REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Feminist: Downgrade the crime of rape

POSTED BY: KPO
UPDATED: Monday, November 25, 2013 16:10
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 12785
PAGE 2 of 4

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 5:00 PM

BYTEMITE


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"?



Is what we would say if he wasn't COMPLETELY WRONG ABOUT THE METHOD OF ACTION.

Yes, let's regress someone's mental processes to approximately the level of a SMALL CHILD, and then let's plant an erotic suggestion for them to act on or encourage behaviour of the same. That's TOTALLY their own urges that they would normally have while sober but not act on or even be at all aware of and they're totally responsible for their actions then.

Mm hmm, yep. Why am I even having this conversation?!

I mean the amount of evidence that we're being thoroughly trolled here is STAGGERING. There is no possible way that kpo doesn't know all this, as such he must be toying with us.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 5:23 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

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

I'm going to ignore you now. Let you cool off.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 5:27 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


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:

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. 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:

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.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 5:31 PM

BYTEMITE


Bullshit you are! I'm not letting this go!

You are wrong about the proposal about rape laws you posted, and you are disturbingly and concerningly wrong about issues of non-consent! And I don't take either one LIGHTLY!

I am not going to cool off because this is important! AND I WILL NOT BE CONDESCENDED TO!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 5:44 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

A person CAN consent when intoxicated.


You are WRONG.

You are so far deep in the realm of wrong that you don't even REALIZE where RIGHT is. I'm beginning to realize that THIS is why this conversation has been all over the place - you don't fully understand what constitutes rape.

YOU CANNOT CONSENT WHILE INTOXICATED OR ANY OTHER ALTERED STATE OF MIND. IT IS ONE OF THE INHERENT DEFINITIONS OF NON-CONSENT.

In fact, the last comic in question doesn't demonstrate intoxication and whether it impacts the interpretation of the law, only the second one does. The last comic in question demonstrates what happens if a girl has second thoughts the day after and if someone else then reports it out of concern - it could still be prosecuted as rape.

This is the statistical reality of law, justice, and crime. Some people are innocent, some people are guilty, and some people are convicted who are innocent, and some people are acquitted who are guilty. But the laws against these crimes exist to protect the innocent. If you remove the protections, then the victims have little recourse and little means to prevent another occurrence. The innocent who are convicted have a system of APPEALS, and their chances in a trial can change based on what evidence becomes available. Sometimes false accusers recant. Often times motivations for a false accusation can come out before trial and the case gets dismissed. In the case where both are drunk, the chances of the defendant are improved or sometimes their sentence is reduced because they were themselves less capable of understanding their actions, what is called "mitigating circumstances."

But legally, someone who is intoxicated is considered legally unable to consent. And if they can't consent, it's rape. It doesn't matter if the perpetrator is a "nice guy" who would never want to have sex with a girl when they hadn't consented and didn't realize that's exactly what they were doing, it was still RAPE.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 10:03 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Ok Byte, I was a bit condescending. We'll call it even.

Want to wrap this up though, so I'll limit this to one point.

Quote:

YOU CANNOT CONSENT WHILE INTOXICATED

I say you can. Obviously heavy intoxication can lead to inability to give consent, but to say that this happens with the first sip of alcohol for everyone, is well, ridiculous. Look again at the law comic, and the last rape example: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1258

See what the prosecutor says? "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. So yes, Stickie was intoxicated. (That shouldn't be a surprise, most people get that way to some extent at parties.)

What the prosecutor says next:

"That still leaves a few possibilities:

1) She didn't consent, and he knew it. (Rape 2)
2) She didn't consent, but he didn't know it. (not rape, 3rd example)
3) She did consent.

According to the prosecutor, Stickie MIGHT have consented, even though she'd been drinking...

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 10:37 PM

BYTEMITE


Fine, I'm condescending and disrespectful, but dammit, in this situation I need to be.

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.


It wasn't Rape 2 because she was drunk, it was rape two because he didn't use force or coercion. The same applies here. Rape two is not equivalent to intoxicated rape, it's a broader charge that intoxicated rape falls under.

You can't consent while intoxicated. The whole point of the last comic is that her having misgivings the day after and talking to a friend about it could still lead to rape charges. NOT that she was drunk but she could consent, because non-consent is a legal definition, and intoxication is a condition that determines non-consent.

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).




intoxicated

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape#Consent

In the UK it's more roundabout, but they still have a similar idea about non-consent:

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.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_rape#United_Kingdom

Bam. Case closed.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 10:49 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Rape 1 is forced rape.

