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

[Akka]

I've considered it might be a tad intrusive.

A tad ?

 

[brennan]

Sure. If you cannot legally consent, you cannot legally consent.

But being 'drunk' is not the same as being 'too drunk too consent'. Conflating the two is an elementary fallacy and it's going on absolutely constantly in this debate.

I was discussing this subject at length with a law student last year and he had genuine case studies of legal precedent to cite. In the UK if you're not basically unconscious then you're sober enough to consent. If you can slurrily mutter 'yes' then you've consented, if you're sober enough to act like you are 'into it' then you've given adequate grtounds for your partner to think you've consented.

Either way, both those precedents mean most situations where people are discussing whether drunk sex was rape, it wasn't.

It's still astonishingly low. Are you really going to nitpick on this?

'Astonishingly low'? Or a figure you'd like to be higher? Is it totally out of the ballpark of other crimes?

Secondly - and fairly crucially - rape trials are no different to other trials, what aspects of our law system are you going to chuck out in order to artificially improve the conviction rate - perhaps we should get rid of innocent until proven guilty? Perhaps we should just accept that any woman who states in court that she didn't consent should have that taken entirely without question?

"Hey, babe, how about we get it on tonight?"
...
"Hey, loosen up. Relax, why don't you?"

Nagging for sex is rape? Should I call the police, because according to this thinking several of my ex's have raped me. I'm more inclined to think this is part of the give and take in a relationship.

...as Mise has explained, the burden is on the more sober partner to make that distinction.

Rather assumes that the other partner is both sober enough to do so and that they are not doing it in the first place.

...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.

Legally, if someone is sober enough to come on to you, they cannot possibly be 'too drunk to consent' - at least in the UK.

 

[El_Machinae]

So let's make is socially acceptable to reduce those misunderstandings as a matter of course.

That's a really good idea. I buy in. It's akin to wearing pink to stop bullying.

You don't get the public consent because you feel like you need to, but to make it okay to

I'm afraid that if you don't spontaneously feel that a written authorisation being required each time you engage in personal intercourse with someone is nightmarishly intrusive and downright insane, it'll be hard to convince you about it...

The authorization is not required. It's only required if there's a complaint. These are very different things.

 

[Farm Boy]

A tad ?

Yea. A private recorded consent that's only relevant to anything if there is an accusation of rape? It's significantly less intrusive than "you shouldn't do it unless you're married or in a relationship that equivalents as such." Which is what I support personally. Then again, I don't support legal risk in pre-marital sex. Then again, there isn't an accusation of rape afoot. Not much different than requiring a specific word that designates consent, rather than an action, such as in California. I'm just willing to suggest that active participation in requiring sobriety assessment and production of evidence might not actually be that onerous. Since it's so functional to have accused rapists need to say, "yea, she totes said yes" instead of them saying "she didn't say no."

 

[El_Machinae]

But being 'drunk' is not the same as being 'too drunk too consent'. Conflating the two is an elementary fallacy and it's going on absolutely constantly in this debate.

One is a legal definition, the other isn't. No one is conflating it.

I was discussing this subject at length with a law student last year and he had genuine case studies of legal precedent to cite. In the UK if you're not basically unconscious then you're sober enough to consent. If you can slurrily mutter 'yes' then you've consented, if you're sober enough to act like you are 'into it' then you've given adequate grtounds for your partner to think you've consented.

Well then, your laws are stupid. Help change them.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

And the douches that molest them, obviously.

But it's not an answer to what I asked, it's just an answer to "why are there rape laws" or something like that which I didn't actually ask.

I was asking why a person who has voluntarily got themselves intoxicated (to some non-specified extent) should be considered completely incapable, in law, of giving any sort of consent to any sexual activity, whilst at the same time being held entirely accountable for any other actions or decisions they take whilst in that state? There's a logical disconnect there that needs addressing and "because girls get raped" doesn't remotely answer the question.

 

[brennan]

Well then, your laws are stupid. Help change them.

No and: no they're not.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Wow you're really bitter. I mean, I assume its bitterness and that you're not a predator of drunk women but still, wow. Bitter about supposed special treatment women receive. You've got a fairly consistent position in these threads.

Look, lets make it any other drug. Loopy off a pain medication like morphine? Half comatose off sleeping tablets? Can these women consent meaningfully?

I'm not bitter at all, I've just explained what I was asking in the previous post. I asked a question why the fact that voluntarily getting oneself drunk doesn't excuse anyone for their actions or decisions whilst drunk in almost every aspect, apart from (in this discussion) giving sexual consent. This was in response to TF asking what difference it made that the intoxication was voluntary or not, as if that didn't even factor into it. I was asking WHY it doesn't factor into it in this special case when it would most definitely factor into it when considering the repercussions of any other action any such person might take. I didn't even mention gender at all.

I consider "because girls get raped" to be a wholly inadequate answer to that question. In fact it doesn't even answer it at all it just sidesteps it entirely. So I make a glib comment in response to that and now I'm bitter about women?! It's just... again, yet more evidence that the answer to the OP is a firm "no".

Basically, you think a woman who gets drunk is an exception and you compare her action to a bunch of criminal offenses like DUI or assault. Telling

No, I think a PERSON getting drunk is a Friday night. And that many such people make many decisions, for bad or good, that they are held entirely accountable for the next day. If they were drugged, or loopy off pain medication, or having a psychotic break, or whatever else, they wouldn't be, but because they voluntarily got themselves drunk they are. The "voluntarily" part matters. I'll stress again that I said this simply in response to a comment about how someone couldn't see how whether the intoxication was voluntary or not was even relevant. I was pointing out that I think it is highly relevant and giving examples as to how it is generally considered relevant in other cases.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

You're talking about me like I'm the jerk here. Yes, objectively, I am a jerk. But I try not to harbour attitudes that enable predators and I consider those that do the real jerks.

I was making a perfectly rational point about how I consider the fact that getting drunk is a voluntary action is very relevant, and makes it a different case to being drugged or any other sort of incapacity that is entirely involuntary. You may not agree with it, but it was a perfectly reasonably point I was making that you could have engaged with reason in turn. Instead you thought it would be better to say how you definitely DON'T think I'm a sexual predator (wink wink). Yes, you are the jerk here.

 

[Senethro]

I'm not bitter at all, I've just explained what I was asking in the previous post. I asked a question why the fact that voluntarily getting oneself drunk doesn't excuse anyone for their actions or decisions whilst drunk in almost every aspect, apart from (in this discussion) giving sexual consent. This was in response to TF asking what difference it made that the intoxication was voluntary or not, as if that didn't even factor into it. I was asking WHY it doesn't factor into it in this special case when it would most definitely factor into it when considering the repercussions of any other action any such person might take. I didn't even mention gender at all.

I consider "because girls get raped" to be a wholly inadequate answer to that question. In fact it doesn't even answer it at all it just sidesteps it entirely. So I make a glib comment in response to that and now I'm bitter about women?! It's just... again, yet more evidence that the answer to the OP is a firm "no".



No, I think a PERSON getting drunk is a Friday night. And that many such people make many decisions, for bad or good, that they are held entirely accountable for the next day. If they were drugged, or loopy off pain medication, or having a psychotic break, or whatever else, they wouldn't be, but because they voluntarily got themselves drunk they are. The "voluntarily" part matters. I'll stress again that I said this simply in response to a comment about how someone couldn't see how whether the intoxication was voluntary or not was even relevant. I was pointing out that I think it is highly relevant and giving examples as to how it is generally considered relevant in other cases.

I consider you bitter because you pop up in every thread related to women/feminism and argue against supposed special treatment of women, denying sexism exists etc.

