That’s not so. If you go to the link, it says the source data is the National Crime Victimization Survey, a survey of the civilian noninstitutional population of the U.S. conducted for the Bureau of Justice Statistics by the U.S. Census Bureau.
IOW, the statistics are based on persons in a systematic random sample of the general population answering questions about their experiences on the receiving end of crimes, and not statistics of crimes that have been prosecuted or reported to the police.
I would think it absurd if I could accuse a man of raping me because my blood alcohol level was .08.
Now, since every state in the US defines people who drive with a blood alcohol level of .08, is your position that if a 120 woman has three shots in an hour can’t legally consent to sex and that anyone, male or female who has sex with her has committed a rape even if she “consented”?
I haven’t said anything in this thread about what I think you’re asking here (namely, what I personally think about intoxication and consent from a moral or practical standpoint,) and I’m not about to start.
And in particular regarding your specific question, I’d really have to beg off because I have no idea whatsoever what the effects of three shots in an hour would be.
(I will note, though, that I originally misread your first post as talking about someone who’d drunk three gin and tonics AND three shots, not “OR,” so I thought you were talking about someone who had drunk quite a dang bit of alcohol)
Agreed.
I have to say this is an extremely cowardly response.*
John Mace asked you to define “intoxicated” and you declared that a woman deemed intoxicated couldn’t “legally consent” to sex.
Now, I answered the question you asked me, so please answer mine.
Is your position that a 120 pound woman who’s had three shots in an hour cannot legally consent to sex and that any man or woman who’s had sex with her is guilty or rape.
For anyone curious as to what the standard are to determine if you’d be guilty of drunk driving, here is this link. http://www.ou.edu/oupd/bac.htm
*. Just to be precise, I’m not accusing you of being a coward and for the record don’t think you are but your answer strikes me as extremely evasive and somewhat cowardly particularly since you earlier said, or at least strongly implied it was obvious when someone was “intoxicated”.
I know about all this – I went to college.
Again, what does this mean? Does he move his head close to kiss her? That’s not sexual assault. Does he put his hand on her thigh for a second? Not sexual assault, unless she tries to move away or move his hand (or tells him no) and he doesn’t move. Does he grab her and try to force her down to the couch, even if she’s fighting against it (or saying no)? Then that can reasonably interpreted as sexual assault, IMO. Or attempted rape, especially if they’re alone (or everyone else is passed out). Are they making out, and he reaches under her dress? If she says no, or tries to move his hand, and he continues, then that’s sexual assault. Are they naked (or close to naked) and making out, and he tries to put it in, but she says ‘no’ (or tries to prevent him from doing it), and he continues? That’s attempted rape, or rape if he is successful.
It’s still not clear to me what you’re saying. Please be specific.
Please substantiate this, so we can understand each other more clearly and continue the conversation constructively.
What question??? I have not asked you any questions in this thread, prior to the post just quoted.
Going back and reading the post from John, I can see that maybe he was asking me to give my definition. But at the time I did not read it that way–I thought he was using the general you, and was asking what the paper’s definition of “intoxicated” was. My answer was not me giving him my understanding of the term, my answer was me telling him what I assumed the paper meant.
Not once, never in this thread, have I stated even a single opinion of my own about what constitutes intoxication (except in the legal sense) or about any of the moral or practical dimensions of the whole consent/assault/rape issue. I have been extremely, explicitly, intentionally careful not to do so.
If you thought that I did, there was a miscommunication.
I’m not in the habit of asking people to “take it back” but I’ll here express a hope that you see that your intimations of “cowardice” or at least “evasiveness” were (understandable or not) off base.
I should add that this isn’t a precise way to calculate ones blood alcohol level, but it’s a good way to illustrate that you will hit a .08 blood alcohol level long before you’re so drunk that you’re at the point where you’re fall down, puke all over yourself drunk, semi-conscious, obviously unable to give “meaningful consent” “shouldn’t be allowed to drive”, that you’ll be legally intoxicated.
I don’t want to make light of rape and for the record suspect that rape is vastly common than it should be, but frankly there were plenty of times when I had sex in college where if I’d been pulled over driving home by a police officer I’d have been arrested for drunk driving and I think anyone who thinks I was ever raped is being foolish.
Ok, then since I answered your earlier question please answer mine.
Do you feel that anyone who has sex after having drank enough alcohol to have a blood alcohol level of .08 should be thought to not be capable of giving consent and deemed a rape victim?
It should be an extremely easy question to answer. I think the answer is “no”.
How do you answer?
What question??? I have not asked you any questions in this thread, other than to ask you what questions I’ve asked you! 
:o 
And why are you interested in knowing what I think about whether people who have .08 etc etc consent consent whatever whatever? The correct answer to the question is, I don’t have a clue. I don’t know what .08 blood alcohol looks like in terms of behavior, rationality, etc. So my appropriate attitude is withholding judgment.
But I really don’t understand why you’re asking the question! I cannot see how it is relevant to the issues I’ve been discussing in this thread, or to the OP.
Errrr…
I answered your question, so please answer mine.
Your response to John Mace’s question regarding what constituted being “intoxicated” was to declare that a person who was intoxicated was to declare that anyone who was “intoxicated” couldn’t consent to sex.
So, once again, is your position that anyone with a blood alcohol level of .08 cannot give consent to sex?
If you don’t like that question please answer John Mace’s question which you refused to answer.
Please define “intoxicated” and tell us whether you think someone who is intoxicated can consent to sex?
Thanks in advance for your reply.
The Pubs, for their own good, really need to declare a party-wide moratorium on candidates ever mentioning the “r” word in public until after the midterms.
I don’t believe for a second that that was a question that you were referring to. You said I was being “evasive” in a previous post. You’re being something here as well.
A request for clarification hardly counts as a question in any substantial sense, not one that leads to me “owing” you an answer to any other question you may ask. What you’re doing here reminds me of the genie who says he’ll answer three questions, and when the person says “how many was that?” the genie declares that was the first question!
I already did. Let me paste it back in here for you (with one minor edit for a grammatical error I just spotted):
"The correct answer to the question is, I don’t have a clue. I don’t know what .08 blood alcohol looks like in terms of behavior, rationality, etc. So my appropriate attitude is to withhold judgment. "
Are you intoxicated right now?
I don’t know what you’re doing, but whatever it is, it’s nothing I’d call “reading.”
Everyone calm down. Frylock, that’s at the line. Anything more than this will be too much for this thread.
I haven’t insulted you so I’m not sure why you’re insulting me.
That said, please give me your definition of the word “intoxicated”, as John Mace asked you awhile ago, and I’ll answer.
So, then since you, by your own admission “don’t have a clue” you’ll concede that it’s perfectly reasonably to conclude that a person who’s legally intoxicated can consent to sex?
Edit: Didn’t see Mace’s post. But, I don’t think this is crossing the line, could Frylock please define “intoxicated”?
My understanding of the word “intoxicated” is not something I’m very interested in, and it’s not something I’ve volunteered to talk about in this thread. I am not sure why you think you have a right to demand that I talk about it. It’s not relevant to the topic of the thread, and I’ve indicated no interest in discussing it.
[quote]
That doesn’t follow. What does follow is that I don’t have a clue whether it’s perfectly reasonable to conclude that a person who’s legally intoxicated can consent to sex. Again though–this is not a topic that interests me. I do not know why you continue to insist that I talk about it. I am being generous in answering your question. I don’t expect that generosity to continue.
Just a quick comment here as well.
Your first post to me was insulting. Your carefully worded disclaimer footnote got your SDMB-legal ducks in a row, but fooled no one.
Your subsequent posts to me have also been insulting, in that you have continually treated me as though I should be answering to your demands–that the interests of the thread, and my own interests, should take second place to your own.
That’s a bit of a hijack so I’ll leave it at that.
I have not “demanded” you talk about it so I don’t know why you’re claiming I have.
I’ve very politely asked your opinion.
As for the second sentence, I think the answer is obvious. Since the discussion is about whether or not “rape” is common on college campuses then it’s extremely relevant as to how one defines rape, whether or not someone who’s “intoxicated” can consent to sex or not, and how one defines “intoxicated” is extremely relevant.
I don’t think it was. If you disagree feel free to quote the post and explain how it was.
No, they haven’t been.
Then why did you rather insultingly ask me if I was “intoxicated”? Once again, if you give your definition of the word “intoxicated” I’ll be happy to answer your question.
So since you specifically declare you “don’t have a clue” as to whether or not someone who’s “intoxicated consent to sex” then you’d agree to it’s certainly reasonable for some people to believe that a person who’s legally had too much to drink to drive can still consent to sex?
My whole point relevant to that word in all of my posts here has involved the question of what the cited study meant by the word. That’s obviously relevant to the thread.
But what I mean by the word is utterly irrelevant to this thread.
I am not actually interested in knowing whether you are intoxicated or not.
Again, no, that doesn’t follow. In general, the premise “I don’t have a clue about X” does not license conclusions of the form “It’s reasonable for people to believe Y about X.”
For all I know it’s perfectly reasonable. For all I know it’s not. Why? Because I don’t have a clue. If I did, then I might have some basis on which to judge what it’s reasonable for people to believe on the topic. But I don’t, so I don’t.
I really don’t see that there’s anything more to say about that. Is there?