digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

It's rape if the woman is drunk, according to new law

thisislondon.co.uk — Men face being charged with rape if they have sex with women who are drunk. The proposal, contained in a Home Office report, is being considered by ministers in a bid to boost conviction rates for sex offences and bring more “date rapists” to justice.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • 47knight, on 10/12/2007, -4/+133What if the guy is "drunk" too.
    • dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -1/+48More to the point, I'm wondering how women will react to this law. A lot of girls I know become significantly more frisky once they've had a few, and I wonder if a possible chilling effect of this law will be that guys will not have sex with a girl who is even remotely intoxicated. This might end up being frustrating to many women.
    • atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+125Before going to "bed" I will give the women a test to walk a straight line and recite the alphabet backwards.
    • shrewduser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+116"What if the guy is "drunk" too."

      then both people will go to jail for raping each other....
    • gxcdesign, on 10/12/2007, -8/+73It Ain't Rape, it's Surprise Sex
    • crgnetworks, on 10/12/2007, -33/+13HEY!

      Rapes no laughing matter...



      Unless your raping a clown!
    • Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -4/+49@dclowd9901 -- No, that's obviously not what's going to happen. Drunk men are completely incapable of turning down sex when it's offered to them. Instead, the number of false accusations will rise, and a lot of innocent men will be convicted for the crime of not calling the girl back.
    • 37prime, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3While reading this, I was actually watching "The Chappelle's Show" in the middle of "Love Contract" skit. If only you could sign the "Love Contract" before getting drunk.

      Such a coincidence.
    • soogy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+62If a guy is drunk, he gets jail time.

      If a woman is drunk, she gets sex. And the guy gets jail time.
    • deanlowe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+37Someone patent the breathalyser condom, quick.
    • adamsucks, on 10/12/2007, -7/+106I'm so tired of this *****. It's like they're throwing the term "rape" around like it's nothing. They don't stop to think how something like this can destroy someone's life (not the rape, the criminal background).

      rape1 /reɪp/ Pronunciation Key –noun
      - Any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.

      Keyword, FORCED. Unless the girl is so drunk that she's just shy of clinically dead, she still has the power to say yes or no. This is absolutely absurd. Even if the guy knowingly took advantage of the girl because she was drunk, she still has the ability to make a choice. If it comes to this, maybe she should have passed on the last few drinks. What ever happened to personal responsibility?

      This really pisses me off.
    • Rickard, on 10/12/2007, -19/+5"... guys will not have sex with a girl who is even remotely intoxicated. This might end up being frustrating to many women."

      I'm sure women everywhere are outraged.
    • SACSTATE, on 10/12/2007, -2/+44What's to keep a woman from having sex with a guy, going home, getting mildly drunk, then going to the doctor/police to report this 'crime'?

      Seriously, some guys can get OWNED big time by this.

      If it's a violent or "traditional" rape then I would say prosecute him. If some girl gets tipsy and consents... thats for her to deal with.
    • Doghound, on 10/12/2007, -11/+15I hate to abuse the first post, but, people, please stop to realize what country this is posted in.
      This refers to the UK, NOT the US!!!!

      So people in the US, don't sweat over anything... this will not be coming to a state near you!
    • badriram, on 10/12/2007, -4/+27personally I never understood the double standard of holding a drunk driver responsible for his/her decision, but a drunk woman is not for her decisions.... Either people in both situations should be held responsible, or not in both.

      i hate double standards...
    • qwertydvorak, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12@badriram: drunk drivers endanger others, drunk women endanger themselves. that is the difference.
    • slaystench, on 10/12/2007, -17/+4"Keyword, FORCED. Unless the girl is so drunk that she's just shy of clinically dead, she still has the power to say yes or no. This is absolutely absurd. Even if the guy knowingly took advantage of the girl because she was drunk, she still has the ability to make a choice. If it comes to this, maybe she should have passed on the last few drinks. What ever happened to personal responsibility?"

      Do you even have a clue what you're talking about? Do you think saying no is going to change anything if someone wants to rape you? Do you think a girl that is drunk out of her mind is going to be able to stop the rape from happening? If you don't know, there's not a chance in hell of that happening when the guy outweighs you and is a lot stronger than you are.

