ADN

Is it true that a man can be charged with rape because he had sex with a woman who was under the influence, because a woman can’t be held responsible for her action’s while under the influence?
If so, can a woman get out of a DWI later that evening claiming she can’t be held responsible for her actions? Can she have it both ways?

Yes to the rape. No to the DWI.
The term that it used is "gray rape".

Say what..?

Damn, I've never heard of that...What if both have been drinking..? I've never really ever had sex w/a drunk girl before, even if we were going steady...But to think that if a bitch has been drinking she pretends to not be liable for her actions, well...That's about the most ridiculous shit I've ever read...I don't like things that make it so that you don't have to be accountable for your actions...It's one thing to get drugged, but if you get drunk...Pissy drunk...Then you should own up to it if someone slips some heat up in you for being stupid...

Feminazis Strike a Blow against Equality
May 1, 2008


Feminist moonbattery has struck another blow against the unstylish notion of equality before the law. In Australia:

A woman meets a man in a bar or at a party. She likes the man. He likes the woman. She may not normally be a sex on the first night kind of girl. But they have a number of drinks. Fuelled by alcohol, they put aside their inhibitions. The woman goes home with the man. She says yes to sex. In the morning, the man makes it clear it was a one-night stand. The woman is deeply offended and regrets her drunken decision. She claims rape. Under new rape laws introduced in NSW this year, that man is likely to be convicted as a rapist. He is likely to go to prison.
To bring about a more politically correct society, the rules have been changed:

Now, in a contest between he said it was consensual and she said it was rape, a jury may be forced to convict the man of rape without any further corroborating evidence.
The new laws say that if a woman is "substantially affected" by alcohol, she may lack the capacity to consent to sex even if she says "yes" to sex. More disturbing, even if a man honestly believes consent was given, his state of mind is now irrelevant. Now, the man is effectively deemed to have knowledge of lack of consent if there are no reasonable grounds for believing consent was given. And it gets worse. When asked to determine whether the man had no reasonable grounds for believing the woman gave consent, the jury must ignore the fact that the man was drunk.

In other words, the fact that the woman who says "yes" to sex is drunk is highly relevant: it may vitiate her consent. But the man's intoxication must be ignored when working out whether he had "reasonable grounds" for believing consent was given. It is a curious law that says alcohol only affects the cognitive abilities of women.
Phony rapes are to be treated just like real ones, for which punishment is fittingly severe:

As the President of the NSW Bar Association, Anna Katzmann SC, has pointed out, these new laws mean that the intoxicated man will be treated just like "the true rapist, the aggressor who inflicts himself on his victim, knowing they do not consent". There is no gradation of penalties.
How ironic that the sort of liberal totalitarians who come up with this insanity accuse conservatives of wanting the government in the bedroom for not endorsing the sacrilege of homosexual "marriage." More ironic still, the result could be a brake on the sexual promiscuity the Left has promoted so relentlessly. No wonder they want to pervert or shut down eHarmony, lest men start thinking in terms of meaningful relationships instead of increasingly dangerous one-night stands.

Sex with a woman who is drunk may soon be rape


17 June 2007

In England:

Under the proposed laws if a girl is too drunk she will be deemed incapable of giving consent
Men who have sex with drunken women risk being convicted of rape - even if they appear to have given consent.

Ministers will unveil the controversial proposals this week in a bid to boost conviction rates for sex offences and bring more 'date rapists' to justice.

A new white paper is expected to propose that judges should give firmer guidance to juries in cases where the woman has been drinking.

If a woman is deemed to have consumed so much alcohol that she is incapable of agreeing to make love, the man would be far more likely to be convicted of rape.

The new law would potentially open the way for the prosecution of thousands of men for having sex with drunk women - regardless of whether agreement had been given at the time.

Successful prosecutions for rape often founder before they get to court because of the difficulty in proving to juries that a victim had not given consent.

At the moment, a drunken woman is deemed to be capable of giving consent so long as she is not unconscious.

The law change is expected to lead to a huge rise in the current conviction rate of five per cent.

Proof of whether a woman was drunk would come from medical tests - as well as evidence from witnesses and victims.

The new law places a heavy responsibility on men to be certain that a woman is sober enough to know what she is doing.

The white paper, which has been signed off by ministers, will be published later this week. It follows months of consultation with the Home Office, Ministry of Justice, police and women's support groups.

There were nearly 15,000 allegations of rape in 2005, but only 12 per cent of these went to court and only a handful resulted in convictions.

The proposals will leave far more discretion to judges and juries to determine the amount of alcohol a woman can consume before she is deemed incapable.

The new proposals follow a recent ruling by senior judges that a woman cannot claim rape just because she was drunk.

The Appeal Court raised deep doubts over the Government's latest attempt to improve rate conviction rates.

In March, the Deputy Lord Chief Justice Sir Igor Judge (CORR), and two other senior judges, quashed the conviction of software engineer Benjamin Bree, 25, jailed for five years in December after a drunken evening with a 19-year-old student.

