Define Consent.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by bookitty

When harm occurs and the act is without the victim's consent.

By that definition, if you stumble and fall into me, you attacked me. Clearly that's not what "attack" means in any context.

No, an attack is an action intended to do harm, and I believe you would accept that definition in any other context. Accidental harm is not an attack; intent matters.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

By that definition, if you stumble and fall into me, you attacked me. Clearly that's not what "attack" means in any context.

No, an attack is an action intended to do harm, and I believe you would accept that definition in any other context. Accidental harm is not an attack; intent matters.

So taking something by force or deceit is not harm in itself?

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

By that definition, if you stumble and fall into me, you attacked me. Clearly that's not what "attack" means in any context.

No, an attack is an action intended to do harm, and I believe you would accept that definition in any other context. Accidental harm is not an attack; intent matters.

Oh so now someone who incapacitates someone and then forces a sex act upon them is doing it "accidentally" because they didn't think and do not care about the harm they will cause.

It's just like they stumbled, except rape.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

If somebody turns you down for sex and then you incapacitated them so that you could override their refusal to have sex with you, your act is an act of power. You have demonstrated that your desires overwhelm the other person's will.

The fact that the actor didn't intend to exercise power over the acted upon dosen't mean that the actor didn't in fact exercise said power.

Okay, that's a reasonable point. Violent crimes include a power element by definition; I can accept that based on certain use of terms.

Of course, by the same argument, robbery or assault are equally "acts of power"; any violence is. I'm not sure how useful that definition is when what we're really interested in is the nature of the act and it's motivations.

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Okay, that's a reasonable point. Violent crimes include a power element by definition; I can accept that based on certain use of terms.

Of course, by the same argument, robbery or assault are equally "acts of power"; any violence is. I'm not sure how useful that definition is when what we're really interested in is the nature of the act and it's motivations.

So if someone robs you at gun point, not to be violent but just because they want your money, you have been "accidentally" robbed? If someone punches you in the face, not to hurt you but because they think it will be funny, you have been "accidentally" attacked. If someone takes your car on a joyride, just for fun, is it really grand theft auto?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by bookitty

Oh so now someone who incapacitates someone and then forces a sex act upon them is doing it "accidentally" because they didn't think and do not care about the harm they will cause.

It's just like they stumbled, except rape.

Is that honestly what you think I said?

Could I ask you to take a step back, please, and consider that you have read a lot into my statements that wasn't said or reasonably implied?

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Okay, that's a reasonable point. Violent crimes include a power element by definition; I can accept that based on certain use of terms.

Of course, by the same argument, robbery or assault are equally "acts of power"; any violence is. I'm not sure how useful that definition is when what we're really interested in is the nature of the act and it's motivations.

Because the actor overrode the acted upon's will, the actor exercised power over the acted upon. The intent was to countermand another's will regardless of what else was obtained.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Because the actor overrode the acted upon's will, the actor exercised power over the acted upon. The intent was to countermand another's will regardless of what else was obtained.

All right, and we call that an "attack" because of the intent to (or at least indifference to) override the will of another, which is always there whether the primary motivation is violence or something else.

Is that right?

[mijopaalmc]

So far as I can determine, rape does not require mens rea (lit. guilty mind, i.e., intent to have sex or exercise power), only, like most other sex crimes, actus reus (lit., guilty act, i.e., non-consensual sex).

I realize that the lack of criminal intent may be a bit beside the point, since we are, at least in part, discussing how rape is an act of power per se, which is not part of the legal definition of rape. However, we are also discussing rape prosecution, so it does behoove up to keep in mind that the criminal act of rape does not include the element of intent, only the element of non-consensual sex.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

All right, and we call that an "attack" because of the intent to (or at least indifference to) override the will of another, which is always there whether the primary motivation is violence or something else.

Is that right?

What is your point in demonstrating that an attack is defined in part by the intent of the attacker?

Intent plays no part in the criminal definition of rape, so say that the alleged rapist did not intend to force the victim to have sex is completely beside the point in rape prosecution.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by bookitty

Look at any rape thread on this board. Look at how you have completely dismissed any idea that the police may be unhelpful because I "immerse yourself in feminist publications" and have nothing to do with the links I posted.

You made the global claim that all rape victims faced an unsympathetic police response. You presented no evidence to support that claim.

I did not dismiss your claim on the basis that you probably read a lot of feminist writing, I dismissed it on the basis that you had presented no evidence and suggested a plausible mechanism for why you might have that belief in the absence of proper evidence.

Quote:

Look at how many ways rape is excused - If I child doesn't know it's sex, if a woman is wearing something revealing, if she said no after any physical contact, so forth and so on. Including (I swear to god this happened) If the world ends and there are only two people left, the men has a moral obligation to rape the woman for the good of the human race.

I saw that one too and you know what? I didn't post it, and I don't take any responsibility for it. This isn't a team sport and I'm not on any side.

Quote:

Do you really think that cops are any different? Do you think the majority of them are studying feminist philosophy or debating consent? Even in the case of stranger rape, there is no guarantee that it will be taken seriously or that it will be investigated. When it comes to the greyer but far more common cases of acquaintance rape, there is less chance that it will be investigated.

Rhetorical questions are a way of getting out of stating an argument honestly. For example you could have said "Cops are no different to the idiots promoting rape myths or kooky pro-rape ideas on the JREF forums. The majority of police are not studying feminist philosophy or debating consent, from which it follows that they are no different to the idiots promoting rape myths or kooky pro-rape ideas on the JREF forums." However if you had said that you know someone would ask you for your evidence, and you wouldn't have any that was strong enough to support such a universal claim.

Human nature being what it is I wouldn't be surprised if police were perceived as unsympathetic some of the time, and really were unsympathetic some of the time, for all sorts of armchair-psychological reasons. However I don't pretend that my armchair psychology is a substitute for evidence.

Quote:

Perhaps it's different in NSW which would make any comparison to the prosecution of rape in the US null.

Btw, accusers change their story all the time for all sorts of crime. The human memory of traumatic events is neither photographic nor linear.

Human memory is absolutely terrible, in certain specific and well-understood ways. People in crises remember all sorts of things that never happened. However their memory doesn't improve over time, or get worse and miraculously get better. They don't suddenly remember they were never raped at all, then suddenly re-remember that actually yes, they were raped, and that last thing was just the trauma talking.

Anyway, I think you ought to be a lot more interested in the explanation I gave you for the lower conviction rate for rape allegations in recent times, because it explains something anomalous that's otherwise very hard to explain.

It's been pointed out in the past that rape-related forensics has come a huge distance in the last couple of decades, yet this has done little or nothing to increase the conviction rate. Rape kits are now standard (although the odd jurisdiction has been slack in processing them), and DNA tests are now easily available and incredibly precise. By rights, all else being equal, that should have increased conviction rates substantially.

How can we explain the failure of improved forensics to improve the conviction rate? Well, one explanation could be that rape kits do nothing to the conviction rate overall because they debunk as many rape claims as they support. That would imply a lot of fake rape claims. I think I've seen that explanation put forward, in fact. I doubt that's a conclusion you want. Plus it would be just plain weird because even if there were a few serial fake rape complainers spoiling things for everyone else, that would still postulate an incredibly high rate of fake rape complaints.

However a better explanation is that rape kits have cratered the rate at which stranger rapes happen at all, because they make stranger rape very risky. That would mean that women are now substantially safer, and the apparent drop in rape clear-up rates would be entirely due to the fact that acquaintance rape is and has always been a horribly difficult crime to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

So rather than saying "Rape culture! Rape epidemic! Police apathy!" we should be saying "Yay, stranger rape is mostly a thing of the past! Women are safer than they have ever been! Now, what strategies might we use to tackle the remaining problem of acquaintance rape?".

[truethat]

He's not making excuses he's being realistic. Most "teens will be teens" or "young people getting all hormonal" are not intending to be violent attackers. By painting rape as a violent attack you can confuse people into thinking that it's ok as long as it's nice and no one wants to hurt anyone. This is rape. And it's important for men to know that even if they do not intend to harm a woman non consensual sex is rape.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by truethat

He's not making excuses he's being realistic. Most "teens will be teens" or "young people getting all hormonal" are not intending to be violent attackers. By painting rape as a violent attack you can confuse people into thinking that it's ok as long as it's nice and no one wants to hurt anyone. This is rape. And it's important for men to know that even if they do not intend to harm a woman non consensual sex is rape.

But the crime of rape has nothing to do with intent, and there are some sound reasons list above that taking sex by force or deceit is inherently violent.

[AvalonXQ]

The crime of rape absolutely has to do with intent.

If you genuinely believe that someone can accidentally rape someone else, all of your earlier arguments completely collapse.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

But the crime of rape has nothing to do with intent, and there are some sound reasons list above that taking sex by force or deceit is inherently violent.

It seems you are missing the point that is being made. Men can "accidentally" commit rape by not understanding that the woman isn't consenting. This is the highest type of rape out there. I posted a clear example before and you mocked me for it, but it is very important to think about.

