NATION

PASSWORD

Booze and Rape

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Tahar Joblis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9221
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Tahar Joblis » Wed Aug 28, 2013 8:50 pm

The Steel Magnolia wrote:
The Rich Port wrote:Being a college student as I am, booze and sex are constants in your life. At parties, at home, at bars, designated sober drivers shuttle me and many others like me to our beds, where we may sleep it off.

Often, the two combine, sometimes for better, but sometimes for worse. Acquaintance rape is on the rise, and has been for a while. I've been worrying about falling into it, and often just go to bars to drink, not to pick up chicks or even socialize. I would much rather avoid hurting someone and subsequently hurting myself with jail.

One question that has plagued me is this: if I'm drunk, and the girl I have sex with is drunk, is it rape?

The stereotypical acquaintance rape is when a man intoxicates a woman with a narcotic, directly or indirectly, to take advantage of her.

So, I ask: if both parties are drunk, is it double rape? Is rape nullified? Should either party report the other to the police? Should both parties be put in jail?


How about if there's any doubt you just don't have sex.

:eyebrow: How about you actually answer the question asked? Does being merely drunk make it rape? If so, what about mutual drunkenness?

Saying "don't have sex if you're not sure" is dodging the question.

The correct answer is that no, merely being drunk - as opposed to, say, passed out - doesn't mean you can't consent to sex, but I don't think you're willing to say that.

User avatar
The Republic of Lanos
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17727
Founded: Apr 17, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby The Republic of Lanos » Wed Aug 28, 2013 8:54 pm

Farnhamia wrote:
The Rich Port wrote:Being a college student as I am, booze and sex are constants in your life. At parties, at home, at bars, designated sober drivers shuttle me and many others like me to our beds, where we may sleep it off.

Often, the two combine, sometimes for better, but sometimes for worse. Acquaintance rape is on the rise, and has been for a while. I've been worrying about falling into it, and often just go to bars to drink, not to pick up chicks or even socialize. I would much rather avoid hurting someone and subsequently hurting myself with jail.

One question that has plagued me is this: if I'm drunk, and the girl I have sex with is drunk, is it rape?

The stereotypical acquaintance rape is when a man intoxicates a woman with a narcotic, directly or indirectly, to take advantage of her.

So, I ask: if both parties are drunk, is it double rape? Is rape nullified? Should either party report the other to the police? Should both parties be put in jail?

It's a sticky question and I daresay you'll be sorry you asked before the thread sinks away to oblivion. Allow me to suggest that you have a law student draw up a no-fault declaration for you covering all those contingencies and that you ask each young woman you meet to sign it. It will be a little embarrassing but may save you a lot of trouble later on.

That may be challenged in court on the basis that she was too intoxicated to even know what the fuck was on the paper.

User avatar
Quackquackhonk
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 469
Founded: Jul 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Quackquackhonk » Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:09 pm

The Rich Port wrote:So, I ask: if both parties are drunk, is it double rape?


that's an incredibly original question, i've never thought about it before. can two people, in essence, rape each other because neither is able to give consent because of drunken state of being and stumbling and all that...

Is rape nullified?


clearly not. two drunk people cannot consent, we have said nothing on preying on one another.

Should either party report the other to the police?


was someone raped?

Should both parties be put in jail?


i should think so!

User avatar
The Steel Magnolia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8134
Founded: Dec 29, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby The Steel Magnolia » Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:29 pm

Tahar Joblis wrote:
The Steel Magnolia wrote:
How about if there's any doubt you just don't have sex.

:eyebrow: How about you actually answer the question asked? Does being merely drunk make it rape? If so, what about mutual drunkenness?

Saying "don't have sex if you're not sure" is dodging the question.

The correct answer is that no, merely being drunk - as opposed to, say, passed out - doesn't mean you can't consent to sex, but I don't think you're willing to say that.


No, the correct answer is that it entirely depends on how intoxicated you are, and that your desperation to find out just how drunk a girl can be before it's rape is telling.

User avatar
Distruzio
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 23841
Founded: Feb 28, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Distruzio » Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:14 am

Tahar Joblis wrote:The correct answer is that no, merely being drunk - as opposed to, say, passed out - doesn't mean you can't consent to sex, but I don't think you're willing to say that.


Sorry. But impaired consent is not consent. Inebriation is impairment. You don't think as clearly as you otherwise would. Drunk secks is rape.
Eastern Orthodox Christian

Anti-Progressive
Conservative

Anti-Feminist
Right leaning Distributist

Anti-Equity
Western Chauvanist

Anti-Globalism
Nationalist

User avatar
The Parkus Empire
Post Czar
 
Posts: 43030
Founded: Sep 12, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby The Parkus Empire » Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:54 am

Distruzio wrote:
Tahar Joblis wrote:The correct answer is that no, merely being drunk - as opposed to, say, passed out - doesn't mean you can't consent to sex, but I don't think you're willing to say that.


Sorry. But impaired consent is not consent. Inebriation is impairment. You don't think as clearly as you otherwise would. Drunk secks is rape.

Impaired consent is definitely not consent when the other person is not impaired. But to say that mentally impaired people are inherently incapable of consent is ridiculous.
American Orthodox: one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.
Jesus is Allah ن
Burkean conservative
Homophobic
Anti-feminist sexist
♂Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know men and women aren't the same.♀

User avatar
Tahar Joblis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9221
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Tahar Joblis » Thu Aug 29, 2013 12:47 pm

Distruzio wrote:
Tahar Joblis wrote:The correct answer is that no, merely being drunk - as opposed to, say, passed out - doesn't mean you can't consent to sex, but I don't think you're willing to say that.


Sorry. But impaired consent is not consent. Inebriation is impairment. You don't think as clearly as you otherwise would. Drunk secks is rape.

A drunk person can jump on top of a sober person and initiate sex with them.

The sober person might decide to let them.

Doesn't make the sober person a rapist. And if the drunk person is particularly insistent, we might conclude that the drunk person is committing rape.

And then we can have both people drunk. Which everybody who claims that having sex with a drunk woman is rape is implicitly fucking up on, because they're assuming that somehow, the drunk man is more responsible for what's going on than the drunk woman, and that the drunk woman (unlike the drunk man) is being victimized.

Simply the fact that one person is drunk is neither necessary nor sufficient to make a sex act rape. Saying that drunk sex is rape is seriously fucked up and seriously inaccurate. Not even most drunk sex is reasonably defined as rape, given the number of raging alcoholics (as with TPE's example) who like having drunk sex. Someone is passed out or near enough to it? Sure, that's rape. Someone roofies someone else and fucks 'em? Sure, that's rape.

Someone gets drunk and decides, while drunk, that they want to have sex? No, that's just a potentially-regrettable bad decision on their part.

User avatar
The Rich Port
Post Czar
 
Posts: 34348
Founded: Jul 29, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Rich Port » Thu Aug 29, 2013 12:55 pm

Tahar Joblis wrote:
Distruzio wrote:
Sorry. But impaired consent is not consent. Inebriation is impairment. You don't think as clearly as you otherwise would. Drunk secks is rape.

A drunk person can jump on top of a sober person and initiate sex with them.

The sober person might decide to let them.

Doesn't make the sober person a rapist. And if the drunk person is particularly insistent, we might conclude that the drunk person is committing rape.

And then we can have both people drunk. Which everybody who claims that having sex with a drunk woman is rape is implicitly fucking up on, because they're assuming that somehow, the drunk man is more responsible for what's going on than the drunk woman, and that the drunk woman (unlike the drunk man) is being victimized.

Simply the fact that one person is drunk is neither necessary nor sufficient to make a sex act rape. Saying that drunk sex is rape is seriously fucked up and seriously inaccurate. Not even most drunk sex is reasonably defined as rape, given the number of raging alcoholics (as with TPE's example) who like having drunk sex. Someone is passed out or near enough to it? Sure, that's rape. Someone roofies someone else and fucks 'em? Sure, that's rape.

Someone gets drunk and decides, while drunk, that they want to have sex? No, that's just a potentially-regrettable bad decision on their part.


I'm sure "He/She came onto ME!" will perform magically in court.
LAUGH, AND GROW FAT
FIRE. IF IT TAKES YOU TO BURN.
FIRE. IF IT TAKES YOU TO LEARN.
FIRE. TO DESTROY ALL YOU'VE DONE.
FIRE. TO DESTROY ALL YOU'VE BECOME.
THOSE THAT SOW THORNS SHOULD NOT EXPECT FLOWERS.
YOU NEVER KNOW JUST HOW YOU LOOK THROUGH OTHER PEOPLE'S EYES.

