PDA

View Full Version : Too Drunk to Consent?


Pages : [1] 2

andyandy
22nd April 2012, 06:42 AM
Ok - so a high(ish) profile case in the UK at the moment - a professional footballer jailed for 5 years for having sex with a woman too drunk to consent:

An international footballer is starting a five-year jail sentence for raping a teenager who was too drunk to consent to sex with him.

The Wales and Sheffield United striker Ched Evans was found guilty of raping the 19-year-old following a night out at a seaside town. His friend and fellow professional footballer, Clayton McDonald, was cleared of the same charge.

The court heard that the men, both 23, admitted they had sex with the young woman but the prosecution argued that she was too drunk to consent.

A jury at Caernarfon crown court cleared McDonald, a Port Vale player, after almost five hours of deliberations. His family and friends in the public gallery reacted by shouting: "Yes, yes." Evans wept as the jury then returned the guilty verdict against him.

Jailing Evans, Judge Merfyn Hughes QC said: "The complainant was 19 years of age and was extremely intoxicated. As the jury have found, she was in no condition to have sexual intercourse. You must have realised that."

He told Evans that he might have been used to receiving attention from women owing to his success but this case was "very different". The judge added: "You have thrown away the successful career in which you were involved."

Nita Dowell, senior crown prosecutor in Wales, said: "Ched Evans took advantage of a vulnerable young woman who was in no fit state to consent to sexual activity.http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/apr/20/ched-evans-found-guilty-rape

Without getting into the specifics of the case (which I don't know....though it seems odd that one man was cleared whilst the other convicted despite them both having sex with the woman....any more details on this?) it makes me wonder on a few things:

1) Is there a legal definition of "too drunk"? What metric is used?
2) Could a woman ever be convicted of rape under the same law? (Has it happened?)
3) Does the law only apply if one person is sober and the other drunk? What if both people are too drunk? Is there the same liability? Could both people be convicted of rape for the same sex act?

discuss.....

Professor Yaffle
22nd April 2012, 06:48 AM
As far as I can tell from the cases I have seen, it means basically so drunk that you are lying there not really knowing what is going on. I've never read of a case in which, for example, a woman was very drunk, but enthusiastically participated in the act and then claimed to be too drunk to consent. If that is the case, it seems to answer your other questions about what if both are drunk.

ETA: From your link:

Evans denied forcing the woman into having sex and insisted she was conscious. Asked what condition she was in, he said: "She had had a drink but she was not very drunk." He said she was "in control".

But in a police interview the woman said she had no memories of how she got to the hotel. She had drunk wine, four double vodkas and a shot of sambuca.

CCTV footage showed her falling over in a kebab shop. A receptionist at the hotel described the woman as "extremely drunk" and said she was "stumbling" and "slurring".

andyandy
22nd April 2012, 06:59 AM
As far as I can tell from the cases I have seen, it means basically so drunk that you are lying there not really knowing what is going on. I've never read of a case in which, for example, a woman was very drunk, but enthusiastically participated in the act and then claimed to be too drunk to consent. If that is the case, it seems to answer your other questions about what if both are drunk.

ETA: From your link:

I can agree that there should be an offence of having sex with someone so drunk that they are basically paralytic - but i am interested in the practicalities of where the line for "too drunk" is drawn. Anyone know the actual legal guidelines? Lots of stumbling and slurring people have sex and suffer memory loss the morning after, but are they all guilty of rape? How did they go beyond that to prove she was basically paralytic? And could a woman be convicted of the same offence?

tyr_13
22nd April 2012, 07:02 AM
I can agree that there should be an offence of having sex with someone so drunk that they are basically paralytic - but i am interested in the practicalities of where the line for "too drunk" is drawn. Anyone know the actual legal guidelines? And could a woman be convicted of the same offence?

I'm not sure of the legal guild lines and assume (until corrected by someone with more specific knowledge that is) that a jury is needed to determine that. You know, one of those 'reasonable' standards.

As to a woman being convicted of the same offense, I can't think of a reason why not.

andyandy
22nd April 2012, 07:11 AM
As to a woman being convicted of the same offense, I can't think of a reason why not.

I ask because I can't see it actually happening - there's just such a different social attitude towards sex depending on whether it's men or women. The first question is how many men would wake up having had sex they don't remember , having been too drunk and regard that as rape? The second question is if a man did regard it as rape, how seriously would the police, the CPS or ultimately a jury take that allegation? The definition of rape when concerning a man and a woman seems pretty rooted in the notion that the man is the perpetrator and the woman the victim.

Pulvinar
22nd April 2012, 07:22 AM
The woman should be taking at least half the blame-- she willingly handed control of her body over to a drunk. Who would be blamed if he had run into her car at an intersection?

Tsukasa Buddha
22nd April 2012, 07:58 AM
I ask because I can't see it actually happening - there's just such a different social attitude towards sex depending on whether it's men or women. The first question is how many men would wake up having had sex they don't remember , having been too drunk and regard that as rape? The second question is if a man did regard it as rape, how seriously would the police, the CPS or ultimately a jury take that allegation? The definition of rape when concerning a man and a woman seems pretty rooted in the notion that the man is the perpetrator and the woman the victim.

I agree there is a cultural notion, but most authorities have a broad legal description.

It is quite clear that people drugged cannot give consent. The problem is that culturally we are fine with people drugging themselves with alcohol.

As for if the other person is drunk, well that doesn't prevent them from committing other crimes. However, it is often difficult to even get a police investigation in cases like these. I suspect the celebrity factor might have ironically helped here.

ETA: See later post on Sexual Offences Act.

JJM 777
22nd April 2012, 07:59 AM
Drunk people get laid. Then the state sends one of them to jail for 5 years. Is this China or what? Modern society can do better, can it? Either sex is legal when drunk or high, for everyone, or then it is illegal when drunk or high, for everyone. Please state try to decide, and be coherent.

Tsukasa Buddha
22nd April 2012, 08:01 AM
The woman should be taking at least half the blame-- she willingly handed control of her body over to a drunk. Who would be blamed if he had run into her car at an intersection?

This is why it is hard to properly prosecute these cases. And it would be more comparable to leaving your car unlocked and then someone stealing it. Was it savvy on your part? No, but that doesn't change the fact that it was theft.

Tsukasa Buddha
22nd April 2012, 08:07 AM
Drunk people get laid.

Drugged people also get sexually assaulted. I don't think anyone is saying the line is easy to draw, but it is silly to say there is no line.

Either sex is legal when drunk or high, for everyone, or then it is illegal when drunk or high, for everyone. Please state try to decide, and be coherent

There is no need for a false dichotomy. The dividing line usually revolves around consciousness and being able to communicate consent or lack thereof.

I am quite happy to live in a society that prevents people from being drugged and raped. The fact that self-druggers fall under that is only a practical problem for the judge or jury.

crimresearch
22nd April 2012, 08:08 AM
I can agree that there should be an offence of having sex with someone so drunk that they are basically paralytic - but i am interested in the practicalities of where the line for "too drunk" is drawn. Anyone know the actual legal guidelines? Lots of stumbling and slurring people have sex and suffer memory loss the morning after, but are they all guilty of rape? How did they go beyond that to prove she was basically paralytic? And could a woman be convicted of the same offence?
The law doesn't work that way. TOTC.

crimresearch
22nd April 2012, 08:10 AM
Drunk people get laid. Then the state sends one of them to jail for 5 years. Is this China or what? Modern society can do better, can it? Either sex is legal when drunk or high, for everyone, or then it is illegal when drunk or high, for everyone. Please state try to decide, and be coherent.
Since you are waving around the broad brush, then why bother to criminalize the use of rohypnol? Intoxicated is intoxicated, and sex is sex, right?

geni
22nd April 2012, 08:21 AM
I suspect the celebrity factor might have ironically helped here.

There is a CT or cynical sugestion floating around that the main reason that the policeand CPS went after the case so hard is to serve as a warning to the wider football comunity that they are not above the law. That the players happened to be white may be viewed as something of a bonus.

Captain_Swoop
22nd April 2012, 08:23 AM
Easy, if a woman is passed out don't have sex with her.

What's the problem?

Tsukasa Buddha
22nd April 2012, 08:30 AM
Here are some relevant legal notes (Not sure if these specific laws came into play here):

In this jurisdiction the position is something of a half-way house. Evidence of intoxication can be considered for some offences but not for others (the case which is usually cited for authority for this is DPP v Majewski [1976] 2 All ER 142 although the roots of the doctrine go back far further: Singh, 1933). Offences are divided into two categories – those requiring a ‘specific’ intent and those requiring a ‘basic’ intent. If the offence requires a ‘specific’ intent, e.g. murder, then the jury may consider evidence relating to intoxication in order to decide whether or not the defendant possessed the required mental state. It should be emphasised that this does not mean that every defendant who is being tried for a ‘specific’ intent offence is going to be acquitted if he was drunk at the time of the offence. The evidence will be considered and only if he did not form the required mental state will he be acquitted (Sheehan and Moore [1975] 2 All ER 960).

If the offence is one of ‘basic’ intent, evidence of voluntary intoxication cannot be considered. However grave the charge, the evidence is deemed irrelevant. Given this structure, it is obvious that the definitions of ‘specific’ intent and ‘basic’ intent are of paramount importance. In Majewski [1976] 2 All ER 142, the judges considered this issue carefully but came up with different definitions. It is certainly true that some of the current categorisations are, therefore, problematic in terms of criminal law theory (Dingwall, 2006: 107-109) but, in practical terms, there is no real confusion as the courts have determined on a case-by-case basis which offences fall into each category.

...

This does not mean that every time B has been drinking she loses the freedom and capacity to decide whether to have sexual intercourse. It is suggested that the freedom and capacity to make such a choice is only lost when she is incapacitated by the alcohol. This is a question of fact for the jury to make. There are also two ‘evidential presumptions’ which could be relevant. If the complainant was asleep or ‘otherwise unconscious at the time of the relevant act’ (s.75(2)(d)) or if ‘any person had administered to or caused to be taken by the complainant, without the complainant’s consent, a substance which…was capable of causing or enabling the complainant to be stupefied or overpowered at the time of the relevant act’ (s.75(2)(f)) then there will be no consent unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue that there was consent (Finch and Munro, 2004). It is suggested that in these situations it would be exceptionally difficult to raise an argument that B was consenting.

If B does not consent to the penetration, it has to be shown that A does not reasonably believe that B consents. Rape traditionally has been regarded as a crime of ‘basic’ intent (Fotheringham (1988) 88 Cr.App.R. 206) and it seems logical that the defendant’s intoxication cannot be taken into consideration in determining whether his belief that B was consenting was reasonable. The campaign is to be welcomed in that it publicises how intoxicated men cannot rely on evidence of intoxication to show that they believed that the complainant was consenting. At the same time, it has to be recognised that drunkenness and incapacitation are not synonymous, and that only the incapacitated cannot consent to sexual intercourse.

Linky. (http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/publications/alcoholalert/alert200601/al2006_p10.html)

Interestingly, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 is not gender neutral. But that is a larger problem than the "drunken consent" one.

Rape

In each UK country, a man would commit rape if he intentionally penetrates with his penis the vagina, mouth or anus of another person, male or female, without that person’s consent or if they are under 13. This is the only sexual offence which can only be committed by a man.

Women cannot be charged with the offence of rape as this is defined as penile penetration, but she could be charged with another offence such as causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent, sexual coercion or assault, or assault by penetration. These may not all apply in each country.

Linky. (http://www.fpa.org.uk/professionals/factsheets/lawonsex#p8vW)

Professor Yaffle
22nd April 2012, 08:54 AM
Actually, women can be charged with rape in the UK (or at least in England) under certain unusual circumstances:

An 18-year-old woman has been convicted of rape after she pinned down a victim during a horrific gang sex attack.
Claire Marsh is thought to be the youngest woman in Britain to be convicted of rape after she also punched the 37-year-old victim in the face and ripped off her top as she was gang-raped on a canal towpath.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/16/newsid_2521000/2521053.stm

Professor Yaffle
22nd April 2012, 09:00 AM
This clarification on the law regarding alcohol and rape is relevant:

Sir Igor Judge, Lady Justice Hallett and Mrs Justice Gloster said the appeal had required them to "address the effect of voluntary heavy alcohol consumption as it applies to the law of rape".

In making the ruling, Sir Igor said: "If, through drink - or for any other reason - the complainant has temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have intercourse on the relevant occasion, she is not consenting, and subject to questions about the defendant's state of mind, if the intercourse takes place, this would be rape.

"However, where the complainant has voluntarily consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remains capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse, and in drink agrees to do so this would not be rape."

He added that the "capacity to consent may evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6497889.stm

RenaissanceBiker
22nd April 2012, 09:38 AM
Easy, if a woman is passed out don't have sex with her.

What's the problem?
That's a good rule. What if she passes out during sex?

RenaissanceBiker
22nd April 2012, 09:40 AM
Since you are waving around the broad brush, then why bother to criminalize the use of rohypnol? Intoxicated is intoxicated, and sex is sex, right?
I think the issue there is that a person usually chooses to drink alcohol and rohypnol is usually given to an unsuspecting person.

tyr_13
22nd April 2012, 10:11 AM
I ask because I can't see it actually happening - there's just such a different social attitude towards sex depending on whether it's men or women. The first question is how many men would wake up having had sex they don't remember , having been too drunk and regard that as rape? The second question is if a man did regard it as rape, how seriously would the police, the CPS or ultimately a jury take that allegation? The definition of rape when concerning a man and a woman seems pretty rooted in the notion that the man is the perpetrator and the woman the victim.


Yes, there are huge issues with the treatment of men in cases of sexual assault and rape, cultural attitudes, and assumed states. For many people, the default state of a man for consent and sex is 'yes'. That is to say, unless a man actively denies wanting to have sex in a specific incident (and sometimes even then!), he is consenting for any sex involving a woman. The opposite is assumed for women. Unless she specifically grants consent, then she is in effect saying 'no' even by saying nothing at all. Note that I'm not saying they should meet in the middle for some 'Golden Mean'. I'd say that the default state for everyone should be 'no' until consent is given.

Of course once given, it can be taken away at any time. And consenting to some sexual acts doesn't mean consent was given for other sexual acts. This can go on and on, and is a discussion with legs (but don't touch those legs without permission).


That's a good rule. What if she passes out during sex?

Then you're either doing it very wrong, or very right.

Serious answer? It depends on what you mean by 'during'. Personally I'd be pretty disappointed and/or freaked out that someone passed out during such an act. If the person consents and then passes out before beginning, I'd have to say that unless what they consented to included sex while passed out, then don't do it. After all, they are now incapable of articulating which sexual acts they are consenting too. With or without a condom? With or without a camera? With or without Janis from accounting?

crimresearch
22nd April 2012, 10:24 AM
I think the issue there is that a person usually chooses to drink alcohol and rohypnol is usually given to an unsuspecting person.
Usually, but not always. Spiked punch, plying an inexperienced drinker with champagne or fruit flavored drinks, etc.

fuelair
22nd April 2012, 10:42 AM
I may have missed this, but any explanation why if both had sex with her only one was found guilty?

Professor Yaffle
22nd April 2012, 10:47 AM
I may have missed this, but any explanation why if both had sex with her only one was found guilty?

Presumably she carried on drinking after having sex with McDonald, or the effects of the alcohol were more pronounced later? I'll see if i can find an article which covers that in more detail.

BenBurch
22nd April 2012, 10:48 AM
That's a good rule. What if she passes out during sex?

And what if she WANTS to be passed-out during sex? This seriously is a fetish some women have. So, she consents beforehand, but by the time she is sedated, she cannot withdraw consent. What's that, legally?

mijopaalmc
22nd April 2012, 10:52 AM
Since you are waving around the broad brush, then why bother to criminalize the use of rohypnol? Intoxicated is intoxicated, and sex is sex, right?

I thought that you would understand by now that JJM 777 is either arguing for the sake of argument or has no grasp of the legal concept of consent.

katy_did
22nd April 2012, 10:53 AM
I may have missed this, but any explanation why if both had sex with her only one was found guilty?

Different circumstances basically. McDonald met the girl in a kebab shop (or stumbled across her might be a better phrase!), and took her back to his hotel in a taxi, where they had sex. At some point he'd sent a text message to his friends saying he'd "got a bird" and they turned up at the hotel; Evans tricked the receptionist into giving him a key, went to the room, had sex with the girl while the other two friends filmed it with a mobile phone through the window, and then left by the hotel's emergency exit.

The jury must have believed that the girl was too intoxicated to consent to sex, but that it was at least possible McDonald believed the girl had consented, and so they gave him the benefit of the doubt. Evans had no such excuse...

mijopaalmc
22nd April 2012, 10:55 AM
And what if she WANTS to be passed-out during sex? This seriously is a fetish some women have. So, she consents beforehand, but by the time she is sedated, she cannot withdraw consent. What's that, legally?

And what Martians are really controlling both participants so that neither one actually consented?

BenBurch
22nd April 2012, 10:56 AM
And what Martians are really controlling both participants so that neither one actually consented?

