Do we live in a Rape Culture?

[Belsnickel]

(05-10-2016, 09:24 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Spoken like t someone who hasn't had a drop of alchoal in their life.

The things people do while drunk aren't things that they otherwise wouldn't do when sober. They're actions that people want to do, bur didn't when sober because of insecurities, societal norms, and other restraints.

That's kind of the whole point of getting drunk.

The two beers I had this evening beg to differ about me not drinking.

But thanks for making my point for me. You have said what my point is, that drinking impairs your decision making. As for the point to getting drunk, that is subjective. I personally don't see a point to getting drunk, but I know people have different reasons for doing so.

Once again, in an effort to counter the idea of a rape culture someone has made comments that are evidence of us living in a rape culture. "If a woman had sex while drunk with someone that would not have had she been sober, then she actually really wanted it."

[GMDino]

(05-10-2016, 09:51 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Just because they removed some of the language doesn't mean that it means what you want it to mean. You can say the law is still new, but the article GMDino linked was in 2013 and it said it changed the language and yet... there's still not even ONE case that supports what you're trying to say.

Yes, it doesn't have to be premeditated, but there's a big difference between a legally binding contract and sex. I see the similarities between consent to contract and consent to sex, but it's all very superficial in the real world, given the different evidentiary standards, burdens of proof, etc... between civil (contract) and criminal (rape) law. It's kind of a nice little intellectual exercise that a layperson would come up with and present as fact of both their intellect and rhetorical sophistication, but no real attorney in court draws these cutesy little comparisons, because it's a false equivalence.

Serious questions:

Are you an attorney?  Or do you spend a lot of time in court?

Or this all still based on the one jury you said you sat on?

[THE Bigzoman]

(05-10-2016, 09:56 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The two beers I had this evening beg to differ about me not drinking.

But thanks for making my point for me. You have said what my point is, that drinking impairs your decision making. As for the point to getting drunk, that is subjective. I personally don't see a point to getting drunk, but I know people have different reasons for doing so.

Once again, in an effort to counter the idea of a rape culture someone has made comments that are evidence of us living in a rape culture. "If a woman had sex while drunk with someone that would not have had sober, then she actually really wanted it."

That's a bit of a stretch.
As long as the setting was entirely consensual, yes that would be the case. There's nothing damning about that.

[Brownshoe]

(05-10-2016, 10:00 PM)GMDino Wrote: Serious questions:

Are you an attorney?  Or do you spend a lot of time in court?

Or this all still based on the one jury you said you sat on?

How if is it relevant what I do for work, or in my free time if what I'm saying is true? But, this isn't just based on the one jury I sat on.

[Belsnickel]

(05-10-2016, 10:01 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: That's a bit of a stretch.
As long as the setting was entirely consensual, yes that would be the case. There's nothing damning about that.

And then we get back to where there has been a lot of arguments. Several of us on the board, and a growing portion of society, do not consider someone that is intoxicated to be able to consent. So if it is a drunken yes, it's still not an entirely consensual situation. Because of the impaired decision making abilities that come along with intoxication, if someone would say yes when they would not have had they been sober, then that should not be considered consensual.

[Brownshoe]

(05-10-2016, 09:56 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The two beers I had this evening beg to differ about me not drinking.

But thanks for making my point for me. You have said what my point is, that drinking impairs your decision making. As for the point to getting drunk, that is subjective. I personally don't see a point to getting drunk, but I know people have different reasons for doing so.

Once again, in an effort to counter the idea of a rape culture someone has made comments that are evidence of us living in a rape culture. "If a woman had sex while drunk with someone that would not have had she been sober, then she actually really wanted it."

Hmmm I don't see where he said "If a woman had sex while drunk with someone that would not have had she been sober, then she actually really wanted it."


Those two beers this morning must have impaired your logical functions

[Brownshoe]

(05-10-2016, 10:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: And then we get back to where there has been a lot of arguments. Several of us on the board, and a growing portion of society, do not consider someone that is intoxicated to be able to consent. So if it is a drunken yes, it's still not an entirely consensual situation. Because of the impaired decision making abilities that come along with intoxication, if someone would say yes when they would not have had they been sober, then that should not be considered consensual.

I guess every sexual encounter will have to be like this from now on

[Belsnickel]

(05-10-2016, 10:08 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Hmmm I don't see where he said "If a woman had sex while drunk with someone that would not have had she been sober, then she actually really wanted it."


