Now featuring a legal precedent:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=444804&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

Quote :

"A woman cannot claim rape just because she was drunk, a top judge declared yesterday. The Appeal Court ruling freed a young man jailed for rape after he had sex with a drunken student. It also raised deep doubts over the Government's latest attempts to toughen rape laws. Read more... Graduate's 'double sentence' Plans include a 'sex breathalyser' law under which a woman who had consumed a certain amount of alcohol would legally no longer be able to consent to sex. But the Deputy Lord Chief Justice, Sir Igor Judge, and two other senior judges branded the idea unrealistic. A woman who is very drunk may still be capable of agreeing to sex, they said. They quashed the conviction of software engineer Benjamin Bree, 25, jailed for five years in December after a drunken evening with a 19-year-old student. The girl drank between four and six vodka Red Bulls and two pints of cider and Mr Bree was also drinking heavily. They returned to her hall of residence at Bournemouth University, where, she told Bournemouth Crown Court last year, she was 'continually throwing up'. She said her next memory was waking up to find Mr Bree having sex with her. She told the jury her memory was "very patchy" and I knew I didn't want this but I didn't know how to go about stopping it". Mr Bree told the court she had given her consent and "seemed keen". Sir Igor, sitting with Lady Justice Hallett and Mrs Justice Gloster, quashed the conviction because he said the trial judge's directions to the jury had been "vague in the extreme". He said the case meant the court had to examine the effect of voluntary heavy alcohol consumption. Sir Igor said sex amounts to rape if the woman is incapable of giving consent. But things are different if she is still capable of making a decision. He said: "If, through drink, or for any other reason, the complainant has temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have intercourse, she is not consenting. "Subject to questions about the defendant's state of mind, if the intercourse takes place this would be rape. "However, where the complainant has voluntarily consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remains capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse, and in drink agrees to do so, this would not be rape." The judge said it would not be right to lay down rules - "some kind of grid system" - that say a woman who has reached a set level of drunkenness is incapable of consent. He added: "Experience shows that different individuals have a greater or lesser capacity to cope with alcohol. "Provisions intended to protect women from sexual assaults might very well be conflated into a system which would provide patronising interference with the right of autonomous adults to make personal decisions for themselves." Ministers had been expected to publish a paper setting out a new law on rape and alcohol early this year. It has failed to appear and there has been speculation that the Government has run into deep opposition from the judiciary. Earlier this year the Council of Circuit Judges, which represents 637 judges who sit in Crown Courts, said it should be left to juries to decide whether a woman is capable of consenting to sex. Home Secretary John Reid and his ministers remain committed to pushing up the number of convictions for rape, which they say is far too low. At present only one complaint in 20 ends in the conviction of a man in court. The Home Office said yesterday: "We need to tackle the myths, particularly the view that victims are either partially or fully responsible for the assault they have experienced if they have been drinking. "Rape is never the responsibility of the victim, whatever the circumstances." The Home Office has been considering a study by the Association of Chief Police Officers which found that a "significant" number of rape and sexual assault victims had drunk at least the equivalent of eight pub glasses of wine. This is equivalent to two and a half times the drink driving limit. At these levels, said the ACPO study, a woman can be expected to show "marked intoxication levels". But it warned that back calculations used to work out how drunk a woman may have been at the time of an alleged rape could give only approximate answers."

3/27/2007 1:29:38 PM

Atleast those brits have sometime right.

3/27/2007 1:36:18 PM

Oh heavens no, don't give men rights at all! Think of what could happen!

3/27/2007 1:39:52 PM

Quote :

"Sir Igor Judge"

what a kickass name for a Chief Justice

3/27/2007 2:03:11 PM

Quote :

"Plans include a 'sex breathalyser' law under which a woman who had consumed a certain amount of alcohol would legally no longer be able to consent to sex."

sex breathalyser... insert bj joke

3/27/2007 2:03:40 PM

so this pretty much makes it perfectly legal to use roofies?

