New Labour campaign - Consent needed for drunken sex

Ensure consent for sex, men told

One in five reported rapes in London leads to a caution or charge
Men should make certain that a woman has consented to sex to avoid being accused of rape, a new campaign launched by the Home Office is to warn.
The magazine and radio adverts and posters are aimed at reducing the number of sex assaults taking place when a woman is very drunk.

It comes amid low conviction rates for rape cases in England and Wales.

A law change has been mooted allowing juries to decide whether a woman was too drunk to give consent.

Click to expand...

From the BBC, full story here - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4780992.stm

I'm all for stiffer penalties for rape, more campaigns to get abused women to come forward etc, but this new Labour campaign strikes me as being both absurd in the practically of enforcing it and sexist in the extreme.

I understand the problem and the thoughts behind this, most rape cases fail because they usually go down to one persons word against another concerning consent, and if there is reasonable doubt then the law has to say not guilty. Despite this, this seems a really bad way of trying to solve the problem, essentially laying all responsibility while drunk on the mans shoulders and absolving the women of the same??? As if the man is more capable of making rational decisions than the women while drunk, which is blatantly not the case.

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with consent, in the old days I'd go for the move on the sofa with the arm (unoriginal, but tried and tested ) if she doesn't snuggle up then that's a pretty clear sign to go no further. The problem is in the application. How do you accertain what consent is, the only feasible ways seem to be either a contract for both parties to fill in before the act or getting witnesses to be around when you ask her blatantly "Do you want sex", not exactly very practical. Otherwise it is going to solve nothing and just wastes tax payers money as you will have the same problem of it being one person's word against another. What about the situation of waking up the next morning after a heavy session to realise you've made a massive mistake and wish you could take it back (one night stand etc), the man has to live with the ridicule of his friends / breaking up of his relationship etc due to drink, while in the same situation this proposed law would give the women the option to say no consent and thus rape (as it's pretty unlikely any 'forms' have been signed the night before by both drunken parties so all the power is with the women now), ruin the mans life and continue merrily with her own (not the norm, but it does happen unfortunately even with the current laws, with this proposed change that situation could be increased dramatically, and open up the possibility of blackmail etc).

Obviously something has to be done about the rise in rape and it's low conviction rates, but I believe that this is definitely not the way to go about it and is insulting to all women.

Yeah, the new chat up line would be:

Would you like to meet my solicitor?
He has got a really hot form for you.

Some of the rape cases we deal with are from girls who were really hosed though. Obviously drunk. They could not easily consent, because they are not aware of much.

If a girl has trouble walking, I'm okay with not being allowed to seduce her. I know that many, many people get sex under these conditions, but the ability to be wrong about consent is too high.

Please note that it goes both ways, too. If a guy can't focus, he cannot consent.

The reason why the level is set there is because a roofie (a rape drug) often causes a stupor similar to severe intoxication. I know three girls who have been roofied, and the anecdotes were that they just seemed really drunk.

A little bit of booze has long been used (by both sexes) to loosen up enough to do the deed. We know that. But when it's abused, there's sometimes a problem

*my girlfriend works with a sexual assault centre, so this is first hand for me.

EdwardTking said:

Yeah, the new chat up line would be:

Would you like to meet my solicitor?
He has got a really hot form for you.

Click to expand...

LOL, Yes, it's all clear to me now, its a conspiracy by the solicitors because they weren't getting enough, bet they'd put it in tiny print too

Agree completely El, I'm of the old school of don't take advantage of women when they are not fully compus mentus, but I do know that a lot of people, especially of the younger generation, unfortunately don't share the same attitude.

I guess the main problem I have with this is that it does not seem to go both ways, with both parties equally drunk all the responsibility and possible legal ramification lies with the man, which seems pretty unjust to me, and far too open to abuse. Also, how do you legally define what too drunk is as it's soo subjective.

Also, sending this message while at the same time reducing the time served for rape seems counter productive to me.

Being in the know, do you and your girlfriend think that this will change anything for the better or just waste money?

I have a friend(male) who was taken advantage of whilst drunk, I can't say it damaged him that much, he was more worried that the guy in question who's girl friend it was would find out, it's not the same as such, but it is similar. I don't see the point of sleeping with a girl who's practically unconcious. It's a pretty low thing to do and I can't say that the law would cause me to lose me much sleep. I do worry about it being abused, but then that happens with non drunk rape too, although it's fairly rare.