For example the point I made that a woman can have been rape and the guy is not a "rapist" in that he did not intend to rape her. He fully thought he had consent. The woman is devastated and victimized. The guy is a criminal and didn't intend it.

Having sex with a drunk woman should be understood as being RAPE not only having sex with a woman who didn't consent.


http://www.safercampus.org/blog/2010...l-and-consent/

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

So far as I can determine, rape does not require mens rea (lit. guilty mind, i.e., intent to have sex or exercise power), only, like most other sex crimes, actus reus (lit., guilty act, i.e., non-consensual sex).

I realize that the lack of criminal intent may be a bit beside the point, since we are, at least in part, discussing how rape is an act of power per se, which is not part of the legal definition of rape. However, we are also discussing rape prosecution, so it does behoove up to keep in mind that the criminal act of rape does not include the element of intent, only the element of non-consensual sex.

In *statutory* rape it is not necessary to show that the accused knew they were committing that crime. The act alone is sufficient.

In rape/sexual battery, there is an element of mens rea in the charge.

[JJM 777]

Originally Posted by bookitty

"I want sex, your feelings do not matter and I will manipulate you to get it, regardless of the harm to you." Violent message or not, that is the action of a psychopath.

You are half right, half wrong.

The half right part is that all crimes (not only rape) usually involve ignoring the feelings of the victim, while priorizing your own desires. Call it psychopathic if you want. It is not unique to rape, the same is true for stealing someone´s wallet or car, burglary, and so on.

The half wrong part is your insisting that rape (unlike other comparable crimes) must always be motivated by the wish to harm another person, rather than simply wanting to get something what is available (but not permissibly takeable) around the other person.

Hmmm, handily we have a peeping discussion going on, so: can peeping be motivated by simply the desire to see bare skin, or is it necessarily a hate crime where the peeper wishes to harm the persons whom he secretly observes? Evidently not if peepers avoid their targets ever noticing what happened -- unlike exhibitionists, who are motivated by getting other people to react emotionally.

Originally Posted by bookitty

that creeps me out. "Well, they didn't mean to hurt anyone.

There is a difference here. If persons want to harm someone, there is no easy hope to get rid of the social problem in future. But if persons just want to get something, which they now take criminally, there is hope that making the desired commodity commercially available to them at a reasonable cost makes the social problem go away in future.

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

sex by force or deceit is inherently violent.

What about casanovas who give false information or false marriage promises etc. to women to get to bed with them?

Originally Posted by crimresearch

In *statutory* rape it is not necessary to show that the accused knew they were committing that crime. The act alone is sufficient.

This sucks, in cases where the accused did not know or was mislead, which should be a crime too.

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

You are half right, half wrong.

The half right part is that all crimes (not only rape) usually involve ignoring the feelings of the victim, while priorizing your own desires. Call it psychopathic if you want. It is not unique to rape, the same is true for stealing someone´s wallet or car, burglary, and so on.

The half wrong part is your insisting that rape (unlike other comparable crimes) must always be motivated by the wish to harm another person, rather than simply wanting to get something what is available (but not permissibly takeable) around the other person.

Hmmm, handily we have a peeping discussion going on, so: can peeping be motivated by simply the desire to see bare skin, or is it necessarily a hate crime where the peeper wishes to harm the persons whom he secretly observes? Evidently not if peepers avoid their targets ever noticing what happened -- unlike exhibitionists, who are motivated by getting other people to react emotionally.


There is a difference here. If persons want to harm someone, there is no easy hope to get rid of the social problem in future. But if persons just want to get something, which they now take criminally, there is hope that making the desired commodity commercially available to them at a reasonable cost makes the social problem go away in future.


What about casanovas who give false information or false marriage promises etc. to women to get to bed with them?


This sucks, in cases where the accused did not know or was mislead, which should be a crime too.

If that was the case, rape statistics would be much lower in countries with legal prostitution. They aren't. New Zealand (A country which is fairly sane about prostitution laws) has very high rape stats.

One can't help but notice your phrasing "Simply wanting to get something" which implies that a person's body is nothing but a thing. You are trying to make the case that blatant objectification which leads to a sexual attack is not harmful.

Apathy regarding harm to the victim does not make the crime less injurious. Your empathy towards rapists and complete lack of concern for victims has been noted. Again.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by bookitty

If that was the case, rape statistics would be much lower in countries with legal prostitution. They aren't. New Zealand (A country which is fairly sane about prostitution laws) has very high rape stats.

