Dennis Prager says women campus assualts lie

[cmdrjones]

Thank You, Thank You... I'm here all night.

[Thanas]

Thank You, Thank You... I'm here all night.

Are you a fucking idiot? Yes, you are.

[TheHammer]

And, as I pointed out, the actual criminal law in California already defined consent as "active cooperation in act or attitude" for years before the "yes means yes" law was passed. So I really don't know what anyone is arguing about, except TheHammer, who really wants to be able to safely fuck blacked out people. I'll get back to that argument when I'm feeling masochistic enough.

You are a fucking idiot. Way to evade while also straw manning at the same time.

[Terralthra]

And, as I pointed out, the actual criminal law in California already defined consent as "active cooperation in act or attitude" for years before the "yes means yes" law was passed. So I really don't know what anyone is arguing about, except TheHammer, who really wants to be able to safely fuck blacked out people. I'll get back to that argument when I'm feeling masochistic enough.

You are a fucking idiot. Way to evade while also straw manning at the same time.

Was the girl who was "blackout drunk"* forced to drink that alcohol? A girl who is blackout drunk isn't unconscious, she simply isn't going to remember what she did the next day. From outward appearances, a "blackout drunk" girl might appear to be fully aware of what's going on around her, actively participating in whatever is going on. And if she happens to be horny in that state, and some guy who himself has likely been drinking happens to meet what she is looking for in the moment, suddenly he's a rapist if they have sex? That's bullshit. What if they both have regrets the next day? Did they rape each other? Unless the guy "put something" in her drink, if the girl has regrets the next day about who she slept with, then she just needs to chalk that up to "she fucked up", same as a guy would if he got hammered and banged some chick and regretted it.

Say you're at a frat party, you sit down on a coach next to a pretty girl and start up a conversation. She's been drinking - but hey so have you, that's what you're there for right?. You're flirting, she's flirting back and seems really into you. One of you suggests that both go back to your dorm room and obviously you both agree. She wakes up the next day, doesn't remember how she got there - suddenly you're a rapist. You didn't give her the alcohol, you didn't drug her, you didn't force her to do anything, in essence you did the exact same things that she did but "you're a rapist". I think you can see why that's a problem.

You know, you can say whatever you want about me "strawmanning", but anyone else can read the thread and see what you've already posted. All it takes is the ability to scroll and click "next/previous page." The evidence is pretty clear that you think it is totally ethical to fuck people who are blackout drunk, consequence-free.

[Channel72]

You know, you can say whatever you want about me "strawmanning", but anyone else can read the thread and see what you've already posted. All it takes is the ability to scroll and click "next/previous page." The evidence is pretty clear that you think it is totally ethical to fuck people who are blackout drunk, consequence-free.

To be honest, I don't really see that much wrong with what TheHammer said. He's basically just saying that a straightforward, fun night that leads to sex - where both the man and woman seemed to be enthusiastic about the whole exchange (even if such enthusiasm was partly or wholly induced by a high blood alcohol level) - shouldn't be retroactively misconstrued as rape.

Face it, both men and women enjoy alcohol. And since alcohol elevates your dopamine levels, it's really not that fucking mysterious why drunk people tend to fuck strangers more often.

[Joun_Lord]

I would think that there would atleast be a difference if both parties of sloshed to their gills and knock boots and if only one person is fucked up drunk while the others is not drinking to "score" easier. The first they are both impaired and might not otherwise consent but you can't really say they raped each other (well I guess you can but that would probably be like those cases where two teens gets charged for child porno over sending each other nudes).

The latter has someone who takes advantage of a clearly drunk person's lack of will and ability to rationally consent. I don't know if it can be considered actual rape but it certainly sounds pretty fucked up nonetheless.

I doubt there is any way to stop it either. As long as people go to parties someone will take advantage of another person who is blackout drunk (I say person because I'm sure that while the majority is scuzzy guys taking advantage of women there are cases when it might be a chick taking advantage of a dude or even same sex drunken impaired consent sex). I'm sure some education would help to educate that sort of thing is actually sexual assault or rape or just not something you should be doing but for the msot part I doubt it would change much.

[Simon_Jester]

Can we please kick cmdrjones off the thread? He's kind of blatantly trolling. Either that, or he's both too ignorant to understand the issue, and too arrogant to grasp that he is ignorant of basic, important facts.

I suppose that the reason why there is no "implied consent" exception is that it would be abused. "My girlfriend likes it when I *insert act here* when she pretends to resist" would be a likely defence.

