REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Feminist: Downgrade the crime of rape

POSTED BY: KPO
UPDATED: Monday, November 25, 2013 16:10
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 12790
PAGE 3 of 4

Thursday, November 21, 2013 2:37 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:


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



Not "I didn't know they were drunk." That was "they were sober but conflicted about our relationship and how fast it was going but never said anything about it and so intimacy caught them by surprise when they weren't ready and I couldn't have known." Relationship anxieties, however, are not recognized by a court of law as a condition of non-consent, even though it can be as labyrinthine as all other aspects of this law.

Although if the partner were to get frustrated by relationship anxieties and then insist they take it to the next level you might have have a whole 'nother story.

Technically drunk is something a person does (a condition) that informs you that they can't consent. Rather like "schizophrenic fugue state" is a condition that informs you they can't consent.

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

Thursday, November 21, 2013 2:42 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:


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



Not "I didn't know they were drunk." That was "they were sober but conflicted about our relationship and how fast it was going but never said anything about it and so intimacy caught them by surprise when they weren't ready and I couldn't have known." Relationship anxieties, however, are not recognized by a court of law as a condition of non-consent, even though it can be as labyrinthine as all other aspects of this law.

Technically drunk is something a person does (a condition) that informs you that they can't consent. Rather like "schizophrenic fugue state" is a condition that informs you they can't consent.




...and people can drink but not be drunk.

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

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

Thursday, November 21, 2013 2:43 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

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.


Ehhh... It's REALLY iffy and very situational. You want to risk the chance of rape charges on a grey area?

I mean if you don't think the person you're with is likely to report you because you know they like you that way when they're sober, then hey, maybe you feel the risk is pretty small that they're not consenting. Just don't get into a domestic rape situation, because just having a good relationship with someone isn't necessarily sufficient protection.

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

Thursday, November 21, 2013 2:45 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

...and people can drink but not be drunk.


Which depends on the person.

Seriously, we're going in circles. The law is very broad because it is meant to cover the people who do take one drink or who are on medication and take a sip and it causes impaired judgement/lowers inhibitions/non-consent.

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

Thursday, November 21, 2013 2:51 PM

KPO

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


Quote:

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.

This idea that a woman can voluntary go out and have a few drinks, and then voluntarily (and enthusiastically) sleep with a man, and then if she chooses to she can be a rape victim the next morning according to the law - is ridiculous. I would say it's demeaning to women, and offensive to rape victims like Alison.

Quote:

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.

Misery does not imply criminal behaviour. Unplanned pregnancy can bring misery - it doesn't mean that rape, or any other crime was involved. My problem is that you are talking about using the law, or the threat of the law, against behaviour which is not criminal, and not necessarily even unethical. You're saying BEHAVE THIS WAY, or risk being charged as a rapist. I say if that's the case, the law is wrong (luckily it isn't). You may have a theory that connects drinking culture, and loose sexuality, and incidence of rape in society. Your theory might even have something to it. But I still say you're picking a stupid battle, and doing feminism no favours by wagging your finger and lecturing men and women who want to enjoy themselves about how to behave.

Quote:

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.

This is what I mean. You're being a stern, feminist finger-wagger. Innocent people engaging in a common activity should never be at 'high risk' from the law. If they are the law is wrong.

Quote:

But you cannot tell if they truly did (consent) until afterwards. You certainly would have a hard time proving it.

Is it up to me to prove that she consented? Surely the prosecution has to prove that she didn't?

Quote:

And yes, I think of someone "takes advantage" you're looking at rape.

This 'you're looking at'. If you think it's rape, say that you think it's rape. Saying 'you could be charged' doesn't mean anything. A woman could hypothetically concoct a whole story and have me charged for rape her when in fact I have not even had sex with her.

For me, taking advantage is not necessarily rape (in fact it rarely is). This might be a difference between UK and US law, if the lawcomic is to be believed. Jeff, from the lawcomic, would not be prosecuted under UK law - because Stickie gave 'active consent'.

Quote:

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.

I think we mainly disagree on what constitutes 'rape', and everything else flows from there. In fact I don't think you've got straight in your mind what rape is. Do you think, for e.g., that if a drunken woman initiates sex, but the next morning regrets it, that she can legitimately claim rape?

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

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

Thursday, November 21, 2013 3:01 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

You're saying BEHAVE THIS WAY, or risk being charged as a rapist. I say if that's the case, the law is wrong (luckily it isn't).


It is the law. Including in the UK, based on the 2003 Act which I posted about from wikipedia which creates a standard for intoxication and non-consent.

And for reference, false accusations happen for other crimes as well, but just because that's a reality, doesn't mean that we should get rid of laws against those crimes ENTIRELY.

Look. My uncle and my aunt are mutually abusive. One time my uncle shoved her head into a wall and knocked her unconscious. He then panicked and doctored the hole in the wall with his own hair, called the police, and told them that SHE pushed HIM into the wall. 9_9 He's a real classy guy, lemme tell ya.

She couldn't prove otherwise, so she went before a judge and was in jail a few days.

Well, my uncle recently confessed to what he did. But too late, she's already served time. Damage done. He's slapped with contempt of court and a fine. That's it.

Does that mean that all laws against ABUSE are wrong and awful and should be struck down?

A vast majority of people aren't going to take advantage of the law to falsely accuse someone, and the ones who do have some PROBLEMS. A lot of those cases will get weeded out in advance when something doesn't add up about the story, or some evidence comes out where the "victim" would have had motive to falsely accuse (revenge, soured relationship, etc). The ones that don't have a trial by jury, and then if that fails them they have appeals. Sadly, not all of these stories will have happy endings. But they are vastly outnumbered by sincere accusations, as you yourself said.

The reality of some situations and that they might be unpleasant for you to countenance does not change the reality of what is written down and codified in our legal system. Nor that the way those laws work greatly benefits actual victims. Which is what ultimately is important.

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

Thursday, November 21, 2013 3:01 PM

KPO

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


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.



Ok. Your link. The whole section:

Quote:

As an adult making decisions about sex, it's your responsibility to make sure that any sexual advances that you make are welcome.

The easiest way to determine that is just to ask, "Is this OK?" Under the law, a lack of response is the same thing as a "no."

That also means it's your responsibility to assess whether the person you're with is actually able to give consent. If she's too intoxicated to know what's going on, there probably isn't consent.

