Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
brodski said:
that would depend on the specific circumstances as determined by the criminal justice system.
Click to expand...

Nice dodge. Works great for not taking a position on what you think should be legal.


It's not about being held accountable for your decisions, it's about meaningful consent.
Click to expand...

So why hold people accountable for the actions the booze made them do and they never consented to?

The thing with alcohol and rape is that there is a huge gray area and we can have situations where it is impossible to know what happened.
 
Hmmm, I've just seen a new moderator - piegasm. His avatar is Quark from Deep Space 9. I wonder whether anybody has ever pointed out to him how easy it is to make an argument that Ferengi are little but a collation of Jewish stereotypes, right down to the large ears and nose, as seen in propaganda literature of Nazi Germany?

45886511beb9982f5a.jpg


I wonder how that would go down over there?
 
brodski said:
by what standard is it "batty" to say that if a person is too drunk to consent to sex then that sex is non-consensual and therefore rape?

That statement is logically, morally and (pretty much everywhere) legally sound.
Click to expand...

If both people are too drunk to consent, were they both raped? Do they cancel each other out? Or is the guy always at fault?
 
Professor Yaffle said:
I think the problem is asubtle one of wording. The law usually talks about being too drunk to have the capacity for consent. My interpretation of this (which seems to fit with legal cases I have read about) is that the person has to be pretty far gone, and not quite know what is going on around them. It doesn't seem to apply when the person has only drunk enough to have lowered inhibitions and maybe poorer judgment than if they were in a sober state.

Now in both situations, the the person could be described as "drunk". So when someone says "if they are drunk, they can't consent..." it is ambiguous whether they are referring to only the first situation, or to the second situation also. People have differing definitions of "drunk", so I always use the phrase "too drunk to consent" to prevent miscommunication.
Click to expand...

How drunk is that? There seems to be very different ideas about how drunk too drunk to consent is.
 
RandFan said:
When I was involved on the truther forums that was exactly how it was. I was told I used big words and that I was patronizing. Never mind I was walking on egg shells and being as polite as humanly possible. Not conducive to a productive discussion.
Click to expand...

"Right, kick ass. Well, don't want to sound like a dick or nothin', but, ah... it says on your chart that you're ********** up. Ah, you talk like a fag, and your ****'s all retarded. What I'd do, is just like... like... you know, like, you know what I mean, like... Don't worry, scrote. There are plenty of 'tards out there living really kick-ass lives. My first wife was 'tarded. She's a pilot now."
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
If both people are too drunk to consent, were they both raped? Do they cancel each other out? Or is the guy always at fault?
Click to expand...

it could be that no crime was committed, it could be that they were both guilty or it could be that one partner or another bore the bulk of responsibility. Determining that would depend on a wide range of factors but I wouldn't include gender as one of them.
 
Piscivore said:
"Right, kick ass. Well, don't want to sound like a dick or nothin', but, ah... it says on your chart that you're ********** up. Ah, you talk like a fag, and your ****'s all retarded. What I'd do, is just like... like... you know, like, you know what I mean, like... Don't worry, scrote. There are plenty of 'tards out there living really kick-ass lives. My first wife was 'tarded. She's a pilot now."
Click to expand...
Love that movie and that is my favorite clip. :D
 
brodski said:
it could be that no crime was committed, it could be that they were both guilty or it could be that one partner or another bore the bulk of responsibility. Determining that would depend on a wide range of factors but I wouldn't include gender as one of them.
Click to expand...

If both people are that far gone, sex probably isn't going to be happening. IME you need at least one partner aware of their surroundings and in control of their faculties/coordination etc for anything to be happening.
 
brodski said:
it could be that no crime was committed, it could be that they were both guilty or it could be that one partner or another bore the bulk of responsibility. Determining that would depend on a wide range of factors but I wouldn't include gender as one of them.
Click to expand...

A calm, thoughful answer, but unfortunately it's wrong and you're a misogynist for saying it. The only correct answer is what Saint Rebecca said:

RW said:
I see I've blown a lot of minds. Here's a thought, ********: don't ask me if your specific situation is rape. Ask the one you're ***********.
Click to expand...

All Hail the Right-Minded of Freethought Blogs, and may the rest of us wretches be saved from our privilege and 'splaining. Amen.
 