Well, if we're talking about something that is not an utterly routine thing in virtually all long-term relationships (hugs are, kisses are) then the correct way to shoot down that defense is for the plaintiff to say "no, I don't, I really don't."

I doubt there is any way to stop it either. As long as people go to parties someone will take advantage of another person who is blackout drunk (I say person because I'm sure that while the majority is scuzzy guys taking advantage of women there are cases when it might be a chick taking advantage of a dude or even same sex drunken impaired consent sex). I'm sure some education would help to educate that sort of thing is actually sexual assault or rape or just not something you should be doing but for the msot part I doubt it would change much.

Well, that ties into talking about 'rape culture,' the idea that a significant fraction of males are culturally trained to either engage in such rapes, or to tolerate those who do and act as though they're not doing anything wrong.

Guys who will, for example, actually believe a male friend who says something like "Oh yeah, she's just claiming it was rape because she's vindictive and she decided she didn't like my attitude the next morning. What a bitch, huh?"

Talking about rape culture, though, creates almost as many guys who instinctively bristle as talking about the effect of alcohol on rapes. Because it circles back to that "wait, I like football, I was kind of a jock in high school, I know other guys who drink a lot and used to be the same way... hey, are you calling me a rapist!?" Stuff like that.

At which point you start talking about how toxic the system is as-is and how it allows the actual rapists to get away with what they're doing.

[TheHammer]

You know, you can say whatever you want about me "strawmanning", but anyone else can read the thread and see what you've already posted. All it takes is the ability to scroll and click "next/previous page." The evidence is pretty clear that you think it is totally ethical to fuck people who are blackout drunk, consequence-free.

Everyone in this thread knows that's not what I'm saying, and in fact the vast majority of them have called you on your idiotic statements. You either lack reading comprehension, or are being willfully obtuse.

[Terralthra]

I take the radical position that if someone's brain is under the influence of a drug that reduces one's ability to assess risk, blocks memory formation (women suffer them more frequently, and at lower dosages), destroys one's ability to self-assess one's own level of impairment, and significantly impairs one's overall cognition and judgment, they aren't in a sound mental state to give consent in the first place. Consent isn't being "retroactively withdrawn", it was never really given.

If someone lies to you in order to obtain consent for sex, maybe we wouldn't call that rape, but we certainly would say that it's pretty shitty sexual behavior, ethically speaking. In California, for example, if someone pretends to be your spouse (I don't know how they'd actually make this convincing, but it is nonetheless the law), or if a doctor pretends that they have to do an invasive vaginal or anal exam for medical reasons, either of those are classified as sexual assault. Why? Consent was mechanically obtained, why is that sexual assault? Because what the person consented to was not what they thought they were consenting to. It's not "retroactively" sexual assault because the person consenting later finds out that the person in question wasn't their spouse; it's sexual assault when it happens because the consent was invalid when given.

My position is that when under the effects of an intoxicating chemical, the same basic guideline applies. A person who is drunk (and these effects show up much more quickly than most people think) can not effectively assess levels of risk, relative severity of consequences, make good judgments, and most importantly, is classically unaware of just how badly impaired their own risk and consequence assessments have become. Consent obtained under those circumstances is invalid when obtained, there's nothing "retroactive" about it, and the law supports my position, as I have quoted.

The fact that someone chose to imbibe a substance that disconnects or impairs several high-order brain functions does not mean that their body is up for grabs while those brain functions aren't working well enough to protect themselves or make the decisions they would make when their brain is properly functioning. I really don't understand why this is such a strange and bizarre position to take.

[amigocabal]

I take the radical position that if someone's brain is under the influence of a drug that reduces one's ability to assess risk, blocks memory formation (women suffer them more frequently, and at lower dosages), destroys one's ability to self-assess one's own level of impairment, and significantly impairs one's overall cognition and judgment, they aren't in a sound mental state to give consent in the first place. Consent isn't being "retroactively withdrawn", it was never really given.

So how does this apply to the U.S. Constitution's 4th Amendment? Right now, consent by the searchee justifies a search. Does intoxication negate consent in this context? Are all police officers supposed to carry breathalyzers to make sure someone consenting to a search is not intoxicated?

[Terralthra]

I take the radical position that if someone's brain is under the influence of a drug that reduces one's ability to assess risk, blocks memory formation (women suffer them more frequently, and at lower dosages), destroys one's ability to self-assess one's own level of impairment, and significantly impairs one's overall cognition and judgment, they aren't in a sound mental state to give consent in the first place. Consent isn't being "retroactively withdrawn", it was never really given.

