• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

False allegations and attrition

Ivor the Engineer said:
Gumboot,

I think you need to refresh your memory about what informed consent is and what it is not.
Click to expand...



Informed consent in the context of a doctor giving medical treatment is utterly different than what you're calling informed consent in the case of sexual contact. The first is a legally defined concept, the second is not.

Just to be clear, legal sexual intercourse requires only consent, not informed consent. It is more akin to medical consent, which is wholly different.
 
Thank you, Ivor. So to obtain informed consent I must ensure that the person has a) consumed no alcohol, b) have evidence of my physical attributes, sexual history and preferences, probability of me remaining awake for the agreed time after completion of said act or acts (to be agreed before hand of course). I presume also we should agree beforehand the degree to which we may disclose said act or acts to which degree of friends.
My experience leads me to believe that many women would consider this a mood breaker.
 
gumboot said:
Informed consent in the context of a doctor giving medical treatment is utterly different than what you're calling informed consent in the case of sexual contact. The first is a legally defined concept, the second is not.

Just to be clear, legal sexual intercourse requires only consent, not informed consent. It is more akin to medical consent, which is wholly different.
Click to expand...

A person may move from friendship to sexual contact on the basis of body language and apparent receptivity, but very few people on a date that results in sexual contact have explicitly asked the other if their consent is informed, if they do in fact fully understand what is implied, and all potential conditions or results. Informed consent is implied (or assumed unless disproved) but not stated explicitly.
Click to expand...

It has been established consent may not be considered informed if a person is intoxicated. Thus the assumption of informed consent in sexual contact could be disproved if it can be shown it would have been obvious to a reasonable person seeking consent for sex that the other person was drunk.
 
Wudang said:
Thank you, Ivor. So to obtain informed consent I must ensure that the person has a) consumed no alcohol, b) have evidence of my physical attributes, sexual history and preferences, probability of me remaining awake for the agreed time after completion of said act or acts (to be agreed before hand of course). I presume also we should agree beforehand the degree to which we may disclose said act or acts to which degree of friends.
My experience leads me to believe that many women would consider this a mood breaker.
Click to expand...

No, you must ensure a reasonable person would consider the person giving the consent to sex capable of giving informed consent.
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
It has been established consent may not be considered informed if a person is intoxicated. Thus the assumption of informed consent in sexual contact could be disproved if it can be shown it would have been obvious to a reasonable person seeking consent for sex that the other person was drunk.
Click to expand...



And yet multiple jurisdictions have repeatedly rejected your position. At least you have finally come out and outright admitted that you think having sex with a drunk person is rape. So if two drunk people have sex does their mutual rape of each other cancel out?

This is a stupid idea. Obviously.
 
Wudang said:
And how have you defined informed consent?
Click to expand...

Francesca R posted it some pages back:

1 Rape
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
Source
Click to expand...
 
gumboot said:
And yet multiple jurisdictions have repeatedly rejected your position. At least you have finally come out and outright admitted that you think having sex with a drunk person is rape. So if two drunk people have sex does their mutual rape of each other cancel out?

This is a stupid idea. Obviously.
Click to expand...

You seem to be missing or misreading one particular word:

"It has been established consent may not be considered informed if a person is intoxicated."​

That doesn't mean "intoxicated to any degree means no informed consent" it means that sometimes some degree of intoxication may mean it was not informed consent.
 
One can argue forever that the wording of the (UK) law about consent does not define an unambiguous set of rules by which to make each and every ex-ante decision about sexual activity. But it cannot. This is why the word "reasonable" permeates not just sexual offence law but all of criminal law.

I thought that this was dealt with already . . .
 
gumboot said:
That mentions the the "offeror" must be informed. Says nothing about the "offeree" being informed.
Click to expand...
The word "informed" does not come into it. Prosecution must prove that it was not reasonable to adduce that consent was given, and that the defendant knew this.

ETA--as far as I know, everyone is on-side with this, at least insofar as it being the law (in the UK).

With respect to complaints that sex cannot safely be engaged in without sworn affidavits of consent and fully clear certified blood alcohol test results . . . that is an unreasonable interpretation of law. But of course people are free to take whatever safeguards they feel comfortable with.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
You seem to be missing or misreading one particular word:

"It has been established consent may not be considered informed if a person is intoxicated."​

That doesn't mean "intoxicated to any degree means no informed consent" it means that sometimes some degree of intoxication may mean it was not informed consent.
Click to expand...



Wrong... follow the chain here...

Impairments to reasoning and judgement which would make it impossible for someone to give informed consent include such factors as... intoxication...
Click to expand...

Thus the assumption of informed consent in sexual contact could be disproved if it can be shown it would have been obvious to a reasonable person seeking consent for sex that the other person was drunk.
Click to expand...

Two points being made.

1) Intoxication makes it impossible for someone give informed consent.
2) You cannot assume informed consent if the other person is drunk.

Quite clear, really. Sex with a drunk person = rape.

"may" doesn't always distinguish only possibility.

"May I have a cookie?"
"You may not."
 
^^Your (1) and (2) do not follow at all from what you posted. I think you are wilfully denying the obvious. I do not know why.
 
Francesca R said:
The word "informed" does not come into it.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point. Ivor the Engineer is claiming otherwise.


Francesca R said:
Prosecution must prove that it was not reasonable to adduce that consent was given, and that the defendant knew this.
Click to expand...

I agree completely.


Francesca R said:
ETA--as far as I know, everyone is on-side with this, at least insofar as it being the law (in the UK).
Click to expand...

Everyone except Ivor the Engineer. (Possibly Darat also, they have only just turned up so I'm not sure what their position is).
 
gumboot said:
Everyone except Ivor the Engineer. (Possibly Darat also, they have only just turned up so I'm not sure what their position is).
Click to expand...
Everyone, as far as i can see.

Of course if the two you mention are not on-side with the meaning of that law then they will say so, won't they? You or I hardly need to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom