Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicky.
I don't remember this case too well, but I think I did say at the time it seemed harsh. People get pissed and shag others, it happens. Yes there is a bit of a grey area with the whole 'could they consent in that state' thing but if both are out of their heads I see no reason at all why one should be blamed while the other is a victim just for regretting it the next day. I would say it was wrong for a totally sober person to shag someone who was so pissed they couldn't stand, and yes that would be rapey to me. But this doesn't seem to be the case here at all...
|
Yeah I agree with that. If a sober person is taking advantage of someone who is obviously off their face then that's a pretty clear "assault" to me... but if BOTH individuals are equally intoxicated then how can there have been a crime committed? What if both regret it the next morning? Have they raped each other? Should BOTH be charged with assault? That seems an odd sort of road to go down.
I guess (not to venture into Truth territory...) that there is a bit of gender inequality here when it comes to the idea of consent and intoxication; in that it seems (mostly) that the idea of a drunk male being unable to consent isn't "a thing", or perhaps commonly, the idea that getting an erection implies consent which really is utter bull****. In my younger days (teen / Uni) I can think of plenty of examples of girls deliberately staying relatively sober and watching / waiting for the guy they liked to get drunk enough to "give in" and have sex with them when they KNEW that the guy would regret it the next day. Where does that fall on the consent spectrum? Is it any different to a guy taking advantage of a drunk female?