Tracking | History | Factbook | Dharma
Economic Report | Regional Forum | Political Compass
CAPINTERN | OMSA | OZZY | PACT | APAC
Summary | Vanguard | The Book Of Sue
THE BILLION BIT BRONY
AHAHAHAHA PONY PONY PONY PONYYY


LOVEWHOYOUARE~


User avatar
Tahar Joblis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9221
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Tahar Joblis » Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:09 pm

The Rich Port wrote:
Tahar Joblis wrote:A drunk person can jump on top of a sober person and initiate sex with them.

The sober person might decide to let them.

Doesn't make the sober person a rapist. And if the drunk person is particularly insistent, we might conclude that the drunk person is committing rape.

And then we can have both people drunk. Which everybody who claims that having sex with a drunk woman is rape is implicitly fucking up on, because they're assuming that somehow, the drunk man is more responsible for what's going on than the drunk woman, and that the drunk woman (unlike the drunk man) is being victimized.

Simply the fact that one person is drunk is neither necessary nor sufficient to make a sex act rape. Saying that drunk sex is rape is seriously fucked up and seriously inaccurate. Not even most drunk sex is reasonably defined as rape, given the number of raging alcoholics (as with TPE's example) who like having drunk sex. Someone is passed out or near enough to it? Sure, that's rape. Someone roofies someone else and fucks 'em? Sure, that's rape.

Someone gets drunk and decides, while drunk, that they want to have sex? No, that's just a potentially-regrettable bad decision on their part.


I'm sure "He/She came onto ME!" will perform magically in court.

It will. For those whose claim that they merely chose to accede to the insistent drunkard's request in order to avoid trouble. Who will be mainly women. In the mean time, men can expect to be victim-blamed in counter to that claim - "You should have fought her off," "You had an erection, that means you were willing," etc.

A simple "DRUNK THEREFORE RAAAEP!" standard is impractical and advocacy thereof is immoral. And moreover, since it is nearly always only applied to the rape of women by men, sexist as hell.

User avatar
Tahar Joblis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9221
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Tahar Joblis » Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:14 pm

The Parkus Empire wrote:
Distruzio wrote:
Sorry. But impaired consent is not consent. Inebriation is impairment. You don't think as clearly as you otherwise would. Drunk secks is rape.

Impaired consent is definitely not consent when the other person is not impaired. But to say that mentally impaired people are inherently incapable of consent is ridiculous.

The Parkus Empire wrote:
The Rich Port wrote:
Wait... She got drunk... Every time before you had sex?

Yup. And not just with me, with everyone I'd ever seen her have sex with (she'd fuck in the middle of a party). When we booked a room, she'd always get at least one bottle of Jack and we'd kill it first.

Let's say, one night, you were on medication that was incompatible with alcohol. Your friend, who you've talked about, wants to bang. And moreover, wants to get drunk first. But you want to still have a liver that works, so you don't want to drink.

Her end of everything is entirely the same. She's drinking as a prelude to sex, because she wants her sex drunk, damnit. The only difference is that you're not actually drinking with her.

Do you think that it would suddenly become rape if you decided to make her happy by saying that yes, she can have her booze and her happy sex, you're just not going to take shots with her?

User avatar
Imperial Nilfgaard
Senator
 
Posts: 3716
Founded: Jan 08, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Imperial Nilfgaard » Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:24 pm

If the girl is drunk and agrees to have sex with you then no it is definatly not rape.. so long as she is conscious and making an informed decision.

If we made it illegal to have sex with drunk people then that destroys like 62.4% of all college hookups.

However, if the girl is drugged then it is obviously a completely different story and much more serious. A think guys have a responsibility to not have intercourse with girls who are no longer able to make informed decisions and communicate clearly.
Down with the Banderovists!
Remember Odessa!
Крым
это часть России. Россия Своих Не Бросает!

We are the Great Souled Men of NS.
General-Secretary of the American Compartmentalist Party. ComPart for short.
Great Souled Idols: Vladimir Putin, Aleksandr Dugin, Nigel Farage, Marine Le Pen, Eric Zemmour
Manifesto - A Treatise on Souls

Proud Supporter of Bashar al-Assad's fight against terrorism

User avatar
Zottistan
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14853
Founded: Nov 26, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Zottistan » Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:30 pm

Imperial Nilfgaard wrote:If the girl is drunk and agrees to have sex with you then no it is definatly not rape.. so long as she is conscious and making an informed decision.

If we made it illegal to have sex with drunk people then that destroys like 62.4% of all college hookups.

However, if the girl is drugged then it is obviously a completely different story and much more serious. A think guys have a responsibility to not have intercourse with girls who are no longer able to make informed decisions and communicate clearly.

"Drunk" doesn't count as "drugged"?

User avatar
Imperial Nilfgaard
Senator
 
Posts: 3716
Founded: Jan 08, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Imperial Nilfgaard » Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:26 pm

Zottistan wrote:
Imperial Nilfgaard wrote:If the girl is drunk and agrees to have sex with you then no it is definatly not rape.. so long as she is conscious and making an informed decision.

If we made it illegal to have sex with drunk people then that destroys like 62.4% of all college hookups.

However, if the girl is drugged then it is obviously a completely different story and much more serious. A think guys have a responsibility to not have intercourse with girls who are no longer able to make informed decisions and communicate clearly.

"Drunk" doesn't count as "drugged"?


No. Drugged implies that the individual did not willingly take the substance.
Down with the Banderovists!
Remember Odessa!
Крым
это часть России. Россия Своих Не Бросает!

We are the Great Souled Men of NS.
General-Secretary of the American Compartmentalist Party. ComPart for short.
Great Souled Idols: Vladimir Putin, Aleksandr Dugin, Nigel Farage, Marine Le Pen, Eric Zemmour
Manifesto - A Treatise on Souls

Proud Supporter of Bashar al-Assad's fight against terrorism

User avatar
Zottistan
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14853
Founded: Nov 26, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Zottistan » Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:28 pm

Imperial Nilfgaard wrote:
Zottistan wrote:"Drunk" doesn't count as "drugged"?


No. Drugged implies that the individual did not willingly take the substance.

i) No it doesn't.
ii) What difference would that make? A person who is mentally incapacitated beyond a certain degree (which has yet to be determined) can't provide valid consent, any more than a four-year-old can.

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Post Czar
 
Posts: 49046
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:29 pm

Tahar Joblis wrote:
The Parkus Empire wrote:Impaired consent is definitely not consent when the other person is not impaired. But to say that mentally impaired people are inherently incapable of consent is ridiculous.

The Parkus Empire wrote:Yup. And not just with me, with everyone I'd ever seen her have sex with (she'd fuck in the middle of a party). When we booked a room, she'd always get at least one bottle of Jack and we'd kill it first.

Let's say, one night, you were on medication that was incompatible with alcohol. Your friend, who you've talked about, wants to bang. And moreover, wants to get drunk first. But you want to still have a liver that works, so you don't want to drink.

Her end of everything is entirely the same. She's drinking as a prelude to sex, because she wants her sex drunk, damnit. The only difference is that you're not actually drinking with her.

Do you think that it would suddenly become rape if you decided to make her happy by saying that yes, she can have her booze and her happy sex, you're just not going to take shots with her?


I'd stand by my comparison to statutory rape.
It is fine for a 14 year old to fuck a 14 year old.
It is not fine for a 50 year old to fuck a 14 year old.

Drinking lowers your mental age slowly over time until you are so drunk that you cross the threshhold and become a "Minor."
If the other person is similarly smashed, there is no issue.

So while two 30 year olds in your situation, and one may be drinking, provided she stops before she crosses the threshhold and becomes a "minor" (Or akin to it) it is fine. Even if sobre, your drunk friend were fine with having drunk sex, if she becomes so drunk as to be incapable of thinking as an adult, it's a problem.
The difficulty is ofcourse, that life lacks clear data in that regard. But it's useful analogy in my opinion for wrapping your head around the argument.
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Do you remember the 2012 election where Mitt Romney said Russia was the biggest threat to world peace and Obama and the Democratic establishment mocked him, mere years before they began arguing they had allowed US sovereignty to be usurped on their watch by Russia and this is why the other side was unfit to govern?
That's alright, neither do they apparently.

User avatar
The Rich Port
Post Czar
 
Posts: 34348
Founded: Jul 29, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Rich Port » Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:30 pm

The Steel Magnolia wrote:
Tahar Joblis wrote: :eyebrow: How about you actually answer the question asked? Does being merely drunk make it rape? If so, what about mutual drunkenness?

Saying "don't have sex if you're not sure" is dodging the question.

The correct answer is that no, merely being drunk - as opposed to, say, passed out - doesn't mean you can't consent to sex, but I don't think you're willing to say that.


