[ 07.03.2006, 04:26: Message edited by: Black Mask ]
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Once upon a time, on conclusion of a very business-like fuck with a female friend, she said to me, "You didn't ask permission before you did that. That's officially rape." I thought she was taking the piss. Turns out she was right. How much 'consent' do you need, do you think? If you habitually fuck a woman. If you snuggle up close and she likes it. If you slip it in and she lets you. If she appears to be enjoying your thrusting. Do you need to ask first? Officially?
What do you think o' board?
Posted by Benny the Ball (Member # 694) on :
I think that it's best to have a lawyer, or possibly an independent panel on hand at all times. They could oversee the procedings, and then give a judgement 'we find the client guilty, of wanting it badly' or something. Then and only then should you touch yours with the proverbial.
Do you need permission for each stage?
Can I enter you?
Yes
Is it okay to continue?
Yes
Do you mind if I stuck my thumb up your arse?
etc
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
quote:Originally posted by Benny the Ball: Do you mind if I stuck my thumb up your arse?
I love the fact that the tense presents this one as a fait accompli.
Posted by Benny the Ball (Member # 694) on :
oops!
Oh well, the suprise of it is half the fun I suppose!
Posted by Roy (Member # 705) on :
Men should go on strike.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Woot! It am Roy!
Posted by Roy (Member # 705) on :
Hear m'now!
Posted by Benny the Ball (Member # 694) on :
Roy!!
Hey, are you able to get on Barbelith yet? They said that they'd cleared you?
Posted by Roy (Member # 705) on :
Haven't heard anything yet, Benny. I thought they might be checkng references or criminal records or something.
[ 07.03.2006, 06:36: Message edited by: Roy ]
Posted by Doctor Agamemnon When (Member # 189) on :
I'm not signing anything. Surely by the very fact they're dressed provocatively in their "skirts" and "blouses", and wearing make-up like tawdry slatterns, they're begging for it?
Posted by Purple Monkey Dishwasher (Member # 867) on :
I always thought that it was rape if the girl says, "no, I don't want to do this," and he carries on anyway.
Otherwise, I'd have guessed it was fine.
Posted by Benny the Ball (Member # 694) on :
No means yes, and yes means harder*
*this is a quote from an old school "friend"
Posted by froopyscot (Member # 178) on :
So why not just make it a practice to videotape all encounters? It could provide easy proof that both (or all participants, depending) are willing participants, in the case of any future challenge. And even if not, it could be the start of a lucrative adult video venture.
And who said nobody's ever learned anything from Paris Hilton.
Posted by Purple Monkey Dishwasher (Member # 867) on :
I wonder what froopy's into...
Posted by Octavia (Member # 398) on :
It's the underlying assumption that bugs me - that girls are so pathetically feeble-minded that when they've voluntarily drunk alcohol, anything they say or do can't be used against them, because the poor dears can't cope. Everyone else has to live with the consequences of druinked actions - if you don't want to regret what you did in the morning, then don't get drunk.
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
Hmmm, I'm not sure Octavia. It's more like a friendly reminder to blokes not to rape women. Hey guys, rape: not cool, okay? Not cool. Sure, women have to live with the consequences of their own dunken actions, but also as a women you aren't responsible for somebody else thinking that because you've spazzed yourself on booze, you're up for it. I know that the initial implication is like BM says, going "are you sure? Are you sure? Will you regret this tomorrow? Are you sure?", but I don't think that's the point.
It's a nice idea, a culture of mutual respect during inhebriation, but policing people who are that drunk must be like pissing/vomiting in the wind.
[ 14.03.2006, 08:25: Message edited by: Dr. Benway ]
Posted by Octavia (Member # 398) on :
I just don't like the perception that women can't be trusted to be responsible for themselves - it makes all women into 'victims' and detracts from the seriousness of genuine cases of rape - many of which still go unreported. I don't think people in general need any more encouragement to decline to take responsibility for their own choices.
edited for ubb
[ 14.03.2006, 08:50: Message edited by: Octavia ]
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
I see you what you mean, like it could be saying that women are stupid and untrustworthy and it's up to the dude to sort out consent, but this is specifically dealing with the situation where dudes might not think twice about nailing a chick because she's wrecked to the point of helplessness, or at least, not considering that being passive isn't a form of consent. It's promoting social responsbility in men, and the image of the helpless drunken female who can't be trusted probably comes more from our own attitudes and the general portrayal of drunk chicks than the purpose of the campaign. It's not transferring responsibility to men, but simply asking them to keep their own actions in check. Men being more responsible for their own actions doesn't detract power from women.
How is a drunk dude nailing a chick who's nearly passed out not genuine rape?
I'm down with anything that's about being socially responsible, and I'll be thinking twice before I yee haw my ding-a-ling in a drunk chick's flim flam.
[ 14.03.2006, 09:04: Message edited by: Dr. Benway ]
Posted by Purple Monkey Dishwasher (Member # 867) on :
I think there are two issues at play here.
Firstly, the fact that these women are going out drinking. When you go out drinking you know beforehand that later on you're going to be in a vulnerable state, that other people are going to find it easier to overpower you, whether they wish to rape you, mug you or whatever else may spring to mind.
Secondly, there's the issue of what constitutes 'no' in the man's eyes. A woman can say no, but the message is only going to be received if he gets that message that she doesn't want sex. So is 'no,' always enough? If not, what is?
I went out clubbing once and saw a man who was clearly off his head, sat on a sofa. He was pretty much helpless, and I believe that anybody who wanted to rifle through his pockets for cash wouldn't have had any problem doing so.
Surely the same issue comes up for him? If you're going out into the public domain where there are other people, where it's possible one of them might take unfair advantage of you, then think twice about whether you want to take the risk or not.
It's not even a case of, 'if I don't want to get taken advantage of I can't go out drinking.' What's so wrong with staying in a group or keeping in regular contact with a friend through your mobile or staying in with a group of people you know and trust for your drinks?
I for one don't believe that a woman should be seen as 'asking for it' on the strength of what she's wearing as dressing up glamorously has more implications for a woman than just, 'I fancy a shag tonight, I know! I'll wear my favourite dress!'
Surely the responsibility lies with both parties, as highlighted by Dr. Benway.
[ 14.03.2006, 09:09: Message edited by: Purple Monkey Dishwasher ]
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
You're right that there's two sides - one that says try and avoid dangerous drunken situations, and the other that says if you are with somebody who is wrecked, don't take advantage of that. If you're drunk and vulnerable, the danger that you face is at the hands of other people, and this campaign is about targetting those other people. If a chick is drunk to the point of being unable to give proper consent, should people have a pop at her? You might say, no of course not, but these things happen, and the campaign is saying to people no, they shouldn't just happen.
[ 14.03.2006, 09:14: Message edited by: Dr. Benway ]
Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
In this context could a woman have actually said yes or you know "Fuck me hard" or something, but be considered too drunk for that to be regarded as consent?
Posted by Purple Monkey Dishwasher (Member # 867) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dr. Benway: You're right that there's two sides - one that says try and avoid dangerous drunken situations, and the other that says if you are with somebody who is wrecked, don't take advantage of that. If you're drunk and vulnerable, the danger that you face is at the hands of other people, and this campaign is about targetting those other people. If a chick is drunk to the point of being unable to give proper consent, should people have a pop at her? You might say, no of course not, but these things happen, and the campaign is saying to people no, they shouldn't just happen.
Yes, very true, but surely there must be responsibility laid on the woman not to get herself into a dangerous position in the first place.
I'm not saying a woman is responsible is the is raped, but some could do more to keep themselves safe.
Boy Racer - I reckon that if you're going to say that to somebody, no matter how drunk you are, you have given consent. If you want to get so drunk you've no idea what you'll say given the situation, then, for God's sake don't get into it.
[ 14.03.2006, 09:19: Message edited by: Purple Monkey Dishwasher ]
Posted by Roy (Member # 705) on :
How valid is an agreement that you have signed after someone has bought you a load of drinks? Say a mortgage advisor took me out and gave me a few lines, a load of booze and then I signed a ridiculous mortgage with like mega-interest, would that agreement still stand?
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dr. Benway: It's promoting social responsbility in men, and the image of the helpless drunken female who can't be trusted probably comes more from our own attitudes and the general portrayal of drunk chicks than the purpose of the campaign. It's not transferring responsibility to men, but simply asking them to keep their own actions in check. Men being more responsible for their own actions doesn't detract power from women.
How is a drunk dude nailing a chick who's nearly passed out not genuine rape?
See, I was under the impression that that was already illegal. My understanding was that juries could now decide that a woman is 'too drunk to give her consent' (the phrase used in the article). Obviously, if you interpret that to mean, too drunk to even form the word "yes", then fine. However, my immediate interpretation - and apparently that of a couple of other people - was that it meant the same as with statutory rape, where a child is too young to give consent. That is to say, even if you say 'yes' you're not in any position to have that opinion taken seriously. The case they use as an example appears to support that interpretation, with the judge's comment resting on the possibility that the woman in question may have consented - may have initiated the encounter - and the woman's case resting on the fact she was so wankered she didn't know what she was doing. In that situation it does appear that the chnage represents shifting all the responisbility to men to decide whether or not the woman's even capable of making such a decision. Typing it out like that makes it seem insane that anyone would even consider such a change to the law, but that's what I inferred on my first reading of that BBC story, and even re-reading it, it still seems unclear on exactly what the wording means.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
Is any consideration given to the man being so bladdered that he doesn't realise what he's doing? Although I do understand that many men have a built in device for stopping this, known in the 1970s comedy as "brewer's droop", that doesn't affect all men all the time.
I doubt if many people who've drunk more than a couple of pints haven't regretted some action or other afterwards, even if it was just nicking a traffic cone. But being drunk doesn't imply innocence. Quite the opposite. So is that situation being reversed?
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
quote:The Sexual Offences Act 2003 specified for the first time that a defendant in a rape case would need to show they had reasonable grounds to believe the other person had given their consent.
Consent is defined in the Act as the person agreeing by choice and having the freedom and capacity to make that choice.
That strongly suggests to me that consent given whilst drunk doesn't count in the eyes of the law. One could convincingly argue that alcohol has diminshed someone's capacity to make that choice, and if the onus is on the defendant to establish that consent (as defined above) has been given, the man needs to make a decision on the woman's behalf as to whether or not she's mentally capable of agreeing to sex.
[ 14.03.2006, 09:49: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by Roy (Member # 705) on :
That poster is nothing new. Girls have been wearing 'No Entry' knickers for the past fifteen years, haven't they?
Posted by Physic (Member # 195) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darryn.R: Check out the posters:
I just knew they would be before I even looked, but man those are some patronising posters right there..
Surely the logical conclusion if we keep heading in this direction is that no woman who's had a drink can be considered a viable shag, since capacity for alcohol is such a presonal thing it could be argued that a single glass of wine could potentially affect the ability to give consent, so basically any man who has sex with a woman after she's had any amount of alcohol runs the risk of her then claiming statutory rape, which is ridiculous really, personal accountability can't be so totally removed the issue on the woman's part surely?
I mean say pissed bloke cracks on with pissed woman, they drink/dance/snog, and they decide to go back to hers, both a bit pissed, bloke thinks fine, she's up for it, being a bit pissed he doesn't consider that her judgement might have been impaired by the alcohol, after all so has his. Next morning she claims that he took advantage of her while she was drunk, and yet while her claim of diminished responsibility could result in a rape charge for him, his claim of diminished responsibility on the exact same grounds gets laughed off, how is that right?
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
This one's better:
But this one is best:
That'll keep you amused for hours, by which time you'll have forgotten all about doing a rape.
[ 14.03.2006, 10:06: Message edited by: Darryn.R ]
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Da BBC: The magazine and radio adverts and posters are aimed at reducing the number of sex assaults taking place when a woman is very drunk.
A rather cynical person might say that the campaign's actual 'aim' is to find an easy way of blowing £500k of public advertising budget before year end (see also: the relentless slew of road safety ads popping up in almost every tv ad break at present).
If the aim is to get into the man's head, surely warnings of the likelihood of his being caught (and the consequences thereof) would be more effective? The question of seeking consent, I would say, offers rapists with a hard-to-disprove alibi: if he insists that he asked for, and received, consent - and sticks to that story, come what may - whatever forensic evidence exists can maybe be put down to the 'anything goes' after that consent was given. It'd be his word against hers, as is so often the case in these situations, and we're no better off than before. Certainly not £500k's worth of 'better off'.
If the aim is to get into her head, surely the only thing and advertising campaign could effectively do would be terrify women into not getting paralyticaly drunk in a public setting. Is that the road we want to go down? Probably not, but it's hard to think of any other 'message' that's going to make people modify their real-world behaviour.
