus stop at 8am one morning on her way to work. She was raped in a residential street and was pulled under a hedge. Should she simply not walk to work in the morning?
And as much as you wish to flatter yourself ToR, I am not jealous of you. I find you annoying like a little school girl gnat, and a gormless one at that. My being jealous of you would be akin to my lusting after Baron (as an example to show just how absurd your claim is.. no offence baron.. lol) and believe me.. never going to happen.
I have the same image of you since you are so defensive of rapists and their actions and since you attempt to negate their actions by saying the woman could have prevented it by behaving or dressing differently. Funny that 'huh'? But I like the way you attempt to paint me as a 'rapist' when I've been one of the many who have disagreed with you and your views of women and rape victims in general. It's so unoriginal and so expected of you ToR. I did not expect anything less than you. I personally do not care where you were or what you were doing when that photo was taken. You assume that because I made an example of your image that I somehow care about you or what you were doing or even say. I can assure you that the opposite is the case. You could post an image of a turd in a toilet and it would be as interesting as the current image you have now.
Should I be insulted that you say I have the mind of a rapist? Actually I am not. Reason being that I've known many of them from all walks of life and I know how they think. And I know that your attitude is something that they would approve, because you justify their behaviour and their actions by denying the victim the right to live their lives as they so wish. Something they attempted to do when they raped their victim. But your attempt at being catty is noted and shelved as being exactly what it is.. pathetic and kind of sad because it was so unoriginal.
Oohhh beyond contempt? Damn, here I thought I was lower than that. I'd suggest you look at your attitude towards rape victims and rapists in general before you accuse anyone of having a dirty or filthy mind. Again, attempting to say I'm as bad as a rapist because I think that there is never a justification for rape, nor is there a mitigating factor in rape? Heh..
And back on ignore? Wooot.. You keep that little head of yours in that little cave. Don't worry, I'll keep on thinking that you're an idiot.
---------------------------------------
You're right, there is no excuse for rape. That's what I and several others have been saying all along. But the women of your era and the women of today are the same and vastly different. Yes women still want to be cherished and respected. Just because she has a few drinks and gets drunk does not make her any less a person who should be respected or any less a woman who should not be taken advantage of or raped. The women of your era were more restricted in what they said, did, dressed. Lets face it Baron, women of the past were not free to be who they were. Many could not work in the field they chose to, and were restricted to more 'appropriate' employment such as nursing or teaching. Many had no rights under the law or in society. But just because the era has changed and women have more rights than in the past does not mean that they should be viewed as being less worthy of respect or being cherished and protected. Women in the past had the right to not be raped just as women of today have the right to not be raped.Baron Max said:
Like you rape is a bad subject for me because I have seen first hand what it does to the victim, their family and the family of the rapist on too many occasions to even want to count. I am still haunted by nightmares of what some victims have been put through at the hands of their rapists. I have zero tolerance for rapists. The issue of when does a 'fuck' become a rape is a gray one and the courts and the law are trying to deal with it accordingly. If a woman cannot give consent due to being drugged, drunk or incapacitated in some way (eg she is mentally disabled and has the capacity of understanding as one would expect from a 3 year old), then it can be construed as rape. I mean lets face it, if a woman is blind drunk and passed out, isn't it a bit sick to have sex with her when she is in no way able to consent? It would be akin to someone having sex with a person who was in a coma. Yes a woman can simply not drink. But why should she change how she lives because there are a few people out there who can take advantage of her when she is drunk? She should be free to have a few drinks with friends and not be raped should she not? Is it somehow her fault if her friend decides to take advantage of her because she trusted him and did not fear for her safety by allowing herself to be drunk in his presence? Or is it the friends fault for taking advantage of a situation that he had control over? And not all women who are raped after consuming alcohol got drunk voluntarily. Some have had their drinks spiked. Some have had what they assumed was a couple of drinks, only to have the rapist keep them occupied while he just kept topping up her drink slightly each time without her noticing and ensuring that she had drunk twice what she intended. It is very easy to get someone drunk without their knowledge Baron. You'd be amazed at how easy it is. Now unless we all become paranoid and simply stay indoors and live the life of a recluse, it would be impossible to protect ourselves from harm that we don't know is coming nor from where it is coming from. The rapist could live in the victim's own home, just as he/she can work with their intended victim, just as he/she can be a friend or stranger.
Last edited:
Members please note:
Despite all I written to the contrary Bells keeps posting that I support rapists and justify rape. I don't. You won't find a single (in context) post from me where I do this.
Please disregard her posts that allege to reply to things I have said as I have said nothing with regard to supporting or defending rapists.