      I had a friend that was raped less than two months ago that was extremely drunk and taken advantage of by a "friend" and she won't press charges because she blames herself for being in the situation. I didn't know being drunk was giving consent to anyone to freely rape you. She's now afraid of being alone, to have sex, to drink with friends, etc. But yeah, she wanted to have sex with him.
    • bocaJWho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Not that I think that this is a very reasonable law, but this is already the case in many states in the US. Under most laws I am familiar with you can't consent to anything if you are impaired, therefor sex when one person is intoxicated is non-consensual which is statutory rape.
    • kronix2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18You highlight the obvious gaping hole (sorry) in this proposed legislation.

      What's to stop the man from downing a few bottles of wine right after the act, and then telling the judge he was drunk - making her just as guilty of rape as she is? I don't see the legislation being gender-specific, as there have been rare instances of men being raped by women. A woman ramming a dildo up a drunk man's arse would be considered rape, after all.

      If women don't want to have sex they regret after getting drunk, they shouldn't go out on the town to places where people go to get hammered and laid. Failing that, go with at least one friend who'll be there to stop you shagging someone. Failing that, don't get drunk to the point where you can't remember anything the next day. Failing that, write "I DON'T CONSENT" in big letters across your waist.

      If you give consent while drunk, it's still consent. It's not like drink driving - the act of having sex with a drunken woman is not a crime; it's only considered a potential crime if she claims consent wasn't given. Women need to take some responsibility...people go to certain places knowing there's a high chance they'll get drunk and shag someone.

      This is the Labour government trying to force up the pitifully low rape conviction rate. They've followed the typical New Labour route: criminalising a certain behaviour without giving consideration to the ramifications of the legislation.
    • mxcl, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Throughout human history, women have been in control of the household, their men, their family, the social networks they are involved with. Nothing changes. The fact is women are so easily bitter and unhappy, and as men we just have to learn to live with this, be bloody careful around women, and keep them happy, somehow.

      Luckily my girlfriend is quite manageable. But I still have to be careful how I act and what I say, or she will become unhappy, and I want her to be happy.

      Men are screwed, and women think we oppress them somehow so we have to be extra considerate to them, and thus we are doubly screwed.

      I reckon male homosexuals have it best.

      Basically ***** like this, where it is clear to everyone there is an injustice against men, happen again and again, and throughout history too. As men we just have to smile and deal with it. Getting upset doesn't achieve anything apart form making women think we are insensitive.

      I ask that I don't get dugg down as there are plenty of men who want to read an opinion like this. If you find what I say offensive, counter it with a comment.
    • qwertydvorak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@mxcl: "reckon male homosexuals have it best."

      except for the anal sex
    • lazza, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@slaystench

      Do you even know what you're talking about? adamsucks was not saying that the woman being drunk permits a guy to rape her or that he shouldn't be punished. the point of this article is saying that even if the woman say YES while she's drunk, it is still classed as rape.
    • dmsean, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4re:qwertydvorak

      don't knock it till you've tried it :P
    • ethsen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@ mxcl
      "as men we just have to learn to live with this, be bloody careful around women, and keep them happy, somehow."

      "Men are screwed, and women think we oppress them somehow so we have to be extra considerate to them"

      "As men we just have to smile and deal with it. Getting upset doesn't achieve anything apart form making women think we are insensitive."

      Wow, are you sure you still have a penis? It's because of men like you, fearful, cowardly, putting up women on pedestals they don't belong, that men are getting the shaft these days. You are truly pathetic. Unfortunately you are becoming the norm in society.
    • slaystench, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Do you even know what you're talking about? adamsucks was not saying that the woman being drunk permits a guy to rape her or that he shouldn't be punished. the point of this article is saying that even if the woman say YES while she's drunk, it is still classed as rape."

      I was mostly referring to his point about there being a choice. Because the guy that raped my friend thought she wanted to have sex, and he still thinks that it was mutual to this day. She will not tell anyone who it was, instead she tries to ignore it by not speaking or being around him.
    • cybortrip, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5this is the dumbest law ever. practically everyone who goes out to a bar is looking to:

      a) get drunk + get laid
      b) eat appetizers all night and mock the drunks trying to get laid

      this law is a lose-lose for everyone.
    • ParadoxControl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You crazy Brits. What will you think of next!
    • Venator, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1"What if the guy is drunk too"

      Well, basically whoever is the pursuer of sex, as in the person who wanting to have sex, it is his/her responsibility to get a yes from the other party.

