I was wondering when someone would point out the “bite down” response. IANAL but IAAOOP (owner of a penis) and I wouldn’t ever shove it in anybody’s face for fear that Little Elvis might get chomped on.
Of course so much could be circumstance…if she saw the guys beating up people and generally being aggressive, boozed up, etc. maybe there’s something to it even without the man threatening her specifically. OTOH if she’s giving him strong “come hither” glances, rubbing up on him, etc. then he isn’t totally remiss in thinking his advances were welcome.
There must be cases where it definitely isn’t rape but it isn’t totally innocent on the guy’s part either. I wonder what lesser (but related) offenses might be considered.
I wonder why “got a girl drunk” is in quotes, because I sure didn’t say it. Please don’t try to depict me as someone who is saying that women aren’t responsible for their actions. They are. But the other person is also responsible for theirs. It is 100% possible to say no to sex when offered if the person offering is so fucked up that they are not in their right mind, and I would say they have a moral obligation to do so.
Sure, I agree. However, there are situations where you are so drunk that you don’t have a coherent idea of what is going on, and aren’t able to give consent or withhold it in a meaningful way anymore. The law is designed to protect you when you are in that state. Ideally, it would protect both men and women, though in reality it probably protects men less because of social biases. That is unfortunate, but not a reason to get rid of the law.
I would say that, if you’re not capable of answering the question “Wanna fuck?” then you can’t give consent. If you’re thinking of mounting someone when they aren’t capable of conversation, and you don’t know them really well, you should probably forgo it. That seems like the sensible course of action, no?
I’m far from an expert in criminal law, but as far as I know, with regard to drinking our legal system works on the “assumption of the risk” principle. That is, since the very purpose of alcohol is to impair your decision making ability, you assume the risk of any decisions you make while drunk. This is the reason that if I get blacked-out drunk and shoot someone, I can’t argue that I lacked the requisite mental capacity necessary to be guilty of the crime. In short, when a person is drunk, their mental state can be inferred from their actions.
I’m curious to know how the law handles this issue with regard to rape. On one hand, if we want to be consistent we shouldn’t allow women to use their drunkenness to call into question what was, at the time, completely consensual sex; and to my knowledge, this is exactly how the law works. But on the other hand, I don’t think any of us wants to excuse a guy who takes advantage of a woman after she passes out from drinking; but the line between being really, really, drunk and being passed-out drunk can be rather thin (I speak from experience here). So what do we do come up with a workable solution to this issue?
I guess the question comes, when are you too drunk to say yes? Passed out, obviously. Are there people who are having trouble walking/talking intelligently but can still say yes?
I know this thread has probably died but I did want to post something I read over the weekend. I read an excerpt from an anthology about sex (Yes Means Yes) where the woman talks about how our attitude to sex shouldn’t be trying to get some. Like, if the woman you’re with mumbles something or isn’t all that enthused, try giving her a back rub, etc.–working up slowly. Which I suppose is nice, but again, it seems a bit…patronizing. If I don’t want to be there, I won’t–I don’t feel like I need to be talked down to.
Actually, after the tape surfaced, the decision was made not to prosecute the men alleged to have assaulted Ms. King; and Ms. King was charged with making a false report. That charge in turn was dropped, and she was charged with operating an unlicensed exotic dance service.