Sex with drunken women could be rape, review to signal

**frostyboy** · 13th-March-2010

From The Telegraph:

Sex with drunken women could be rape, review to signal

Men who have sex with women who are too drunk to consent should be charged with rape, a review for the Government will signal next week.

Even husbands or partners must have "clear consent" before having sexual intercourse or risk prosecution, according to Baroness Stern, who has headed a major inquiry in to how to improve rape convictions.

She has warned that women are not "fair game" and there are no "grey areas" over alcohol being a factor as to whether consent was gained or not.

Men must not be able to use the fact they were drunk as an excuse for any confusion over consent, the cross-bench peer argues.

In a wide-ranging review, Lady Stern will also warn the Government and police's focus on the fact just six per cent of reported rapes result in a conviction is misleading and risks undermining the confidence of victims to come forward.

She is expected to argue more emphasis should be given to figures that show more than half of cases that reach the court end in conviction.

The comments on alcohol will reignite the debate over how to deal with rape claims when one or both parties were drunk.

The Government has previously raised the prospect of changing the definition of consent so that men could be charged with rape if they had sex with drunken women.

It was quietly dropped in 2007 after Sir Igor Judge, who has since become Lord Chief Justice, ruled in the Court of Appeal that women are still capable of giving consent even when they are very drunk.

He added it would be impossible to draw up general rules on whether or not someone is too intoxicated to say yes.

The issue had already been subject to ridicule with suggestions that some sort of "sex breathalyser" would be needed to monitor alcohol levels before intercourse.

Speaking in December last year, Lady Stern said a drunken woman was not "fair game" and drunkenness in men should be an aggravating factor in the courts rather than an excuse.

"Being drunk is voluntary and people who become drunk are responsible for their actions. It is not the alcohol that commits the rape," she said. "It is not an excuse. It used to be regarded as such, but it is not an excuse. It is an aggravating factor."

She insisted that regardless of how well couples knew each other, clear consent had to be obtained before sex and that a man could not assume that a woman had agreed.

She added: "I don't think there is any ambiguity. You can't have sex with someone who hasn't said yes and that is it. There is no grey area."

The review was ordered by Harriet Harman, the Equalities Minister, in September in response to concerns that the conviction rate for rape is too low.

It also followed the high profile cases of John Worboys, a taxi driver who was convicted of 12 attacks on women and may have committed more than 100, and Kirk Reid, convicted of sex attacks on 27 women and suspected of 71 offences, which raised questions about the effectiveness of police investigations into attacks on women.

The review, which will be published on Monday, has examined the authorities deal with rape complaints as well as attitudes to such allegations and the victims.

It will make recommendations on how to encourage more victims to report and how to ensure more cases progress further through the criminal justice system.

A report in to the effectiveness of juries last month confirmed that rapists are more likely to be convicted than acquitted.

The study, for the Ministry of Justice, contradicted government claims that alleged sex attackers are more likely to be cleared concluding that 55 per cent result in a guilty verdict.

But in November, Sarah Payne, the Government's victims' champion, said rape victims are not believed by the police if they come from the "wrong part of town"

Women who have been drinking, made previous allegations or simply do not "behave" in the way expected of a victim will also find it hard to convince police they have been attacked, she added.

**Celtic Druid** · 13th-March-2010

Even husbands or partners must have "clear consent" before having sexual intercourse or risk prosecution, according to Baroness Stern, who has headed a major inquiry in to how to improve rape convictions.

This is insane!

It's bad enough trying to impose a redefinition of rape regarding brief inebriated (and consensual) encounters, but now feminists are pushing their hateful agenda into the bedrooms of married couples?

Of course this 'inpracticality' of having to obtain "clear consent" every time you have sex - not only serves to entrap innocent men - but also acts as a divisive tool to put a considerable strain on relationships. I can envision a diminishing male libido as one probable side-effect of this ever-present fear of prosecution.

It's either succumbing to this state intrusion, or people can collectively rebel and tell them to fuck off out of their bedrooms.

This is not just an attack on men, but also on the institution of marriage itself (killing two birds with one stone).

Men must not be able to use the fact they were drunk as an excuse for any confusion over consent, the cross-bench peer argues.

Wait a minute, but women can use drink as an excuse?

The review was ordered by Harriet Harman, the Equalities Minister, in September in response to concerns that the conviction rate for rape is too low.

No suprises as to the origin of this hateful madness.

A report in to the effectiveness of juries last month confirmed that rapists are more likely to be convicted than acquitted.

The study, for the Ministry of Justice, contradicted government claims that alleged sex attackers are more likely to be cleared concluding that 55 per cent result in a guilty verdict.

Exactly, so why do feminists like Harman continue to use the lie (unchallenged) that very few rapists are convicted as a pretext for launching a male witch-hunt?

**Nynrah Ghost** · 13th-March-2010

Quote from Celtic Druid

This is insane!

It's bad enough trying to impose a redefinition of rape regarding brief inebriated (and consensual) encounters, but now feminists are pushing their hateful agenda into the bedrooms of married couples?

Of course this 'inpracticality' of having to obtain "clear consent" every time you have sex - not only serves to entrap innocent men - but also acts as a divisive tool to put a considerable strain on relationships. I can envision a diminishing male libido as one probable side-effect of this ever-present fear of prosecution.

It's either succumbing to this state intrusion, or people can collectively rebel and tell them to fuck off out of their bedrooms.

This is not just an attack on men, but also on the institution of marriage itself (killing two birds with one stone).

Wait a minute, but women can use drink as an excuse?

No suprises as to the origin of this hateful madness.

Exactly, so why do feminists like Harman continue to use the lie (unchallenged) that very few rapists are convicted as a pretext for launching a male witch-hunt?

And as the male libido decreases even more, we already know what outcry there will be from women because they don't get what they feel they deserve...

Either way, you can't win in a situation like this, so a man may just as well then opt for self-preservation.

**nivek** · 13th-March-2010

"Being drunk is voluntary and people who become drunk are responsible for their actions.

"feminism the radical notion that women are people too" (unless there drunk)

**Marx** · 13th-March-2010

Well this only shows that women can't handle their drink - at all.

We'd best stop women drinking from now on because feminists tell us that only men can make decisions while drunk.

**MikeT** · 13th-March-2010

Oh well,
Women had better stop drinking then.
Like that is ever going to happen.

Baroness,
I recognise the term "Baron", this was a MAN that served in a WAR as a fighter pilot or some other great role.

Some maybe lawyer-type assumes this name, IMO, it is an affront to the service of men before her.

All I can say.

**shaazam** · 13th-March-2010

""The review was ordered by Harriet Harman, the Equalities Minister, in September in response to concerns that the conviction rate for rape is too low.""

from Celtic Druids post

totalitarian systems always want to couch their ganster like functions and commissars with cute names

eg Family Court which is actually a Stalisnist style star chamber ( in camera) definitely not a court under the erstwhile Westmister system and certainly not about saving and promoting the family rather about destroying it and passing the lucrative bits to her (cupcake) and ;

""by Harriet Harman, the Equalities Minister"

( this has gotta be outta the 1984 Orwellian masterpiece ) she is palpably not about any sense of equality at all more like inequality and quite brazen about her hatred of men - th fact that she is a high minister in the Labour Parliament is an index of the decompensation of the real level equality and equity in the UK

currently going down the S-bend

**Nynrah Ghost** · 13th-March-2010

If we'd had to believe feminists, then it would turn out women can handle almost nothing as everywhere you turn around a feminist is screaming that a man is responsible and in control of his decisions/actions (and even that of other women!) whereas a women is never responsible for something at all.

The alcohol double standard is only one piece of proof that confirms this.

**byslexic_danana** · 13th-March-2010

Quote from Blah

Speaking in December last year, Lady Stern said a drunken woman was not "fair game" and drunkenness in men should be an aggravating factor in the courts rather than an excuse.

So, if a man is drunk, it makes him MORE culpable; if a WOMAN is drunk, however, she loses all accountability, when it comes to her having given consent. I'm beginning to think that only men should be allowed the 'adult' label; being as the law seems increasingly to treat women like children, devoid of personal responsibility, and in need of special protection. Truly, truly pathetic.....

Quote from Trollop

"Being drunk is voluntary

For men, but not for women, right? A man whose judgement is affected is not to be allowed to use alcohol intake as an excuse, but a woman who consents, and then later regrets, CAN? Yeah, sounds like the typical inter-gender double standards, alright.....

Quote from Trollop

and people who become drunk are responsible for their actions.

But not women?

Quote from Trollop

It is not an excuse.

But it IS for women?

Quote from Trollop

It used to be regarded as such, but it is not an excuse.

But it is for wo.......nah, this is just getting boring, now......

You know, I used to think that women were merely high-maintenance; nowadays, I increasingly see them as high-RISK. I think that women should come with warning signs, such as 'explosive', 'irritant' and 'toxic risk'.

Do excuse me, guys, for I'm off out to buy myself a blow-up doll; that is before Harman changes the rape laws to make it a crime to have sex with an unconsenting blow-up doll. I must hurry..........!

**frostyboy** · 13th-March-2010

Quote from Marx

Well this only shows that women can't handle their drink - at all.

We'd best stop women drinking from now on because feminists tell us that only men can make decisions while drunk.

That thought went through my mind too, after reading this piece.

If feminists are so adamant that consuming alcohol causes women to temporarily regress to an infantile mental state, then why aren't they campaigning for a ban on the selling/serving of alcohol to women?

**BasicGuy** · 13th-March-2010

The biggest problem I have with all of this is the assumption that it is always the man who wants to have sex.

If the law was equal a man should be able to claim that he was raped, because some woman took advantage of him when he was drunk. Would that have any chance in court ??? Well you know the answer to that one.

Women always joke about their husbands being their 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc... child, and now they want to be treated as babies...

Now that is a real joke.

**Celtic Druid** · 13th-March-2010

Quote from BasicGuy

Women always joke about their husbands being their 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc... child, and now they want to be treated as babies...

Now that is a real joke.

Sure, the infantilization of women totally runs contrary to the 'supposed' political aspirations of treating them as equals. One minute they can do anything a man can do (and more apparently), the next they're back in their soiled nappies again, crying aloud for adult supervision.