Men told to ensure consent for sex...

Men told to ensure consent for sex...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4780992.stm

Thoughts?

It doesn't seem very enforcable to me.

I mean, I'm all for anything that will reduce rape and sexual assaults, I can't imagine what it must be like.

But if you go out as a man or a woman and get completely ruined, then you take a risk of ending up agreeing to go with a munter imo, and I think there have definitely been cases when women who have consented the night before have later cried 'rape'.

If a woman is really pissed and says 'yes', then she might not remember saying it, and certainly when I'm really pissed I don't think I can tell when other people are in a similar state.

Difficult.

Good idea i think not sure how effective it will be, especially if they put out bull shit like

BBC Home Affairs Correspondent Danny Shaw said: "The aim of the campaign is really to stop young men taking advantage of drunken women and having sex with them.


Since when is it just young men? Im sure that is a bit of a sweeping generalisation to some extent.

it's the old nanny state if u ask me, rearing it's head again (nanny state - GOT to be the most used phrase on this board after "i'm not rascist but..." ) i mean, what will they want next? i signed statement to that effect?

How will they know when they're TOO drunk? carry a breathalyser, a contract and pen everytime you go out?

Will this stop real sexual assaults and a determined attacker or are they just trying to cut down on paper work and court time thru false accusations?

i dunno... it sounds like they don't trust people judgement anymore - but if it makes women feeler safer - it must be a good thing.. is it?

i can see the next 'Going Out Checklist' now....

"right check my pockets....."
1) Tabs
2) Money
3) Cash Card
4) House Key
5) Sexual Consent Contract
6) Pen
7) Chewing Gum

when I first glanced at that titlle I thought it said Men told to endure consett for sex



Think i'm going blind....................

how are u supposed to know if she is too drunk or not?

its shit and a sexist way of doing things i think... what if the bloke is also hammered? and he feels the same the next day "why did i do that?" can he not claim for rape?

u have to get some1 to sign a piece of paper saying "i will have sex with u"

It's good in theory, but I've got no idea how it will work in practice.

Well there goes my chance of getting my end away at the wkend...

it won't work in practice. it is already established that if a woman is too drunk (off her own making) to remember whether or not she consented, then there is a rebuttable presumption of consent with regard for all the circumstances. which appears to be the right way of tackling such a tricky area in my opinion.

what a stupid waste of a campagne and money

who sticks a bitch without knowing if she wants it first?

No Jambon dosnt count

In theory it's a good thing, but it tends to be that the people who actually "cry" rape probably did consent to sex the night before. If anyone has actually spoken to somebody who has endured such a horrific attack they find it very difficulty to talk about, let alone complete a full statement with a police officer.

I don't know where I stand on this one. This could potentially help convict a lot of rapists who, possibly in the past, would've got away with it. But at the same time it could see a lot of innocent lads locked up for a crime they didn't commit.

Very contentious statement. I don't think anyone can say that as a fact. Being so drunk that you pass out before anything happens, for example, doesn't count as consent.

Not always. Rape with rohypnol isn't necessarily horrific in a violent way for example.

Sorry. I didn't say it was fact.

And, your right, that doesn't count as consent. Imo it's absolutely shocking

I dont agree with it,

How can they blame men for getting off with a girl when shes had to much to drink. If a girl has to much to drink and wakes up next a man and cant remember whats happened then she must take as much of the blame as the man. It doesnt mean to say its rape or JUST the mans fault.

If a man wakes up next to a minger and cant remember rumping pumping her then its his own fault so it should be the same both ways.

In a way, yes. But both should be in a fit state to give some sort of consent. This is being put in place to protect those who aren't.

yeah of course they shud but i think its wrong to try and blame men all the time. If a girl has had to much to drink and cant remember sleeping with someone then shes got to take responsiblity for that. She could be pissed but still able to consent and not even remember the day after, Its very dodgy ground.

you have to examine what constitutes consent though.

it remains a fairly subjective concept, in that i expect 99.9% of the time during sex consent is implied, rather than explicitly stated. consent is "having a reasonable belief that the other person is a willing participant", therefore in circumstances in which either party is severely drunk they may unwittingly consent to sex by their prior actions. that is not rape, although they may have acted differently when sober. we must be very careful not to criminalise those who are simply victims of circumstance. this proposed change only blurs the distinction in my view.

It is a bloody difficult area, certainly. I do hope it doesn't lead to some poor bastards getting done for rape when they really shouldn't be, but I also hope it means that women who really have been raped have more legislation to help them.

sex should be outlawed

joe is proof man can live without it