Drunk consent

This is why the default needs to change to no-one consents.

I remember the discussion around this when I Blame the Patriarchy proposed that women should be considered as in a perpetual state of non-consent unless they decide otherwise:

women are currently considered to exist in a state of perpetual “yes!”. This is because “yes!” is consistent with global accords governing fair use of women. Victims of robbery or attempted murder don’t have to prove that they said no to being robbed or murdered; the presumption is that not even women would consent to being killed. But because penetration by males is what women are for, if we are raped we have to prove not just that we didn’t say yes, which is impossible to prove, but that we specifically and emphatically said no, which is also impossible to prove.
...
Women who typically are not eligible to opt out of consent include: women who drink in bars, women who walk alone, women who walk at night, women who use drugs, women belonging to certain castes, women who dress a certain way, women who don’t dress a certain way, women who are married to men, women who have had multiple sex partners, women who may have said yes last month, women who may have said yes at the beginning but who, three minutes in, found it disagreeable and changed to “no,” women who didn’t fight back hard enough, women who didn’t tell anyone or report it right away, women whose physical similarity to pornulated women aroused the defendant, women whose behavior at the party aroused the defendant, teens with a “reputation,” and prostituted women.
...
My wacky consent scheme flips it around. According to my scheme, women would abide in a persistent legal condition of not having given consent to sex. Conversely, men, who after all are constantly declaiming that their lack of impulse control is a product of evolution and there’s not a thing they can do about it, would abide in a persistent legal state of pre-rape.

Twisty propose a new product, the Smart Cervix with an entertaining raft of what would now be substantial GDPR issues:

An undetectable microchip records pertinent information regarding any “encounter” — DNA typing, location via GPS, audio, video, date, time, etc — and sends it (encrypted, of course) to a remote third-party database where it can be retrieved by the client (you) whenever some dickwad goes all 2009 on your ass.

blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/patriarchy-blaming-the-twisty-way/consent-or-the-legalization-of-womens-humanity/

This is an extreme case, but there's a wider issue particularly for young people, can consent if you are drunk, and if you are both drunk, can the (usually male) recognise that the other person is too drunk to consent.

This is why the default needs to change to no-one consents. (I realise that technically that is the default, but in practise, it really isn't). Society can be changed - most of us would be horrified at the idea of driving drunk now, but two generations ago, it was fairly acceptable.

A person accused of rape should have to prove that they have consent. That way life continues as usual for everyone having consensual sex. The only people who are now in trouble are those who don't.

And yes, I hear the yell go up, about how terrible women could cry rape under this plan, but it seems to me, that right now, plenty of terrible men cry 'not rape'.

All that men need to do in order to not risk rape, is only have sex with women who they are sure really want to have sex with them - this doesn't seem to arduous to me.

Whereas under the current scheme, women are being raped, and men are lying about it, and there's not much that they can do to stop someone doing that to them.

Thiis is something that men have control over, and I say they should take that responsibility.

Someone being drunk, even a bit squiffy, is a turn-off, not an excuse to rape.

Because it's about entitlement to power and to abuse without consequences and has vanishingly little to do with sex?

What the hell is wrong with men that they are happy to go ahead with a partner that is out of it ? Someone being drunk, even a bit squiffy, is a turn-off, not an excuse to rape.

Alcohol is the most commonly given substance by rapists.

I don’t understand why no one is questioning whether she drank all of that alcohol voluntarily.
It’s not unheard of, in fact fairly common, for rape victims to have their drinks spiked/be drugged, to facilitate their rapists actions.
Here we are told she is somewhat responsible because she was drunk. But it’s pretty likely that he forced her to consume that much and therefore should also be liable for her poisoning.

I don't think there's any shared public understanding of what is meant by "rough sex". I'd be startled to learn that there are many people who consider what happened and that pattern of injuries to be consonant with "rough" rather than "extreme violence".

But the judge said he couldn't be sure that she didn't consent to the beating and violent sex that contributed to her death.

I think part of the difficulty is that we don't have a transcript of the proceedings that led the judge to intervene about the charges. We haven't had sight of the autopsy reports and any ambiguities or uncertainties within them with respect to timings.

I hate this - and I wonder if a major difficulty is that is uncertainty about her time of death? She doesn't seem to have had any clothing or covering and was lying on a floor. The alcohol etc. might have caused her to drop her body temperature but her suppressed motor responses (never mind the injuries and the bleeding and additional problems) will have meant (possibly) that she couldn't shiver involuntarily to even attempt to raise her body temperature.