Those two beers this morning must have impaired your logical functions

I just applied his broad statement to a specific example. He said that what is done while drunk is something the persons wants to do but normally wouldn't while sober for a handful of reasons.

[Belsnickel]

(05-10-2016, 10:10 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: I guess every sexual encounter will have to be like this from now on

That wouldn't play for me, but I am assuming it is a hyperbolic straw man about overly complex formalities regarding consent. The problem is, that's not what anyone here is saying. We're just saying that if a chick is drunk, maybe put them to bed without climbing into it with them.

[Brownshoe]

Belsnickel
I just applied his broad statement to a specific example. He said that what is done while drunk is something the persons wants to do but normally wouldn't while sober for a handful of reasons.

People wouldn't do stuff they normally wouldn't unless they had caffeine, so does that effect any kind of substance? Oh, and this does effect sex too. I guess you have heard "but I'm tired", and caffeine gives you energy right? (and caffeine, as you know, is a drug)

This is a big reason why it's considered rape if someone forces another person to drink, but not considered rape when someone willingly drinks.

[fredtoast]

(05-10-2016, 09:32 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: False.




There needs to be five things for a contract to be valid: Offer, acceptance, mutual assent, capacity, and legality. At least 3 out of those five have jackshit to do with one's intent in forming a contract.

Except we were only discussing the mental capacity.

And I don't see "premeditation" anywhere in there.

[Belsnickel]

(05-10-2016, 10:16 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: People wouldn't do stuff they normally wouldn't unless they had caffeine, so does that effect any kind of substance? Oh, and this does effect sex too. I guess you haven't heard "but I'm tired", and caffeine gives you energy right? (and caffeine, as you know, is a drug)

This is a big reason why it's considered rape if someone forces another person to drink, but not considered rape when someone willingly drinks.

Can you provide evidence that caffeine effects decision making abilities at the same level as alcohol?

[fredtoast]

(05-10-2016, 09:51 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Just because they removed some of the language doesn't mean that it means what you want it to mean. 

In this case it does.

They do not change the language of a law for no reason.  So tell me why you think they changed this specific language in this law.

[Brownshoe]

(05-10-2016, 10:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: In this case it does.

They do not change the language of a law for no reason.  So tell me why you think they changed this specific language in this law.

I don't know why they changed this specific language, but it doesn't change the fact that after almost 3 years not one conviction of rape happened when there was mutual consent (unless they were black out drunk). So, obviously it didn't change it in the way you think it was changed.

[THE Bigzoman]

(05-10-2016, 10:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: And then we get back to where there has been a lot of arguments. Several of us on the board, and a growing portion of society, do not consider someone that is intoxicated to be able to consent. So if it is a drunken yes, it's still not an entirely consensual situation. Because of the impaired decision making abilities that come along with intoxication, if someone would say yes when they would not have had they been sober, then that should not be considered consensual.

People for centuries have considered it as such.


The one issue I keep seeing crop up is when they use "drunk" as an argument for rape. I totally agree that if they're blacked out from drinking, that's rape, absolutely. If they're so drunk they're flailing and incoherent, and can't fight you off, that's rape. No question. They lack the capacity to refuse, making any sex you intitiate a case of force.

But if they're drunk enough to be stupid and silly, it's consensual. Clearly and unequivocally, in my mind. Now, if you spiked their drinks, giving them alcohol in what they thought were virgin drinks or the like, sure. You drugged them, and that's wrong. But having 4 beers at a bar and jumping that guy you thought was hot does but were too nervous to approach sober doesn't mean he raped you. That's just silly.  Plus, it opens up the question; "if they were both drunk, did they rape each other?" Since that question's nonsensical, it's pretty clear the base premise, that being drunk means you can't legally consent, is nonsense as well, or at the very least untrue

If we're going to use it, we need to define "drunk". And it can't be "has had a few beers and is experiencing lowered inhibitions". Rape is a crime of forcing someone against their will.

Drunken consent isn't in any way against their will, it is their will. It may be ill-informed and something they regret in the morning. If I get drunk and buy 300lbs of cheese on Amazon, that doesn't mean Amazon robbed me.

