Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Mar 29, 2018 22:03:33 GMT
That's a pretty big presumption. Is this something you have looked into? I haven't. Do you know anything about the reliability of determining what someone's blood alcohol level WAS 48 hours (for instance) before the test is given? If not, then do some research before you press such a dubious point. Lines like these are drawn where a consensus of state legislators, in consultation with medical and legal professionals, conclude that it's reasonable to draw them. It's not arbitrary. They don't throw darts at a board to decide. If you think the line should be changed, then build a convincing case based on some real data and reasoned argument. So far, you don't appear to have given five cents worth of thought to this before you settled on a firm opinion.
But I didn't ask you what other people's opinions on where the line should be drawn are.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 29, 2018 22:05:11 GMT
I'm trying to figure you out politically, you're a rather odd mix of communism, MRA talking points, and anti-atheism. Well to make you even more confused I suppose I should add that I support the Soviet Union's oppression of the Churches. I dont have a major dislike for fascism either, like most communists. I am very weird politically. Have you taken the political compass test?
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Mar 29, 2018 22:08:06 GMT
Well to make you even more confused I suppose I should add that I support the Soviet Union's oppression of the Churches. I dont have a major dislike for fascism either, like most communists. I am very weird politically. Have you taken the political compass test? They're all rubbish.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Mar 29, 2018 22:11:41 GMT
can the man who fucked the drunk person be held responsible if they are drunk? If the woman cannot consent then how can the man? Something to think about you are one of those weird feminists who think like the above. If a guy has enough mastery over his physical actions that he can fuck a woman, then he can't plausibly claim he was too drunk to NOT do it. Whether he was too drunk to fuck or not is completely completely irrelevant. The question is whether he was too drunk to CONSENT. Those are two completely different things, and as it stands the law (which sides with feminism) doesn’t give a shit enough to even ask that question. Consent is implied with the gender is male, and lack of consent is implied when the gender is female.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Mar 29, 2018 22:23:48 GMT
Ok so why would that method be more effective at determining if someone was unable to walk then being unable to deny a man sex? If a jury hears that a woman had to be carried out of the bar, they will reasonably conclude that she was unable to give informed consent to sex.
I don't know what makes any of this so tough for you to accept. But I won't dwell on it.
What about if she didn’t have to be carried out? What about if she walked out under her own power, but was still legally drunk (as evidenced by her slurred speech)? Would a jury “reasonably” conclude that she could not consent then? How about if she was only “tipsy”, and didn’t trust herself to drive? Would a jury reasonable decide that she was too drunk to consent then? You can see just how touchy this area is. The problem is, a jury can decide any subjective decision they want to describe concerning what is/isn’t drunk. But there is no objective measure concerning what at point someone is defined as “intoxicated”. And this entire thing ignores the main point concerning whether a man is intoxicated. The law doesn’t seem to address when a male is intoxicated at all. When there is a dispute about whether or not sex was consensual, and alcohol is prove to be a factor, the assumption is the male is the rapist and the female is not.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 29, 2018 22:52:00 GMT
If a jury hears that a woman had to be carried out of the bar, they will reasonably conclude that she was unable to give informed consent to sex.
I don't know what makes any of this so tough for you to accept. But I won't dwell on it.
I'd say that, absent unusual circumstances, the claim of non-consent is just more plausible from a female than from a male. The physical mechanics of sex simply make it so. Yes, it's touchy. It's not exact. We assemble a jury, give them whatever evidence there is, explain the basic guidelines for these decisions, and leave it to them to argue it out and agree on a verdict. If somebody has any credible suggestions to improve that system, they should make them known. If I am on a jury, I need to hear all the specifics of the particular case. But as a general proposition, I think that if a man is too drunk to even consent to sex, he would be too drunk to perform it anyway. (Putting it the other way, the fact that a male performed sex on a woman is evidence of his consent.)