Rape 2 is where the woman doesn't give legal consent and is unable to.

Why would the prosecutor think that she would be unable to? You fill in the blanks in that story. you say it wasn't alcohol. Did she get drugged? Was she assaulted in her sleep? What happened at that party?

Quote:

Fine, I'm condescending

I didn't say that.

Also, read your second link. It makes it clear that the level of intoxication required for non-consent is pretty much what I've been saying.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 10:55 PM

BYTEMITE


I editted. Read again. Any level of intoxication is potentially grounds for a rape charge.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 11:11 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

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



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.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 11:13 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Your conclusion doesn't follow from that passage Byte. Again the question is, at what point is the intoxication enough to disable consent. It does not say 'any amount of alcohol', as you've inferred. If it meant that, it would have SAID IT - explicitly.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 11:15 PM

BYTEMITE


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.


Yes. INTOXICATED.

Quote:


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



They don't have to be nearly passing out for it to qualify. It can be any level of intoxication - the state of intoxication casts doubt on their ability to consent, no matter how functional they appear to be, no matter if they initiate, no matter if they give verbal agreement.

A single drink can call consent into question. You can not be drunk and consent. You can not be intoxicated and consent. If a person is so much as talking loudly after a drink, their behaviour could be interpreted as intoxicated.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 11:46 PM

BYTEMITE


Now, I have just found the National District Attorney's Association's handbook for prosecuting sexual assault facilitated by rape. And in fairness to you all, there IS a section on distinguishing between drunken sex and intoxicated rape. But I think that's more of a formality owing to perceptions of jurors. The legal definitions are what they are.

Here is what I have found.

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.



Page 6.

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.



Page 8.

http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/pub_prosecuting_alcohol_facilitated_sexual_ass
ault.pdf


Any kind or amount of intoxication is potentially grounds for rape charges.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 11:53 PM

BYTEMITE


More:

http://teenadvice.about.com/od/daterape/a/daterapeguysfyi_2.htm

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 21, 2013 12:55 AM

AGENTROUKA


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.



Which is why the only safe advice I can give to people is NOT do do that. It's culturally popular and, yes, the odds are generally in everyone's favor in that most people do not feel violated and have no regrets BUT that's a gamble everyone takes.

I don't exactly believe in Byte's definition that all such encounters are definitely rape, but I do allege that you cannot know if it is until one party wakes up and feels that it was. And everyone needs to be aware of that risk and act accordingly.

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.



Yes, but that is the problem, I would say? Being unconcerned with potential consequences shouldn't be considered an excuse. I would call it the reason for a great deal of misery.

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.



I'll confess here that I haven't looked at the comic. I'm not arguing legal specifics so much as trying to get across that men (or, really, everyone) should be a whole lot more concerned with the choices they make. I think "foolish or a little bit wild" is a far too accepted state of being when it comes to men and sex. It excuses their choices and puts the onus on the victim.

It seems to me you're arguing "but getting drunk at parties and having sex is a fun thing to do!", which I even agree with. But I disagree with the idea that because it's popular, it should not be considered a very high-risk behavior with potential legal consequences - for men AND women.

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.



But you cannot tell if they truly did until afterwards. You certainly would have a hard time proving it. And yes, I think of someone "takes advantage" you're looking at rape. The very term implies that the intoxicated state of the person is the prerequisite for whatever follows.


I think where we mainly disagree is on how much responsibility should be placed on people's shoulder for avoiding situations where they might unintentionally rape someone, to phrase it weirdly. I think a LOT. You think the responsibility should be mitigated by the fact that drunk sex is popular. Am I reading this right?

I don't think you're a bad person for it, and I'm not taking any of this personally, I just disagree with the angle.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 21, 2013 5:56 AM

FREMDFIRMA



Horseshit, G.

I swear, this is probably the DUMBEST conversation I've heard here in a while, and given the gullibity and stupidity of the rightwingnuts, that's saying something.

When the issue is in contention, well that's WHY we have courts, that's WHY we have trials - unless you wanna go ahead and ADMIT they're a fucking rigged railroad rubberstamp and ditch the fuckin pretenses, which'd be nice, for once.

If she says no, if she's boozed up, if she's in the middle of a mental meltdown, or smoked a fat doobie, call it as you will, if she's not of sound mind - IT'S ON YOU.
Now, if both are in some way compromised, you could make a case, but taking advantage is taking advantage and I personally don't give a fuck about the legalities or anyones elses bullshit excuses or pretense morality - it is what it is, and imma call it that.

Works both ways too, I've had more than one girl try to ply me with booze to get into my pants for nefarious purpose, only to learn to their peril I retain THAT much judgement right up to the point of unconsciousness and ain't that just a bitch, then...
Not that it woulda availed them any, cause trying to play the babytrap card against a guy physically *incapable* of impregnating you is just begging for vicious mockery and humiliation - and yes, I am a complete DICK about it too, I figure I gotta right to be, since one shouldn't go round throwing life-wrecker accusations without having the pay the piper, especially when it's ME, grrr.

But there's no more goddamn excuse in the OTHER direction with me, neither, so spare the bullshit, excuses and justifications, if she's not 100% into it from the start, you have a responsibility as a human being to use your goddamn brain instead of caveman instincts.

-Frem

PS. I had one girl try that crap who somehow forgot she never slept with me, call me what you will, but I actually ENJOYED torturing her about it for damn near a year.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 21, 2013 7:33 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

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



The way you are looking at it, yes. In the same regard all you need is a person saying they did not consent or felt they had no choice for a potental rape charge.

The thing is a person saying they could not consent after a couple of drinks are going to have a hard time convincing a jury to convict if they even convince the state to prosecute.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 21, 2013 7:34 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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.



Hell yes!

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 21, 2013 8:03 AM

AGENTROUKA


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.



Please. I never said such a thing (the one-sip theory is Byte's, not mine), nor did I at any point call men savage.

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?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 21, 2013 8:31 AM

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 basic 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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 21, 2013 9:03 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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.



Talking about roofies and drug interactions is a good streach from the effects on most people after a couple of drinks.

Yes, if some even after a few sipps is in a state that they can't answer or have no idea of what is going on that could be considarded rape. Oviously slipping anything into a person's drink to get them to be compliant would be rape.

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.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 21, 2013 9:25 AM

BYTEMITE


Aaaaaaaaaaagh!

What the fuck? What the fuck is even this conversation?! This conversation is so terrible that it has de-lifed my fucking grammar!

If they would not have done it if they were sober IT IS RAPE!

Dancing flippin NEWTONS people, this shit is not that hard!

There are no fucking words. Just... goddamn.

Why don't we have a race. We're below the barrel now. We have traveled through the earth's core, and exited the other side of the earth with the velocity of a solar neutrino shot out of the large hadron collider. Do you understand? We are floating among the nebulas and star dust now.

But it's whoops it's anti-matter and now we've been obliviated. That is HOW BAD this conversation is.

Why am I even here. Space is waiting.

EDIT: Oh how nice, Nickerson removed the offending line about how it's not rape even if someone wouldn't consent when they were sober. Well who gives a damn about integrity or any of this train wreck of a thread making any sense, we're well past that point anyway. Embrace the chaos!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 21, 2013 9:31 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

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



Unless they are so drunk that they can't give consent or don't understand what is going on it is not rape. Having a few drinks does not excuse people from their actions.

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.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 21, 2013 9:43 AM

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!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 21, 2013 9:49 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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!



Who has said drunk? A single drink is not going to get the vast majority of people drunk. There is no magic number of drinks, nor type. There is no hard or fast line.

As for citations..

Consent - Consent is an act of reason and deliberation. A person who possesses and exercises sufficient mental capacity to make an intelligent decision demonstrates consent by performing an act recommended by another.

http://lawbrain.com/wiki/Consent

Than you have this...

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/rape.html

"A lack of consent can include the victim's inability to say "no" to intercourse, due to the effects of drugs or alcohol."

So unless a person is intoxicated to a point that they can't say no, or can't even respond they can give consent. Even if they are being infulenced by alcohol they can still give consent.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 21, 2013 9:54 AM

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?!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:04 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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?!



Hell they don't even have to have had to drink for there to be a rape charge. You have to also remember that little thing "Inocent until proven gulity."

The law does not state one drink.

http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/pub_prosecuting_alcohol_facilitated_sexual_ass
ault.pdf


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?"



I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:04 AM

BYTEMITE


As for this...

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.


*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!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:08 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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!




In some cases yes. Again there is not a hard and fast line. A person taking Ambien does not suddenly lose the sbiltity to consent. It has to be shown that that person does not have the mental abilty to make decisions. Just being on a percriptions does not do it.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:09 AM

BYTEMITE


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.



EXACTLY! JESUS CHRIST! It's any kind of intoxication!

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?"



YES because it's trying to determine evidence for drunkenness 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. It doesn't say "if the accuser or a witness indicates that they exhibited one or more of these symptoms then saddle up DA, you're goin' to court!"

