London, here I come!

I can see why. I don't agree, mind you, but I can see why.

Why did we declare our independence again? Someone help me out here.

Step 1. Get drunk with subby'smom.
Step 2. ????
Step 3. Profit!!

I hope I brought enough for everyone.

I'm not touching this one!

On the flip side, I'm always sympathetic to the women who want to get a drink after I rape them.

I always thought that the chance of sleeping with someone you would not otherwise had slept with was just one of the standard downsides of drinking, right along with impaired equilibrium and long term liver damage.

ZekeMacNeil: While I understand that "no" means "no", but there i still an element of personal responsibility that can't be ignored.


I don't think it's really that. One of the things that is important in witness believeability is their ability to recall with clarity and certainty.

Alcohol changes perceptions and negatively effects memory. It should be taken into account when the jury thinks about the credibility of a witness.

I can see why since

a) Lots of people, after binge drinking, can't remember the specifics of what happened and might remember a non-rape as rape

b) Lots of people do stupid things after binging and might either rationalize it away (ie make themselves think it was rape) or merely claim rape to avoid embarassement)

I can agree with plain old fashioned drunk, but spiked drinks? That alone is a crime in my book.

It's just an impossible job for a juror. When it's he said she said and she doesn't remember, how can you rule? You have to go by circumstantial evidence and gauge "did he mean to get her drunk and sleep with her?" The problem is, most guys out drinking with a girl are looking to get her drunk to sleep with her. Just not to the point of non-consensual sex. Alcohol is the biggest social lubricant in the world, Seinfeld said it best that 95% of the world would be undateable without it.

if she drinks tequila, she's asking for it.

if she drinks whiskey, you're probably going to be the one getting raped.

AstralRunner: I always thought that the chance of sleeping with someone you would not otherwise had slept with was just one of the standard downsides of drinking, right along with impaired equilibrium and long term liver damage.

I'm caught between my kneejerk reaction to scream at people who cry foul when they do something stupid and a bad thing happens and my other kneejerk reaction to repeatedly and mercilessly cockpunch assholes who take advantage of an inebriated girl.

If you were too drunk to realize it was rape at the time, you were too drunk to have been traumatized by it. Walk it off, slut. Walk it off.

RAPE FTW!

thelunatick

I can agree with plain old fashioned drunk, but spiked drinks? That alone is a crime in my book.



I agree... these things should be illegal.

If you're both drunk and decide to screw around, nobody was raped.

If this headline was "British study shows juries unsympathetic to women who claimed 'I didn't mean it' after binge drinking and mowing down crowd of innocents" it wouldn't be on Fark.

I have never ever understood this.

A drunk broad cannot legally "consent to sex" yet the same drunk broad can and will be held wholly responsible for her actions if, after said sex, she drives home and, while still drunk kills ten people with her car.

What, exactly, is the muthafarkin' difference???

It looks like this refers to rape by impaired judgment, which not everyone believes in. You're told it's a double standard: a man is held less responsible for rape when drinking, whereas a woman is held irresponsible when raped after drinking. It's not a double standard, though, really, but an application of the same principle to two situations: a man who takes a criminal action while drunk bears less responsibilty, but still responsibility, for his actions, just as a woman who takes a benign action while drunk holds less authority, but still authority, over hers.

If that doesn't convince you, think of it this way: if a man and a woman, equally intoxicated (allowing, of course, for the stronger effect of alcohol on most women), sleep together, is there a crime? Legally, yes, in many jurisdictions, but not (to me) morally. If he were sober, he would be a rapist - arguably, if she were sober, even she would be a rapist - but neither is, because, being drunk, they can't really be held responsible, any more than the other can be held responsible. If, however, the woman can be held responsible, then so can the man, but then there's no crime for which he should be held responsible.

I can only assume the sad tag is directed at the girls, not the juries. Because that actually makes sense.

I don't remember a thing. But I know I didn't consent.

I you are so drunk that you cannot remember what happened, how do you know that you did not consent to sex?

I am all for locking away rapists, but I feel men are unfairly treated by the law. I know plenty of women who get so drunk they dont know what they are doing, get with some guy and regret it the next day. I am sure there are some women who would rather claim rape than to admit they knew what they were doing.

