I think the government has a real problem here. Not that I disagree with the idea that when a woman says 'no' that should mean 'no'. But when you add the ingredient of drink to the mix it changes things. In a perfect world sex would always be a wonderful thing. But the world is not perfect and sex that comes out of pub nights is more often than not sordid and miserable whether consensual or not.
The difficulty with this kind of law is that it is not enforceable. It's the word of one against the word of another. And what criteria can a jury possibly have for ascertaining the 'truth' of the matter. I believe that for the most part juries will not be keen to send a man to prison for 'rape' in this situation. Or will the government have rape divided into categories: first degree, second degree, third degree and what will the penalty be.
What will happen is that rape trials will again put the woman in the dock and this time it won't be pretty. The fact is that men as well as women go on the prowl -- unfortunately there are a lot of women that don't seem to understand that that is in fact what they are doing. A woman/girl doesn't wear sexy clothes -- short skirts and plunging necklines -- because it's virginal. They want to be provocative, alluring, tempting. Come on -- take responsbility for yourselves. This is playing with fire. I've seen young women in bitterly cold weather walking down the street in skimpy clothing, boobs hanging out flaunting their 'assets', full of drink like a parade of what's on offer. The men/lads aren't wearing coats either, but they are at least covered up. Who can blame them for thinking 'no' means 'yes'.
In the past juries have had difficulty sending men to prison for rape because the sentences were too severe. For this reason penalties were lessened in order to obtain convictions. This attempt to legislate what is not legislatable will in very likely make all rape convictions more difficult. Could women then be prosecuted for provocation without cause?