Agreed. There are deep cultural attitudes that result in the prevelance of acquaintance rape; it's not primarily a matter of sex not being available elsewhere.

It is, I would venture, primarily a problem of selfishness and entitlement. When a woman is dating a man and decides she wants sex, but he refuses, she may be culturally conditioned to believe that he is misbehaving and treating her unfairly. She may also be culturally conditioned to believe that continuing to push for sex, including forcing foreplay, is acceptable; many films and TV shows display this behavior approvingly. Finally, her cultural conditioning may tell her that any eventual acquiescence on his part, any failure to "struggle to the utmost", even after the fact, justifies her behavior.

All of these attitudes may easily be subconscious; consciously, she wants sex and so she jumps him until he yields and she can get her rocks off.

Rape? Absolutely.

Would prostitution help? Certainly not; casual sex was almost certainly available elsewhere, and the issue was the reluctance of this guy who has entered into a relationship with the expectation of sex.

The fix is cultural, not institutional.

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Agreed. There are deep cultural attitudes that result in the prevelance of acquaintance rape; it's not primarily a matter of sex not being available elsewhere.

It is, I would venture, primarily a problem of selfishness and entitlement. When a woman is dating a man and decides she wants sex, but he refuses, she may be culturally conditioned to believe that he is misbehaving and treating her unfairly. She may also be culturally conditioned to believe that continuing to push for sex, including forcing foreplay, is acceptable; many films and TV shows display this behavior approvingly. Finally, her cultural conditioning may tell her that any eventual acquiescence on his part, any failure to "struggle to the utmost", even after the fact, justifies her behavior.

All of these attitudes may easily be subconscious; consciously, she wants sex and so she jumps him until he yields and she can get her rocks off.

Rape? Absolutely.

Would prostitution help? Certainly not; casual sex was almost certainly available elsewhere, and the issue was the reluctance of this guy who has entered into a relationship with the expectation of sex.

The fix is cultural, not institutional.

Yes, exactly. And this is where the "no means no" model fails. Because defining that "no" is left up to the person who may not want to hear it. Promoting "yes means yes" that sexual advance must be met with active and enthusiastic content is a start. But there is a problem with social conditioning.

When people are taught that sexual boundaries are social boundaries instead of personal boundaries - no sex before marriage instead of no sex when you don't want it, for example - sex outside of social boundaries is already crossing a line. The sex is already socially forbidden, engaging in further socially negative actions like refusing to respect a partner is more acceptable.

The kids my nephew went to school with are taught to say no until they are married. Because this is a religious school, there is more onus on the girls. That's their only option for socially acceptable sexual activities. If they become sexually active before marriage, they have no vocabulary for enthusiastic consent. They also have no vocabulary for indicating that a personal boundary has been crossed.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

In *statutory* rape it is not necessary to show that the accused knew they were committing that crime. The act alone is sufficient.

In rape/sexual battery, there is an element of mens rea in the charge.

OK, the perpetrator has to have a "morally blameworthy state of mind with respect to the victim's lack of consent", according to the Model Penal Code. That does constitute mens rea. However, my point, however misstated or overstated it was, was that the perpetrator does not have to intend to harm the victim in order to have committed rape.

[AvalonXQ]

There's also the problem of cultural conditioning that actually deters explicit consent.

I kid you not that I went to college with women who viewed any sort of talking as inappropriate and unromantic during sexytimes. As far as they were concerned, the only way to be sexy was to "just do it"; consent had to be inferred from behavior. Try to ask what she wants, and the mood is broken.

And, yes, I also knew women in college who explicitly said no as part of foreplay. The expected/desired response was for the man to continue.

Society is completely messed up with regards to sexual stuff.

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

There's also the problem of cultural conditioning that actually deters explicit consent.

I kid you not that I went to college with women who viewed any sort of talking as inappropriate and unromantic during sexytimes. As far as they were concerned, the only way to be sexy was to "just do it"; consent had to be inferred from behavior. Try to ask what she wants, and the mood is broken.

And, yes, I also knew women in college who explicitly said no as part of foreplay. The expected/desired response was for the man to continue.

Society is completely messed up with regards to sexual stuff.

Tell me about it.

The current system of making women gatekeepers is grossly unfair to everyone. Women are limited in ways to protect themselves from unwanted sexual attention, men are forced to guess and penalized if they guess wrong.

Anecdotal data alert - None of my guy friends is sexually excited by rape, far from it. They find the false "no" very unsexy. While joking around one of them said "I'm supposed to keep going until she screams daddy? Dude, I'm not a shrink but that's just too many issues." Yeah, he was joking and exaggerating for effect but the point stands. If we socially condition women to be ashamed of their sexuality, we force men to play rape. Which is why I support informed consent and active affirmation.