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.

It also won't endear you to a jury at all.

Getting consent is important. Always ask before you act.



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

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

Thursday, November 21, 2013 3:12 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:

...and people can drink but not be drunk.


Which depends on the person.

Seriously, we're going in circles. The law is very broad because it is meant to cover the people who do take one drink or who are on medication and take a sip and it causes impaired judgement/lowers inhibitions/non-consent.



It is broad. However unless a person can prove that they are on medication or that one drink impairs their judgement and thus can't consent no prosecutor is going to go to court with that.


...and again simple lower inhibition does not equal impaired judgement and non-consent.

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

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

Thursday, November 21, 2013 3:12 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:



*Sigh* and yet there are probably 50 posts before that one detailing that they don't merely have to be unaware for it to count as intoxication, and that lowered inhibitions and impairment of judgment are reasons to suspect non-consent...

I knew that would be an issue when I posted that again. Look, it's just trying to give an OBVIOUS sign as an example. But not all signs are obvious.

And as Geezer's comic showed, sometimes even if you ask and they say okay and they seem enthusiastic, you could still get in trouble.

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

Thursday, November 21, 2013 3:16 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by M52NICKERSON:
Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:

...and people can drink but not be drunk.


Which depends on the person.

Seriously, we're going in circles. The law is very broad because it is meant to cover the people who do take one drink or who are on medication and take a sip and it causes impaired judgement/lowers inhibitions/non-consent.



It is broad. However unless a person can prove that they are on medication or that one drink impairs their judgement and thus can't consent no prosecutor is going to go to court with that.



It is entirely about proof. Yes. Thank you for acknowledging the situation is possible.


Quote:

...and again simple lower inhibition does not equal impaired judgement and non-consent.




ONCE AGAIN. It is if it is NOT SOMETHING THEY WOULD HAVE DONE WHILE SOBER.

You already conceded this as part of the premise of your earlier argument. We are now going backwards. Yay...

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

Thursday, November 21, 2013 3:46 PM

BYTEMITE


Here, I found you more links. I assume they will be as useful as my previous links and we can look forward to hundreds more posts.

Look, the military has adopted a "one drop" approach to teaching people about date rape.

Quote:

Because it is difficult to judge how much alcohol incapacitates another person, the military pushes a “one drop” approach against sex after alcohol, urging troops to save it for another day if either party has been drinking.

“With all these trainings, they drill it into you. Once you have one sip of alcohol, that’s it,” Hopkins said.



http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/aug/17/marine-sex-assault-training
/all/?print


Isn't that interesting.

How about stanford university's policy.

http://studentaffairs.stanford.edu/alcohol/aod/risks

Quote:

Legally, a person cannot not truly consent under the influence of alcohol. Alcohol is involved in the majority of sexual assaults (including date rapes) at Stanford and other schools.


Here's Marshall.edu

Quote:

Alcohol is in fact the most commonly used drug to facilitate the perpetration of sexual assault. Just as with roofies, alcohol impairs your judgment, lowers inhibitions, and affects consciousness. In the eyes of the law, you cannot consent to have sex when you are under the influence of alcohol.


http://www.marshall.edu/wcenter/sexual-assault/types-of-sexual-assault/

Southern Connecticut University.

Quote:

Consent cannot be given when judgment is impaired by alcohol or drugs, or if the person not initiating is asleep or unconscious. Being under the influence is not an affirmative defense. According to Connecticut state law, having sexual intercourse with someone who cannot give consent is rape.


-_-

Here have a whole bunch more.

https://www.google.com/#q=lowered+inhibitions+impaired+judgment+non-co
nsent


Just... Fuck it. You have your preconceived notions, and even the law isn't going to dissuade you. Do what you want.



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

Thursday, November 21, 2013 4:56 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
[It is entirely about proof. Yes. Thank you for acknowledging the situation is possible.



Never said it was not possible.

Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
ONCE AGAIN. It is if it is NOT SOMETHING THEY WOULD HAVE DONE WHILE SOBER.

You already conceded this as part of the premise of your earlier argument. We are now going backwards. Yay...



No, I did not conceed that point. If you think I did you mistook something.

Perhaps you don't understand what inhibition is. Lowering ones inhibition does not mean they are impared. It can be as simple as getting over a fear of rejection or fear of judgement. Or it could be lowering a fealing of guilt. None of which means impared judgement. So it does not matter what a person would have done in an other situation.

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

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

Thursday, November 21, 2013 4:59 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Just... Fuck it. You have your preconceived notions, and even the law isn't going to dissuade you. Do what you want.





You are not posting laws, but military and colledge guidance. There is a difference. Plus much of what you just posted talks about being "to drunk" or "impared", which does not happen for the vaste majority of people after a drink.

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

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

Thursday, November 21, 2013 6:19 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

The earliest signs of impairment would be the loss of inhibitions. [...] This level of impairment is usually seen in the range of 0.02% or 0.05% depending on alcohol tolerance.


books.google.com/books?isbn=1467053929

I note that 0.02% BAC is sufficient in most states to be guilty of drunk driving.

Loss of inhibitions is a sign of impairment.

Also, because it annoyed me: "Too drunk" "impaired."

I will grant that while the particulars of the effects of alcohol on mental processes are one thing, it is another thing as to whether a victim is able to meet JURY expectations of impairment. I just spent a half hour reading an Ohio case where an appeals court let a guy off from a rape conviction after a girl drank five bottles of beer then vomited on him after being coerced by threats into giving him oral.

Reading other cases by this court, I found they had a tendency to attribute a lot of things I think most of us would consider rape to "lowered inhibitions" leading to "consensual sex." Including a case were a girl who was observed by a bartender and a bouncer to be intoxicated to the point of slumping over. A boyfriend and a girlfriend, both strangers, found her in a state which they described as confused intoxication as the bar was closing and took her to their house. She was so drunk she was constantly hugging the boyfriend and telling him she loved him. She woke up next morning with no memory of what happened or where she was to a very angry girlfriend who told her to get dressed and get out. Went to the hospital. Guess. The boyfriend said she had been awake and conscious for a number of acts he described and said she also said okay to them. This was deemed consensual sex due to lowered inhibitions by the appeals court.

