Turn on thread page Beta

Should women be imprisoned for drunken sex? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    If a guy can be imprisoned for having sex drunk with a drunken woman, surely if a woman is drunk and has sex with a drunken man, he is incapable of consenting and therefore she needs to be jailed for rape. Equality right? Thought not. Such is the idiocy of our politically correct liberal elite.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Empirical)
    If a guy can be imprisoned for having sex drunk with a drunken woman, surely if a woman is drunk and has sex with a drunken man, he is incapable of consenting and therefore she needs to be jailed for rape. Equality right? Thought not. Such is the idiocy of our politically correct liberal elite.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Whilst that's a good example to show how skewed against men the criminal justice system is, the funnier one is if two men have drunken sex. In theory both can have raped the other at the same time


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Whilst that's a good example to show how skewed against men the criminal justice system is, the funnier one is if two men have drunken sex. In theory both can have raped the other at the same time


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No, they can't. Apart from the fact that rape isn't simply "drunken sex" (and indeed, judges often explicitly tell juries this in such cases), rape in English law is defined by penetration. If two men had sex, only the active participant could be theoretically charged with rape.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Empirical)
    If a guy can be imprisoned for having sex drunk with a drunken woman, surely if a woman is drunk and has sex with a drunken man, he is incapable of consenting and therefore she needs to be jailed for rape. Equality right? Thought not. Such is the idiocy of our politically correct liberal elite.
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You ignore law in general. Basis for a person's ability to be held accountable for a crime is their ability to comprehend their crime. individuals who are actually insane won't go to jail but facilities that cater their needs - except for some countries... they may just receive death penalty.

    situations where an individual is not in control of their body, and may be proven in court of law, receive different circumstances than if a person is fully aware of their actions and in control. this plays a part in how women will receive longer prison sentences than men.

    biologically, women and men are different - dur - which we can see by which women are more likely to think their activities out (premeditated crimes) vs. men who will react on instinct (heat of the moment). both situations in law receive different charges and penalties (in terms of length, etc.).

    There is no political correctness or idiocy in having a woman serve longer periods of time in prison than a man due to premeditation. just as having the condition of men being stronger than women (in comparison) play a role in a rape case which both parties are drunk.

    another part at play in such cases involve biology as well. in general, it is easier/quicker for a woman to feel affects of alcohol than it is for a man. both parties drinking same amount of alcohol does not mean they are equally drunk.

    having the law influenced by biology in this way is logical.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    You ignore law in general. Basis for a person's ability to be held accountable for a crime is their ability to comprehend their crime. individuals who are actually insane won't go to jail but facilities that cater their needs - except for some countries... they may just receive death penalty.
    That's essentially based on mental health, voluntary intoxication is not a criminal defence (unless a crime of specific intent but those are very few)

    (Original post by da_nolo)
    situations where an individual is not in control of their body, and may be proven in court of law, receive different circumstances than if a person is fully aware of their actions and in control. this plays a part in how women will receive longer prison sentences than men.
    1. Women receive shorter prison sentences on average.
    2. How are you linking women to people who lack full control of their body?

    (Original post by da_nolo)
    biologically, women and men are different - dur - which we can see by which women are more likely to think their activities out (premeditated crimes) vs. men who will react on instinct (heat of the moment). both situations in law receive different charges and penalties (in terms of length, etc.).
    Where have you come up with this distinction from?

    (Original post by da_nolo)
    There is no political correctness or idiocy in having a woman serve longer periods of time in prison than a man due to premeditation. just as having the condition of men being stronger than women (in comparison) play a role in a rape case which both parties are drunk.
    Why is a male's relative strength relevant in cases of rape where the complainant lacks capacity due to intoxication?

    (Original post by da_nolo)
    another part at play in such cases involve biology as well. in general, it is easier/quicker for a woman to feel affects of alcohol than it is for a man. both parties drinking same amount of alcohol does not mean they are equally drunk.
    Again, a generalisation.

    (Original post by da_nolo)
    having the law influenced by biology in this way is logical.
    It seems like you've tried to answer a question that wasn't asked

    (Original post by anarchism101)
    No, they can't. Apart from the fact that rape isn't simply "drunken sex" (and indeed, judges often explicitly tell juries this in such cases), rape in English law is defined by penetration. If two men had sex, only the active participant could be theoretically charged with rape.
    If two men 69ed they could be raping each other simultaneously.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    You're seriously comparing drunken sex to the rape of someone who is intoxicated beyond the point of being able to consent?

    Firstly you're ignoring how incredibly difficult it is to even get a case of rape due to intoxication to court... you're acting as if men are getting banged up for this left right and centre... and also the fact that men are completely at liberty to report a rape (by a man or woman) due to intoxication to the police.