|
|
|
Post by kls on Mar 30, 2018 0:24:17 GMT
So, what do you want to do? Eliminate the line, tell a woman, "Even if he had to carry you over his shoulder to his room, that still counts as consent"? If she enjoyed it or had the ability to deny him but didn't then it was consent. Just to clarify consent does not necessarily imply morality. For example if a woman was extremely drunk and prior to being drunk she was repulsed by me for some reason and we had consensual sex then that would be immoral despite the fact that it was consensual. If she enjoyed it? I may say no to something I probably would enjoy because I think it's not in my best interest to do it. Forcing is forcing either way.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Mar 30, 2018 0:57:44 GMT
But as a general proposition, I think that if a man is too drunk to even consent to sex, he would be too drunk to perform it anyway. (Putting it the other way, the fact that a male performed sex on a woman is evidence of his consent.) Why? Are you saying that if a man can get an erection then he is by definition NOT drunk? Perhaps I should use this tactic if I’m ever pulled over on a DUI. “But officer, I’m not drunk. See, look how hard my dick is!” :laugh:: You’re ultimately missing the point that according to the law, if a woman is legally drunk, she CANNOT consent. Even if she screams “OH YES”, gets soaking wet, and has multiple orgasms, it is still legally “non-consensual” (because she was drunk). And if she happens to change her mind the next day (or doesn’t fully remember and regrets it), then the law deems her male sex partner a rapist (whether he was as drunk as she was or not). A jury doesn’t think to ask whether she could “perform” or not because the question is already irrelevant at that point. That’s a double standard because the law does not presume that a drunk male cannot consent merely by the fact that he is drunk. Whether or not he can get an erection shouldn’t be a relevant factor. It’s whether he was in his right state of mind to consent that matters.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 30, 2018 0:59:35 GMT
tpfkar I'm trying to figure you out politically, you're a rather odd mix of communism, MRA talking points, and anti-atheism. He also wants kids on the menu. A "Lugh" gem: No it's not, if there was no pain, holding your hand above a lit candle wouldn't be a bad thing.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Mar 30, 2018 1:00:15 GMT
If she enjoyed it or had the ability to deny him but didn't then it was consent. Just to clarify consent does not necessarily imply morality. For example if a woman was extremely drunk and prior to being drunk she was repulsed by me for some reason and we had consensual sex then that would be immoral despite the fact that it was consensual. If she enjoyed it? I may say no to something I probably would enjoy because I think it's not in my best interest to do it. Forcing is forcing either way. I agree with that. It’s not consent just because a person could perform OR because they enjoy it. It could be rape either way. My only argument is that it should be consistent regardless of gender. It shouldn’t only be considered rape if the female is drunk, nor should it only be considered “rape of the female” if both are drunk.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 30, 2018 2:02:05 GMT
But as a general proposition, I think that if a man is too drunk to even consent to sex, he would be too drunk to perform it anyway. (Putting it the other way, the fact that a male performed sex on a woman is evidence of his consent.) Not at all. I can say with confidence that such an assertion is untrue. I am saying that that the fact that a male performed sex on a woman is evidence of his consent. (And that's regardless of how much he drank.) It depends on how drunk. If she's just legally too drunk to drive, she still CAN consent. Nor should they, because lying motionless is sufficient for a man to have sex with her. She has "performed", but it is of no help in deciding if she consented.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 30, 2018 2:39:32 GMT
can the man who fucked the drunk person be held responsible if they are drunk? If the woman cannot consent then how can the man? Something to think about you are one of those weird feminists who think like the above. First question: The same reason someone can be held responsible when they drink and drive. Second question: Consent applies when something's being done to you, not when you're the one doing something. If you're doing something you obviously consented to it. If both parties are engaging in the sex, ie, both taking active part in it, and both are drunk, then it's either mutual rape or mutual consent. I don't see how how you square gender equality with any other interpretation. OTOH, you can also formulate it so it's gender equal in terms of it being rape on just one side. If either a male or female is passed out drunk on a bed and a female or male comes in and has sex with them and the other side doesn't engage, then it's rape.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Mar 30, 2018 3:13:11 GMT
