The exact wording (from http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/vol1main.pdf ) is: "The law should include a non-exhaustive list of examples where consent is not present such as where a person: ... was asleep, unconscious, or too affected by alcohol or drugs to give free agreement".
Which to me is somewhat ambiguous. It could mean (and I hope it does) that alchohol or drugs are examples of reasons why a person could not give free agreement, as the term is already defined - eg, person lying drunk on a floor, not actually unconscious or resisting in anyway, but it could be rape if you went ahead and had sex with them anyway.
Or does it mean that being "too affected by alcohol or drugs" automatically implies that a person is unable to give free agreement - ie, that any consent they give is considered invalid? In which case we have scary situations where a women can be completely pissed, but still capable of luring someone back to her bed etc, and that would be rape.
I don't see anything about this only being available for women; it seems it should still apply if a man was raped by another man, or there's the new offence of "sexual assault by penetration" which would cover any penetration and doesn't seem to be gender specific. Although yes, if you mean specifically heterosexual sex, it is sad and one-sided that the woman can claim a crime has been committed if she was drunk, even if she actively wanted it at the time, but a man can't do so if he was drunk.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2003-05-15 05:25 pm (UTC)Which to me is somewhat ambiguous. It could mean (and I hope it does) that alchohol or drugs are examples of reasons why a person could not give free agreement, as the term is already defined - eg, person lying drunk on a floor, not actually unconscious or resisting in anyway, but it could be rape if you went ahead and had sex with them anyway.
Or does it mean that being "too affected by alcohol or drugs" automatically implies that a person is unable to give free agreement - ie, that any consent they give is considered invalid? In which case we have scary situations where a women can be completely pissed, but still capable of luring someone back to her bed etc, and that would be rape.
I don't see anything about this only being available for women; it seems it should still apply if a man was raped by another man, or there's the new offence of "sexual assault by penetration" which would cover any penetration and doesn't seem to be gender specific. Although yes, if you mean specifically heterosexual sex, it is sad and one-sided that the woman can claim a crime has been committed if she was drunk, even if she actively wanted it at the time, but a man can't do so if he was drunk.