There are no real Martians. There are real women who have the fetish I described. I know a couple of them. So it's a real issue, and not an "angel on pins" sort of thing.

TheGoldcountry
22nd April 2012, 11:00 AM
Easy, if a woman is passed out don't have sex with her.

What's the problem?

A person can be technically "conscious" and still be considered incoherent and unable to think. Take it from a former bartender and drunk, "passed out" is not the guideline that should be used. (I'm not sure what should be used, but it's not as clear as awake/passed out)

ETA: Especially if other substances are involved.

BStrong
22nd April 2012, 11:02 AM
That's a good rule. What if she passes out during sex?

That means you weren't doing a good job of it.

Seriously though, the litmus test is if a participant has no knowledge or recollection of the act ocurring, there may be grounds for prosecution.

Locally there was a case involving several individuals who were students at De Anza college who were investigated for an instance of gang rape:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/14/BACO1LHQ48.DTL

Charges were not filed in part because the victim was so intoxicated she could not give a definitive account of the crime. Other women at the scene put an end to the festivites but could not I.D. the male actors.

BStrong
22nd April 2012, 11:04 AM
And what if she WANTS to be passed-out during sex? This seriously is a fetish some women have. So, she consents beforehand, but by the time she is sedated, she cannot withdraw consent. What's that, legally?

That's a new one on me - evidence?

Last of the Fraggles
22nd April 2012, 11:10 AM
This clarification on the law regarding alcohol and rape is relevant:



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6497889.stm

That's not a very clear clarification really is it?

If she says yes but is too drunk to understand that she'll regret it in the morning where is that on this scale?

Part of me wants to say that if you don't want to have sex with footballers you really should consider not drinking till you pass out in their rooms.

On a more light hearted note has anyone tried the 'too drunk to consent' thing when buying crap you don't want/need off ebay?

Last of the Fraggles
22nd April 2012, 11:12 AM
That means you weren't doing a good job of it.

Seriously though, the litmus test is if a participant has no knowledge or recollection of the act ocurring, there may be grounds for prosecution.

Locally there was a case involving several individuals who were students at De Anza college who were investigated for an instance of gang rape:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/14/BACO1LHQ48.DTL

Charges were not filed in part because the victim was so intoxicated she could not give a definitive account of the crime. Other women at the scene put an end to the festivites but could not I.D. the male actors.

That's a pretty horrible litmus test if you can only tell whether she was really consenting the morning after and she can recollect it and is ok with it.

RemieV
22nd April 2012, 11:30 AM
I would guess that there was implied consent in that she went to the one guy's room. The other guy just showed up and doinked her - no implied consent. This absolutely does not appear to be a case of doing something stupid while drunk and regretting it.

BStrong
22nd April 2012, 11:34 AM
That's a pretty horrible litmus test if you can only tell whether she was really consenting the morning after and she can recollect it and is ok with it.

It's a good argument in favor of sober sex.

Professor Yaffle
22nd April 2012, 11:40 AM
That's a pretty horrible litmus test if you can only tell whether she was really consenting the morning after and she can recollect it and is ok with it.

If you're not sure whether or not you are about to rape someone, best not go ahead and have sex anyway.

TheGoldcountry
22nd April 2012, 11:41 AM
It's a good argument in favor of sober sex.

I don't think anyone would argue with that, unfortunately people always have and always will make those decisions oftentimes when they are inebriated. I don't think a person's rights should disappear because they made the mistake of having one too many.

mijopaalmc
22nd April 2012, 11:50 AM
There are no real Martians.

So you assert.

There are real women who have the fetish I described. I know a couple of them.

So you assert.

So it's a real issue, and not an "angel on pins" sort of thing.

All we have is your word in an issue where all you have to do is convince a single jury member the alledged victim is a "slut who wanted it" to get acquitted.

BStrong
22nd April 2012, 11:50 AM
I don't think anyone would argue with that, unfortunately people always have and always will make those decisions oftentimes when they are inebriated. I don't think a person's rights should disappear because they made the mistake of having one too many.

"If you're drunk, don't park, accidents cause people."

George Carlin

JJM 777
22nd April 2012, 12:23 PM
I am quite happy to live in a society that prevents people from being drugged and raped. The fact that self-druggers fall under that is only a practical problem for the judge or jury.
"Practical problem for the judge"? Ooh he might get a sleepless night or two.

It is more of a problem to men who may face a long and devastating jail sentence, without having done anything wrong, if the judge believes that he maybe did something wrong.

BenBurch
22nd April 2012, 12:28 PM
That's a new one on me - evidence?

It's a medical fetish, usually, though in the case of one woman I know, she has the desire to be objectified, and the ultimate objectification to her was to be sexually used as a dead body. Of course, nobody would kill her to make that happen, and she wouldn't have ever had a chance to enjoy it anyway, so what they arranged was to have a MD administer a sedative and a dissociative at a sexual fetish convention. I gather it was all she had hoped for.

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/Anesthesia+fetishism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_fetishism

mijopaalmc
22nd April 2012, 12:30 PM
"Practical problem for the judge"? Ooh he might get a sleepless night or two.

It is more of a problem to men who may face a long and devastating jail sentence, without having done anything wrong, if the judge believes that he maybe did something wrong.

Yeah, because women are sluts who are asking for it and victimize poor, innocent men when the men try to exercise their masculine rights.

Seriously, you're the one who thinks that sratutory rape laws are "neo-Victorianist"?

BenBurch
22nd April 2012, 12:30 PM
...
So you assert.

...

I've posted some proof, and google will find you more.

I found your response to be personally offensive.

mijopaalmc
22nd April 2012, 12:37 PM
I've posted some proof, and google will find you more.

I found your response to be personally offensive.

Well, then you should be presonally offended at the course of most rape prosecutions.

I find the constant what-iffing somehow is problematic for the legal concept of consent to be personally offensive.

bookitty
22nd April 2012, 12:41 PM
There are no real Martians. There are real women who have the fetish I described. I know a couple of them. So it's a real issue, and not an "angel on pins" sort of thing.

But what if...if...if. Christ, it gets old. Also, I seriously doubt that you know several women who get off on being blind puking drunk and having sex with strangers.

If a person has a sexual fetish which is dangerous to both themselves and their partner (physically or legally), safety precautions need to be taken. This includes discussing the situation beforehand, safe words, finding a partner that you can trust, among other things. The BDSM community has much to teach us in this regard.

If your hypothetical friends get off on being so drunk they pass out before sex, (and really, how does the getting off even happen?) and their partners don't know that, their partners are simply taking advantage of a passed out woman. From the partners perspective, they have gotten away with rape. The fact that the completely-unable to consent woman may like it later (Not at the time, She's passed out, remember.) doesn't stop it from being rape.

Antiquehunter
22nd April 2012, 12:43 PM
What I fail to understand, is how one rapist got convicted and the other (even though he had sex with the woman) walked?

So, the woman was in no condition to consent when footballer #1 had his way with her, but she sobered up sufficiently during the act to say 'yes' and that meant 'yes' for #2?

No comprende.

As regards the question whether a woman could be convicted of the same offence - I think it would be somewhat more difficult. Presumably if a man is too drunk to consent (or not consent), he probably is also too drunk to 'function'. So perhaps a woman could be convicted of some sort of molestation type of charge, but I doubt she'd be able to consummate a 'rape'. Depends how 'rape' is defined.

Professor Yaffle
22nd April 2012, 12:46 PM
What I fail to understand, is how one rapist got convicted and the other (even though he had sex with the woman) walked?

So, the woman was in no condition to consent when footballer #1 had his way with her, but she sobered up sufficiently during the act to say 'yes' and that meant 'yes' for #2?

No comprende.



I think this earlier post by katy_did seems most likely:

Different circumstances basically. McDonald met the girl in a kebab shop (or stumbled across her might be a better phrase!), and took her back to his hotel in a taxi, where they had sex. At some point he'd sent a text message to his friends saying he'd "got a bird" and they turned up at the hotel; Evans tricked the receptionist into giving him a key, went to the room, had sex with the girl while the other two friends filmed it with a mobile phone through the window, and then left by the hotel's emergency exit.

The jury must have believed that the girl was too intoxicated to consent to sex, but that it was at least possible McDonald believed the girl had consented, and so they gave him the benefit of the doubt. Evans had no such excuse...

bookitty
22nd April 2012, 12:47 PM
What I fail to understand, is how one rapist got convicted and the other (even though he had sex with the woman) walked?

So, the woman was in no condition to consent when footballer #1 had his way with her, but she sobered up sufficiently during the act to say 'yes' and that meant 'yes' for #2?

No comprende.

As regards the question whether a woman could be convicted of the same offence - I think it would be somewhat more difficult. Presumably if a man is too drunk to consent (or not consent), he probably is also too drunk to 'function'. So perhaps a woman could be convicted of some sort of molestation type of charge, but I doubt she'd be able to consummate a 'rape'. Depends how 'rape' is defined.

The attack happened at a Premier Inn near Rhyl, north Wales, after the footballers had been on a night out last May. The prosecution said McDonald took the woman back to the hotel where they had sex and were later joined by Evans, who also had intercourse with the teenager.

Footballer #2 was found guilt of rape. Footballer #1 was cleared.

BenBurch
22nd April 2012, 12:49 PM
But what if...if...if. Christ, it gets old. Also, I seriously doubt that you know several women who get off on being blind puking drunk and having sex with strangers.

If a person has a sexual fetish which is dangerous to both themselves and their partner (physically or legally), safety precautions need to be taken. This includes discussing the situation beforehand, safe words, and finding a partner that you can trust.

If your hypothetical friends get off on being so drunk they pass out before sex, (and really, how does the getting off even happen?) and their partners don't know that, their partners are simply taking advantage of a passed out woman. From the partners perspective, they have gotten away with rape. The fact that the completely-unable to consent woman may like it later (Not at the time, She's passed out, remember.) doesn't stop it from being rape.

So, you want my friends to not have sex.
You want to tell them what sort of sex they MAY have?
Sex that you personally approve of?

And what of non sexual dangerous things people do? Like free-climbing? We should prohibit that, too?

I seriously DO know people with major kinks you would find disturbing, lots of them. I've run with that crowd for a long, long time though my own kinks are quite tame in comparison.

Checkmite
22nd April 2012, 12:50 PM
If you're not sure whether or not you are about to rape someone, best not go ahead and have sex anyway.

Yep.

Antiquehunter
22nd April 2012, 12:50 PM
Hmm... so the moral of this story seems to be... don't let your friends video you having dodgy drunken passed-out sex. Especially don't be first in line at the gang-bang.

Pretty vile behaviour by all involved. Does strike me as a big leap of faith to acquit one, not the other, but I wasn't on the jury, so...

Professor Yaffle
22nd April 2012, 12:52 PM
Hmm... so the moral of this story seems to be... don't let your friends video you having dodgy drunken passed-out sex. Especially don't be first in line at the gang-bang.

Pretty vile behaviour by all involved. Does strike me as a big leap of faith to acquit one, not the other, but I wasn't on the jury, so...

Are you not reading the replies to your posts? It was the second guy that was found guilty.

Antiquehunter
22nd April 2012, 12:57 PM
I'm rereading, and I found where I was misunderstanding. So - don't be SECOND to the gang-bang.

Anyways - still not really getting the juror's logic.

I wonder if the convicted individual had a) not snuck into the hotel, b) not 'escpaed' out the emergency exit, and c) not had a video record, he would've gotten away with it just as #1 did? The dodgy behaviour AROUND the event seems to have been motivators for the jury. If he'd just asked McDonald if he could join the party, and left out the front door, perhaps he'd still be striking for his team. (If you'll pardon the pun)

BenBurch
22nd April 2012, 01:00 PM
BTW, on the if-if-if argument;

Law HAS to consider everything and all people. No people are above the law, so no people can be exempted from consideration when law is made.

Many of these same arguments directly effect BDSM play, BTW, people set up scenes with advance consent and in the course of these scenes, you may be bound, unable to move, and gagged. Most people have safewords, yes, but some people are not turned on by play that has a safeword, and you would have them criminalized as well?

bookitty
22nd April 2012, 01:01 PM
So, you want my friends to not have sex.
You want to tell them what sort of sex they MAY have?
Sex that you personally approve of?

And what of non sexual dangerous things people do? Like free-climbing? We should prohibit that, too?

I seriously DO know people with major kinks you would find disturbing, lots of them. I've run with that crowd for a long, long time though my own kinks are quite tame in comparison.

Nice straw man. I said take precautions and respect your partner. Which is not anti-sex any more than promoting condom usage.

Your example was that you know women who engage in sex while passed out. Only later did you mention that these woman take every precaution to realize their fantasy in a safe, sane way. Bravo for them! I sincerely wish more people would follow their example.

Your first post implied that the 19 year old might not have been raped because lots of women like to have sex while passed out. Allowing oneself to become incapacitated with a stranger does not absolve the stranger of rape.

ETA: And stop bragging about knowing people in the community. Everybody hates a tourist.

mijopaalmc
22nd April 2012, 01:06 PM
BTW, on the if-if-if argument;

Law HAS to consider everything and all people. No people are above the law, so no people can be exempted from consideration when law is made.

Many of these same arguments directly effect BDSM play, BTW, people set up scenes with advance consent and in the course of these scenes, you may be bound, unable to move, and gagged. Most people have safewords, yes, but some people are not turned on by play that has a safeword, and you would have them criminalized as well?

Perhaps you would like to join JJM 777 in advocating 12 as the age of consent for girls. You seem to have a comparable understanding of consent.

BenBurch
22nd April 2012, 01:07 PM
Not bragging, if I were bragging we'd be at this all day. You called me a liar, and the only way I can counter your assault on my name is to say how I know what I know.

No, the thing I was reacting to originally was the concept that rape begins when the ability to withdraw consent ends. And it is a real fact that law HAS to at some point deal with that, will eventually be forced to, and when the law deals with edge play, the law is often an ass. For example the "Spanner" case in England.

bookitty
22nd April 2012, 01:09 PM
I'm rereading, and I found where I was misunderstanding. So - don't be SECOND to the gang-bang.

Anyways - still not really getting the juror's logic.

I wonder if the convicted individual had a) not snuck into the hotel, b) not 'escpaed' out the emergency exit, and c) not had a video record, he would've gotten away with it just as #1 did? The dodgy behaviour AROUND the event seems to have been motivators for the jury. If he'd just asked McDonald if he could join the party, and left out the front door, perhaps he'd still be striking for his team. (If you'll pardon the pun)

There is no mention of the acquitted footballer being in the room at the time that the rape happened. We know that Evans got the hotel room key from the front desk under false pretenses. Which he would not have needed to do if McDonald was in the room.

Even if McDonald was aware of what was going on, Evans is still guilty. Just because someone agrees to have sex with a stranger doesn't mean they want to be passed around the room. You're assuming that because this woman had sex with one person, that she no longer has any grounds to refuse sex with someone else.

RemieV
22nd April 2012, 01:09 PM
I'm rereading, and I found where I was misunderstanding. So - don't be SECOND to the gang-bang.

Anyways - still not really getting the juror's logic.

I wonder if the convicted individual had a) not snuck into the hotel, b) not 'escpaed' out the emergency exit, and c) not had a video record, he would've gotten away with it just as #1 did? The dodgy behaviour AROUND the event seems to have been motivators for the jury. If he'd just asked McDonald if he could join the party, and left out the front door, perhaps he'd still be striking for his team. (If you'll pardon the pun)

The first guy could conceivably have believed that there was consent. The second guy behaved as though he knew what he was doing was wrong, speaking to intent.

ponderingturtle
22nd April 2012, 01:13 PM
Usually, but not always. Spiked punch, plying an inexperienced drinker with champagne or fruit flavored drinks, etc.

Should these be viewed as a factor for DWI? If you are too drunk to know what you are doing how can you be held responsible for your choices?

bookitty
22nd April 2012, 01:13 PM
BTW, on the if-if-if argument;

Law HAS to consider everything and all people. No people are above the law, so no people can be exempted from consideration when law is made.

Many of these same arguments directly effect BDSM play, BTW, people set up scenes with advance consent and in the course of these scenes, you may be bound, unable to move, and gagged. Most people have safewords, yes, but some people are not turned on by play that has a safeword, and you would have them criminalized as well?

Funny because this is the basis for some ongoing concern within the community.

(Please note: these links are NSFW)

http://say-nine.com/02/this-isnt-play-bdsm-and-rape/

http://www.sfbg.com/sexsf/2012/01/23/bad-kind-pain-kitty-stryker-talks-sexual-abuse-bdsm-community

http://www.kinkabuse.com/?page_id=74

BenBurch
22nd April 2012, 01:16 PM
Funny because this is the basis for some ongoing concern within the community.

(Please note: these links are NSFW)

http://say-nine.com/02/this-isnt-play-bdsm-and-rape/

http://www.sfbg.com/sexsf/2012/01/23/bad-kind-pain-kitty-stryker-talks-sexual-abuse-bdsm-community

http://www.kinkabuse.com/?page_id=74

"My kink is OK, your kink is sick."