Which ultimately is a huge flaw in interpreting the laws that way. Loss of inhibitions is wrongly treated differently for other activities under the effects of alcohol than for rape. It creates, or is the result of, a certain stigma for victims who have been drinking. Fortunately, other states, and other courts, do not necessarily seem to agree, as in order for the cases to be appealed they had to be convicted first.

As such, the reason I interpret the law the way I do: if they're drunk enough to lose inhibitions, they're impaired and intoxicated. And that can happen very early in the drinking process.

Quote:

Perhaps you don't understand what inhibition is. Lowering ones inhibition does not mean they are impared. It can be as simple as getting over a fear of rejection or fear of judgement. Or it could be lowering a fealing of guilt. None of which means impared judgement. So it does not matter what a person would have done in an other situation.


In short, "nope."

But neither of us are going to be able to convince each other. And I'm rapidly finding that my moral outrage is being eaten up at the effort to the point of not caring. There also exists the question of when or where any of you might find the opportunity to test your theory.

So whatever.

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

Thursday, November 21, 2013 8:59 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Please spare me the moral outrage.

Are there cases of juries and courts getting shit wrong, absolutely. Does that mean we become absolutists to an absurd degree, no.

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

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

Thursday, November 21, 2013 9:10 PM

BYTEMITE


Not absolutism. Reasonable objection to biases and preconceptions in a drinking culture that fail to recognize the full implications of the effects of alcohol on cognition.

Oh, and here's that case, BTW. She was also bruised when she woke up. And apparently raped by someone else at the club before picked up by the couple and the "consensual sex."

http://statecasefiles.justia.com/documents/ohio/eighth-district-court-
of-appeals/2007-ohio-6483.pdf?ts=1323909316


Also in my review of material I found that the incidence of reported rape tends to be low (9%), and that incidents of "day-after-regret" accusations are also only a small fraction of that small fraction.

I am to determine that your expression of frustration and focus on "moral outrage" indicates you have nothing further to offer in service of your opinion or perspective. You have not posted sufficient evidence in favour of your opinion or the flaws in mine.

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

Thursday, November 21, 2013 9:28 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Not absolutism. Reasonable objection to biases and preconceptions in a drinking culture that fail to recognize the full implications of the effects of alcohol on cognition.

Oh, and here's that case, BTW. She was also bruised when she woke up. And apparently raped by someone else at the club before picked up by the couple and the "consensual sex."

http://statecasefiles.justia.com/documents/ohio/eighth-district-court-
of-appeals/2007-ohio-6483.pdf?ts=1323909316


I am to determine that your expression of frustration and focus on "moral outrage" indicates you have nothing further to offer in service of your opinion or perspective. You have not posted sufficient evidence in favour of your opinion or the flaws in mine.



You keep citing case in which women were so obviously intoxicated it is not even in the realm of which I'm speaking. I have posted evidence, right from the law you simply ignore it.

The flaw in yours is simple and even you have stated it. It is hard to tell sometimes how drunk a person is. That does not mean that any amount of alcohol and a person is considered impaired. Even in one of your citations it said something to the affect that people are going to drink and have sex.

You don't like the "drinking culture" don't take part in it.

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

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

Thursday, November 21, 2013 9:52 PM

KPO

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


The degrees that I think we've got:

1) Woman is lightly inebriated, has willing sex
2) Woman is lightly inebriated, has willing sex, later regrets it
3) Woman is heavily inebriated, has willing sex, later regrets it
4) Woman is heavily inebriated, is coerced/pressured into sex and finally agrees to it
5) Woman is heavily inebriated and disorientated/doesn't know what is going on

My position is something like:

1) - Fine. Nobody is hurt, everyone hopefully enjoys themselves.
2) - Oops. Live and learn. But it's hard to say the woman was taken advantage of - it's possible that the alcohol didn't even play a role. Certainly nothing criminal here.
3) - Possibly this woman was taken advantage of, possibly not. Depends on exact circumstances. But not rape.
4) - Predatory, scumbag behaviour, definitely taking advantage. Maybe prosecutable as rape depending on laws, and extremeness of the case.
5) - Rape

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

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

Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:15 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
The degrees that I think we've got:

1) Woman is lightly inebriated, has willing sex
2) Woman is lightly inebriated, has willing sex, later regrets it
3) Woman is heavily inebriated, has willing sex, later regrets it
4) Woman is heavily inebriated, is coerced/pressured into sex and finally agrees to it
5) Woman is heavily inebriated and disorientated/doesn't know what is going on

My position is something like:

1) - Fine. Nobody is hurt, everyone hopefully enjoys themselves.
2) - Oops. Live and learn. But it's hard to say the woman was taken advantage of - it's possible that the alcohol didn't even play a role. Certainly nothing criminal here.
3) - Possibly this woman was taken advantage of, possibly not. Depends on exact circumstances. But not rape.
4) - Predatory, scumbag behaviour, definitely taking advantage. Maybe prosecutable as rape depending on laws, and extremeness of the case.
5) - Rape

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



You are wrong with 3 and 4. Any time you are talking about heavily inebriated you are talking rape.

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 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

You keep citing case in which women were so obviously intoxicated it is not even in the realm of which I'm speaking. I have posted evidence, right from the law you simply ignore it.


I never saw you post a law citation or a court case.

You posted a law wiki article. Of which it doesn't say what you claimed it said, and I pointed that out, and you moved on trying to find another source. Which was an informal blog.

There is a difference.

THIS is a law cite.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/9/1/s261

They have big long numbers behind them, if that helps you.

As a side note, California interprets the statute as a "one drop" rule. I've also heard that Washington does as well.

Or, more simply, here is a breakdown of different sexual assault and rape statutes by state.

http://www.rainn.org/public-policy/laws-in-your-state

Quote:

That does not mean that any amount of alcohol and a person is considered impaired.


But it can. Which is the reason why many states' laws are broad and don't specifically detail what constitutes incapacitation or specify exactly when they are no longer able to consent.

If you do it, you're taking a risk. Period.

Quote:

Even in one of your citations it said something to the affect that people are going to drink and have sex.


I don't recall. The court case? Because there was a problem with the court case, I posted that as an example of how the law can be applied badly.

In any case, how about you find me a court case where "drunken consensual sex" with a girl who was "lightly" inebriated turned out well. I've done a lot of legwork already showing the opposite.


