Booze and Rape

[Newzie]

This is a really tricky area but I don't know how you can label two people getting equally drunk and having sex as rape.

Are there different emotional effects associated with having drunk sex with someone who isn't drunk against those of having drunk sex with someone who is?

[Galloism]

But, Bob's ability to gauge whether Alice is sober enough to consent is going to be impacted by how much he has been drinking

If Bob can't tell whether Alice is consenting or not, he really shouldn't be having sex with her.

The problem is that both Bob and Alice could be too drunk to consent at the same time (unless you swing the pendulum of "too drunk" all the way to "passed out"). They would then both be guilty of raping each other and could both be charged with rape and go to jail.

Which is absurd.

[Ostroeuropa]

If Bob can't tell whether Alice is consenting or not, he really shouldn't be having sex with her.

The problem is that both Bob and Alice could be too drunk to consent at the same time (unless you swing the pendulum of "too drunk" all the way to "passed out"). They would then both be guilty of raping each other and could both be charged with rape and go to jail.

Which is absurd.

Which points to the rather obvious definition of rape that no courts apparently use (to my knowledge.) that it requires a power differential, consent on one side, and lack of consent on another.

[Ifreann]

Hmm, hadn't thought of it like that. Just seemed to me that whether Alice is sober enough to consent or not doesn't depend on how much Bob has been drinking.

It doesn't have to do with her ability to consent, it has to do with his ability to manipulate her into consent.

I suppose.

[Ostroeuropa]

Hmm, hadn't thought of it like that. Just seemed to me that whether Alice is sober enough to consent or not doesn't depend on how much Bob has been drinking.

It doesn't have to do with her ability to consent, it has to do with his ability to manipulate her into consent.

It's nice how you are so willing to focus on her as the potential victim despite them both being drunk and assume he's the perpetrator.

[Galloism]

The problem is that both Bob and Alice could be too drunk to consent at the same time (unless you swing the pendulum of "too drunk" all the way to "passed out"). They would then both be guilty of raping each other and could both be charged with rape and go to jail.

Which is absurd.

Which points to the rather obvious definition of rape that no courts apparently use (to my knowledge.) that it requires a power differential, consent on one side, and lack of consent on another.

Rape (aside from statutory) requires both mens rea and actus rea. Without a motive, there's no crime.

If a person is too drunk to form mens rea, there's no prosecutable crime.

[Ostroeuropa]

Which points to the rather obvious definition of rape that no courts apparently use (to my knowledge.) that it requires a power differential, consent on one side, and lack of consent on another.

Rape (aside from statutory) requires both mens rea and actus rea. Without a motive, there's no crime.

If a person is too drunk to form mens rea, there's no prosecutable crime.

That's not so true anymore. There's precedence of judges requiring proof of reasonable belief the other party consented. As an example:
In this one, the prosecution successfully argued that they didn't need to prove mens rea. The defence did.
This is something becoming more and more common.
http://templeofjustice.org/cases/2012/s ... coristine/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9qG0jnN ... JHt_1ApDpg
(Summary.)

In other words, it is not the states job to prove someone is drunk and you knew that.
It's your job to prove that they were not drunk and/or you knew/believed they were not drunk.
Which, while still a type of mens rea, (i guess) isn't actually what you meant. (Sorry if i'm wrong here. I'm drunk, oddly enough.)

In other words, the burden has shifted from
A mens rea crime
to
Negligence Crime

Strict Liability.
You can accidentally rape somebody.

[The Rich Port]

You could stop drinking yourself into a stupor for "fun". Or you can stop having sex with strangers.

... That's not funny.

[Ifreann]

If Bob can't tell whether Alice is consenting or not, he really shouldn't be having sex with her.

The problem is that both Bob and Alice could be too drunk to consent at the same time (unless you swing the pendulum of "too drunk" all the way to "passed out"). They would then both be guilty of raping each other and could both be charged with rape and go to jail.

Which is absurd.

Maybe so, but that doesn't really make it okay to have sex with someone who can't consent.

[Ostroeuropa]

The problem is that both Bob and Alice could be too drunk to consent at the same time (unless you swing the pendulum of "too drunk" all the way to "passed out"). They would then both be guilty of raping each other and could both be charged with rape and go to jail.

Which is absurd.

Maybe so, but that doesn't really make it okay to have sex with someone who can't consent.

Yeh, but neither of them can consent. So who do we jail.
Both? Or just the guy like some people seem to think.

