You personally attack me as a lawyer, yet you still post this absolute twaddle from a law professor who looks for sexual assault charges against two drunk people who have sex?
I know that would be a neo-feminist’s dream, but how about we just stick to the facts of the Spacey allegation in which this alleged victim had the faculties to pull out his phone, activate his video camera, and chat with his girlfriend.
Those actions indicate that under any standard of “too intoxicated to consent” he wasn’t that. As someone (like all of us) who wants to protect victims of sexual assault, don’t protect this asshole looking for a pay day by pretending to be such a victim. It cheapens real victims.
I think you must have misunderstood the cite you’re referencing. You sound as though you believe the quoted law professor expert on “the regulation of intimate behavior and gender roles” is in favor of situations where both parties in the same drunken sexual encounter try to press sexual assault charges against each other.
That’s not at all what the quote, or the linked article, said. The professor looked for case-law instances of such situations to illustrate how tangled and confusing the legal aspects of alcohol-and-consent issues can be, not to argue that such situations would be a good thing.
Well, you’re the one who went off on the tangent about whether Spacey’s own drunkenness should excuse his behavior. If you now prefer to stick to the facts because your tangent wasn’t as rhetorically effective as you hoped, fine, but don’t try to put the blame on other people for going off-topic.
I have no interest in “protecting” or defending any accuser of Spacey, as I don’t know any of the facts of any of his alleged assaults. I was just clearing up your confusion about the difference between drunkenness as a valid excuse for not being capable of giving consent, and drunkenness as a specious justification for not being held responsible for committing a crime.
My point was made in response to the “enthusiastic” consent argument and that one is guilty of sexual assault in all cases where a mistake was made regarding consent.
Consent does not have to be given enthusiastically. If my wife or girlfriend is asking for sex and I’m tired or my heart isn’t really into it, I can still consent even though I would rather watch the History Channel. There is nothing illegal about that.
The second point that was made that it is up to the initiator of any sexual activity to make one hundred percent sure that the other person wants that particular contact upon pain of imprisonment is simply not accurate. That is not how society works.
On a first or second date, if I want to kiss a woman, I do not ask her to sign a consent form or ask her if I may kiss her. It happens how it has happened for thousands of years. You look into someone’s eyes and you slowly lean forward and kiss her. If she does not want to kiss you, she turns her head and says no. When your mouth touches the side of her face, you did not commit a battery.
Of course, reasonableness plays a part in this. If I am making out with a woman and gently touch her breast and she then says no, I likely did not commit a sexual assault. If I grab a random woman who is walking down the street and touch her breast, I almost certainly did, even though the women in both situations did not want her breasts to be touched. A part of this reasonableness is the situation and, indeed, the alcohol consumed by each party.
You misunderstood - I was not suggesting enthusiastic consent was legally required. I was suggesting that enthusiastic consent would be a better alternative to your hyperbolic suggestion of written consent.
So as it is not legally required, how are the actions of Spacey, as stated in the article, a crime at all?
Further, there are many reasons why (especially on a first “date”) would not respond with enthusiasm. Shyness, an insecurity about one’s body, etc. Further, as any married person knows, sometimes you really are not into it but will do it because your spouse really wants it.
I think that in Spacey’s situation, it was reasonable to assume that the other man may have wanted the contact. So he rubbed his thigh and unzipped his pants before touching his genitals. That should not transform into a felony because the other man did not recognize those clear social clues.
Again - I was suggesting the enthusiastic consent as an alternative to your (hyperbolic) mention of written consent.
Since I am not familiar with the case against Mr Spacey, I certainly would not attempt to make any assumptions, reasonable or otherwise. I will say that, in my experience, prior to pressing charges of sexual assault there is usually some evidence or proof, particularly in a case this high-profile.
Spacey has now been acquitted of the nine criminal charges brought against him in the UK. The acquittal apparently was by majority of the jury, not unanimous, but still he remains acquitted.
What does this say about his loss of reputation and loss of work after the charges that were brought against him? Are there any other criminal charges or lawsuits pending on any such charges? Can, should and will his reputation be rehabilitated?
Yeah, his career is still sunk. What studio wants to dare the potential liability of him doing this again? “But he was acquitted in a court of law” probably won’t cut it. Limiting his access is a huge headache. Is he worth it? I doubt it at this point.
Convictions in sexual assault cases are notoriously hard to get, and in this case, even some jury members thought he was guilty. An acquittal isn’t going to convince many people that he was innocent, and few actors would want to work with him. I doubt audiences would want to see him in any films.
Having read the accounts of his accusers, don’t think his reputation can or should be rehabilitated.
I think you must have misunderstood the cite you’re referencing. You sound as though you believe the quoted law professor expert on “the regulation of intimate behavior and gender roles” is in favor of situations where both parties in the same drunken sexual encounter try to press sexual assault charges against each other.