Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I've been up since half eight and working since nine, which is very very good for me- with any luck i'll have the majority of my theft and other offences against property done by tonight, which would be nice...
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drogue)
    Considering my post was about both people being in the same state, then clearly it's impossible. But no, being unconscious isn't consent. Being a little drunk, coming onto someone and saying "I want to sleep with you" is, however.


    No, if you say no, whatever he thinks, that isn't consent. That's a cut and dry case.


    As you pointed out, that's not drinking. Of course spiked drinks are not consenting.


    Spiking is still a very small minority of times people get drunk. And anyways, spiking isn't drinking, it's drugging someone, a *huge* difference, IMHO. If someone willingly drinks alcohol and then proceeds to say "yes", then that's consensual, to me. If someone says no, or is unable to provide an answer at all, then that isn't consensual. That seems pretty clear to me.

    As said, I believe in a firm "if you say yes, it's consensual". How's the other person to know what your mental state is? Would schitzophenia count as making it non-consensual, whatever you say? Would clinical depression count? My point is if someone say's yes, and you haven't drugged them, then it's consensual. If you say yes, then feel bad about it in the morning, that isn't rape, as the other person isn't to know you might feel bad in the morning. As a similar thing, how would you feel about a bloke who gets too drunk, sleeps with a girl and wakes up to regret it, and then claims she raped him because he was drunk? It's a ludicrous situation to me.
    What if A spikes Bs drink for a joke and then C sleeps with B thinking that B was voluntarily intoxicated? No doesn't always mean no, aswell. The law says that it cannot be rape where the defendant has reasonable belief in consent. There are certain situations in which the person's state is obvious and it would be unreasonable to assume the capacity for consent, and these cases should be rape cases.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I find the weathers lovely today...just sitting on the sofa watching the rugby and not reading the pdfs I brought with me...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a fire in the sky)
    I find the weathers lovely today...just sitting on the sofa watching the rugby and not reading the pdfs I brought with me...
    The weather has been quite good, in that it has forced me to stay in the library and do work for once... well, occasionally do work, more sit around and read hornblower and go on the net...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bekaboo)
    Well Chloe after that audition I can say with a fair amount of certainty that we won't be getting so well aquainted after all - you'd have thought that singing in front of a good friend and my college son wouldn't be a problem but it appears that my audition nerves are unstoppable... oh well I already said if they didn't cast me I'd play in the stage band so I guess I'll see you anyway
    No don't say that!!!! You're making me nervous now - I have my audition at 4pm! I hope I don't freak out too, as my friend's the musical director so will be auditioning me! :eek: Anyways, if you do get in the cast/band and I don't we'll probably still meet as I'm marketing manager for the production anyways, so will be involved in quite a lot.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crazy Mongoose)
    The weather has been quite good, in that it has forced me to stay in the library and do work for once... well, occasionally do work, more sit around and read hornblower and go on the net...
    aye...I'm in brighton too, y'know...

    Which means I've managed to limit my work resources sufficiently to convince myself I dont need to do any...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hoofbeat)
    No don't say that!!!! You're making me nervous now - I have my audition at 4pm! I hope I don't freak out too, as my friend's the musical director so will be auditioning me! :eek: Anyways, if you do get in the cast/band and I don't we'll probably still meet as I'm marketing manager for the production anyways, so will be involved in quite a lot.
    *cries* Mine didn't go so well either - its definitely more scary when you know the people in the room (and my bf who's producing was standing outside the room!). Forgot the words in the first verse, than pianist didn't notice the repeat sign and then I panicked when the 'high' notes came around and I couldn't belt them out in my chest voice and ended up singing them weakly in my throat voice. Also completely forgot about dynamics and enunciation, so really not holding out much hope. I always mess up auditions (have had a 0% success rate out of the 3 auditions I've tried this term, and I don't hold out much hope for today's one either).

    Boo, are you auditioning for "Musicals & All That Jazz" tomorrow? I have no idea what I'm going to sing now. Not today's song and after speaking to the direction in the audition today he didn't like the sound of the song I sang in my MOFO audition and told me that it was an awful song, so now I'm all confused, esp as I only have a few music scores with me in Oxford so I don't have a big selection to chose from!*sighs*

    Today sucks*....back to cosmology for me

    *although the meal at Le Petit Blanc was amazing and Raymond Blanc was actually dining there at the same time!!!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by allymcb2)
    What if A spikes Bs drink for a joke and then C sleeps with B thinking that B was voluntarily intoxicated? No doesn't always mean no, aswell. The law says that it cannot be rape where the defendant has reasonable belief in consent. There are certain situations in which the person's state is obvious and it would be unreasonable to assume the capacity for consent, and these cases should be rape cases.
    Yeh but I'm fairly sure the reasonable belief of consent is meant to apply to situations where e.g. you'd fancied each other for ages and she was drunk but you thought she wanted to and she didn't actually say no... not situations where the girl said no and you thought she meant yes.

