Friday, December 29, 2006

It’s rape if the woman is drunk.

A new proposal, contained in a Home Office report, is being considered by ministers in a bid to boost conviction rates for sex offences and bring more “date rapists” to justice.

The new law would mean a woman judged to be drunk at the time of having sex would be deemed incapable of giving her consent. That would potentially open the way for the prosecution of thousands of men for having sex with drunk women — regardless of whether agreement had been given at the time.

This is a very bad law, for two reasons.
(1) It is a blatant double standard. Being drunk relieves a woman of responsibility for her actions, but it does not relieve a man of responsibility for his. The fact is, in most cases the couple will have been drinking together, and the man will be as drunk as the woman. Why is he responsible if sex takes place, but she isn’t?

(2) It means that a drunk woman is legally incapable of giving consent, so she is, legally, an imbecile. Do women really want to be legally classed alongside children and the insane, every time they have a drink? I wouldn't have thought so. It is deeply patronising towards women.

If a drunk woman is not capable of making adult decisions, then this has wider implications. Surely she should not be allowed out without a responsible guardian, and she should not be allowed access to her own bank account until she sobers up. Surely she cannot be held criminally responsible for anything she does. If she gets into a car while drunk, and kills someone, then she cannot be held responsible. If she murders or steals, or commits any other crime, then the same logic applies. A drunk woman has no responsibility.

What is going through the minds of the civil servants who come up with these ideas? The article tells us:

At present only one rape accusation in 20 ends in a conviction and ministers are convinced that means rapists are getting away with it.

The stated intention of this law is to increase the conviction rate for rape. This is the real reason that this law is a travesty. It has nothing at all to do with promoting justice, or protecting women. It is designed to contrive an excuse to lock men up.

Feminist lobbyists have been agitating the government for a long time to take steps to increase the rape conviction rate at all costs.

Yet no mention is ever made of false accusations. Shannon Taylor, the serial false accuser responsible for sending Warren Blackwell to prison, is still walking the streets. She has accused a string of men of assaulting her, and all of her accusations were lies. Mr Blackwell was the only one to be convicted as far as I know. It doesn’t take many Shannon Taylors to produce a low conviction rate.

Feminists believe that the low conviction rate means that the current law is not working. Yet evidence shows that over 50% of rape accusations are false. I believe that the current law is actually working pretty well most of the time. This new law is a false accusers’ charter.

The actual incidence of rape has been falling steadily since the 1970s, but it does not suit certain interest groups to tell us that. Instead, we are bombarded with constant scare stories about date rape, acquaintance rape, date-rape drugs, rape in marriage, and a host of other lies and distortions.

This constant scare-mongering about rape is part of an on-going, feminist-led cultural war against men, marriage, the family and heterosexuality. The intention is to stir up fear and hatred of men in the minds of women, to destroy heterosexual relations, and, ultimately, bring an end to marriage and the family.

Click here to email your MP. We must oppose this now.


Davout said...

The 50% number represents the rape allegations dismissed as a sole result of female recantation.
Almost all of the 95% number represents female recantation + vindictive women proven wrong, even by a system that bends over backwards to coddle women.
Even the remaining 5% includes some men who were falsely convicted.

Anonymous said...

How can this pass human rights legislation as it is surely discrimanatory on the grounds of gender?

If the woman is that drunk she cannot give consent, she cannot defend herself against accusations of indecent assault if she tries it on with a bloke?

Being drunk to that extent means every victim should be considered for prosecution of drunk and incapable.

How about having men only bars so that men can drink in peace without fear of being falsely accused?

Nick S said...

To say that the proposed law absolves women of responsibility for anything they do while drunk somewhat understates the case. What it does is not only absolve women of responsibility, but make men criminally responsible for what women do when drunk.

People usually get drunk in order to relax their inhibitions. If someone does something only when they're drunk it normally means that they want to do it, but are otherwise more inhibited about it.

The more stupid laws feminists pass, the more this will only increase the support of the mens movement. In a sense it's simply more grist for the mill. I've often felt that if you give feminists enough rope, you can be pretty confident that they will hang themselves. I also think that, sadly, it won't be until many more men have had their lives destroyed that finally enough people will rise up and say 'enough is enough'.

As more evidence emerges of the number of men who have been wrongly convicted of rape, it's likely that the rape laws will become discredited and in future it will be much harder to obtain rape convictions.

Warren Blackwell said...

Interesting that no one has said what if the woman is sober, but the man is drunk? Is she then culpable for taking advantage of a drunken man?

Would that then be classed as male rape and the woman would be prosecuted? I think we already know the answer to that one huh!!

BrusselsLout said...

Warren -- first of all, I'm delighted you've finally been acquitted, and incensed that you were ever convicted in the first place.

Secondly, your point about male rape is an interesting one, and I really think it could be taken further.

Rape was once a crime of physical violence. A man had to use brute force on a woman in order to rape her. And this was why it was impossible for a woman to rape a man. She was simply physically incapable of it.

But now, the definition of rape is so broad, virtually anything could get caught by it. If a drunken woman does not "give consent" to sex, but in every other respect seems to have agreed to it, it is now rape (or will become rape if this new legislation is passed).

Rape is therefore no longer a crime of violence. (And note the double standards here. Rape is still described as a crime of violence, even though a man would not necessarily have acted in violent way in order to have committed it!)

So, the same reasoning could be applied the other way round. If a man not wanting sex is coaxed into it by a woman (say, because she wanted a baby, for example, but "forgot" to take her pill), then that would surely be the rape of a man. Or, if a couple are having sex and the man, say, for some reason gets angry and wants to stop but the woman refuses and continues (which she could do if she's the one on top). There is no doubt a multitude of scenarios in which this is possible.

I am not a lawyer, but it looks to me like private prosecutions based on the new legislation could be taken out by men. Successes would highlight the stupidity of those politically correct monkeys running the country.

Davout said...


What do you think of literarycritic's (alleged date rape victim) story at Exposing Feminism's blog?

Zack said...

There are many different responsibilities and laws that paint women as the weaker sex and hold men to a higher standard. This however, is one that shouldn't even need to be a law. A real man should be able to control himself in any situation involving women and or alchohol. I you can't then you shouldn't drink. And as far as the people rattling off statistics about rape... we are bigger on average, we are stronger on average and we are more sexually charged on average, so is it hard to see why women need to be coddled. Think about the natural advantages we have and the natural disadvantages as well. Fair is fair.