So how does this apply to the U.S. Constitution's 4th Amendment? Right now, consent by the searchee justifies a search. Does intoxication negate consent in this context? Are all police officers supposed to carry breathalyzers to make sure someone consenting to a search is not intoxicated?

You know, a quick search with the search engine of your choice would have turned up at least one existing opinion about exactly that.

This approach is consistent with a series of unpublished decisions in our circuit.
In one case, the defendant claimed that the party giving consent was under the influence
of crack cocaine. See United States v. Griffin, No. 96-5326, 1997 WL 487325 (6th Cir.
Aug. 15, 1997) (per curiam). We eschewed adopting a bright-line rule, holding that the
record did not show sufficient impairment to deem her consent invalid and reasoning that
“voluntary consent can be given even by a person under the influence of drugs, when
that person is coherent and fails to exhibit any visible impairment.” Id. at *3. In another
case, the defendant claimed that he was too intoxicated to consent to a search. See
United States v. Fletcher, 295 F. App’x 749 (6th Cir. 2008). We upheld the search on
plain error review based on the testimony of two police officers, who said that the
defendant “did not seem impaired, was not swaying or unsteady, had no trouble signing
the consent form, and appeared to be coherent.” Id. at 757. At the same time, we have
affirmed at least one case in which the district court found that the individual’s drug
impairment and several other factors precluded a valid consent to search. See United
States v. Carr, 187 F. App’x 602, 607 (6th Cir. 2006) (per curiam).

Courts have held in multiple cases that intoxication is one of several factors to be considered when assessing the voluntariness of consent, and in at least some of them, held that it is sufficient to invalidate said consent.

[TheHammer]

I take the radical position that if someone's brain is under the influence of a drug that reduces one's ability to assess risk, blocks memory formation (women suffer them more frequently, and at lower dosages), destroys one's ability to self-assess one's own level of impairment, and significantly impairs one's overall cognition and judgment, they aren't in a sound mental state to give consent in the first place. Consent isn't being "retroactively withdrawn", it was never really given.

If someone lies to you in order to obtain consent for sex, maybe we wouldn't call that rape, but we certainly would say that it's pretty shitty sexual behavior, ethically speaking. In California, for example, if someone pretends to be your spouse (I don't know how they'd actually make this convincing, but it is nonetheless the law), or if a doctor pretends that they have to do an invasive vaginal or anal exam for medical reasons, either of those are classified as sexual assault. Why? Consent was mechanically obtained, why is that sexual assault? Because what the person consented to was not what they thought they were consenting to. It's not "retroactively" sexual assault because the person consenting later finds out that the person in question wasn't their spouse; it's sexual assault when it happens because the consent was invalid when given.

My position is that when under the effects of an intoxicating chemical, the same basic guideline applies. A person who is drunk (and these effects show up much more quickly than most people think) can not effectively assess levels of risk, relative severity of consequences, make good judgments, and most importantly, is classically unaware of just how badly impaired their own risk and consequence assessments have become. Consent obtained under those circumstances is invalid when obtained, there's nothing "retroactive" about it, and the law supports my position, as I have quoted.

The fact that someone chose to imbibe a substance that disconnects or impairs several high-order brain functions does not mean that their body is up for grabs while those brain functions aren't working well enough to protect themselves or make the decisions they would make when their brain is properly functioning. I really don't understand why this is such a strange and bizarre position to take.

The Bizarre position is that you seem to expect that people who are drunk be able to do the very thing you say they are incapable of doing. You say, and I quote: "A person who is drunk (and these effects show up much more quickly than most people think) can not effectively assess levels of risk, relative severity of consequences, make good judgments, and most importantly, is classically unaware of just how badly impaired their own risk and consequence assessments have become."

You are essentially taking the position that one of two people is "unable to give consent" because they can't assess the risks and consequences, however the second party who is also likely under the influence of alcohol is guilty of rape for failing to recognize that the first person was "too drunk to consent". The idiocy of such a double standard is apparently lost on you.

Its also apparently lost on you that in the context of a "blackout drunk", the person might actually be initiator of sexual activities, and thus the one "seeking consent" rather than giving it. How does that fit into your scenario? If a guy gives consent to a girl who it turns out was "blackout drunk" does that mean he's a rapist?