    *cries* Mine didn't go so well either
    Oh hun I was so pissed because part of what made me nervous was I didn't choose til the v last minute and I gave up on the one I was going to sing cos it's really not an audition piece but I'd have been much happier with it argh!!

    Boo, are you auditioning for "Musicals & All That Jazz" tomorrow?
    Didn't even know it was happening otherwise I would've
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Hmm, it's all about pantomimes with a part for everyone, no matter how talentless. I'm proof. :bunny: My dancing is this sophisticated...

    But tickets are now only left for the opening night - this Wednesday. </plug>
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Oh yeh that's not gonna help my case either - kinda failed to mention all the non-musical acting i've done - just WSS which was when I was about 15... oops (in school if you auditioned you were in, even if only as chorus)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by allymcb2)
    What if A spikes Bs drink for a joke and then C sleeps with B thinking that B was voluntarily intoxicated?
    Then what A did was illegal, and whether or not what C did was rape depends on whether she was coherent in saying yes or whether she was too out-of-it to consent, and whether C knew that she was unable to consent.

    (Original post by allymcb2)
    No doesn't always mean no, aswell.
    I thought in law it does?

    (Original post by allymcb2)
    The law says that it cannot be rape where the defendant has reasonable belief in consent. There are certain situations in which the person's state is obvious and it would be unreasonable to assume the capacity for consent, and these cases should be rape cases.
    I thought the law changed last year with the big government campaign that unless she specifically says yes, it's rape. There was a huge issue with this meaning that every time you have sex you have to ask, including in a serious relationship where sex is normal.

    And I agree, there are states in which someone is unable to consent, however these have to be obvious enough to make sure that the other party is aware that they are in that state. Being a bit drunk isn't, IMHO. Being unconscious on the floor clearly is. I think if someone is able to say "I want to have sex" coherently, then they're conherent enough to consent.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crazy Mongoose)
    Unfortunatly (for making it a cut-and-dry issue) he couldn't; to rape requires a penis (s1 of the Sexual Offences Act). To my mind thats the main problem when discussions about rape turn up; it is a crime committed (mostly) against women that can only be committed by a man- that sort of inbalance naturally causes the different sexes to consider it from different points of view.
    Yes, although sexual assault is also a serious crime, so the woman can be charged with a serious crime, even if not rape. This is something I disagree with though - to me, rape is sex without consent, whoever it is committed by and on. I do realise the law sees it differently with regards to punishment when different sexes are the perpetrator.

    The issue though is what counts as consent. Clearly someone saying "I consent" and being of sound mind is consenting, whereas someone in a similar state saying "I don't consent" isn't. However where is the line in between. My point here was that being a bit drunk doesn't make you unable to say yes or no, and thus I wouldn't consider it rape. Obviously being completely paralytic does make someone unable to consent. I don't think whatever you define consent to consist of is affected by someone being a bit drunk as opposed to being sober - the same standard should apply. Unless you want it to work both ways that if he's a bit drunk then she sexually assaulted him. In this situation, it's perfectly possible for two people to get drunk and have sex, meaning the man raped the woman and the woman sexually assaulted the man - a silly situation to me.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bekaboo)
    Didn't even know it was happening otherwise I would've
    You should still audition, look:

    7th week Hilary Term
    [email protected] rd.ac.uk

    We are looking for strong singers with great stage presence for this charity "musicals showcase" to be held next term. Some dance experience would help, but is not essential. You will be expected to prepare a musical theatre song and to bring with you the sheet music, unless you would prefer to sing acapella. Please email Antoinette to book a time slot (we welcome people showing up on the day but priority will given to those who have booked a time). "Musicals And All That Jazz" will be an elegant evening of Broadway and West End musical numbers featuring, for example, songs from Les Mis, Miss Saigon, The Lion King, Rent, Wicked, Me and My Girl, and Hello Dolly etc. Solo numbers will be mixed with duets, small groups and ensemble numbers, therfore meaning that cast members will not be expected to attend all rehearsals. We are sure that it will not be a huge commitment for anyone involved. The show will be donating ALL profits to the NSPCC and is also dedicated to spreading awareness of the charity's work

    So book an audition slot now!!!!!!!
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drogue)
    Then what A did was illegal, and whether or not what C did was rape depends on whether she was coherent in saying yes or whether she was too out-of-it to consent, and whether C knew that she was unable to consent.


