• 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

truethat said:
Fiona its pretty obvious that one of your favorite things to do is to talk about how women are victims. Why is that?

And its interesting to me to see that you seem outraged at the suggestion that women would lie about something like this. I ask why? Being a rape victim is something that gets a woman a lot of poor thing attention. Its definitely something a mentally unhealthy woman could do. Women are not exempt from lying. We went over this in another thread months ago where you refused to believe that large numbers of women could lie about getting pregnant on purpose.

Women absolutely lie. People who are desperate will do desperate things. No matter how much the person is victimized and truly a victim, it doesn't change the fact that they might lie. Two reasons for lying about rape to me are getting attention, and feeling guilty for sleeping with someone when they were drunk. Next morning regret.

To me rape is about violence, not sex. So a guy having sex to me is not enough to make it rape. A guy forcing a woman is going to involved holding her down, dragging her, hitting her, beating her, yelling, screaming and attack plus massive resistance to some degree by the woman. The after effect will be a state of shock.

A woman who goes home with a man after going out for drinks, goes up to his apartment, gets half undressed and starts making out and then he wants to and she's not sure but one thing leads to another ......is not rape. That's sexual regret that the woman wants to put on the guy. And the whole "I was so drunk that he took advantage of me" doesn't wash with me either.

If you were too drunk to be held accountable for your actions it's your own fault, and if you get off the hook, why can't we let the men off the hook for being too drunk to be held accountable either? Should we start saying "Not guilty by reason of intoxication" for murders as well?
Click to expand...



This post is making me physically ill. What a load of steaming horseapples. I can't even begin to tell you how stupid this is without getting suspended.
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
Look, it's really simple:

If a person is incapable of making an informed chioce you should not be taking advantage of this incapacity, however it came about.
Click to expand...

Actually this is one grey area where I do have issues. Take this case for example. A guy is in a mate's dorm room when there is a knock on the dorr, and a girl enters saying she's a friend of the mate. They sit a watch TV for a bit during which time it's obvious that she has been drinking and is drunk, but well and truely able to hold up a conversation and has all her faculties. She starts making moves which are accepted and one thing leads to another with her leaving the next morning apparently fine with the whole thing, until three weeks later when she files rape charges. Reason: She was drunk and thus unable to give consent.

This was a real case and the guy got charged with it by the police, he got kicked out of school and it essentially ruined his life because he was labelled a rapist. So whilke I agree if they are totally out of it and unable to respond with more than an unintelligable groan, if they are walking and talking and say yes, or even instigate it, that's consent drunk or not, it's not up to the propective partners to have to breath test each other to determine if they are over the limit. No really mean NO, but yes doesn't mean Yes, but if I change my mind in a few days it was really no because I was drunk.
 
MikeMangum said:
Yes. Exactly. Notice the word "persuaded".

...snip...
Click to expand...


You seem to have missed that I never said persuaded to have sex.... plus you need to read it with the post it was in response to, as a standalone quote it has lost the context that gives it most of its meaning.
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
If a person is drunk he/she does *not* have all his/her faculties.
Click to expand...

Not actually true, I have known people who were drunk, but quite alert and able to converse well, I have also known people who where drunk and couldn't walk straight. Drunk doesn't mean that you are so inebrated you can't think straight or stand up. Merely that you are well over the limit.
 
MikeMangum said:
So if a man "go[es] out for a few drinks one night, one thing leads to another and [he] get very drunk; [he] wake up the next morning with a blinding hangover and find that some [woman] persuaded [him] to go back to [her] apartment and repeatedly had sex with [him] all night", has he been a victim of sexual assault?
Click to expand...


That depends on his worldview, but potentially, yes.

Keep in mind, he is the one who willingly impaired his judgement, and as far as the woman is concerned, he gave his consent. If you believe that scenario constitutes sexual assault, is there a specific blood alcohol content threshold beyond which a person cannot give consent?
Click to expand...

Not that I know of. Why is it relevant?

Is the potential sexual partner responsible for determining the BAC of their prospective partner?
Click to expand...

No. He/She is responsible for determining if his/her potential sexual partner can give informed consent.

If they are both drunk, who is the guilty party?
Click to expand...

If two drunk drivers crash into each other, who is the guilty party?

<snip>

The ultimate question is this: are you responsible for your own actions and decisions when you are intoxicated of your own free will?
Click to expand...

The ultimate question is this: What kind of person takes advantage of another's impaired decision making?
 
MikeMangum said:
So if a man "go[es] out for a few drinks one night, one thing leads to another and [he] get very drunk; [he] wake up the next morning with a blinding hangover and find that some [woman] persuaded [him] to go back to [her] apartment and repeatedly had sex with [him] all night", has he been a victim of sexual assault?

Keep in mind, he is the one who willingly impaired his judgement, and as far as the woman is concerned, he gave his consent.
Click to expand...
This is not correct. By getting drunk and going back to someone's apartment, someone is not giving their consent to sexual penetration. That you might think otherwise is another example of unreasonable and flawed attitudes. Thankfully, in this area of consent the law has changed for the better--at least in the UK. (See Sexual Offences Act 2003 Chapter 42 Part 1, 2, 3 which gained royal assent 20/11/03)
 
PhantomWolf said:
Not actually true, I have known people who were drunk, but quite alert and able to converse well, I have also known people who where drunk and couldn't walk straight. Drunk doesn't mean that you are so inebrated you can't think straight or stand up. Merely that you are well over the limit.
Click to expand...