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

Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:23 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
The degrees that I think we've got:

1) Woman is lightly inebriated, has willing sex
2) Woman is lightly inebriated, has willing sex, later regrets it
3) Woman is heavily inebriated, has willing sex, later regrets it
4) Woman is heavily inebriated, is coerced/pressured into sex and finally agrees to it
5) Woman is heavily inebriated and disorientated/doesn't know what is going on

My position is something like:

1) - Fine. Nobody is hurt, everyone hopefully enjoys themselves.
2) - Oops. Live and learn. But it's hard to say the woman was taken advantage of - it's possible that the alcohol didn't even play a role. Certainly nothing criminal here.
3) - Possibly this woman was taken advantage of, possibly not. Depends on exact circumstances. But not rape.
4) - Predatory, scumbag behaviour, definitely taking advantage. Maybe prosecutable as rape depending on laws, and extremeness of the case.
5) - Rape

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



Why are you focusing on women? It can happen to straight men, and it happens a LOT to gay men.

Gender neutral please.

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

Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:40 PM

KPO

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


Quote:

You are wrong with 3 and 4. Any time you are talking about heavily inebriated you are talking rape.

Certainly not in my country. I should've made it clear that the level of inebriation in 5) exceeds 3) and 4).

If a husband and wife get very drunk, and have willing sex, is it mutual rape?

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

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

Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:43 PM

BYTEMITE


Well, first it would have to be reported, which is unlikely. And second, it would depend on the interpretation of the laws in the jurisdiction, the judge, the lawyers, and the jury.

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

Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:53 PM

KPO

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


Plenty of rapes go unreported Byte. It doesn't make it not rape. Same with non-convictions.

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

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

Thursday, November 21, 2013 11:11 PM

BYTEMITE


True...

I think this falls under that category I posted in the NDAA handbook about moral rape versus legal rape.

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

Thursday, November 21, 2013 11:49 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I never saw you post a law citation or a court case.

You posted a law wiki article. Of which it doesn't say what you claimed it said, and I pointed that out, and you moved on trying to find another source. Which was an informal blog.

There is a difference.

THIS is a law cite.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/9/1/s261

They have big long numbers behind them, if that helps you.

As a side note, California interprets the statute as a "one drop" rule. I've also heard that Washington does as well.



Yes, I posted from a law blog, which did say what I'm saying. As for the California Law it states, (3)Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused. So no please cite were that is interpreted as a "one drop" rule.

Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:But it can. Which is the reason why many states' laws are broad and don't specifically detail what constitutes incapacitation or specify exactly when they are no longer able to consent.

If you do it, you're taking a risk. Period.



You right it can, I've agree with this before. Thing is unless there are other circumstances one drop is not going to be close in the overwhelming majority of cases.

As you have stated the law is broad, but that is not only to cover those who may only need a single drink. It is also to cover those who would be accused of rape when it was consensual.

Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:I don't recall. The court case? Because there was a problem with the court case, I posted that as an example of how the law can be applied badly.

In any case, how about you find me a court case where "drunken consensual sex" with a girl who was "lightly" inebriated turned out well. I've done a lot of legwork already showing the opposite.




It was from here...

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

...which was my link so I apologize.

A court case with a girl who was lightly inebriated and turned out well? Define turned out well because it seems to me that would be any case in which they found the girl had consented.

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

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

Friday, November 22, 2013 2:18 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

So no please cite were that is interpreted as a "one drop" rule.



Washington State Code RCW 9A.44.010

(4) "Mental incapacity" is that condition existing at the time of the offense which prevents a person from understanding the nature or consequences of the act of sexual intercourse whether that condition is produced by illness, defect, the influence of a substance or from some other cause.

And a 90 pound girl can have a blood alcohol content of 0.05% after one drink for an hour.

Why don't you post some cites? I've been citing everything up to now.

Here are various answers from lawyers around the nation.

http://www.lawqa.com/qa/will-my-friend-be-accused-of-rape-if-both-of-t
hem-were-under-influence


Here is a nytimes article about the kind of grey area stuff we've been discussing.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/gray-rape-a-new-form-of-d
ate-rape/?_r=0






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

Friday, November 22, 2013 4:20 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:

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.

This idea that a woman can voluntary go out and have a few drinks, and then voluntarily (and enthusiastically) sleep with a man, and then if she chooses to she can be a rape victim the next morning according to the law - is ridiculous. I would say it's demeaning to women, and offensive to rape victims like Alison.



1) Where do you get "women" from, again? I made it clear that I apply this to all genders. What I find demeaning is that you allege people who feel like rape victims - i.e. their capability of giving consent was misjudged, to put it kindly - are "choosing" to.

2) What I am saying is: It is extremely hard to judge exactly how inebriated a person is. That is the entirety of the problem. I choose to recommend that people err on the side of caution and just say no, instead of assuming that a person is fine until they stumble, slur and vomit. Sometimes that enthusiastic drunk person really IS unable to give true consent and if someone is stupid enough to take them up on it, they need to at least aknowledge that they are taking a legal gamble instead of insisting that they bear no responsibility if the drunk iniator considers what happened rape. I'm placing more responsibility on the potential sex partner for being cautious.

3) People who would take advantage of laws that deal with diminished ability to give consent? I'm sure we can agree: vast minority. The vast majority who would both claim to others that they have been violated and go so far as to press charges? Like genuinely feel that they have been violated. And they should have every opportunity to file charges. Disagree?

Quote:


Quote:

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.

Misery does not imply criminal behaviour.



Not always, but in this case, a lacksidaisical approach potentially leads to unintentional criminal acts.

Quote:


My problem is that you are talking about using the law, or the threat of the law, against behaviour which is not criminal, and not necessarily even unethical.



I'd say I'm using it to recommend people avoid unethical and criminal behavior.

I'm not saying you can't have sex with a drunk person. I'm saying you should be damn sure that they are capable of giving consent. Sure enough to bet legal consequences. Which, you know, you should be anyway.

Quote:

But I still say you're picking a stupid battle, and doing feminism no favours by wagging your finger and lecturing men and women who want to enjoy themselves about how to behave.



Saying "Don't sleep with people who cannot give consent, and when in doubt say no". If that's lecturing, I'm willing to wear that badge. I disagree that it's a stupid battle, though. It's just a request for common decency.

Quote:


Quote:

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.

This is what I mean. You're being a stern, feminist finger-wagger.



I'd say I'm being a humanist finger-wagger if anything. "Make sure you don't accidentally presume consent where it's potentially questionable!" Yes, I feel very sternly about that.

