Judge Mowat comments: Is it impossible to have a proper discussion on rape?

[Traitorfish]

"No" means "no", but it doesn't follow that "yes" means "yes". That's the point we're trying to address, here.

 

[bhsup]

And that makes no damned sense at all.

 

[cardgame]

Women do not have the power to make meaningful consent?

Well that's condescending. And anti-feminist.

Never took you for a radfem, traitforfish. Are you trying to make a point?

 

[Traitorfish]

And that makes no damned sense at all.

Well, you understand that if a fifteen year old says "yes", it does not mean "yes", because the fifteen year old is not old enough to give their consent? Something similar can apply to people who are very heavily intoxicated, and as Mise has explained, the burden is on the more sober partner to make that distinction. A formal affirmation of consent is not in itself sufficient to establish informed consent- and the inference of consent, which is what we're more likely to be talking about if one partner is this heavily intoxicated, even less so.

 

[bhsup]

Well that kinda of goes to my whole argument that I made earlier (Not sure if you read my earlier posts.) When is too drunk too drunk? What's the line? If they're walking and talking, clearly they are not too drunk. If, the next morning, they regret willingly engaging in sex the night before, I cannot see how that makes the person they willingly had sex with a rapist.

 

[Traitorfish]

Mise spent better part of a page discussing that point in more detail than I could hope to manage.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Obviously the sooner all sexual activity falls under the remit of contract law the better for everyone.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

"Hey, babe, how about we get it on tonight?"
"No, I really don't want to."
"Aw, come on, you know how much I want to."
"No, I really don't want to."
"But... but... I brought you dinner didn't I? I brought you that fancy wine you like. Come on, have another drink."
"No, I really don't want to."
"Hey, loosen up. Relax, why don't you?"

....

Write the rest yourself. I'm sure your imagination is up to it.

You mean like... write the part where it changes from an act of attempted persuasion into an act of rape? And then... what? Look at the rape fiction you've just written and... become enlightened by it somehow?

 

[bhsup]

Mise spent better part of a page discussing that point in more detail than I could hope to manage.

Yeah, I know, and I just honestly don't get it. The idea that someone willingly taking anything that puts them in an altered state of mind and then claiming because of that that they are not responsible for what they choose to do in such an altered state is just repugnant to me. Personal responsibility, that's what it's all about. fi you don't want to be responsible for what you willingly do in an altered state, don't take things that will put you in such a state.

 

[Commodore]

Yeah, I know, and I just honestly don't get it. The idea that someone willingly taking anything that puts them in an altered state of mind and then claiming because of that that they are not responsible for what they choose to do in such an altered state is just repugnant to me. Personal responsibility, that's what it's all about. fi you don't want to be responsible for what you willingly do in an altered state, don't take things that will put you in such a state.

I agree, but it goes both ways. Someone should also have the personal responsibility to not take advantage of someone who is in an altered state of mind. If a person's first thought when they see a drunk man/woman is "Oooo, he/she will be an easy lay" then there is something seriously wrong with that person.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yeah, I know, and I just honestly don't get it. The idea that someone willingly taking anything that puts them in an altered state of mind and then claiming because of that that they are not responsible for what they choose to do in such an altered state is just repugnant to me. Personal responsibility, that's what it's all about. fi you don't want to be responsible for what you willingly do in an altered state, don't take things that will put you in such a state.

Well, if a woman is given date-rape drugs without her knowledge, you would accept that she has lost the ability to give meaningful consent, yes? Or to stretch the analogy a bit thin, we might accept that a person who harms themselves in a bout of severe depression cannot be held responsible for their actions. So the issue for you is not the chemical state of a person's mind, but how that state was reached. But what does that actually have to do with the issue at hand, the issue of consent? If you accept that a person in a certain chemical state of mind cannot give informed consent, then how can we draw an exception because that state was achieved voluntarily?

Say that somebody has been drugged, and I take advantage of them thinking they are merely drunk, is that acceptable? If they are in a chemically altered state, but have not achieved that state voluntarily, then I presume that you would agree that this may constitute rape. (Depending, as Mise pointed out, the issue of intent.) Or to reverse it, I think I have drugged somebody, but it turns out I botched it and they just happened to get blackout drunk anyway, am I innocent of the rape I thought I was committing? That would be ridiculous on the face of it.

Rape is a question of consent. If informed consent is not given, and the other party could not be held to reasonably imagine that informed consent had been given, a rape has occurred. Anything else is besides the point.

 

[cardgame]

> the other party could not be held to reasonably imagine that informed consent had been given

this is key.

If they've been drinking but are functional (not unconscious or obviously wasted) and consent, having drank of their own will (i.e. not plied) I'd say that's perfectly fine.

 

[bhsup]

I agree, but it goes both ways. Someone should also have the personal responsibility to not take advantage of someone who is in an altered state of mind. If a person's first thought when they see a drunk man/woman is "Oooo, he/she will be an easy lay" then there is something seriously wrong with that person.

I don't disagree with that at all. That said, being a scumbag isn't against the law.

Well, if a woman is given date-rape drugs without her knowledge, you would accept that she has lost the ability to give meaningful consent, yes?

Absolutely I agree, yes. That is not in any way the same as getting yourself drunk.

Or to stretch the analogy a bit thin, we might accept that a person who harms themselves in a bout of severe depression cannot be held responsible for their actions.

Depression is a medical illness, so I don't really think that can be used as a valid comparison. However, I get what you are trying to say...

So the issue for you is not the chemical state of a person's mind, but how that state was reached. But what does that actually have to do with the issue at hand, the issue of consent? If you accept that a person in a certain chemical state of mind cannot give informed consent, then how can we draw an exception because that state was achieved voluntarily?

The voluntary part is EVERYTHING. It all hinges on that. Getting yourself drunk makes you responsible for your actions while drunk. Being slipped a date rape drug is about as involuntary as it gets and relieves you of the responsibility of actions performed under its influence.

Say that somebody has been drugged, and I take advantage of them thinking they are merely drunk, is that acceptable? If they are in a chemically altered state, but have not achieved that state voluntarily, then I presume that you would agree that this may constitute rape. (Depending, as Mise pointed out, the issue of intent.) Or to reverse it, I think I have drugged somebody, but it turns out I botched it and they just happened to get blackout drunk anyway, am I innocent of the rape I thought I was committing? That would be ridiculous on the face of it.

Your first scenario I honestly don't know how to answer because that's just so bizarre a situation. They're clearly not responsible, but you didn't drug them. The second one is easy. You drugged them and had sex so yeah, even if they gave consent, you better hope I'm not on your jury because I'll be going for the castration / death penalty on you.

Rape is a question of consent. If informed consent is not given, and the other party could not be held to reasonably imagine that informed consent had been given, a rape has occurred. Anything else is besides the point.

I don't think anything I have said is contrary to this. We're just not going to agree, it seems, on what constitutes informed consent.

 

[BvBPL]

"No" means "no", but it doesn't follow that "yes" means "yes". That's the point we're trying to address, here.

Then just do it. California did it.

 

[Traitorfish]

The voluntary part is EVERYTHING. It all hinges on that. Getting yourself drunk makes you responsible for your actions while drunk. Being slipped a date rape drug is about as involuntary as it gets and relieves you of the responsibility of actions performed under its influence.

Well, why? There's no self-evident relationship between how voluntarily a person reached this chemical state and their ability to give consent. You're offering no mechanism by which a person can pre-emptively consent to events they did not know would occur.

Then just do it. California did it.

I'm not sure I follow?

 

[BvBPL]

The California legislature has passed an innovative law that turns the definition of rape on its head. It isn't "no means no," but "yes means yes." Affirmative assent is obligatory rather than a previous presumption that a passive acquiescence may or may not be permissible.

It is an interesting concept. I can foresee a lot of possible problems, but I think it is a very progressive law for the victims of sexual violence.

Also, while we are on the topic of rape, I'd like to acknowledge the rape of men. In America, more men are raped then women. That the vast, vast majority of these victims are in prison serving for crimes does nothing to diminish the evil done against them.

That's not to take away, at all, from the rape of women which is obviously a serious concern. In fact, the issues related to prison rape (and other instances of sexual assault on men) are quite a bit different from those regarding the sexual assault of women.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I agree, but it goes both ways. Someone should also have the personal responsibility to not take advantage of someone who is in an altered state of mind. If a person's first thought when they see a drunk man/woman is "Oooo, he/she will be an easy lay" then there is something seriously wrong with that person.

The flip side of this (literally everything has a flip side) is that there are people who set out with the intention "I am going to get drunk and laid." So when someone who is fairly blotto comes on to you, how do you say 'oh you can't consent'? They may be right on the course they set for themselves. Or they may not. That's the problem.

 

[Commodore]

The flip side of this (literally everything has a flip side) is that there are people who set out with the intention "I am going to get drunk and laid." So when someone who is fairly blotto comes on to you, how do you say 'oh you can't consent'? They may be right on the course they set for themselves. Or they may not. That's the problem.

But there's no way you can tell if that is what the person set out to do, so in the interest of protecting yourself from a potential rape charge, you should turn down the advances of someone who appears to be severely intoxicated.

The thing I never got is why is it so hard for some people to say no to someone coming on to them, drunk or not?

 

[cardgame]

That scenario you just outlined actually keeps it under the intoxicated person's responsibility if you follow the current guidelines for things like DUI. If they approached you, it's on them. It's a different matter if you coax them into doing it (see: drunk contracts).

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But there's no way you can tell if that is what the person set out to do, so in the interest of protecting yourself from a potential rape charge, you should turn down the advances of someone who appears to be severely intoxicated.

The thing I never got is why is it so hard for some people to say no to someone coming on to them, drunk or not?

Errrmmm....I can't say if that would be hard for me...I don't recall ever trying.