Carol Sarler (in today\x92s G2) manages, so far as I can see, to completely miss several points on the current Home Office campaign regarding the rape law.

Her argument is predicated on the idea that current Home Office campaign to make men aware of the need to gain consent for sex will outlaw the sort of drunken, fumbling sex which characterises one night stands and first dates the world over. In fact, the campaign, contrary to popular belief, does not set out a change in the law, but seeks to clarify and publicise changes to the law which happened three years ago.

The law isn\x92t about stopping drunk people having happy drunk sex, nor is it about allowing people a get-out-clause when they regret their happy, drunk sex the morning after. What it *does* outlaw is having sex with women who are so drunk or drugged they are almost unconscious (it is not okay to \x91assume\x92 a woman is consenting because she\x92s too comatose to articulate a \x91no\x92 \x96 or even realise she\x92s having sex), and having sex with prostitutes who are coerced into working and therefore are unable to give any sort of consent which could be considered meaningful.

As my police officer friend succinctly put it to our affronted male friend \x96 if you behave like a decent human being you have nothing to fear from this law.

Posted by Lynne Miles on 16 March 2006, at 5:59 PM