[NB_ide]

(Original post by ForKicks)
Common sense. If you are unsure about it then don't do it. How hard is that?

What a cop-out, come on - explain it.
We aren't born with this knowledge, so it must be explicable and can be put into words.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by NB_ide)
What a cop-out, come on - explain it.
We aren't born with this knowledge, so it must be explicable and can be put into words.

Okay, so a girl is drunk and either not making sense, can't walk straight etc.. If you think there is a possibility she is too drunk, then stay away. It is literally gut instinct and erring on the side of caution. If you still don't think you could recognise a very drunk girl, then just don't go home with any drunk girl

[NB_ide]

(Original post by ForKicks)
Okay, so a girl is drunk and either not making sense, can't walk straight etc.. If you think there is a possibility she is too drunk, then stay away. It is literally gut instinct and erring on the side of caution. If you still don't think you could recognise a very drunk girl, then just don't go home with any drunk girl

So we're back at square one and have no idea what is acceptable, socially or legally, and it's all down to our individual judgement, which will presumably differ from her individual judgement, and then maybe the judge's individual... judgement.

I don't think it's satisfactory that we can't explain what does and doesn't constitute "consent", and have to just er on the side of caution by avoiding girls altogether.

You did allude to some tests such as walking in a straight line. Do you think perhaps we should have standard and accepted tests like that, maybe even a breathaliser to be very clear about it, some objective way to determine when women are no longer fit to make decisions for themselves?

[ForKicks]

(Original post by NB_ide)
So we're back at square one and have no idea what is acceptable, socially or legally, and it's all down to our individual judgement, which will presumably differ from her individual judgement, and then maybe the judge's individual... judgement.

I don't think it's satisfactory that we can't explain what does and doesn't constitute "consent", and have to just er on the side of caution by avoiding girls altogether.

You did allude to some tests such as walking in a straight line. Do you think perhaps we should have standard and accepted tests like that, maybe even a breathaliser to be very clear about it, some objective way to determine when women are no longer fit to make decisions for themselves?

Not avoid girls altogether, just very drunk girls. Why is that so bad? lol. I really think you are over-thinking this, it is quite easy to tell when a girl has had quite a few drinks.

[NB_ide]

(Original post by ForKicks)
Not avoid girls altogether, just very drunk girls.

What is the "very drunk" limit and how do we determine is clearly and objectively?

Why is that so bad? lol. I really think you are over-thinking this, it is quite easy to tell

So surely you can explain how?

when a girl has had quite a few drinks.

"quite a few" is perhaps not a clear enough concept. Should it be fixed to a certain number of units consumed... maybe per bodyweight... or just a blood alcohol concentration?

[Mrx123]

i love some of the questions that ppl ask on this site

[olibishop]

The law seeks to ignore the drunkeness of a person and assess their mental state nonetheless. This means that it is very possible to have legally consensual sex with a drunk person and similarly for someone who shoots a person to not be convicted of murder.

The notion that a lot of people seem to use to explain drunk sex that once intoxicated you are incapable of giving valid consent is very wrong. (See a case called BreeI) i.e. "a drunken consent is still a consent." The only situation in which this is the case is where a victim is so intoxicated that they have passed out and are obviously incapable of consenting. (Wright)

People who, say, shoot someone when drunk are similarly not allowed the excuse of being drunk. Just as a drunken consent is still consent, a drunken intent is still and intent. Yet the state of intoxication is evidence from which they can show that they perhaps did not intend to kill a person. In [I]Moloney[I] a drunk person engaged in a competition to see who could load and fire a gun fastest in a confined space. The fact that he was drunk was evidence by which the jury concluded that he didn't intend to kill, but had just been reckless (hence manslaughter) but if sober, it is unlikely that he would have been allowed to make such a defence.

In conclusion, legally, sleeping with a drunk girl is not always rape. If she consents then it is not, despite her level of intoxication and even if she would not have consented if sober/ less drunk. In effect, ignore drunkeness and look at people's intentions aside from it. Intoxication is important as evidence though.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by NB_ide)
What is the "very drunk" limit and how do we determine is clearly and objectively?



So surely you can explain how?



"quite a few" is perhaps not a clear enough concept. Should it be fixed to a certain number of units consumed... maybe per bodyweight... or just a blood alcohol concentration?

No, it is just a 'what is reasonable' approach. Tipsy and chatty is not the same as stumbling into walls and throwing up.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by olibishop)
The law seeks to ignore the drunkeness of a person and assess their mental state nonetheless. This means that it is very possible to have legally consensual sex with a drunk person and similarly for someone who shoots a person to not be convicted of murder.

The notion that a lot of people seem to use to explain drunk sex that once intoxicated you are incapable of giving valid consent is very wrong. (See a case called BreeI) i.e. "a drunken consent is still a consent." The only situation in which this is the case is where a victim is so intoxicated that they have passed out and are obviously incapable of consenting. (Wright)

People who, say, shoot someone when drunk are similarly not allowed the excuse of being drunk. Just as a drunken consent is still consent, a drunken intent is still and intent. Yet the state of intoxication is evidence from which they can show that they perhaps did not intend to kill a person. In [I]Moloney[I] a drunk person engaged in a competition to see who could load and fire a gun fastest in a confined space. The fact that he was drunk was evidence by which the jury concluded that he didn't intend to kill, but had just been reckless (hence manslaughter) but if sober, it is unlikely that he would have been allowed to make such a defence.

In conclusion, legally, sleeping with a drunk girl is not always rape. If she consents then it is not, despite her level of intoxication and even if she would not have consented if sober/ less drunk. In effect, ignore drunkeness and look at people's intentions aside from it. Intoxication is important as evidence though.

Intention at the point of sex, not what was expressed prior to that though.

[olibishop]

(Original post by ForKicks)
Intention at the point of sex, not what was expressed prior to that though.

Well obviously...although that has nothing to do with intoxication. People are obviously capable of changing their minds, drunk or not.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by olibishop)
Well obviously...although that has nothing to do with intoxication. People are obviously capable of changing their minds, drunk or not.

I know, I have just heard people claim before that if a girl says yes when reasonable and then gets too drunk to consent again, the first consent applies

[olibishop]

(Original post by ForKicks)
I know, I have just heard people claim before that if a girl says yes when reasonable and then gets too drunk to consent again, the first consent applies

But legally speaking there is not really any such thing as 'too drunk to consent' unless you're so hammered you've passed out. Morally, well that's a totally different issue.

Again in the eyes of the law, the situation you have described would probably not be rape because the defendant would have reasonable grounds to believe that she did consent. Obviously though, it is fact-specific.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by olibishop)
But legally speaking there is not really any such thing as 'too drunk to consent' unless you're so hammered you've passed out. Morally, well that's a totally different issue.

Again in the eyes of the law, the situation you have described would probably not be rape because the defendant would have reasonable grounds to believe that she did consent. Obviously though, it is fact-specific.

What about the recent Evans and McDonald case, where she was not passed out but very drunk? That seems to support the stance courts are beginning to take.

You mention the Bree case but missed out "if, through drink or for any other reason, the complainant has temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have intercourse on the relevant occasion, she is not consenting, and subject to questions about the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse takes place, this would be rape." So it is not about whether they are passed out, but whether they can reasonably consent (as always).

[marcusfox]

(Original post by ForKicks)
What about the recent Evans and McDonald case, where she was not passed out but very drunk? That seems to support the stance courts are beginning to take.

You mention the Bree case but missed out "if, through drink or for any other reason, the complainant has temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have intercourse on the relevant occasion, she is not consenting, and subject to questions about the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse takes place, this would be rape." So it is not about whether they are passed out, but whether they can reasonably consent (as always).

Some of the girls on these two threads (the other one being Drunk Girls in Ayia Napa) have applied incredible cognitive dissonance whereas they insist that if a girl is too drunk but still capable of saying yes, that doesn't count because she doesn't know what she is doing and therefore it's rape.

Even if they give all the signs that they are up for sex, going home with the guy, saying yes to sex and participating.

Then for some bizarre reason they include an example of where in their case it's not rape because they 'obviously consented' somehow.

(Original post by tooti)
The story I remember was the footballer who picked up a really drunk girl with his friend when he was sober and there was cctv and a witness in his hotel and he was convicted so its not completely impossible. I was so drunk once that I blacked out and had sex with my boyfriend then not remembered the next day, but obviously I consented to it so again there is a grey area.

(Original post by TitchTheAntiHero)
it's not rubbish, but it's too simplistic,
if drunk = unable to remember & unable to form proper sentences then yes, it is rape.

However how the person act before hand is important too, I was at a festival once and I got with this guy, then I got very drunk and I'll admit woke up unaware of what happened exactly but to me thats not rape because I indicated I was okay with it before hand,

it is a very grey area, which is probably why the conviction rate is so low

[TitchTheAntiHero]

(Original post by marcusfox)
Some of the girls on these two threads (the other one being Drunk Girls in Ayia Napa) have applied incredible cognitive dissonance whereas they insist that if a girl is too drunk but still capable of saying yes, that doesn't count because she doesn't know what she is doing and therefore it's rape.

Even if they give all the signs that they are up for sex, going home with the guy, saying yes to sex and participating.

