Is it rape?

[Galloism]

Well, it would mean mutual rape is a common occurrence, along with raping the willing being a common occurrence.

Some people might find that a little absurd as a result.

Indeed, it would be absurd.
But that's not due a fault within affirmative ongoing consent, it's just the you forgot a detail:
the responsibility to get the VERBAL consent, and check it through the act, lies on the person who is going to initiate the act.

In which case both parties are likely to be culpable, as in your average sexual encounter both parties will initiate multiple separate acts. Ergo: mutual rape.

In addition, failing to secure verbal consent, when clothes are being voluntarily removed at relativistic speeds, means you've defined having sex with the obviously willing as rape. Ergo:
You can rape the clearly and obviously willing.

It's the logical conclusion.

[Galloism]

Indeed, it would be absurd.
But that's not due a fault within affirmative ongoing consent, it's just the you forgot a detail:
the responsibility to get the VERBAL consent, and check it through the act, lies on the person who is going to initiate the act.

So if a woman does not get the verbal consent of a man to have sex with him, is it rape?

Chess has already argued that it's not rape when a woman physically restrains a man screaming "no" and envelops his penis, so I'm not sure what answer you expect here.

[Sibene]

Scenario A: That's rape. If she passes out, she is not legally able to give consent.

Scenario B: The line is more blurred, but yes, that would be unwanted sexual contact if the boyfriend has stated that he is uncomfortable.

Scenario C: No, the wife has given consent to the husband; strictly within the law it is not rape. However, morally, I wouldn't say that that is ethical.

[Galloism]

Scenario B: The line is more blurred, but yes, that would be unwanted sexual contact if the boyfriend has stated that he is uncomfortable.

Holding someone down and forcing them to engage in penetrative oral sex against their will is blurry? You sure about that?

Scenario C: No, the wife has given consent to the husband; strictly within the law it is not rape. However, morally, I wouldn't say that that is ethical.

You mean that duress from physical threats no longer vitiates consent under law? You sure about that?

[Katganistan]

All three are rape. This isn't even hard examples to determine, or questionable they are all clearly rape.

Except to people who think having sex with someone who's passed out or drunk (and therefore, because they are impaired cannot consent) is A-Ok.

Or that saying sorry after forcing or coercing someone to have sex makes it ok.

[Katganistan]

While you are at home I go into your house and threaten to beat you if you do not give me all your money. You have no way of fighting back. Now if you consent and hand over the money is it theft? After all...you agreed to give me the money.

oh hello IRS

Stop that threadjack now.

[Atlanticatia]

I'd say all 3 are sexual assault, since they were all without consent (yes means yes). But A is definitely the most severe/traditional rape one.

[Costa Fierro]

I'd say all 3 are sexual assault, since they were all without consent (yes means yes). But A is definitely the most severe/traditional rape one.

You don't think coercion isn't rape?

[Minzerland II]

Whilst I think 'Scenario A' is rather ambiguous, due to the mans unknown level of intoxication, both 'Scenario B' and 'Scenario C' are clearly cases of rape. In reference to 'Scenario A', can we hold someone accountable for their actions when drunk? That is the question I will refrain from addressing, and which will keep me from addressing 'Scenario A'.

[Camicon]

Whilst I think 'Scenario A' is rather ambiguous, due to the mans unknown level of intoxication, both 'Scenario B' and 'Scenario C' are clearly cases of rape. In reference to 'Scenario A', can we hold someone accountable for their actions when drunk? That is the question I will refrain from addressing.

Yes, we can hold someone accountable for their actions if they are drunk, so Scenario A is rape.

Being drunk lowers your inhibitions (and screws with your basic motor functions, etc.), it doesn't turn a person into someone they are not. Being drunk does not absolve you of responsibility for the things you do.

[Minzerland II]

Whilst I think 'Scenario A' is rather ambiguous, due to the mans unknown level of intoxication, both 'Scenario B' and 'Scenario C' are clearly cases of rape. In reference to 'Scenario A', can we hold someone accountable for their actions when drunk? That is the question I will refrain from addressing.

Yes, we can hold someone accountable for their actions if they are drunk, so Scenario A is rape.

Being drunk lowers your inhibitions (and screws with your basic motor functions, etc.), it doesn't turn a person into someone they are not. Being drunk does not absolve you of responsibility for the things you do.

What do you mean by someone they are not?

[Camicon]

Yes, we can hold someone accountable for their actions if they are drunk, so Scenario A is rape.

Being drunk lowers your inhibitions (and screws with your basic motor functions, etc.), it doesn't turn a person into someone they are not. Being drunk does not absolve you of responsibility for the things you do.

What do you mean by someone they are not?

I mean exactly that. Upstanding citizen Greg doesn't become low-life scumbag Steve just because he had a few beers.

[Galloism]

Whilst I think 'Scenario A' is rather ambiguous, due to the mans unknown level of intoxication, both 'Scenario B' and 'Scenario C' are clearly cases of rape. In reference to 'Scenario A', can we hold someone accountable for their actions when drunk? That is the question I will refrain from addressing, and which will keep me from addressing 'Scenario A'.

To answer this question, I will ask a question.

Jane Doe has a BAC of .345. She gets behind the wheel of her pickup and tries to drive home. On the way, she runs down five construction workers, killing them, then runs a bus full of nuns off the road and it crashes into an orphanage killing dozens of nuns/orphans respectively.

Is Jane Doe held accountable for her actions? Has a crime been committed?

[Minzerland II]

What do you mean by someone they are not?

I mean exactly that. Upstanding citizen Greg doesn't become low-life scumbag Steve just because he had a few beers.

A few beers aren't liable to make 'upstanding citizen Greg' drunk, though, and 'upstanding citizen Greg' doesn't, like any upstanding citizen, drink till he is so intoxicated as to become 'low-life scumbag Steve'. But good men make mistakes, like drinking copiously, and are oftentimes turned on their heads because of that. Believe it or not, you're not the same sober and responsible person if you're acting irresponsible whilst drunk.

[Wallenburg]

I'd say all 3 are sexual assault, since they were all without consent (yes means yes). But A is definitely the most severe/traditional rape one.

You don't think coercion isn't rape?

Do you think coercing people into having sex isn't rape?

[Minzerland II]

Whilst I think 'Scenario A' is rather ambiguous, due to the mans unknown level of intoxication, both 'Scenario B' and 'Scenario C' are clearly cases of rape. In reference to 'Scenario A', can we hold someone accountable for their actions when drunk? That is the question I will refrain from addressing, and which will keep me from addressing 'Scenario A'.

To answer this question, I will ask a question.

Jane Doe has a BAC of .345. She gets behind the wheel of her pickup and tries to drive home. On the way, she runs down five construction workers, killing them, then runs a bus full of nuns off the road and it crashes into an orphanage killing dozens of nuns/orphans respectively.

Is Jane Doe held accountable for her actions? Has a crime been committed?

I think this example is a false equivalence, because, if I'm not mistaken, in 'Scenario A' it is mentioned that both participants were drunk, were already initiating sexual intercourse, and were willing.

[Camicon]

I mean exactly that. Upstanding citizen Greg doesn't become low-life scumbag Steve just because he had a few beers.

A few beers aren't liable to make 'upstanding citizen Greg' drunk, though, and 'upstanding citizen Greg' doesn't, like any upstanding citizen, drink till he is so intoxicated as to become 'low-life scumbag Steve'. But good men make mistakes, like drinking copiously, and are oftentimes turned on their heads because of that. Believe it or not, you're not the same sober and responsible person if you're acting irresponsible whilst drunk.

You know what a figure of speech is, so don't narrow in on that to avoid speaking to the substance.

Having sex with someone that has not, and cannot, consent is not a "mistake". It's a decision; one that a person is responsible for regardless of their sobriety. Similar to how a person is responsible for any consequences that result of them driving a vehicle while drunk.

