Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
It lowers inhibitions, making people respond to their own urges, that they previously had under tight control. If a girl makes a move on a guy after a few drinks (or vice versa), and it leads to sex, that's down to her own urges (and maybe beer goggles as well).

---

But isn't that exactly why it's called impaired judgment? The fact that without inhibitions, in the moment of intoxication, a person forgets their sound reasons for not wanting to do something that they definitely wouldn't do sober? Isn't that why it's called "taking advantage"?

---

Quote:

---

You're really not winning any points for your argument here or making yourself sound well informed.

---

Quote:

---

I think Byte did a very good job of pointing out that it's innocent unless it's not and someone reports it.

---

Quote:

---

The key is to be very conscious of who you sleep with and whether there's potential for regrets afterwards. If your partner is sporting impaired judgment and you're not 100% sure that you can trust they won't feel violated in the morning: just say no.

---

Quote:

---

But isn't that exactly why it's called impaired judgment? The fact that without inhibitions, in the moment of intoxication, a person forgets their sound reasons for not wanting to do something that they definitely wouldn't do sober? Isn't that why it's called "taking advantage"?

---

Quote:

---

A person CAN consent when intoxicated.

---

Quote:

---

YOU CANNOT CONSENT WHILE INTOXICATED

---

Quote:

---

"No force is alleged, so I'm only looking at Rape 2." Which was Rape 2? The one with Jeff, and Stickie being unable to consent because she was DRUNK.

---

Quote:

---

In any allegation of rape, the absence of consent to sexual intercourse on the part of the victim is critical.[4] Consent need not be expressed, and may be implied from the context and from the relationship of the parties, but the absence of objection does not of itself constitute consent. Lack of consent may result from either forcible compulsion by the perpetrator or an incapacity to consent on the part of the victim (such as persons who are asleep, intoxicated or otherwise mentally helpless).

---

Quote:

---

One of the key elements to prosecute a male for rape is to prove that the male had sexual intercourse without the female's consent. For sexual intercourse not to be rape, the active consent of the female is needed. This means it is not enough for a woman to be 'passive', she must actively consent, and was established by Lord Advocate's Reference (No. 1 of 2001).[39] Therefore a male could still be convicted of rape, even though the female did not say anything or show any resistance. This is a change in the law, as previously men who had sexual intercourse with sleeping women (as in the case of Charles Sweenie) or women who were unconscious due to voluntarily taking drugs or alcohol (see HMA v Logan) were charged with the lesser crime of indecent assault, rather than rape, as they had not used force to achieve penetration. Lord Advocate's Reference (No 1 of 2001), by requiring "active consent", had opened up the law to decide whether a voluntarily drunk or intoxicated woman can consent to sexual intercourse. This was clarified under the new laws of 2009 which state that sexual intercourse is non-consensual, and therefore considered rape, if it occurs :(...) where the conduct occurs at a time when B is incapable because of the effect of alcohol or any other substance of consenting to it.

---

Quote:

---

Fine, I'm condescending

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I editted. Read again. Any level of intoxication is grounds for a rape charge.

---

Quote:

---

Reading from your own links seem to indicate that a person needs to be unable to give consent or know what is going on before there could be grounds for rape.

---

Quote:

---

intoxication
Use Intoxication in a sentence
intoxication
[in-tok-si-key-shuhn]
noun
1.
inebriation; drunkenness.
2.
an act or instance of intoxicating.

---

Quote:

---

Moreover, the victim’s state of
intoxication, which can be difficult to prove, need not be proven under
this theory. Even if it could be proven, “[t]here is no bright line test that
defines precisely how much alcohol or drugs result in a person’s inability
to consent to sex.”

---

Quote:

---

Even where the measured values are reliable and accurate, substantial vari-
ability in tolerances for alcohol, absorption rates, and clearance rates, both
among individuals and within the same individual from one situation to
another, complicates efforts to deduce the true extent of intoxication at the
time of an arrest or accident.

---

Quote:

---

Although
intercourse with someone who is too intoxicated to consent always con-
stitutes
moral
rape, it is only a crime if it meets the
legal
definition of
rape.

---

Quote:

---

Generally, there is not a bright-line test for showing that the victim was
too intoxicated to consent, thereby distinguishing sexual assault from
drunken sex. In drunk driving cases, the prosecution can show that the
driver had a certain BAC; therefore, the driver is guilty. Sexual assault
cases involving alcohol are not as clear cut.There is not a universal BAC
at which the law or the experts agree that people are no longer capable
of consenting to intercourse.