3/27/2007 2:05:40 PM

^no. roofies are actually a huge problem in the uk. police are always on the lookout for those guys and there are lots of programs to make women and men aware of the problem and how to stop it.

3/27/2007 2:37:27 PM

I'm not sure that they should make it more difficult for women to claim rape... I could see potential negative consequences by making it more difficult on women who were really raped.

But I think there should be a set standard for everybody though male or female. Drinking either affects your brain or not regardless of your genitals.

3/27/2007 2:43:09 PM

the key here is that the woman voluntarily engaged in heavy drinking, not someone slipped her a pill while casual drinking to help speed the process along, if you are gonna go out and get shitfaced knowing that you may be pretty out of it, more than likely agreed to have sex or didnt really make it known you didnt want to, then when you wake up, realize you drank way too much, some random guy in your bed, and then yell rape, well as someone else said, least the british got something right for a change.

3/27/2007 2:43:50 PM

i agree with this article. I know a guy going through the courts because of this when it was obviously clear that the girl wanted to have sex with the guy that night.

3/27/2007 2:46:35 PM

I mean if i go out, get plastered, wake up with some hideous chick in my bed, thinking to myself WTF!!! that means I can claim I was raped right?

3/27/2007 2:47:33 PM

Im too drunk to read all these details right now, BUT

This sounds like good news.

It's such bullshit that a woman can claim rape if she is drunk.

Can I claim no responsibility if i drive drunk?? After all I was DRUNK, i didnt know what i was consenting to!

I have a pretty rampant sexual history since I'm attractive, intelligent, and cool. But I'm not going to lie, if it wasn't for alcohol, 50% or more of those events would have never transpired if it wasnt for alcohol.

In fact, I'd like to remove ~20-30% of those sexual altercations from my history because I WAS the one who was drunk and accidentally didn't notice the girl was busted. There's no laws on my side of the issue though.


Point being, girls WANT to be sluts. Alcohol gives them an "excuse".

There's no reason to penalize men just because girls are scared to have sex sober.


In many cases I think alcohol prevents rape rather than enhances it.

I mean if you know a girl will put out after taking tequila shots you can just give them to her instead of hitting her over the head.

3/27/2007 2:51:39 PM

nope

3/27/2007 2:52:51 PM

Quote :

"I mean if you know a girl will put out after taking tequila shots you can just give them to her instead of hitting her over the head"

i gotta admit... i lolled

3/27/2007 2:56:42 PM

awesome i have the green light to get all the freshman sluts drunk and fuck them

3/27/2007 3:00:34 PM

^only in the UK

3/27/2007 3:05:15 PM

This is one of those situations where there is no winner in a decision. I have to agree with the precedent it makes. Right now like everyone above has mentioned if both parties are drunk and have sex it's the males fault. That's not fair.

There needs to be an even playground.

Women, you KNOW already how some men can be predators. This is why you don't go out ALONE and get shit faced. The same premise for a male except he's probably going to get robbed not raped. That's the difference. Noone is gunning to rape a man generally.

Unfortunately there's no real comparison to this situation because there are two sides, both equally concerned about their rights but the problem lays in who bares the responsibility. Right now it's the male. It doesn't matter how much they had to drink, it doesn't matter if she said "yes fuck me now"... the male in the end raped her if she "said so".

The responsibility for actions should lay 50%/50%. The point of this case is to state that "You got drunk, now you have to PROVE that he raped you. Not that you were drunk, sex occurred and now you didn't want that".

I feel this case is extremely fair to both sides without giving more to one side. Now the responsibility lays in the woman to make sure she doesn't get shitfaced solo.

A friend of mine (female) was hearing my arguement and went "A woman shouldn't have to worry about that when she goes out". My rebuttle was "A man shouldn't have to worry about being accused of rape when the woman says "fuck me now"".

So... this is the best solution I know of that meets at the 50/50 line.

