Student Activist Resigns after she "failed to properly establish consent before every act"

[That Deer]

At least they lived by their own rules, or failing to do so rather, and stepped down. I can respect that.

However, I did chuckle at the whole

[I][quote]This statement explains why I will be stepping back from political campaigning from now.

(I owe you a proper explanation, so will go into details here which you may find [B]triggering[/B].)[/I][/quote]

Part because I thought the whole trigger warning thing was just something played up on the internet.

[Qaus]

[QUOTE=Eva-1337;48921467]At least they lived by their own rules, or failing to do so rather, and stepped down. I can respect that.

However, I did chuckle at the whole

[I]

Part because I thought the whole trigger warning thing was just something played up on the internet.[/QUOTE]

In the case of post trauma and related disorders (which may or may not be caused by rape), "trigger" isn't being misused at all.

The played up thing on the internet are the people with victim complexes claiming that a man on their bus manspreading or making eye contact with them is tantamount to being raped and they were legitimately "triggered" by these harmless actions.

[Deunan]

[QUOTE=discofex;48907849]She wont,1-(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

Notice the use of he.[/QUOTE]

Rape in the UK is a bit miffed (should be any penetration imho, not merely with penis) but when you have a female offender you can apply sexual assault.

[quote]
intentionally touches another person (B),
the touching is sexual,
B does not consent to the touching, and
A does not reasonably believe that B consents.[/quote]

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;48912866]I don't get why "oh I was drunk..." is taken for face value in this situation when it is never accepted for anything else. I think if you can recall the incident and you consented then, it counts. Otherwise we live in a world of rapists raping rapists every time some drunk hookup happens.[/QUOTE]

That's because both parties are generally drunk. In such a case neither party is able to give or receive consent. And to argue that both raped each other would be an argumentatum ad absurdum. For the record I was drunk is a completely valid defense in a lot of things.
a) you sold something while drunk
b) you signed some contract while drunk

etc etc Things where you have to give consent are voided as long as you can prove you were actually drunk.

The reason why this often doesn't apply in criminal law, is that you often have a duty to not get drunk, which compounds the whole issue.