Quote:


Innocent people engaging in a common activity should never be at 'high risk' from the law. If they are the law is wrong.



They are not, if they are innocent. All I ask is that the apply due caution. If you don't care to be sure that your sex partner is capable of giving consent? You're not innocent.

Quote:


Quote:

But you cannot tell if they truly did (consent) until afterwards. You certainly would have a hard time proving it.

Is it up to me to prove that she consented? Surely the prosecution has to prove that she didn't?



If you want to avoid a rape charge in the first place, as opposed to battling it out in court? Just avoid the damn risk.

Quote:


Quote:

And yes, I think of someone "takes advantage" you're looking at rape.

This 'you're looking at'. If you think it's rape, say that you think it's rape.



I was under the impression that this is what "you're looking at" means. I'll rephrase for your verbal comfort: I think if someone "takes advantage" it is rape.

Quote:

Saying 'you could be charged' doesn't mean anything. A woman could hypothetically concoct a whole story and have me charged for rape her when in fact I have not even had sex with her.



As can happen with any other criminal act. Making it barely relevant to the discussion.

Quote:


For me, taking advantage is not necessarily rape (in fact it rarely is).



I'll strongly disagree here. I would say it mostly is rape. It means making use of something that places the other in a vulnerable or inferior position in order to press one's own interest. Sounds rape-y to you?

Quote:


Quote:

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.

I think we mainly disagree on what constitutes 'rape', and everything else flows from there.



I get the unfortunate impression that this is true.

Quote:

In fact I don't think you've got straight in your mind what rape is.


I do, and thank you for phrasing this so insultingly, as if only your opinion counts.

Quote:

Do you think, for e.g., that if a drunken woman initiates sex, but the next morning regrets it, that she can legitimately claim rape?



Yes. I think if a person is "drunken", you have every responsibility of turning down their advances. Unless you have reason to be absolutely sure they won't feel violated in the morning.

Also: you say "regret", as if women are driven in hordes to press charges because they feel a vague sense of dissatisfaction. They generally tend to because they genuinely feel they weren't capable of consent anymore.


I am not sure what to make of your argument other than you don't think it's your responsibility to be sure that the person you're sleeping with can give proper consent.

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

Friday, November 22, 2013 4:36 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by G:
I wasn't myself when I typed that... I'd had 2 cups of coffee and was a bit stressed from work...

Yes, I know the "sip" comment was Byte's, not yours. I agree about alcohol and fair warning to those that indulge too much on both sides.




Thanks, I really appreciate it.


Though, how can too much coffee ever be a bad thing? :)

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

Friday, November 22, 2013 8:24 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:

So no please cite were that is interpreted as a "one drop" rule.



Washington State Code RCW 9A.44.010

(4) "Mental incapacity" is that condition existing at the time of the offense which prevents a person from understanding the nature or consequences of the act of sexual intercourse whether that condition is produced by illness, defect, the influence of a substance or from some other cause.

And a 90 pound girl can have a blood alcohol content of 0.05% after one drink for an hour.

Why don't you post some cites? I've been citing everything up to now.

Here are various answers from lawyers around the nation.

http://www.lawqa.com/qa/will-my-friend-be-accused-of-rape-if-both-of-t
hem-were-under-influence


Here is a nytimes article about the kind of grey area stuff we've been discussing.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/gray-rape-a-new-form-of-d
ate-rape/?_r=0





Both of those talk about folks being to drunk to remember...which is not what we are talking about. If you can't remember the next morning pretty safe bet you could not give consent the night before. So far nothing you have posted backs up anything close to a "one drop" rule in law.

I have given citations, and in them as well as in yours it clearly states there is no line at which a person is concidared to intoxicated to give consent. You have said that yourself. It does not logiclly follow "one drop" eguals rape or that it would even be enough by itself to charge someone.

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

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

Friday, November 22, 2013 11:42 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by M52NICKERSON:

Both of those talk about folks being to drunk to remember...which is not what we are talking about. If you can't remember the next morning pretty safe bet you could not give consent the night before.



Guess what? if you CAN remember the morning after, in many cases you ALSO couldn't give consent. As it turns out, traumatic memories tend to be more easily established, and when alcohol affects the hippocampus, the memory making abilities are still functional to a point, however they can be sporadic and that is why many drunken memories are sporadic or "flickering."

However, eventually enough alcohol is in the hippocampus that new memories stop forming, so it is also true that a happy enthusiastic drunk could SEEM fully functional and "able to consent", could be moving around on their own, and yet not remember anything they did the next day. Called a memory black-out.

Quote:

I have given citations, and in them as well as in yours it clearly states there is no line at which a person is concidared to intoxicated to give consent. You have said that yourself. It does not logiclly follow "one drop" eguals rape or that it would even be enough by itself to charge someone.


DRAW A LOGICAL INFERRENCE. We're talking about interpretations of the law here, individual and situational variance, the practical reality of the issue, and how these things get reported. We're also talking about flaws in some interpretations of the law whereby "lowered inhibitions" suggests a diminished ability to comprehend the consequences of their actions! Where does that say that? Oh, the Washington law I posted.

One drink is enough for some people depending on their personal considerations and the kind of alcohol, and it's ESPECIALLY enough... IF THERE'S A ROOFIE IN IT.

And no. You posted ONE law-wiki cite that was marginally useful but which ultimately supported my position and a BLOG. You also REFUSED cites I've posted about the policies of major public institutions, REFUSED actual LEGAL cites and COURT CASES I've posted showing the issue and how it's interpretted and why it should be interpretted my way, generally moved the goal posts, and been frustrating as hell to work with because you acknowledge verify and confirm every single one of my arguments but you WON'T FOLLOW THEM TO THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION even though I have given more than enough information and examples to establish the validity of such an interpretation.

So now, after my exhaustive search, efforts, and coverage, I have asked you to dig up a legal cite about lowered inhibitions casual sex false accusations and the guy not getting convicted. And there actually are a number out there. However, I don't think you'll like how the law is applied in those cases.

Do some of your OWN research now.

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

Friday, November 22, 2013 12:04 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Wow, this is a long thread. Sorry if I'm re-introducing a topic which has already been covered but...


What if the woman is mentally retarded? Is autistic? Comes from a foreign country where language and customs are different? There are a lot more ways to screw up "consent" than just alcohol or date rape drugs.

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

Friday, November 22, 2013 12:05 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

3) People who would take advantage of laws that deal with diminished ability to give consent? I'm sure we can agree: vast minority. The vast majority who would both claim to others that they have been violated and go so far as to press charges? Like genuinely feel that they have been violated. And they should have every opportunity to file charges. Disagree?

[...]

Also: you say "regret", as if women are driven in hordes to press charges because they feel a vague sense of dissatisfaction. They generally tend to because they genuinely feel they weren't capable of consent anymore.



It has been shown, repeatedly, time and again in studies that if anything rape victims are TOO conservative in reporting crimes, whether because of shame, or because they blame themselves. Got too drunk, they held me down, but I shouldn't have been that drunk, so I'm not sure if it was rape because I deserved it. That kind of thing.

Based on scientific polls of general populations and how many said they thought they might have been sexually assaulted and how many said they then reported it, only 9% of possible rapes are ever reported.

Of that measly 9%, it is found that only 3.3% to 9% of those reports are false accusations made because of morning after regrets or motivations on part of the accuser and are never taken to court.

So in America we're talking that only 0.4% to 0.8% of all possible rapes are false accusations. And the rest of the world shows a very similar rate.

The rampant speculation among certain college groups (MRA mostly) that most reported rapes are false accusations is a direct result of lack of understanding about what constitutes rape and consent, as well as darker motivations such as intolerance. Since there's some overlap with PUAs, many members not coincidentally are also the ones who are up in arms that raping someone when they were drunk is a crime.

Enjoy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/07/10/dont-be-that-girl-posters-edmo
nton_n_3575338.html


http://journoactivist.com/2013/08/04/why-i-wont-respond-to-your-tweets
-about-false-rape-accusations
/

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

Friday, November 22, 2013 12:23 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Wow, this is a long thread. Sorry if I'm re-introducing a topic which has already been covered but...


What if the woman is mentally retarded? Is autistic? Comes from a foreign country where language and customs are different? There are a lot more ways to screw up "consent" than just alcohol or date rape drugs.



There was a little bit of coverage on that, but the alcohol thing proved controversial.

The laws I have posted cover mental conditions, including temporary impairment from alcohol or drugs, but also permanent illness from genetic or psychological disorders.

Which means, yes, according to our laws River Tam most of the time has reduced capacity to consent - if she can consent at all. *Sigh* Unless, in some places, she gets married to the person first, which is utterly questionable. If she has reduced capacity to consent before marriage, how exactly can she consent to marriage?

I haven't gotten into that with Nickerson because he likes to hook River up in his fanfics. But that is an unspoken and ongoing disagreement in this thread underlying the surface disagreement about alcohol.

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

Friday, November 22, 2013 12:39 PM

BYTEMITE


Since I brought up Firefly, here's another one: Zoe insisting that Wash have a baby with her even though he doesn't want to.

The arrangement of that scene has always bothered me, because it's clear how Joss shot it that we're supposed to side with Zoe and think that Wash is just a silly commitment-phobic male flyboy.

Who actually has very good reasons, and Zoe's reasons are TERRIBLE. "Not so afraid of losing something" that you're "afraid to have it"? Great idea, except you're talking about a living human being with free agency that could be "lost" (meaning killed). It's actually pretty selfish just on that alone.

But now Zoe is apparently pregnant in the comics, and we never saw Wash agree.

EDIT: And on Joss shows in general:

In Dollhouse, the main character Echo and an agent named Ballard hook up. Even though Echo basically has a multiple personality and memory recall disorder, sometimes with medically induced fugue states in between. And even though Ballard is actually kind of a creepy obsessed stalker.

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

Friday, November 22, 2013 12:44 PM

BYTEMITE


EDIT: Moved further up so as to not break up conversation flow

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

Friday, November 22, 2013 12:46 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by G:
To recap:

Women who want to have sex, should not drink alcohol.

Women who want to drink, should drink alone or only with people they do not find sexually attractive

Men should never buy a woman a drink if they have any sexual interest in them (could lead to some awkward diner dates).

Every man who has had consensual sex with a woman who has had any alcohol, could be a rapist.

Men should carry breathalyzers and sexual consent forms at all times, ideally with a lawyer present.

New thumb print iPhone consent app coming in 2015.



I know that's sarcastic, but seriously, minus the gender bias in your post and except for the fact that drinking alone is NEVER a good idea, that is actually the reality of the situation. Everyone has to cover their asses legally, and drinking buddies (guys and girls) should ALWAYS look out for each other and discourage hookups with strangers. It's just prudent. There are always other chances to have sex, but rape is potentially forever.

Although you can buy a girl a drink at dinner, just don't have sex with her later. If that's a problem, masturbate.

Or hell, cheat - I've never cared much about monogamy anyway, and cheating is WAY better than rape.

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

Friday, November 22, 2013 3:05 PM

AGENTROUKA


Who are you recapping, G? There's more than one participant around? I'm not sure whether to respond or if you're talking to Byte.

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

Friday, November 22, 2013 3:07 PM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Or hell, cheat - I've never cared much about monogamy anyway, and cheating is WAY better than rape.



True, certainly, except the two actions share that risk of giving an unwilling party a much enhanced STD risk.

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

Friday, November 22, 2013 3:13 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Saying "Don't sleep with people who cannot give consent, and when in doubt say no". If that's lecturing, I'm willing to wear that badge. I disagree that it's a stupid battle, though. It's just a request for common decency.


But apparently one lost on the greater bulk of the posters here.
You'd think that "When in doubt, don't whip it out" would be a universal sentiment, but alas, that would require us to be a sane society...

And no, you're not alone in maybe-just-a-little wanting to club some folk unconscious with a bag full of pennies in regards to this idiotic "conversation", that fer damn sure.

-F

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

Friday, November 22, 2013 3:41 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:


3) - Possibly this woman was taken advantage of, possibly not. Depends on exact circumstances. But not rape.


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



You are wrong with 3 and 4. Any time you are talking about heavily inebriated you are talking rape.




If that is true, in regards to #3 - I knew a lot of women in college who very deliberately went out each and every weekend to get raped.

What if they're heavily inebriated, and don't regret it later?

Regret over one's poor choices doesn't make the other party guilty of a crime.