    I thought in law it does?


    I thought the law changed last year with the big government campaign that unless she specifically says yes, it's rape. There was a huge issue with this meaning that every time you have sex you have to ask, including in a serious relationship where sex is normal.

    And I agree, there are states in which someone is unable to consent, however these have to be obvious enough to make sure that the other party is aware that they are in that state. Being a bit drunk isn't, IMHO. Being unconscious on the floor clearly is. I think if someone is able to say "I want to have sex" coherently, then they're conherent enough to consent.
    Nope. The final report from the Home Office that will be passed by the government comes out next week. There has to be 'reasonable belief in consent'. The problem is where you draw the line to say someone is too drunk to consent. Some people don't even remember what they are saying the next day and drugs such as rohypnol leave you completely aware of the situation and coherant, they just reduce your inhibitions ie change your personality so in law, for example if A spiked B's drink and C had sex with B knowing that she consented but only because her drink had been spiked, C would not have comitted rape. As far as I can see that is a horrific situaiton.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hoofbeat)
    You should still audition, look:

    We are looking for strong singers ... awareness of the charity's work

    So book an audition slot now!!!!!!!

    I seriously would but they're not starting auditioning until 3pm - which is the time my choir rehearsal starts so it's unlikely I'd be able to make it unless I went after the carol service when I'll have been working my voice hard for hte last 4 hours
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by allymcb2)
    for example if A spiked B's drink and C had sex with B knowing that she consented but only because her drink had been spiked, C would not have comitted rape. As far as I can see that is a horrific situaiton.
    Nope, because the jury would not find that reasonable- the jury have to take in mind all relevant evidence, and hence they could (and probably would) hold that if someone knew that the girl was only consenting because of the drug he knew she did not in actuality consent- the same sort of ratio used in the case with the girl who was in fear of violence would apply. Plus if i was prosecuting i would try and argue the guy was an agent in the administration of the drug (after all, he knew about it) and hence statute-barred from using such a defence (clever parliament)
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crazy Mongoose)
    Nope, because the jury would not find that reasonable- the jury have to take in mind all relevant evidence, and hence they could (and probably would) hold that if someone knew that the girl was only consenting because of the drug he knew she did not in actuality consent- the same sort of ratio used in the case with the girl who was in fear of violence would apply. Plus if i was prosecuting i would try and argue the guy was an agent in the administration of the drug (after all, he knew about it) and hence statute-barred from using such a defence (clever parliament)
    That isn't something I would like to leave to jury discretion because it would effectively become a character analysis case where the defence would argue the drug didn't change her character she had already slept with x,y, z, making the trial traumatic and the outcome prejudiced. Or he might say he thought that she took the drug deliberately to reduce her inhibitions etc.

    Your argument only works if he aided, abetted, procured or counselled. Mere knowledge that it was spiked would not make him an agent.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    trial by jury of peers seems a slightly ridiculous system- i don't trust bog standard members of the public to make complex dicisions about me. This whole debate shows how difficult it would be.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by allymcb2)
    That isn't something I would like to leave to jury discretion because it would effectively become a character analysis case where the defence would argue the drug didn't change her character she had already slept with x,y, z, making the trial traumatic and the outcome prejudiced. Or he might say he thought that she took the drug deliberately to reduce her inhibitions etc.

    Your argument only works if he aided, abetted, procured or counselled. Mere knowledge that it was spiked would not make him an agent.
    No, the judge would inform the jury (correctly) that if they believed the defendant knew the girl had been involunatarily administered a drug to lower inhibitions, they may choose to decide that that it would be unreasonable for him to believe there was a consent present, just as a matter of first instance. Hence he could present this and still hold that previous sexual history was irrelevant to the case, as that wouldn't be at issue...
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crazy Mongoose)
    No, the judge would inform the jury (correctly) that if they believed the defendant knew the girl had been involunatarily administered a drug to lower inhibitions, they may choose to decide that that it would be unreasonable for him to believe there was a consent present, just as a matter of first instance. Hence he could present this and still hold that previous sexual history was irrelevant to the case, as that wouldn't be at issue...
    No, there is nothing to say that a reduction of inhibitions voids consent, they do actually have to be unaware of what they are doing to be considered incapacitated. I would argue that you want the law to protect beyond incapacity to be coherant, on the grounds that the 'prior fault' argument on the victim cannot apply when their drink is spiked even if the other party is unaware of the spiking and believes they have inebriated themselves deliberately. I see no problem with increasing responsibility of anyone having sex to ensure that the other person is able to consent as there is a duty of care imposed on them by taking actions which they are not forced to take.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.