Booze and Rape

[The Rich Port]

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.

Now that's funny.

[Des-Bal]

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

That's precisely why I take that approach. I don't want to violate the law even if I've done nothing morally reprehensible.

[Des-Bal]

Now that's funny.

Your entire thread demonstrates it. If you have sex with a girl when she's too drunk to consent even if she was into you beforehand, even if she's stoked about the sex after the fact, even if you were too drunk to realize she was too drunk, you had sex with a person without their consent.

[Ostroeuropa]

Now that's funny.

Your entire thread demonstrates it. If you have sex with a girl when she's too drunk to consent even if she was into you beforehand, even if she's stoked about the sex after the fact, even if you were too drunk to realize she was too drunk, you had sex with a person without their consent.

The argument about that i'd advance is that while it's fine for two 15 year olds to fuck eachother without it being statutory rape, a 15 year old cannot fuck a 30 year old without it being stat-rape, even if they are "Stoked" about it.
Imagine that being drunk lowers your age slowly.
Eventually, you cross the 16 threshhold.
Unless the other person is sufficiently smashed too, it's rape. Regardless of how the person feels about it.

[The Parkus Empire]

Now that's funny.

Your entire thread demonstrates it. If you have sex with a girl when she's too drunk to consent even if she was into you beforehand, even if she's stoked about the sex after the fact, even if you were too drunk to realize she was too drunk, you had sex with a person without their consent.

So having sex with a women while she's drunk is the same as having sex with a woman while she's unconscious?

[Ostroeuropa]

What is it with you people and your apparent total incapability of using gender neutral terms and advancing rape culture by insisting that women are the victims of rape?
Fucks sake.
Check yourselves, please.
Is it really so hard to say persons, victim, perpetrator, etc.

[Aravea]

If both of you consented then it isn't rape.

[The Rich Port]

Now that's funny.

Your entire thread demonstrates it. If you have sex with a girl when she's too drunk to consent even if she was into you beforehand, even if she's stoked about the sex after the fact, even if you were too drunk to realize she was too drunk, you had sex with a person without their consent.

You seem confused about what consent is.

You have to think about consenting before you do it. It's not just the word "yes".

Alcohol kind of impedes on the whole "thought" thing.

What the hell should we measure, the length of our toes?

[Des-Bal]

So having sex with a women while she's drunk is the same as having sex with a woman while she's unconscious?

Depends on what you mean.

[Galloism]

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.

Um, no. I read the appellant and respondent arguments.

The state still has to prove that the victim did not consent beyond a reasonable doubt. Both appellant and respondent agree on this point. The respondent states this element was proved beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution calling the victim to testify as to her incapacity.

The question is whether jury instruction 13 confused the jury as to the relevant law, which, the way it was given (which was agreed to by both appellant and respondent), I tend to lean toward the appellant. The jury might have taken it as a judge's comment on the evidence, and combined two steps in deliberation (was she incapacitated? If not, acquit. If so, did the accused know it? If not, acquit. If so, convict.). What the court did not do was intentionally shift the burden of proof. Everyone agrees mens rea has to be approved.

Now, was the jury confused by the instruction...? Maybe. Which is why we have appeals.

[Des-Bal]

You seem confused about what consent is.

You have to think about consenting before you do it. It's not just the word "yes".

Alcohol kind of impedes on the whole "thought" thing.

What the hell should we measure, the length of our toes?

Really because it looks suspiciously like no I'm fucking not.



Violation of the expressed will.

[The Parkus Empire]

So having sex with a women while she's drunk is the same as having sex with a woman while she's unconscious?

Depends on what you mean.

I mean having sex with someone without their consent.

[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.

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

I mean, drunk sex is bad generally (in more ways than one), but making it illegal for people to engage in it entirely and jailing them both (or more, depending on circumstances) makes about as much sense as jailing two fourteen year olds for having sex with each other (looking at you: California, Texas).

[The Rich Port]

You seem confused about what consent is.

You have to think about consenting before you do it. It's not just the word "yes".

Alcohol kind of impedes on the whole "thought" thing.

What the hell should we measure, the length of our toes?

Really because it looks suspiciously like no I'm fucking not.



Violation of the expressed will.

Sure you're not.

[Des-Bal]

I mean having sex with someone without their consent.

Then yes whether they can't consent because they're drunk or they can't consent because they're intoxicated they can't consent.

[Big Jim P]

So, where do I line up to rape the booze?

[The Parkus Empire]

I mean having sex with someone without their consent.

Then yes whether they can't consent because they're drunk or they can't consent because they're intoxicated they can't consent.

Nobody who is drunk can desire to have sex?

[Czechovelkov]

Booze and Rape sounded like an epic party at first, now, not so much

[Ifreann]

Alphabetical order.

Ok, so why do you put the victim first when the perpetrator is the one acting?

I didn't say Alice was the victim, I said that whether she can consent or not doesn't change based on how much Bob has been drinking.

Don't bullshit me. You demonstrated a prejudice. Just confront that about yourself.

I suppose I could have said that how drunk Alice is doesn't change whether Bob can consent, but I fail to see how that demonstrates any kind of prejudice.

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.

Please, tell me more about my thought processes.

[The Parkus Empire]

Booze and Rape sounded like an epic party at first, now, not so much

Fucking stupid

[The Rich Port]

Booze and Rape sounded like an epic party at first, now, not so much

You know, if you can't fucking be funny and be sure you'll be funny, don't make fucking jokes.

[Des-Bal]

Nobody who is drunk can desire to have sex?

Not necessarilly, are you arguing that being drunk doesn't impede consent?

[Ostroeuropa]

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.

Um, no. I read the appellant and respondent arguments.

The state still has to prove that the victim did not consent beyond a reasonable doubt. Both appellant and respondent agree on this point. The respondent states this element was proved beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution calling the victim to testify as to her incapacity.

The question is whether jury instruction 13 confused the jury as to the relevant law, which, the way it was given (which was agreed to by both appellant and respondent), I tend to lean toward the appellant. The jury might have taken it as a judge's comment on the evidence, and combined two steps in deliberation (was she incapacitated? If not, acquit. If so, did the accused know it? If not, acquit. If so, convict.). What the court did not do was intentionally shift the burden of proof. Everyone agrees mens rea has to be approved.

Now, was the jury confused by the instruction...? Maybe. Which is why we have appeals.

It would seem i've been misled. thanks for correcting me.

Booze and Rape sounded like an epic party at first, now, not so much

Rape isn't funny.
*sneezes confetti*

[Zottistan]

I'm pretty sure you can drug people to be enthusiastic towards sex. That wouldn't be rape?

Sure, if you slip in in their food or something without them knowing, or if you get them to use it because they wouldn't be enthuaistic without it. Aphrodisiacs are not inherently rape tho, no

I really don't think sex while mentally incapacitated should be considered ok. I mean, if both parties are mentally incapacitated, abuse would be difficult, but still completely possible.

[Nazi Flower Power]

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?

If both knew what they were drinking and drank it voluntarily, and both consented while drunk, then nobody should go to jail. Drunken sex at a party might not be the most responsible thing in the world, but there's no way to determine who is taking advantage of who.