[THE Bigzoman]

(05-10-2016, 10:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I just applied his broad statement to a specific example. He said that what is done while drunk is something the persons wants to do but normally wouldn't while sober for a handful of reasons.

Or, people who are drunk do what they truly want to do without regard to what others will think of them.

You can't have more agency than that.

[Belsnickel]

(05-10-2016, 10:34 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: People for centuries have considered it as such.

The one issue I keep seeing crop up is when they use "drunk" as an argument for rape. I totally agree that if they're blacked out from drinking, that's rape, absolutely. If they're so drunk they're flailing and incoherent, and can't fight you off, that's rape. No question. They lack the capacity to refuse, making any sex you intitiate a case of force.

But if they're drunk enough to be stupid and silly, it's consensual. Clearly and unequivocally, in my mind. Now, if you spiked their drinks, giving them alcohol in what they thought were virgin drinks or the like, sure. You drugged them, and that's wrong. But having 4 beers at a bar and jumping that guy you thought was hot does but were too nervous to approach sober doesn't mean he raped you. That's just silly.  Plus, it opens up the question; "if they were both drunk, did they rape each other?" Since that question's nonsensical, it's pretty clear the base premise, that being drunk means you can't legally consent, is nonsense as well, or at the very least untrue

If we're going to use it, we need to define "drunk". And it can't be "has had a few beers and is experiencing lowered inhibitions". Rape is a crime of forcing someone against their will.

Drunken consent isn't in any way against their will, it is their will. It may be ill-informed and something they regret in the morning. If I get drunk and buy 300lbs of cheese on Amazon, that doesn't mean Amazon robbed me.

Rape, as I often see it defined, is sexual intercourse performed without consent. I am in the camp that due to the impairment of cognition alcohol causes, drunken consent is not consent. I do not consider it a crime for two drunk people to screw because there is no one taking advantage of the other there. This is all, of course, too subjective to actually be codified.

Your trivialization of potential sexual assault by comparing it to drunk online shopping, though, is noted.

[Belsnickel]

(05-10-2016, 10:42 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Or, people who are drunk do what they truly want to do without regard to what others will think of them.

You can't have more agency than that.

Being able to act does not mean that one is applying thought to those actions. It's what has been perplexing me about the ise of the word agency in this thread. It really does nothing for the argument.

[THE Bigzoman]

(05-10-2016, 10:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Rape, as I often see it defined, is sexual intercourse performed without consent. I am in the camp that due to the impairment of cognition alcohol causes, drunken consent is not consent. I do not consider it a crime for two drunk people to screw because there is no one taking advantage of the other there. This is all, of course, too subjective to actually be codified.

Your trivialization of potential sexual assault by comparing it to drunk online shopping, though, is noted.

You act as if the parallel didn't carry the same logic; as though market transactions don't require consent to be legally and morally correct.


But continue your puritian smugness that things suddenly become different in the realm of sex.



I don't think I've ever seen pretentious pomposity on this high a level in a thread before. Duly noted.

[GMDino]

(05-10-2016, 10:34 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: People for centuries have considered it as such.


The one issue I keep seeing crop up is when they use "drunk" as an argument for rape. I totally agree that if they're blacked out from drinking, that's rape, absolutely. If they're so drunk they're flailing and incoherent, and can't fight you off, that's rape. No question. They lack the capacity to refuse, making any sex you intitiate a case of force.

But if they're drunk enough to be stupid and silly, it's consensual. Clearly and unequivocally, in my mind.  Now, if you spiked their drinks, giving them alcohol in what they thought were virgin drinks or the like, sure. You drugged them, and that's wrong. But having 4 beers at a bar and jumping that guy you thought was hot does but were too nervous to approach sober doesn't mean he raped you. That's just silly.  Plus, it opens up the question; "if they were both drunk, did they rape each other?" Since that question's nonsensical, it's pretty clear the base premise, that being drunk means you can't legally consent, is nonsense as well, or at the very least untrue

If we're going to use it, we need to define "drunk". And it can't be "has had a few beers and is experiencing lowered inhibitions". Rape is a crime of forcing someone against their will.

Drunken consent isn't in any way against their will, it is their will. It may be ill-informed and something they regret in the morning. If I get drunk and buy 300lbs of cheese on Amazon, that doesn't mean Amazon robbed me.

Actually the language of using "force" is and has been taken out of many laws.

Continue....