No, the correct answer is that it entirely depends on how intoxicated you are, and that your desperation to find out just how drunk a girl can be before it's rape is telling.


You know what?

Steel's right.

It's not worth the moral or legal risk.

Plus, how can I fully appreciate a woman if I am buzzed or drunk?

No booze for me when I'm on a date.

... *looks longingly at rum bottle next to my bed*
LAUGH, AND GROW FAT
FIRE. IF IT TAKES YOU TO BURN.
FIRE. IF IT TAKES YOU TO LEARN.
FIRE. TO DESTROY ALL YOU'VE DONE.
FIRE. TO DESTROY ALL YOU'VE BECOME.
THOSE THAT SOW THORNS SHOULD NOT EXPECT FLOWERS.
YOU NEVER KNOW JUST HOW YOU LOOK THROUGH OTHER PEOPLE'S EYES.

Tracking | History | Factbook | Dharma
Economic Report | Regional Forum | Political Compass
CAPINTERN | OMSA | OZZY | PACT | APAC
Summary | Vanguard | The Book Of Sue
THE BILLION BIT BRONY
AHAHAHAHA PONY PONY PONY PONYYY


LOVEWHOYOUARE~


User avatar
Czechovelkov
Diplomat
 
Posts: 675
Founded: Jun 02, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Czechovelkov » Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:31 pm

Booze and Rape, sounds good
................................................................
Zaleznych Arms™

User avatar
Desperauex
Diplomat
 
Posts: 833
Founded: Dec 01, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Desperauex » Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:32 pm

I'm on the weird side of NationStates again.
Last edited by Ron Swanson. On June 7, 2013. It has been edited 0 times in total


Frisivisia wrote:I'd like to euthanize everyone who advocates euthanasia.

New Rogernomics, on the Craig Cobbs wrote:Send gay porn anonymously to his mail box, using made up names and return addresses. That should be fun.

Vetalia, on NSA Tracking wrote:Nah, they stop monitoring regular communications at 5pm, pretty much everything after that involves combing the data for the best porn links.

Industrien wrote:Because screw science, my 3000 year old book is always right.
Imperial Nilfgaard wrote:Welcome to the back of my van, we have beer and weed.

DEFCON: 3
Wiki
I'm 88% Libertarian

User avatar
The Rich Port
Post Czar
 
Posts: 34348
Founded: Jul 29, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Rich Port » Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:34 pm

Czechovelkov wrote:Booze and Rape, sounds good


You made that not-joke already.

It wasn't funny or amusing the first time either.
LAUGH, AND GROW FAT
FIRE. IF IT TAKES YOU TO BURN.
FIRE. IF IT TAKES YOU TO LEARN.
FIRE. TO DESTROY ALL YOU'VE DONE.
FIRE. TO DESTROY ALL YOU'VE BECOME.
THOSE THAT SOW THORNS SHOULD NOT EXPECT FLOWERS.
YOU NEVER KNOW JUST HOW YOU LOOK THROUGH OTHER PEOPLE'S EYES.

Tracking | History | Factbook | Dharma
Economic Report | Regional Forum | Political Compass
CAPINTERN | OMSA | OZZY | PACT | APAC
Summary | Vanguard | The Book Of Sue
THE BILLION BIT BRONY
AHAHAHAHA PONY PONY PONY PONYYY


LOVEWHOYOUARE~


User avatar
The Rich Port
Post Czar
 
Posts: 34348
Founded: Jul 29, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Rich Port » Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:35 pm

Desperauex wrote:I'm on the weird side of NationStates again.


... The General Front Page?

... Actually, that sounds about right.
LAUGH, AND GROW FAT
FIRE. IF IT TAKES YOU TO BURN.
FIRE. IF IT TAKES YOU TO LEARN.
FIRE. TO DESTROY ALL YOU'VE DONE.
FIRE. TO DESTROY ALL YOU'VE BECOME.
THOSE THAT SOW THORNS SHOULD NOT EXPECT FLOWERS.
YOU NEVER KNOW JUST HOW YOU LOOK THROUGH OTHER PEOPLE'S EYES.

Tracking | History | Factbook | Dharma
Economic Report | Regional Forum | Political Compass
CAPINTERN | OMSA | OZZY | PACT | APAC
Summary | Vanguard | The Book Of Sue
THE BILLION BIT BRONY
AHAHAHAHA PONY PONY PONY PONYYY


LOVEWHOYOUARE~


User avatar
Fartsniffage
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 29948
Founded: Dec 19, 2005
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Fartsniffage » Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:39 pm

The Rich Port wrote:
The Steel Magnolia wrote:
No, the correct answer is that it entirely depends on how intoxicated you are, and that your desperation to find out just how drunk a girl can be before it's rape is telling.