Please.

I've been hearing that since about 1978 now...

RemieV
22nd April 2012, 01:17 PM
Should these be viewed as a factor for DWI? If you are too drunk to know what you are doing how can you be held responsible for your choices?

People who get DUIs sometimes will sue the bar they got drunk at, yes. And they win - because the bartenders are not supposed to serve more than one drink an hour, by law. In Texas, it was required that I, as a cocktail waitress, had to be certified by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission. It's there that you learn these laws.

Antiquehunter
22nd April 2012, 01:17 PM
You're assuming that because this woman had sex with one person, that she no longer has any grounds to refuse sex with someone else.

No, actually, the way my head is working is that:

- The woman was too drunk to give consent to the second person who penetrated her.

- As such, how could she be in a position to give consent to the first? Presumably she was not MORE drunk when #2 had his way with her?

It would appear to me that the jury seems to have given #1 a 'bye' on the basis that perhaps she made an informed consent back at the kebab shop or whatnot.

That, or all the sneaking around by #2 showed that his intent was malicious whereas #1 is an upstanding member of the community by simply taking a really drunk woman up to his hotel room (and SMSing his buddies that he 'Got a bird!')

I would think that a better way of looking at this, was that the woman did give consent to #1, and did not give consent to #2.

If the woman was 'too drunk' to consent to #2, then either she drank more liquor between #1 & #2, putting her over the top, or she was also too drunk to consent to #1.

Anyways, its not the first time that a jury rules in a way that I can't figure out, won't be the last.

bookitty
22nd April 2012, 01:17 PM
"My kink is OK, your kink is sick."

Please.

I've been hearing that since about 1978 now...

All of those articles are written by people within the scene. Something you might have gleaned had you taken the time to read them.

crimresearch
22nd April 2012, 01:19 PM
Funny because this is the basis for some ongoing concern within the community.

(Please note: these links are NSFW)

http://say-nine.com/02/this-isnt-play-bdsm-and-rape/

http://www.sfbg.com/sexsf/2012/01/23/bad-kind-pain-kitty-stryker-talks-sexual-abuse-bdsm-community

http://www.kinkabuse.com/?page_id=74
Some of us use WIITWD, (What It Is That We Do) because there really is no BDSM community. Even those who operate under that label and form communal groups, fail to represent the majority of kinksters.

There are people who disagree on almost every aspect, and who want to have nothing to do with people who see things differently.

CnC/Internal Enslavement is one of many 'hot button' issues, with no easy answers.

BenBurch
22nd April 2012, 01:19 PM
All of those articles are written by people within the scene. Something you might have gleaned had you taken the time to read them.

Yeah, I know. I used to encounter those people all the time. In the scene. I've found that just because somebody has come out of a closet or two this doesn't mean that they have somehow become accepting of other people's kinks. It's a very sad commentary on the human condition, yes, but it's the way it is.

bookitty
22nd April 2012, 01:21 PM
Yeah, I know. I used to encounter those people all the time. In the scene. I've found that just because somebody has come out of a closet or two this doesn't mean that they have somehow become accepting of other people's kinks. It's a very sad commentary on the human condition, yes, but it's the way it is.

So basically, you're saying that you haven't read the articles.

ponderingturtle
22nd April 2012, 01:21 PM
But what if...if...if. Christ, it gets old. Also, I seriously doubt that you know several women who get off on being blind puking drunk and having sex with strangers.


A couple of things, it was unconscious not drunk, and I think you underestimate the network forming potential of the internet and shared interests in general. If he in in the right groups it is not remarkable.

It is rather like an average person being able to explain why chiropracty and homeopathy is garbage and a person at TAM.

BenBurch
22nd April 2012, 01:25 PM
So basically, you're saying that you haven't read the articles.

Get off the cross, we need the wood.

mijopaalmc
22nd April 2012, 01:30 PM
Get off the cross, we need the wood.

Ignorance is bliss, innit?

Antiquehunter
22nd April 2012, 01:38 PM
@BenBurch - with great trepidation...

Yes, it is conceivable that there are women out there whose kink it is, to be passed out during sex. Perhaps even to cruise around and get picked up by random men while 'on the edge' of passing out.

And yes, it is conceivable that someone could be unfairly convicted if this was the case.

However I don't see any evidence to suggest that this was offered as a defence in this case. And, if that was REALLY what was going on, then unless the woman is a psycopath and has changed her mind about her fetish and is revelling in destroying someone's life, then I see it as highly implausible that your scenario affects this case.

So - if you care to dabble in things on the 'wild side' I would hope that both parties reach an agreement beforehand. It is simply the healthy and mature way to deal with such things. Once you have such agreement, then whatever floats your boat, in my opinion. between consenting adults.

bookitty
22nd April 2012, 01:40 PM
A couple of things, it was unconscious not drunk, and I think you underestimate the network forming potential of the internet and shared interests in general. If he in in the right groups it is not remarkable.

It is rather like an average person being able to explain why chiropracty and homeopathy is garbage and a person at TAM.

No actually it was more like someone who confused sane, safe and consensual with its opposite. A random encounter with a stranger while too intoxicated to consent has nothing in common with a pre-planned scene among consenting and informed adults. He implied that the 19 year-old might be trolling for some extremely dangerous sex while unconscious because some women he knows engage in safe, consensual sex while unconscious. There is a huge and very important difference.

The fact that he doesn't know that means he's a tourist.

katy_did
22nd April 2012, 01:49 PM
No, actually, the way my head is working is that:

- The woman was too drunk to give consent to the second person who penetrated her.

- As such, how could she be in a position to give consent to the first? Presumably she was not MORE drunk when #2 had his way with her?

It would appear to me that the jury seems to have given #1 a 'bye' on the basis that perhaps she made an informed consent back at the kebab shop or whatnot.

That, or all the sneaking around by #2 showed that his intent was malicious whereas #1 is an upstanding member of the community by simply taking a really drunk woman up to his hotel room (and SMSing his buddies that he 'Got a bird!')

I would think that a better way of looking at this, was that the woman did give consent to #1, and did not give consent to #2.

If the woman was 'too drunk' to consent to #2, then either she drank more liquor between #1 & #2, putting her over the top, or she was also too drunk to consent to #1.

Anyways, its not the first time that a jury rules in a way that I can't figure out, won't be the last.

If you read Tsukasa_Buddha's post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8221748&postcount=15) on the previous page, the issue isn't only whether the woman consents, but also whether the man might reasonably believe she consents:

If B does not consent to the penetration, it has to be shown that A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

The jury seem to have found that she wasn't in a fit state to consent to sex with either of them, but gave McMillan the benefit of the doubt that he might have believed she consented, given that she'd gone back to the hotel with him (albeit falling over, slurring her words and grabbing onto him for balance).

RemieV
22nd April 2012, 01:50 PM
No actually it was more like someone who confused sane, safe and consensual with its opposite. A random encounter with a stranger while too intoxicated to consent has nothing in common with a pre-planned scene among consenting and informed adults. He implied that the 19 year-old might be trolling for some extremely dangerous sex while unconscious because some women he knows engage in safe, consensual sex while unconscious. There is a huge and very important difference.

The fact that he doesn't know that means he's a tourist.

I believe his implication was that the nineteen year old might be the immature one; trolling for fetish-fulfillers. The example was only given to illustrate that a passed-out fetish exists.

RemieV
22nd April 2012, 01:53 PM
If you read Tsukasa_Buddha's link (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8221748&postcount=15) on the previous page, the issue isn't only whether the woman consents, but also whether the man might reasonably believe she consents:



The jury seem to have found that she wasn't in a fit state to consent to sex with either of them, but gave McMillan the benefit of the doubt that he might have believed she consented, given that she'd gone back to the hotel with him (albeit falling over, slurring her words and grabbing onto him for balance).

McDonald*

Antiquehunter
22nd April 2012, 02:03 PM
The jury seem to have found that she wasn't in a fit state to consent to sex with either of them, but gave McMillan the benefit of the doubt that he might have believed she consented, given that she'd gone back to the hotel with him (albeit falling over, slurring her words and grabbing onto him for balance).

Thanks for this, Katydid

Rather a slippery slope. Once you consent to go to a hotel with someone, you can no longer be raped, eh?

I wonder how the jury feels about being asked for coffee in an elevator?

crimresearch
22nd April 2012, 02:07 PM
Thanks for this, Katydid

Rather a slippery slope. Once you consent to go to a hotel with someone, you can no longer be raped, eh?

I wonder how the jury feels about being asked for coffee in an elevator?
Reductio ad absurdum

BenBurch
22nd April 2012, 02:14 PM
I believe his implication was that the nineteen year old might be the immature one; trolling for fetish-fulfillers. The example was only given to illustrate that a passed-out fetish exists.

Thanks for getting it. Except I was not referring to this specific case, but to a hypothetical that tests the rule.

bookitty
22nd April 2012, 02:23 PM
Thanks for getting it. Except I was not referring to this specific case, but to a hypothetical that tests the rule.

And what exactly was the rule? Oh right, that woman can not consent while unconscious. And what was your hypothetical case? A woman who had consented to having sex while unconscious in a very controlled safe environment. That you find it necessary to defend the idea of consent while unconscious even to the point of introducing completely unrelated factors is far more interesting than your rather disingenuous example.

RemieV
22nd April 2012, 02:24 PM
And what exactly was the rule? Oh right, that woman can not consent while unconscious. And what was your hypothetical case? A woman who had consented to having sex while unconscious in a very controlled safe environment. That you find it necessary to defend the idea of consent while unconscious even to the point of introducing completely unrelated factors is far more interesting than your rather disingenuous example.

No - the hypothetical case is a woman with that particular fetish behaving in a strikingly similar way to what actually occurred with the nineteen year old - and how would a jury be able to tell the difference.

mijopaalmc
22nd April 2012, 02:33 PM
Thanks for getting it. Except I was not referring to this specific case, but to a hypothetical that tests the rule.

Yep, the slut got what she deserved! She obviously wanted to be raped!!!!

bookitty
22nd April 2012, 02:33 PM
No - the hypothetical case is a woman with that particular fetish behaving in a strikingly similar way to what actually occurred with the nineteen year old - and how would a jury be able to tell the difference.

In this specific case would it matter? Take it to it's ridiculous conclusion. Girl has fetish for passed-out-drunk-sex, finds footballer, agrees to have passed-out-drunk-sex. Second footballer steals the key, breaks into the room, has sex with the girl and gets his buddies to film it from the window.

In the first case, the girl may have given consent, may have even been a gleeful participant in her own incapacitation. In the second case, she didn't have the option.

Also, if she hadn't informed the first baller about his fetish, all he knows is that he is having sex with a passed out girl. I'm a bit surprised that the jury let him off.

ponderingturtle
22nd April 2012, 02:33 PM
And what exactly was the rule? Oh right, that woman can not consent while unconscious. And what was your hypothetical case? A woman who had consented to having sex while unconscious in a very controlled safe environment. That you find it necessary to defend the idea of consent while unconscious even to the point of introducing completely unrelated factors is far more interesting than your rather disingenuous example.

Also he was raising that case as a question about how it should be considered legally. Who is responcible and for what if something went wrong?

Antiquehunter
22nd April 2012, 02:37 PM
I would hope that the woman in the hypothetical example would be decent enough to not bring charges / testify accordingly. Otherwise her behaviour isn't that of a fetishist, its that of a psychopath.

As far as the comment about reductio ad absurdum is concerned, yes my comment was glib. However I am still a bit alarmed at the amount of subjectivity a jury has to face in making these sorts of decisions, especially about something as grave as a rape case.

I appreciate that the legal system has evolved to be what it is today, and its the best we have. I can't think of any radical way I'd rather see criminal trials run. But this case highlights just how 'grey' a case could be. I really suspect that if #2 had strolled out the front door as if nothing was amiss, and hadn't snuck into the hotel, that he wouldn't have been found guilty.

The sentence of only 5 years for a rape I think also suggests that there was a fair amount of grey area around the entire case (rightly or wrongly). I would expect the sentence for rape to be much higher than 5 years on average?

RemieV
22nd April 2012, 02:39 PM
In this specific case would it matter? Take it to it's ridiculous conclusion. Girl has fetish for passed-out-drunk-sex, finds footballer, agrees to have passed-out-drunk-sex. Second footballer steals the key, breaks into the room, has sex with the girl and gets his buddies to film it from the window.

In the first case, the girl may have given consent, may have even been a gleeful participant in her own incapacitation. In the second case, she didn't have the option.

Also, if she hadn't informed the first baller about his fetish, all he knows is that he is having sex with a passed out girl. I'm a bit surprised that the jury let him off.

No, no, no - that's not a hypothetical. That's something that really happened, though no one is asserting that she has the fetish.

In the hypothetical, some girl goes out and gets massively drunk strictly because she has a fetish for passed out sex. She is immature in her fetish, and does not inform her partners that that is what she wants. Then, afterwards, she's all, "Hey! I think I'll report this to the cops. Tee hee!"

THAT is the hypothetical. Now, I would argue that it doesn't matter if she did it on purpose or not (got massively drunk and had passed out sex) because some man didn't know that she had the fetish; and therefore the fault still exists on his end of things.

The question is more about what happens when a conniving woman sets a guy up. The answer is that you cannot be set up if you don't participate.

BenBurch
22nd April 2012, 02:40 PM
No - the hypothetical case is a woman with that particular fetish behaving in a strikingly similar way to what actually occurred with the nineteen year old - and how would a jury be able to tell the difference.

Correct.

mijopaalmc
22nd April 2012, 02:51 PM
No - the hypothetical case is a woman with that particular fetish behaving in a strikingly similar way to what actually occurred with the nineteen year old - and how would a jury be able to tell the difference.

Hmmmm...and it baffles me as to how you cannot see how the above is not in the least problematic for the woman getting a fair prosecution. All that the defense attorney has to do is convince one juror that an unlikely scenario presents a reasonable doubt and the jury is hung.

RemieV
22nd April 2012, 03:12 PM
Hmmmm...and it baffles me as to how you cannot see how the above is not in the least problematic for the woman getting a fair prosecution. All that the defense attorney has to do is convince one juror that an unlikely scenario presents a reasonable doubt and the jury is hung.

Read on. I don't think it is a problem because I don't think that the woman's motivations impact the man's actions. Sure, maybe she has some crazy fetish, and maybe she's a psychopath trying to entrap him. Doesn't matter. If the guy in the situation had sex with a massively drunk person, then he is in the wrong, whatever the woman's motivations happened to be.

tyr_13
22nd April 2012, 03:17 PM
Read on. I don't think it is a problem because I don't think that the woman's motivations impact the man's actions. Sure, maybe she has some crazy fetish, and maybe she's a psychopath trying to entrap him. Doesn't matter. If the guy in the situation had sex with a massively drunk person, then he is in the wrong, whatever the woman's motivations happened to be.

I think that part of the problem people are having with understanding this is the tendency for people to think in binary in these sort of things. Either one party is wrong or the other one is. It doesn't occur that both can be in the wrong and it not cancel each other out. There isn't a set amount of 'wrong' to go around and putting more 'wrong points' to one of them doesn't take 'wrong points' away from the other person.

mijopaalmc
22nd April 2012, 03:20 PM
Read on. I don't think it is a problem because I don't think that the woman's motivations impact the man's actions. Sure, maybe she has some crazy fetish, and maybe she's a psychopath trying to entrap him. Doesn't matter. If the guy in the situation had sex with a massively drunk person, then he is in the wrong, whatever the woman's motivations happened to be.

However, that really doesn't matter if the defense can't paint the alleged victim as a "slut who was asking for it", and being a rape fetishist would become a central aspect of the construction of victim-as-perpetrator, because it is a relatively rare and fairly poorly understood sexual kink.

mijopaalmc
22nd April 2012, 03:22 PM
I think that part of the problem people are having with understanding this is the tendency for people to think in binary in these sort of things. Either one party is wrong or the other one is. It doesn't occur that both can be in the wrong and it not cancel each other out. There isn't a set amount of 'wrong' to go around and putting more 'wrong points' to one of them doesn't take 'wrong points' away from the other person.

Unfortunately, that is exactly how rape prosecution works, because the ultimate outcome has to be guilty or not guilty.

tyr_13
22nd April 2012, 03:25 PM
Unfortunately, that is exactly how rape prosecution works, because the ultimate outcome has to be guilty or not guilty.

Irrelevant because I wasn't talking about legally, although it does intersect. The woman could do something wrong, but not illegal, and it not make what the man did ok.

One Tenth
22nd April 2012, 03:27 PM
Interestingly enough, an incident similar to the proposed hypothetical occurred in Canada. A woman consented to being asphyxiated to unconsciousness, and then to have sexual acts performed on her while unconscious.

The relationship was rocky, and a couple weeks later they were fighting. She went to the police and said that one of the acts performed on her while unconscious was not consensual. She later recanted.