That's why they need to sign contracts. The contracts could include the extent of their relationship, where it is going, and what sexual things they are looking for. If they can't sign the paper in a legible manner, then they're too drunk to have sex.

And of course this would have to be done in front of a notary. Just imagine, you could make a fortune sitting on your butt at night as drunk people came and paid you to watch them fail to sign a form about having sex. You could even employ bouncers, like in a bar, to throw them out into the alley (Which would fill up quickly) when they passed out on your floor!

Maybe every bar in london could have a notary on call with the appropriate forms on hand..?

A verbal contract is legaly binding, if you can get two independant witnesses to say that the female in question said yes to sex before the act then your in. This whole things a bit odd, but I don't think it's a major concern.

Sidhe, I can't see that practically working as what if she changes her mind later?

Also, what about the big problem of rape in marriages, do you need written consent everytime you share a bottle of wine and go upstairs?

What this seems to miss is that in a one night stand mostly both parties are blasted.

Where is the informed concent when you both only have snap-shot memories of the night before.

Still clamping down on fellas who go for the chemmically assisted rape thing is prob a good thing.

Being in the know, do you and your girlfriend think that this will change anything for the better or just waste money?

Click to expand...

The educators have a HELL of a time convincing high school students that it's wrong. It's a bit easier when they go after the university crowd.

Most of the problems occur with people below 20. But that might be because they're reported more in that age group. Maybe older people are getting hosed too, but we don't know.

A verbal contract is legaly binding,

Click to expand...

You cannot legally enter into a contract while impaired. So, if she agrees while drunk, it's not an actual agreement. I sure hope that's true when I sold my soul for some tequila ...

What this seems to miss is that in a one night stand mostly both parties are blasted.

Click to expand...

These are really tough, because technically neither side can consent. However, it can often be assumed that one person was an aggressor. As well, if they were both aggressors, there's no rape issue.

If a person was okay with what happened, regardless of intoxication, then it wasn't rape. It's only a problem if they weren't okay, which is why consent is necessary.

El_Machinae said:

These are really tough, because technically neither side can consent. However, it can often be assumed that one person was an aggressor. As well, if they were both aggressors, there's no rape issue.

If a person was okay with what happened, regardless of intoxication, then it wasn't rape. It's only a problem if they weren't okay, which is why consent is necessary.

Click to expand...

Does shed an interesting light on the politics of the sexual revoloution. If the sexes are both equal then why is a victorian definition of difference being legislated?

There is the idea that is a fella is incapable, he is, well incapable. But, dam, when I was 20... (gin sighs and reaches for his namesake)

Men ARE more sexually agressive - and perhaps as importantly - socialy programmed to feel embarassed brovado rather than shame.

Meglomania said:

Sidhe, I can't see that practically working as what if she changes her mind later?

Also, what about the big problem of rape in marriages, do you need written consent everytime you share a bottle of wine and go upstairs?

Click to expand...

I wan't clear, by before the act I meant moments before they took the windy stair to Bedfordshire.

El_Machinae said:

You cannot legally enter into a contract while impaired. So, if she agrees while drunk, it's not an actual agreement. I sure hope that's true when I sold my soul for some tequila ...

Click to expand...

well yeah, but since verbal consent is needed then it's kind of irrelevant. At least there's the added dimension of three party consent, in that two independant witnesses could try and mediate the situation. Oh what am I talking about it was meant to be a joke anyway That wasn't clear anyway, but the previous guy was talking about having a notarary present

I remeber hearing somewhere about condom packets that you can both put your thumb prints on to confrim your consent

Thats a good idea! Now all we need to do is get young people to actually use condoms....

how would people ensure that they had consent, record the person saying 'yes ill have sex with you' for use in court.

You make sure that you have consent by getting consent. If a partner charges you later, chances are they hadn't really consented.

(I know that there are some whackos out there, and for them, we're sorry. However, most of the victims we deal with were in no position to give consent when they had sex)

Well i appreciate that you get conesnt btu even if someone was to consent and if they were drunk then theres a fair chance they may not remember doing so, so how would you prove to a jury that they had.

The simple answer is to be VERY, VERY sure the girl really wants to have sex. To be VERY, VERY sure she won't change her mind later. Very sure.

Because if a girl accuses you of assaulting her, chances are you weren't sure enough.

If they are too drunk to remember that they consented, they were WAY too drunk to consent.

I see where your coming from, im just trying to show how hard it may be to enforce this law.