My only conclusion is that you really don't fucking understand what the rest of us are talking about as pertains to "blackout drunk". I think in your mind you picture some girl sitting on the couch with her eyes half closed, not talking or doing anything, and being lead back to a room by someone she doesn't know and hasn't talked to. Obviously in that situation she wouldn't be able to give consent. however, that's someone I would consider to be "passed out" not "blackout drunk". They are completely different concepts.

[Terralthra]

I'm actually taking the position that both people who are blackout drunk are incapable of giving consent, and in the case that both of them wake up the next morning thinking "I have no idea what I did last night, but if it's have sex with that person, there is no way I would've done that if I were thinking straight", then I have faith that they can both, as reasonable people, say to each other "it's clear that no one person is at fault here," and if they can't, I have faith that a good legal system can sort it out with a minimum of unnecessary pain for either party. Sexual assault ranges in severity and impact, and any functioning ethical or legal system should be able to distinguish between overtly coercive or violent behavior, passive predatory behavior, and behavior that indicates poor understanding of boundaries/consent. Treating all sexual assault as if it's the first category is part of the problem.

Your point that a guy might "give" consent to someone blackout drunk is just as stupid as I've come to expect from you. I've been fairly careful throughout this to not make a big deal about men or women, because while gender certainly plays a role, the issue is bigger than that. Consent, if it means anything, must be mutual. An initiator of sexual activity is, by definition, giving consent, too. The consent given while drunk is invalid, by several lines of argument, and you've given absolutely zero counter-argument to that.

As for your belief that I don't understand what a blackout is, I can only bow to your ever-present ability to assume that failure on your part as a debator is somehow anyone's fault but your own. I know what a blackout is. It's not a mystery, and it's not the same as being passed out.

[TheHammer]

I'm actually taking the position that both people who are blackout drunk are incapable of giving consent, and in the case that both of them wake up the next morning thinking "I have no idea what I did last night, but if it's have sex with that person, there is no way I would've done that if I were thinking straight", then I have faith that they can both, as reasonable people, say to each other "it's clear that no one person is at fault here,"

Yes in an ideal scenario that's what would happen. The purpose of this discussion is for when it doesn't go down that way.

and if they can't, I have faith that a good legal system can sort it out with a minimum of unnecessary pain for either party.

Sexual assault ranges in severity and impact, and any functioning ethical or legal system should be able to distinguish between overtly coercive or violent behavior, passive predatory behavior, and behavior that indicates poor understanding of boundaries/consent. Treating all sexual assault as if it's the first category is part of the problem.

I believe the entire point is that many of us feel we don't have a functional or even ethical legal system as pertains to this issue. And its because of that, that we are even having discussions like this.

Your point that a guy might "give" consent to someone blackout drunk is just as stupid as I've come to expect from you. I've been fairly careful throughout this to not make a big deal about men or women, because while gender certainly plays a role, the issue is bigger than that. Consent, if it means anything, must be mutual. An initiator of sexual activity is, by definition, giving consent, too. The consent given while drunk is invalid, by several lines of argument, and you've given absolutely zero counter-argument to that.

What counter argument do I need to give to that? My point is that if both persons are drunk how are you going to assign blame to one of them as the "offender" and one as the "victim" if they both ostensibly consented at the time of the act?

Saying "I was drunk" certainly wouldn't be a valid excuse to let someone off the hook for a crime. A person who gets pulled over for drunk driving would probably NEVER have let themselves drive in that state had they been sober. They still have to pay the price for it because they made the decision to start drinking in the first place. Just because someone made a bad decision while drunk doesn't mean its an invalid decision.

As for your belief that I don't understand what a blackout is, I can only bow to your ever-present ability to assume that failure on your part as a debator is somehow anyone's fault but your own. I know what a blackout is. It's not a mystery, and it's not the same as being passed out.

In my generosity, i was giving you an easy out to back pedal from your idiotic argument and a chance to save a little face. I actually was betting that you wouldn't take it, so thank you for being predictable. And your assessment of my debate skills is as laughably pathetic as the rest of your arguments. You've got an entire thread of people telling you that your argument makes no logical sense, and yet you repeat it over and over and over as if that's going to make is somehow true.

[Terralthra]

I'm sorry, do you expect me to take you seriously? You offer no convincing counterargument why consent given by someone who is effectively temporarily brain-damaged is worth anything, but we should take it anyway, because our legal system isn't trustworthy? That's your compelling argument? "Yeah, everything you've said is true, but we don't trust our courts, so rather than reform anything about how our legal system handles things, let's just tell people it's their own fault if they got drunk."?