The statistics show that 'date rape' is on the increase and is possibly now in the highest catagory of rape which is what prompted the comments re trying to avoid binge drinking and provocative behavior/dress etc, because the statistics SHOW rape is now MORE likely to occur in these circumstances than in the other kinds. NONE of which are good.
The dress thing came up as I myself have exprience of how clothing affects males behaviour thus to me it is logical to avoid mini skirts and alcohol as the wrong type of men will see it as a beacon, this is good advice nothing more than that, no advocation or justification for rape stated or intended. Also there is and never was any denial that rape can occur regardless of clothing and alcohol consumption.
Back to topic please
the topic being FALSE rape allegations
NOT rapists,
but FALSE allegations made against men who genuinely believed the female due to her conduct and language to be consenting to sex.
Despite all I written to the contrary Bells keeps posting that I support rapists and justify rape. I don't. You won't find a single (in context) post from me where I do this.
Please disregard her posts that allege to reply to things I have said as I have said nothing with regard to supporting or defending rapists.
The statistics show that 'date rape' is on the increase and is possibly now in the highest catagory of rape which is what prompted the comments re trying to avoid binge drinking and provocative behavior/dress etc, because the statistics SHOW rape is now MORE likely to occur in these circumstances than in the other kinds. NONE of which are good.
The dress thing came up as I myself have exprience of how clothing affects males behaviour thus to me it is logical to avoid mini skirts and alcohol as the wrong type of men will see it as a beacon, this is good advice nothing more than that, no advocation or justification for rape stated or intended. Also there is and never was any denial that rape can occur regardless of clothing and alcohol consumption.
Back to topic please
the topic being FALSE rape allegations
NOT rapists,
but FALSE allegations made against men who genuinely believed the female due to her conduct and language to be consenting to sex.
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
How many times can you actually keep editing your posts? lol..
But hang on.. let me twirl my hair as I chew gum since you're acting like we're in high school and have a need to be popular.. kk?
ToR, I don't give a flying shit if people like you or not. Honestly you act like you're in some kind of popularity contest, but it seems that you're the only one who "knows" that you're in it. And you are since I personally don't care what others think of me on this forum. I don't care if I'm liked or not liked. Hell I'd be willing to bet some have a voodoo doll of me and are sticking pins into it or setting it on fire and you know what? It doesn't bother me. If people feel animosity towards you that's their issue and not mine. If people think you're the most wonderful person on earth, again that's their issue and not mine.
*Sigh*.. this is getting boring.. and I know boring since I'm stuck in bedrest for god knows how long.
When you say that a woman who dresses provocatively, that she's inviting attention from the wrong sort of guy and should therefore be held partly to blame for what happens to her due to her actions or dress if raped, then yes you are mitigating the rapists actions. Rapists use that defence all the time. That's what I and others have been trying to tell you. You may not realise it, but that's the reality of rape and rapists. Any little thing will be used by them as a justification for their actions. For example:
You say that dress is not a "licence for rape", however you then mitigate this by saying the big 'but' where you claim that women who don't want to be viewed as "easy lays" should dress accordingly. There is no 'but' in rape, just as there is never a mitigating factor in rape.Theoryofrelativity said:
You're right in advising your daughter to not dress in skimpy clothing. Not because it is meant to keep her out of harms way, but because sexualising little girls is wrong and that's my personal opinion. For example, I went and bought my 6 year old cousin her birthday present and she likes pretty underwear (she's very girly), and I was appalled when I found g-strings for girls her age. Who in the hell allows a 5 or 6 year old to wear a g-string? Why would they need it? Meh.. I digress..
And those who make such false allegations deserve to go to jail, because it does destroy the lives of the victim (in this case the victim being a man who is falsely accused). But just as there are no laws to protect a person from rape, there are no laws to protect a person from being falsely accused. The only law that exists is to punish the person who is caught making such an allegation and like rape laws, they are meant to serve as a deterrent. But like laws dealing with rape, it doesn't always mean justice to the falsely accused, just as a true rapist can sometimes walk free. People are falsely accused of all sorts of crimes and personally it's disgusting that it happens and sadly some are convicted and jailed or even executed even if he/she is innocent of the crime they are accused of. The only way that could ever come to fruition is if we abolish all rape laws and treat all rape claims as being false.
Hmm, I don't know 'bout that!? Women in my time would never have considered getting drunk and acting like women of today ...so why should we respect drunks for acting like fuckin' whores and sluts?
No, I don't say they should be raped, but why should I or anyone come to their rescue when they act like someone who doesn't deserve any respect or protection?
Women were (note the past tense) sugar n' spice n' everything nice ...except when they act like drunken whores and sluts. Then.....?
Bullshit! Women wanted and fought for equal rights, but now that they have it, or mostly have it, they do nothing but complain that men don't treat them with respect and cherish them. Fuck! Ya' cain't have it both ways! Y'all wanted equal rights, so in reality, rape actually should only be aggravated assualt, not rape.
Baron Max
PS - Bells, you and ToR should quit this bickering between yourselves ...it's unbecoming of women who should be cherished and respected and protected.
So you judge people by that silly little box over their names?
I guess that means that you're a fuckin' banana???
Baron Max
Tor posted pictures of herself in the picture thread.
I posted one of me naked, save a banana placed over my genitals.
James R took it down.
But I could PM you, if you want.
Bells
Staff member
Women in your time got drunk in their own homes or just in the company they kept, since most bars would never serve a woman in the first place. Or women had their own rooms in bars where they were served the more civilised drinks such as ice tea and the like. Women in your day were expected to be all "sugar n' spice n' everything nice" out in public but whores and sluts at home. If they weren't, men went to prostitutes for the 'whoring and the slutting' or they'd be beaten and raped.
In your time, it was not frowned upon when a man went out 'drinkin and whorin' and then coming home to beat and rape his wife. In your era, she was meant to simply take it because she married him 'for better or for worse'. Shall I go on? Now as a woman, believe me I much prefer my era than yours. for example if I were from your era, I would never had been allowed to have an education or the successful career that I was lucky enough to have after hard work, nor would I have been allowed to buy my own homes, have a drink in a bar if I felt so inclined, vote, or say 'no'. Hell if I were a woman in your era, I would not have been allowed to sit in the front of the bus since I'd have been classified as 'one of them coloured folks'.
If you see a woman who you deem to be a 'whore or a slut' and she's being raped for example, you aren't obligated to go to her rescue. However what kind of human being that makes you, that's not for me to actually say, but for you to determine for yourself. Just because a woman dresses a certain way, or is drunk, does not mean that they are any less deserving of respect and a right to not be raped. For all you know, the woman who's drunk and dressed like a 'slut' is not the prostitute but the prostitute is actually the woman who's well and moderately dressed, well spoken and not drunk.
So because women have equal rights, they are less deserving of being respected or somehow 'cherished'? How so? Does one negate the other? Does the fact that a woman can now vote for example mean that she is less deserving of respect? Interesting.
Equal rights does not mean that she has a right to be raped or is any less worthy to not have a right to be raped. So do you think that a slave has more of a right to be raped than a paid servant? Is a woman with equal rights to a man less able to claim that she's been raped because she's a woman? If that's how you view equality, then your sense of reality is warped. Men are raped as equally as women can be. Any laws that state that only women can be raped is ridiculous in my opinion, hence why now many countries are finally realising that rape applies to both men and women because both can be victims equally.
Meh I'm bored and facing forced bedrest at the moment. Teasing her amuses me because she gets so riled up and so defensive and it's all so predictable. Especially when she starts writing in bigger bold letters. But shhhh.. she's trying to win a popularity contest that only she is contesting in and she now appears to be getting a tad paranoid that I am trying to make others hate her.. it's quite funny actually
.. plus it makes me laugh how she keeps changing her posts when her paranoia is highlighted.. Ask her kindly enough and be 'nice and sweet' and she might post some pics a la Xev and the dagger..Roman said:
As for my pic. Nope.
Bells
Staff member
Which would make me an arse. Appropriate non?
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Of course I do. I'm a Libertarian, forgive me if I didn't make myself clear. I'm opposed to using new laws as an easy way to cure social ills. Laws are inflexible, the products of hysteria and compromise, and enforced by government employees, for the goddess's sake. They almost always cause a great deal of harm and frequently cause more harm than good.Theoryofrelativity said:
You absolutely have to have a population of decent people who at least try to maintain a level of respect and order. You can't legislate what your people don't feel in their hearts.
I don't think the Baron is quite that old.
You're talking about the early 1900s. Prohibition changed all that. As my mother said, "The worst thing about Prohibition is that it got women going to bars, because in America it's always fashionable to break the law."And Baron, I have no problem with people who deliberately go out with the plan to get stinking drunk and have unprotected sex with strangers. But some people get more drunk than they intend to and are easily mistaken for one of the former group and treated as such. If that happens I'm not sure it's the government's duty to in essence protect them from their own behavior and allow them to complain about it afterwards. Whenever you try to protect people from the consequences of doing stupid shit the results are people doing more stupid shit because you told them it was going to be safer from now on.
