Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
How many people engage in sex after drinking? Here's a better question, how often do college students engage in sex after drinking? The "just don't do it" social strategy seems rather unrealistic to me. I think it would be far easier to convince people not to drink. That's not saying it's a bad strategy for individuals. I know people who will not fly because that is the best strategy to avoid dying in a plane. That's cool but not really applicable to much of the rest of society.
 
Professor Yaffle said:
That's not my definition. Mine would be more like unable to understand the nature of what is happening and therefore by definition cannot consent to it. Reread my post about the rape case against 2 men. The woman was drunk but capable of understanding what was happening with the first guy, who was the guy she had gone back to the hotel with. But she was too drunk to realize a different guy had got into bed with her and unable to properly understand what was happening in that case, so she couldn't consent to him having sex with her. So it's not just about the level of drunkenness but also about the nature of the situation that they need to be aware of and hence consent to.
Click to expand...

Ched Evans?
 
Professor Yaffle said:
That's not my definition. Mine would be more like unable to understand the nature of what is happening and therefore by definition cannot consent to it. Reread my post about the rape case against 2 men. The woman was drunk but capable of understanding what was happening with the first guy, who was the guy she had gone back to the hotel with. But she was too drunk to realize a different guy had got into bed with her and unable to properly understand what was happening in that case, so she couldn't consent to him having sex with her. So it's not just about the level of drunkenness but also about the nature of the situation that they need to be aware of and hence consent to.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure intoxication is a highly relevant aspect of the case you described. That situation could, at least in theory, happen to a sober woman.
 
kellyb said:
I'm not sure intoxication is a highly relevant aspect of the case you described. That situation could, at least in theory, happen to a sober woman.
Click to expand...

Yes it could, but in this case the intoxication was what rendered her unable to understand the nature of what was happening.

ETA However, my point was more that she was pretty drunk (the jury was shown cctv of her stumbling about), but the first guy was found not guilty. Which shows that it is not the case that the law says that any level of drunkenness in the complainant makes the suspect guilty. I was attempting to show roughly where the line is and that its not going to include a couple having a few drinks and then sleeping together. It is way higher than that before a person is deemed incapable of consent. In England and Wales, anyway. I've not looked at the relevant laws and test cases in many other countries.
 
Last edited:
brodski said:
Therefore it is technically possible for two drunk people to each be violating each other's consent. It's a quirk of the law (as it exists in many places) that only really applies if the two people involved are intoxicated to exactly the same degree- in almost all circumstances the criminal justice system would ignore it.
Click to expand...


Then let's remove the question from the realm of legal technicalities and quirks. Are you actually arguing that it is possible for two adults to simultaneously rape one another -- not in the prosecutable, legalese sense, but the the gut-level, intuitive, thing-you-should-never-ever-do, Rape-with-a-capital-R sense?
 
It is again the case of something that is subjective which we try to apply objective measures to. It is fraught with complications.

The ideal case would be that a person should have the mental faculties to understand the situation and be able to make an informed decision.

That to me is very subjective and very hard to objectively measure since in the end we end up relying on people's words which can end up contradicting.

How would the other person know ahead of time that the person is in control of their mental faculties and is making an informed decision?

Arbitrary lines such as "you drink therefore you lose mental faculties therefore rape" are unhelpful in my opinion. The high standard of innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof are pretty good measures to go by in my opinion.

Other than that, you are really on your own. (And rely on the fact that a woman's body can shut down an illegitimate rape on its own :P)
 
s_pepys said:
was man1 aware of man2's advances on the woman? if so, you would think he was guilty of collaborating at the very least.
Click to expand...

Man1 text man2 to say he'd got a bird. Man2 enters hotel room. Man1 claims to have asked if his mate can join in and got consent. Obviously this is where the story is not believed as man2 was convicted of rape.
 
DrDave said:
Man1 text man2 to say he'd got a bird. Man2 enters hotel room. Man1 claims to have asked if his mate can join in and got consent. Obviously this is where the story is not believed as man2 was convicted of rape.
Click to expand...

so if he didnt ask her, this implicates man1 also doesnt it?
 
DrDave said:
Man1 text man2 to say he'd got a bird. Man2 enters hotel room. Man1 claims to have asked if his mate can join in and got consent. Obviously this is where the story is not believed as man2 was convicted of rape.
Click to expand...

Some more of their friends were apparently at the window recording the incident. Personally, I think man 1 got away by the skin of his teeth on reasonable doubt.
 
s_pepys said:
so if he didnt ask her, this implicates man1 also doesnt it?
Click to expand...

They probably didn't charge him with that because they were charging him with rape. CPS probably felt the case wasn't strong enough to bring him back to court on a second charge, but yes, I believe he was complicit to some degree.
 
theprestige said:
You think that is bad?
I mean, the only way Eowyn could be more of a poster girl for antiquated patriarchal privilege, is if she adopted the surname "Entwife".
Click to expand...

Haven't read Tolkien since high school. What's an entwife?

luchog said:
Ask a gloom of Goths about Fluevogs if you want to hear someone obsessing poetically about shoes.
Click to expand...

I've always wondered what the proper collective noun would be for goths.
 
kellyb said:
But that's in opposition to this:
Click to expand...

I saw that.... that don't make no sense.

NJ: Having sex with a drunk person is rape!
Question: What is He's Only a little Drunk?
NJ: "Here's a thought, ********: don't ask me if your specific situation is rape."
Reasonable Person: WTF?
 
16.5 said:
I saw that.... that don't make no sense.

NJ: Having sex with a drunk person is rape!
Question: What is He's Only a little Drunk?
NJ: "Here's a thought, ********: don't ask me if your specific situation is rape."
Reasonable Person: WTF?
Click to expand...

exactly.
 
d4m10n said:
Haven't read Tolkien since high school. What's an entwife?
Click to expand...
Long-lost wives of the ents. The ents (male) extoll their virtues, which were all stereotpyically patriarchal "wifely" virtues, and lament their disappearance in ages past.

Adopting the identity of an entwife seems like an odd choice for a feminist SJW. Even the name telegraphs their subordinate existential relationship to the male of the species.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom