There are a few issues here: firstly, there are quite a number of young people in the community who are not aware that there is such a thing as an 'age of consent', there has been so much sex education and education about contraception, stranger danger for younger children etc, but it seems that the idea of an age of consent has either not been taught, or has not been taught strongly enough.

Another issue involves alcohol as a social lubricant, as has been mentioned both females and males get drunk and have sex. Being drunk is no longer a defence in most jurisdictions, as it once was in terms of being so drunk as to be unable to form the intent to commit an offence.

So perhaps the idea of alcohol and consent should be applied equally to both sexes, and not just used as a bottle to beat males around the head with:

That is, if a male has been drinking, and a female has sex with him, perhaps the female should be charged. If both have been drinking, then both should be charged. If both participants in a sexual act are under the age of consent, charge them both as well.

Otherwise we will continue the anomaly that exists in the sentencing of sexual predators: male teachers go away for yeas for having sex with students, female teachers get good behaviour bonds.

Let us have equality before the law.

I support the intentions of the new NSW legislation regarding consent.

Both (or more..) participants should be as convinced that the other participant(s) is/are consenting, and is able to give informed consent, that is, not impaired by alcohol, drugs, medical condition or psychiatric impairment or developmental disability.

Also, that both, or more, participants should be not influenced by fear, undue pressure or coercion, or in expectation of a favour or advantage, excepting where that favour or advantage is implicitly state and accepted by all parties, for instance in the sex trade.

The standard of being convinced should be the same as the standard of conviction in a criminal trial, that is, beyond reasonable doubt.

If there is any doubt whatsoever that informed consent is being freely given, then no sexual contact should take place.

It may mean that fewer people will get sex, but it should also mean that a fair number of people will not be sexually assaulted.

It's interesting that consent in this context seems to be treated much more seriously than in other area's.

Some time ago I was forced to accept changes in child residency arrangements which I believed to be unworkable and damaging. The solicitors involved were aware that I was "consenting" because of external factors rather than a belief that the changes were good or workable. The mediator was aware of this. I ensured that there was a note on the documents that went to the courts which made that clear.

It was a consent given under duress and the legal system was quite OK with that.

I find it interesting that someone who chooses to drink and then chooses to drive is held responsible for that choice if caught but in this situation another party is expected to make a determination regarding a persons ability to give consent and the liability seems to lie with that other party.

If it's true that an intoxicated male is held to be more responsible than an intoxicated female that says a lot about how far women still have to go to be treated as equals.

I think that there are complexities around consent within a monogamous marriage which are not easily summed up.

None of this is easy to deal with by legislation.

R0bert

Robert,

I don't know, but perhaps this issue of consent when drunk is based merely on the physical aspect? A man who is intoxicated to insensibility is simply not capable, no matter what he says in his drunken ardour, of the physical act of sex.(And very relieved some are the next morning, I should imagine!) Its kinda like trying to stuff marshmallows into a piggy-bank.

But due to a woman's physical arrangement the act is possible even if she is unconscious. So perhaps that was/is the basis behind this determination?

And yes. I agree completely on the issue that the sentencing of teachers who break the codes of morality has, in many cases, been treated unfairly.

What's really worrying about all this type of conversation is the extreme unliklihood that alleged victims will ever have enough access or awareness of 'the finer points' of law before or during or after the incident.

That they are never entitled to legal support as victims.

That there is no one 'on their side' to assist them to comprehend how their statements will be used and abused in court.

Add the complexity of age, disability, education etc.

One person's word against many, when even in cases of one person's word against another, where words provide the main evidence, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused (who does have legal support, and rights, and rights of appeal).

What is also worrying is with cases like those mentioned in the article, there was obviously no one present amongst the participants who thought to act, or acted to stop the behaviours. Why is that? Oh, I get it - it's because our law provides ample excuse for sickening acts of degradation performed by gangs. Or was it fun?

Romany, your point about the physical differences and the probable intent of the laws is valid but I have the impression that some believe that the laws are used for situations well beyond that. I've no first hand knowledge of the laws so I'm uncertain if that is a beat up or reality.

If it's a case of two intoxicated people making a decision that one later regrets and the other is then subject to criminal santion as a result it's a very large injustice.

Where there is no possibility of consent being given (passed out, under age etc) or where the consent is given on the basis of a reasonable fear of retalitory harm from not consenting then it's a massively different issue.

R0bert