The Supreme Court of Canada ended up ruling that any sexual act at all while the other person is unconscious is non-consensual, regardless of whatever they say or do before hand. To be considered consensual, someone must have the opportunity to revoke consent at any time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._J.A.

mijopaalmc
22nd April 2012, 03:28 PM
Irrelevant because I wasn't talking about legally, although it does intersect. The woman could do something wrong, but not illegal, and it not make what the man did ok.

Ever heard of the expression "tried and convicted by the media"?

RemieV
22nd April 2012, 03:29 PM
Unfortunately, that is exactly how rape prosecution works, because the ultimate outcome has to be guilty or not guilty.

I think tyr is saying that a rape victim can be a predator. It's not illegal to set someone up. It's just bad form. The thing is that even if you are set up - even if this chick got drunk and had sex with you just so she could press charges - you didn't HAVE to have sex with her. Therefore, even in that wildly improbable case, you were wrong and so was she, but only one of you is going to jail for it. Therefore, the answer is 'err on the side of caution; don't doink the drunks'. In the particular case being discussed, however, I don't think any of this enters in to it. The guy was the predator, for sure.

bookitty
22nd April 2012, 03:33 PM
No, no, no - that's not a hypothetical. That's something that really happened, though no one is asserting that she has the fetish.

In the hypothetical, some girl goes out and gets massively drunk strictly because she has a fetish for passed out sex. She is immature in her fetish, and does not inform her partners that that is what she wants. Then, afterwards, she's all, "Hey! I think I'll report this to the cops. Tee hee!"

THAT is the hypothetical. Now, I would argue that it doesn't matter if she did it on purpose or not (got massively drunk and had passed out sex) because some man didn't know that she had the fetish; and therefore the fault still exists on his end of things.

The question is more about what happens when a conniving woman sets a guy up. The answer is that you cannot be set up if you don't participate.

Ok, so it's just the usual game of "Let's figure out how this might not be rape if the situation was completely different!"

RemieV
22nd April 2012, 03:41 PM
Ok, so it's just the usual game of "Let's figure out how this might not be rape if the situation was completely different!"

I think it was more digging around to answer the question "Exactly what aspect of this made it rape?" by proposing alternate situations that had a thread of the same thing - in this case, super drunk chick.

The only way to see why one person was convicted and the other was not is to strip the case to its essentials and examine it in different scenarios.

Tsukasa Buddha
22nd April 2012, 03:45 PM
Interestingly enough, an incident similar to the proposed hypothetical occurred in Canada. A woman consented to being asphyxiated to unconsciousness, and then to have sexual acts performed on her while unconscious.

The relationship was rocky, and a couple weeks later they were fighting. She went to the police and said that one of the acts performed on her while unconscious was not consensual. She later recanted.

The Supreme Court of Canada ended up ruling that any sexual act at all while the other person is unconscious is non-consensual, regardless of whatever they say or do before hand. To be considered consensual, someone must have the opportunity to revoke consent at any time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._J.A.

I agree with them. Some people may lose out on fun*, but I am unconvinced that we ran reasonably accommodate them.

*Technically, I am not sure how the person with this fetish has fun when they are unconscious for the "main event"... :p

RemieV
22nd April 2012, 03:51 PM
I agree with them. Some people may lose out on fun*, but I am unconvinced that we ran reasonably accommodate them.

*Technically, I am not sure how the person with this fetish has fun when they are unconscious for the "main event"... :p

There are times when I wished I'd been unconscious for the 'main event'. :D

tyr_13
22nd April 2012, 03:56 PM
There are times when I wished I'd been unconscious for the 'main event'. :D

Me too. :(

RenaissanceBiker
22nd April 2012, 04:01 PM
Then you're either doing it very wrong, or very right.

Serious answer? It depends on what you mean by 'during'. Personally I'd be pretty disappointed and/or freaked out that someone passed out during such an act. If the person consents and then passes out before beginning, I'd have to say that unless what they consented to included sex while passed out, then don't do it. After all, they are now incapable of articulating which sexual acts they are consenting too. With or without a condom? With or without a camera? With or without Janis from accounting?

That means you weren't doing a good job of it.

Seriously though, the litmus test is if a participant has no knowledge or recollection of the act ocurring, there may be grounds for prosecution.

Boy meets girl at bar in vacation destination town by the sea. Much flirting and much drinking occurs. Boy and girl decide to go to girl's room. Both are quite drunk. Sex commences with consentual penetration. At some point, girl's BAC exceedes the threshhold and she passes out. Rape?

tyr_13
22nd April 2012, 04:06 PM
Boy meets girl at bar in vacation destination town by the sea. Much flirting and much drinking occurs. Boy and girl decide to go to girl's room. Both are quite drunk. Sex commences with consentual penetration. At some point, girl's BAC exceedes the threshhold and she passes out. Rape?

No. That is unless some other act that wasn't consented to takes place after she passes out.

CRUDENESS BUT NOT HUMOROUS IN SPOILERS!
For example, if she did not say he could put it in her ass before, the man would be ill advised to do so. Or, reverse the part about who passes out. If he didn't consent to having something put in his ass, she would be ill advised to do so.

If the person ends up having strong enough objections to things that weren't consented to performed while unconscious, the other party may very well end up charged and possibly convicted of rape.

BStrong
22nd April 2012, 04:07 PM
Boy meets girl at bar in vacation destination town by the sea. Much flirting and much drinking occurs. Boy and girl decide to go to girl's room. Both are quite drunk. Sex commences with consentual penetration. At some point, girl's BAC exceedes the threshhold and she passes out. Rape?

It depends on the participants, the local authorities, and the local prosecuter.

If the girl wakes up with prince charming, no problem.

If she wakes up with Peter Boyle as Young Frankenstein, there might be a problem.

RemieV
22nd April 2012, 04:16 PM
Boy meets girl at bar in vacation destination town by the sea. Much flirting and much drinking occurs. Boy and girl decide to go to girl's room. Both are quite drunk. Sex commences with consentual penetration. At some point, girl's BAC exceedes the threshhold and she passes out. Rape?

There is always a chance that it will be viewed that way.

Here is the way to get around this:

"My gosh, I am having such fun with you, and you seem really great - but I don't want to be something that you regret, so what do you say we get together tomorrow morning and if we're still into it, we have wild monkey sex. You game?"

What is to be lost by waiting? If the problem is that you think she'll lose interest by tomorrow, then it scarcely seems like the right thing to do, no?

TheGoldcountry
22nd April 2012, 04:26 PM
This is all ********.

There are a lot of males here arguing about hypothetical situations that they pulled out of their nether regions.

I was never a "ladie's man" but I used to be a bartender, and I've seen a lot of stuff, personally and observatory.

If a man isn't sure that a woman is acceptable to his advances, he always knows. Ladies, don't listen to these BS excuses some guys here are giving.

I've had a few drunken encounters, and I ALWAYS knew what the woman I was with wanted. I had a woman sleep it off in my bed because I knew she was too drunk. Other times, well, it happened. But don't let any guy tell you that "they were confused."

Excuses are ********.

RemieV
22nd April 2012, 04:35 PM
This is all ********.

There are a lot of males here arguing about hypothetical situations that they pulled out of their nether regions.

I was never a "ladie's man" but I used to be a bartender, and I've seen a lot of stuff, personally and observatory.

If a man isn't sure that a woman is acceptable to his advances, he always knows. Ladies, don't listen to these BS excuses some guys here are giving.

I've had a few drunken encounters, and I ALWAYS knew what the woman I was with wanted. I had a woman sleep it off in my bed because I knew she was too drunk. Other times, well, it happened. But don't let any guy tell you that "they were confused."

Excuses are ********.

I'm pretty sure THAT is ********. What a lovely world it would be if everyone understood each other's intentions all the time. I posted in a completely different thread about how I was at a conference for work recently that was almost all male. And I met interesting people, and we hung out some after I got off work. With EVERY SINGLE ONE of these guys, they would try to kiss me about half an hour in to the conversation. Every one. It was crazy.

And while I do think that is horribly presumptuous, and on some level it does make me annoyed that they were only interested in this one particular aspect of me when the rest of the package is so darn awesome, I get that - to them - hanging out outside of work is like holding up a "Free Sex" sign. I don't approve of this, but I get that their minds were on a different page. They were, in fact, confused - so saying that "everybody knows blah" is just false.

mijopaalmc
22nd April 2012, 04:36 PM
Would you have sex with a woman who couldn't put a sentence together?

RemieV
22nd April 2012, 04:38 PM
Would you have sex with a woman who couldn't put a sentence together?

Is she hot? :D

mijopaalmc
22nd April 2012, 04:39 PM
I'm pretty sure THAT is ********. What a lovely world it would be if everyone understood each other's intentions all the time. I posted in a completely different thread about how I was at a conference for work recently that was almost all male. And I met interesting people, and we hung out some after I got off work. With EVERY SINGLE ONE of these guys, they would try to kiss me about half an hour in to the conversation. Every one. It was crazy.

And while I do think that is horribly presumptuous, and on some level it does make me annoyed that they were only interested in this one particular aspect of me when the rest of the package is so darn awesome, I get that - to them - hanging out outside of work is like holding up a "Free Sex" sign. I don't approve of this, but I get that their minds were on a different page. They were, in fact, confused - so saying that "everybody knows blah" is just false.

And did they try to sleep with you afterward?

tyr_13
22nd April 2012, 04:40 PM
Would you have sex with a woman who couldn't put a sentence together?

There's no need to bring Sarah Palin into this.

One Tenth
22nd April 2012, 04:48 PM
I agree with them. Some people may lose out on fun*, but I am unconvinced that we ran reasonably accommodate them.

*Technically, I am not sure how the person with this fetish has fun when they are unconscious for the "main event"... :p

Unfortunately, this means that any sexual contact at all with on unconscious person would constitute sexual assault. Of course, law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges have discretion, but having an indeterminate criminal offense hanging over your head for activities most couples consider normal seems rather off.

RemieV
22nd April 2012, 04:49 PM
And did they try to sleep with you afterward?

An interesting question - yes. Well, sort of. The one guy that I did like "in that way" did. But the thing is - it was because I didn't put off his advances (meaning the kissing). However, kissing someone doesn't mean "green light for sex". I liked him. I was interested in him. But I'm not a piece of meat, and therein lies some of the confusion.

One of the people got so angry that I turned away that he left in a huff, and a table of people behind me burst into applause and bought me a drink because the guy was such a douche.

This is the problem, though. Turning someone down flat for even a kiss definitely means "no sex". Not turning away from a kiss doesn't mean "Yes, sex now."

And then there are the cases where I AM all, "This guy is fantastic one night stand material".

Really, there are so many things that can be meant in an exchange that the best thing to do is say what you want, and ask if the other person is interested. All of this "I know what so and so wanted because of how they behaved" is silly. Ask and ye shall receive; or ye shall be showneth the door.

monoman
22nd April 2012, 04:50 PM
There is no mention of the acquitted footballer being in the room at the time that the rape happened. We know that Evans got the hotel room key from the front desk under false pretenses. Which he would not have needed to do if McDonald was in the room.

Even if McDonald was aware of what was going on, Evans is still guilty. Just because someone agrees to have sex with a stranger doesn't mean they want to be passed around the room. You're assuming that because this woman had sex with one person, that she no longer has any grounds to refuse sex with someone else.

According to Evans and McDonald, McDonald was still in the room. See here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-17757499).

TheGoldcountry
22nd April 2012, 05:10 PM
I'm pretty sure THAT is ********. What a lovely world it would be if everyone understood each other's intentions all the time. I posted in a completely different thread about how I was at a conference for work recently that was almost all male. And I met interesting people, and we hung out some after I got off work. With EVERY SINGLE ONE of these guys, they would try to kiss me about half an hour in to the conversation. Every one. It was crazy.

And while I do think that is horribly presumptuous, and on some level it does make me annoyed that they were only interested in this one particular aspect of me when the rest of the package is so darn awesome, I get that - to them - hanging out outside of work is like holding up a "Free Sex" sign. I don't approve of this, but I get that their minds were on a different page. They were, in fact, confused - so saying that "everybody knows blah" is just false.

If you are confused, err on the side of caution. Plus, you are describing a situation where YOU HAD CONTROL; if a man is unsure, he should put his you know what back in place and back off. I just described a situation previously where I got a woman to my apartment and seriously wanted to "seal the deal" but I didn't because she was incoherent. It's not a superhuman act, men can put their penis back inside their pants and act like respectful human beings. There is no excuse for taking advantage of a woman when she has no control. If you do that, you are a sociopath, putting yourself above another.

angrysoba
22nd April 2012, 05:10 PM
It is quite astounding to listen to the objections that some people have to a very unobjectionable conviction.

The ostensible complaint seems to be something like, "What happens if this law isn't completely and scrupulously applied with utter consistency?" and then various hypotheticals have been posited which seems to call into question the possibility of convicting anyone for rape at all.

What if she has a fetish?

If she has a fetish then she doesn't press charges. End of story. This is one of the silliest of the objections and those arguing it have now become screamingly and embarrassingly dense in pursuing it.

What we are talking about is a woman who was completely incapacitated with drink and being violated by a man who had absolutely no reason for thinking she wanted to be violated. If you can't see that as rape you are not "kinky", you are demented.

I can see some questions about why person #1 was acquitted while person #2 was convicted but the reasoning given up the thread seems perfectly good to me.

TheGoldcountry
22nd April 2012, 05:12 PM
An interesting question - yes. Well, sort of. The one guy that I did like "in that way" did. But the thing is - it was because I didn't put off his advances (meaning the kissing). However, kissing someone doesn't mean "green light for sex". I liked him. I was interested in him. But I'm not a piece of meat, and therein lies some of the confusion.

One of the people got so angry that I turned away that he left in a huff, and a table of people behind me burst into applause and bought me a drink because the guy was such a douche.

This is the problem, though. Turning someone down flat for even a kiss definitely means "no sex". Not turning away from a kiss doesn't mean "Yes, sex now."

And then there are the cases where I AM all, "This guy is fantastic one night stand material".

Really, there are so many things that can be meant in an exchange that the best thing to do is say what you want, and ask if the other person is interested. All of this "I know what so and so wanted because of how they behaved" is silly. Ask and ye shall receive; or ye shall be showneth the door.

Now, see, I agree with you completely here. (I'm not sure why we are arguing)

RemieV
22nd April 2012, 05:14 PM
It is quite astounding to listen to the objections that some people have to a very unobjectionable conviction.

The ostensible complaint seems to be something like, "What happens if this law isn't completely and scrupulously applied with utter consistency?" and then various hypotheticals have been posited which seems to call into question the possibility of convicting anyone for rape at all.

What if she has a fetish?

If she has a fetish then she doesn't press charges. End of story. This is one of the silliest of the objections and those arguing it have now become screamingly and embarrassingly dense in pursuing it.

What we are talking about is a woman who was completely incapacitated with drink and being violated by a man who had absolutely no reason for thinking she wanted to be violated. If you can't see that as rape you are not "kinky", you are demented.

I can see some questions about why person #1 was acquitted while person #2 was convicted but the reasoning given up the thread seems perfectly good to me.

I don't think that's what's happening. I don't think anyone is objecting to the conviction. I think that people are trying to distill the case to its essence and understand the possible repercussions of having laws that are written that way. Not because they are on the side of the wrong-doer - but because they are wondering if innocents are ever convicted.

Maybe I'm just not seeing the rape apologist for the trees - I admit that's possible. ;)

mijopaalmc
22nd April 2012, 05:15 PM
It is quite astounding to listen to the objections that some people have to a very unobjectionable conviction.

The ostensible complaint seems to be something like, "What happens if this law isn't completely and scrupulously applied with utter consistency?" and then various hypotheticals have been posited which seems to call into question the possibility of convicting anyone for rape at all.

What if she has a fetish?

If she has a fetish then she doesn't press charges. End of story. This is one of the silliest of the objections and those arguing it have now become screamingly and embarrassingly dense in pursuing it.

What we are talking about is a woman who was completely incapacitated with drink and being violated by a man who had absolutely no reason for thinking she wanted to be violated. If you can't see that as rape you are not "kinky", you are demented.

I can see some questions about why person #1 was acquitted while person #2 was convicted but the reasoning given up the thread seems perfectly good to me.

Where would we be if we couldn't blame women for their rapes?

ponderingturtle
22nd April 2012, 05:17 PM
There is always a chance that it will be viewed that way.

Here is the way to get around this:

"My gosh, I am having such fun with you, and you seem really great - but I don't want to be something that you regret, so what do you say we get together tomorrow morning and if we're still into it, we have wild monkey sex. You game?"

What is to be lost by waiting? If the problem is that you think she'll lose interest by tomorrow, then it scarcely seems like the right thing to do, no?

Drunk and horny people do not make the best decisions. So why expect his decision to be worse than hers. How about we reverse the genders, then she is the rapist right?

angrysoba
22nd April 2012, 05:18 PM
I don't think that's what's happening. I don't think anyone is objecting to the conviction. I think that people are trying to distill the case to its essence and understand the possible repercussions of having laws that are written that way. Not because they are on the side of the wrong-doer - but because they are wondering if innocents are ever convicted.Maybe I'm just not seeing the rape apologist for the trees - I admit that's possible. ;)

Innocents are convicted of all kinds of things including murder and robbery. But that doesn't mean we don't have laws against those things.