      The reason why the other person cannot be drunk is because no one can really agree to anything when drunk. This is especially true when you give someone alcohol with the exact intent to get the drunk to get an easier "yes"

      The law protects women, and as a man, i think it's great.
    • shinynew, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3So what happens when a drunk woman goes down on a sleeping guy?
    • SelfAbortion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@gxcdesign
      "It Ain't Rape, it's Surprise Sex"

      I prefer the term "Ninja Sex"
    • qingshuo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@qwertydvorak:

      How on earth does that "difference" justify diverging standards of responsibility? The logic is "If you engage in an activity which causes damage to anyone (including youself) which you later regret, being drunk at the time does not reduce the level of responsibility which you are committed to."
    • silentdud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1WHAT THE HELL thats how you do it isnt it?
  • mrmcbastard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+61"What if the guy is "drunk" too."

    He was obviously raped, too.
    • justice7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+61Yes i demand equality of rights here.

      When my gf gets drunk she jumps me. Does that make me a rapist?
    • livejamie, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5OMG DOUBLE RAPE
    • luvkit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Do these legislators even know any woman? Maybe I'm surrounded by whores, but I know alot of girls that go out with the express purpose to get drunk and get laid.

      Sadly, they are my friends. I get none.
    • almostmanda, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3The law in Missouri has been this way for awhile. If someone is drunk, they can't legally give consent. It's not a new thing, and it's not limited to women.

      This thread is full of people claiming "women need to think before they do things, and not put themselves in harm's way." I shouldn't have to avoid going to parties, drinking, walking around late at night, wearing short skirts, etc. That's like saying, if you don't want to be murdered, well, just never piss anyone off. Or, don't want to get mugged? Well, don't carry around any money! It's unrealistic, and doesn't excuse the illegal actions the law is supposed to protect me from.
  • thenativeraver, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11I believe this has been a law in California for quite some time.
    • Shaunt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Really? *****. There goes my game.
    • bswopes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Yup. You can't consent in California if you are impaired, so if a woman is drunk, its rape.
  • Renork, on 10/12/2007, -2/+78We should just make it illegal for women to drink at all, since this law seems to say that they cant handle it.
    • ajb2015, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25Yeah i'd be offended to be told by the government that I can't consent to sex if i'm drunk.
    • MrrCrow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18ha. that and driving
    • Tenlow, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Yeah. Who are they to tell me if I'm too drunk to drive!.

      Wait, what is this argument about?
    • 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They have a monopoly on the roads so I guess it is okay for them to say in that case.
  • biochem, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25"before we have sex, can u blow into this breathalyzer?"

    talk about a mood killer
    • CrazyMike, on 10/12/2007, -1/+37Not if we can somehow construct a penis breathalyzer attatchment. Oh the possibilites.
    • magixx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Well hopefully she will be too drunk to notice/care. Also I wouldn't classify oral as sex.
    • bushawa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3unfortunately oral sex is considered sex in many states.
    • kuzotz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2hmm.......

      Buy my new sexy breatherlizers!!!!!!!! WAnt to get into a sexy mood then come on to Kuzotz's shop of sexy breatherlizers!!!!! get them while they're hot.
    • 37prime, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@bushawa

      I only accept Bill Clinton's definition of sex. Oral is not sex!
    • GiggleStick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Then I guess I "didn't" have sex with 37prime's Mom.
  • wagesj45, on 10/12/2007, -2/+51If you can't handle your alcohol, then don't drink. Far too many people blame rape for their bad judgment. No one deserves to get raped, and I don't want that to happen. I also believe in strict punishment for rape. But when you decide to drink you must accept the consequences of your actions and decisions. If you can't accept what you might do, then don't drink. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
    • DrunkenPirate34, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12You speak the truth man. I never do dumb stuff when I'm drunk, but I know people who do. It's all about self control and self responsibility. I'm drunk right now, and really want some food, but I am smart enough to know that I should not drive.

      I am also smart enough to know that I would not do my friends girl friend.

      Those that do dumb stuff when drunk should not drink. Don't blame the innocent guy that has sex with a consenting girl (while drunk), blame the girl for not having enough self control to say no.
    • Tenlow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12......Close. Blame the girl for not having the sense to say "no I think I've had enough"

      But still blame the guy who's walking down the hall and decides to bone the chick sleeping in a pool of her own vomit.
    • drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6There is a difference between drunk and unconscious. Most people have been drunk. You still have the ability to make decisions. You may lose some inhibitions, but your not stupid. It's not alcohol that makes people act stupid, its stupid that makes people act stupid.
    • Kniggit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Precisely. If one drives drunk, they're held responsible for their actions, but not if they let someone have sex with them?
    • ethsen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6From the movie "As Good as It Gets"

      Receptionist: How do you write women so well?
      Melvin Udall: I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.
    • sremick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Kniggit: you beat me to it. I was going to propose the same analogy.

