Prosecute Rapists Even When Victims Don't Say 'No', New Crown Prosecution Service Guidelines Say

darknessss wrote:I think it is becomming time that us men will have to ask for a signed copy of consent (with suitable witnesses...the vicar perhaps), each and every time, and keep them in a lifetime file. EVEN those who are married...just in case the missus 10 years later turns nasty and makes an accusation that "10 years ago he screwed me on our wedding night and I'd had a bit to drink"

Original Quill wrote:I agree with Vic, Didge.  It goes both ways.  If a woman is drunk, so too usually is the man.  Two sloppy drunks get into bed and...what, they raped each other?  No...the male is always going to get blamed.

As a practical matter, when it comes to the eyes of a jury women are default victims.  Same way as blacks are default guilty in any criminal matter.  The anomaly is in the way society views male/female, black/white, Hispanics and so forth.

You can't cherry pick your bigotry.  It won't get better until you confront it head on.

Brasidas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:I agree with Vic, Didge.  It goes both ways.  If a woman is drunk, so too usually is the man.  Two sloppy drunks get into bed and...what, they raped each other?  No...the male is always going to get blamed.

As a practical matter, when it comes to the eyes of a jury women are default victims.  Same way as blacks are default guilty in any criminal matter.  The anomaly is in the way society views male/female, black/white, Hispanics and so forth.

You can't cherry pick your bigotry.  It won't get better until you confront it head on.

So now you are excusing the man if drunk also, when again you are in control of how much you drink, so that is no excuse. What you are saying is people should be irresponsibly drunk, which has no ethical ground.

Brasidas wrote:The fact is many women who have been drunk have not seen justice, its very simple, don't get fucked out of your skull and go off with a woman you have just met. Arrange to date her like most normal people do.
There are websites out there where you can meet women who just want to fuck.

Brasidas wrote:So your view as per usual had  no validity and was complete babble, as considering women are seen to be at fault most of the time because of a poor misogynistic culture we live in.
Drunk is not consent and if you place yourself in that situation, knowing the law now rightly protects women, then you are an idiot if you do so.

Brasidas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:I agree with Vic, Didge.  It goes both ways.  If a woman is drunk, so too usually is the man.  Two sloppy drunks get into bed and...what, they raped each other?  No...the male is always going to get blamed.

As a practical matter, when it comes to the eyes of a jury women are default victims.  Same way as blacks are default guilty in any criminal matter.  The anomaly is in the way society views male/female, black/white, Hispanics and so forth.

You can't cherry pick your bigotry.  It won't get better until you confront it head on.

So now you are excusing the man if drunk also, when again you are in control of how much you drink, so that is no excuse. What you are saying is people should be irresponsibly drunk, which has no ethical ground. Irony at it's finest Just proved Quills point 100%. BOTH were drunk and unable to give consent yet straight away you said It's the man's fault. That is not always the case there are Plenty of men that have woken up next to girl they wouldn't have gone home with if they were not blind drunk.

The fact is many women who have been drunk have not seen justice, its very simple, don't get fucked out of your skull and go off with a woman you have just met. Arrange to date her like most normal people do. Did you date in the 1950's or some shit? do you think women do not have a sexual appetite too? women can also be going our for a good time and are not necessarily looking for a husband.
There are websites out there where you can meet women who just want to fuck. and there are night clubs like that too

So your view as per usual had  no validity and was complete babble, as considering women are seen to be at fault most of the time because of a poor misogynistic culture we live in. Not in rape or divorce in both cases that same misogyny means that women are viewed as Victims by default.
Drunk is not consent and if you place yourself in that situation, knowing the law now rightly protects women (so you admit it is sexist?), then you are an idiot if you do so.

Original Quill wrote:
I am anticipating what occurs in about 99% of the cases: both the man and the women go out, get equally intoxicated, and end up in bed.  How can you argue that it is consent for one partner, but not for the other?  Or, from the other side of the equation, how is it one is the victim, and not the other?  I don’t date around—I have Becky—so it’s all alien to me.  But I am a real enthusiast for equal justice under the law, and I have a problem reconciling this one.

Brasidas wrote:The fact is many women who have been drunk have not seen justice, its very simple, don't get fucked out of your skull and go off with a woman you have just met. Arrange to date her like most normal people do.
There are websites out there where you can meet women who just want to fuck.

You are part right…don’t get so fucked up drunk that you don’t know what you are doing.  But that just sidesteps the problem…why the double standard, Didge?

Brasidas wrote:So your view as per usual had  no validity and was complete babble, as considering women are seen to be at fault most of the time because of a poor misogynistic culture we live in.
Drunk is not consent and if you place yourself in that situation, knowing the law now rightly protects women, then you are an idiot if you do so.

Didge, stop it.  That’s not an acceptable answer...just insane babble.  You are brighter than that.  Address the question: why the double standard?

veya_victaous wrote:So the argument for this boils down to Men are capable of giving legal consent and are responsible for their actions even when completely inebriated however if a women has consumed alcohol she is incapable of giving legal consent and cannot therefore be held responsible for her actions.



@Dark
pretty much sums it up

Now I don't think the Slut thing is fair, she has right to (really the Misogyny is expecting Females to Not have a sex drive) and just because she decides to one weekend doesn't mean she does it often... thus not a slut.

fair comment...but equally she hasnt the right, upon sobering up and discovering she has picked up a spotty nerd rather than the "hunk she thought she had, due to "beer glasses" to squeal "rape"


I'm sure you are worried about this every Saturday night/Sunday morning
 

darknessss wrote:All i can say is...If this is equitable then a defence should be able to be raised on the basis that any given woman in that situation is a drunken slut....

society works like this


woman goes to night club to get pissed and laid...
bloke goes to night club to get pissed and laid


thats how it works

if they are lucky it works great and they get a "partner" for a while with whom they can breed half a dozen benefit magnets and then split up to do it all again

if not SHE can scream rape and the poor bloke ends up nicked.....

hmmmmm.....


as you can tell it really concerns me since the sort that inhabit the night clubs and get "pissed and laid" are NOT the top of my pile of concerns....

Brasidas wrote:Because yet again as two people being intoxicated, only one of the can penetrate the other. Just because both are drunk is still two people unawares or more so the woman (they get easily more intoxicated quicker than most men) and men tend to have a problem understanding no means no when they are drunk, where some have forced themselves on women. The reality  is you are missing the whole point about people being responsible when they are drinking and drunkenness leads some men doing anything to get a woman in sack. Men think because a woman has come back drunk, that means she wants to have sex. Well no it doesn't, because allot of the time the men entice them to come back with claims to being behaved etc, even if they are kissing etc.Men once they have got them back, then think well she is up for it and then when she is saying no, it makes them think they still can. It all boils down to empowerment. It does not matter if he is drunk, he is responsible as much as the girl is for getting drunk, that does not excuse him or give him the right to take advantage. No matter how drunk the intent is to sleep with a girl, as it is very difficult to maintain an erection when a guy is wasted. If that wasted he would be incapable too. There are levels of how drunk a person is Quill. So lets be honest those wanting to having sex, men wise, are not wasted. Most maybe pissed or merry, but clearly are out to get pissed and laid, a bad combination.

Original Quill wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Because yet again as two people being intoxicated, only one of the can penetrate the other. Just because both are drunk is still two people unawares or more so the woman (they get easily more intoxicated quicker than most men) and men tend to have a problem understanding no means no when they are drunk, where some have forced themselves on women. The reality  is you are missing the whole point about people being responsible when they are drinking and drunkenness leads some men doing anything to get a woman in sack. Men think because a woman has come back drunk, that means she wants to have sex. Well no it doesn't, because allot of the time the men entice them to come back with claims to being behaved etc, even if they are kissing etc.Men once they have got them back, then think well she is up for it and then when she is saying no, it makes them think they still can. It all boils down to empowerment. It does not matter if he is drunk, he is responsible as much as the girl is for getting drunk, that does not excuse him or give him the right to take advantage. No matter how drunk the intent is to sleep with a girl, as it is very difficult to maintain an erection when a guy is wasted. If that wasted he would be incapable too. There are levels of how drunk a person is Quill. So lets be honest those wanting to having sex, men wise, are not wasted. Most maybe pissed or merry, but clearly are out to get pissed and laid, a bad combination.

Because of penetration?  You mean that because a male has a penis, he is inevitably guilty?  That gives new meaning to original sin!  

Look at it this way: stop thinking of a penis as a stabbing weapon, and start thinking of a vagina as a box trap (honestly, no pun intended).  If the male organ is not stabbing, but is entrapped, doesn't that change your personification of the matter?

Anyway, obviously you don’t have an answer for the unequal application of the laws issue.

It sounded like you were going for a sexist explanation with the penetration argument, but you stopped and caught yourself at “The reality is you are missing…”

You seem to have some amazing insight into what (all) men think…four times you mention it  That’s quite a generalization.  How do you know so much about what another person is thinking?  Might it not be that this is the way only you think?  I have to conclude that this is where you are coming from, particularly because you cite no psychology text or other authority.

The erection argument is fascinating: are you saying, therefore, that if a guy can't get an erection, it is the woman who is the violator if she 'lends a hand'??

Still, you have no answer for the unequal application of the laws issue.  Too bad…I thought you were going someplace interesting with your penetration argument.

Brasidas wrote:For fuck sake this is getting beyond a joke now, you have no comprehension of the culture over here for a starters, so there is little point debating this with a backward man such as yourself
Most of your post was just poor assumptions on my points, because this is all you can ever do of late.
You do not define what is right, best you get use to that fact.
The point on erections as in regards to how piss a man is, try and read what I have posted and respond instead of coming back with gobbledygook.
I did go somewhere the penetration argument, you just went off on nonsense.
The law is equal on this, no matter male or female, who ever has been penetrated without permission, in other words raped, no excuse will stand on drunkenness to the guilty party.
The law applies equally.
I never said all men either, you added that word because you had nothing to debate with, again inventing things I did not say, I said men and some men do think like that when drunk, especially when they are out to get pulled, just as some women do also. The fact is men are victims here also.

Brasidas wrote:Anyway, your a yank, so its doubtful you would have a clue on this.