Why is this case special?

The essence of this case is that there was non-consensual sex. That is the essence of rape. Will innocent people sometimes be convicted? Of course, but that doesn't mean we can't have laws against it.

TheGoldcountry
22nd April 2012, 05:19 PM
Where would we be if we couldn't blame women for their rapes?

I'm sure your tongue was firmly in cheek there, right?

angrysoba
22nd April 2012, 05:21 PM
Where would we be if we couldn't blame women for their rapes?

I think women obviously go to massive and perverse lengths to abuse the rape laws for their own mysterious and malicious purposes. At least, that seems to be being argued here by a few posters.

mijopaalmc
22nd April 2012, 05:22 PM
Drunk and horny people do not make the best decisions. So why expect his decision to be worse than hers. How about we reverse the genders, then she is the rapist right?

Anyone who has sex with someone who is incapacitated is a rapist, regardless of their gender and the gender of the person they have sex with.

RemieV
22nd April 2012, 05:23 PM
Innocents are convicted of all kinds of things including murder and robbery. But that doesn't mean we don't have laws against those things.

Why is this case special?

The essence of this case is that there was non-consensual sex. That is the essence of rape. Will innocent people sometimes be convicted? Of course, but that doesn't mean we can't have laws against it.

But the way to test questionable cases is to apply the circumstances to a variety of different scenarios. If someone doesn't know which way to feel about a case, the way to figure it out is to apply the essence of the case to a different, though similar, set of circumstances and see if it still works. Same with science. I don't think it means that people are trying to excuse crimes - I think it is a test to see if the law is in keeping with the reality. Again - it is possible that I am not seeing the rape apologist for the trees. But I honestly don't believe that anyone here was questioning whether the conviction was valid - only questioning why it wasn't equally valid for McDonald.

mijopaalmc
22nd April 2012, 05:24 PM
I'm sure your tongue was firmly in cheek there, right?

As tongue-in-cheek as this:

I think women obviously go to massive and perverse lengths to abuse the rape laws for their own mysterious and malicious purposes. At least, that seems to be being argued here by a few posters.

Depending whose tongue and whose cheek (and which cheek it is) it may be rape.

ponderingturtle
22nd April 2012, 05:24 PM
If you are confused, err on the side of caution. Plus, you are describing a situation where YOU HAD CONTROL; if a man is unsure, he should put his you know what back in place and back off. I just described a situation previously where I got a woman to my apartment and seriously wanted to "seal the deal" but I didn't because she was incoherent. It's not a superhuman act, men can put their penis back inside their pants and act like respectful human beings. There is no excuse for taking advantage of a woman when she has no control. If you do that, you are a sociopath, putting yourself above another.

And why not say to women if you think you might regret it in the morning don't do it.

angrysoba
22nd April 2012, 05:26 PM
But the way to test questionable cases is to apply the circumstances to a variety of different scenarios. If someone doesn't know which way to feel about a case, the way to figure it out is to apply the essence of the case to a different, though similar, set of circumstances and see if it still works. Same with science. I don't think it means that people are trying to excuse crimes - I think it is a test to see if the law is in keeping with the reality. Again - it is possible that I am not seeing the rape apologist for the trees. But I honestly don't believe that anyone here was questioning whether the conviction was valid - only questioning why it wasn't equally valid for McDonald.

Okay, let's apply it to a fetishist. What if she likes to simulate rape? What then? Well, the participants know this is the case, so the man knows that consent has been given and the woman won't press charges.

There we go. Very simple.

RemieV
22nd April 2012, 05:27 PM
I think women obviously go to massive and perverse lengths to abuse the rape laws for their own mysterious and malicious purposes. At least, that seems to be being argued here by a few posters.

No. The argument was that it is POSSIBLE, and that therefore perhaps the law is not in keeping with the reality. Maybe everyone isn't malicious; maybe everyone doesn't misuse the law for their own gains - but SOME people do. I think the posters who are wondering at the law itself are wondering what happens to those people to whom the law is applied who AREN'T in this clear-cut of a situation.

And it is an interesting line of thought. It doesn't mean that they are rape apologists necessarily, and it doesn't mean that they thought Ched Evans was right. It means that they are backing up to look at the big picture; which is a good thing.

So we have tested the law by applying it to a variety of different scenarios and concluded that it is a bad thing to have sex with a drunk person. A lot of us probably have anyway; and by doing that, we were putting ourselves at risk. Some say that it's feeling the person out to see if it's alright; but we also admit that a psychopath could dupe us and get us into trouble.

Therefore the conclusion would be that drunk sex is bad sex unless you're a risk-taker. I don't see anyone arguing that point.

mijopaalmc
22nd April 2012, 05:27 PM
And why not say to women if you think you might regret it in the morning don't do it.

Because the conversation has focused on the man's interpretation of the woman's behavior.

angrysoba
22nd April 2012, 05:29 PM
No. The argument was that it is POSSIBLE, and that therefore perhaps the law is not in keeping with the reality. Maybe everyone isn't malicious; maybe everyone doesn't misuse the law for their own gains - but SOME people do. I think the posters who are wondering at the law itself are wondering what happens to those people to whom the law is applied who AREN'T in this clear-cut of a situation.

And it is an interesting line of thought. It doesn't mean that they are rape apologists necessarily, and it doesn't mean that they thought Ched Evans was right. It means that they are backing up to look at the big picture; which is a good thing.

So we have tested the law by applying it to a variety of different scenarios and concluded that it is a bad thing to have sex with a drunk person. A lot of us probably have anyway; and by doing that, we were putting ourselves at risk. Some say that it's feeling the person out to see if it's alright; but we also admit that a psychopath could dupe us and get us into trouble.

Therefore the conclusion would be that drunk sex is bad sex unless you're a risk-taker. I don't see anyone arguing that point.


I gave someone my lawnmower to borrow. Then I called the police and said that person stole it.

Now, not everyone does abuse the law like that but I do. Does that mean the law against theft shouldnt exist?

I mean, can you not see how silly this diversionary talk is?

sgtbaker
22nd April 2012, 05:31 PM
And why not say to women if you think you might regret it in the morning don't do it.

I think the problem with that line of thinking is in the second sexual encounter, she didn't have a choice, she was unconscious.

ponderingturtle
22nd April 2012, 05:32 PM
I don't think that's what's happening. I don't think anyone is objecting to the conviction. I think that people are trying to distill the case to its essence and understand the possible repercussions of having laws that are written that way. Not because they are on the side of the wrong-doer - but because they are wondering if innocents are ever convicted.

Maybe I'm just not seeing the rape apologist for the trees - I admit that's possible. ;)

The thing is there are real situations that reasonable people can disagree about if something is rape or not.

mijopaalmc
22nd April 2012, 05:33 PM
I gave someone my lawnmower to borrow. Then I called the police and said that person stole it.

Now, not everyone does abuse the law like that but I do. Does that mean the law against theft shouldnt exist?

I mean, can you not see how silly this diversionary talk is?

I don't think that anyone is arguing that rape shouldn't be illegal, just that consent is more complicated than some might think.

RemieV
22nd April 2012, 05:35 PM
I gave someone my lawnmower to borrow. Then I called the police and said that person stole it.

Now, not everyone does abuse the law like that but I do. Does that mean the law against theft shouldnt exist?

I mean, can you not see how silly this diversionary talk is?

I think you might be mis-reading me. I have never, ever said that this conviction wasn't perfectly valid. Nor have I said that it is okay for people to report crimes that aren't actually crimes. The point was, in my view, that some posters believe that there are innocent people who were acting in good faith who may be convicted of rape with this precedent.

I disagree that this gives precedent to convicting innocents; because I believe that no matter what motivation exists on the part of the 'sexee' let's say, you still shouldn't have sex with an extraordinarily drunk person.

You did read the whole thread, right? I honestly don't see what we're arguing about considering what I've said.

TheGoldcountry
22nd April 2012, 05:35 PM
As tongue-in-cheek as this:



Depending whose tongue and whose cheek (and which cheek it is) it may be rape.

I don't share that opinion.

mijopaalmc
22nd April 2012, 05:35 PM
The thing is there are real situations that reasonable people can disagree about if something is rape or not.

"She said, 'No, no, no'; her eyes said, 'Yes, yes, yes'."

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

mijopaalmc
22nd April 2012, 05:36 PM
I don't share that opinion.

Sigh...both comments were tongue-in-cheek, given how both of us had been arguing.

TheGoldcountry
22nd April 2012, 05:36 PM
And why not say to women if you think you might regret it in the morning don't do it.

answer your own question

ponderingturtle
22nd April 2012, 05:39 PM
I think the problem with that line of thinking is in the second sexual encounter, she didn't have a choice, she was unconscious.

And that is not the situation in that part of this discussion. We are not simply discussing the events of the OP but drunk sex in general.

RemieV
22nd April 2012, 05:39 PM
The thing is there are real situations that reasonable people can disagree about if something is rape or not.

Agreed. Which is why the laws exist - to give people a series of situations to which they can compare their experience. Again - I think many of us have, at one time or another, had sex with a drunk person. Do I think that every single instance of that should be called rape? No. But I do think that your first sexual encounter with a stranger should be sober; lest you fall on the wrong side of things.

It's not all-encompassing in a reality-based way. The laws, I mean. That's why we have these discussions.

angrysoba
22nd April 2012, 05:40 PM
I don't think that anyone is arguing that rape shouldn't be illegal, just that consent is more complicated than some might think.

But so what? Life is complicated and assessing such things as consent require making a judgment through deliberation. So, the judge and jury presumably have to decide whether or not the two defendents could have possibly thought to have gained the consent of the woman. In the first case they clearly decided that he could have believed he had her consent. In the second case, they believed he couldn't have possibly believed he had her consent.

Oh, it didn't turn out to be as complicated as we first thought.

ponderingturtle
22nd April 2012, 05:42 PM
"She said, 'No, no, no'; her eyes said, 'Yes, yes, yes'."

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

And anyone who has sex with someone under 18 even if they are also under 18 is a rapist and should be branded a sex offender for life, and made to live under a bridge.

Or why not convict both partners in a drunken romp that was regretted by both parties?

Why not charge both sides and say they raped each other?

mijopaalmc
22nd April 2012, 05:43 PM
But so what? Life is complicated and assessing such things as consent require making a judgment through deliberation. So, the judge and jury presumably have to decide whether or not the two defendents could have possibly thought to have gained the consent of the woman. In the first case they clearly decided that he could have believed he had her consent. In the second case, they believed he couldn't have possibly believed he had her consent.

Oh, it didn't turn out to be as complicated as we first thought.

And the discussion has also moved beyond the specific case to how the evaluate consent in genral.

TheGoldcountry
22nd April 2012, 05:43 PM
Sigh...both comments were tongue-in-cheek, given how both of us had been arguing.

I've been forthright and honest about how I feel. I have a sister, a niece, and multiple cousins. They have told me stories (years after the fact of course, because they were afraid of what I would do) of what men have done. All a man has to do is grab his penis, put it back in his package, and walk away saying "not tonight." I don't understand why a man's urge to have sex should EVER take precedence over the rights of another human being. IF YOU'RE NOT SURE, WALK AWAY. IF SHE DOES REALLY WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH YOU, SHE WILL STILL BE THERE IN THE MORNING. It doesn't sound like a deep puzzle to me.

RemieV
22nd April 2012, 05:44 PM
But so what? Life is complicated and assessing such things as consent require making a judgment through deliberation. So, the judge and jury presumably have to decide whether or not the two defendents could have possibly thought to have gained the consent of the woman. In the first case they clearly decided that he could have believed he had her consent. In the second case, they believed he couldn't have possibly believed he had her consent.

Oh, it didn't turn out to be as complicated as we first thought.

See, angrysoba? I sincerely believe you haven't read the whole thread, because I believe exactly as you do and every comment I have given is based upon that. I do see the value of hypotheticals in regards to law; because I want to know if the damage done by creating a precedent will result in a great number of individuals being convicted for a crime they were not aware they were committing. In this particular case, I think the law is on the side of right, and that the number of innocents convicted for a crime under the same law would be few to none.

mijopaalmc
22nd April 2012, 05:44 PM
And anyone who has sex with someone under 18 even if they are also under 18 is a rapist and should be branded a sex offender for life, and made to live under a bridge.

Or why not convict both partners in a drunken romp that was regretted by both parties?

Why not charge both sides and say they raped each other?

Why not just have them summarily shot?

ponderingturtle
22nd April 2012, 05:45 PM
Agreed. Which is why the laws exist - to give people a series of situations to which they can compare their experience. Again - I think many of us have, at one time or another, had sex with a drunk person. Do I think that every single instance of that should be called rape? No. But I do think that your first sexual encounter with a stranger should be sober; lest you fall on the wrong side of things.

It's not all-encompassing in a reality-based way. The laws, I mean. That's why we have these discussions.

Ideally I agree with you and I wouldn't be likely to engage in initial sex with a drunk partner. Though of course there are issues with how drunk is drunk and so on.

RemieV
22nd April 2012, 05:45 PM
And anyone who has sex with someone under 18 even if they are also under 18 is a rapist and should be branded a sex offender for life, and made to live under a bridge.

Or why not convict both partners in a drunken romp that was regretted by both parties?

Why not charge both sides and say they raped each other?

I don't understand this. I seem to remember a case from a while back which involved two people under the age of eighteen who made a sex tape together. Both were convicted of possession of child pornography. It wasn't tilted toward the female.

mijopaalmc
22nd April 2012, 05:46 PM
I've been forthright and honest about how I feel. I have a sister, a niece, and multiple cousins. They have told me stories (years after the fact of course, because they were afraid of what I would do) of what men have done. All a man has to do is grab his penis, put it back in his package, and walk away saying "not tonight." I don't understand why a man's urge to have sex should EVER take precedence over the rights of another human being. IF YOU'RE NOT SURE, WALK AWAY. IF SHE DOES REALLY WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH YOU, SHE WILL STILL BE THERE IN THE MORNING. It doesn't sound like a deep puzzle to me.

You don't have to shout. The number of female relatives you have is irrelevant.

TheGoldcountry
22nd April 2012, 05:46 PM
Why not just have them summarily shot?

Nobody has suggested those strawmen, so stop now before you dig a deeper hole for yourself.

sgtbaker
22nd April 2012, 05:47 PM
And that is not the situation in that part of this discussion. We are not simply discussing the events of the OP but drunk sex in general.

The post to which you were replying was talking about a decision not to have sex with an incoherent person. That's not drunken sex in general, either.

TheGoldcountry
22nd April 2012, 05:49 PM
You don't have to shout. The number of female relatives you have is irrelevant.

Fine. HYPOTHETICALLY, I have zero female relatives. Should I stop caring about women?

ETA: The only reason I mentioned that, is to show that I have actually heard the female side, and I was not just a guy imagining that he knew it all.

mijopaalmc
22nd April 2012, 05:49 PM
Nobody has suggested those strawmen, so stop now before you dig a deeper hole for yourself.

They were just as absurd as proposing that both parties be charged with rape. The insistence that someone changed their mind in the morning is used far too often to justify the explanation that "she just made it up". Also, presumably, people who have mutually consensual sex don't report it to the police.

ponderingturtle
22nd April 2012, 05:50 PM
Why not just have them summarily shot?

They had sex with a partner who could not consent to sex, so why shouldn't they be charged with rape?

How about this, how many years in prison should a 19 year old who has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend get, given that there are less than 18 months different? The answer in at least one state is 10 years. I take issue with this and would not define it as rape, but some people apparently do not agree.

mijopaalmc
22nd April 2012, 05:50 PM
Fine. HYPOTHETICALLY, I have zero female relatives. Should I stop caring about women?

Nice straw man.

You don't get extra "advocate points" for having more female relative than I.

ponderingturtle
22nd April 2012, 05:52 PM
I don't understand this. I seem to remember a case from a while back which involved two people under the age of eighteen who made a sex tape together. Both were convicted of possession of child pornography. It wasn't tilted toward the female.

And child pornography isn't rape. And being under age isn't being drunk. They hit different preconceptions and laws.

mijopaalmc
22nd April 2012, 05:53 PM
They had sex with a partner who could not consent to sex, so why shouldn't they be charged with rape?

How about this, how many years in prison should a 19 year old who has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend get, given that there are less than 18 months different? The answer in at least one state is 10 years. I take issue with this and would not define it as rape, but some people apparently do not agree.

And once again we're not talking about statutory rape, so you can just take that straw man and stick it where the sun don't shine.

RemieV
22nd April 2012, 05:53 PM
They had sex with a partner who could not consent to sex, so why shouldn't they be charged with rape?

How about this, how many years in prison should a 19 year old who has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend get, given that there are less than 18 months different? The answer in at least one state is 10 years. I take issue with this and would not define it as rape, but some people apparently do not agree.