Not at all. I can say with confidence that such an assertion is untrue. I am saying that that the fact that a male performed sex on a woman is evidence of his consent. (And that's regardless of how much he drank.) Then why is the reverse not true? Why isn’t consent implied if a woman “performed” sex on a man when she is drunk? This makes no sense to me. It depends on how drunk. If she's just legally too drunk to drive, she still CAN consent. According to who exactly? I’ve never seen or heard of such stipulations before. Nor should they, because lying motionless is sufficient for a man to have sex with her. But that doesn’t imply that this actually happened during the encounter. You are merely assuming that a woman who claims rape after the fact was lying motionless during the encounter. And by the way, a man can lie motionless during a sexual encounter as well. Again, I see literally no difference here regarding gender.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Mar 30, 2018 3:21:37 GMT
can the man who fucked the drunk person be held responsible if they are drunk? If the woman cannot consent then how can the man? Something to think about you are one of those weird feminists who think like the above. Consent applies when something's being done to you, not when you're the one doing something. If you're doing something you obviously consented to it. Sorry, but that’s not what the law says. In the case of women, it doesn’t matter if they are “doing something” or not because there was no consent legally possible if she was drunk at that time. Who did what to whom is irrelevant; the woman was raped because she was drunk, had sex, then later claimed rape. Period! A man who gets drunk and has sexual stuff done to him by a drunk woman was NOT raped according to how most people see it. And that is completely inconsistent! If both parties are engaging in the sex, ie, both taking active part in it, and both are drunk, then it's either mutual rape or mutual consent. I don't see how how you square gender equality with any other interpretation. You are correct. That’s how it SHOULD BE. The problem here is that the law doesn’t treat it this way; neither do most feminists for that matter. The assumption is generally that the woman did NOT consent (if she was drunk) and the drunk man DID consent. And that assumption is based on nother other than their respective genders. And I think that’s the point the OP was making.
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Mar 30, 2018 6:51:01 GMT
What kind of rapist wants whiskey dick?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 30, 2018 7:06:03 GMT
Consent applies when something's being done to you, not when you're the one doing something. If you're doing something you obviously consented to it. Sorry, but that’s not what the law says. In the case of women, it doesn’t matter if they are “doing something” or not because there was no consent legally possible if she was drunk at that time. Who did what to whom is irrelevant; the woman was raped because she was drunk, had sex, then later claimed rape. Period! A man who gets drunk and has sexual stuff done to him by a drunk woman was NOT raped according to how most people see it. And that is completely inconsistent! If both parties are engaging in the sex, ie, both taking active part in it, and both are drunk, then it's either mutual rape or mutual consent. I don't see how how you square gender equality with any other interpretation. You are correct. That’s how it SHOULD BE. The problem here is that the law doesn’t treat it this way; neither do most feminists for that matter. The assumption is generally that the woman did NOT consent (if she was drunk) and the drunk man DID consent. And that assumption is based on nother other than their respective genders. And I think that’s the point the OP was making. I can guarantee there's nothing explicitly in the law that says when drunk sex happens we assume the man consented and the woman didn't. I can also guarantee that factors like who did what would be factored into any decision about whether rape was committed.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 30, 2018 11:04:36 GMT
It depends on how drunk. If she's just legally too drunk to drive, she still CAN consent. According to who exactly? I’ve never seen or heard of such stipulations before. If you research state laws you will find that, overall, when it comes to a woman who has been drinking, her ability to give consent will depend upon her level of incapacity. Making that determination can be difficult though, and judges and juries just do the best they can with the evidence obtained. When I speak of "too drunk to drive vs. too drunk to walk", obviously that's not legalese, but it does roughly describe what laws and judges are getting at when they speak of level of incapacity.