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

Fuck.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:15 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

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




My point is you don't need any type of intoxication for there to be rape. So one drink does not really change anything.

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.



Any calim of not giving consent could lead to a rape charge. Someone could lie through their teeth and get someone else charged with rape. Thing is a rape charge does not mean a rape happened.

Get it?

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:19 AM

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 a person wouldn't do when they were sober were absolutely APPALLING and you lot really need to work on that.

I'd call you on all the edits you made after the fact, though that would be pretty hypocritical... Ah hell, I don't care if I'm hypocritical.

Yeah, I make edits after the fact, but I at least keep the basis of my argument the same. You just white washed yourself over this whole thread. But I saw what you said about giving consent even if it wasn't something they'd do when sober. I saw it.

And when people wonder why I flipped out at you and refuted exactly that comment, they'll read this and know.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:27 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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. That is wrong and has litle to do with someone being charged with rape.

You have acted like being charges is the end all be all when you point is very much moot.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:44 AM

BYTEMITE


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.



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.



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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:51 AM

AGENTROUKA


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.



Could you kindly exonerate me them from "setting feminism back 100 years"?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:57 AM

BYTEMITE


Don't exonerate me, I want to kick their asses some more.

Come on buckos. Drop some more gems on me about what totally is and isn't okay. You know I'm good for it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 21, 2013 11:54 AM

BYTEMITE


*Tap foot*

Bored now!

I guess I'll jumpstart this again with one of Nickerson's edits.

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.


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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 21, 2013 12:21 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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.




That very well could be enough to prompt an investigation. However without finding any evidence that something was put into Stickies drink or the like ol'Jeff is not going to be charged.


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.



What someone would or would not do without some alcohol is irrelevent. Drinking enough to lower your inhibitions may or may not be on the same level that a person loses the ability to consent.

As for a circumstance in which there is a drug interaction it would still come down to if a person had the abilty to give consent. As you said it is situational.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 21, 2013 12:28 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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.




You missed my point. A person that drinks enough to lower their inhabitions but is still cogent enough to consent is still responcible for their decision. Your right that in cases of drunk driving or any perpitrator of a crime them being to drunk to control themselves is not a defence. I'm not talking about someone that is so intoxicated they have no idea what is going on. If you go out and drink a little and that lowers your inhabitions and you agree to something that is still on you.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 21, 2013 12:38 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

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


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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 21, 2013 12:42 PM

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. But thanks at least for starting to modify your statements towards "may." There might be a chance to salvage this conversation yet.

Just apply the logical consistency here between what I'm saying about how if it's something you wouldn't do while sober it's not consent and compare it to lowered inhibitions and we'll be there.

And if you're having a problem with that concept, imagine that it's a contract instead of sex. A business man is being offered an unfavourable deal by a hostile business to buy out his company from underneath him. He normally wouldn't agree, but they catch him when he's drunk to get him to sign the papers.

He didn't consent.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 21, 2013 12:45 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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.



You can say it as many times as you would like it will not make it true. I'm not blaming any victims, just looking at the reality of situations and the fact that if people indulge in drinking they hold some responcibilty for their actions.

Sure you may not have had sex with someone while sober, but if you are the one initiating and end up riding a person like a naked cowboy you are consenting.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 21, 2013 12:47 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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.



No, it does not.

Consent - Consent is an act of reason and deliberation. A person who possesses and exercises sufficient mental capacity to make an intelligent decision demonstrates consent by performing an act recommended by another.

http://lawbrain.com/wiki/Consent

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 21, 2013 12:50 PM

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 21, 2013 12:57 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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



Yes alcohol can at a point. Lowered inhibitions is not that point if the person still understands what is going on and are clearly okay with it.

http://www.safercampus.org/blog/2010/07/when-drunk-sex-clearly-is-rape
-and-more-thoughts-on-alcohol-and-consent
/

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 21, 2013 1:02 PM

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:

Lowered inhibitions is not that point if the person still understands


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" suggestion 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 or refuse them justice on the basis of 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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 21, 2013 1:32 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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?



Pretty sure I've said it depends on the person and situation.


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.



I did read the comic, you should again. Like the line that says "beyond blotto" or before that "had to many". In both case not the relm I'm talking.

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.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 21, 2013 1:49 PM

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 21, 2013 2:14 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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.



The "I did not know" is covered in the third part of the comic.

Obviously if someone is drunk their judgment is going to be impaired and thus can't give concent. If the person is not drunk they still maybe able to give consent if they have been drinking. That buzzed area is where the gray is.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 14:12 - 3411 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:16 - 6 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL