[hijack] I would exclude people falling for Nigerian scams from this list of “victims”. If the Nigerian scam e-mails I received are in any way representative, these people expect to make money by helping a self-awowed criminal (and often a pretty ugly one, I got one where the person was supposedly a former torturer in some dictator’s jails) to embezzle money.
They aren’t just naive people, they’re wannabe criminals without scruples, and get what they richly deserve. [/hijack]
Well, this has prompted my yearly post (time is, after all, running short). I’ve managed to resist on similar topics in the past.
Drunk driving, robbery, sex. Why is sex so different? And why is it always a drunken woman? I know, women get pregnant. But do those who advocate something along the lines of “drunken consent = rape” really want to see both parties independently prosecuted when both parties were drunk? And will those who hold this position just as vociferously champion charging the woman, with the same penalties (serious prison time, registration as a sex offender) when her partner was intoxicated as well (or perhaps solely)? Frankly, I doubt it. I could say a lot more about it being insulting to women, and a step backwards, but I’ll leave it at this: one is responsible for one’s actions and the consequences, and that includes the responsibilities and consequences that attach to drinking. The flip side of “no means no” is “yes means yes”. It may be, admittedly, more complicated at times and there may be some very concerning, and disconcerting, gray areas. But it is the position I start from and firmly hold to, unless extreme circumstances are involved.
I could probably be talked into diminished capacity due to intoxication being a mitigating circumstance in some limited crimes. I’m not sure just what circumstances, but I can see being talked into agreeing. What I can’t be talked into is your actions (drinking and consenting to have sex) making me a criminal.
No, what you’re trying to get rid of is the “She got drunk, had sex, and that’s life because we can’t blame others for our poor decisions” factor. Just as you correctly said that poor decisions by the victim do not absolve the criminal, so too does it hold that poor decisions by one party does not make a criminal of the other.
More likely to end up having sex with a stranger when your drunk, and you don’t want to have sex with a stranger? Don’t drink, or bring a friend to intervene, or dab yourself with dog poop, whatever. Just don’t foist the responsibility for your actions on someone else. That’s…just poor form.
Need a little more straw for that man?
Look, if I pick up a drunken girl and she says do me, that is consensual. If she says stop and I do not that is rape. The difference is the consent. In this case she cannot recall doing either. That is reasonable doubt.
In a DUI case the law is clear that it is a crime to drive a car while impared. It is presumed that you are impared if your BAC is above a set point. 0.08 in California, YYMV.
So if you get stopped for weaving, or hitting a parked cop car, they will give you a sobriety test. If you fail, you get arrested. Consent does not enter into it.
see the difference?
The point is that if someone is unconscious or so near to being unconscious that their consent is meaningless- it is rape.
If a very drunk woman says no, it is rape.
If a very drunk woman says yes, but can’t remember doing so, it is not rape.
In this case it wasn’t certain whether what happened was 1,2 or 3. Which lead to reasonable doubt. Which lead to acquittal. If there was no reasonable doubt in cases 1 or 2 it would lead to conviction.
Lots of victims of rape are raped while in situations 1 or 2.
The fact is that they may be drunk off their asses, but a no is still a no, and if she can’t actually talk at the time, then that would be a no too.
Men, no matter how drunk or sober they are are expected not to rape women.
Women, no matter how drunk or sober they are, are supposed to be the ones who get to decide who has sex with them.
That is what it boils down to.
And are expected to be able to tell with perfect clarity exactly how drunk a woman is and whether or not her blood alcohol content makes her unable to give meaningful consent, no matter how drunk or sober they are. It’s an unreasonable burden to put on them.
The problem with this statement is that it ignores the situation in which a woman, much more sober than the man, wants to have sex and he doesn’t. I don’t like the attitude that women alone decide when sex is going to happen because it unfairly assumes that the man always wants to and ignores his right to refuse consent.
It boils down to a situation that is inherently unfair to men. As long as you include the condition that the man has to be able to tell when a woman is too drunk to consent, you set up an environment in which women can attempt to punish men for 20+ years over decisions those women made while drunk and later regret.
Catsix- The law is such that if a man can REASONABLY ASSUME THAT VALID CONSENT HAS BEEN GIVEN then it is not rape. The law is absolutely not saying what you seem to think it is.
That means if he asks, repeatedly and gets an affirmative response, or if the woman appears to be able to understand that he wants to have sex with her and gives a reply in the affirmative, then consent has been given.
He just has to ask, and ask a few times. If it’s yes everytime, it’s not rape.
If it’s “maybe”, “no” or “urghhhgrhgh” it’s rape.
How hard is that?
Not hard at all. There was a well-publicised case in the UK ten years ago concerning a pair of students, Austin Donellan and “Ms X” (natch). Ms X had gone some way beyond merely saying “yes”, but subsequently argued that Austin should have known she was shitfaced, and that there was no way in hell she would have consented when sober. The case for the prosecution mostly seemed to consist of a public humiliation of young Mr D. simply to reinforce Ms X’s “no way in hell” stance.
“Maybe” is just taking the piss, however.
The jury found him not guilty in the end. Mind you, it was only through his own cojones that it went to court at all. The college were all for hushing it up and kangaroo-courting him on their own account.
Eh, got interrupted and posted too soon, and the “Maybe” line was somehow in the middle of the post, not the end. To continue: “Maybe” as a response to “Do you want to fuck?” is about as smart as it is as a response to “Do you want a punch in the mouth?”. If you (rhetorical: I’ve no doubts about irishgirl) want to stand on “No means no, yes means yes” then the last thing that’s needed is any equivocation.
Again, in the case referenced by the OP, it seems like it wasn’t a case that she couldn’t pronounce “Yes” or “No” intelligibly, but couldn’t remember afterwards what she’d said. Slightly different kettle of fish.
Buh-whuh? What strawman? 
Look, if you pick up a drunken girl and she says “do me,” that isn’t necessarily consensual (hence the debate here). Sure, if she says stop and you do not that is rape. No-one is arguing that. But if she is drunk off her ass, people (and the law to some extent) are arguing that she is impaired and not necessarily within sufficient grasp of her wits to make an informed decision, and therefore allowances must be made.
The question that is being asked/argued/debated is if someone driving drunk is solely and totally responsible for their actions, then should someone fucking drunk not be likewise? I haven’t even taken a position on the issue, so your “strawman” accusation falls on an empty field…or some such appropriate metaphor.
Perhaps this makes the question easier: if you drive drunk, you’re the criminal. If you fuck drunk, the other person is the criminal.
Is that satisfactory to you? If not, how would you configure that paradigm? Society seems to say (at least where I live) that if you drive drunk, it’s your fault; but if you fuck drunk, it’s the other person’s fault. Should that be the case, or not?
I apologise to those who don’t like double posts, but I’m home, bored, and no-one else has posted since I did last.
So there. Nyeah.
Rick: It’s not my intention to get into an argument with you (because arguments are irritating and I have better things to do…as should we all), but your claim that “Consent does not enter into it.” about driving drunk is flat-out bullshit.
Driving on our nation’s roads requires giving consent to the traffic laws. If I get pulled over and asked to take a breathalyzer test, I can either do it, or have my license yanked, drunk or not. It’s a principle known as “implied consent”. I could get my driving privileges revoked without being drunk, if I wanted to.
When you drive, you agree to the rules that say you can’t drive drunk. When you fuck, there isn’t a rule that says you can’t fuck drunk. Some people think there should be. That’s why there’s an argument. Seems to me that the only one building a strawman is you.
Just to throw tinder on the fire:
Really? What if she’s eight years old? Eight-year-olds can get drunk (if given the opportunity) just as easily as adults. Will you consider that consensual? Or would you admit that sometimes circumstances compromise a person’s ability to make an informed decision?
There are plenty of reasons for diminished judgement, too. For instance. You can be sober and think that the Man of Your Dreams™ loves you back, and you hop in the sack with him and then find out he really just wanted to get laid and told you all kinds of nice things to get you in the sack. You can say that you never would have slept with him had you known he was just looking for a little action, but it’s water under the bridge. Impaired judgement (in this case, impaired by infatuation) isn’t always an excuse. Of course, there are exceptions. But in my opinion, this ain’t one of 'em.