I'm not going to assign blame to one of them as the offender and one as the victim, as I said in the post you're replying to, you fucking moron. I'm going to treat them both as if they were making decisions they wouldn't make sober, evaluate consequences for both, and try to make things right for both of them.

And I don't actually have a whole thread of people telling me it makes no logical sense. I have one person telling me that, a couple people who are worried about the implications of my position (without actually saying that I am wrong), and a couple people saying that I'm right, and that they aren't arguing with me at all. That's even assuming "a bunch of other people think you're wrong" is a logical argument, which it isn't.

[Joun_Lord]

I doubt there is any way to stop it either. As long as people go to parties someone will take advantage of another person who is blackout drunk (I say person because I'm sure that while the majority is scuzzy guys taking advantage of women there are cases when it might be a chick taking advantage of a dude or even same sex drunken impaired consent sex). I'm sure some education would help to educate that sort of thing is actually sexual assault or rape or just not something you should be doing but for the msot part I doubt it would change much.

Well, that ties into talking about 'rape culture,' the idea that a significant fraction of males are culturally trained to either engage in such rapes, or to tolerate those who do and act as though they're not doing anything wrong.

Guys who will, for example, actually believe a male friend who says something like "Oh yeah, she's just claiming it was rape because she's vindictive and she decided she didn't like my attitude the next morning. What a bitch, huh?"

Talking about rape culture, though, creates almost as many guys who instinctively bristle as talking about the effect of alcohol on rapes. Because it circles back to that "wait, I like football, I was kind of a jock in high school, I know other guys who drink a lot and used to be the same way... hey, are you calling me a rapist!?" Stuff like that.

At which point you start talking about how toxic the system is as-is and how it allows the actual rapists to get away with what they're doing.

Rape culture is certainly a massive problem. Douchebags who think they are entitled to sex, the dude-bros who think "if she never said no then that means yes", and anyone who uses their position or power to pressure someone into sex.

Though a couple of points, first friends defending friends and acquaintances isn't really a part of rape culture so much as human nature. Of course most people are going to believe someone they know over some stranger who is threatening the good life of the person they know especially if the evidences isn't cut and dry. You'd have to be a pretty shitty person to have everyone around automatically say "yep, he raped her".

Like another community I frequent, a member was accused of a rather brutal murder. People knew him well both online and IRL, all the evidence against him was circumstantial, and there was the real feeling he was being railroaded by over-zealous cops who were focusing on him because he was weird. So people believe him when he proclaimed his innocence, people said "sure he is weird, but a murderer? No!".

People believed him right up until he confessed that he did it and there are still people who believe he just said he did it to get a lighter sentence.

This is just online crap, imagine a child or sibling or cousin or pal being accused of something? I remember reading an article about some feminist mom who has been a massive supporters of women's rights and violence against women laws.........right up until her son was accused of rape.

Which leads into another point, there should be SOME skepticism as there is any other legal cases. We don't imprison people because someone accused someone else of murder with no evidence, we don't (usually) arrest someone for drug charges with no drugs found, so rapes should be treated the same way. The accused should be innocent until proven guilty, charged when there is evidence of a crime.

With the zeal of some have towards going after an incredibly heinous crime like rape they wind up doing some heinous shit themselves. People who are against the death penalty who say "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" but then are perfectly fine with sending innocent men to jail accused of rape. The people who say all black people shouldn't be treated as criminals because of the actions of a small minority and crossing the street from black people is racist as shit but are perfectly fine with all men being treated as potential rapists and don't see anything wrong with a woman crossing the street from men (which there probably isn't anything wrong that, I dunno).

Finally, and this is probably a case where you can say "well duh motherfucker, tell me something everyone already knows like how the sky is blue and water is wet!", but one cannot blame all rapes on rape culture. Some rapes are probably people following their own natural urges (natural don't mean correct, its natural to want to bash in the brains of a rival or walk around with the nuts and berries showing all the time and we tend to frown on those actions). I doubt the cases of female on male, male on male, or female on female rape or sexual assault are the result of rape culture (though will admit I could be mistaken on that assertion considering my view of rape culture tends to be men being programmed to create an atmosphere of rape towards women). For those sort of rapes and some "normal" rapes (if anything can be said to be normal about something as beyond fucked up as rape) its either just their biological urges saying procreate rather then being socially programmed to think they are entitled to their unwilling partners body or they are getting off on the power trip.