I knew a boy in high school whose parents disapproved of his relationship with their daughter - who was seventeen. He was... some age that was illegal.

Again - the answer is that the law is public. You don't HAVE to have sex with anyone. Could he not wait the time? Sure, the law might be silly in your eyes. That doesn't mean it's impossible to follow.

TheGoldcountry
22nd April 2012, 05:56 PM
They were just as absurd as proposing that both parties be charged with rape. The insistence that someone changed their mind in the morning is used far too often to justify the explanation that "she just made it up". Also, presumably, people who have mutually consensual sex don't report it to the police.

I, personally, don't think that way. The only thing, if you look back at what I said, is that men, personally, should never use excuses, and always respect women if they are inebriated or otherwise incapacitated. I never talked about the legal repercussions. I was just speaking my mind about how people SHOULD CHOOSE TO ACT on their own. I share your fears about the courts.

ponderingturtle
22nd April 2012, 05:56 PM
I knew a boy in high school whose parents disapproved of his relationship with their daughter - who was seventeen. He was... some age that was illegal.

Again - the answer is that the law is public. You don't HAVE to have sex with anyone. Could he not wait the time? Sure, the law might be silly in your eyes. That doesn't mean it's impossible to follow.

And I don't have to view it as rape with out regard of what the laws say. But clearly he deserves to have his life ruined for not getting on with his girlfriends parents.

mijopaalmc
22nd April 2012, 05:58 PM
And I don't have to view it as rape with out regard of what the laws say. But clearly he deserves to have his life ruined for not getting on with his girlfriends parents.

lolwut?

TheGoldcountry
22nd April 2012, 05:59 PM
I knew a boy in high school whose parents disapproved of his relationship with their daughter - who was seventeen. He was... some age that was illegal.

Again - the answer is that the law is public. You don't HAVE to have sex with anyone. Could he not wait the time? Sure, the law might be silly in your eyes. That doesn't mean it's impossible to follow.

Agreed. It might be an unfair law, but if he truly cared about her (I don't say "love" because that's the most subjective noun in the dictionary) why can't he wait?

RemieV
22nd April 2012, 05:59 PM
And I don't have to view it as rape with out regard of what the laws say. But clearly he deserves to have his life ruined for not getting on with his girlfriends parents.

I understand that point of view. He was my friend, and I cared very much about him. But the fact was that he knew the law, and he violated it. There was no reason he HAD to have sex with her. There was no reason he could not wait. He just didn't.

angrysoba
22nd April 2012, 05:59 PM
See, angrysoba? I sincerely believe you haven't read the whole thread, because I believe exactly as you do and every comment I have given is based upon that. I do see the value of hypotheticals in regards to law; because I want to know if the damage done by creating a precedent will result in a great number of individuals being convicted for a crime they were not aware they were committing. In this particular case, I think the law is on the side of right, and that the number of innocents convicted for a crime under the same law would be few to none.

I have read the whole thread. But I think that a lot of the questions being raised are silly and seem to miss the point.

And the discussion has also moved beyond the specific case to how the evaluate consent in genral.

Yes, some people have been questioning how we can evaluate consent in general. I think the answer is obvious; a judge and jury should listen to as much evidence about the case as exists and make a judgment based on that.

ponderingturtle
22nd April 2012, 06:02 PM
Agreed. It might be an unfair law, but if he truly cared about her (I don't say "love" because that's the most subjective noun in the dictionary) why can't he wait?

It was not her who got hurt, it was not caring about himself enough to dump her when he should have.

TheGoldcountry
22nd April 2012, 06:03 PM
It was not her who got hurt, it was not caring about himself enough to dump her when he should have.

are you off on a misogynist rant or what?

mijopaalmc
22nd April 2012, 06:04 PM
Agreed. It might be an unfair law, but if he truly cared about her (I don't say "love" because that's the most subjective noun in the dictionary) why can't he wait?

I think you're making a huge assumption here. Or are you just being charitable, knowing what it was like to be a teenage boy? :)

RemieV
22nd April 2012, 06:04 PM
It was not her who got hurt, it was not caring about himself enough to dump her when he should have.

What a horrible view. He could not have been convicted for loving her; for being her boyfriend etc. What he could be convicted for is ***********. You really think that is so necessary that he should have broken everything off? Really? Now I'm sad.

mijopaalmc
22nd April 2012, 06:05 PM
It was not her who got hurt, it was not caring about himself enough to dump her when he should have.

So you have irrefutable evidence that it was she who pressured him into sex?

RemieV
22nd April 2012, 06:05 PM
P.S. They are married now - and have been for the past ten years.

Draca
22nd April 2012, 06:12 PM
Can someone explain why Clayton McDonald was found innocent and Ched Evans guilty?

I've looked at several articles but they all seem to be the same info. McDonald and the girl entered the hotel with linked arms. They went to the room and had sex. Evans came to the hotel and had sex with the girl also. How can she be too drunk to consent to one but not the other? Isn't her drunkness based on the same CCTV in the lobby? Or did the friend's camera phone show what happened with Evans?

TheGoldcountry
22nd April 2012, 06:13 PM
I think you're making a huge assumption here. Or are you just being charitable, knowing what it was like to be a teenage boy? :)

I'm not being "charitable". There were laws. He knowingly broke them. If I was a judge, I might let him off. But that doesn't obscure the fact that he knew what he was doing. If you want to start a thread to change the current laws, I might support you, depending upon what you say. But there is no debate about the current state of laws.

Anyway, I've gotten off-topic. I was just talking about men respecting women, I didn't intend to get sucked in to this debate.

RemieV
22nd April 2012, 06:15 PM
Can someone explain why Clayton McDonald was found innocent and Ched Evans guilty?

I've looked at several articles but they all seem to be the same info. McDonald and the girl entered the hotel with linked arms. They went to the room and had sex. Evans came to the hotel and had sex with the girl also. How can she be too drunk to consent to one but not the other? Isn't her drunkness based on the same CCTV in the lobby? Or did the friend'd camera phone show what happened with Evans?

The rest of the thread clarifies. McDonald did not try to hide what he did; and did not think there was anything wrong with it. Evans stole a key, went out the back exit, etc. Other people have put it more eloquently, so I suggest you read other comments. :)

angrysoba
22nd April 2012, 06:15 PM
Can someone explain why Clayton McDonald was found innocent and Ched Evans guilty?

I've looked at several articles but they all seem to be the same info. McDonald and the girl entered the hotel with linked arms. They went to the room and had sex. Evans came to the hotel and had sex with the girl also. How can she be too drunk to consent to one but not the other? Isn't her drunkness based on the same CCTV in the lobby? Or did the friend'd camera phone show what happened with Evans?


I think the reasoning was that he (McDonald) believed he had her consent. In the case of Evans, the woman was lying unconscious (or nearly unconscious) and had sex with her so he couldn't possibly have believed he had her consent.

ETA: And as pointed out, his own behaviour was highly suggestive of him knowing he shouldn't be doing this. This counts against him when considering whether or not he believed he had her consent.

mijopaalmc
22nd April 2012, 06:28 PM
I'm not being "charitable". There were laws. He knowingly broke them. If I was a judge, I might let him off. But that doesn't obscure the fact that he knew what he was doing. If you want to start a thread to change the current laws, I might support you, depending upon what you say. But there is no debate about the current state of laws.

Anyway, I've gotten off-topic. I was just talking about men respecting women, I didn't intend to get sucked in to this debate.

I was just being cynical about whether he really cared about his girlfriend. I was unjustified but I said it anyway.

Puppycow
22nd April 2012, 06:32 PM
Ok - so a high(ish) profile case in the UK at the moment - a professional footballer jailed for 5 years for having sex with a woman too drunk to consent:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/apr/20/ched-evans-found-guilty-rape

Without getting into the specifics of the case (which I don't know....though it seems odd that one man was cleared whilst the other convicted despite them both having sex with the woman....any more details on this?) it makes me wonder on a few things:

1) Is there a legal definition of "too drunk"? What metric is used?
2) Could a woman ever be convicted of rape under the same law? (Has it happened?)
3) Does the law only apply if one person is sober and the other drunk? What if both people are too drunk? Is there the same liability? Could both people be convicted of rape for the same sex act?

discuss.....

Seems like a miscarriage of justice for two reasons:
1) One man was convicted while another was cleared for the exact same act. That's not just "odd", it screams "unjust" to me.
2) If she has no memory of the previous night, and they didn't intentionally drug her, there is no proof that she didn't consent. People should be held responsible for their own choices. If she chose to drink too much, that's her own fault.

angrysoba
22nd April 2012, 06:33 PM
Seems like a miscarriage of justice for two reasons:
1) One man was convicted while another was cleared for the exact same act. That's not just "odd", it screams "unjust" to me.
2) If she has no memory of the previous night, and they didn't intentionally drug her, there is no proof that she didn't consent. People should be held responsible for their own choices. If she chose to drink too much, that's her own fault.


Oh, puh-leeeeeze!

Will you at least read the thread before the knee-jerk opining?

ETA: bolded bit: Yes, and that is why the guy was convicted for choosing to rape her and she is not "guilty" of asking to be raped given that she was in no condition to make a choice.

TheGoldcountry
22nd April 2012, 06:33 PM
I was just being cynical about whether he really cared about his girlfriend. I was unjustified but I said it anyway.

In other words, you were purposely yanking my chain?

TheGoldcountry
22nd April 2012, 06:36 PM
Seems like a miscarriage of justice for two reasons:
1) One man was convicted while another was cleared for the exact same act. That's not just "odd", it screams "unjust" to me.
2) If she has no memory of the previous night, and they didn't intentionally drug her, there is no proof that she didn't consent. People should be held responsible for their own choices. If she chose to drink too much, that's her own fault.

so, if a woman gets polluted at a bar, she's fair game? two guys can drag her home and do whatever they want? think about that for a minute before responding

mijopaalmc
22nd April 2012, 06:36 PM
In other words, you were purposely yanking my chain?

Nope, I was just giving into the general impression that teenage males are horny goats that only mention love when it gets them sex.

RemieV
22nd April 2012, 06:36 PM
Seems like a miscarriage of justice for two reasons:
1) One man was convicted while another was cleared for the exact same act. That's not just "odd", it screams "unjust" to me.
2) If she has no memory of the previous night, and they didn't intentionally drug her, there is no proof that she didn't consent. People should be held responsible for their own choices. If she chose to drink too much, that's her own fault.

*sigh* Please don't be that person. :)

Everyone here has given excellent reasons for the conviction/absolution. They really are good reasons.

Please read the stories. They didn't just have sex and that was it. He was a predator. It is clear.

TheGoldcountry
22nd April 2012, 06:39 PM
Nope, I was just giving into the general impression that teenage males are horny goats that only mention love when it gets them sex.

well, I don't disagree with that statement, but I was talking about adult males. It's only been a short while, but don't ask me to understand teens. (other than your assessment- that's been true for 10,000 years)

mijopaalmc
22nd April 2012, 06:42 PM
well, I don't disagree with that statement, but I was talking about adult males. It's only been a short while, but don't ask me to understand teens. (other than your assessment- that's been true for 10,000 years)

Now, I'm just confused.

TheGoldcountry
22nd April 2012, 06:46 PM
Now, I'm just confused.

teenage males have been sexual predators for 10,000 years- that has nothing to do with what we are now talking about, I was just responding to your post

One Tenth
22nd April 2012, 06:48 PM
I'm not sure how it is in the UK, but in Canada there are two main elements to sexual assault. The first is that there must be a sexual act that someone did not consent to. The second is that the person committing that unwanted sexual act had to know that it was not consented to (whether they consented is entirely subjective, basically if they said they didn't, then they didn't). Case law has made it clear that someone has to take objectively reasonable steps in regards to obtaining consent.

So it's entirely possible that someone was incapable to not consent to sexual activity, and in the first act someone would reasonably think they did consent and the second act someone would reasonably think they didn't. This would result in the latter being convicted, and the former not convicted.

TheGoldcountry
22nd April 2012, 06:55 PM
You know, the other night I was watching my favorite comedian Louis CK, where he described a sexual encounter when he was young. The point of the story was that he thought the girl was hot for him, but shut him down, so he let it go. The next night (because he did two shows) the girl told him that she wanted him to force her. As he said, that's insane. She wanted to be raped. How do you deal with a situation like that? Personally, I'd run the other direction, but I seem to be in the minority here.

RemieV
22nd April 2012, 06:59 PM
You know, the other night I was watching my favorite comedian Louis CK, where he described a sexual encounter when he was young. The point of the story was that he thought the girl was hot for him, but shut him down, so he let it go. The next night (because he did two shows) the girl told him that she wanted him to force her. As he said, that's insane. She wanted to be raped. How do you deal with a situation like that? Personally, I'd run the other direction, but I seem to be in the minority here.

As they say - crazy is the best sex.

If some dude came up to me at random and said that he wanted to be held down and forced into sex, my first thought would be, "So this is a crazy person." And my second thought would NOT be, "So I should have sex with them."

My second, real thought would be something along the lines of "RUN!!!!!"

What would yours be?

Puppycow
22nd April 2012, 07:05 PM
As they say - crazy is the best sex.

If some dude came up to me at random and said that he wanted to be held down and forced into sex, my first thought would be, "So this is a crazy person." And my second thought would NOT be, "So I should have sex with them."

My second, real thought would be something along the lines of "RUN!!!!!"

What would yours be?

As long as you obtain consent in advance for every act, and negotiate a safety word so that the person can opt out at any point, it can be done. But it needs to be "talked to death" first just so it's absolutely clear that there is no misunderstanding about what both people want from the encounter and there should be a way to end it at any time.

RemieV
22nd April 2012, 07:09 PM
As long as you obtain consent in advance for every act, and negotiate a safety word so that the person can opt out at any point, it can be done. But it needs to be "talked to death" first just so it's absolutely clear that there is no misunderstanding about what both people want from the encounter and there should be a way to end it at any time.

The point of the hypothetical encounters described here, though, is that asking for consent is an afterthought for the psychopath rape-offerer.

Perhaps we should get notaries involved?

TheGoldcountry
22nd April 2012, 07:13 PM
As they say - crazy is the best sex.

If some dude came up to me at random and said that he wanted to be held down and forced into sex, my first thought would be, "So this is a crazy person." And my second thought would NOT be, "So I should have sex with them."

My second, real thought would be something along the lines of "RUN!!!!!"

What would yours be?

I think I clarified that in the post to which you are responding.

Beerina
22nd April 2012, 07:14 PM
You know, the other night I was watching my favorite comedian Louis CK, where he described a sexual encounter when he was young. The point of the story was that he thought the girl was hot for him, but shut him down, so he let it go. The next night (because he did two shows) the girl told him that she wanted him to force her. As he said, that's insane. She wanted to be raped. How do you deal with a situation like that? Personally, I'd run the other direction, but I seem to be in the minority here.

I wonder if famous and rich people have a class for this, watch out for people trying to scam you with rape accusations (among many other frauds.)

TheGoldcountry
22nd April 2012, 07:15 PM
As they say - crazy is the best sex.

If some dude came up to me at random and said that he wanted to be held down and forced into sex, my first thought would be, "So this is a crazy person." And my second thought would NOT be, "So I should have sex with them."

My second, real thought would be something along the lines of "RUN!!!!!"

What would yours be?

I've had crazy sex, and angry sex, but it was only with someone that I REALLY REALLY TRUSTED. I wouldn't do anything like that with a one night stand.

TheGoldcountry
22nd April 2012, 07:16 PM
I wonder if famous and rich people have a class for this, watch out for people trying to scam you with rape accusations (among many other frauds.)

he wasn't rich and famous at the time (if the story was real, but I think it was)

Draca
22nd April 2012, 08:39 PM
No, actually, the way my head is working is that:

- The woman was too drunk to give consent to the second person who penetrated her.

- As such, how could she be in a position to give consent to the first? Presumably she was not MORE drunk when #2 had his way with her?

It would appear to me that the jury seems to have given #1 a 'bye' on the basis that perhaps she made an informed consent back at the kebab shop or whatnot.

That, or all the sneaking around by #2 showed that his intent was malicious whereas #1 is an upstanding member of the community by simply taking a really drunk woman up to his hotel room (and SMSing his buddies that he 'Got a bird!')

I would think that a better way of looking at this, was that the woman did give consent to #1, and did not give consent to #2.

If the woman was 'too drunk' to consent to #2, then either she drank more liquor between #1 & #2, putting her over the top, or she was also too drunk to consent to #1.

Anyways, its not the first time that a jury rules in a way that I can't figure out, won't be the last.


If she can't remember giving consent to #1, how does she know she didn't give consent to #2. :confused:

The reports were that she was the one who approaced McDonald and even hailed the cab. They entered the lobby with their arms linked. This indicates that she did give consent to him, yet she doesn't remember. How would he know that she is too drunk to give consent? I can understand acquitting McDonald based on her actions.

How do they know what happened between her and #2 though? How does she know? It was behind closed doors right? If she can't remember consenting to #1, even though it sure looks like she did, perhaps she also gave consent to #2.

