I think what you are assuming here is that the other person involved was as asute and as sober as you were. It amazes me how oblivious to the obvious people can be when they were sober. Add alcohol to the mix and I think you could pretty easily have had someone in your place who honestly thought Hildegard was coming on to them, and that as long as she continued to respond to their advances that she consented to sex–I don’t mean went back to her place and passed out, but continued touching, stroking, kissing, undressing herself and the other person, clear signs of sexual interest, none of which she later remembered. If you had had a couple yourself you would have been much less sensitive to the alcohol on her breath, and serious drinkers can appear amazingly coherent when they are really three sheets to the wind. In this case, I don’t think that the other guy would be a rapist, perhaps not even sleazy if in his mind drunken one night stands were good clean fun and nothing to be ashamed of for anyone, male or female.
How about this: perhaps it is possible to have a rape without a rapist? That way we do not minimize what is a genuinely tramatic experience, but we do not demand that someone be branded by the second-worst ephitit in the English language when they acted in good faith. I do believe such a thing is possible, though of course it is not the case in the vast majority of rape cases.
I guess what I am trying to say is that we here at the SDMB are a biased sample: we are all Good Communicators, so this seems so simple to us. I know many people, male and female, who are very Poor Communicators, and poor communication can lead to tragedy. I do think the answer to this question is to teach kids to be better communicators, but as long as we live in a society where some people both male and female cannot bring themselves to talk about sex, especially with people of the opposite sex, we will continue to have tragedies occur.
Badtz, my brother, you do not seem to see the irony here. If you were to punish the offender, then you would be taken to court as a defendant. And you would be guilty, the guilt of the ‘offender’ not withstanding. And how would you punish them? Beat them up? What if they are bigger and badder than you? Shoot them, perhaps even kill them? Might someone want retribution from you then?
This is why we have courts. So that the guilty are punished and outraged kinfolk don’t have to go out and seek justice and maybe get the poo stomped out of them in the process and that they don’t end up at the end of rope.
Guys that pull this shit are predators. They should be dragged into court.
BTW, Wring seems to remember the incident very well. There are some memories even booze doesn’t cover up.
I know I would be breaking the law, but I have legality and morality very separate in my mind. Sometimes the right thing to do is not legal, and sometimes the legal thing to do is not right. I’d rather live in a world with clear-cut and fair laws where some wrongs have to be addressed personally than one where the government has the power to punish someone for a wrongdoing that is ambiguously defined or that cannot be proven to my satisfaction. In the case where I was wrongfully accused of a crime that there was 0 evidence for, I’d rather deal with misled relatives of the supposed victim than a legal system that has been empowered to imprison me on the basis of one person’s testimony of events she cannot remember.
And today, in our justice system, wring’s case would never make it to court. Back then, it wouldn’t even be investigated. But clearly, she was wronged.
What is the harm of an investigation? Or of a trial? This ‘pal’ may have a history of such actions. There may several others whom he treated the same way. Then we have a pattern, and not just one persons memory as evidence. Maybe this was ‘pal’'s first offense. A trial, or an investigation, may convince him he was wrong and change his views, if not resulting in a conviction.
Or maybe I’m just talking out of my ass.
But Badtz, by saying this, you’re assuming that not everyone would be infuriated at this kind of behavior from somebody. You say that you would want this person to be punished, to the extent that you would do it yourself. But who in their right minds wouldn’t want the offender to be brought to justice?
I’d like to think that in almost every case of this type of assault, the victim and the family members would be outraged enough to seek justice. That is what the law is for: to keep people from taking justice into their own hands. I think that if a law reflects the feelings of the vast majority of people, then it is pretty damn “clear-cut”.
Your argument seems to be that “I agree that it’s wrong, and I think that the person should be punished, but I don’t think that the law should do the punishing.” Why shouldn’t it? Are you operating on a higher moral plane than everybody else, so that only you would be offended by this crime? I don’t think so. Anyone with common decency would be offended. And that’s why the laws are there.
You understand Badtz that your position on the issue (regarding ‘if the victim is unable to remember the assault’) means that those who have been attacked while under the influence of Rhyiponal (sp? - the socalled ‘date rape drug’?) wouldn’t see their attackers in court, right? The drug itself, of course disappears quickly, the victim will show signs of having had sex, not necessarily forced (since they’re unconscious), no sign of the drug. The evidence is the woman who doesn’t remember anything at all, and the fact that some one had sex with her. Course, in the one case where the 14 year old female died of the drug, they were able to show it’s presence.
another thing
when would a ‘clear cut and fair law’ ever bring about a situation where the only recourse would be from the family of the victim? In addition, won’t the family of the false victim also feel the moral outrage? You’d rather face the dad (for example) than a courtroom and a judge? And, frankly, often the ‘proof’ is not to the satisfaction of the defendant - that’s an unreasonably harsh standard to attempt to uphold.
spooje -actually, a similar case to mine did go to court recently in MI -the major difference being (and probably the biggest reason it went to court) the male was a coach at MSU, the female was underaged. He took her to a bar, ordered for her “Long Island Ice Tea”, she had several, and passed out. She said she didn’t know the drinks were alcoholic (the name, the sweetness of it etc.), and certainly, being only 19 and a non drinker, didn’t know what effect a few LIIT’s would have on her. She woke up to find him on/in her. He was convicted. Probably, as I say, 'cause he was 40, married etc., vs. her 19.