So as long as it's a talkative drunk you have sex with it's not rape?
 
Francesca R said:
This is not correct. By getting drunk and going back to someone's apartment, someone is not giving their consent to sexual penetration. That you might think otherwise is another example of unreasonable and flawed attitudes. Thankfully, in this area of consent the law has changed for the better--at least in the UK. (See Sexual Offences Act 2003 Chapter 42 Part 1, 2, 3 which gained royal assent 20/11/03)
Click to expand...

I think that the assumption in the senario is that the drunk person said yes to doing it, the question being, if said person says yes, but is under the influence of alcohol, is it still rape, and if yes, what level of drunkeness does a person have to be under before it goes from consent to not able to consent even if they say yes? And of course the question that Ivor avoided, what if they are both drunk?
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
If a talkative drunk asks for a tattoo, should the tattooist do what they ask?
Click to expand...

Well, it's been a while since my last tatoo, but from memory the tatooist didn't breathalise me or perform a blood alcohol test. From if I remember rightly I had had a couple of drinks. I was however quite lucid, but then I can drink quite a bit before it becomes obvious to people who don't know me well. I wanted the tatoo and am very happy with it but do you think I should have him prosecuted anyway?

The point PhantomWolf is making is valid, volentarily incapacity doesn't absolve you from responsibility for your decisions. If I get drunk and a friend (drunk or sober) persuades me to drive, I would be the drunk driver, not them, and if I killed someone as a result I would face the consequences. What if two drunk peple have consensual sex and both regret it afterwards, who prosecutes who?

The situation you are talking about is different, you are refering to a situation where the victim is unable to communicate their decision and as such is not a part of the decision making process. This is completely different and I would agree 100% that a crime had been commited.

Summery-:

Bad decision made by intoxicated party and later regretted- Their fault
Decision made independantly of victim- Rape


Of course this is totally seperate from the issue of proving what happened.....
 
If you're drunk and you choose to have sex, then sober up and regret it, tough. That's not rape. Sorry, but being drunk doesn't prevent you from making decisions, it only affects your ability to make good decisions.

Drunk drivers are not excused the consequences of their actions because they were drunk, quite the opposite.

Of course there's a chasm of difference between "I was drunk and slept with a guy I shouldn't have" and "I was drunk and some guy forced himself on me but I was too wasted to stop him".
 
PhantomWolf said:
I think that the assumption in the senario is that the drunk person said yes to doing it
Click to expand...
No that is not stated in the scenario. Legally it can not be reasonably assumed either.

PhantomWolf said:
if said person says yes, but is under the influence of alcohol, is it still rape
Click to expand...
Different scenario to the one under discussion, which was given here:
truethat said:
A woman who goes home with a man after going out for drinks, goes up to his apartment, gets half undressed and starts making out and then he wants to and she's not sure but one thing leads to another ......
Click to expand...
Re-presented here:
Darat said:
So lets see, you go out for a few drinks one night, one thing leads to another and you get very drunk; you wake up the next morning with a blinding hangover and find that some bloke persuaded you to go back to their apartment and repeatedly had sex with you all night, you'd just think "Oh well I was drunk it's not his fault".
Click to expand...
And then again here:
MikeMangum said:
So if a man "go[es] out for a few drinks one night, one thing leads to another and [he] get very drunk; [he] wake up the next morning with a blinding hangover and find that some [woman] persuaded [him] to go back to [her] apartment and repeatedly had sex with [him] all night"
Click to expand...

====
PhantomWolf said:
and if yes, what level of drunkeness does a person have to be under before it goes from consent to not able to consent even if they say yes?
Click to expand...
Again from the UK Act:
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...

PhantomWolf said:
And of course the question that Ivor avoided, what if they are both drunk?
Click to expand...
No difference. The fact that person B might be too temporarily impaired to be believed to reasonably give consent means that consent is not given. If person A is also too temporarily impaired to be able to judge this one way or the other is no defence. I would have thought that would be obvious.

PhantomWolf said:
How much alcohol does a person have to have before they are no longer allowed to consent to things?
Click to expand...
A jury decides "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."
 
Lothian said:
Many a time I have been drunk, lying half naked in the street in a pool of my vomit yet not once has anyone taken me home for a night of steamy passion, strange that.
Click to expand...


Perhap's they've offered but you've been to drunk to agree (or remember)?
 
http://www.itv.com/News/Articles/Drunk-driver-jailed-for-death-crash-501560107.html

Mary Butres, 47, was driving her partner John Nichols' Jaguar XJ8 when it ran into surface water, skidded and hit Mark Crompton, 20, and his 19-year-old girlfriend Jodie Brown, killing them both.

The couple were phoning for help after their Ford Fiesta broke down on the central reservation of the A1 at Great Ponton, Lincolnshire, in May last year.

Nichols, 58, was a front-seat passenger in the car, whose on-board computer recorded it as travelling at 111mph at the moment of impact. He was jailed for five years.

Both he and Butres were convicted last month on two counts of causing death by dangerous driving. Butres admitted another charge of drink-driving.
Click to expand...

Going along with the decisions of a drunk is no defence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom