# Drunken Sex



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,3 ... html?f=rss

I have to ask how many go out get drunk in the pub or club and loose inhibitions, go back to where ever and have "willing" drunken sex. In the cold light of day the female then regrets it? Now she cries rape and an "innocent" guy has his life ruined.

Rape is a heinious crime, however to suggest that "drunken sex" is rape, is in many cases is wrong. Girls have made the decision to get drunk, they have no doubt then lead the guy on. They should be responsible for their own health.

I know there is a fine line, discuss....


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Rather a hot topic Iâ€™d suggest and Iâ€™m sure the women will have a totally different view on this to us blokes but that fact is I regret sometimes the things I say or do when drunk doesnâ€™t mean I should be able to got the police and say I didnâ€™t mean to do it or consent to doing it in the first place.

Plus I always find that if they donâ€™t drink enough to get drunk in the first place a tab of rohypnol works wonders.


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

Sober sex is better .... at least your more aware to enjoy it  :wink:


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Dotti said:


> Sober sex is better .... at least your more aware to enjoy it  :wink:


Does your hubby agree? :lol:


----------



## phodge (Sep 1, 2002)

I saw the title of this thread and thought it was an offer!!  :wink:


----------



## Donners (Mar 24, 2005)

This situation will be word against word in any court room, maybe they will introduced consent forms where both parties have to sign a form in front of an official adjudicator before hand!

[smiley=deal2.gif] [smiley=deal2.gif] [smiley=deal2.gif] [smiley=end.gif]


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

I listened to that report with interest. The problem seems to be with the CPS, since their conviction rate has been declining - and consent is a standard defence.

I don't know if rape as a crime is on the increase overall - I somehow doubt it as we would be hearing a lot more about it.

But maybe, just maybe, the number of spurious and vindictive rape claims is on the increase, and the CPS is merely weeding out some of these. And the fall in conviction rates is reflecting _some_ of this aspect. That bone fide cases may be failing to achieve prosecution is alarming however. But the usual Blair fix of introducing new legistlation rather than working with the laws already in place, gives th illusion of progress to the Great Ignorant. In reality, careful case preparation and interpretation of the existing law should be enough.

Form filling as an explict consent vehicle? Utter rubbish. A good defence lawyer will drive a coach and four through that:

'M'lud, my client did ask several times for Miss Slapper to sign a consent form, but she just cried "Yes, Yes, Yes - after you have fcuked me - I want you now, besides the Post Office is closed." and she then promptly fell asleep after sex, then in the morning had a change of heart and then made these spurious allegations.'

Beyond reasonable doubt...


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

jampott said:


> Dotti said:
> 
> 
> > Sober sex is better .... at least your more aware to enjoy it  :wink:
> ...


does lisa?


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Toshiba said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > Dotti said:
> ...


Why don't you ask her yourself, if you're that interested? :-*


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

garyc said:


> Form filling as an explict consent vehicle? Utter rubbish. A good defence lawyer will drive a coach and four through that:
> 
> 'M'lud, my client did ask several times for Miss Slapper to sign a consent form, but she just cried "Yes, Yes, Yes - after you have fcuked me - I want you now, besides the Post Office is closed." and she then promptly fell asleep after sex, then in the morning had a change of heart and then made these spurious allegations.'
> 
> Beyond reasonable doubt...


Agreed but who wants to be dragged through the courts with the risk you may get found guilty.

I think it's a very dangerous ruling.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Interestingly, I understand the following applies:

1) if a woman is so drunk that she isn't capable of making a decision as to whether or not she wants to have sex, it is technically "rape"

2) if a man is so drunk that he isn't capable of understanding whether the woman wants to consent or not, it is "rape", and being drunk is no defence...

So a drunk woman, who has no sense of reasoning, is protected by the law. A drunk man with a similar lack of reasoning is likely to be convicted by it.

I know (and fully appreciate) that "No means No". But you can't convict a man (or even TRY him, in some cases) purely because a woman acts upset and says (after the fact) that she did, indeed, say "No". In cases where there is no injury or any other signs of forced intercourse, there can be no other evidence than the word of the alleged perpetrator and the victim. In court, which do you think will come accross as the most emotive?

There have been far too many "cry wolf" cases for this to be a just way of bringing something to trial, let alone obtianing a safe prosecution.

If it comes down to a case of "who do you believe, HIM or HER", its a very sticky wicket indeed.


----------



## Sim (Mar 7, 2003)

jampott said:


> Interestingly, I understand the following applies:
> 
> 1) if a woman is so drunk that she isn't capable of making a decision as to whether or not she wants to have sex, it is technically "rape"
> 
> ...