Given the stated aim of the campaign is at the 'prevention' rather than the 'redress/conviction' end of things, I'd say increasing the conviction rate is a whole other discussion and is probably more to do with what support is in place to help women who have been raped to inform the authorities. I'd be very interested to hear what people - especially female posters - think would improve detection, prosecution and conviction rates which, by any measure, are shockingly low.
Posted by Physic (Member # 195) on :
On the topic of avoiding being paralytic in public, anyone else seen that advert on tv at the moment where the woman can see her drunk self making a right twat of herself at a party, watching her drunken antics from a third party perspective? Now that's an effective campaign right there, it's pointless in most cases appealing to those of us who drink a fair bit on the grounds of health, after all we all know that drinking excessively is bad for us right? Playing on the paranoia that we all experience the morning after a heavy night, attempting to make sense of the hazy memories with a sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach as you wonder just how much of a tit you made of yourself, fucking genius. I saw it on Saturday and spent the rest of the weekend worrying about whether I'd been an arse on Friday while drunk, and resolving to try and contol my drinking in future. Truth be told it'll probably make no real difference to my drinking, but it did make me think which is more than can be said for the ones which just reiterate the same old point about drinking to excess really not being too healthy.
[ 14.03.2006, 10:13: Message edited by: Physic ]
Posted by Physic (Member # 195) on :
nuts, edit not quote, twat
[ 14.03.2006, 10:13: Message edited by: Physic ]
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
I'm trying to come up with an argument to counter you, thorn, but I don't seem to be able to do it. This is bending my mind.
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
I think though, that I am incorrect, and you are correct.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
The more specific your underwear, the less likely it is that any misunderstanding will arise.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
It will never end. Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
So, I went to a Hen night on Saturday (this is only vaguely relevant), and it was for the most part very pleasant. Meal followed by cocktail bar. Not the kind of place I usually end up on a Saturday night, what with not being hip, or in marketing. It wasn’t at all pikey, but struck me as more of a rohypnol hot-spot than the friend’s houses or old men pubs I usually end up in, and at some point in the evening we noticed that one of our number was missing. A sweep of the building failed to turn her up, as did subsequent sweeps by more people. Her coat, phone etc were still here and the bouncer said he had seen her going outside earlier but couldn’t remember if he saw her come back or if she was with anyone. So next thing I know I’m out hunting up and down back alleys looking for her, still no sign….eventually she re-appears. She had been upstairs taking coke with the bar owners! FFS!
Make of that what you will, but I’m sure there is some kind of warning to be taken.
Posted by ralph (Member # 773) on :
quote:Originally posted by Abby: Make of that what you will, but I’m sure there is some kind of warning to be taken.
The warning being that if you don't pay attention, you'll more than likely miss out on free coke.
ETA. [drool]free coke[/drool]
[ 14.03.2006, 11:17: Message edited by: ralph ]
Posted by Niffer (Member # 266) on :
Currently in order to prove rape, you have to show an absence of consent (ie an intention to rape) or that the guy was reckless as to whether consent had been given.
Therefore, the presumption is one of consent, unless the prosecution can show otherwise.
The proposed law turns this on its head. The presumption will be that of no consent, unless the defence can show otherwise.
It's a shit way of boosting conviction rates and if you apply the logic to other crimes it shows how ridiculous it is.
Imagine a change in the law that said that the money in your bank account will be presumed to be stolen unless you can show it isn't?
Or, one that said if we think you might be a terrorist we can presume you are until you demonstrate otherwise? (Oops, yeah, bad example, that one nearly happened).
It takes the principle of innocent until proved guilty and turns it upside down.
So you had sex with this girl and she reports it. Now you're a criminal until you prove you're not.
Bollocks.
Before someone jumps on their high-horse/soapbox/stealthcuntcycle we do need to do something about the low conviction rates but this isn't the answer. Any more than giving the police more time to hold terrorist suspects because they are too under-resourced to comply with existing time limits or abolishing the right to jury trials because cases are too complex.
I'd rather see investment in couselling, and training for the police, encouragement for those women brave enough to come forward and a concerted effort to de-stigmatise the victims of rape than this fucked up shortcut to a higher conviction rate.