Gender equality does not mean that women should always get the benefit of the doubt.

If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?

The uncovered meat is the problem.

more OBVIOUS

Okay . Does that mean, if I spike a mans drink, or food, with Viagra, that, if he also drinks a little too much,that I can have my way with him. No matter what I look like, and no matter, if he would have me, without me doing that to him?

Really Just Sayin I need to know.

I am suprised that the fact that the drink was spiked made little difference to the jurors.

I think the article refers to women who get drunk, pass out and are raped when unconscious or incapacitated. Not women who get drunk, consent to sex, but then regret it later, as some Farkers seem to believe.

So if both the girl and guy are drunk and have sex, can the girl claim rape? Can the guy? Neither one consented, right?

Doe sit depend who's on top?

2006-12-07 01:01:17 AM Bad_Seed

I think the article refers to women who get drunk, pass out and are raped when unconscious or incapacitated. Not women who get drunk, consent to sex, but then regret it later, as some Farkers seem to believe.

Actually the article doesn't imply that AT ALL. Did you actually read it?

It is just discussion any rape claims that allegedly occured during a night of heavy drinking.

consdubya: I you are so drunk that you cannot remember what happened, how do you know that you did not consent to sex?

I am all for locking away rapists, but I feel men are unfairly treated by the law. I know plenty of women who get so drunk they dont know what they are doing, get with some guy and regret it the next day. I am sure there are some women who would rather claim rape than to admit they knew what they were doing.

Gender equality does not mean that women should always get the benefit of the doubt.

I thought the claim was that if they were so drunk that they could not remember it was automatically rape because they were incapable of consent.

Wait, a woman's drinking, man spikes her drink, they have sex (consensual or not), if he spiked her drink, shouldn't that alone be a crime?

Well, that puts me off of ever wanting to go to England.

Justsaying

Okay . Does that mean, if I spike a mans drink, or food, with Viagra, that, if he also drinks a little too much,that I can have my way with him. No matter what I look like, and no matter, if he would have me, without me doing that to him?

Really Just Sayin I need to know.

My address is...wait you are a chick, right?

Bill Frist

Actually the article doesn't imply that AT ALL. Did you actually read it?

TFA: They appear to believe that it is reasonable for a man to assume that a woman's silence amounts to consent, even if it is due to her intoxication.

ie Juries believe that if she's too pissed to talk she implies consent.

This month Jonathan Hagan was cleared of raping an undergraduate after a freshers' party at the University of Nottingham, where he was student union president. The girl said that she was so drunk that she could remember nothing more than Hagan removing her underwear before she passed out.

I read TFA, did you?

thelunatick
I can agree with plain old fashioned drunk, but spiked drinks? That alone is a crime in my book.

How charitable of you to grant that drugging someone is criminal.

ottawaboy

The uncovered meat is the problem.

Nah, bad anaolgy. In your analogy Men are the intellectual equal of cats, and I dont agree with that.

But yeah, if I were to go to a gay club wearing leather pants with the ass cut out, I would expect to have my ass pinched by some gay guy. If I got really drunk and woke up the next morning with a really sore bum, I wouldnt cry rape, I would just cry.

"I read TFA, did you?"

Kid, that was ONE example they gave, not the only thing the article talked about.

2006-12-07 01:08:32 AM consdubya

ottawaboy

The uncovered meat is the problem.

Nah, bad anaolgy. In your analogy Men are the intellectual equal of cats, and I dont agree with that.

Dude, he is quoting some Islamic idiot (pres of Iran?) who used that analogy to say that women who who went out in public without Burkas were asking to be raped.

Even if a woman's drink has been spiked, they are reluctant to find a defendant guilty of rape.

That is farking scary.

It was the ONLY example they gave. They're not saying that sex while drunk = rape. They're saying that juries think that rape while drunk = not rape.

brierhart: Wait, a woman's drinking, man spikes her drink, they have sex (consensual or not), if he spiked her drink, shouldn't that alone be a crime?

I believe when they said 'spike' a drink, they were reffering to spiking it with alcohol specifically, rather than any drugs. The article did say that if rohypnol was added the juries were happy to convict.