(Not directed at you Dijon Warlock, but anyone…)
Sure, sometimes circumstances compromise a person’s ability to make a good decision. But who is responsible for what transpires as a result of that? What constitutes “so drunk as to make consent meaningless”, if anything?. And again, why does sex seem to be different?
Scenario: Being lazy, unscrupulous and generally a bad person, I’ve managed to secure a position as leader of a ‘crew’. We run drugs, have some gambling rackets, and of course are involved in the Waste Management Industry. A side benefit is it allows me to dabble in my not infrequent preference for good-quality smack. One evening, drunk to near-incapacity and just about on the nod from some killer (literally) China White, my crew shows up. I’m too far gone to even get up, but luckily my door is unlocked. They haul in Freddie, who, a corrupt policeman has told us, is informing on us. My crew wants to know what to do to him. Barely able to keep my eyes open, let alone focus on poor Freddie or truly consider the gravity of the situation, I say “Rats die - kill him”. My obliging crew does just that. Had I said “Too drunk - ask in the morning” my crew would have obeyed, because the respect my leadership qualities and authority. In the morning, I would have given Freddie a serious lecture, because despite all else I may be involved in, my unusual quirk for someone in this line of work is that I abhor violence of any kind. I never engage it, nor will I tolerate anyone in my crew using physical force. What can I say, I’m an Odd Mobster. But, impaired as I am by booze and drugs, I fancy myself, for a moment, Al Pacino in Scarface and order Freddie whacked. Am I culpable for my actions, or was I too drunk to "meaningfully” participate in what transpired?
Maybe it’s the killing that draws the line for you. How about I say “We stomp on rats - break his arms and legs”. Do I get a pass because I’m “too drunk”? What if my crew asked “you want him whacked/legs broken Boss?” and I had ‘consented’, as it were, to this act? Am I not able to give meaningful consent due to my impairmant and hence get a walk when the police get one of my crew to flip?
What make you of this?
Scenario 2: Sorority Girl goes to a frat party, proceeds to get drunk off her ass. With that room-spinning, mouth-watering, I’ll-never-do-this-again feeling, she stumbles to an upstairs bedroom. Strangely (to her), lying down makes things worse. Reverse peristalsis is imminent, but she is unable to get up. She can, in fact, barely move. She does know, however, that she adamantly does not want to sleep in puke, so she manages to get to the side of the bed. Just before hurling onto the floor, she spies a gun carelessly left half under the bed. In that drunken disconnected way, she reflects on the odd presence of a firearm as she hurls, surprised not to see a lung in the slop. Along about this time, Nice Boy stumbles down the hall and hears retching. He pops his head in and sees the mess. Being a Nice Boy, he decides it needs to be cleaned up pronto (it’ll leave a nasty stain, never mind the smell). He gets a towel from the linen closet and returns to do the thankless task. Unbeknownst to him, Sorority Girl was conditioned somewhere along the way to believe that all men are, in their heart of hearts, rapists. Especially drunk frat boys. Nice Boy, upon his return, is concerned about alcohol poisoning. He bends over the bed to see if Sorority Girl is still breathing. Sorority Girl barely discerns a blurry swimmy figure looming over her through a drunken haze and decides she is about to be raped. ScreamSlurring “Getawayfromme!” she thrashes about the bed. Nice Boy takes a step back, a bit startled but still with some concern (and perhaps some bemusement). He says “easy, I’m just cleaning up your puke” and takes a step toward the bed to bend down and clean up the puke. Sorority Girl, having located the gun, shoots Nice Boy. Hello Chris Reeve. Sorority Girl passes out after pulling the trigger…probably before the bullet even hit Nice Boy. Does Sorority Girl get a pass for being “Too drunk” to “meaningfully” make an “informed decision” about shooting Nice Boy?
What make you of that?