      Basically, for this law to be legit, they also have to free drunk drivers from all responsibility. Since they were drunk and didn't consent to driving and ultimately getting into the accident, so it's not actually their fault

      Otherwise it's just hypocrisy.
    • FushBuck, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2The problem is, you're assuming all guys are nice and wouldn't force themselves on an unwilling girl, drunk or not. Most guys are nice and wouldn't do that. This law unnecessarily punishes the nice guy. But there really are douchbags who enjoy raping vulnerable woman, like the security guard in the article, which is what this law was trying to address.

      I don't know what to think about this law, it's not quite addressing the right thing, but what that is I can't say very well. I do know it's a two way street, if he's drunk then she would be raping him and should get the same penalty that a guy would.

      What I see some of you doing is the ol blame the victim routine. "If she hadn't been doing this or this or this, then she wouldn't have been raped" The problem is you can claim that about anything the rape victim did. "If she didn't leave her house then she wouldn't have been raped", so that line of argument doesn't work from a logical point of view unless your purpose is to excuse the actions of the one who forces himself/herself on unwilling victims.

      If I'm so drunk that I pass out and somebody robs me, yes I was stupid but I don't automatically deserve to be robbed. The problem with putting all the responsibility for the robbery on the victim completely leaves out any responsibility for the robber. The robber now gets a free pass.

      But yet I do believe people have a responsiblity to themselves to make a reasonable effort to keep themselves out of harm's way.

      I don't know what the answer is.

    • drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@fushbuck

      The problem here is, men that are going to rape a woman, are going to do so whether she is drunk or not. If the rapists wants an easy target, it's not hard to use chloroform or ruphies. The idea of this proposed law is ludicrous.
  • LordSkywalker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12I'm gonna get drunk, have sex with a girl, then claim rape, and try to sue her. Oh yeah, I'm a real ladies man. . .
  • quami16, on 10/12/2007, -1/+37That is absolutely ridiculous. I guess you can take one of two things here..
    1) women aren't bright enough to be able to make decisions on their own once they've had something to drink (they said it, not me)
    2) no drunk woman ever actually wants to have sex.

    Jimmy Buffet is NOT happy about this.
  • dougbell, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5It's not rape if she doesn't (or can't) say no.
  • punchingjudy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11How on earth are they going to be able to go back and prove someone was drunk at the time of sex?
  • kingkilr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"wear a condom"
    "use this Breathalyzer"
  • oslointhesummer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5What's the legal limit, I'd liked to know.
    • kuzotz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1in oklahoma its like less than a 8 oz. can of beer...
  • reddevil3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Man that's the only way I get any action. I guess I'm a rapist now.
    • adamsucks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Want to go to the bar with me? We'll pick up some victims.
    • BullTaco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0No, you are married.
  • Araxen, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18How are all the fat chicks gonna get laid now? Think of the fat chicks they need loving too!
    • ihate2reg4u, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Yea, but they have to pay.
    • davymac, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2haha digg up ihate2reg4u for the quagmire reference, haha
  • smartass007, on 10/12/2007, -1/+39every bartender is now an accessory to rape
  • Aalenox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+31This law is stupid. It opens the door for massive manipulation of the system on a woman's part. Mainly, it is her word vs the man's as to whether or not she was "drunk". Basically, a man having sex with a woman *EVER* can now be called rape if the woman so desires. All she needs to do is go to a doctor after, prove that they had sex, and then claim she was drunk at the time.

    The article claims that the law has a way to deal with this ... "Police would be asked to carry out blood and urine tests on a woman who complained of rape to find out how much alcohol is in her body. They would then used "back calculations" to work out how drunk she was at the time of the alleged attack." but again, it is a loophole so big I could fly the Enterprise through it. Have sex, wait until he leaves, and down about 8 shots.

    All in all, the law is stupid because it could be so easily manipulated and used.
    • copper7op, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2lol, double dig for the enterprise comment.
  • nreynolds, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19Guys, this doesn't effect us. No girl could ever get drunk enough to have sex with the kinds of nerds you find on Digg (consensual or not, she'd find a way to stop you)
  • nodnarb24, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4This has been considered rape in most of the United States for quite some time and for good reason. Alcohol lowers inhibition and awareness and I have known women that have been borderline passed out and can't force someone off or have the ability to say no and assholes that would take advantage of that opportunity. This is an especially common occurrence on college campuses.

