uk.news.yahoo.com/15102006/143/r … tened.html
How do you feel about this? Should a woman be responsible for being raped if she was intoxicated? Not responsible? Is it up to a jury to decide whether or not women should be responsible? It’s a game of consent no doubt.
Well, my first thought is “What the hell is so special about women?” What, like men can’t get plastered drunk, agree to have sex, and then regret it later? Does some woman deserve to go to prison in that situation? I mean, since we’re talking about ‘giving consent while drunk’, I’m assuming physical force isn’t an issue, which means we’re not talking some evil, brutish man forcing himself on some wisp of a girl.
Women are special in that they are recieving and not penetrating. This is an act of violation. Call me a feminine supporters but I have seen women recieve anguish, sadness, and life-long effects besides the obvious pregnancy issue. So many people regret things when they are drunk of this I know but look at this from the metaphorical, and psychological side themselves. Would it be better if you were taken home Ucci by a male accomplice and sodomized? Would then we see a change in view about the issue? I do not wish to push extremes nor do I wish to promote immoral actions by women either. But I come from a household who has seen much sadness in regards to the treatment of women.
I entirely agree with it. Women cannot be expected to control themselves. Thus they should not be allowed to vote.
Very funny, but it’s a little more complex then that, you should look into it more.
If the woman is unconscious, and has not given consent, it is legally considered rape, against her will.
Can a man be raped? Okay, chump, I have a gun, need some, so get it up. Like that will work, his willy would be limp regardless of what she said. However, if a man has a gun, the women can still be penetrated.
If the woman agrees to sex while drunk, and she freely chose to drink, and consents, this is a different issue. However, if she is unconscious, or drugged by the man, this is rape.
Hell, it is considered rape if a husband forces himself upon his wife without her consent, and she can file charges.
My body, my choice to have sex with my mate or not, not his!
With regards,
aspacia 
If she is drunk, and gives consent it is not rape. However if drugged, or unconscious, it is considered rape at lease IMHO.
Isn’t this similar to a murderer, or that asshole Foley claiming I was drunk or an alcoholic and could not help myself.
PLEEEZE.
With regards,
aspacia
If a drunk guy and a drunk girl hook up and then the girl regrets it later, is it rape? It’s impossible to say yes or no without the facts. The problem is that the assumption of guilt lies on the guy. If a sober guy and a sober girl hook up, is it rape? Again, the assumption of guilt is on the guy. If a drunk guy and a sober girl…I hope you get where I’m going with this.
The problem is that women are assumed to be the victims, regardless of the fact. They are given the benefit of the doubt in almost every case.
Maybe it isn’t a good idea for people to have sex when they’re drunk…
I mean, it could lead to abortions, std’s, regrets, accusations, etc.
-Thirst
Also who is to say what is ‘drunk’. I’ve seen people have 3 glasses of wine and be utterly out of it, others I’ve seen 3 bottles of wine and be completely compus mentus (well, not completely). If we use the government measure of ‘drunk’, then virtually any woman binge drinker in the country can claim the were ‘too drunk’ to give consent.
The other worrying thing is that this is to help increase conviction of non-stranger rape cases, if the woman was that drunk, so probably was the man, is he supposed to suddenly sober up and go ‘hang on old chap, I think she’s had a little too much and when she says yes, she really means no’, rather than, wayhey, ‘I’ve always thought she fancied me!’
Perhaps they should pass a law that it is unlawful to possess and consume alcohol until a class on personal responsibility is taken so that both males and females understand the potential consequences. I’m sick and tired of listening to all the victim talk. Life isn’t fair. So what else is new?
Alcohol is irrelevant, though a word to the wise in the matter should be sufficient to warn men and women not to mix sex and alcohol.
If a woman consents to sex, whether or not she is drunk, but if drunk then assuming that she voluntarily placed herself in the drunken state, then there is no rape … and by voluntarily placing herself in the drunken state means that she chose freely to drink and she was not forced alcohol against her will or unknowingly slipped a drug.
If a man knows she is drunk and takes advantage of her inebriated “easiness”, he may be a bit desperate and perhaps unable to differentiate between sex and love, etc., but he has committed no crime if she says “yes”.
If a woman says “no” or does not say “yes” to sex, whether or not she is drunk, then if a man has sex with her, that is rape.
There is no “neutral” in the matter – lack of consent does not mean “yes”.
And, of course, “no”, always means no.
One says “yes” to sex … or it is rape.
So it behooves the man to be very sure that she has consented to sex, that she said “yes” explicitly or, absent of explicit verbal consent, let her body do the “she pulled me into her room, ripped off my clothes and hers and pulled me onto her” obvious consent “talking”.
Because, all alcohol being irrelevant, if she doesn’t obviously consent, it’s rape.
It really is that simple.
JH,
And when you are a jurist, and the woman proclaims that she did not say “yes”, and the man proclaims that she did indeed say “yes”, how does one proceed? How does the jurist decide the truth of the matter?
With an appropriate investigation, as always.
And sometimes the jurist can never be sure of knowing what truly happened.
Let that be a lesson to all readers about the dangers of premarital sex, especially with a complete stranger one met at a bar.
The jurists could just as easily rule guilty as innocent, depending which side had the “better” mouthpiece.
Remember, a court of law is not an authority of the truth.
Both the man and the woman know what happened.
If one is lying, the truth may not be that which is “chosen” in court.
Thus injustice could occur.
Which, of course, is why lying is always wrong, no matter what – it prevents the telling of the truth … and only via the truth can justice be served.
The victim game. However, if the woman is drugged, this is a different story altogether.
I would like people to have a license before having children.
With regards,
aspacia
Forensic science can determine a great deal. Ripped clothing, scratches, bruising, etc.
With regards,
aspacia
It might do some of you some good to actually read the article:
I suffer from completely forgetting hours at a time when drunk, with no way to recollect them, and I know plenty of others who suffer from exactly the same thing.
The most worrying thing about this proposed law change is that a woman might have said yes (more than once), completely forgotten that she had and then be deemed ‘too drunk to consent’ and the man is suddenly a rapist.
It’s all part of the doube-standard. 
Hey, down to brass tacks, I don’t mind at all there being one standard for women, and another one for men. Just, if people are willing to acknowledge there’s a double standard now, I don’t want to hear anyone bitching about it later when the double standard doesn’t suit the fairer sex.
No, I don't think a woman getting drunk by choice, deciding while drunk to have sex, and then realizing it was a big mistake when she sobers up makes the man a rapist. But if we want to go [i]that far[/i] down the 'women aren't accountable for the things they do, like men are" road, then it might come up in other ways that women don't like, either.
If what you are saying is that having sex while drunk results in remembering about as well as dreamless sleep, then, maybe it’s best not to have sex when you are likely to be unconscious.
First, it kind of reduces the pleasure of the process if you can’t remember how good it was.
And, second, considering all kinds of things that can happen as a result of sex, especially with a stranger you just met at a bar, wouldn’t it be a good idea to simply refrain from such dangerous activity?
It is your freedom of action right to so choose to do whatever you non-harmingly want with another so-consenting person.
But, as this law conditions and as you have accurately expressed concern, isn’t it just rather stupid to mix sex and alcohol under these circumstances?
“Your honor, I just can’t remember if she said no or not, I was under the influence and I blacked out.”
“Well, your honor, I didn’t black out and I fought and I fought but he raped me anyway, and now I’m pregnant and I’ve tested positive for HIV and my husband wants to leave me … and he raped me!”
Again, a word to the wise, which is probably what this law truly is.