Then for some bizarre reason they include an example of where in their case it's not rape because they 'obviously consented' somehow.

note how I said not ALL sex with drunk girls is rape, and used my example as a case were it's not, I just said that MOST cases would be rape, not all

[marcusfox]

(Original post by TitchTheAntiHero)
note how I said not ALL sex with drunk girls is rape, and used my example as a case were it's not, I just said that MOST cases would be rape, not all

But by agreeing to go home (or tent) with someone for the purposes of a sexual liason, this is generally an indication that you are OK with it beforehand.

Girls have, in their drunken state, agreed to go home with a guy for the purposes of sex, woken up in the morning, have no recollection for the night before, gone to the police and the guy has still ended up being done for rape because even though she had indicated she was up for sex beforehand, she wasn't capable of consenting the moment before he stuck it in.

[TitchTheAntiHero]

(Original post by marcusfox)
But by agreeing to go home (or tent) with someone for the purposes of a sexual liason, this is generally an indication that you are OK with it beforehand.

Girls have, in their drunken state, agreed to go home with a guy for the purposes of sex, woken up in the morning, have no recollection for the night before, gone to the police and the guy has still ended up being done for rape because even though she had indicated she was up for sex beforehand, she wasn't capable of consenting the moment before he stuck it in.

I suppose it depends on the mindset of the girl, personally, I was up for it before, I'd indicated that to him, I'd decided that beforehand in my own head, we then went on to share drinks which led to intoxication. I suppose part of it is also how the girl perceives it, although I'm unsure if anything did happen if it did to me it was consentual, but I see how other girls could wake up and feel it was not if it was them in the same position, I suppose that aspect shows how it is generally easier to just avoid sleeping with intoxicated people.

Basically I'm of the opinion if you consent /before/ drinking it's okay, if you consent after becoming drunk I'd find it iffy as to whether said person is able to consent, if that makes sense?

[effofex]

(Original post by johnadams121212)
Not that I want to, but I asked a question in another thread which was misconstrued and an argument kicked off. So it got me thinking, but correct me if I'm wrong.

So the legal argument for sleeping with a drunk person is that "they were not capable of giving proper consent", right? They were too out of their mind to make a proper decision before committing an act.

But why is that a problem. Surely by that logic, drunk drivers and drunk murderers should not be punished as well, as they were too intoxicated to make a proper decision and that any damage caused by their actions were 'accidental' ?

If you get so drunk that you are no longer responsible for your actions, why should someone else be responsible for them. Why should the man who you sleep with when drunk, take the blame and forever carry the stigma of being a racist, even if you lose the case? How does someone even tell when you're too drunk? It's a ridiculous legal argument.

It would be alot simpler if both parties signed a consent form before engaging in any sexual activity. Anyway - I thought sex with a drunk person would be rubbish - wouldn't they just be lying there like a dead fish?

[blahblahblah.]

(Original post by TheCurlyHairedDude)
Lol this. Was at a part a month ago, with this hot girl, about 5am everyone absolutely ****ed going to bed, and not sure but we ended up naked and she wanted to have sex, so I said yeah, she said get a condom lol but I couldn't get hard it felt like I was raping her man, was too easy......

what was the point of that story?

[marcusfox]

(Original post by TitchTheAntiHero)
I suppose it depends on the mindset of the girl, personally, I was up for it before, I'd indicated that to him, I'd decided that beforehand in my own head, we then went on to share drinks which led to intoxication. I suppose part of it is also how the girl perceives it, although I'm unsure if anything did happen if it did to me it was consentual, but I see how other girls could wake up and feel it was not if it was them in the same position, I suppose that aspect shows how it is generally easier to just avoid sleeping with intoxicated people.

Basically I'm of the opinion if you consent /before/ drinking it's okay, if you consent after becoming drunk I'd find it iffy as to whether said person is able to consent, if that makes sense?

How she perceives it? Do you mean the changes in perception whilst she is up for having sex whilst drunk, and comparing that to the morning after (her perception of the same act whilst she was sober)?

No, it should have absolutely nothing to do with how the girl perceives it whilst sober after the event, it should have everything to do with whether or not in her mind she is interested in a sexual encounter at that specific time.

If girls know they are prone to losing their inhibitions whilst drunk and sleeping with guys they wouldn't do whilst sober, don't want to feel like sluts waking up in a stranger's bed remembering nothing, then they shouldn't drink so much.

For the certain persons on TSR who will shout and scream at me for saying this, I am not saying it is a girl's fault that she is raped when drunk. But it is certainly her fault if she validly consents because alcohol has lowered her inhibitions and then changes her feelings about it the morning after.