I am of mixed minds about this situation. If she was drugged as she suspects, it is not her fault, but if she drank heavy and threw herself at McDonald she has some responsibility. It shouldn't be completely up to the guy she threw herself at while drunk to figure out if she is capable of making the choice or is drunk past giving consent.

Draca
22nd April 2012, 09:09 PM
I think the reasoning was that he (McDonald) believed he had her consent. In the case of Evans, the woman was lying unconscious (or nearly unconscious) and had sex with her so he couldn't possibly have believed he had her consent.

ETA: And as pointed out, his own behaviour was highly suggestive of him knowing he shouldn't be doing this. This counts against him when considering whether or not he believed he had her consent.


How do they know she was semi-conscious? Is this from the cell phone video?

I'm reading that Evans came in while McDonald and the girl were having sex. McDonald claims that Evans asked if he could join and Evans claims that McDonald asked if he would like to join.

I'm still trying to read more about this case, but it sounds like they ended up doing a threesome or sharing back and forth. How could she have been unconscious for this?

angrysoba
22nd April 2012, 09:14 PM
How do they know she was semi-conscious? Is this from the cell phone video?

I'm reading that Evans came in while McDonald and the girl were having sex. McDonald claims that Evans asked if he could join and Evans claims that McDonald asked if he would like to join.

I'm still trying to read more about this case, but it sounds like they ended up doing a threesome or sharing back and forth. How could she have been unconscious for this?


What I find a bit strange is that they claim that two friends were looking through the window and "trying to film" them. Surely this film, if it exists, would be useful evidence. Otherwise I wonder whether or not it is an alibi and that they are claiming falsely claiming to have witnesses to bear out what they are saying. If they are telling the truth and they took the witness stand then presumably they would have useful testimony.

Draca
22nd April 2012, 09:33 PM
What I find a bit strange is that they claim that two friends were looking through the window and "trying to film" them. Surely this film, if it exists, would be useful evidence. Otherwise I wonder whether or not it is an alibi and that they are claiming falsely claiming to have witnesses to bear out what they are saying. If they are telling the truth and they took the witness stand then presumably they would have useful testimony.


I imagine they did testify. I would like to read that.

Draca
22nd April 2012, 10:01 PM
Evans told the jury the woman was awake and responding when he had sex with her in the room and insisted he had not forced himself on her in any way.

He said: "She was very sexually active. She was moaning and groaning and giving no sign or indication she wasn't enjoying it or objecting to it."

The court heard that McDonald and the woman, who he had never met before, had sex for around 10 minutes before Evans walked into the room.

McDonald had previously told the court that Evans asked if he could join in when he walked into the room.

But giving evidence yesterday, Evans said: "As I walked into the room, the door closed behind me and made a loud clunking noise. Clayton and the woman looked at me and I watched for about 10 or 20 seconds and then Clayton asked, could his mate get involved and she said yes."

The footballer was asked why he stopped having sex with the woman when McDonald left the room a short time later. Evans said it was because he didn't want to be in a room on his own with a woman in case his girlfriend rang his phone and heard her in the background.

He said: "I pulled away from her and put the lamp on. She realised I was getting dressed and looked at me, huffed, and pulled the covers over her head."

Prosecutor John Philpotts said: "You left by the fire exit because you knew what you had done and you didn't want to be seen by reception."

Evans replied: "No, that's not right."

Mr Philpotts said to Evans: "This woman was semi-conscious, wasn't she? The girl was in no state to consent to what you did to her. She was simply a girl who you and your friend used for your own gratification."

Evans replied: "No." He added: "She'd had a drink but she wasn't very drunk."

David Fish QC, representing Evans, asked his client if he forced himself on the woman. "No," Evans replied.

Mr Fish then asked Evans if the woman was awake, responding and making noises, to which he replied: "Yes."
http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/Rape-claim-woman-awake-sex/story-15860458-detail/story.html

I understand that sneaking out the fire escape makes him appear guilty. It would for most of us. Not everyone is a famous football player with a girlfriend though.

I think it's pretty gross what these two did. Find a drunk 'bird' and have some fun. It's really immoral. It reminds of the Rob Lowe scandal.

If the jury thought that McDonald believed he had consent, I'm not sure why Evans couldn't have also believed he had consent. I guess that is the weight the jury put on sneaking out of the hotel.

Draca
22nd April 2012, 10:23 PM
Evans with his graphic description of the girl giving consent:

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/at-a-glance/main-section/ched-evans-speaks-in-rape-trial-i-left-hotel-through-emergency-exit-in-case-girlfriend-rang-1-4459182

angrysoba
22nd April 2012, 10:27 PM
I imagine they did testify. I would like to read that.

Yeah, I imagine so. I keep trying to say "the video would be worth watching too" but I don't mean that in a pervy way.

psionl0
22nd April 2012, 10:52 PM
The legal system comes straight from the middle ages where women (like children) were considered incapable of being responsible for themselves.

And, of course, intoxication mitigates everything.

Draca
22nd April 2012, 11:20 PM
She later got a taxi to the Zu bar in Rhyl and socialised with friends.

After dancing at the bar and drinking four double vodkas with lemonade and a shot of sambuca, she lost her friends and went into the Godfather takeaway shop.

She woke up the next morning, naked and alone in the hotel bedroom.

The last thing she could remember was being in the takeaway and getting into a discussion over a pizza box.

In an interview with the police a day after the incident, she said: "It is just horrible because I don't know how I got there.

But giving evidence to the police, she said she had not drunk more alcohol than on a normal night out.

Blood samples taken by the police found the woman had traces of cocaine and cannabis in her system, but she denied taking any drugs on the night of the alleged rape.

CCTV footage showed that, after leaving The Godfather takeaway shop, she got into a taxi with McDonald and arrived with him at the Premier Inn hotel at around 4am.

http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/Woman-suspects-drink-spiked-attack/story-15802271-detail/story.html


If the girl was drugged, and the blood test supports that that could be the true, this was a horrible sequence of events on a night that went completely wrong. She parties at a bar, gets drugged and separated from her friends. She then runs into McDonald on the street. They chat a moment and he says he is going to his hotel. She says she is going with him. Then the douchebag calls his buddy, who he said he has had threesomes with many times in the past, and she ends up having sex with both of them.

It's a shame that her friends didn't keep better track of her, they really let her down. It's a shame she didn't run into a more honorable man that would help her call her friends or get her a taxi home. The whole night is a shame.

Is it McDonald and Evans fault though? This would not be the first girl to say yes to a wild night with both of them. They say she was awake, responsive and saying yes. How would they know someone drugged her and this was not typical behavior for the girl, as she claims at least.

mijopaalmc
22nd April 2012, 11:22 PM
The legal system comes straight from the middle ages where women (like children) were considered incapable of being responsible for themselves.

And, of course, intoxication mitigates everything.

Yeah, because being intoxicated never affects one's ability to make informed, rational decisions. :rolleyes:

Oh, and you're not the first person to pretend that you are championing the rights of the historically marginalized when, in fact, you are perpetuating their marginalization.

Puppycow
22nd April 2012, 11:31 PM
Oh, puh-leeeeeze!

Will you at least read the thread before the knee-jerk opining?

ETA: bolded bit: Yes, and that is why the guy was convicted for choosing to rape her and she is not "guilty" of asking to be raped given that she was in no condition to make a choice.

so, if a woman gets polluted at a bar, she's fair game? two guys can drag her home and do whatever they want? think about that for a minute before responding

*sigh* Please don't be that person. :)

Everyone here has given excellent reasons for the conviction/absolution. They really are good reasons.

Please read the stories. They didn't just have sex and that was it. He was a predator. It is clear.

I apologize for not reading the thread more carefully before responding.
I was responding mainly to the thread title and the OP.

If she was passed-out drunk, and this was proven in court, then the question of whether she was "too drunk to consent" is moot. An unconscious person clearly cannot give consent.

In a hypothetical situation where she is drunk, but awake and responsive and able to say or indicate her consent, it would be another matter, IMO.

psionl0
22nd April 2012, 11:31 PM
Yeah, because being intoxicated never affects one's ability to make informed, rational decisions. :rolleyes:Intoxication is an aggravating factor in crimes but that's not how the legal system saw it in the middle ages and it's not how they see it today.

Oh, and you're not the first person to pretend that you are championing the rights of the historically marginalized when, in fact, you are perpetuating their marginalization.I find it hard to feel sympathy for someone who gets herself so intoxicated that she goes home with the first stranger she meets. The only reason she is not considered culpable in any way is because the legal system considers her a woman.

mijopaalmc
22nd April 2012, 11:35 PM
Intoxication is an aggravating factor in crimes but that's not how the legal system saw it in the middle ages and it's not how they see it today.

I find it hard to feel sympathy for someone who gets herself so intoxicated that she goes home with the first stranger she meets. The only reason she is not considered culpable in any way is because the legal system considers her a woman.

Too obvious troll is too obvious.

psionl0
22nd April 2012, 11:49 PM
Too obvious troll is too obvious.It must be trolling .... the legal system is sacrosanct.

Puppycow
22nd April 2012, 11:57 PM
Evans with his graphic description of the girl giving consent:

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/at-a-glance/main-section/ched-evans-speaks-in-rape-trial-i-left-hotel-through-emergency-exit-in-case-girlfriend-rang-1-4459182

I don't see in there any smoking-gun evidence that she was passed out.

The woman told police she has no memory of the incident and the prosecution says she was too drunk to consent to sexual intercourse.

Evans told the court he watched them having sex for about “10/20 seconds” and then McDonald “asked” if his mate could “get involved”.

“Then she looked at me and said yes,” Evans said.

The footballer then said he carried on watching “for a minute or two” before McDonald got up to close the bedroom curtains, as there was “giggling” coming from the window, where Evans’ brother and a friend were trying to watch from.

Evans said that when McDonald got up the girl asked him to perform oral sex on her, which he did.

He said: “I performed oral sex on her for maybe two or three minutes and then she turned over on all fours and then asked to be f***** basically”.

He said the girl asked him to “f*** her harder”.

“They were the words she was using,” he said.

Evans then said they changed position so he was facing her while McDonald “watched for a bit” before leaving.

“As he left the room we stopped having sex,” Evans told the jury.

Mr Philpotts then asked Evans if he and McDonald “forced that young lady” into having sex.

He replied: “No.”

“Was she conscious?”

“Yes,” he said.

Just because she has no memory of the incident doesn't mean that she was necessarily passed out. I don't see why it couldn't have happened as he claimed it did, unless there's other evidence that refutes his story.

mijopaalmc
23rd April 2012, 12:15 AM
It must be trolling .... the legal system is sacrosanct.

No, you're trolling because you insist what you said is novel, when it has already been addressed.

3point14
23rd April 2012, 12:28 AM
Your first post implied that the 19 year old might not have been raped because lots of women like to have sex while passed out. Allowing oneself to become incapacitated with a stranger does not absolve the stranger of rape.


Snipped, but no it didn't. It described a problem of consent that arisises in some sexual practices.

At no point did he imply that "the 19 year old might not have been raped because lots of women like to have sex while passed out".

psionl0
23rd April 2012, 12:29 AM
No, you're trolling because you insist what you said is novel, when it has already been addressed.In that case, all you have to do is give the number of the post that addressed my post.

SezMe
23rd April 2012, 12:34 AM
McDonald may have been cleared of the rape charge, but I think he's got major culpability here. Maybe not a legal responsibility, but an ethical one. He called his friend to come have sex and now that friend is going to jail. I wish he could be held legally liable but that is apparently not going to happen. I hope the weight of responsibility for what he initiated hangs over him for a very long time.

3point14
23rd April 2012, 12:38 AM
Thanks for getting it. Except I was not referring to this specific case, but to a hypothetical that tests the rule.

Jusxt for the record, that's what I got too.

If people are going to play on the edge of consent, it's good to know what can get one llocked up in advance of doing it. Especially if it might appear to an onlooker that there's a lack of consent anywhere.

3point14
23rd April 2012, 12:42 AM
And what exactly was the rule? Oh right, that woman can not consent while unconscious. And what was your hypothetical case? A woman who had consented to having sex while unconscious in a very controlled safe environment. That you find it necessary to defend the idea of consent while unconscious even to the point of introducing completely unrelated factors is far more interesting than your rather disingenuous example.

Really?

So people shouldn't be allowed to ask those sort of questions?

Are we restricting the thread only to the incident described? That's going to be a bit short.

Or can we discuss implications arising from the case? The complicated stuff like how it is that one party was convicted and not the other, or those theoretcal cases that introduse things like men and women who enjoy the illusion of being forced into sex in one way or another.

It happens, people do it. They'd like to know in advance what the view of the practice would be in a courtroom. How can they do that with you shutting down the discussion like that?

Puppycow
23rd April 2012, 12:47 AM
McDonald may have been cleared of the rape charge, but I think he's got major culpability here. Maybe not a legal responsibility, but an ethical one. He called his friend to come have sex and now that friend is going to jail. I wish he could be held legally liable but that is apparently not going to happen. I hope the weight of responsibility for what he initiated hangs over him for a very long time.

Agree. It doesn't sit right with me that Evans should be found guilty but not McDonald.

3point14
23rd April 2012, 12:49 AM
Ok, so it's just the usual game of "Let's figure out how this might not be rape if the situation was completely different!"

Actually for some it's a game of 'How do we not end up in danger of going to prison for that which is consensual?'

That's a much more important game.

epepke
23rd April 2012, 12:57 AM
There are two cases that I see often in the laws, both of which I think are quite defensible:

1) When the intoxication is so great that the victim is physically helpless to resist. This would include black-outs.

2) When the intoxicating substances were administered without the victim's consent.

psionl0
23rd April 2012, 12:59 AM
Actually for some it's a game of 'How do we not end up in danger of going to prison for that which is consensual?'

That's a much more important game.It's not a game. It's reality. Checkout the 30 Second Rape Case (http://www.innocenceprojectwa.org.au/kevin_ibbs.html).

3point14
23rd April 2012, 01:01 AM
Anyone who has sex with someone who is incapacitated is a rapist, regardless of their gender and the gender of the person they have sex with.

Could you please define the word 'incapacitated'.

psionl0
23rd April 2012, 01:05 AM
There are two cases that I see often in the laws, both of which I think are quite defensible:

1) When the intoxication is so great that the victim is physically helpless to resist. This would include black-outs.Rape is generally a power game. I would draw a distinction between taking advantage of someone who (voluntarily) rendered herself stupid and forcing yourself on someone who is clearly resisting your advances.

2) When the intoxicating substances were administered without the victim's consent.I agree. This is a totally different scenario altogether - especially when the person administering the drug is the rapist.

SezMe
23rd April 2012, 01:14 AM
Agree. It doesn't sit right with me that Evans should be found guilty but not McDonald.
Actually, I don't think we agree. I think the court decision is correct. It is not the rape charge I'm unhappy with, it's the idea that he carries considerable culpability for Evans going to jail. As I said, maybe not legal responsibility but certainly he's guilty of at least be a major butthole for texting that he had a piece of meat in his room - come get it.

3point14
23rd April 2012, 01:22 AM
Agreed. It might be an unfair law, but if he truly cared about her (I don't say "love" because that's the most subjective noun in the dictionary) why can't he wait?

Maybe she doesn't want to?

Maybe he doesn't want to?

Maybe, just maybe, two people indulging in a muitually pleasurable, consensual act shouldn't be criminilised?

Tsukasa Buddha
23rd April 2012, 01:32 AM
(voluntarily) rendered herself stupid

But here's the thing, we generally don't care about that in our legal system. That you left your car unlocked is not relevant when someone opens the door and steals your iPod (or the car).

To claim that the woman is somehow complicit goes against the general consensus on legal issues. I suspect it is a cultural attitude about alcohol and sex.

Tsukasa Buddha
23rd April 2012, 01:33 AM
Maybe she doesn't want to?

Maybe he doesn't want to?

Maybe, just maybe, two people indulging in a muitually pleasurable, consensual act shouldn't be criminilised?

Well there's your problem... :p

epepke
23rd April 2012, 01:54 AM
Rape is generally a power game. I would draw a distinction between taking advantage of someone who (voluntarily) rendered herself stupid and forcing yourself on someone who is clearly resisting your advances.

Clearly, I quite agree about only fairly modest or even severe intoxication, which is why the statutes I've seen specify intoxication to the point of physical incapacity. Simple stupefaction from alcohol should not be sufficient.

This is, after all, what alcohol is for. People drink alcohol so that they can do things, such as have sex and sing Bohemian Rhapsody, that they normally are inhibited against doing.

Fortunately, I think that if you look at actual jurisprudence, including what is written into law and whether it actually results in conviction, you will find that only the most severe forms of intoxication count.

