No, he said if she wants it he doesn’t care how she wants it, which implies that drugs/magic powers/alien technology/general heavyhanded seduction that changes what the person wants is okay. I know we’re talking about a purely hypothetical situation here but I’d still like the distinction to be made. It’s like the first episode of Torchwood where Owen sprays himself with some kind of alien tech spray and suddenly the uninterested woman he’s talking to is overcome with lust. There was a HUGE argument in the Torchwood/Who community as to whether that was an alien equivalent of rohypnol.
That’s what I wanted to say as well. “She wants it because you slipped her some X. Still OK ?”
Did she want the X?
Regret does not equal rape. It is perfectly possible to give consent, have consensual sex, and still regret it the next morning, the next week, or the next year. I would hazard a guess that this is mostly due to not judging the weight of the likely consequences accurately.
If I tell a guy, “hey, I’d like to have sex with you, but you should know that I have herpes,” and he agrees to have sex with me, it is not sex. He may, however, discover ten days later, that the precautions we took were not enough, and he is now infected with HSV. Dollars to donuts, he’s really regretting having sex with me. Doesn’t mean I raped him.
To my mind, consent is made up of several factors:
- is the person in question old enough to give meaningful consent? Currently, we judge this by calendar years. I hope someday, we’ll judge it by brain development.
- is the person fully informed of the risks? Having sex with a person who doesn’t understand it can lead to pregnancy is a very, very bad idea. Not telling your partner you have a sexually transmitted infection is akin to battery, and in some jurisdictions, is a prosecutable offense.
- is the person currently competent to make such a decision? If a person cannot legally drive a car because of alcohol or drug consumption, dear Og, do NOT have sex with them.
- has the person said “yes” of their own free will?
The Jedi Mind trick voids consent, as the person is no longer saying yes of their own free will. However, hitting on someone, playing on their insecurities, or manipulating their emotions in order to get them to agree to sex is not rape. It’s despicable and should get you shunned for a very long time, but it’s not rape.
To call that kind of manipulation rape is an insult to those who have suffered forcible rape. They never said yes. They were never given a chance to say yes. To call that kind of manipulation rape is also an insult to the person manipulated. It infantalizes them. It takes away their ability to give meaningful consent, and it deprives them of the necessary right to experience the consequences of their actions, for good or for bad.
Does it really matter, assuming she didn’t want to jump your bones before taking the X ?
Okay, granted, but in the real world, we don’t have Jedi mind tricks or magical aphrodisiacs. Is it even possible to give someone something that will make them say yes when they ordinarily wouldn’t? I know alcohol lowers inhibitions, but it doesn’t force you against your will to do things. Here in the real world, if a woman is of sound mind and of age, and enthusiastically says, “Yes!” what reasons would there be for saying this might be rape?
Er… what? Jedi mind tricks ≠ a few drinks and feeling down.
No, it’s not rape. At most it’s regrettable sex and at least one of them felt gross the next day. Or maybe it helped the hypothetical woman get her mind off her life for a while. Who knows? Certainly everyone should look for enthusiastic consent, and men and women do turn down people when they feel their mind/heart isn’t into it, but unless you’re a mind reader, what can you do if your partner has said ‘yes’ to sex and doesn’t show any signs of protest or withdrawing consent?
I see your point. So what’d you call that “grey” area going from morally-ambiguous-at-best to downright_despicable which lies between full, honest to God consent and forcible rape ?
See, what I like about “rape” is that, while it’s probably much too strong a word for that, it does a very good job of conveying the message that no, it’s not OK, it’s never OK and it never will be OK. There are few epithets more universally reviled than “rapist”, and way too many guys who (disingenuously or not) will say “she didn’t say no, that’s good enough for me”.
But we’re not discussing the real world, we’re discussing a hypothetical situation where the JMT exists. I’m not tring to be cute, my response would be completely different if we were discussing honest-to-god reality.
Well, the OP said that if the JMT is rape, then is there any equivalent to it (i.e., being charming, buying a woman drinks, using flattery, when she’s feeling depressed)? So, yes, in a world where there is a JMT, “yes” could mean “no.” But in a world where the closest thing we have to JMT is being nice to a woman, then every guy at a singles night is a rapist, no?
I think a principle requirement of rape is that the person feels violated. Regardless of why you consent, if you genuinely believe that you’re consenting because you want to, it’s not rape.
Guys - we’re in serious danger of being dumped in GD if we continue this way, and then people will start quoting the dictionary, dispute the meaning of commonly understood words and begin doing line-by-line quoting. Do we really want that?
Well, it is becoming an interesting discussion. Nothing with “rape” in the title stays out of GD (or the Pit) for long, eh?
I think you don’t know what the word “rape” means if you genuinely believe it applies to any situation where one person took deliberate action that led to sex, and that you are similarly vague on the word “choice” if you think that the woman’s decision to consent to sex “was really dictated by the guy making himself available”.* I don’t see what imaginary psychic powers from Star Wars have to do with whether or not the scenario you described is rape, either. It’s a pretty muddled OP in general.
The only charitable interpretation I can make here is that you are really trying to get at a much bigger philosophical question: How can free will exist in a deterministic universe? Can we really be said to have chosen anything, or is it all the inevitable result of causality? But that’s a topic better suited to GD. If you start a thread on the subject there I’d strongly recommend framing it in a different manner, without the rape or the Jedis.
If you are really just concerned with what constituents rape in real life, I’d suggest restating your question without any tortured science-fiction analogies. I can’t even tell what your thread title question is supposed to refer to, the “man buys woman a drink” scenario or the “Jedi controls Jessica Alba’s mind” scenario…and it looks like other posters are similarly confused.
*EDIT: I won’t quote the dictionary YET, but I’m not making any promises for the future. 
Man, I should have moved to France after I got out of college…
(knows it’s a whoosh)
So if a doctor has sex with a patient while she’s under general anesthetic and she never finds out about it, no crime has occured? And if she does find out about it, at that moment, a crime occurs retroactively?
Of course it matters. If you voluntarily take a judgement impairing substance, you’re responsible for your decisions, just like the drunk who’s sure he’s a great driver. If someone slips you an intoxicant, you’re not responsible, even for decsions that result in many deaths.
I’m probably missing the point of this whoosh, but surely you’re aware that there are some very attractive women who will manipulate lonely stupid men, for anything from a free drink to killing her husband.
Of course, but that doesn’t absolve whoever takes advantage of your intoxicated self, does it ? If he/she doesn’t show any interest, then pops a pill, then shows interest, it’s pretty clear the interest is pill-based, and thus that basing your assessment of the validity of his/her consent on a clearly impaired judgment is dishonest, no ?
Otherwise, it’d be perfectly OK for a fratboy to have sex with a passed out drunk chick at a party cause hey, she’s the one who drank, should have been more careful (note that this example is just as valid with genders reversed, or same genders, though good luck with getting a dead drunk guy hard :p).
I think it’s a matter of degree. But having a little experience in the area, I don’t think any intoxicant could make me do anything I really didn’t want to do, though it might have killed that little voice saying “that’s a really bad idea, Larry.” Obviously somebody who molests a passed out person is committing sexual assault or rape. However if it’s someone who’s up and about going “whoo-hoo let’s screw” I can’t see that she (or he) can cry rape when they wake up and regret it.
Again I think if the person has the power to say no and walk away it isn’t rape. Someone passed out doesn’t have that power. Someone who’s had a bit more than they should does.
I suppose in my mind the question is the extent to which the mind trick’d person is still the same person or not. If someone impelled a person to have sex with them, the impulsed person is perfectly happy and willing to give consent, but the un-impulsed person wouldn’t be and won’t be later. Likewise, a person who gets incredibly drunk may be happy to give consent, and then wake up and regret it very much later.
With alcohol, we seem to draw a line of difference, but it’s not entirely clear cut. Someone zonked out of their heads is clearly not able to give consent; someone who’s had a sip of beer would seem to be the opposite. Where in that spectrum does the JMT lie? I’d say there was a considerable change - the tricked person is now entirely incapable of saying no, which seems a big enough difference to me to be a clear case of rape. So what about charm, flattery, and drink mixed together? Arguably charm and flattery don’t change a person, but instead create a reaction which is entirely in keeping with that person’s personality. If you think of a potential partner as like a computer (which is sure to get you a lot of game :p), charm and flattery are like typing in messages; the responses you get are part of the programming of the system. Alcohol and the JMT are like rewriting that programming, so that your messages get a different response.