Scenario 3: (Different) Sorority Girl goes to frat party, where she sees her recently-ex boyfriend, who broke up with her because she wouldn’t have sex; she is adamant about waiting until marriage. Ex Boyfriend is engaged in public displays of affection with his new squeeze, who is more inclined to share her womanly charms. Sorority Girl proceeds to get drunk off her ass, and gets filled with those drunken morose feelings of jealousy, hurt pride, rejection, etc. Feeling drunk, sad, and alone, she stumbles to an upstairs bedroom to engage in some intoxicated bawling on the verge of passing out. Who happens down the hall but Ex Boyfriend’s Best Friend, also pretty well drunk, and who she thought always had a thing for her. Hearing the sobbing, and truly being a Nice Boy, he sticks his head in the room to see who is so despondent, and why. Sorority Girl proceeds to slur out how Ex Boyfriend is a jerk, and she never really liked him that much, and she always thought Best Friend was hot and wondered if they’d make a go of it were she not involved with Ex Boyfriend. He, in full drunken “I love you man” mode, concurs that he too has had amorous feelings. He proceeds to kiss Sorority Girl, who responds in kind. With images of Ex Boyfriend and Womanly Charms Girl swirling through her head, that crazy drunken revenge feeling wells up in her and she proceeds to fumble out of her clothes. Best Friend, being a Truly Nice Guy, questions her actions and intentions “Hey…wha…you sure you want to do this?” Though very drunk (she’d pass out if she just laid quietly for 30 seconds or so), she responds (slurring it all into one saliva-garbled word) “He’s SUCH an asshole. Mmm Show him. You gonna do me or what?”. Though Best Friend is indeed a Truly Nice Guy, he is also drunk. They proceed to have sex. 30 seconds after a not-terribly-satisfying orgasm, she rolls to the side, pukes, and passes out.
Upon awakening, she is mortified that she had sex before mariage, and in so tawdry a fashion. Upon reflection, she decides she was raped. What make you of this? Would it make any difference if Best Friend had instigated everything and she merely consented saying “Sure. This’ll show him”?
Well, I obviously got a bit carried away writing those…
As an aside…does the woman have to say “No” a few times?
Is “OH GOD YES” once sufficient, seeing that the Almighty was invoked? Or does deity invocation have no bearing on the requirement for multiple consents? And is there a waiting period between affirmatives, or is yesyesyesyesyesyes acceptable? What is the conversion factor between the one “No” (which is indeed sufficient) and the multiple affirmatives (I’m not sure how to pluralize “yes”) Does it fluctuate? If so according to what? If I have to do complex math, I’m gonna be pissed…and probably unsuccessful.
IMO, the bottom line is: Absent some evidence of involuntary intoxication (i.e. date-rape drugging), drunken consent is at least gray-area enough to preclude a showing of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (which is the standard of Anglo-American law).
:::applauds at Shaky Jake:::
Nice job.
Yes, yes…of course you did.
Anything you want to tell us about yourself? :D:D:D
I’ve been thinking of this for a while and have come to the conclusion that if we are to treat men and women equally under the law (a position I do have some issues with) then as long as there was not any provable intentional deception on either part of the couple to misrepresent the amount of alcohol then consent is consent, drunk or not.
Now if it can be shown that a date rape drug was used, amount of alcohol was misrepresented to a extreme amount, or she was in need of medical attention due to excessive drinking then rape is a factor to consider (for both sexes).
Also I find it insulting to women that then need special protection against making poor mating decisions when they choose to get drunk.
Okay, all the other situations that have been mentioned aside, if you cannot remember if you gave consent or not, and you aren’t even really sure if there was sex, it is not something you should take to court. You should probably learn from the experience, move on with your life, and be less dumb in the future. (I know she was falling down drunk, but if getting that hammered is your intention you should bring a designated driver or other such designated sober person.) If I get drunk I should still be responsible for myself because I should have taken that responsibility before hand. Hopefully everyone who reads this news story can learn from her mistake.
I was once at Pedro’s Grill on Vermont (when it still was a salsa/merengue place). I live around the corner. Some Peruvian friends of mine were there, but there was a woman who was 1) wearing a beret; and 2) completely drunk. She was alone, and I I couldn’t figure out why she was there. She certainly couldn’t dance very well, and she didn’t seem to understand Spanish. I asked her how she was getting home (she lived in West Hollywood), and when she said she was driving, I tried to convince her otherwise. “Come over to my place for a cup of coffee; I’ll call a taxi.” It didn’t work. She went off of her own. I actually preyed for her. I have no idea what happened. I really hope she made it home okay.
Freudian slip of the day.
I was hoping someone would catch that.
Now thats a strawman.