3/27/2007 3:49:28 PM

I'm waiting for BridgetSPK to show up.

3/27/2007 3:56:57 PM

Quote :

"Can I claim no responsibility if i drive drunk?? After all I was DRUNK, i didnt know what i was consenting to!"

LOL

3/27/2007 3:58:03 PM

Somebody have a link to the official US / NC equivalent ruling?

3/27/2007 4:04:53 PM

Those outfits are sweet. He probably doesn't even need to get a girl drunk to get laid when he is sporting that thing.

3/27/2007 4:11:40 PM

Quote :

"I'm waiting for BridgetSPK to show up."

Oh dont worry, she'll be here any minute now. Its like throwing a raw steak at a sleeping pit bull

3/27/2007 4:31:53 PM

Quote :

"I'm waiting for BridgetSPK to show up."

Ditto

And I am in full support of this precedent that, to me, seems like common sense.

3/27/2007 5:00:06 PM

If they had a BAC level for consenting to sex, it would have to be like 0.2 %

Common people, this isn't fucking driving.

3/27/2007 5:11:06 PM

Good ruling.

3/27/2007 7:14:07 PM

The bottom line is that either drunk people are responsible for their actions or they aren't. You can't have it both ways.

3/27/2007 8:58:34 PM

if i am responsible for killing someone if i drive drunk

then i should be responsible about my sexual habits

3/27/2007 9:08:58 PM

if i was a pro woman activist i'd be mad

but i'm not and i'm extremely happy.

3/27/2007 9:20:42 PM

time to buy some beer and hang out in front of UT

you know, if it were in the UK

[Edited on March 27, 2007 at 9:46 PM. Reason : i'm retarded]

3/27/2007 9:45:45 PM

Quote :

"The bottom line is that either drunk people are responsible for their actions or they aren't. You can't have it both ways."

3/27/2007 9:48:14 PM

Quote :

"if i was a pro woman activist i'd be mad"

i am a pro-woman activist (well not an activist), and i am happy about this. (not that it will ever affect/concern me, cuz i don't drink and neither do i do casual sex)

but that's because i am pro-personal responsibility.


[Edited on March 27, 2007 at 10:29 PM. Reason : \/ i don't know what that gibberish says. i can be pro-whatever. has nothing to do with gender.]

3/27/2007 10:12:41 PM

^ you cant be a pro woman activist

unless you have Sex: M cause youre a butch dike

3/27/2007 10:19:56 PM

Quote :

"but that's because i am pro-personal responsibility."

amen bro

3/27/2007 10:22:40 PM

Quote :

"if i was a pro woman activist i'd be mad"

Why? Anyone who would lie about being raped, male or female, shouldn't get away with it.

[Edited on March 27, 2007 at 10:26 PM. Reason : also, ell oh ell at rallydurham, TWW's womanizer of the year]

3/27/2007 10:25:17 PM

if only there were more hot british girls for this to apply to

3/27/2007 10:27:07 PM

So where are the "female" opinions here?

3/28/2007 6:17:10 AM

If a girl goes out drinking and get shitfaced (like a dude earlier said) she needs to have someone else there with her to watch her dumb ass. When I go out I always take a friend with me. Just because she was drunk and doesnt remember doesnt mean it is right to call rape. If she had one of those blacking out moments which she probably did she may have said yeah. They guy was supposedly drunk too so he probably didnt realize she was that wasted.

3/28/2007 1:52:49 PM

If i go out and drive with a .20 BAC and get caught I go to jail for DUI, and if i run sombody over murder.

If i go out and have sex with a .20 BAC im not responsible for my decision.

See the problem here?

3/28/2007 2:37:25 PM

As long as this ruling becomes "situational", then its fine by me. You can't claim that you were raped simply because you were drunk when you had sex.