Regarding men, here's an interesting article pointing out that a guy can be convicted of rape even if he was too drunk to remember what happened (which goes to what I said about his doing the act as evidence of consent). And if you ask about a guy being too drunk to consent, the article calls it "mostly a theoretical question that has yet to be answered...They may feel some subjective violation, but they don't go to police and say, 'She raped me.'" www.businessinsider.com/can-you-get-convicted-of-rape-if-you-were-drunk-2013-11
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Mar 30, 2018 11:22:58 GMT
Sorry, but that’s not what the law says. In the case of women, it doesn’t matter if they are “doing something” or not because there was no consent legally possible if she was drunk at that time. Who did what to whom is irrelevant; the woman was raped because she was drunk, had sex, then later claimed rape. Period! A man who gets drunk and has sexual stuff done to him by a drunk woman was NOT raped according to how most people see it. And that is completely inconsistent! You are correct. That’s how it SHOULD BE. The problem here is that the law doesn’t treat it this way; neither do most feminists for that matter. The assumption is generally that the woman did NOT consent (if she was drunk) and the drunk man DID consent. And that assumption is based on nother other than their respective genders. And I think that’s the point the OP was making. I can guarantee there's nothing explicitly in the law that says when drunk sex happens we assume the man consented and the woman didn't. I can also guarantee that factors like who did what would be factored into any decision about whether rape was committed. And I can gaurantee that you are wrong. I’m in the military and military law is usually a clearer reflection of civil law. What I said is exactly the way sexual assault training is taught (from a legal perspective). And I can also guarantee that irrespective of how the law is “written”, people are naturally inclined to treat it this way until proven otherwise. Terms may be gender neutral, but in practice “person” when used to refer to the victim is ALWAYS presumed to be a “woman”, unless both parties were male. Society generally teaches that a woman cannot consent to sex if she is drunk. And that is what has been taught for years! Isapop just provided a convenient link for me above.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 30, 2018 11:38:59 GMT
I can guarantee there's nothing explicitly in the law that says when drunk sex happens we assume the man consented and the woman didn't. I can also guarantee that factors like who did what would be factored into any decision about whether rape was committed. And I can gaurantee that you are wrong. I’m in the military and military law is usually a clearer reflection of civil law. What I said is exactly the way sexual assault training is taught (from a legal perspective). And I can also guarantee that irrespective of how the law is “written”, people are naturally inclined to treat it this way until proven otherwise. Terms may be gender neutral, but in practice “person” when used to refer to the victim is ALWAYS presumed to be a “woman”, unless both parties were male. Society generally teaches that a woman cannot consent to sex if she is drunk. And that is what has been taught for years! Isapop just provided a convenient link for me above. You say you guarantee I'm wrong, and then go on to say what I said ("how the law is “written..." terms may be gender neutral...") and didn't cite anything to show how who does what is ignored. So I don't see where you're really disputing what I'm saying. You seem to just be tangentially ranting.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Mar 30, 2018 11:44:44 GMT
can the man who fucked the drunk person be held responsible if they are drunk? If the woman cannot consent then how can the man? Something to think about you are one of those weird feminists who think like the above. First question: The same reason someone can be held responsible when they drink and drive. Second question: Consent applies when something's being done to you, not when you're the one doing something. If you're doing something you obviously consented to it. If both parties are engaging in the sex, ie, both taking active part in it, and both are drunk, then it's either mutual rape or mutual consent. I don't see how how you square gender equality with any other interpretation. OTOH, you can also formulate it so it's gender equal in terms of it being rape on just one side. If either a male or female is passed out drunk on a bed and a female or male comes in and has sex with them and the other side doesn't engage, then it's rape. "First question: The same reason someone can be held responsible when they drink and drive." Well I would say someone should be held responsible for drinking and driving only because it reduces the amount of people who drink and drive. I dont know if that's is what you believe though. Is that what you believe also? "Consent applies when something's being done to you, not when you're the one doing something. If you're doing something you obviously consented to it." So should a 14 year old girl be allowed to give a fifty year old man a blow job then considering consent is not an issue here and they have "obviously consented"? "mutual rape" How could something be mutual rape?
|
|