This is all disgustingly hetro-normative and I apologize for that. Acquaintance rape among cis is a huge problem but that doesn't mean we should ignore the problems specific to the LGBT population. Specifically correction rape, sexual violence towards trans-people and rape as punishment for homosexuality.

[JJM 777]

Originally Posted by bookitty

your phrasing "Simply wanting to get something" which implies that a person's body is nothing but a thing. You are trying to make the case that blatant objectification which leads to a sexual attack is not harmful.

The female body being treated as such an object of desire, while ignoring the person to whom the body belongs, may sound evil. But if it is a precise depiction of the mindset of a rapist, it is more helpful (for understanding rapist behaviour) to discuss their mindset than to discuss an ideal and normal mindset.

Originally Posted by bookitty

Apathy regarding harm to the victim does not make the crime less injurious.

Ignoring harm to the victim psychologically allows a criminal (of any kind) to commit a crime (of any kind). And a soldier to pull the trigger, and an air force pilot to drop a bomb, and a company manager to fire 1000 hard working parents with a family to feed.

Originally Posted by bookitty

Your empathy towards rapists and complete lack of concern for victims has been noted.

Maybe you quote where I have expressed these thoughts. I have expressed empathy towards innocent persons who are unfoundedly accused of rape.

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

The female body being treated as such an object of desire, while ignoring the person to whom the body belongs, may sound evil. But if it is a precise depiction of the mindset of a rapist, it is more helpful (for understanding rapist behaviour) to discuss their mindset than to discuss an ideal and normal mindset.


Ignoring harm to the victim psychologically allows a criminal (of any kind) to commit a crime (of any kind). And a soldier to pull the trigger, and an air force pilot to drop a bomb, and a company manager to fire 1000 hard working parents with a family to feed.


Maybe you quote where I have expressed these thoughts. I have expressed empathy towards innocent persons who are unfoundedly accused of rape.

You have ignored several post which refuted this already in an attempt to get back to "But the poor widdle misunderstood rapists just want some nookie! They aren't evil or anything."

Is that an obsession or your only argument?

[truethat]

Would you stop it. He is not saying that. YOU are saying that. Jesus Christ enough already with this stupidity. He has NEVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THAT. If he has then quote it. Stop putting words in his mouth.

If we're discussing rape there are some real issues with consent. One is the ambiguous nature of consent can cause two problems. One is that a women doesn't consent and the man thinks she does.

The other is that woman does consent but changes her mind and falsely accuses the man of rape. And it DOES HAPPEN just because your mind can't comprehend a woman being malicious doesn't make it not true.

Both of these issues create a problem with power and communication. Trying to solve this problem means we need to move a man's sense of responsibility back even further. Because consent must be clearly understood with no room for misunderstanding because of both of the situations above, it is important for men to understand that rape is not really about consent any more. If she's been drinking she cannot consent.
That's a red flag right there.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

There is a difference here. If persons want to harm someone, there is no easy hope to get rid of the social problem in future. But if persons just want to get something, which they now take criminally, there is hope that making the desired commodity commercially available to them at a reasonable cost makes the social problem go away in future.

You'd think it would work that way, but as far as I know there's no evidence that legalising prostitution reduces the sexual assault rate.

I believe there's some weak evidence that access to internet pornography does slightly decrease the sexual assault rate, indicating that to some extent porn serves as a substitute good for either sex or sexual assault. So possibly the various barriers to accessing sex with a prostitute (time, money, travel, social stigma, whatever) make it negligibly useful as a substitute for sexually assaulting someone. Or possibly something else is going on.

My armchair guess is that if actual sex was available as easily as internet porn is now, that would make the sexual assault rate drop a lot. However that's just a guess and for all practical purposes impossible to test.

It's also not an excuse for sexual assault in any way, shape or form. If money was available as easily as internet porn I imagine shoplifting rates would drop too, and that doesn't make shoplifting okay. (It's rather sad that I have to include these sorts of obvious disclaimers to make it completely explicit that I'm not excusing sexual assault, but that's how it is).

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by truethat

Would you stop it. He is not saying that. YOU are saying that. Jesus Christ enough already with this stupidity. He has NEVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THAT. If he has then quote it. Stop putting words in his mouth.

If we're discussing rape there are some real issues with consent. One is the ambiguous nature of consent can cause two problems. One is that a women doesn't consent and the man thinks she does.

