http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1888035,00.html

 

Binge-drink women may lose right to claim rape

By Frances Gibb, Legal Editor, Simon de Bruxelles and Sam Coates

WOMEN who are raped while drunk face losing the chance to bring their attackers to justice after a legal ruling on the eve of new licensing laws.

 

A High Court judge yesterday threw out the case of a student who claimed that she was raped while drunk and unconscious on the basis that “drunken consent is still consent”.

I might get flamed on here by some women on the board but I don't see how this is such a bad thing... I mean jeez if you get drunk, get in your car, and then kill somebody in most states it's still considered murder... or manslaughter at least... I mean if their going to be stupid and get themselves drunk then they get what they deserve... Especially considering the fact that in most of these cases the men are just as intoxicated.

 

Keep in mind if the guy has drugged the girl, or anything like that... Then of course I think it's rape...

I should also mention I don't drink myself or hang out with people who drink... So it's really hard for me to relate to this subject anyway...

Jeckle mentioned something that always troubled me and I do not see the fairness. Two people are drunk, equally intoxicated, they hook up. The guy is held responsible as a sexual predator and the woman is a victim. She cannot give consent because she is drunk and therefor not responsible for her actions. Yet the guy is also drunk and held responsible. That doesn't make sense. She could even be the aggressor, but the male can never claim it was he who was raped.

 

But, it is equally unsettling to think it was open season on drunk females. I see the predator side of the male being, and can't imagine the horror of being a woman and waking up after a night of celebrating and find out you passed out and some guy has raped you and you could not hold him responsible.

 

No easy answer here in my mind. One side feels wrong, unequal, and unfair. The other side creates an opportunity for a most reprehensible situation.

Maybe I didn't interpret it correctly, but my take on the ruling is this.

 

If a woman is drunk and consents to have sex, then she cannot come back and use her drunkenness as a defense, saying that she didn't know what she was doing or wasn't of right mind to give consent.

 

If a woman is drunk and some idiot manhandles her, then that would still be a rape case.

 

Where this gets murky is when two people are drunk, get into it hot and heavy and the girl finally gives in and they have sex. I think this ruling sways the responsibility back to the girl rather than the guy.

 

I don't think this ruling makes for open season on drunk women. But it will definitely make it more difficult for them to prove they said NO, rather than "no.... no... take me!".

 

I am of the belief that people should be responsible for their own actions. Regret the morning after drunken is not grounds for a rape charge. Then again, overly agressive guys who refuse to take no for an answer or use some kind of intimidation to get a girl to agree should be catrated.

 

I don't think there is ANY way a law or court ruling of any kind can take the gray out of some similar situations.

Edited November 24, 200520 yr by Rex Hudler

I don't think there is ANY way a law or court ruling of any kind can take the gray out of some similar situations.

 

great thought, you are so correct.

i win! i win! i win! i win! i win! i win! i win! i win! i win!

 

uhhh... i mean, sad... sad day.