"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

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

Friday, November 22, 2013 4:27 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Guess what? if you CAN remember the morning after, in many cases you ALSO couldn't give consent. As it turns out, traumatic memories tend to be more easily established, and when alcohol affects the hippocampus, the memory making abilities are still functional to a point, however they can be sporadic and that is why many drunken memories are sporadic or "flickering."

However, eventually enough alcohol is in the hippocampus that new memories stop forming, so it is also true that a happy enthusiastic drunk could SEEM fully functional and "able to consent", could be moving around on their own, and yet not remember anything they did the next day. Called a memory black-out.



Thank you for the long and completely unnecessary explanation against something I did not even come close to claiming. It is like you are trying to build strawmen.


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
DRAW A LOGICAL INFERRENCE. We're talking about interpretations of the law here, individual and situational variance, the practical reality of the issue, and how these things get reported. We're also talking about flaws in some interpretations of the law whereby "lowered inhibitions" suggests a diminished ability to comprehend the consequences of their actions! Where does that say that? Oh, the Washington law I posted.



Here is you Washing Law Citation...

Washington State Code RCW 9A.44.010

(4) "Mental incapacity" is that condition existing at the time of the offense which prevents a person from understanding the nature or consequences of the act of sexual intercourse whether that condition is produced by illness, defect, the influence of a substance or from some other cause.

It does not say that "lowered inhibitions" suggests a diminished ability to comprehend the consequences of their actions. I think you are just reading what you want to see at this point.

Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
One drink is enough for some people depending on their personal considerations and the kind of alcohol, and it's ESPECIALLY enough... IF THERE'S A ROOFIE IN IT.



Well no shit Sherlock! We've discussed this before and I agree with on it. Yet you keep bringing it up as if I don't or that it somehow changes things in regards to people who can drink more than one and be fine.

Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
And no. You posted ONE law-wiki cite that was marginally useful but which ultimately supported my position and a BLOG. You also REFUSED cites I've posted about the policies of major public institutions, REFUSED actual LEGAL cites and COURT CASES I've posted showing the issue and how it's interpretted and why it should be interpretted my way, generally moved the goal posts, and been frustrating as hell to work with because you acknowledge verify and confirm every single one of my arguments but you WON'T FOLLOW THEM TO THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION even though I have given more than enough information and examples to establish the validity of such an interpretation.



The only one have some type of logical disconnect is you. Only one of your citation talks about a "one drop" policy. Which makes sense seeing the problems they have been having with sexual assault. Everything else you have posted talks about not understanding what they are doing, or unable to say no. A person can have lower inhibition and still know what they are doing, and you have not in anyway shown otherwise.

Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
So now, after my exhaustive search, efforts, and coverage, I have asked you to dig up a legal cite about lowered inhibitions casual sex false accusations and the guy not getting convicted. And there actually are a number out there. However, I don't think you'll like how the law is applied in those cases.

Do some of your OWN research now.



I can't find any individual case regarding lowered inhibitions. That makes sense because I have said that I doubt many would ever go to trial.

I did find this...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&a
mp;source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mysati.com%2FDownloads%2FCWLR.doc&ei=4MmPUvOVG42pkAfGloCQAw&usg=AFQjCNHe-zH3iLbAon-pJxETVRX4UTtWUw&bvm=bv.56988011,d.eW0


In which it talks about rape case law in a few states including New Jersey were a women whom is voluntary intoxicated can give consent regardless of how intoxicated she gets.

The one I like the most is from California Case Law and states "The statute does not require that a victim become so intoxicated that she is physically unable to speak or display a lack of actual consent. However, mere intoxication “to some degree,” or intoxication that “reduced the [woman’s] sexual inhibitions” is not sufficient. "

That comes from here...

http://www.forecite.com/CALJIC_ReviewsRevisions/CALJICRevisionHistory7
thEd03.aspx



Which are California Jury instructions. That is right juries are told that by law It is not enough that the alleged victim was [intoxicated] [IMPAIRED BY THE [ANESTHETIC] [CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE] to some degree, or that the [intoxication] [ANESTHETIC] [CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE] reduced the person’s sexual inhibitions.

That means you are incorrect in saying that lowered inhibitions are the same as non-consent do to impairment. Plus not one mention of a “single drop” policy.

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

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

Friday, November 22, 2013 4:32 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
If that is true, in regards to #3 - I knew a lot of women in college who very deliberately went out each and every weekend to get raped.

What if they're heavily inebriated, and don't regret it later?

Regret over one's poor choices doesn't make the other party guilty of a crime.



That is the fun with the laws and this whole conversation. I would say that a women who is heavly inebriated can not consent and therefore a man that has sex with her is talking a chance.

New Jerery law states differnt they say that a women who volentarily get drunk can give consent because she made the choice to drink as much as she did.

Check this paper out...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&a
mp;source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mysati.com%2FDownloads%2FCWLR.doc&ei=4MmPUvOVG42pkAfGloCQAw&usg=AFQjCNHe-zH3iLbAon-pJxETVRX4UTtWUw&bvm=bv.56988011,d.eW0


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

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

Friday, November 22, 2013 5:55 PM

KPO

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


Quote:

1) Where do you get "women" from, again? I made it clear that I apply this to all genders.

I know. But the reality is that most rapes are done by men against women, and most rape accusations by women against men. That's why we're all talking in those terms.

Quote:

Quote:
In fact I don't think you've got straight in your mind what rape is.


I do, and thank you for phrasing this so insultingly, as if only your opinion counts.


I wasn't trying to insult you, I was making a genuine point. You haven't spelled out what constitutes rape (or consent) in your book. It seems mostly to come down to how the woman 'feels' afterwards (or in the morning when she wakes up). Can you describe what level of intoxication there has to be before consent is impossible? Do you agree with Byte that if a woman makes a decision under the influence, that is different to what she would have done sober, then there was no true consent?

Quote:

I am not sure what to make of your argument other than you don't think it's your responsibility to be sure that the person you're sleeping with can give proper consent.

We disagree massively on what constitutes consent. If you're going to paraphrase me, can you stick to words we agree on? In other words, no more horrifying statements like the above!

Quote:

If that's lecturing, I'm willing to wear that badge. I disagree that it's a stupid battle, though. It's just a request for common decency.