The other is that woman does consent but changes her mind and falsely accuses the man of rape. And it DOES HAPPEN just because your mind can't comprehend a woman being malicious doesn't make it not true.

Both of these issues create a problem with power and communication. Trying to solve this problem means we need to move a man's sense of responsibility back even further. Because consent must be clearly understood with no room for misunderstanding because of both of the situations above, it is important for men to understand that rape is not really about consent any more. If she's been drinking she cannot consent.
That's a red flag right there.

Tsssk tssk... aren't you aware that in JREF discussions of hot button issues, you aren't allowed to examine multiple factors, work through various hypotheticals, and admit to unpleasant factors in order to arrive at possible solutions?
And you must never, ever attempt to debunk the agit prop and use a more objective approach than flinging soundbites.

There can be only two positions, and if you don't mindlessly endorse every talking point from one, you will be assigned the other.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by truethat

Would you stop it. He is not saying that. YOU are saying that. Jesus Christ enough already with this stupidity. He has NEVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THAT. If he has then quote it. Stop putting words in his mouth.

If we're discussing rape there are some real issues with consent. One is the ambiguous nature of consent can cause two problems. One is that a women doesn't consent and the man thinks she does.

The other is that woman does consent but changes her mind and falsely accuses the man of rape. And it DOES HAPPEN just because your mind can't comprehend a woman being malicious doesn't make it not true.

I don't think Bookitty said it doesn't happen - she admitted it happens <5% of the time but it happens.

She just argues that since it happens so rarely it doesn't matter and you're anti-feminist if you dwell on the matter. Maybe the underlying thinking is that rape is their issue, not yours, and you're not allowed to talk about your issue until theirs has been settled to their satisfaction.

Quote:

Both of these issues create a problem with power and communication. Trying to solve this problem means we need to move a man's sense of responsibility back even further. Because consent must be clearly understood with no room for misunderstanding because of both of the situations above, it is important for men to understand that rape is not really about consent any more. If she's been drinking she cannot consent.
That's a red flag right there.

I wish people would stop saying this, because it's nonsense. If a woman has had a few drinks she can consent just fine, and if you can find one single, solitary court case that says otherwise I will be very surprised.

If a woman is so drunk that she's incapacitated then no, she can't consent, and nor can a man in that state, and that's as it should be. A person has to be so plastered that they can't convey "yes" or "no" before you are going to be in legal trouble for having sex with them.

The reason this is a topic worth having a debate about is that some radical feminists are still beating the drum for the propaganda point "women never lie about rape, every rape accusation that does not end in a conviction is a miscarriage of justice, we should just lock up every man accused of rape". The fact that a certain small percentage of women lie about rape, just as a certain small percentage of men rape, needs to be brought up when people start that nonsense.

Bookitty's version, that the odds of a rape conviction on a per-accusation basis are so low that men are not allowed to be worried that they might be falsely accused of rape, because hey, odds are they'll get off, is subtly different but equally morally questionable. Even assuming for the sake of argument that a falsely accused man has a 95% chance of eventually getting found not guilty, going through the court system as an accused rapist is no fun for anyone.

[truethat]

Technically a woman who is drunk can still consent. But legally a man can't be sure of the level of her drunkeness with any degree of certainty. Yesterday for example there was a woman in a bar who fell off the bar chair. I thought she simply fell down. She didn't seem drunk at all, not a bit. Only after speaking to several of the other patrons, while we were getting her friend to come get her, did it turn out that she was habitually this way. But the fall was shocking to me. She seemed perfectly fine.

Even if a woman can consent, there's no way for a man to be sure. If I was a guy I'd seriously consider using a breathalizer for my own protection.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by truethat

Technically a woman who is drunk can still consent. But legally a man can't be sure of the level of her drunkeness with any degree of certainty. Yesterday for example there was a woman in a bar who fell off the bar chair. I thought she simply fell down. She didn't seem drunk at all, not a bit. Only after speaking to several of the other patrons, while we were getting her friend to come get her, did it turn out that she was habitually this way. But the fall was shocking to me. She seemed perfectly fine.

Even if a woman can consent, there's no way for a man to be sure. If I was a guy I'd seriously consider using a breathalizer for my own protection.

Why do you keep casting the scenario in terms of women not being able to consent and men not knowing that women are not able to consent?

[JJM 777]

Originally Posted by truethat

Technically a woman who is drunk can still consent. But legally

A drunk person can commit a crime and go to jail for it, or speed twice the speed limit and lose his license, or be made pay for the damage he caused while drunk. So the law does not hold even most extreme 2.0 permillage drunkenness as an excuse that the person would not be legally responsible for what he chose to do when drunk.