For the crazy bastards that get off on the power trip, the actual act of sex is supposed to be less important. To make some "big strong man" their bitch or to make someone submit to an "unnatural" act or just the knowledge they are the ones in control of someone else's body is the reason for doing it, the pleasure of sex is just a side benefit.

But of course the "power trip" rapes and F on M and same sex rapes are probably a significant minority of rapes even if the thought that female on male and same sex rapes are under reported thanks to society's stigma towards male victims of rape and those who have suffered "gay" rape is actually true.

[TheHammer]

I'm sorry, do you expect me to take you seriously? You offer no convincing counterargument why consent given by someone who is effectively temporarily brain-damaged is worth anything, but we should take it anyway, because our legal system isn't trustworthy? That's your compelling argument? "Yeah, everything you've said is true, but we don't trust our courts, so rather than reform anything about how our legal system handles things, let's just tell people it's their own fault if they got drunk."?

When did I say not to reform the legal system you idiot? As noted, that's what this entire discussion is about. My "compelling argument" is for WHY it should be changed.

A Person who starts drinking does so with the knowledge, and likely the hope, that they would achieve this state of "temporary brain damage". Being drunk does not absolve them of the consequences of decisions they made while drunk. Saying "Yes I consented, but I was drunk so it doesn't count" should have no more legal weight than saying "Yes I raped her, but I was drunk so it doesn't count".

I'm not going to assign blame to one of them as the offender and one as the victim, as I said in the post you're replying to, you fucking moron. I'm going to treat them both as if they were making decisions they wouldn't make sober, evaluate consequences for both, and try to make things right for both of them.

Except that you are assigning blame. If a crime has been committed, then someone committed it. If there has been no crime committed, then why the fuck would you need to bring the courts into the situation? What are you even arguing at that point?

And I don't actually have a whole thread of people telling me it makes no logical sense. I have one person telling me that, a couple people who are worried about the implications of my position (without actually saying that I am wrong), and a couple people saying that I'm right, and that they aren't arguing with me at all. That's even assuming "a bunch of other people think you're wrong" is a logical argument, which it isn't.

I said a bunch of other people said your argument makes no logical sense. And everyone of us has told you why. That's not an argumentum ad populum because it is backed up by reasoned facts. No get out of jail free for you there.

[Terralthra]

I'm sorry, do you expect me to take you seriously? You offer no convincing counterargument why consent given by someone who is effectively temporarily brain-damaged is worth anything, but we should take it anyway, because our legal system isn't trustworthy? That's your compelling argument? "Yeah, everything you've said is true, but we don't trust our courts, so rather than reform anything about how our legal system handles things, let's just tell people it's their own fault if they got drunk."?

When did I say not to reform the legal system you idiot? As noted, that's what this entire discussion is about. My "compelling argument" is for WHY it should be changed.

A Person who starts drinking does so with the knowledge, and likely the hope, that they would achieve this state of "temporary brain damage". Being drunk does not absolve them of the consequences of decisions they made while drunk. Saying "Yes I consented, but I was drunk so it doesn't count" should have no more legal weight than saying "Yes I raped her, but I was drunk so it doesn't count".

So, like I said at the beginning, you think it is perfectly ethical to fuck someone who is blackout drunk - that is, temporarily incapable of assessing risk, consequences, exercising good judgment, or forming memories - and if, when they regain their cognitive abilities, they believe the consent they gave while in that state was invalid, your answer is "you shouldn't have gotten drunk." Your proposed reform for the legal system is to make things that are currently rape, legal. Because...that will improve things. Somehow.

You may be shocked to discover this, but sometimes, every once in a while, someone gets more drunk than they intended to get. The idea that someone who starts drinking intended for every potential consequence of potential impairment, even impairment they may not have intended to incur, is lunatic on its face, given that I'm pretty sure you could poll any group of people that drink and find that nearly 100% of them have, at some point, gotten more drunk than they wanted to get.

I've even offered evidence of the court system in this country saying "consent given while intoxicated isn't voluntary," and you blithely ignored it.

I'm not going to assign blame to one of them as the offender and one as the victim, as I said in the post you're replying to, you fucking moron. I'm going to treat them both as if they were making decisions they wouldn't make sober, evaluate consequences for both, and try to make things right for both of them.

Except that you are assigning blame. If a crime has been committed, then someone committed it. If there has been no crime committed, then why the fuck would you need to bring the courts into the situation? What are you even arguing at that point?

It's possible for both parties in question to have acted in a less-than-ethical manner, and likewise possible for both parties to feel as if they are the aggrieved party. When there is uncertainty as to who is at fault - no one, one person, multiple people, everyone, and who deserves restitution - no one, one person, multiple people, everyone, we use a legal system to adjudicate it. That's...what it's for? If it were clear before we brought it in front of a judge & jury who was to blame and who was the victim, we wouldn't need the judge & jury.

And I don't actually have a whole thread of people telling me it makes no logical sense. I have one person telling me that, a couple people who are worried about the implications of my position (without actually saying that I am wrong), and a couple people saying that I'm right, and that they aren't arguing with me at all. That's even assuming "a bunch of other people think you're wrong" is a logical argument, which it isn't.

I said a bunch of other people said your argument makes no logical sense. And everyone of us has told you why. That's not an argumentum ad populum because it is backed up by reasoned facts. No get out of jail free for you there.

I'm still waiting for the reasoned facts. I've quoted scientific papers, surveys of perpetrators of sexual assault, judicial opinions from appeals courts, and the actual law in the state I live in. You've cited....jack fucking shit besides your own opinion. If you want to bring up some reasoned facts now on page 7 of the thread, you're more than welcome to do so, but don't pretend you've brought facts to this already. You haven't.

[TheHammer]

So, like I said at the beginning, you think it is perfectly ethical to fuck someone who is blackout drunk - that is, temporarily incapable of assessing risk, consequences, exercising good judgment, or forming memories - and if, when they regain their cognitive abilities, they believe the consent they gave while in that state was invalid, your answer is "you shouldn't have gotten drunk." Your proposed reform for the legal system is to make things that are currently rape, legal. Because...that will improve things. Somehow.

YOU ARE A MORON.

What I've said is that people who are blackout drunk don't go around saying things like "Whooo I'm blackout drunk!". Nor do they wear signs around their neck identifying them as such, and often times will act the same as others who aren't blackout drunk. My proposal is that a guy who has no way of knowing the difference shouldn't be put on trial for rape. Because.... It's NOT FUCKING RAPE.

You may be shocked to discover this, but sometimes, every once in a while, someone gets more drunk than they intended to get. The idea that someone who starts drinking intended for every potential consequence of potential impairment, even impairment they may not have intended to incur, is lunatic on its face, given that I'm pretty sure you could poll any group of people that drink and find that nearly 100% of them have, at some point, gotten more drunk than they wanted to get.

Yeah no shit Sherlock. People sometimes drink more than they intended? Really? At question is that once you've done that, does that mean you are no longer culpable for your own actions? I'd argue that for the vast majority the reason they drink is to lower inhibitions so that they can do things they wouldn't normally do sober. Such as go dancing, singing karaoke, talking with strangers, etc. It's called "social lubricant" for a reason. Only the individual knows what lines they do or do not intend to cross. But ultimate responsibility for crossing them should still lie with the individual even if they later regret doing so. The idea that two drunk people can have consensual sex, and that this somehow could be later re-interpreted as one raping the other is what helps fuel the divide.

I've even offered evidence of the court system in this country saying "consent given while intoxicated isn't voluntary," and you blithely ignored it.

I haven't ignored it. I'm not arguing the actual letter of law with you, I'm arguing what the law SHOULD be. If it was already properly written there is no need to be having this discussion.

Except that you are assigning blame. If a crime has been committed, then someone committed it. If there has been no crime committed, then why the fuck would you need to bring the courts into the situation? What are you even arguing at that point?

It's possible for both parties in question to have acted in a less-than-ethical manner, and likewise possible for both parties to feel as if they are the aggrieved party. When there is uncertainty as to who is at fault - no one, one person, multiple people, everyone, and who deserves restitution - no one, one person, multiple people, everyone, we use a legal system to adjudicate it. That's...what it's for? If it were clear before we brought it in front of a judge & jury who was to blame and who was the victim, we wouldn't need the judge & jury.

And if the law is written properly, then both parties could expect a reasonable outcome. Until the law is fixed the courts are only enforcing a broken system to begin with. This shouldn't even be a question. If someone gives affirmative consent throughout a sexual encounter, retroactively invalidating that consent when they "sober up" is fucking asinine.

I'm still waiting for the reasoned facts. I've quoted scientific papers, surveys of perpetrators of sexual assault, judicial opinions from appeals courts, and the actual law in the state I live in. You've cited....jack fucking shit besides your own opinion. If you want to bring up some reasoned facts now on page 7 of the thread, you're more than welcome to do so, but don't pretend you've brought facts to this already. You haven't.

