Bressen wrote:not to bump my own posts for self-service, but i'd love a response or answer to this previous post simply because i'm interested in what other people's opinions are on the matter:I'm still curious as to why intoxication is the only valid change to one's mental state that results in a rape occurring on accounts of the person being unable to make rational decisions regarding consent. In scenario B, the girl being 'really heated' is a change to her mental state as she has a fixation on 'releasing her heat' (so to put it), and in turn results in the girl being unable to make rational decisions. Therefore, how can a rape have occurred if the girl providing forced oral sex on her boyfriend is unable to make the rational decision of whether or not it is right to force oral sex, because of the effects on her mental state due to her 'being in heat' (i.e. racing hormones).
I suppose another point is that why is it that only the victim of a rape can use the fact that they were in a mental state unable to make rational decisions as a result of alcohol consumption (or even changes caused by chemical reactions in the body) as evidence of rape, whereas the perpetrator of a rape can't use it as evidence of a rape not occurring - afterall, the perpetrator was not in a mental state of which they could rationally make the decision not to have forced sex with someone as a direct result of these chemical influences.
Under this logic, either you have to allow all changes to mental states to count as evidence for rape and the lack of rape, or no changes to mental states can count as evidence for rape or the lack of rape. I think the real distinctions need to be made as to how these mental states came about, as opposed to what these mental states are. For example, a man forcing or coercing a woman into taking an intoxicant and then having sex with her would be guilty of rape as he is forcing a mental state on the woman which would impede her ability to make rational decisions regarding consent. However, if that same woman voluntarily took the intoxicant provided by the man and then had sex with the man, then the man would not be guilty of rape as the woman voluntarily submitted herself to the changed mental state that would impede her ability to make ration decisions regarding consent - in effect, she consented to not being able to consent (as absurd as this sounds on its own).
You're categorising all changes in mental states, of any types and magnitude, under the same group. That's a gross generalisation. I genuinely hope you're not seriously comparing intoxication and "being in heat" as being fundamentally the same thing.
Duration of the altered mental state, difference to the "standard" mental state, nature of the mind-altering substance and magnitude of the influence are all factors that are relevant.
Alcohol results in a serious and acute mental impairment and loss of control. I'm fairly hard pressed to think of any physiological phenomena that accomplish the same.