Advertisement
by Newzie » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:26 am
by Galloism » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:31 am
by Ostroeuropa » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:37 am
Galloism wrote:Ifreann wrote: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.
by Ifreann » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:39 am
The Parkus Empire wrote:Ifreann wrote: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.
by Ostroeuropa » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:40 am
The Parkus Empire wrote:Ifreann wrote: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.
by Galloism » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:41 am
Ostroeuropa wrote:Galloism wrote: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.
by Ostroeuropa » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:46 am
Galloism wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:
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.
by The Rich Port » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:48 am
Knowlandia wrote:You could stop drinking yourself into a stupor for "fun". Or you can stop having sex with strangers.
by Ifreann » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:48 am
Galloism wrote:Ifreann wrote: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.
by Ostroeuropa » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:49 am
Ifreann wrote:Galloism wrote: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.
by Vazdania » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:51 am
by Ostroeuropa » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:52 am
by The Parkus Empire » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:52 am
by Ostroeuropa » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:54 am
by Ifreann » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:57 am
by The Rich Port » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:58 am
Vazdania wrote:We should just ban alcohol....it infringes upon people's rights.
by Ifreann » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:59 am
by Ostroeuropa » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:59 am
Ifreann wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:
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.
by Vazdania » Wed Aug 28, 2013 7:00 am
by Ostroeuropa » Wed Aug 28, 2013 7:00 am
Ifreann wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:
Well, don't I suppose. Maybe you should take a look at yourself and ask why you framed it that way.
Alphabetical order.
by Des-Bal » Wed Aug 28, 2013 7:02 am
Ostroeuropa wrote:
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?
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by The Rich Port » Wed Aug 28, 2013 7:02 am
by Des-Bal » Wed Aug 28, 2013 7:03 am
Ifreann wrote: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.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by Ostroeuropa » Wed Aug 28, 2013 7:03 am
Des-Bal wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:
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.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ariddia, ATLANTIARIV, Bay Roberts, Bovad, Cerespasia, Eahland, El Lazaro, Forsher, Gallade, Google [Bot], HISPIDA, Ifreann, Jibjibistan, Lophostoma, Port Carverton, San Lumen, Stellar Colonies, Stratonesia, The Holy Therns, The-Armageddon, Urine Town, Valrifall
Advertisement