To further illustrate wring’s well-stated point: Once when I was a college student, this guy I knew had gotten some fried zucchini from a takeout place.
Him: “You want one of these?”
Me: “No thanks.”
Him: “Have you ever tried one?”
Me: “Don’t want to; thanks anyway.”
Him: “They’re hot…”
Me: “No thank you.”
Him: “Piping hot…”
Me: “No.”
Him: “Fresh from the fryer…”
Me: “NO!”
Him: “They’re reeeeeally good!”
Me: “Respect. My. Wishes!!!”*
After it had all calmed down, I explained to him: “Look, when I say no, I mean no. I am sick of guys trying to wear me down until I say, ‘Ohhhhh, all right…’. I know this was only about zucchini, but if I said, ‘Ohhhhh, all right…’ every time a guy pushed me, I could end up saying ‘Ohhhhh, all right…’ on my knees in a fucking van.”
*Of course, what guy is going to take “Respect my wishes” seriously. Us girls are so cute when we’re stubborn, like we really have the right. If I had it to do over, I would have said, “Do you have a hearing problem?” But it’s not up to the female to think of the perfect remark; it’s up to the male to accept “No”.
Badtz, I’m confused by your stance here.
First, you’re saying that if the drunken scenario took place to a random male and female, it wouldn’t be rape, you shouldn’t punish him, and you shouldn’t take the female’s word for what happened. But you’re saying that if the exact same situation happened with, say, your sister, now you’d want to exact vengence? Why? What is so special about her story that suddenly the same innocent act now becomes worthy of retribution?
Second, I’m not grasping your whole vigilante stance. If you were put in the position of the accused, you’d rather have to watch your back in fear of some pissed off family member imposing a death penalty on you, an innocent party, than have your day in court to prove your innocence? Only one of them will at least give you the opportunity to tell your side of the story. Wanna guess which?
Also, on the opposite side, **KellyM, **, I’m having a hard time accepting that your experience was rape. You had a person who claimed to be a police officer, but wasn’t, convince you to have sex with him or else you’d be busted for drug possession. I’ll grant you the guy was sleezy. I’m sure he broke a few laws. But I don’t think rape was among them. Even if he was a real officer, I think the best you could get would be statutory rape. He didn’t force you to have sex with him. He said “have sex with me or I’ll bust you for drugs.” That’s not the same as pinning you down and it’s not the same as saying “Have sex with me or I’ll set your puppy on fire.” You had the choice to say “OK, I choose not to have sex with you. Arrest me.”
That’s absurd; not remembering has nothing to do with it. I don’t remember giving consent the first time I had sex. It’s not rape.
The test of intoxication and consent is whether consent was freely given, period. A person can be drunk and given consent; drunk sex is not always rape. For the event to be rape the person being raped must be SO intoxicated that they are literally incapable of assenting to something - in other words they pretty much have to be drooling or unconscious. You can be pretty drunk and still be capable of giving consent, and saying “I don’t remember!” the next day is of NO relevance. The line between rape/no rape is not drawn at the first drink, or at any particular drink, for that matter.
Or would you suggest we lock up anyone who lets his date have wine with dinner?
The only way I could agree with that would be if the female started the evening thinking that she was open to the idea of having sex with that particular male. If she doesn’t remember saying “yes”, then her “consent” meant nothing. Originally posted by RickJay**
Two non-sexual examples here.
—Mike Royko, the late newspaper columnist, was terrified of flying. In 1978, he wrote a column about an incident where he’d absolutely had to get from Chicago to DC, and flying was his only choice. He had six martinis, got on the plane, made a complete ass of himself, and landed in DC much the worse for wear. In fact, it might have been better to have stayed in Chicago. Years later, he said in another column that someone had read this as proof that he’d recovered from his fear of flying. He responded, “After six martinis, I would be equally willing to ride a bull or a python.”
—There was a thread last year about drunk driving. Poster A stated that “Some people can drive just as well when they’re drunk”. Poster B said, “Ever been to a karaoke bar? People think they can sing when they’re drunk too.”
It seems like it’s okay to laugh at a drunk karaoke singer, on the grounds that “He doesn’t even know he’s not on the beat, let alone the key.” But a drunk woman accompanied by a man presumably knows what she’s doing, and what’s being done to her, at all times. :rolleyes:
Rilchiam,
Your analogies don’t exactly work. The question should not be “is he no longer afraid of flying?” There are two possible questions to ask:
Did he consent to the flying?
Is he, or would he have been, responsible for the actions he took on the plane while intoxicated?
The answers to both of them are yes.