If you listen to the polemic of idiot and deeply misogynistic women, who like to paint a picture of women as creatures so stupid that they cannot control their alcohol consumption to maintain responsibility, then you much get a different picture. That's as maybe. You can always find evidence for the vapidity, banality, and bigotry of human beings if you search for it.

psionl0
23rd April 2012, 02:32 AM
But here's the thing, we generally don't care about that in our legal system. That you left your car unlocked is not relevant when someone opens the door and steals your iPod (or the car).Actually it is relevant. If someone steals something from your unlocked car then you certainly have a right to reclaim what was stolen. Whether the stealer should have additional punishment is more debatable. Taking something from an unlocked vehicle is a lesser crime than breaking into the vehicle to steal it.

To claim that the woman is somehow complicit goes against the general consensus on legal issues. I suspect it is a cultural attitude about alcohol and sex.Don't get me wrong. Taking advantage of someone who is not in a position to withhold consent is still a crime. It's a matter of degree however.

If you were to wake up one morning after a night of "partying hard" and later discovered that someone had taken advantage of you while you were blacking out then you would feel dirtied and humiliated.

As bad as that is, it doesn't begin to compare to the plight of a woman who was attacked by a violent rapist and forced to choose between her life and her honour.

ETA I know that "honour" is a quaint notion but ATM I can't think of a more suitable word.

jakesteele
23rd April 2012, 02:37 AM
http://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/sexual%20correctness.htm


Now feminists on campus quote Andrea Dworkin: "The hurting of women is . . . basic to the sexual pleasure of men."

as an Antioch women's center advocate told a group of incoming freshmen this fall. You must obtain consent every step of the way. "If you want to take her blouse off, you have to ask. If you want to touch her breast, you have to ask. If you want to move your hand down to her genitals, you have to ask. If you want to put your finger inside her, you have to ask." Well, Molly Bloom would do fine.

Manhattan sex-crime prosecutor Linda Fairstein, author of "Sexual Violence: Our War Against Rape." And because alcohol poses such a powerful problem, it is the rule at almost every school (and the law in most states) that "consent is not meaningful" if given while under the influence of alcohol, drugs or prescription medication. If she's drunk she's not mentally there, and her consent counts for zip.

I like this last one in particular. If a 'gal' is on prozac or other psych meds that are mood changing, mind altering, she can never have sex again unless she doesn't say anything to her partner. According to the way radical feminists view things, that gal should be charged and found guilty of, "solitary, surreptitious collusion to place a horny man in danger of committing a crime."

Or at least negligently placing an innocent erection, unable to tell the difference between right and wrong, in harm's way.

If you think about it, every Tom, Dick and Harry could end up on a show like "To Catch a Predator".

TheGoldcountry
23rd April 2012, 02:51 AM
Maybe she doesn't want to?

Maybe he doesn't want to?

Maybe, just maybe, two people indulging in a muitually pleasurable, consensual act shouldn't be criminilised?

Then change the law. I've already said that.

3point14
23rd April 2012, 03:07 AM
Then change the law. I've already said that.

You do know that's not an argument, don't you?

How do we know if the law needs changing if your answer to any questions posed is 'change the law'. Are you trying to shut down the debate deliberately or is it just an accidental thing?

Seriously, are we not allowed to debate if a law is reasonable and can be appiled consistently? Do you argue the same way on drug legislation? On speed limits? Taxes? you simply accept the law as it is and refer any dissenters to the statute books?

Last of the Fraggles
23rd April 2012, 03:09 AM
If you're not sure whether or not you are about to rape someone, best not go ahead and have sex anyway.

How exactly would you be 'sure' about something that could not be verified until some point in the future?

Plenty drunk people can seem perfectly lucid and coherent at the time.

Equally, in a typical situation both parties would have had something to drink and yet you are asking one party to exercise sound judgement about the situation and not the other.

whatthebutlersaw
23rd April 2012, 03:24 AM
So, you want my friends to not have sex.
You want to tell them what sort of sex they MAY have?
Sex that you personally approve of?

And what of non sexual dangerous things people do? Like free-climbing? We should prohibit that, too?

I seriously DO know people with major kinks you would find disturbing, lots of them. I've run with that crowd for a long, long time though my own kinks are quite tame in comparison.

I don't doubt that fetish exists and I don't doubt it can be performed in a consenting manner. I just doubt it has any bearing whatsoever on this discussion. I also doubt that the required state of obliviousness is obtained with alcohol. It is a completely different situation because we are talking about a situation of explicit consent. It has nothing to do with showing up at a hotel room where someone who did not give prior consent is knocked out on one of the substances most likely to cause a higher level of intoxication than the imbiber expected. Every weekend.

Ask yourself - if you liked to be knocked out during a consenting fetish session would you: A - don't care who got involved (or how) or would you expect only the person/persons you consented to before being administered your knockout compound? and B: use a compound known to cause horrible hangovers if administered to the point of the wanted state of unconsciousness?

I can think of at least ten better suited compounds - and would also include the possibility of play-acting - just off the top of my head and I don't even engage in recreational drug use.

That discussion doesn't belong here because it is dealing with a situation of consent. Just like the BDSM discussions don't belong in rape discussions because they are also situations of consent. Usually much more unambiguously so than most post-club shags. We are not marginalising your friends by NOT discussing them in a situation that involved no consent and you are not doing them any favours by equivocating their desires with those of proper rape cases.

If you have such a need to discuss bdsm and fetishes, start a thread for them. I'm sure there are many people who are interested in the nuts and bolts of the bdsm community. Some of the sanest people I know are involved in those groups so there really is no reason dragging them through a thread about lacking consent - and I frankly don't see why you seem to feel the need to do this whenever that subject pops up. The only one who keeps dragging them into issues of non-consent, are you.

The rest of us are discussing (or, reading about, in my case - up until now-) rape. Not perfectly healthy, consenting fetishes. Stop pretending they have any place in this discussion.

3point14
23rd April 2012, 03:32 AM
I don't doubt that fetish exists and I don't doubt it can be performed in a consenting manner. I just doubt it has any bearing whatsoever on this discussion. I also doubt that the required state of obliviousness is obtained with alcohol. It is a completely different situation because we are talking about a situation of explicit consent. It has nothing to do with showing up at a hotel room where someone who did not give prior consent is knocked out on one of the substances most likely to cause a higher level of intoxication than the imbiber expected. Every weekend.

Ask yourself - if you liked to be knocked out during a consenting fetish session would you: A - don't care who got involved (or how) or would you expect only the person/persons you consented to before being administered your knockout compound? and B: use a compound known to cause horrible hangovers if administered to the point of the wanted state of unconsciousness?

I can think of at least ten better suited compounds - and would also include the possibility of play-acting - just off the top of my head and I don't even engage in recreational drug use.

That discussion doesn't belong here because it is dealing with a situation of consent. Just like the BDSM discussions don't belong in rape discussions because they are also situations of consent. Usually much more unambiguously so than most post-club shags. We are not marginalising your friends by NOT discussing them in a situation that involved no consent and you are not doing them any favours by equivocating their desires with those of proper rape cases.

If you have such a need to discuss bdsm and fetishes, start a thread for them. I'm sure there are many people who are interested in the nuts and bolts of the bdsm community. Some of the sanest people I know are involved in those groups so there really is no reason dragging them through a thread about lacking consent - and I frankly don't see why you seem to feel the need to do this whenever that subject pops up. The only one who keeps dragging them into issues of non-consent, are you.

The rest of us are discussing (or, reading about, in my case - up until now-) rape. Not perfectly healthy, consenting fetishes. Stop pretending they have any place in this discussion.

I entirely disagree. this is exactly the place for discussions including BDSM play.

If you rule out BDSM (or PYL, you take your choice) play from this discussion then a definition of 'rape' may be arrived at that criminalises consnensual BDSM play.

You can't just decide not to discuss it because it muddies the waters. That's exactly why it needs to be discussed.

angrysoba
23rd April 2012, 03:53 AM
I entirely disagree. this is exactly the place for discussions including BDSM play.

If you rule out BDSM (or PYL, you take your choice) play from this discussion then a definition of 'rape' may be arrived at that criminalises consnensual BDSM play.

You can't just decide not to discuss it because it muddies the waters. That's exactly why it needs to be discussed.

Surely people who engage in rape fetish play have already consented.

The issue here is both whether or not the woman had consented and whether or not the convicted footballer could reasonably claim she had consented. No one, as far as I know, has suggested that she was into the fetishes that people are talking about. So it doesn't need to be considered in the jury's deliberations.

3point14
23rd April 2012, 04:00 AM
Surely people who engage in rape fetish play have already consented.

Indeed, but consent needs to be ongoing. Off the top of my head I can think of many situations where ongoing consent is impossible due to the nature of the situation. Add on top of that the desire to suprise a partner with something either new or unexpected and now you're dealing with someone who cannot, due to circumstances, give ongoing consent and who has not given, in andvance, consent for a specific act to be performed to/on/with/by them.

Any discussion that focuses on consent and where the line is needs to either take these situations into account or risk criminalising a decent sized chunk of the population.

Any discussion that has consent as a focus and ends with 'right, we're sorted it, these are the rules' and hasn't included people in the margins is not a complete discussion.


The issue here is both whether or not the woman had consented and whether or not the convicted footballer could reasonably claim she had consented. No one, as far as I know, has suggested that she was into the fetishes that people are talking about. So it doesn't need to be considered in the jury's deliberations.


I agree that these are the specifics, but the thread has branced out into hypotheticals. If the thread is to be solely about the facts of the case, I apologise and withdraw, but it seemed a little further reaching than that to me. (As ever, I could be wrong, it happens a lot :) )

TheGoldcountry
23rd April 2012, 04:59 AM
You do know that's not an argument, don't you?

How do we know if the law needs changing if your answer to any questions posed is 'change the law'. Are you trying to shut down the debate deliberately or is it just an accidental thing?

Seriously, are we not allowed to debate if a law is reasonable and can be appiled consistently? Do you argue the same way on drug legislation? On speed limits? Taxes? you simply accept the law as it is and refer any dissenters to the statute books?

I didn't say that. You specifically said "maybe they don't want to." Fine, then they accept the consequences of their actions. If you are proposing changing these laws, I may support you, but in the meantime you can't ignore them whenever you wish.

ETA: Of course we can debate. Did I ever ask you to shut up?

sphenisc
23rd April 2012, 05:05 AM
I knew a boy in high school whose parents disapproved of his relationship with their daughter - who was seventeen. He was... some age that was illegal.

Again - the answer is that the law is public. You don't HAVE to have sex with anyone. Could he not wait the time? Sure, the law might be silly in your eyes. That doesn't mean it's impossible to follow.

I've read that a couple of times and still dont see how any amount of waiting is going to resolve an issue of incest.

P.S. They are married now - and have been for the past ten years.

???

3point14
23rd April 2012, 05:07 AM
I didn't say that. You specifically said "maybe they don't want to." Fine, then they accept the consequences of their actions. If you are proposing changing these laws, I may support you, but in the meantime you can't ignore them whenever you wish.

ETA: Of course we can debate. Did I ever ask you to shut up?

So far you've referred me to the statute and tehn said that you may or may not support any proposition to alter same.

Do you have an opinion? Have you stated it? Is it in opposition to mine? If so, why? If you haven't stated a position, why not?

These and many other questions...

TheGoldcountry
23rd April 2012, 05:31 AM
So far you've referred me to the statute and tehn said that you may or may not support any proposition to alter same.

Do you have an opinion? Have you stated it? Is it in opposition to mine? If so, why? If you haven't stated a position, why not?

These and many other questions...

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8222797&postcount=115

3point14
23rd April 2012, 05:42 AM
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8222797&postcount=115

You know, I don't think you're actually interested in debate or logic at all, just some weird kind of points scoring that I don't quite get. I really wish I'd never engaged you.

You have a nice day. :)

whatthebutlersaw
23rd April 2012, 06:03 AM
I entirely disagree. this is exactly the place for discussions including BDSM play.

If you rule out BDSM (or PYL, you take your choice) play from this discussion then a definition of 'rape' may be arrived at that criminalises consnensual BDSM play.

You can't just decide not to discuss it because it muddies the waters. That's exactly why it needs to be discussed.

No. This is a thread about a rape case where no one involved had anything to do with any such fetish. I find it offensive and insulting both to the victim in the case discussed to Green-eggs-and-ham her trial as well as to safe, sane and consesual people to have their perfectly healthy preoccupations involved in a discussion about a clear, unambiguous situation of non consent.

A new thread would be more appropriate for that because the victim in the OP quoted article has nothing to do with that discussion.

3point14
23rd April 2012, 06:18 AM
No. This is a thread about a rape case where no one involved had anything to do with any such fetish. I find it offensive and insulting both to the victim in the case discussed to Green-eggs-and-ham her trial as well as to safe, sane and consesual people to have their perfectly healthy preoccupations involved in a discussion about a clear, unambiguous situation of non consent.

A new thread would be more appropriate for that because the victim in the OP quoted article has nothing to do with that discussion.


You seem to be very easily offended, but in light of your delicate sensibilities, I will withdraw.


Have a nice day.


Actually, strike that.

Who died and made you king?


Find me a mod to tell me it's off topic and I'll leave whistling and sining.

Until then, you don't get to define the scope of the discussion.

But I'm just dandy with ignoring me.

Mark6
23rd April 2012, 06:20 AM
I knew a boy in high school whose parents disapproved of his relationship with their daughter - who was seventeen. He was... some age that was illegal.

Again - the answer is that the law is public. You don't HAVE to have sex with anyone. Could he not wait the time? Sure, the law might be silly in your eyes. That doesn't mean it's impossible to follow.
I think you confused some pronouns here.

And I do not see what your point is. The boy was below age of consent?

TheGoldcountry
23rd April 2012, 06:54 AM
You know, I don't think you're actually interested in debate or logic at all, just some weird kind of points scoring that I don't quite get. I really wish I'd never engaged you.

You have a nice day. :)

Yeah, nice to meet you to.

crimresearch
23rd April 2012, 06:57 AM
No. This is a thread about a rape case where no one involved had anything to do with any such fetish. I find it offensive and insulting both to the victim in the case discussed to Green-eggs-and-ham her trial as well as to safe, sane and consesual people to have their perfectly healthy preoccupations involved in a discussion about a clear, unambiguous situation of non consent.

A new thread would be more appropriate for that because the victim in the OP quoted article has nothing to do with that discussion.
This thread started with a specific rape case, the topic quickly became the idea of consent when incapacitated.

More specifically, given the split verdicts, the notion of consenting to incapacitated sex with one person, but not with others.

As already linked, this is also an issue among those whose sexual orientation includes kink.

I don't see how your demand to keep alternative sexualities out of it does anything to advance the overall discussion.

Eddie Dane
23rd April 2012, 07:27 AM
There are no real Martians. There are real women who have the fetish I described. I know a couple of them. So it's a real issue, and not an "angel on pins" sort of thing.

Sounds like a bit of a niche market, though.

mijopaalmc
23rd April 2012, 10:25 AM
In that case, all you have to do is give the number of the post that addressed my post.

Maybe you should--I don't know--actually read the thread. The general thrust of the conversation has nothing to do with how women by virtue of their womanhood are incapable of consent; it is about how persons in general becomee incapable of consent when they are rendered intoxicated.

BenBurch
23rd April 2012, 12:29 PM
No. This is a thread about a rape case where no one involved had anything to do with any such fetish. I find it offensive and insulting both to the victim in the case discussed to Green-eggs-and-ham her trial as well as to safe, sane and consesual people to have their perfectly healthy preoccupations involved in a discussion about a clear, unambiguous situation of non consent.

A new thread would be more appropriate for that because the victim in the OP quoted article has nothing to do with that discussion.

A discussion of consent within the context of law, and testing the boundaries of that in some way is disrespectful? I'm sorry, but that makes zero sense. If facts don't matter to you, then you are arguing with emotion and maybe with ideology, but not with reason.

Law, to be just, must be very carefully constructed and very carefully interpreted and enforced. You want to make sure that people engaging in a criminal activity, that is rape, can be separated from people just having sex when they are all drunk, or from people playing kinky edge play.

Because I don't think we want people to go to jail who did nothing at all with any criminal intent and who had perfectly good consent to the proceedings, do we?

I hesitate to bring this up, since I have been called abusive for daring to discuss boundaries, but there is a drug that creates temporary amnesia, they use it in medical procedures where the patient's cooperation is needed, but the procedure is too painful to bear recollection. And there is a drug that erases memories already established. If a person gives consent, but then is unable to recall that consent because the memory has been removed, or never allowed to form, how is the law going to deal with that?

SezMe
23rd April 2012, 12:30 PM
Actually it is relevant. If someone steals something from your unlocked car then you certainly have a right to reclaim what was stolen. Whether the stealer should have additional punishment is more debatable. Taking something from an unlocked vehicle is a lesser crime than breaking into the vehicle to steal it.
Yes but only because more crimes have been committed in the latter case. In the former, there is only theft. In the latter, there is breaking and entering, damage to the car and theft. I suspect the penalty for the theft part is the same in both cases; the additional crimes make it worse. Thus, I don't think this is a good analogy for the topic.

BenBurch
23rd April 2012, 12:33 PM
Sounds like a bit of a niche market, though.

Without ANY doubt. That is the extreme of the extreme.