    And if I have to spell it out to you - if someone is intoxicated past the point of being able to consent and you are of clear enough mind to see that, and you penetrate them with them without their consent - that is rape. Drunken sex both parties consent.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    UK law rape requires penetration. Women don't have a penis so no.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    If two men 69ed they could be raping each other simultaneously.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Theoretically, but practical mechanics would kind of make it almost impossible for two men to simultaneously be forcing oral penetration on each other,
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Then they are both rapists or victims?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Theoretically, but practical mechanics would kind of make it almost impossible for two men to simultaneously be forcing oral penetration on each other,
    I'm not talking about situations of literal force, I'm talking about situations where both parties are beyond the point of being able to give valid consent

    (Original post by Moura)
    You're seriously comparing drunken sex to the rape of someone who is intoxicated beyond the point of being able to consent?

    Firstly you're ignoring how incredibly difficult it is to even get a case of rape due to intoxication to court... you're acting as if men are getting banged up for this left right and centre... and also the fact that men are completely at liberty to report a rape (by a man or woman) due to intoxication to the police.

    And if I have to spell it out to you - if someone is intoxicated past the point of being able to consent and you are of clear enough mind to see that, and you penetrate them with them without their consent - that is rape. Drunken sex both parties consent.
    Everything you said lost credibility at the point where you said a man can report a woman for raping him.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    I'm not talking about situations of literal force, I'm talking about situations where both parties are beyond the point of being able to give valid consent
    In such a situation they'd be essentially incapable of actually performing a 69. At least one of them would have to have enough awareness to know what they were doing and position themselves accordingly. Which, by definition, would mean they were not so far gone as to be incapable of consent.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Unless she was a minger or had bad breath, most guy's would boast about getting jumped on. Nomsayin?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)


    Everything you said lost credibility at the point where you said a man can report a woman for raping him.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    thank you for the credibility rating, it's nice to know TSR has a team on top of that
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moura)
    thank you for the credibility rating, it's nice to know TSR has a team on top of that
    Gd reply

    (Original post by anarchism101)
    In such a situation they'd be essentially incapable of actually performing a 69. At least one of them would have to have enough awareness to know what they were doing and position themselves accordingly. Which, by definition, would mean they were not so far gone as to be incapable of consent.
    Well it's hard to say. There isn't an actual firm rule on when someone's sufficiently drunk to lose their capacity to consent.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abc_123_)
    IMO If they're both drunk neither of them should be jailed but if only one of them is drunk it should be the non-drunken person whether they're male or female x
    Don't get me wrong I think these laws are quite dodgy having reflected on the Ched Evans case.

    But let's take this hypothesis, a sober woman sleeps with a very drunk man, it's funny how no one will want her jailed.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    That's two haram actions at once
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    They should just be imprisoned. No reason.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abc_123_)
    But if the guy complained about it and was disturbed then it is rape and the girl should go to prison
    Oh my Lord - maybe people should be held accountable for their own actions when drunk. If people can't handle what they do when they drink, then they should either not drink or drink in moderation. (This is assuming the guy was happy to have sex when drunk but regretted it afterward aka "beer goggles")


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Gd reply



    Well it's hard to say. There isn't an actual firm rule on when someone's sufficiently drunk to lose their capacity to consent.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The law is, essentially, are they still aware enough to make a meaningful choice? This is no more vague than, say the "reasonable belief" exemption.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    That's essentially based on mental health, voluntary intoxication is not a criminal defence (unless a crime of specific intent but those are very few)

    1. Women receive shorter prison sentences on average.
    2. How are you linking women to people who lack full control of their body?


    Where have you come up with this distinction from?

    Why is a male's relative strength relevant in cases of rape where the complainant lacks capacity due to intoxication?

    Again, a generalisation.

    It seems like you've tried to answer a question that wasn't asked

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    hm...I'm taking this in reverse a bit first -
    1. No, I was responding to a generalized thought.
    " Equality right? Thought not "
    Certain aspects of law and medicine should differ for gender or race, although the general ideal should be the same for everyone; innocent until proven guilty.

    2. "In general" usually refers to information that is a generalization. hence,
    "it is easier/quicker for a woman to feel affects of alcohol than it is for a man."
    this among other generalizations are used to try and express why some aspects of law (as in medicine) should reflect on or influenced by the differences between genders. These differences influence law same as society.

    3. For example, in a case which two parties are intoxicated and quantifying intoxication may influence the case - then one party being less impaired could be liable for their actions against the individual that is more impaired. thus, despite its generalization, biology may be used as one of many factors to demonstrate how a woman can be proven to be more impaired and unable to provide consent even if she verbally communicates consent. where as, in this case, a male could be proven guilty of rape despite both parties consuming alcohol. I do not think "drunken sex" should be looked at under the same light because of these biological differences.

    4. My regards to strength was another generalization, not related to a particular event where intoxication is involved. Although female presence in sports, mma, and wrestling has grown to enormous proportions we still separate these events due to male's physicality being greater than a woman's. This influences law just as it does culture. An important underling factor that can and has been identified in abuse cases. This is also a factor in self defense cases.

    5. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...etween-genders
    " Scientists have discovered approximately 100 gender differences in the brain, and the importance of these differences cannot be overstated. Understandinggender differences from a neurological perspective not only opens the door to greater appreciation of the different genders, it also calls into question how we parent, educate, and support our children from a young age. "

    I say this difference does and should influence law.
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti.../premeditation
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,987

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
Useful resources

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.