    If a girl is really interested in you, you shouldn't have to get her plastered to get into her pants. So if she's drunk, keep it in your pants.
    • drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4While I don't think anyone condones a man forcing himself on a woman in any way, shape, or form; How smart is the woman that gets totally blitzed with a guy she doesn't trust? Honestly, it's a two-way street. If a guy were to get that drunk, you can assume he's probably gonna get robbed.

      There is such a thing as self-accountability. If you know you can't handle your liquor, then DON'T GET DRUNK.

      Laws like this assume every guy is a sex-crazed maniac with no self control and every woman is a paragon of virtue capable of no wrong-doing.

      It's not the womans fault for getting raped while she's drunk, but it IS her fault for putting herself in that potential situation.
    • Kniggit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3So if you drive drunk, I guess you shouldn't be held responsible for your "poor judgment" right?

      "I couldn't say no to driving drunk, so it's not my fault."

      Isn't it funny how it works when the shoe's on the other foot?
    • nodnarb24, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@Kniggit: It actually follows the same lines as driving drunk. You can't drive because you lose control over your reactions. You can't consent while drunk because your lose your ability to rationalize the situation. People should be accountable for there actions but that doesn't mean that a drunk girl should be an open target just because she likes to drink.
  • moovitz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Okay, what ever happend to personal responsibility? Last time I checked the drinking age was 21 in the U.S., and semantics aside, your old enough to take care of yourself. And why the ***** is it just women? Just because you lack a penis shouldn't be a trump card for 'victim'.

    Man or Woman, It's you who decided to drink, it's you who went out and decided to wear tight/attractive/skimpy clothing to attract someone, and it should ***** well be you who has to deal with the concequences of waking up with a throbbing headache and the inhability to walk straight.

    On that note, if you dont want to have sex when your drunk, go buy a chastity belt.

    I don't think these people for this law understand the concequences of calling rape. It is impossible to defend yourself from that phrase. Just like calling someone a terrorist or in the southern states, gay. And if you don't belive me, let us recal back to the Salem witch trials.
    • Disjunto, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1this article is about the UK, where the drinking age is 18, and most pubs will serve you at 16.... most of them aren't responsible enough
  • BadassCheese, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Good thing I live in the US where this doesn't effect me.
    • nodnarb24, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4What state do you live in? There is most likely a law already in existence like this on the books.
    • Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yeah, in most states it's illegal to have sex with someone who is unconscious, which it should be. It could just be the way this article is worded, but it seems like the proposed British law is much broader, essentially robbing women of their ability to consent after a few drinks. As far as I know, most states don't set an arbitrary blood-alcohol limit at which consent is negated, instead preferring to use a common sense standard to determine whether consent was given.
    • kuzotz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2though women can cry rape so this law isn't something new. They just wrote something in stone that has already been in practice.
  • green1152, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4First of all, it's the woman's fault for drinking too much. She'll obviously have some idea of how the night will go.

    Second, what if a man is drunk and the woman is not? Would she be charged for rape? That's odd.

    This just makes no sense.
  • Domza, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Wow, this deals a real blow to the feminist theories of law... Assuming a woman can't make a decision because shes had an abitary amount of alcohol to drink. Don't get me wrong, I am all for protection of women against any rape, but it seems like the legislature intends on telling women when its okay to have sex, and when they can't after having too many.
    • kronix2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Since when did some feminists care about equality? They prefer the status quo where it's advantageous to women. See: divorce settlements, custody rights, child maintenance payments, and now drunken rape allegations.
    • Onesan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2For the love of the tubes, read a frelling book! None of you have any idea what feminism is.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

      The only feminist I ever met was a man (my University English Prof), and he was a card carrying feminist at that. He wouldn't find this law particularity well thought out either, but he wouldn't carry on as if the whole of the earth's female populous was spending all their spare time scheming up ways to falsely accuse men of sexual assaults and other offences. I can guarantee you that they've all got better things to do, all the ones that have never met you that is. ^_~

      You must be pretty scared of women. Srysly
  • androothebear, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2How on earth can that be constitutional? It seems like an invasion of privacy... if a boyfriend and girlfriend are both drunk and do it, is that grounds for rape? All the sex offender b.s. in the news lately really ticks me off. It seems to be way exadurated.
    • maffiou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Apparently in the US, 1 in 6 women has been victim to either rape or attempted rape (and 1 man out of 30 !!)... So this is a very serious issue...
      Not sure the law understand where the limit should be between consensual sex and rape though...
    • 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2We don't have a constitution.