You look entirely too worried about the right of men to take advantage of women while drunk through placing all the responsibility on the woman, especially with the comparisons to acts which are criminal offenses while drunk. The correct comparison is that a person cannot sign a contract while under duress or intoxicated. What about that is so difficult to understand?

But by all means, say "Not all men" and bring up false rape accusations.

 

[El_Machinae]

No and: no they're not.

Yes they are. Because right now the only mechanism you have for punishing people for raping too drunk girls is "don't get too drunk, girls". That's what the OP is about.

 

[Akka]

Yes they are. Because right now the only mechanism you have for punishing people for raping too drunk girls is "don't get too drunk, girls". That's what the OP is about.

And the only mechanism to punish people commiting a crime is having a witness of the crime. Should we put a policeman behind everyone to have a witness in case a crime happens, or do we put everyone under mandatory camera surveillance 24h/24 ?

 

[El_Machinae]

And the only mechanism to punish people commiting a crime is having a witness of the crime. Should we put a policeman behind everyone to have a witness in case a crime happens, or do we put everyone under mandatory camera surveillance 24h/24 ?

No, you can just change the definition of what's a crime and what's not. We already have the witness

We didn't end spousal molestation by teaching men not to rape. We ended spousal rape by saying the marriage ceremony no longer counts as permanent consent.

The goal was to reduce the number of wives who were getting molested. If we wanted to decrease the number of wives being legally raped, we'd have just made it legal.

 

[cardgame]

And the douches that molest them, obviously.



That's the issue. In retrospect, it's very hard to prove who approached who. All we know is that after the sex, someone feels molested enough to complain.

The burden here isn't very high. Don't have sex with someone who might feel molested the next day.

Actually, that is a high burden. That's asking (men) to read their minds.

 

[Akka]

No, you can just change the definition of what's a crime and what's not. We already have the witness

We didn't end spousal molestation by teaching men not to rape. We ended spousal rape by saying the marriage ceremony no longer counts as permanent consent.

The goal was to reduce the number of wives who were getting molested. If we wanted to decrease the number of wives being legally raped, we'd have just made it legal.

Either I have missed your point here, or you've missed my point above, 'cause this doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Recorded consent seems ridiculous to me. Would those who are capable of rape have any trouble bypassing this? A recorded consent wouldn't be taken advantage of by those inclined to do so? Get a consent at the start of the night and you're safe? Or should the whole act be recorded just in case?

If someone belong to a group that is more likely to be convicted of rape, he'd have a greater incentive to get a recorded consent before having sex with a not entirely sober stranger?!

I'd guess you'd only videotape or get a written document of consent from a potential "rape-victim candidate"? Someone who might report you of rape. Correct? Or should one play it safe and get this recorded consent from all? That must be a turn on for the date.
Lets say - If someone had drunken sex hundreds of times and one of these partners did feel molested the day after. You'd be pretty screwed if you didn't get that recorded consent?


Funny how liberals can long for a police state at the same time.

 

[Darkflight]

Funny how you think that the state has anything to do with recorded consent.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Actually, that is a high burden. That's asking (men) to read their minds.

Not to mention correctly predict the future.

Not to mention somehow insure what another person's feeling will be in the future.

We already have the witness

But, as the judge points out, that witness' testimony is compromised by the inebriation.

 

[Borachio]

I'd guess you'd only videotape or get a written document of consent from a potential "rape-victim candidate"? Someone who might report you of rape. Correct? Or should one play it safe and get this recorded consent from all? That must be a turn on for the date.
Lets say - If someone had drunken sex hundreds of times and one of these partners did feel molested the day after. You'd be pretty screwed if you didn't get that recorded consent?

It's a nightmare, isn't it?

 

[Darkflight]

Not to mention correctly predict the future.

Not to mention somehow insure what another person's feeling will be in the future.

Perhaps the lesson to be learned is either don't have sex with people unless you know them well and care for them and you are absolutely sure that they want to as well, or deal with the consequences of your risky behaviour.