However, there are many circumstances that still apply. Take this instance. Girl is trashed. Guy isn't. They are at a party with a bunch of friends. Guy (not drunk) knows that the girl is dating someone and that she happy with the situation. He knows that she will not sleep with him. He then offers to drive her home, ie putting himself into a position of trust. He then takes advantage of her at her place (consentual, but wouldn't have been if she wasn't drunk). Thats still rape. And it happens . . . OFTEN.

3/28/2007 4:40:37 PM

Quote :

"awesome i have the green light to get all the freshman sluts drunk passed out and fuck them"

[Edited on March 28, 2007 at 4:44 PM. Reason : asdf]

3/28/2007 4:44:19 PM

if the guy and girl are both wasted, how is it the guy's fault any more than the girls, hell what if the girl gets on top of his dick, does that mean she raped him?

[Edited on March 28, 2007 at 5:02 PM. Reason : k]

3/28/2007 4:59:26 PM

girl's word >>>>>>>>>>>> truth

3/28/2007 5:16:29 PM

To be fair, it must be considered on a case to case basis. Consider 2 scenarios:

1) A woman goes out drinking. She has a few drinks. Someone asks her if she wants to go home with him. She goes, they have sex, and she feels bad about it in the morning. This does not sound like rape to me.

2) A woman goes to a friend's house to drink. She trusts everyone there. She consumes massive quantities of alcohol. Late in the night, her friends are either too drunk to help her or they've left hours ago. Someone who's been there all night, someone whom she'd never consider kissing while sober, helps her walk to his apartment - she's too drunk to walk on her own. She lays there as he kisses her, fingers her, and starts to undress her. They have sex. Later, she remembers it stopped when she "woke up," felt the room spinning, realized something was wrong, and felt physically sick. This happened to someone I know last weekend. It definitely sounds like rape to me.

Quote :

"The bottom line is that either drunk people are responsible for their actions or they aren't. You can't have it both ways."

Although this statement makes perfect sense on its own, "drunk" is only a black and white situation when numbers are set to clarify a law. There are people who sound drunk after half a beer, and there are people who seem to be able to make rational decisions after a six pack.

If it is accepted that there are situations where people cannot be held accountable for their own actions, then it seems obvious that alcohol eventually creates such a situation. If you disagree that such situations exist, you must also see no problem with roofies or robberies at gunpoint. I don't think a person should be held accountable for their actions in either of those two cases either.


I expect the opposing argument to be "when someone is given roofies or robbed at gunpoint, something is done to them; they get drunk on their own." When rape actually happens, the victim is probably in a situation she did not forsee and could not always be expected to prepare for. In case 2 above, the victim did not expect anyone to make sexual advances towards her, she was with friends. Why shouldn't she drink so much? Who could possibly harm her? When someone did take advantage of the fact that she was too drunk to do anything but lay there at the end of the night, do you all honestly believe she should bear any responsibility?

[Edited on March 28, 2007 at 6:15 PM. Reason : clarification]

3/28/2007 6:14:16 PM

Quote :

"hell what if the girl gets on top of his dick, does that mean she raped him?"

no that means he has good game

3/28/2007 6:18:22 PM

Quote :

"from $647 Roundtrip Web Fare 6:35 pm Depart Raleigh (RDU) Arrive London (LGW) 7:00 am tip+1 day Fri 6-Apr Duration: 7hr 25mn American Airlines American Airlines 174 Nonstop flight Preview seat availability Choose this departure"

Who wants in?

3/28/2007 6:22:52 PM

^ you could use a one way ticket to hell

3/28/2007 6:27:05 PM

Quote :

"He then takes advantage of her at her place (consentual, but wouldn't have been if she wasn't drunk). Thats still rape. "

I don't think so. The guy is a prick to be sure, but it was still consent. The fact that she was drunk makes him an asshole, but she still consented. If she wouldn't fuck him sober, she shouldn't fuck him drunk. If she would fuck him drunk, she shouldn't be getting drunk with him around. Again it's a matter of taking personal responsibility. If you know you'll do something stupid when you get drunk, don't get drunk.

Quote :

"She lays there as he kisses her, fingers her, and starts to undress her. They have sex. "

No resistance at all? Why should it be rape if she gives no signals of being unwilling?

Quote :

"If it is accepted that there are situations where people cannot be held accountable for their own actions, then it seems obvious that alcohol eventually creates such a situation. If you disagree that such situations exist, you must also see no problem with roofies or robberies at gunpoint. I don't think a person should be held accountable for their actions in either of those two cases either. "

Not at all, when you have a choice as to the level of intoxication or lack of control you subject yourself to, you are responsible for your actions as a result of that. When someone unknowingly or forcefully subjects you to intoxication, you can't be held responsible as you did not choose the actions which lead to your impaired decision making.

Quote :

"Why shouldn't she drink so much?"

Because it would inhibit her ability to make critical decisions should the need arise. If you know alcohol can make people apt to do stupid things, you should expect alcohol to make others around you do stupid things.

Quote :

"Who could possibly harm her?"

All the people around her who would have their ability to make judgements impaired? Again, you know you do stupid things when drunk, why would you expect anyone else to be different?

Quote :

"When someone did take advantage of the fact that she was too drunk to do anything but lay there at the end of the night, do you all honestly believe she should bear any responsibility?"

Yes, her choice to drink to the point of disabling herself was her own choice. The guy is still a creep (although here we are again assuming that the man is more in control of themselves when drunk than the woman) but she chose to drink to excess and place herself in that dangerous position. She certainly doesn't bear all the responsibility but to say she bears none is making excuses for bad decision making.

3/28/2007 6:54:49 PM

Quote :

"No resistance at all? Why should it be rape if she gives no signals of being unwilling?"

maybe she is unable to? she keeps passing out and in of consciousness? and is physically unable to move?

3/28/2007 7:02:42 PM

As you noted at the end, she drank to the point of complete disability. Although I can't personally imagine being in such a state that I couldn't understand what was happening if someone started to kiss me ("something was eating my face", as she described it) or started to have sex with me, I do understand that this is possible. So to the following point:

Quote :

"No resistance at all? Why should it be rape if she gives no signals of being unwilling?"

This is not consent. If someone is in a state where they cannot fully comprehend a situation, no action of any kind can be construed as consent. How can someone answer a question if they don't know one is being asked?


I think it was very important to note that she was in a situation where she trusted everyone there not to take advantage of her. She was around friends, not strangers. I will concede that this is very naive, but it leads me to the following conclusions:

Quote :

"when you have a choice as to the level of intoxication ... you are responsible for your actions as a result of that."

Yes, I somewhat agree. But in this case, her "action" was to follow a friend's lead out of the apartment she started drinking in, and they lay there trying to figure out what was going on.

Quote :

"it would inhibit her ability to make critical decisions should the need arise"

She did not have reason to expect the need to arise. She was around people who she knew would take care of her when she started drinking.

Although this level of trust was most definitely a mistake, it is no where near the long line of mistakes the other person had to make to bring her to his apartment, put her in his bed, kiss her, undress her, molest her, put on a condom (a good thing, but one which requires conscious effort), and stick his penis inside her. Yes, the situation could have been prevented if she had not drank, as it also could have been if her boyfriend had stayed in town to watch out for her instead of going to a conference or if one of her better friends had taken her home when they left or went to bed.

Quote :

"Yes, her choice to drink to the point of disabling herself was her own choice. "

I believe she was responsible for how intoxicated she was. I do not believe she was responsible for anything that happened while she was in that state.

3/28/2007 7:30:11 PM

So to the point of the thread, based on that example: deciding rape purely on a blood alcohol level is nonsense, but to say that alcohol is not a factor at all is at least as foolish. It absolutely can inhibit a person's ability to repell a sexual advance. People are taken advantage of in situations they shouldn't have had any reason not to feel safe, and I believe, consistent with US law, that is rape.

3/28/2007 7:35:18 PM