---

Quote:

---

Another area of confusion on the date rape topic is intoxication. Bottom line, if a girl is intoxicated she cannot consent to sex and you could be charged with rape. It does not matter whether you knew she was intoxicated, it doesn’t matter if you were intoxicated too, all that matters is that she was not in a state of mind to consent and therefore it is rape. If you get a girl drunk or high and then “get together” with her you have committed a sexual assault. Again, it doesn’t matter if you are drunk or high as well. Your diminished abilities do not negate your responsibilities. A good rule to follow; if you are under the influence do not have sex. Now say you really had no idea a girl was intoxicated and that she truly appeared to be a willing partner, what then? The reality is that you could still be charged with rape if she is able to prove she was drunk or high. Your knowledge of her state may only be a mitigating factor; it does not guarantee you won’t be charged. So another good rule to follow, don’t have sex with anybody you are not 100% certain is able to consent. In other words, don’t have sex with somebody you don’t know very well or have not spent most of your time with immediately before your sexual encounter.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

I think Byte did a very good job of pointing out that it's innocent unless it's not and someone reports it.

---

Look, I don't want to make a big deal about false rape accusations. They happen rarely; they're nowhere near as big a problem as real rape, and unreported rape. However. What Byte is saying - that all these sexual encounters are technically rape (usually mutual), and all it needs is for the girl to report it as such... leaves very little legal protection for the guy in such a crazy bitch/revenge scenario.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The key is to be very conscious of who you sleep with and whether there's potential for regrets afterwards. If your partner is sporting impaired judgment and you're not 100% sure that you can trust they won't feel violated in the morning: just say no.

---

All very sensible. But not everyone is sensible, especially where sex is concerned.

---

Quote:

---

The question is whether we throw the book at these guys, who are foolish, or a little bit wild, but are not the kind of guy who wants to have sex with a girl without her consent. I guess this is all dealt with in the final rape case in that comic.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

But isn't that exactly why it's called impaired judgment? The fact that without inhibitions, in the moment of intoxication, a person forgets their sound reasons for not wanting to do something that they definitely wouldn't do sober? Isn't that why it's called "taking advantage"?

---

Yes. And not 'rape'. Look at the comics AR, and in particular the final case. A person CAN consent when intoxicated.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Any kind or amount of intoxication is potentially grounds for rape charges.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:
And obligatory flying horseshit back at you - I'll appreciate you not adding thoughts to my posts that aren't there, thanks. No where did I say "no doesn't me stop." My long answer was "no means fucking no," and I side more with Mal4 saying that you leave a mark when you say no, scratch kick slice if you have to so there's no doubt about consent, BECAUSE it's hard to prosecute as KPO mentioned. Rape doesn't generally happen around witnesses, yanno?
Seems the possibility that a woman might want a glass or 2 of wine and then fuck someone's brains out consensually and then wake up and call the cops and press rape charges in the context of "I had a sip and wasn't myself" is not occurring to some people. Really?!? So in my single days I would never have been able to share a drink - a sip - with someone that I wanted to sleep with? You paint the picture of a perfectly repressed and joyless society. I would have thought you would be more trusting the independence and smarts of the women rather than thinking they can't fend for themselves and are only safe when Hero Man is there to help them.

I do agree with you that this thread has been one of the DUMBEST in recent memory.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:
Do you (Byte and Agent) realize how weak you make women sound? One sip of alcohol and they no longer can control themselves, their libidos run wild, and savage MAN can take over and spin them any way they want. I think you set feminism back a couple hundred years.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Yes I'm totally saying that a person's biological inability to control their physiological response TO A DRUG and the differences between individual reactions to drugs and the SITUATION such as maybe they'd been taking MULTIPLE drugs already is in fact an indication of physical and mental weakness.

Why, anyone should be able to shrug off a roofie, they just have to harness their inner girl power. Including the guys, because I haven't once indicated that this was a single gender issue. But then I guess guys are all uniquely capable of holding their liquor the exact same amount.

Drugs are drugs, not the person, and their effect can be unpredictable. And the LAW is what it is. I'm not accountable if some of the people around here lack the basic situational awareness or prerequisite though blatantly obvious common sense knowledge and as such they have participated in such a situation that they feel they have need to defend their actions.

Because ultimately I don't give a shit what you've done if your partner from then hasn't objected. All I'm saying is, get a clue. Now. Before you do something you regret.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
If they would not have done it if they were sober IT IS RAPE!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
PROVE it!

ALL of you! All of you who say that if he or she is drunk it's not rape, find me ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE, one SINGLE LEGAL CITATION that stipulates exactly when and where the cut-off is! Give me BAC! Give me number and type of DRINKS!

I'M WAITING! I'M WAITING YOU MASHERS! GO AHEAD! I SHOWED YOU MINE, YOU SHOW ME YOURS! LET'S GET THIS DRUNKEN TRAVESTY UNDERWAY!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
WHICH IS WHY THE LAW STARTS AT ONE SINGLE FLIPPIN' DRINK! THERE IS NO FREAKIN' LINE!

If. They have. A SINGLE. DRINK. And it leads to something. And they report it to the POLICE. IT IS POTENTIALLY. GROUNDS. FOR RAPE CHARGES.

UNDERSTAND?!

---

Quote:

---

Your position that any amount of alcohol take way a persons ability to consent is stupidly absolutist. Aply that thinking to something like anti-depressents or other common medication would mean large amount of people would have no abilty to consent. That would not only be for sex but any place the ability to consent is needed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
*Nods incredulously* Yeppa-roonies! People who are hopped up on painkillers, Ambien, or are mentally altered by prescription drugs, are not able to consent to have sex, or get married, or SIGN A CONTRACT! The court does not legally recognize any agreements they might have made under the influence and it is often grounds for dismissal of the obligations any such agreement might entail!

---

Quote:

---

Hell they don't even have to have had to drink for there to be a rape charge.

The law does not state one drink.

---

Quote:

---

Even in your own citaion it talks about How drunk the victim was stating...

"How drunk was the victim? The more intoxicated the victim was, the
less likely it is that she was capable of consenting.The following factors
can aid in this determination:
?Was she conscious or unconscious? Did she regain consciousness
during the rape? Did she pass out during the rape? If so,
what did the accused do?
? Did she black out?
? Did she vomit?
? Could she speak? Was she slurring? Was she able to
communicate coherently?
?Was she able to walk or did someone (in particular, the
defendant) have to carry her? Did she have to lean on
someone?
?Was she able to dress/undress herself?
? Were her clothes disheveled?
?Was she responsive or in a nonresponsive state?
?Was she able to perform physical tasks or was her coordination
impacted? For example, did she light the wrong end of a
cigarette or spill things?
? Did she urinate or defecate on herself?
? What was her level of mental alertness?
? Did she do anything else to indicate whether she was capable
of cognitive functioning? For example, did she use her credit
card? Did she use her cell phone or e-mail?"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
EXACTLY! JESUS CHRIST! It's any kind of intoxication!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
YES because it's trying to determine evidence for drunkeness at the time of the incident to build the case for the JURY. It never says that there is a specific level of drunk they HAVE to be for charges to be levied.

Even if the person was apparently completely functional, even if they initiated, if it gets reported it could lead to a rape charge.

Fuck.

---

Quote:

---

Thing is a rape charge does not mean a rape happened.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Quote:

---

Thing is a rape charge does not mean a rape happened.

---

That was never a claim I made. The point was to tell you mooks what the LAW SAYS. I consistently have said "grounds for a rape charge." And that a person cannot consent when intoxicated, and that the law doesn't have a strict cut off point, so it could be considered rape even if there was only one drink. It's situational.

Although the opinions about taking advantage and what they wouldn't do when they were sober were absolutely APPALLING and you lot really need to work on that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by M52NICKERSON:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Quote:

---

Thing is a rape charge does not mean a rape happened.

---

That was never a claim I made. The point was to tell you mooks what the LAW SAYS. I consistently have said "grounds for a rape charge." And that a person cannot consent when intoxicated, and that the law doesn't have a strict cut off point, so it could be considered rape even if there was only one drink. It's situational.

Although the opinions about taking advantage and what they wouldn't do when they were sober were absolutely APPALLING and you lot really need to work on that.

---

You said at one point that a person who has one drink can't consent.

---

Quote:

---

Stickie McStickfigure can have gone to a bar and have merely a SIP of alcohol before she meets good ol' Jeff and goes up to his room and kisses him and then things got out of hand. If the next day she thinks "oh no, I don't think I was thinking straight" THEN THAT IS A RED FLAG. That could be sufficient to prompt a criminal investigation on the matter.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I do insist that all parties are strictly aware that all encounters involving intoxication have the potential of ending in a rape charge and people should make their choices accordingly.

Why exactly do you find that so problematic? Because it calls on both men and women to be more vigilant? It's inconvenient to have to keep in mind how often alcohol plays a role in sexually transgressive behavior?

---

I don't find it problematic at all, it's all simple common sense to me.

---

Quote:

---

Those situations are different than a person willing having some drinks and deciding to have sex when they normally would not. It was there choice to have the drinks and than there choice to have sex. We don't give people who drink and drive a pass for the same reason.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
ahahaha no.

No.

Look, the very first comment I made where I said a "sip" of alcohol.

Quote:

---

Stickie McStickfigure can have gone to a bar and have merely a SIP of alcohol before she meets good ol' Jeff and goes up to his room and kisses him and then things got out of hand. If the next day she thinks "oh no, I don't think I was thinking straight" THEN THAT IS A RED FLAG. That could be sufficient to prompt a criminal investigation on the matter.

