pynchme:"one of Antiseptic's usual lies where he portrays her as not telling about having consensual sex. "

Please show where I did that. I quoted from the story that was posted about the case and it made no mention of her telling anyone about consensual sex. You then went to a different source to find some evidence to back your own claim up. Fair enough, but hardly indicative of me telling "usual lies". You do have trouble with simple causal relationships, don't you?

pynchme:"why not email the centre and ask them"

I intend to. What do you think the chances are that I'll receive a response, with them being so busy on their 5 calls a day?

Pynchme:"A lot of organizations and public bodies have policies that prevent employees and volunteers from discussing organizational matters in public."

Yet Nina had no trouble "discussing organisational matters" until the questions got a little too hard, poor dear. Hypocrisy is never a good look.

pynchme:"not one of the cases of alleged rape in AFL and rugby league has led to successful prosecution."

Well, let's be thankful that vindictive women who've been dumped by footballers aren't as good at manufacturing evidence as they are at manufacturing claims.

Once again, you'll do all you can to avoid having women responsible for any part of their own bad situations.

pynchme:"If someone won't come at sex with the other person when they are sober... ??"

Some people won't "come at sex" with anyone if they're sober. Alcohol has a long history of providing those people with a socially-acceptable means of overcoming their inhibitions, while allowing them the possibility of saying "oh, it wasn't my doing, I was drunk".

Interestingly, being drunk doesn't prevent one from being held responsible if one commits an offence in that state. It may even be held as an aggravating circumstance and is itself an offence if police choose to prosecute. Why should it prevent one from being responsible for assenting to sex? Please do have a go at that one, I'm genuinely interested.

Pynchme’s news link quotes Karen Wills as follows:
"We are really happy that the law includes those three clear words, that consent can only be given freely, voluntarily and by someone who has the capacity to do so," said NSW Rape Crisis Centre manager Karen Willis.
"It makes it clear that if a person achieves consent by trickery, lies, manipulation, drugs and alcohol, then it is not consent."

And in HREOC’s submission to NSW Attorney-General's Depratment:

<<The definition of ‘lack of consent’ proposed by s 61R(2) of the Consultation Draft is ‘a person does not consent to sexual intercourse if the person: (a) does not have the capacity to agree to the sexual intercourse, or (b) has the capacity but does not have the freedom to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, or (c) has the capacity and freedom but does not agree to the sexual intercourse’.

HREOC believes the reforms should be accompanied by targeted education programs. These programs should promote understanding that sexual intercourse must be freely agreed to by both parties and that a person seeking sex should take steps to ensure the other person is consenting.

If the accused is taken to have the capacity to understand the concept of consent, then the accused should be taken to have the capacity to ascertain whether consent is present.>>

So would married women have the capacity for consensual sex outside of marriage, unless they initiate it? And if a person “achieves consent by trickery, lies, manipulation …” can her consent be withdrawn due to retrospective incapacity.

What happens when both “seek” sex and therefore neither requires consent, but for some reason, it later turns out one of them did need it? Would a convenient workaround to this dilemma assume men need consent and only women can give it? Provided of course, she can sustain her capacity well into the future.

Guess a good feminist will be one that not only supplies the condoms, but prefills her consent contracts.

'(a) does not have the capacity to agree to the sexual intercourse'

Does this mean too drunk to consent?

'then the accused should be taken to have the capacity to ascertain whether consent is present.'

Does this mean you cannot be too drunk to seek explicit consent.

All this seems to revolve around a seeker (presumably male) and an acceptor/non-acceptor, presumably female of sex. It all seems rather outdated and doesn't fit in with the reality of relationships in my view. It's also inconsistant in regards to peoples responsibility while intoxicated.

Usual Suspect: I agree with much of what you say. Alcohol does seem to be a common denominator. That is why in many ways new laws like this where the defendant/s need to show that steps were taken to obtain consent could be really beneficial.

Btw: I understand the radical change in thinking that needs to occur re: casual sex and alcohol, but it doesn't mean that an accusation of rape automatically positions the accused as guilty. A court has to decide that.

In any other crime, however, the defendant is required to prove innocence. Like if someone breaks into a house and steals some goods; we don't start from the assumption that they were invited in and given permission to make use of the householder's wallet and belongings. We don't demand that the householder prove that they didn't issue an invitation to enter and so forth.

Same with car theft. The starting point isn't - '... well innocent until proven guilty means that the car owner needs to prove that they didn't purposely make the car available'.

In fact a case could be argued that householders and car owners have some real motives (like collecting insurance; replacing goods and vehicles) for making such invitations. No doubt some do too. That isn't where community thinking about culpability begins though nor where the majority of court cases are focused.

Antisepic I'm not going over that link again; the football incidents and the crisis centre. You waste my word space demanding repeated responses to your lies. People will have to read back (sorry to whoever bothers).

As to alcohol use and responsibility. If a fellow believes that a potential sex partner who has been drinking is still capable of giving consent then having evidence of consent will help to show that. The issue is less about drinking per se, and more about retaining the capacity to give consent. Let's examine it - maybe this is a requirement that can add clarity to cases and that would help everyone.

'In any other crime, however, the defendant is required to prove innocence.'

What a strange justice system. I've never heard of this kind of system in a first world country.

'Like if someone breaks into a house and steals some goods; we don't start from the assumption that they were invited in and given permission to make use of the householder's wallet and belongings. We don't demand that the householder prove that they didn't issue an invitation to enter and so forth.'

I don't think any assumptions are made in any court. Someone is accused, and those accusations must be proven. In regards to rape it isn't even assumed sex has taken place. It isn't even assumed the accused and the defendent have even been in contact.

'... well innocent until proven guilty means that the car owner needs to prove that they didn't purposely make the car available'.'

I think you'll find they would if the defendent testified this is what had happened.

Houellebecq

Yes! - and if a defendant claimed that they'd been given use or ownership of a vehicle or access to a home and property; they would be required to show some proof of that, like a sales slip or agreement or witness or something.

It therefore seems fair enough that a defendant in a rape trial should be requested to do the same. Here's an interesting interview re: rape trials:

http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/nsw/content/2004/s1253430.htm

As to the starting point; I was referring to community thinking - the first assumption and how that differs from crime to crime.