[Minzerland II]

A few beers aren't liable to make 'upstanding citizen Greg' drunk, though, and 'upstanding citizen Greg' doesn't, like any upstanding citizen, drink till he is so intoxicated as to become 'low-life scumbag Steve'. But good men make mistakes, like drinking copiously, and are oftentimes turned on their heads because of that. Believe it or not, you're not the same sober and responsible person if you're acting irresponsible whilst drunk.

You know what a figure of speech is, so don't narrow in on that to avoid speaking to the substance.

Having sex with someone that has not, and cannot, consent is not a "mistake". It's a decision; one that a person is responsible for regardless of their sobriety. Similar to how a person is responsible for any consequences that result of them driving a vehicle while drunk.

Do I? I'm afraid my name is Drax, sir.

I think you missed what I was pointing out. In the context of my question, I was pointing out that you can an will be a different person when drunk. Decisions cannot be mistakes?

I also should mention that I don't think drink driving and 'Scenario A' are comparable.

[Galloism]

To answer this question, I will ask a question.

Jane Doe has a BAC of .345. She gets behind the wheel of her pickup and tries to drive home. On the way, she runs down five construction workers, killing them, then runs a bus full of nuns off the road and it crashes into an orphanage killing dozens of nuns/orphans respectively.

Is Jane Doe held accountable for her actions? Has a crime been committed?

I think this example is a false equivalence, because, if I'm not mistaken, in 'Scenario A' it is mentioned that both participants were drunk, were already initiating sexual intercourse, and were willing.

This example is designed to make you ponder the question asked, namely:

can we hold someone accountable for their actions when drunk?

Either we can or can't. If we can, then Scenario A is rape. If we can't, drunk drivers are guilty of no crime.

Decisions, decisions.

[Gim]

A,B. With consent, it's not rape. Without consent, it's rape.

[Galloism]

A,B. With consent, it's not rape. Without consent, it's rape.

So threats of physical violence don't vitiate consent now? You sure about that?

[Gim]

A,B. With consent, it's not rape. Without consent, it's rape.

So threats of physical violence don't vitiate consent now? You sure about that?

That doesn't mean the woman gave consent to him to have sex with her.

[Galloism]

So threats of physical violence don't vitiate consent now? You sure about that?

That doesn't mean the woman gave consent to him to have sex with her.

I'm sorry. I thought you were saying C wasn't rape, only A and B were.

Are you instead saying A and B aren't rape, only C is?

[Minzerland II]

I think this example is a false equivalence, because, if I'm not mistaken, in 'Scenario A' it is mentioned that both participants were drunk, were already initiating sexual intercourse, and were willing.

This example is designed to make you ponder the question asked, namely:

can we hold someone accountable for their actions when drunk?

Either we can or can't. If we can, then Scenario A is rape. If we can't, drunk drivers are guilty of no crime.

Decisions, decisions.

In reference to 'Scenario A', can we hold someone accountable for their actions when drunk?

I'm fairly certain that you ought to take into consideration the context in which the question was asked, especially when I mention it. Although, I'll admit, it was rather poorly worded. So I'll apologise for that.

If we apply accountability to even those who are drunk, is an intoxicated woman, who consents to sexual intercourse with a sober man, no longer raped? Because she is accountable for her decisions, even when drunk?

[Galloism]

This example is designed to make you ponder the question asked, namely:



Either we can or can't. If we can, then Scenario A is rape. If we can't, drunk drivers are guilty of no crime.

Decisions, decisions.

In reference to 'Scenario A', can we hold someone accountable for their actions when drunk?

I'm fairly certain that you ought to take into consideration the context in which the question was asked, especially when I mention it. Although, I'll admit, it was rather poorly worded. So I'll apologise for that.

If we apply accountability to even those who are drunk, is an intoxicated woman, who consents to sexual intercourse with a sober man, no longer raped? Because she is accountable for her decisions, even when drunk?

Probably not no, unless the level of drunkenness is so high she cannot understand the fact or nature of the act (which is roughly borderline unconscious). This is because we are still responsible for decisions we make while drunk.