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I've been consistent the whole way through. You just have the reading comprehension and debate skills of a macaque.

Even so. Say they're on another medication that alcohol exacerbates. Normally they would not be in an altered state of mind. But they have one drink and suddenly wham. The two different drugs interact. But you saw them only have one drink, so it can't be that bad, right? So they have to be able to consent?

Well no. It's situational, and depends on the individual.

And you're still a guy who thinks it's not rape even if they wouldn't consent if they were sober.

Can't erase that.

---

Quote:

---

You're talking about the intoxication defense! But BEING sexed while not being able to consent isn't a crime on your part (well, not unless your jurisdiction has laws against adultery and no exceptions for drunkenness, but the complications inherent in those laws and the interpretations thereof are often fruit bat crazy).

However, drunk driving and DOING sex to someone who can't consent IS a crime. It's the distinction between the victim and the perpetrator. If the pedestrian who gets hit by the drunk driver is themselves also drunk, guess who still gets charged?

If someone is drunk and rapes someone who is also drunk and not consenting it's very unlikely they can successfully pull off an intoxication defense. Because the law says that for rape, drunken intent is still intent. But for sex, it doesn't say drunken intent is still intent, it says it's non-consent.

Admittedly, it's kind of a double standard, but once again it exists for the benefit of the victims.

More specifically for the case of drunk driving, their intoxication is an inherent part of the offense, and can NOT be used as a defense. Apples and Oranges.

---

Quote:

---

If you go out and drink a little and that lowers your inhabitions and you agree to something that is still on you.

---

Quote:

---

Drinking enough to lower your inhibitions may or may not be on the same level that a person loses the ability to consent.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
If it's not something you would have done while sober it's not consent.

I guess I'm going to have to say that 50 times or something, you adorable little post-editing victim blamer you.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Quote:

---

Drinking enough to lower your inhibitions may or may not be on the same level that a person loses the ability to consent.

---

The law essentially says that it is.

---

Quote:

---

Consent assumes a physical power to act and a reflective, determined, and unencumbered exertion of these powers.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Yes it does.

Quote:

---

Consent assumes a physical power to act and a reflective, determined, and unencumbered exertion of these powers.

---

Alcohol encumbers the exertion of the powers of decision making. It's called "impaired judgement" and "lowered inhibitions."

Source: Your own damn link.

http://lawbrain.com/wiki/Consent

---

Quote:

---

Yes alcohol can at a point.

---

Quote:

---

Lowered inhibitions is not that point if the person still understands

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Quote:

---

Yes alcohol can at a point.

---

And it can take VERY little alcohol if they are:

1) unusually sensitive to the effects of alcohol
2) taking another medicine that interacts with alcohol and increases the effect
3) possible other reasons, why do I have to be the one doing all the work here?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Lower inhibitions implies impaired judgment. Their capacity to understand has been impacted. Therefore they can no longer consent.

I like you using a blog posting as evidence though, as though sometimes the facts that someone can use to write an informal blog like that can't be wrong. The "enthusiastically, affirmatively consenting" argument is actually pretty flawed. Some people are ALWAYS enthusiastic and affirmative when they're drunk. Doesn't mean they're actually able to consent. And there are legal cases to show this.

Supplemental: You didn't even read the comic Geezer posted, did you. It fully deals with a character who was drinking and then agreed enthusiastically to the proposition. It was not that character's fault for drinking or for choosing to accept drinks. Because we don't punish victims for the circumstances that lead up to the tragedy, even if it's distasteful to the social norms like oh gosh a woman DRINKING TO EXCESS what vice or oh gosh she's wearing skimpy clothing BY CHOICE.

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1240
http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1243
http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1246

Victim blamer.

---

Quote:

---

What I'm talking about would be in the relm of a person not knowing the other's judgment is effective, which than is not rape.

---

Quote:

---

That's an important distinction to know and one that isn't talked about often. But "I didn't know" or "I thought she was OK with it even though she was drunk" generally won't fly in court.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Quote:

---

What I'm talking about would be in the relm of a person not knowing the other's judgment is effective, which than is not rape.

---

And this is where the comic geezer posted actually misses some nuances, because the second comic specifically focuses on a guy who knew what he was doing and knew she wasn't able to consent. But it was useful to illustrate some common situations and the logic behind it.

It can be rape still even if they don't know their partner's judgement wasn't effective.

Reposting a law blog I already posted.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2013/03/what-is-rape-by-intoxication.
html

Quote:

---

That's an important distinction to know and one that isn't talked about often. But "I didn't know" or "I thought she was OK with it even though she was drunk" generally won't fly in court.

---

However, thanks for recognizing that impaired judgement is non-consent.

---