[Vazdania]

We should just ban alcohol....it infringes upon people's rights.

[Ifreann]

It doesn't have to do with her ability to consent, it has to do with his ability to manipulate her into consent.

It's nice how you are so willing to focus on her as the potential victim despite them both being drunk and assume he's the perpetrator.

That is kinda how I framed it.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's nice how you are so willing to focus on her as the potential victim despite them both being drunk and assume he's the perpetrator.

That is kinda how I framed it.

Well, don't I suppose. Maybe you should take a look at yourself and ask why you framed it that way.

[The Parkus Empire]

It doesn't have to do with her ability to consent, it has to do with his ability to manipulate her into consent.

It's nice how you are so willing to focus on her as the potential victim despite them both being drunk and assume he's the perpetrator.

In the example given, her drinking is a constant, Bob's drinking is a variable.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's nice how you are so willing to focus on her as the potential victim despite them both being drunk and assume he's the perpetrator.

In the example given, her drinking is a constant, Bob's drinking is a variable.

I'm aware now. Sorry for assuming it was you.

[Ifreann]

Maybe so, but that doesn't really make it okay to have sex with someone who can't consent.

Yeh, but neither of them can consent. So who do we jail.
Both? Or just the guy like some people seem to think.

I'm asking, well, more wondering aloud whether it's okay or not, as in morally acceptable. Who should be sent to jail isn't really relevant, because legal and illegal aren't the same as right and wrong, as I'm sure we'll all agree.

[The Rich Port]

We should just ban alcohol....it infringes upon people's rights.

We tried that once already, 'member?

[Ifreann]

That is kinda how I framed it.

Well, don't I suppose. Maybe you should take a look at yourself and ask why you framed it that way.

Alphabetical order.

[Ostroeuropa]

Yeh, but neither of them can consent. So who do we jail.
Both? Or just the guy like some people seem to think.

I'm asking, well, more wondering aloud whether it's okay or not, as in morally acceptable. Who should be sent to jail isn't really relevant, because legal and illegal aren't the same as right and wrong, as I'm sure we'll all agree.

To some extent I agree.
In this issue however the two align nicely.
It's not morally good, but it's morally neutral.
If two people are so drunk that they cannot take into account the others consent, and they both have consensual sex with eachother, that's a near miss.
It comes down to whether you are a consequentialist or not. Is the act still morally wrong if there is no victim?

[Vazdania]

We should just ban alcohol....it infringes upon people's rights.

We tried that once already, 'member?

Yes, and the police were far to lenient, ban the stuff.

[Ostroeuropa]

Well, don't I suppose. Maybe you should take a look at yourself and ask why you framed it that way.

Alphabetical order.

Ok, so why do you put the victim first when the perpetrator is the one acting?
Don't bullshit me. You demonstrated a prejudice. Just confront that about yourself. That you're trying to hide it and justify it with shit like alphabetical order when any reasonable person acting on that would make alice the perpetrator just makes you a conscious bigot instead of an unconscious one.

[Des-Bal]

To some extent I agree.
In this issue however the two align nicely.
It's not morally good, but it's morally neutral.
If two people are so drunk that they cannot take into account the others consent, and they both have consensual sex with eachother, that's a near miss.
It comes down to whether you are a consequentialist or not. Is the act still morally wrong if there is no victim?

Morality is a subject best left to old people with very important degrees in very important subjects that have never mattered to anybody. When I approach a subject I'm always more interested in establishing it's legality before even questioning it's morality.

[The Rich Port]

We tried that once already, 'member?

Yes, and the police were far to lenient, ban the stuff.

We're already crushed and over-extended by many prohibitions.

Prohibition doesn't work.

[Des-Bal]

Hmm, hadn't thought of it like that. Just seemed to me that whether Alice is sober enough to consent or not doesn't depend on how much Bob has been drinking.

which is why consent is a shitty metric.

[Ostroeuropa]

To some extent I agree.
In this issue however the two align nicely.
It's not morally good, but it's morally neutral.
If two people are so drunk that they cannot take into account the others consent, and they both have consensual sex with eachother, that's a near miss.
It comes down to whether you are a consequentialist or not. Is the act still morally wrong if there is no victim?

Morality is a subject best left to old people with very important degrees in very important subjects that have never mattered to anybody. When I approach a subject I'm always more interested in establishing it's legality before even questioning it's morality.

There are too many stupid laws for me to endorse this approach