No, a man should not take advantage of a woman who is obviously too intoxicated to know better. But he also shouldn’t be required to give his date a breathalizer and the woman should learn to accept responsibility for her actions.
As I asked in the previous page and I’ll reiterate now, why does it seem that sex is something a man does but something that happens to a woman?
I simply fail to understand how the “alcohol responsibility” gene has latched onto the Y chromosome only.
Okay, I know this is copyrighted, but I think I can get away with an excerpt.
*“Get drunk,” [friend] said. “I’ll bet you can do it if you try.”
“Waiter, a double martini.” From this point on, [Royko said], I’m fuzzy on details. But about three hours later, we were lurching in and out of this cab. [snip] “Is this the waiting lounge?”
“This is the inside of the airplane.”*
I doubt that can be called consent.
During the flight, he propositioned the flight attendant (female), insulted Muhammad Ali, made a very bad impression with a hotshot on the Daily News, by which he was employed, and generally annoyed the heck out of everyone in first class. He strongly implied that he would have done none of those things if he had been sober.
The way I interpret it, a person is responsible for getting drunk in the first place, thereby putting themself in a postion where they can’t make informed decisions. This is not the same as saying that a person will make the same decisions while drunk that they would while sober*.
Furthermore, please do not forget the woefully common scenario of a male fixing a female a drink that is way too strong, or drugging her drink. That does happen, and when it does, it negates the defense of “But she chose to drink!”
*I don’t know if this is true in every state, but in Pennsylvania, bars and liquor stores are closed on election days (unless the bar has a food license). What does that tell you?
It absolutely can. The columnist wanted to get on the airplane. He drank himself silly to have the courage to get on the airplane. He bought the ticket, or, at the very least, accepted the newspaper’s offer of buying a ticket for him.
That he doesn’t remember how he got on the airplane doesn’t negate the fact that he never once said no.
If the friend knew he didn’t want to get on the airplane, and he passed out and the friend carried him on the airplane, now we’ve got an entirely different scenario. It ranks up there with drugging the alcohol to have sex which I’ve never once denied is rape.
Had he ended up slapping the waitress and being brought up on charges, being drunk would not have been a defense. Had he gone into the cockpit and tried to land the plane, being drunk would not be a defense. Had he not gotten on the plane, but instead driven home from the airport and crashed his car, being drunk would not be a defense.
You drink the alcohol, you accept the responsibility. That he would never have done any of those things without alcohol does not mean he shouldn’t accept the consequences for choosing to do them drunk.
Let me reiterate: “remembering” is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the issue. Nothing at all.
What matters here is whether or not consent was given. REMEMBERING what happened later doesn’t change whether or not consent was freely given. It’s also impossible to prove whether or not something is “Remembered” and hence is a worthless test, legally speaking.
Example 1: you are out for a few drinks and meet a nice young lady at the bar. She’s not drunk and is in full command of her faculties. She and you go back to her place and have consensual sex. She gets up to go the the bathroom and trips on something and whomps her head on her dresser. She has a lump but seems okay, so you two laugh it off and go to sleep. Except she actually got a slight concussion and the next morning she can’t remember anything after coming home with you - including giving consent to sex. So did you rape her?
Example 2: You take the same lady home, have consensual sex, and then AFTER having sex you both drink some booze and do some recreational drugs. The next morning she cannot remember what happened. Did you rape her?
Example 3: Either of the above two scenarios, except NEITHER of you remembers what happened. Are you BOTH rapists?
And how exactly is the guy supposed to know if the girl’s going to remember it the next day? Not everybody reacts to alcohol the same way. Some people can get very drunk off a glass of wine, some can have a dozen pints and still be reasonably OK. Sometimes people seem a lot more in control of themselves than they are, sometimes they seem less. You’re asking men to do the impossible here, Kelly.
OK, here’s what I originally said, I think the scenario I am discussing has kinda faded from memory…
I am talking about two scenarios here where I don’t think it should be taken to court yet I consider the wrongdoer deserves retribution. One is where the woman has no memory of what happened. If my sister tells me she got drunk and she’s pretty sure she had sex, but can’t remember it, there’s no evidence of a crime. There is definitely the possibility she WAS raped (either physically threatened, overpowered, or raped while unconscious) but since she can’t remember there’s really not much of a case unless the guy confesses. Very little chance of the guy being found guilty, and there is also the chance that he did not do any of those things, but instead just talked her into having sex with him - SHE DOESN’T REMEMBER. The other scenario I mentioned is where she was nagged into it (successfully in part due to her alcohol-weakened willpower) or threatened with some kind of social ostracism, and she remembers it. I do not consider this rape, she DID consent, though under the influence. It IS an assholish thing to do, and when someone does something like that to a loved one, I feel like it is morally right (though not legal) to retaliate.
Regarding what KellyM talked about, I think that falls into the same category, though a crime was committed (impersonating a police officer). I’d be all for reporting him for that, but would retaliate for the sex under duress personally.
As to what I would rather face, legal consequences or vigilante justice - as a fairly decent person there’s not much chance of me facing either. I’ve turned women down because they were too drunk.