You know what?

Steel's right.

It's not worth the moral or legal risk.

Plus, how can I fully appreciate a woman if I am buzzed or drunk?

No booze for me when I'm on a date.

... *looks longingly at rum bottle next to my bed*


Surely you mean no booze for your partner when you're on a date?

User avatar
Imperial Nilfgaard
Senator
 
Posts: 3716
Founded: Jan 08, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Imperial Nilfgaard » Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:41 pm

Desperauex wrote:I'm on the weird side of NationStates again.


Welcome to the back of my van, we have beer and weed.
Down with the Banderovists!
Remember Odessa!
Крым
это часть России. Россия Своих Не Бросает!

We are the Great Souled Men of NS.
General-Secretary of the American Compartmentalist Party. ComPart for short.
Great Souled Idols: Vladimir Putin, Aleksandr Dugin, Nigel Farage, Marine Le Pen, Eric Zemmour
Manifesto - A Treatise on Souls

Proud Supporter of Bashar al-Assad's fight against terrorism

User avatar
Dumb Ideologies
Post Czar
 
Posts: 38582
Founded: Sep 30, 2007
Mother Knows Best State

Postby Dumb Ideologies » Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:46 pm

This is a tricky one. It's things like this that make the "rape is rape" sloganeering seem pretty disconnected from reality. I mean, yeah, rape is rape, of course it is, buttermilk is buttermilk and mousemats are mousemats. But that doesn't mean there aren't different kinds and levels of severity or that the boundaries can't be a little fuzzy. It's complicated and when people claim it isn't they make me feel like there's some deeper comprehensive definition that's in their bonus edition.
¸¤*˜*¤¸Tʜ Sʀssʀɪs Sɴ Cʟʙ ғ Dʙ Iʟɢɪs¸¤*˜*¤¸
I know who I am. No one else knows who I am. If I was a giraffe, and someone said I was a snake, I'd think, no, actually I'm a giraffe ~ Richard Gere
The thirty-something pride-hating tsundere trans cryptofascist nobody warned you about
P x D I ʙ ʟ ɪ

User avatar
Free Tristania
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8194
Founded: Oct 17, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Free Tristania » Thu Aug 29, 2013 3:10 pm

I am not sure (this is actually a rather interesting question, from a legal point of view) but I would say that there is no possibility to consent when you're drunk but since both parties involved would be drunk it might actually cancel each other out but I am not sure. Is there a legal precedence ?
Pro: True Liberty, Voluntary association, Free Trade, Family and Tradition as the Bedrock of Society
Anti: Centralisation (of any sort), Feminism, Internationalism, Multiculturalism, Collectivism of any sort (be it Left-wing or Right-wing)

User avatar
Pacifornia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1255
Founded: Jul 16, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Pacifornia » Thu Aug 29, 2013 3:12 pm

There have been times when I was drunk off of shots of Smirnoff and cups of Bud Light and tried to flirt with some girls. Have been shot down time and again. If anything, it's much better to be both drunk than taking advantage of someone's inebriation while you're buzzed. That is essentially rape. But then again, she could not be into you when she's sober, have sex with you and then take advantage of that and accuse you of rape. Very tricky subject and it varies from case to case.
Check out our nation's website! http://bam2011.wix.com/pacifornia
IRL: Male, straight, atheist, socialist, Californian, Honduran-American, third year college student

"I know a lot of people think L.A. and they see a picture in their head, but those people obviously don't know me, because I sit on a couch every day. That's my idea of a good time - just being in a sweat suit."-Hayley Williams, Paramore
Questions? Comments? Concerns? Flames? Take a number and have a seat. Have a nice day :)

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: An Alan Smithee Nation, Andsed, Costa Fierro, Crockerland, Dumb Ideologies, Greater Loegria, Greater Westralia, Grinning Dragon, Mutualist Furries, New Rogernomics, Novus America, Platypus Bureaucracy, Prusenreich, Serconas, Tarsonis, The blAAtschApen, The Emerald Legion, The Feylands, The Galactic Liberal Democracy, The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord, Thermodolia, Yahoo [Bot]

Advertisement

Remove ads