This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Can a girl withdraw consent after sex?

someone told me that girls can withdraw consent after they have had sex with you like a day or even two weeks later. I'm shocked. Is this really the law?

How can you withdraw consent after the fact?

No, but it's only a matter of time.

It's called women's prerogative. Don't try and argue with it or you'll find out why "the gentler sex" is a misnomer.

Reply 101

caravaggio2

17

Original post by Underscore__

I believe that having sex with someone who is too drunk, especially when you're too drunk to make any assessment, should not be a crime. It should merely be something that many would see as morally wrong

Posted from TSR Mobile

So if the man is equally drunk and the woman fully partakes even takes the lead at times can he equally claim to have been sexually assaulted (rape not being an option)

Reply 102

Stiff Little Fingers

21

Original post by caravaggio2

So if the man is equally drunk and the woman fully partakes even takes the lead at times can he equally claim to have been sexually assaulted (rape not being an option)

If they're both too drunk to consent then no, the too drunk to knowingly consent idea comes from one partner being sober and exploiting the drunk persons reduced capacity.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 103

NolofinwÃ«

8

Original post by caravaggio2

So if the man is equally drunk and the woman fully partakes even takes the lead at times can he equally claim to have been sexually assaulted (rape not being an option)

Possibly, yes. See my post at 43 if you want more info.

Reply 104

caravaggio2

17

Has it been decided by case law how drunk is too drunk?
I remember a judge ruling some time back that drunken consent is still consent.
Has that been overruled?

Reply 105

Underscore__

21

Original post by Stiff Little Fingers

If they're both too drunk to consent then no, the too drunk to knowingly consent idea comes from one partner being sober and exploiting the drunk persons reduced capacity.

Posted from TSR Mobile

No it doesn't otherwise intoxication, imparting your ability to assess the level of intoxication of the other person would be a defence.

Theoretically a woman would fit the actus reus and mens rea of sexual assault but I think it's incredibly unlikely a woman would ever be prosecuted under those circumstances

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 106

Collettew55

Before and during-yes
After-no

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 107

TimmonaPortella

21

Original post by Stiff Little Fingers

If they're both too drunk to consent then no, the too drunk to knowingly consent idea comes from one partner being sober and exploiting the drunk persons reduced capacity.

Posted from TSR Mobile

It really doesn't. You can either give consent or you can't. It has nothing to do with the other person's state of mind.

If you can basically understand what is going on, and what you are consenting to, you can give consent. The fact that you wouldn't make the same decision if you weren't drunk is neither here nor there. Cynically using someone's state of insobriety to get in their pants isn't in itself illegal.

Reply 108

Stiff Little Fingers

21

Original post by TimmonaPortella

It really doesn't. You can either give consent or you can't. It has nothing to do with the other person's state of mind.

If you can basically understand what is going on, and what you are consenting to, you can give consent. The fact that you wouldn't make the same decision if you weren't drunk is neither here nor there. Cynically using someone's state of insobriety to get in their pants isn't in itself illegal.

I'm fairly certain that reasonable belief is a legal defence, that the defendant believed that consent was given; which comes down to their ability to evaluate consent, in which case if they were also drunk to the point of having their sense of judgement incapacitated then it wouldn't constitute rape because they would, at the time, have held reasonable belief that consent was given.

Reply 109

NolofinwÃ«

8

Original post by Stiff Little Fingers

I'm fairly certain that reasonable belief is a legal defence, that the defendant believed that consent was given; which comes down to their ability to evaluate consent, in which case if they were also drunk to the point of having their sense of judgement incapacitated then it wouldn't constitute rape because they would, at the time, have held reasonable belief that consent was given.

I’m afraid I disagree with this. Lack of reasonable belief in consent is, as you suggest, an ‘ingredient’ of the offence. However, reasonableness is an objective, not a subjective, standard. The question is not whether the accused believed the person consented or not, but whether the ordinary person in the accused’s position would have believed that the person consented or not. The subjective standard which you describe reflects the pre-2003 law, which controversially held that an ‘honest belief’ was sufficient. This lead to some quite incredible/shocking but still honest beliefs being found on the evidence, and hence the accused not being convicted. One of the motives for the 2003 legislation was to reform this, to place more onus on people to behave to a ‘reasonable’ standard when assessing whether their partner consents.

Reply 110

TimmonaPortella

21

Original post by Stiff Little Fingers

I'm fairly certain that reasonable belief is a legal defence, that the defendant believed that consent was given; which comes down to their ability to evaluate consent, in which case if they were also drunk to the point of having their sense of judgement incapacitated then it wouldn't constitute rape because they would, at the time, have held reasonable belief that consent was given.

It's not really a defence. You simply haven't prima facie committed this particular crime if you had reasonable belief in consent.

That, however is really my point in the first place. The drunken defendant's reasonable belief in consent is conceptually distinct from the actual ability or inability of the complainant to consent.

Thus, the 'too drunk to knowingly consent' point really has nothing to do with the defendant's state of intoxication.

Reply 111

BruceJender

2

Original post by Danny McCoyne

someone told me that girls can withdraw consent after they have had sex with you like a day or even two weeks later. I'm shocked. Is this really the law?

How can you withdraw consent after the fact?

That's not how consent works.

Reply 112

MonteCristo

14

Original post by Danny McCoyne

someone told me that girls can withdraw consent after they have had sex with you like a day or even two weeks later. I'm shocked. Is this really the law?

How can you withdraw consent after the fact?

I think this someone is confused. The law does state that sex is a continuing act and so consent can be withdrawn at any point during the process. For example, if a person consents to sex and then withdraws that consent during sex, you can't say "but they consented". You must stop immediately after consent has been withdrawn because any continuation amounts to rape.

Consent clearly cannot be withdrawn after an event has occurred.

Reply 113

DanB1991

17

Sight concerning alcohol and drinking it's all over the place....

IIRC a conviction a year or two ago was overturned on the basis being drunk does not automatically mean a loss of an ability to consent.

I think some previous judges line of thought was that if the fact the person was drunk, altered their decision to have sex with someone (aka they would not of done it sober) it would be included along the lines of date rape drugs (alcohol is actually involved in 99% of date rape or drugging). However I think eventually a couple of years ago common sense was applied of how much of a legal minefield that was. However it's still not a sure thing in law and up to the judges interpretation if it's decided to overturn that decision.

Drink is weird, technically speaking if the perpetrator was drunk shouldn't the sentence be more lenient and they are seen as less culpable? It's actually one of the great inconsistency with drink driving legislation when compared to the rest of the legal system.