I suppose this whole discussion is academic to me because I assure you that if I run into a woman who seems willing to have unprotected sex with a stranger I will just keep running. She's probably already done it with other strangers so it won't matter if she's drunk or sober.
Baron Max:
True. And such questions of fact are decided by a victim him/herself when they decide to complain to police, by the police when they decide whether to charge somebody with rape, and by the courts if the complaint ever makes it to trial.
The assumption of some in this thread that all a woman has to do is shout "Rape" and the supposed offender will automatically be tried, convicted and sentenced displays a significant lack of knowledge about the workings of the criminal justice system.
I find it interesting that you concentrate on "women's rights" as somehow being relevant to the matter of rape.
To me, the right not to be raped is not a women's right, but a human right, which ought to apply equally to men and women. It is part of the general right for human beings to have control over their own bodies, and not be used solely as the means to the end of another person. The prohibition on slavery rests ultimately on the same right.
How you come to the conclusion that women today no longer want to be "protected and cherished" is a mystery to me. Everybody wants to be protected and cherished - man or woman. Note that this is not the same as being condescended to or treated like a child.
Perhaps it is because you actually regard women as less capable beings than men that you imagine that women have different basic needs or desires.
Really? Or was it more that they were restricted from acting with the same freedom as men?
Why is it fine for a man to wipe himself out with drink, but not a woman?
Then what? Then it's ok for men to rape them? You seem to be saying one thing one moment, then back-peddling the next. What do you really think?
Do you believe a man can be raped?
True. And such questions of fact are decided by a victim him/herself when they decide to complain to police, by the police when they decide whether to charge somebody with rape, and by the courts if the complaint ever makes it to trial.
The assumption of some in this thread that all a woman has to do is shout "Rape" and the supposed offender will automatically be tried, convicted and sentenced displays a significant lack of knowledge about the workings of the criminal justice system.
I find it interesting that you concentrate on "women's rights" as somehow being relevant to the matter of rape.
To me, the right not to be raped is not a women's right, but a human right, which ought to apply equally to men and women. It is part of the general right for human beings to have control over their own bodies, and not be used solely as the means to the end of another person. The prohibition on slavery rests ultimately on the same right.
How you come to the conclusion that women today no longer want to be "protected and cherished" is a mystery to me. Everybody wants to be protected and cherished - man or woman. Note that this is not the same as being condescended to or treated like a child.
Perhaps it is because you actually regard women as less capable beings than men that you imagine that women have different basic needs or desires.
Really? Or was it more that they were restricted from acting with the same freedom as men?
Why is it fine for a man to wipe himself out with drink, but not a woman?
Then what? Then it's ok for men to rape them? You seem to be saying one thing one moment, then back-peddling the next. What do you really think?
Do you believe a man can be raped?
I am reposting this for the idiots that keep posting that I justify rape and support rapists. Apparantly they make it up as they go along.
Accusing someone of being responsible for rape becuase they advise of precautions in HIGH risk sitautions is like accusing someone of killing the driver involved in a car crash becuase you told them to wear a seat belt! Stupidity beyond belief.
Also writing HUGE lengthy posts to one and about one poster doesn't do much to reinforce the view that you aren't interested in them, rather the opposite. This remains amusing. Again illustrates great stupidity.
Generally debate involves debating someone with an opposing not shared view. But personal dislikes have a habit of resulting in talking shit about other posters regardless of their actual view point. You let your personal feelings allow you to read selectively, misquote, misrepresent and make personal insults and adhom all of which makes you no better than any other moron responsible for a miscarriage of justice.
Accusing someone of being responsible for rape becuase they advise of precautions in HIGH risk sitautions is like accusing someone of killing the driver involved in a car crash becuase you told them to wear a seat belt! Stupidity beyond belief.
Also writing HUGE lengthy posts to one and about one poster doesn't do much to reinforce the view that you aren't interested in them, rather the opposite. This remains amusing. Again illustrates great stupidity.
Generally debate involves debating someone with an opposing not shared view. But personal dislikes have a habit of resulting in talking shit about other posters regardless of their actual view point. You let your personal feelings allow you to read selectively, misquote, misrepresent and make personal insults and adhom all of which makes you no better than any other moron responsible for a miscarriage of justice.
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
You did not advise.
I write huge lengthy posts to PJ, Baron, TW Scott, ermm just about all my posts are lengthy. Doesn't mean that I am interested in them or you. Hell you better hope Tiassa never replies to one of your posts. You're going to think he's about to propose to you.