Without the transcript and in the absence of any clarifying remarks from the CPS etc. - it's difficult to know if it is known when Natalie Connolly died and to what her immediate cause of death was (tho' it seems from the sentencing remarks that it must have been related to the intoxication).

This is an extreme case, but there's a wider issue particularly for young people, can consent if you are drunk, and if you are both drunk, can the (usually male) recognise that the other person is too drunk to consent. The simple solution is don't get drunk, but back in the real world this is an issue on university campuses in particular, my dh had a tutee suspended for this, police weren't interested but university took it seriously.

WitchBitch
Alleged 'consensual rough sex' is the new get out of jail card. A woman can be strangled, suffocated, stabbed, have her throat slit. All with impunity apparently because "she liked it rough Your Honour".
Yes, this. How many times now have we seen this being accepted as a plausible reason for the actual death of a woman?
It makes me so angry. The justice system does a good job of showing women they have little value, even in their most vulnerable state and even in death

Absolutely sickening. Sadistic murder. No more no less. That poor woman.

It's beyond vile.
I think a little giggly is fair enough consent wise especially if with a long term partner.
But if your clumsy, slurring, confused or acting out of character then I'd say consent cannot be freely given.

Yes. I couldn’t understand this either.

As I understand it they couldn’t go for murder because it was partially the alcohol that contributed to her death. But if she was so drunk it helped kill her, then how could she consent to anything. Never mind the fact that you aren’t allowed to consent to GBH and above.

So surely CPS should have gone for manslaughter and rape (since she couldn’t consent as too drunk to sex or ABH for that matter).

Someone at CPS has seriously messed up somewhere surely?

Rape myths predominate yet again in determining women’s treatment by the justice (sic) system

Drunk consent doesn't exist except in the ridiculous laws.

Is it possible to consent to being beaten in any other situation, or is it only during sex that this is possible?

The Spanner case was ruled out here as irrelevant.

There was the case of Rehtaeh Parson in Canada

Oh yes that was a disgusting and horrifying case. And some fuckwit TRA in Canada wrote an article saying that they had it worse for being misgendered. I don't think that article exists any more, but it absolutely did. I read it.

Is it possible to consent to being beaten in any other situation

Martial arts. In which case you absolutely wouldn't be allowed in a ring drunk and it would be stopped if the ref thought you were in danger of being beaten to death.

But a drunk woman... she clearly doesn't deserve the same consideration.

Is it possible to consent to being beaten in any other situation, or is it only during sex that this is possible? Not that I think she consented or was able to consent

I have reported my previous post as it is not correct. Hopefully MN can delete it.

Why is the standard for capacity not the same ?

We all know why. And you can't identify out of it.

That is appalling. You wouldn't be considered to have capacity to consent to medical treatment in that state. You couldn't sign a legal document or get married (even taking prescription trabquillizers can render you 'not of sound mind'). But apparently you can consent to a beating whilst passing out drunk. Why is the standard for capacity not the same ? It makes no sense.

Im speechless about this

Our local news has been full of a chap who’s just been sentenced for 8 years for raping a man recently.

Now it’s a fucking awful crime, and I have every sympathy for the victim. And 8 years probably seemed way too lenient to him and his family. But it shows the discrepancy.

Raping a man gets you 8 years. Kill a woman whilst violently attacking and raping her 3.

There is no standard high enough for proof, when the victim is a woman. That is how it looks to me, sometimes. There was the case of Rehtaeh Parson in Canada. Drunken party in some boy‘s home. There was video of the assault, from which it was clear there was a basically passed out woman that was raped. It was clear who took the video, (and from what I Remember it was even clear who did the raping). The victim went to police. she was bullied cause the video made the rounds. The video was secured by police. But the video did not show the girl‘s face and she herself said she was so drunk that night she barely remembered anything. So how would she know she was raped?
Rehtaeh changed schools and eventually committed suicide.

I've skimmed a bit but interesting how his language changes from the more clinical 'buttocks' to describe injury sites to 'bottom', which is in my mind sort of infantilising and reminiscent of Carry On films. Maybe I'm over-thinking it but it minimises it somehow. "Oh it was only a snack on the bottom. Saucy!"