      It would be hell if they created a constitution now. It would probably filled with nonsense like "right to health care, right to education". It is better for everyone if government doesn't get involved in those things, it messes them up.
  • Dmitrik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Hope there's no of these new laws in Canada.... hehe
    • kelvie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There are :/

      It's quite tough to find the actual laws on Google, but I am positive of this.
  • rtini, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2This could be used for good, since so many women are tricked/coerced into getting drunk, then taken advantage of and the rapist gets away with it.

    HOWEVER... It's pretty weird for committed happy couples in which the female likes to have sex when they get home from drinking. I guess you would just have to trust your sweetie not to prosecute you for rape after making love together.
    • Kniggit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Tricked and coerced into getting drunk? I guess you really don't think very highly of women (or reality, when it comes down to it).

      Unless a man is physically ramming a drink down a woman's gullet, she has the conscious choice of drinking or not. It's not like people have zero clue what drinking is about or what it does to you. NOBODY FORCES YOU TO DRINK BUT YOU.
  • kindrobot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I like the idea of nabbing more date rapists, but this seems to go a bit far.

    However, any gentleman knows it's a bad idea to have sex with a drunk woman.
    I guess now it means they are being forced to be gentlemen.

    But you have to bring up one thing. How is the woman's intoxication treated differently under the law if both parties are intoxicated while still maintaining equal rights? In other words, what if I'm drunk and she's drunk and only one of us regrets it or has no memory of the events that led to intercourse? Could I not as a male accuse the woman of raping me? Considering what happens for the next 18 years if she's impregnated during the crime, it would seem much more criminal.

    I think the bottom line should be the rule I've always followed. If she's worth "doing", she's worth calling the next day when she's sober. Besides, drunk girls are sloppy and kind of annoying anyway, for the most part. If someone wants me, I want them to actually WANT me. One sided desire NEVER makes for good sex.
  • batmaster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Please calm down.

    I don't wanna turn this rape into a murder.
  • Derrekito, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I don't recall the last time I had sober sex...
    • bioskope, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Guess that makes you a serial rapist

      Officer Arrest this man!
    • thebudgie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Nah, he's a serial rape victim in this case...
    • Disjunto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1or both :P
  • chapinmesa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3But if the guy is drunk, its not rape? Hmm...just like how if a chick goes into the mens restroom, its all playful but if a guy somehow finds himself in the womens restroom hes a pervert and goes to court for being one.
    • nodnarb24, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ever hear of a thing called whiskey dick? If a guy is drunk enough to lose his ability to consent, then his equipment will most likely not work. It's a similar reason why a lot of rape law does not apply to guys because under stressful situations, the equipment shouldn't work.
  • SlyProfanity, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3it wasnt my fault because i was too drunk to consent to raping her
  • mk24, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Most of the above comments just show how much this law is needed.
  • currybet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Did any of you guys actually read the description or the article? This isn't a new law in the UK, it is a proposal in a discussion document.
    • kronix2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Maybe you don't live in the UK, so I'll explain the situation.

      New Labour will push this through without any meaningful consultation with actual experts in the field, because government ministers prefer to listen to their own "special advisors". That is, unless the media (and in particular, the right-wing newspapers) take this issue to their hearts and fire up their audience by actually reporting how this law could be enforced. If that happens, the proposals will be quietly dropped.
  • huiezer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1sober chicks aint wild enough for me
  • mochzr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1agreed with mk24
  • biggums, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1if a man gets woman drunk and she drives home she gets a DUI not the man.
  • niamh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Silly, they should put more effort into traceability of date rape drugs instead of this farcical law. I believe most women won't give two flying hoots about this but I feel there will be some who take advantage of the law, sadly. IMO in a relationship it's hardly applicable (unless there is already something seriously wrong with the relationship).

    I agree with many here, personal responsibility should be paramount... if you have a drink, it's YOUR responsibility... no sense in crying wolf if you let the bugger in your front door. This is a typical "nanny state" law so popular with the UK government right now. Rather than use common sense and determine on a case by case basis, they use a whitewash approach which impacts upon personal liberties and offers little in the way of personal freedom.

    No doubt the feminists will try to drag down my argument (ie: you shouldn't have to suffer something like that because you enjoy a drink) but on the other hand, as a parallel, I wouldn't walk home on my own late at night either. It's all about personal safety and taking responsibility for your actions.