And quick question, didn't you put me on ignore? For someone who supposedly put me on ignore, you sure do spend a lot of time responding to me, even if it's in a round about way. But don't worry ToR, I'm sure you're still the prom queen of this forum. I know you have this need to be liked, to be popular.. to be well.. you.. the ultimate Gidget girl.
Precious..
I'd say 'pot.. kettle.. black' but it's just too obvious.ToR said:
And if you're going to keep cross posting in all the threads I participate in, you'd best be warned that it just makes you look a tad neurotic and paranoid. But carry on. You still amuse me.
In regards to this thread and it's original topic..
There is no law that can prevent or protect a man from a false rape allegation. Just as legislation dealing with rape are meant to be there as a precaution, so are laws which would apply if a person were found to have falsely accused another of rape.. laws such as perjury, obstruction of a police investigation or obstruction of police, wasting the police time, attempting to pervert the course of justice, conspiracy.. those are just a few that deal with it.
I'll be honest and say that it would be wonderful if there were such a law that could save a person from having to deal with and go through the horror of a false accusation of rape. The victim who faces such an accusation basically has their lives ruined, like a rape victim's life is ruined. The law proposed by the thread starter while interesting in its concept, would never be able to be applied or policed.
Now to attempt to stop false allegations, we can get rid of rape laws, thereby preventing all cases of false allegations. The counter of this of course is that it would ensure that no rapist was ever jailed for his crime. We could also treat each person who comes forward to report a rape as a liar and then work backwards to determine if they are telling the truth or not.. in short, we could treat the person who comes forward as the criminal and the accused as the victim until evidence points otherwise. Now this could have devastating results if the person who comes forward to report a rape really had been raped. Or we could look at each case objectively and not see the accused as being 'guilty' until all evidence has been analysed to determine if he/she is guilty or not.
Sure we could apply a law which states that it is illegal to have sex with a woman under the influence of alcohol. But how would we police it? What about men who are drugged through either alcohol or drugs and then raped? Or men who drink too much and find themselves in bed with a person they don't remember meeting or consenting to. Again, under current laws, the man can report a rape as he was in no shape or form to have given consent. And some do and some don't, the same with women. Now if we applied the supposed or imagined law this thread was based on to apply to both sexes, it would basically amount to it being illegal to have sex with anyone who was under the influence of alcohol. How this would be policed is beyond me. It reeks back to the days where homosexuality was illegal and the police could rightly arrest anyone who'd had sex with a person of the same sex. There is a fine line between allowing us our freedoms and having draconian laws which would restrict our freedroms and movements in such a way all for a preventative measure. Such a law as making it illegal to have sex a woman under the influence of alcohol, and if applied to men also (if we're going to look at this equally) would result in people not allowed to drink and go home and have sex. Now I don't know about you, but I've gone out with my husband and had a couple of glasses of wine and come home and had sex and I'm sure most of you have done the same with whoever. Now if we're to go so far as to protect 'men from false rape allegations', my husband having sex with me when I was a bit tipsy would amount to his having broken the law and vice versa if I were to have sex with him when he was drunk or tipsy. It simply would not work.
Last edited:
If the drunken person has sex forced upon them (without their consent) the government has a responsibility to protect them the same way they protect anyone else. Forced sex is forced sex, the fact it is easier to force it on someone drunk does not make it any less of a crime.
What the government should be wary of however and what concerns me is making the issue of consent 'subject to change' after the fact. In other words, they DID consent with body and with language and with a pro active contribution. It is these instances that concern me. Perhaps the government should make it clearer what it is they propose to change exactly and how they intend to police it.
Meanwhile it has been a mammoth struggle to just get people to understand the point of the first post! I guess people can't help bring their own agenda and personal shit to the table. Let's hope they never sit on a jury.
Thank you for your no nonsense common sense contribution, even if we disagree at least the dialogue remains civil.
I think there is a huge grey area here.........Should removing the clothes and having sex with someone who has past out drunck be considered rape - YES!
Should buying someone one or two gin and tonics at their consent and then having fully consented sex with them, but later the recipient regrets the act, be considered rape? - NO!
Inbetween is a bit of a grey area to say the least.
Conclusion - the mere act of having sex with someone who is drunk should not in itself be considered a crime.
Should buying someone one or two gin and tonics at their consent and then having fully consented sex with them, but later the recipient regrets the act, be considered rape? - NO!
Inbetween is a bit of a grey area to say the least.
Conclusion - the mere act of having sex with someone who is drunk should not in itself be considered a crime.