... except in this hand-picked special case, sex.

But wait, if a person is totally drunk when committing a rape, or when having sex with a minor -- over the limit at which one can legally consent to sex -- do I see some double standards there if the person is held legally responsible for the rape or sex with minor, while exactly the same level of drunkenness can retrospectively excuse a woman from having consented to sex.

Originally Posted by truethat

If I was a guy I'd seriously consider using a breathalizer for my own protection.

What would it protect, anyway? Not against a claim that your consensual sex was not consensual. And not against a claim that she was more drunk than she actually was, unless the device records a timestamp and DNA sample of the tested person, and is hacker-proof to convince the court about the reliability of the stored data.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

A drunk person can commit a crime and go to jail for it, or speed twice the speed limit and lose his license, or be made pay for the damage he caused while drunk. So the law does not hold even most extreme 2.0 permillage drunkenness as an excuse that the person would not be legally responsible for what he chose to do when drunk.

... except in this hand-picked special case, sex.

But wait, if a person is totally drunk when committing a rape, or when having sex with a minor -- over the limit at which one can legally consent to sex -- do I see some double standards there if the person is held legally responsible for the rape or sex with minor, while exactly the same level of drunkenness can retrospectively excuse a woman from having consented to sex.


What would it protect, anyway? Not against a claim that your consensual sex was not consensual. And not against a claim that she was more drunk than she actually was, unless the device records a timestamp and DNA sample of the tested person, and is hacker-proof to convince the court about the reliability of the stored data.

Why don't yoylu just admit that you have no idea what consent is and that you are mire concerned with a man's ability to have sex with whomever he wants whenever he wants than a woman's ability to control whom she has sex with?

It would all the time and effort you put into making false analogies with driving.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

A drunk person can commit a crime and go to jail for it, or speed twice the speed limit and lose his license, or be made pay for the damage he caused while drunk. So the law does not hold even most extreme 2.0 permillage drunkenness as an excuse that the person would not be legally responsible for what he chose to do when drunk.

... except in this hand-picked special case, sex.

But wait, if a person is totally drunk when committing a rape, or when having sex with a minor -- over the limit at which one can legally consent to sex -- do I see some double standards there if the person is held legally responsible for the rape or sex with minor, while exactly the same level of drunkenness can retrospectively excuse a woman from having consented to sex.


What would it protect, anyway? Not against a claim that your consensual sex was not consensual. And not against a claim that she was more drunk than she actually was, unless the device records a timestamp and DNA sample of the tested person, and is hacker-proof to convince the court about the reliability of the stored data.

Being the victim of a rape isn't a crime.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

A drunk person can commit a crime and go to jail for it, or speed twice the speed limit and lose his license, or be made pay for the damage he caused while drunk. So the law does not hold even most extreme 2.0 permillage drunkenness as an excuse that the person would not be legally responsible for what he chose to do when drunk.

... except in this hand-picked special case, sex.

But wait, if a person is totally drunk when committing a rape, or when having sex with a minor -- over the limit at which one can legally consent to sex -- do I see some double standards there if the person is held legally responsible for the rape or sex with minor, while exactly the same level of drunkenness can retrospectively excuse a woman from having consented to sex.


What would it protect, anyway? Not against a claim that your consensual sex was not consensual. And not against a claim that she was more drunk than she actually was, unless the device records a timestamp and DNA sample of the tested person, and is hacker-proof to convince the court about the reliability of the stored data.

You're confusing the crime and victim. A drunk person who is driving drunk is arrested and convicted of a CRIME. It is a crime to do so.

Let's take one where being drunk isn't inherent to the crime itself. Murder. If you commit murder you are not exonerated with "Well I was drunk" you don't get off of your responsibility. It may be diminished but you are going to feel the level in that in the sentencing, not the guilty verdict.

Ex you got smashed out of your mind and got in a fight with a friend and accidentally stabbed them. That's manslaughter and you might get less time in jail but you will still get manslaughter.

Ex you get smashed out of your mind and rape a woman, you will get convicted of rape and you might get less time but you will still get convicted of rape.


A woman who is raped is not committing a crime. She is the victim of a crime.

However a woman who gets intoxicated and consents to sex is legally not able to consent. Not even if she wants to do it. This is something that needs to be understood.

Compare consent to signing a legal document. If you signed a legal document and wanted to contest your signature and you went to court and said that you had been drinking all night when you signed it, the courts would most likely agree that you had diminished capacity and could not consent.

Other reasons you can't consent include coercion, fear, emotional distress, drugs and medication and illness. So consent must be crystal clear to a guy.