The girl told the jury that she did not want to have sex, but Mr Bree told the court she had given her consent.

Sir Igor said sex amounts to rape if the woman is incapable of giving consent.

But he added: "Where the complainant has voluntarily consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remains capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse, and in drink agrees to do so, this would not be rape."

The judge added that it would not be right to lay down rules ? 'some kind of grid system' ? that say a woman who has reached a set level of drunkenness is incapable of consent.

He said: "Experience shows that different individuals have a greater or lesser capacity to cope with alcohol."

Earlier this year the Council of Circuit Judges said it should be left to juries to decide whether a woman is capable of consenting to sex.

A study by the Association of Chief Police Officers has found that a 'significant' number of rape and sexual assault victims had drunk at least the equivalent of eight pub glasses of wine. This is equivalent to two and a half times the drink driving limit.

Opponents of the proposals fear they may encourage some women to allege rape when they regret having had sex while drunk.

George McAuley, chairman of the UK Men's Movement, said men may have to resort to obtaining written 'contracts' or using mobile phones to film their partners consenting to sex.

He said: "It means men will have to get a consent form signed, dated and countersigned in triplicate before they make love. This legislation is deliberately designed to put more men behind bars."

When 'consensual' sex is rape


July 07, 2007

In Canada:

I first heard the phrase as a teen, when male friends referred to lemon gin as a panty remover. They laughed.

Except, I didn't get the joke. You get the girl drunk, so you can have "sex?" If that's what you call sex, perhaps: something you have to trick a woman into having because she wouldn't have it with you otherwise.

I call it rape.

And so did a judge who convicted Private Pier-Olivier Boulet of sexually assaulting his friend's 18-year-old sister at a family party, when she was too drunk to give consent, and sentenced him this week to 15 months time to be served in his community.

His case would have been notable on its own, a cautionary tale for men who think targeting a woman who can't say no is OK, but it became even more contentious when his lawyer argued he should be given a conditional discharge so he would be eligible to stay in the Armed Forces and serve in Afghanistan.

The lawyer apparently didn't care that if Boulet couldn't be trusted with his friend's sister, he might not be able to be trusted with vulnerable Afghani women. Or that he would be serving alongside female colleagues in dangerous situations and tight quarters -- perhaps adding to their stress.

Or that he'd be wearing the uniform of the very armed forces responsible with establishing and protecting women's human rights there.

"He's an excellent soldier," Richard Phillipe Guay said of his convicted rapist client, adding Boulet still believes the sex was consensual.

Sadly, I don't doubt that, because despite famous cases of men being convicted of sexual assault on university campuses when they have sex with blind drunk students, the message isn't getting through that getting a woman drunk so she'll have sex -- when she wouldn't otherwise -- or targeting a woman who is already drunk, isn't engaging in consensual sex.

It should be no more acceptable than a robber arguing a man agreed to "hand over" his wallet because he was drunk. And it surely shouldn't be the stuff of wink-wink-nudge-nudge strategies between boys in bars or the stuff of "legendary" panty-removing strategies passed from father to son, and uncle to nephew, as in one case I heard.

Still, every day men receive the message that lying, manipulating and targeting vulnerable women for sex is not only OK, it makes you a winner in your buddies' eyes, not the loser you are in the eyes of the law.

Consider beer commercials not only suggesting, but actually teaching guys how to "get lucky," by targeting emotionally vulnerable or tipsy women.

How is this different than a convicted psychopath who learns from psychiatrists how he is "supposed" to feel and uses those lessons to trick more victims?

Is there remorse in the morning? Not, apparently, by the man who would target the vulnerable in bars -- and feel like a "man" doing so -- but surely by the woman who realizes, at minimum, she's been fooled and humiliated -- or raped.

And if that doesn't bother you, how about this: it makes a joke about something that could very well land a man -- your father, brother, son, nephew, maybe even your husband (one of the most used bar lines is: "Me, married?") -- in jail these days for something he did to your sister, niece, daughter, mother or aunt.

How cool is that?

It should be as unacceptable to target a drunk woman for sex, as it now is for men to use being drunk as an excuse for beating their wives or to drink while driving, or for gangs to target a "wino" or a gay man for a beating, all considered "fun and games" in the past.

Because not for a second do I think Boulet looked into the bedroom, where his friend's sister was passed out, and didn't recognize her vulnerability -- and that that vulnerability meant his chances of having sex with her were better than if she wasn't drunk.

The judge didn't buy it either, calling Boulet's defence that the sex was consensual a "flagrant case of voluntary blindness."

I don't think men who target women who are drunk think they are in the same class as a robber who picks off people in a parking lot outside a tavern -- though they are -- and that's the fault of a society where beer can actually be sold by convincing men that non-consensual sex is a game, pitting them against their victims -- her panties, their victory trophy.

If the man is drunk but the woman is sober and they have sex should the woman be charged with rape?

man....

Seriously....

so if she is high on drugs or took 2 panadols, its gonna be rape.....