Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian
You've touched on something here that I'd tried to speak about earlier in the thread: If a drunken woman says "yes", the fact that she's drunk may invalidate her consent, however, a drunken man is guilty regardless.
Clearly this is not an equal standard, and I am interested in hearing how we justify it.
|
It's bo
llocks.
If a drunk man is responsible for his actions then so should the rape victim be (if they've actually consented but were pissed as a fart but this is difficult to prove.) And how do you determine 'drunk'? Is 3 pints drunk? 4, 5, 6 etc. And drink effects people in different ways. There's just no way you can be consistent with this.
The whole thing is a massive grey area though and you're essentially trying to prove one person's word against another's and in what is predominantly a crime with no witnesses other than those involved there will always be miscarriages of justice.
Ultimately, if you're a man and you sleep with a woman who's been drinking and you don't know her, you're a stupid c
unt even if she's consented. You know what the law is like and if you don't want to be charged with rape, you take the necessary precautions to ensure that doesn't happen. It's s
hit but that's how it is.