If you are a decent guy who doesn't want to accidentally rape someone then don't have sex with a drunk woman. Because legally she cannot consent.

If you get drunk and think she consented and rape her, you have committed a crime. I don't care if you didn't mean it. Would you consider it "not a crime" if someone left their baby in their car and the baby died because they were out drinking and got drunk and forgot?

Is that not a crime? Outside of Florida I mean?

[LashL]

Originally Posted by truethat

However a woman who gets intoxicated and consents to sex is legally not able to consent.

Actually, it seems to me that you have stated this too broadly. If you change "intoxicated" to "intoxicated to the point of incapacity", it would be more accurate.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by LashL

Actually, it seems to me that you have stated this too broadly. If you change "intoxicated" to "intoxicated to the point of incapacity", it would be more accurate.

Ah but there's the rube. How is a man to really know the difference. As I've pointed out several times, a woman who appears only slightly tipsy could be operating in the middle of a black out and will not be able to consent.

So for the benefit of all a man needs to not have sex with a woman who is drunk. Generally we could understand that a man married to a woman would know her well enough to know that she is intoxicated but as far as a "date" or "girl he just picked up" I would teach young men that they need to understand the serious ramifications that could occur if they are wrong.

One great thing can happen: Awesome sex, great relationship

One average thing can happen: Drunken sex friendship

One very bad thing can happen: She's not consenting and you are raping her

One vicious thing can happen: She did consent, she regrets it the next day an accuses him of rape.

So for the safety of the guy, he should not have sex with a women he doesn't know very well if she has been drinking.

Also another terrible thing could happen. Maybe someone else puts a roofie in her glass trying to score with her, she likes our guy better and goes home with him and then it's rape with drugging.

Young guys should be informed. This is what I teach my sons. A woman has the burden of dealing with unwanted pregnancy in cases such as this. And a woman must deal with the PSTD that can arise.

A man's fair burden is to be wise and careful before having sex. Although legitimately two drunk people having sex are basically raping each other, legally it doesn't work that way.

[JJM 777]

Originally Posted by LashL

Actually, it seems to me that you have stated this too broadly. If you change "intoxicated" to "intoxicated to the point of incapacity", it would be more accurate.

I am not talking about a "rape" which has a "victim", I am talking about consensual sex between two drunk persons, who consent to it and want it with all their emotions. They are not passed out, they are able to think and feel and want things. Yet the law makes a claim about their ability to think which the law does not make in other cases and crimes. That is a double standard.

Originally Posted by truethat

You're confusing the crime and victim.

I am not confusing them, I am criticizing the double standard of this separation, in holding or not holding a person responsible for his decisions under the same level of intoxication.

[truethat]

I clearly explained that there is a distinction in sentencing. You don't get a "not guilty" because you killed someone while you were drunk. There is a distinction with intent. Likewise a man who rapes a woman while drunk is not "not guilty" he may receive a lesser sentence. State of mind does come into play.

But raping someone while you are drunk is not less of an impact on the victim. In most cases it's worse.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

I am not talking about a "rape" which has a "victim", I am talking about consensual sex between two drunk persons, who consent to it and want it with all their emotions. They are not passed out, they are able to think and feel and want things. Yet the law makes a claim about their ability to think which the law does not make in other cases and crimes. That is a double standard.

Can you cite any laws or cases to support this claim? Because I am pretty sure this is an urban myth, although I'd welcome correction if I am wrong.

I've seen people allege this before, but whenever I've tried to run such a claim to ground it's always turned out that they had the law completely wrong, and that only having sex with someone who is actually incapacitated by alcohol (or whatever other drug) counts as rape.

It's a common claim to see spread around the internet, though, so I can see how people could have picked it up.

As far as showing that the claim is totally wrong, this article indicates that there's been a clear precedent in the UK since 2007 that women can legally consent to sex when very drunk.

The recent case where a footballer got done for rape involved a woman who got very, very drunk and went home to have sex with a footballer, who was found not guilty because she clearly consented to that sex. The other guy, who got found guilty, sneaked in after they were in bed, had sex with the woman and sneaked out again, and presumably the jury decided that it was beyond reasonable doubt that she hadn't consented to sex with the second guy.

(Also, as a bonus, the same article says that over 50% of rape cases that make it to court in the UK result in a conviction. That indicates to me that the low rape conviction rate on a per-complaint basis has little to do with any kind of "rape culture" aversion to finding rapists guilty, and much more to do with complainants dropping charges or there simply not being enough evidence to go to court with).