Bago Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Logic should not come into such issues when the act is about emotions and intimacies. What you say seems to imply to me that men can indeed disassociate sex with love making. Whereas I am saying that women cannot. If the law does not take into account this aspect, then what hope does it mean for the rest of the female population? Is it worrying? Yes it is. Within the context of a relationship, trust is an important issue. Where is the trust in a ONS? It is not necessarily about whether women cries wolf all the time. It is the realisation that there is NO trust within such a short meeting, and the realisation that she has indeed put herself at risk and being hurt on an emotional level. What you said worries me. Cos you imply that she is crying wolf, but what if she felt physical pain and does not trust this guy cos he is causing her physical pain... Will he stop, and does he realise it, since he is in a drunken stupor ? If the man had any decencies, then he should've taken this into account. What is worrying is that, such occurrences happen a lot amongst the young population. This incidence just reminded me how people used to be when at uni, and I can say that, it does set back emotional development amongst the young population. Ignorance is bliss sometimes. It really is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darbees Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Are you saying that the man should not get into a drunken stupor because he can't control himself and may rape someone and yet a woman can get into a drunken stupor and still be safe. Being drunk has all kinds of risks for everyone but I'm sure there are people who's inhibitions were suppressed sufficiently by drink to start genuine new and meaningful relationships. Fact is that there wasn't enough evidence in this instance to convict the man of rape and if he was convicted because of different views of sex by the genders we have got big problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babychickens Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 tbh, from reading what that bastion of truthfulness (the daily mail) says, i think this one comes down to nothing more than the girl may or maynot have consented whilst drunk, but couldn't remember by the time she woke up. she presumably objected to any further sex once she was awake. stupid girl shouldn't have drank so much, and stupid boy shouldn't have tried copulating with a sleeping vomiting girl. if i fell asleep on a park bench and someone nicked my mobile from my pocket, would that be my fault for being drunk, or the fault of the person nicking the phone? if i do something irresponsible whilst under the influence of too much booze, then it would be partly my fault for being so stupid, in my eyes. *sits back and waits for cries of "so you think it's the woman's fault if she's raped, do you?"* no, i don't, every case is different, but this one smacks of irresponsibility on behalf of both the girl and the boy. besides, surely the point of the article in the paper is that just because a woman has had a few drinks, she can't later claim that any intercourse she had was rape (when she may have consented at the time)? which is perfectly reasonable. the article also goes on to say that there should be no set formula to decide how drunk a woman has to be before she loses teh ability to give consent, because every woman is different, which is also perfectly reasonable. personally i don't really see the problem with this article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom3t0 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 if you have something to drink, your standards get lower. if you drunk a bottle of whisky and shagged the ugliest thing going would it be rape on their behalf because you wouldnt have done it sober? im not commenting on this actual case as i haven't read it. rape is a despicable crime and all too often is linked to alcohol, drink sensibly and you might not get raped, but if you do, at least the law should be more on your side so to speak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bago Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Are you saying that the man should not get into a drunken stupor because he can't control himself and may rape someone and yet a woman can get into a drunken stupor and still be safe. No. I am not saying that. I hope you are also not saying that a drunk woman means that it is legally acceptable for people to rape her. All I am saying is that, being TOO drunk actually invites you to lose your own rational and emotional mind. So therefore it isn't as enjoyable as people think it could be. If you cannot be honest, truthful and actually not be *too* embarrassed to have sex, what does that say about the person who wants sex? Are they responsible and mature at that moment to be aware of what they are doing fully? Being drunk has all kinds of risks for everyone but I'm sure there are people who's inhibitions were suppressed sufficiently by drink to start genuine new and meaningful relationships. When you're 16, or whatever. But, should you carry this kind of style into adulthood? What amazes me with these cases is that, even if it is ONS, the people who knows the rules may just know how to be responsible with ONS rules. The fact that this girl didn't, and doesn't want it to be a ONS, ended up with it being a ONS... and she was asleep as well. Just indicates that, the guy does not know what he is doing. The danger in society is not knowing the unknown. If two people got together, and you *know* for certain that the opposite sex wants a ONS, then all parties are happy about it. Yet, I feel that the guy in this instance misjudged it. Why would the girl drag herself through this kind of embarrassment and publicity if she did not feel that the guy wronged her in some ways? Do you think that girls do this as acts of revenge? I don't understand this "crying wolf" business... I really don't. It also worries me somewhat if that is what you think. Fact is that there wasn't enough evidence in this instance to convict the man of rape and if he was convicted because of different views of sex by the genders we have got big problems. We already have big problems, and this is not known by the general public. Because what is the percentages of rape cases actually ends in conviction ? Why are there support groups on rape to inform the general public and provides statistics if it was not such a complex issue ? I actually do not know what you already know with regards to rape cases and its legality, but I do recall debating about this with various other SF members on here, on some thread somewhere. I've come to learn that, there is a big flaw in the legal process, and it is in its current state not doing justice for the victim. Otherwise the law is not slowly changing to say that drunk women cannot give consent. Cos that short small word of a "no" is paramount to the reality of the situation. Although, I do understand that men view sex as important as love itself, but it is also important to know and to *acknowledge* that women need to be in an emotionally safe and mentally safe place before consensual and enjoyable sex will take place! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liam1412 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Why would the girl drag herself through this kind of embarrassment and publicity if she did not feel that the guy wronged her in some ways? Do you think that girls do this as acts of revenge? I don't understand this "crying wolf" business... I really don't. It also worries me somewhat if that is what you think. Bago I respect the things you say and most of the time completely agree with you, but you seriously can't think that this sort of thing never happens. Crying Wolf does happen as cases of this come to light when the girl suddenly grows a conscience and admits that the whole things was a lie. I completely agree that rape is a horrible and sickening thing to happen to anyone male or female. The difficulty is we can't just go around prosecuting people on some ones say so. That would undermine the entire basis of our legal system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darbees Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 It is complex and rapists will sometimes get away with it because we have a civilised system whereby a person is innocent until proved guilty, if the trial fails that test the defendant has to be acquitted for the sake of overall justice in all trials for all defendants. How would you feel if you had a relative who was wrongly convicted of rape because the "victim" had sobered up the next day regretting what she thought was ok whilst drunk? There is no easy answer to this one other than to not get drunk, that is also unacceptable to many people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Logic should not come into such issues when the act is about emotions and intimacies. What you say seems to imply to me that men can indeed disassociate sex with love making. Whereas I am saying that women cannot. From personal experience I would have to say this is rubbish! Women are just as capable of dissociating sex from any emotion as men. As to this case, you have two people who have been drinking heavily how can anyone possibly say that consent (drunken consent but still consent) was not given? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikey10 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 A lot of the problem with guilty men actually being found guilty is down to women. There seems to be a lot of women falsly claiming rape because of some grudge. So in some respects women who claim rape when it wasn't are every bit as responsible for guilty men going free. Rape is seldom witnessed so it is down to one persons word against another. So the guilty will go free and the inocent end up in jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babychickens Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 A lot of the problem with guilty men actually being found guilty is down to women. There seems to be a lot of women falsly claiming rape because of some grudge. So in some respects women who claim rape when it wasn't are every bit as responsible for guilty men going free. Rape is seldom witnessed so it is down to one persons word against another. So the guilty will go free and the inocent end up in jail. absolute nonsense. the justice system is at fault, whether that be in failing to catch women who falsly accuse men of rape (how do you know there's a lot of this happening?), or failing to convict men who rape women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.