    Good job I'm moving to be with my BF in Ireland soon ;)

    @ dougbell
    "(or can't)" ? Here's a dollar... I hear they have a sale on at Walmart on brains, go buy a bigger one =)
  • niamh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1deleted
  • jackvalentine, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0Please end the special-privileges whining. It's either drunk-sex or one person is more sober, and that's generally the guy, and he's generally taking advantage of her.

    This law in a nutshell: men give up their so-called right to sloppy drunk sex that they will barely remember, and in return we have a powerful means of holding date-rapists accountable.
    • drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Or you have a vehicle for irresponsible women to get sloppy drunk, have some wild monkey sex, feel bad in the morning, realize she didn't really like that guy, and then cry rape. This hypothetical woman feels like she's not the whore she actually is cuz she was"raped".
  • ZernanToledo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This is sheer madness. It shows how out of touch the government is with everyday people if they think they can introduce a law that will essentially criminalize drunk people having sex.

    Every night countless thousands of people go out to discos and go home with an anonymous partner for a bit of bump and grind. To call it rape if a woman is excessively drunk is nuts - a great number of women (and men) are excessively drunk when they pull, its practically the norm. I'm sure we've all regretted nights of depraved drunken sex with strangers, but perhaps reflect on your choice of lifestyle rather than blaming the other person.

    From the article: "It found that in 120 cases of sexual assault examined by researchers, in 119 cases the woman had been drinking."

    Perhaps a sign to watch what you drink and stay in control of your actions? Again, an example of blame culture.
  • jlebrech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's safer to make sure she can't complain, I think there stuff you can put in the drinks so she forgets what happened.

    Just make sure you're not there when she wakes up.

    (honestly this kind of law will make nice guys spike drinks)
  • brindon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4What part of this is hard to understand? The idea is to create a climate of fear where you could be arrested at any time - for crimes you're not sure you committed, or are completely invented. What the ***** do you think putting up 2 million cameras is all about? To scare you into total submission.

    It's like someone read "1984" and said "hey, a design manual!"
  • 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This just takes all the responsibility away from the woman. She was the one that got drunk, if she doesn't want to get into those situations she should drink less.

    Once you start setting arbitrary limits and laws like this it is only going to get worse. They will probably have equally stupid follow up laws to try and "tweak" the system. And some innocent people will probably go to jail. Stupid nanny state.
  • Pigeon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9This really ***** pisses me off. Instead of trying to track down _actual_ rapists they want to make their political image look better because they can say "Look! Look! Convictions for rape are up by 87%". Yet ANOTHER reason I'm leaving this insane ***** country once I have my degree.

    My mother was raped about a year and a half ago and they have never caught the bastard. This man jumped her, dragged her away. _He_ is a REAL rapist, not the guy that ends up sleeping with a girl that gets so pissed that she can't remember so cries "rape". The UK has officially RUN OUT of prison space anyway, where are they going to put these probably _innocent_ men that are convected?

    Every single ***** politician in this country has no clue about the real world. Hug a hoodie? You'll get a knife in your back and lose whatever is in your pockets. And now "If you sleep with a drunk women your raping her". Do they EVEN LOOK OUTSIDE? Women are worst binge drinkers then men, and they often go out to get pissed and have one night stands.

    Sorry about the tone, but the UK is proving time and time again that it is run by a bunch of egotistical, money grabbing, moronic wankers.

    • Pigeon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Also, the amount of women that _actually_ drag men through the courts saying they were raped, when they are actually just out for revenge is astounding. If a women cries rape, everyone automatically assumes the guy is guilty, his image and name are printed up and down the country. No one thinks "She might be lying" and we can't ask that because we would be seen as "Rape supporters" or 'insensitive'.

      I've seen men lose their wives, their children, their house, their jobs, their friends. EVERYTHING. Because a women cried rape just because she is pissed off and wants revenge.

      Why does this happen? Because the papers can't print the photo/name of the women to 'protect her', but they can print the photo/name of the accused even BEFORE A GOD DAMN VERDICT! The boss sees the paper, fires the 'rapist', etc. Then it turns out he's not guilty but his life is already ruined, he has already lost everything, is associated with 'rape' because his photo has been on every paper in the country even though he is not guilty.

      Someone put me the ***** in charge so we don't have to deal with this retarded crap anymore.