Page 5 of this thread I linked the National Center for Biotechnology Information on the behavior of persons who were "blacked out drunk". In that study they cited many examples where persons in that state by outward appearances appeared to be very much cognitive of their situations, retaining skills such as driving, carrying on conversations, etc. If you didn't read it then that's not my problem. Your idea that it would be realistic to expect that individuals who have been drinking in a blacked out drunk state be identified prior to them sobering up and identifying themselves is ridiculous.

The way I see it, you've got two options to make the law fair and equally applied: You place responsibility on the individuals doing the drinking that consent they give is as valid is it is if they were sober, or you outlaw sex between drunk persons. Saying one party was too drunk to consent, but the second party was "less drunk" is something far too open to interpretation to ever be fairly applied.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Does the current law actually hold, as Terralthra says, that consensual sex with a drunk person is considered rape? My understanding was that they would have to be drunk to the point of being incapable of making decisions, which is well past the point of memory blackout.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm actually taking the position that both people who are blackout drunk are incapable of giving consent, and in the case that both of them wake up the next morning thinking "I have no idea what I did last night, but if it's have sex with that person, there is no way I would've done that if I were thinking straight", then I have faith that they can both, as reasonable people, say to each other "it's clear that no one person is at fault here," and if they can't, I have faith that a good legal system can sort it out with a minimum of unnecessary pain for either party. Sexual assault ranges in severity and impact, and any functioning ethical or legal system should be able to distinguish between overtly coercive or violent behavior, passive predatory behavior, and behavior that indicates poor understanding of boundaries/consent. Treating all sexual assault as if it's the first category is part of the problem.

It is part of the problem, combined with a "tough on crime" legal system that tends to positively enjoy doing horrible things to people once they are committed of a suitably horrible crime.

On the other hand, a case like ArthurTuxedo's remains problematic. They're both drunk, they're both significantly impaired, they decide while under the influence to have sex. But he remembers and she doesn't. His story is "she came on to me, I was too drunk to think twice about it, we had sex." Hers is "he got me drunk and... I don't remember but I do remember all my friends think he's an asshole, so he presumably raped me." Looks like a pretty serious sexual assault from the outside, and it's going to be damn hard to prove otherwise, especially in a way that involves "a minimum of unnecessary pain for either party."

I'm not saying I have an answer but I have to acknowledge that this is a concern.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

I was thinking the same thing. If you cut & pasted an actual predator into that scenario it would look identical from the outside, so how can a verdict be reached without throwing thousands of either victims or innocent accused people under the bus? The only person who would know the truth in that situation is the accused.

[TheHammer]

Does the current law actually hold, as Terralthra says, that consensual sex with a drunk person is considered rape? My understanding was that they would have to be drunk to the point of being incapable of making decisions, which is well past the point of memory blackout.

Therein lies the problem. Its not cut and dry. Most laws say that if someone is in such a state that they are "unable to consent" that it would be rape. To me, a reasonable standard would be that they were in such state of mind that they don't know where they are, unable to say either yes or no. But if you stretch that definition of "unable to consent" to include "Gave consent, but was under the influence of alcohol", then even the concept of "yes means yes" falls apart. As I noted before, we don't excuse drunk drivers because they were under the influence when they drove. Quite the contrary, we lambast them for being "irresponsible" for choosing to drive after drinking.

That's why I'm an advocate that if you make the decision to drink, then you must accept the consequences of your own actions while under the influence of alcohol. "No still means no", but "yes means yes" in that scenario and we're not sending good people to jail because a second party regretted their actions when they sobered up.

[Metahive]

Y'know, this is an issue that affects about half of humanity, but for some people it seems the most important part of it is the "I want to have sex while punch-drunk" demographic.

Sorry, no sympathy and understanding here, guys. Wanna' be one the safe side? Don't have sex while drunk or with people who are drunk.

[SCRawl]

Y'know, this is an issue that affects about half of humanity, but for some people it seems the most important part of it is the "I want to have sex while punch-drunk" demographic.

Sorry, no sympathy and understanding here, guys. Wanna' be one the safe side? Don't have sex while drunk or with people who are drunk.

A nitpick: "punch drunk" is a colloquial expression for the disorientation that can happen after a blow to the head, from the good old days before anyone cared about concussions or brain damage. Alcohol has nothing to do with it, aside from the inebriated state to which it is compared.