There is also an issue with 'rape' per se. It is to do with the legal definition. The legal definition in England and Wales was revised by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which came into force in May 2004. Under the new legislation rape is classified as penetration by the penis of somebody's vagina, anus or mouth, without their consent. It can be committed against men or women but since it involves penile penetration it can only be committed by men.


----------



## TuTTiFruTTi (Jun 24, 2005)

This is typical New Labour idiocy. If a newspaper writes an article about anything the government response is to introduce a hashed,hurried and badly thought out piece of legislation. Rape is both the easiest crime to allege falsely and one of the most difficult to prove , but they insist they will "increase convictions". That means that they will fix the law so that innocent people will be deprived of the ability to defend themselves in court but the politicians can smirk and say "see - we did something about the low conviction rate". The problem is not that there is a low conviction rate but rather that the prosecution are being forced by political orders to pursue cases even when they know there is no chance of conviction. I have dealt with rape cases where the prosecutor has admitted to me that the complainer is lying or has tried to withdraw the charge but the prosecutor has no choice but to pursue the matter, because politicians have removed their discretion in such cases. 
In the last few years I have also seen the result of several cases where women have pleaded guilty to false allegations of rape. The worst penalty imposed was 3 months imprisonment, with most getting fines or community based sentences.
Any man convicted of rape faces a mandatory prison sentence, usually about 8 years in Scotland, and life on the Sex Offenders Register.


----------



## Carlos (May 6, 2002)

jampott said:


> its a very sticky wicket indeed.


If the wicket is sticky then surely that proves consent and the case would be thrown out? :wink:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I can confirm it was sticky last night.


----------



## CapTT (Mar 2, 2003)

The state some young "Ladies" seem to get themselves into on a night out these days it has been suggested that some of them may benefit from having a Penis inserted into an ear or other suitable orifice to try and fuck some sense into them.


----------



## Hilly10 (Feb 4, 2004)

I did jury service some years ago. The first case i sat on was a rape charge. This guy picked up this woman while out clubing they were both worse through drink. They had sex which he freely admitted then told her to leave his flat. The next morning she filed a charge of rape with the police. When in the witness box the prosecution ripped her to shreads,he was found not guilty 6 women were on that jury. But it goes to show men can walk a fine line.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

This is just wrong. If a woman takes a man home, she then removes her clothes and opens wide so to speak that must be consent.

As I man, I should not have to carry a legal document around with me along with two solicitors to notarise the signing of the document by both parties just to perform a sexual act upon a woman.

Women - wake up, take responsibilities for your own lives and stop crying wolf when you wake up next to a minger after 10 pints of stella and a kebab. 
:evil:


----------



## TuTTiFruTTi (Jun 24, 2005)

Last year there was a rape prosecution in England in which the defence found out at the very last moment that the prosecution had hidden video evidence from them. Man and woman meet in bar, go back to his, have enthusiastic consensual sex, woman leaves, goes straight to police complaining of rape - has ripped underwear to back her story up, man is immediately arrested.
The only problem was that the police almost immediately recovered CCTV footage from the lift in the man's building which they took to prove the woman had been at the man's flat. This showed the couple going up in the lift , she all over him, then later she left his flat, calm and collected, got into lift , removed her underwear and ripped it deliberately - unaware it was all being recorded. Police saw this and gave it to the CPS , who then promptly hid it. The woman and the prosecutor in that case should be sharing a cell somewhere.
The depressing part is that this sort of thing is not even particularly unusual.


----------



## Guest (Mar 23, 2006)

ooooh. Lookin forward to going out saturday now. Hair tidy? check. Clothes tidy? check. Underwear and socks dont stick to anything? check. Money to get girlies drunk? check. Condom? check. Pre sex agreement(to be signed by all agreeing parties? check.

I See an earner there myself.


----------



## Hilly10 (Feb 4, 2004)

DUO3 NAN said:


> ooooh. Lookin forward to going out saturday now. Hair tidy? check. Clothes tidy? check. Underwear and socks dont stick to anything? check. Money to get girlies drunk? check. Condom? check. Pre sex agreement(to be signed by all agreeing parties? check.
> 
> I See an earner there myself.


You jest it may well come to that


----------



## Guest (Mar 23, 2006)

Whos jesting?


----------



## Mrs Wallsendmag (Dec 13, 2005)

Why do you think mobiles have video :lol: :lol: :?:


----------



## Guest (Mar 24, 2006)

That would work. Point your camera, get a talking head admission to liability and on with the condom....
Lacks a certain romance though.


----------