  • Fafnir43, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8This law is misguided at best. I believe current UK law reflects the idea that a mentally incapacitated person (e.g. by alcohol or by drugs) retains some degree of personal responsibility and of the ability to make choices for himself. A murderer would not escape his sentence by pleading drunkenness, and drink driving is a criminal offense. By treating this offence as equivalent to rape, this law undermines that principle by saying, in effect, a choice you make while drunk is no choice at all and you have no responsibility for it. If we take that principle as being generally true, madness results. It shouldn't be statutory rape, either - over here, that's having sex with minors only (under 16s) AFAIK, and under a UK law minors are in fact considered unable to make choices for themselves and cannot be tried as adults. So, again, if the offence is known as statutory rape, the precedent is drunkenness is an excuse for any choice. Not to mention the fact that I suspect the psychological damage wrought by "rape" by drunken consent is substantially less than that wrought by true rape.

    Of course, that's not the same thing as saying that someone who gets a woman drunk for the sole purpose of a one night stand should get off scot-free. If person X gets person Y drunk with the intention of persuading him to kill person Z (think a modern-day Iago), then X has obviously played a pretty significant part in the resuiting murder and should be punished in addition to Y; even though Y chose to commit the crime, he was manipulated into so choosing by X. This is also a crime under UK law - it's called incitement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement. Generalising the principle, the woman may choose to consent, but the man also chooses to take advantage of her, knowing that she would not have consented if she had been sober. Which is bad. So, in principle, I would support the introduction of a lesser offence for cases in which it could be shown that the man set out from the start to ply the woman with alcohol to get her into bed (a rough translation of the prerequisites for incitement). It would have to be a lesser offence, both for the reason I outlined above and because I imagine the psychological ramifications of statutory rape by drunken consent are rather milder than those of true rape. The law would also have to be written in such a way as to expressly require more evidence than the ostensible victim's word, to prevent abuse, and I'm not sure whether this is possible or not.

    Oh yes, and we obviously can't just say "If the woman is drunk, it's rape, full stop". That way madness lies - a husband could "rape" his wife, and she could be perfectly happy with it - the next week she might "rape" him! It would make a mockery of the law. The important issue is whether or not she would have consented had she been sober. I assume even Blair can work that out, but I won't be confident until I've read the bill itself.

    So, to sum up, violently against the current implementation, cautiously in favour of a saner implementation if one is possible. IANAL, this is not legal advice, and I've just pulled an all-nighter so this may not even be sane. Wibble.
  • bioskope, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2oh great, the only category of women who were sympathetic to my sexual needs and now the govt. has to go ahead and snatch even that away from me.

    Lemme go watch "V for Vendetta" now and see if I can be inspired into doing something about all this
  • trovoltex, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Hey, US guys, I don't understand what do you want: to forbid sex or to jail more people? I expected some kind of freedom in US.
    • trovoltex, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Ahh sorry, now it's in UK. Whatever.
  • moisie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Personally, I think our society seems to be under the belief that you can legislate for everything. This particular issue aside, laws cannot be made for every possible scenario, it's part of the reason we have juries, stuff like this will just overwhelm the justice system. It may increase convictions numbers, and it may catch more "guilty" people but it's also gonna end up with a hell of a lot more appeals and failures to convict.
  • plasticated, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"It found that in 120 cases of sexual assault examined by researchers, in 119 cases the woman had been drinking."

    Wow, that's a pretty crazy stat.
  • slimnickyy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2To the gentlemen stating that it's UK law and could never come to the US.

    The legal theory of the US is the same as the UK (common law) and if some enterprising attorney wanted to introduce evidence of a conviction for a crime of similar circumstance that happened in a UK court, it could be enough to convict that person in a US court if the judge or jury believes the underlying principle of that law should also apply in said courtroom in the US; vis å vis precedent.

    I'm not saying that will happen, or even that it happens often, but it could.
    • Veritate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Except, that it's a statute being proposed -- and hence not common law. The mere fact that both the US and the UK are common law jurisdictions says nothing here. This isn't to say there's no argument for interpreting some existing US statute in this manner, but your link between US and UK law here as support is faulty.

      For this to come to the US, this would either have to be introduced as a statute (which at least one poster claims has occurred, though no evidence was provided) or a court would have to interpret an existing rape statute in this manner regarding consent. I do not know if the latter has occurred, but I suspect it's more likely (which is why those of you Googling it are having a hard time; try searching findlaw.com with some likely keywords, and looking through case law).
  • thearrow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Boo!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 84 of 84 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.