It's not a request. It's a stern warning - with the threat of the law behind it. And it feels like moral policing. You called getting drunk at parties and having sex a 'high risk' (legal) behaviour. Trust me: as a feminist, don't pick these fights. You know what reputation feminists have.

Quote:

People who would take advantage of laws that deal with diminished ability to give consent? I'm sure we can agree: vast minority.

Yes, that's partly because the laws are not written as badly as you and Byte are talking about, I would say. More on this below.

Quote:

The vast majority who would both claim to others that they have been violated and go so far as to press charges? Like genuinely feel that they have been violated. And they should have every opportunity to file charges.

I find it chilling that your definition of rape seems to come down to what the woman feels afterwards. Or that this is the acid test, or whatever. Not because I don't care about women's feelings, or am contemptuous of them. But there are many reasons a woman might feel violated. If, say, the man lied to her, to get her in the sack. Or withheld that he had a wife. Or if he was rude to her during, after previously being such a nice guy... None of those are rape. But they could easily add up to a rape charge, in your world. They could be the difference between a woman being happy with her drunken sexual encounter, and feeling 'violated'.

Quote:

It (taking advantage) means making use of something that places the other in a vulnerable or inferior position in order to press one's own interest. Sounds rape-y to you?

Somewhat. But taking advantage also includes scenarios such as an incredibly hot, slightly soused woman coming onto a man who ordinarily wouldn't have had a chance, and seducing him... The man IS taking advantage if he sleeps with her, but it's fundamentally different to the scenarios you're describing. This man was weak, and tempted - not predatory. To call him a rapist... well, most men will hear that and think there but for the grace of God go I... I guess here I'm trying to explain to you that you put men on the defensive when you talk about making rape laws so strict. We stop thinking about 'real' rape victims, and their protection, and start thinking about your laws penalising US. If you can possibly stomach us as allies in the fight against rape, consider having us.

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

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

Friday, November 22, 2013 6:06 PM

KPO

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


Lol, G.

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

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

Friday, November 22, 2013 7:09 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Well no shit Sherlock! We've discussed this before and I agree with on it. Yet you keep bringing it up as if I don't or that it somehow changes things in regards to people who can drink more than one and be fine.



And you understand why the law is broad enough to cover those cases where one drink is enough, and yet you are unable to then make the logical inference that if you have sex with ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE you could potentially be charged. As such, the rule of thumb is, don't sleep with ANYONE who has been drinking because you don't know how the alcohol will effect them or if they've taken other drugs and you could end up charged. Ergo, a "one drink" or "one drop" rule, that some courts will convict based on.

Again. This REALLY is not that hard.

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

Friday, November 22, 2013 7:20 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:


I know. But the reality is that most rapes are done by men against women, and most rape accusations by women against men. That's why we're all talking in those terms.



Ehhh... You really should focus on both. There's a lot of stuff that goes on in prison against males. In fact in America there's more prisoner rape than there is regular rape, it's just not as observable.

The numbers break down was 216,000 victims of prison rape per year in 2008, with 213,000 victims outside prison. 9/10s of the ones outside prison are women. Predominantly, females in person mostly suffer inmate on inmate rapes. Male prisoners mostly suffer rapes from prison staff.

From this, however, you should not disregard male rape victims. You also shouldn't disregard rape among the gay male scene.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/mar/24/prison-rape-and-g
overnment/?pagination=false


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_rape

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/dec/21/ukcrime.gender

Quote:

Trust me: as a feminist, don't pick these fights. You know what reputation feminists have.


I'm not picking this fight for women. I'm picking it for everyone. Everything I've been saying goes equally for guys and girls. Sounds to me like AR was too.

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

Friday, November 22, 2013 8:38 PM

KPO

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


Quote:

I'm not picking this fight for women. I'm picking it for everyone.

The kind of things we're talking about - alcohol and consent - doesn't really apply to prison rape... In date rape/acquaintance rape, the victims are predominantly female, and a lot of the activism directed against it comes from a feminist place.

Quote:

Everything I've been saying goes equally for guys and girls.

I know what you mean, but in reality no. If we make rape laws ultra-strict, we're talking about more men going to prison, not more women (or disproportionate amounts).

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

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

Friday, November 22, 2013 9:23 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

If we make rape laws ultra-strict, we're talking about more men going to prison, not more women (or disproportionate amounts).


The laws are already like this, it depends on the judges and the lawyers and the jury and what's reported if people are convicted.

I can't yell out into the world and make people respect each other and treat each other better. I don't have that power. I'm not even that good at it myself. All I can do is talk to a few people at a time. That's a drop in the sea. The numbers while I'm here and after I'm gone will be exactly the same. Statistical insignificance.

Quote:

In date rape/acquaintance rape, the victims are predominantly female, and a lot of the activism directed against it comes from a feminist place.



Ever occurred to you that if the guy and the girl are drunk, it's kinda questionable? Ever heard of a guy who woke up with no memory of the last night, to a girl he realizes he wasn't attracted to?

They don't report it as rape because they figure "I'm a guy, this happens to guys." Even though it is unsettling as hell, and they're discomfited by it. And then it gets worse if someone comes at them with a baby trap.

If you think about it, with drinking, there has to be pretty equal gender proportions of sketchy stuff going on. That might not be the case for stuff like roofies, I don't hear much about girls using them on people, but EVERYONE uses alcohol. It's the most common date rape drug.

And then there's gay guys.

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

Friday, November 22, 2013 10:04 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
And you understand why the law is broad enough to cover those cases where one drink is enough, and yet you are unable to then make the logical inference that if you have sex with ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE you could potentially be charged. As such, the rule of thumb is, don't sleep with ANYONE who has been drinking because you don't know how the alcohol will effect them or if they've taken other drugs and you could end up charged. Ergo, a "one drink" or "one drop" rule, that some courts will convict based on.

Again. This REALLY is not that hard.



I understand it is possible to be charged based on having sex with someone that had a single drink. Just as it is possible to be charged after having sex with someone that had no drinks and at the time consented, or even someone you never had sex with but tells a convincing story.

You have failed to show any court that would convict based on a "one drop rule." As I have stated before you would have to have some other circumstances or it is not going to happen.

You ignored the rest of my post which literally says that it takes more than just having a drink.

At this point you are being wholly disingenuous.

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)
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:54 - 3414 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:49 - 11 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:45 - 56 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:33 - 2075 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 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
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
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

FFF.NET SOCIAL