Last edited:
brodski said:
it could be that no crime was committed, it could be that they were both guilty or it could be that one partner or another bore the bulk of responsibility. Determining that would depend on a wide range of factors but I wouldn't include gender as one of them.
Click to expand...

:confused:

How can 2 people rape each other at the same time?
 
Professor Yaffle said:
I think the problem is asubtle one of wording. The law usually talks about being too drunk to have the capacity for consent. My interpretation of this (which seems to fit with legal cases I have read about) is that the person has to be pretty far gone, and not quite know what is going on around them. It doesn't seem to apply when the person has only drunk enough to have lowered inhibitions and maybe poorer judgment than if they were in a sober state.

Now in both situations, the the person could be described as "drunk". So when someone says "if they are drunk, they can't consent..." it is ambiguous whether they are referring to only the first situation, or to the second situation also. People have differing definitions of "drunk", so I always use the phrase "too drunk to consent" to prevent miscommunication.
Click to expand...


I agree, except that the problem with the wording is far from subtle. The pattern repeats often enough to make it appear that the unclarity is deliberate. The conversation plays out something like this (except over the course of a hundred posts, instead of four):

A: "Never ever ever have sex with a drunk person, it makes you a rapist."

B: "What? My current gf likes to have two or three drinks and have sex with me. That doesn't make me a rapist."

C (to B): "Stop trying to confuse the issue. Clearly A is talking about situations where one person is far too drunk to consent and there is no established relationship for prior consent to exist. These situations are common and are a real problem, which you're trying to minimize using strawman scenarios."

D (to B, simultaneously): "Yes it does. Rapist!"

What makes it appear deliberate is that A and C will never, ever, attempt to correct or contradict D.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
kellyb said:
:confused:

How can 2 people rape each other at the same time?
Click to expand...

Ask a pair of horny 13 year olds, for the most obvious example (depending on jurisdiction).
The law can be odd like that, but in the case where two people are sexually assaulting each other it is unlikely that any prosecution would take place or be successful if it did.
 
AvalonXQ said:
A calm, thoughful answer, but unfortunately it's wrong and you're a misogynist for saying it. The only correct answer is what Saint Rebecca said:



All Hail the Right-Minded of Freethought Blogs, and may the rest of us wretches be saved from our privilege and 'splaining. Amen.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't see the problem. Rebbecca is saying that her opinion on whether a partner is consenting or not is much less relevant than the opinion of the partner themself. I think her and I would agree here, no matter what else we disagree on.
 
brodski said:
Ask a pair of horny 13 year olds, for the most obvious example (depending on jurisdiction).
The law can be odd like that, but in the case where two people are sexually assaulting each other it is unlikely that any prosecution would take place or be successful if it did.
Click to expand...

I'm still not understanding, even a little bit.
 
ponderingturtle said:
How drunk is that? There seems to be very different ideas about how drunk too drunk to consent is.
Click to expand...

Well in all the court cases I have read about, the woman has been pretty falling down drunk, as in having to be guided to wherever the other person wanted them to go.

There was a recent UK case where a woman alleged rape against 2 men when she was drunk. The circumstances were that she had sex with one of them and then the other guy came in and took his place later on. The first guy was found not guilty, because tho she was drunk she wasn't too drunk to know what she was doing. The second guy was found guilty because she was too drunk to realize that a different guy had taken his place. So that implies you have to be pretty off your face...

Of course if you want to be safe, its probably best to not have sex with anyone anywhere near that area. you know, if you are interested in not accidentally raping someone...
 
brodski said:
Ask a pair of horny 13 year olds, for the most obvious example (depending on jurisdiction).
The law can be odd like that, but in the case where two people are sexually assaulting each other it is unlikely that any prosecution would take place or be successful if it did.
Click to expand...

so, if two 13 year olds have consensual sex they are guilty of raping each other in your opinion?
 
brodski said:
Sorry, I don't see the problem. Rebbecca is saying that her opinion on whether a partner is consenting or not is much less relevant than the opinion of the partner themself. I think her and I would agree here, no matter what else we disagree on.
Click to expand...

But that's in opposition to this:


If you have sex w/ someone who is drunk, they are unable to consent & that is rape.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom