(05-09-2016, 01:07 PM)Benton Wrote: It's up to the prosecutor. Even really crappy public defenders can win if there's no victim willing to say they were.

If the prosecutor goes forward with it and the defense calls the victim to the stand , if they say they weren't assaulted, then that's the end of the case. And some judges won't let it go that far.

(05-09-2016, 09:31 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Consenting to intoxication is never consenting to sex. I don't know where you're getting that from. When you're drunk you can still give consent, because being drunk doesn't take away your agency. It's not like when you get drunk you have absolutely no control over your actions. The only time that's the case is when you're black out drunk (mentally incapacitated). Which everyone agrees that's "too drunk to consent". People who think being drunk and giving consent to sex is rape is wrong, and that will never change because it's absolutely not rape.

(05-09-2016, 09:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: What was the question again?

(05-09-2016, 09:39 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Belsnickel didn't ask a question.

(05-09-2016, 09:46 PM)GMDino Wrote: The question that started this thread....

(05-09-2016, 09:31 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Consenting to intoxication is never consenting to sex. I don't know where you're getting that from. When you're drunk you can still give consent, because being drunk doesn't take away your agency. It's not like when you get drunk you have absolutely no control over your actions. The only time that's the case is when you're black out drunk (mentally incapacitated). Which everyone agrees that's "too drunk to consent". People who think being drunk and giving consent to sex is rape, are wrong, and that will never change because it's absolutely not rape.

(05-09-2016, 09:51 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Well can you not see it in the title? The answer to that question seems to be quite clear. It's a resounding "no". The only people who think that we do live in a rape culture believe that there is rape going on when there's not. There reasoning is "because I think it is even though there's nothing to suggest it is".

(05-09-2016, 09:56 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: One does not need to be "black out drunk" to be mentally incapacitated. It doesn't take nearly that amount to cause people to lose their logical functions and often make decisions they would not have made otherwise. This is why it is illegal to even be in public while intoxicated.

(05-09-2016, 10:08 PM)GMDino Wrote: Or people who think the only time a drunk person cannot consent is when they are "blacked out".  

(05-09-2016, 10:15 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: For people to lose their logical functions they would have to be black out drunk. When you're drunk you don't lose your agency. You can still use your logical functions to make decisions. If you choose to get drunk you should know that you might make decisions you normally wouldn't. That's why it's rape if the person didn't willingly get drunk, but it isn't if the person got willingly drunk.

(05-09-2016, 10:16 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Nice straw man. You like using those because you don't have a sound argument, don't you?

(05-09-2016, 09:31 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: When you're drunk you can still give consent, because being drunk doesn't take away your agency. It's not like when you get drunk you have absolutely no control over your actions. The only time that's the case is when you're black out drunk (mentally incapacitated). Which everyone agrees that's "too drunk to consent".

(05-09-2016, 10:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Your statement is factually inaccurate. It takes very little alcohol to impair judgement. And of course you follow it up by making a statement that falls in line with what I said earlier.

It is definitely interesting that some of us have said that the reason we are perceived as living in a rape culture is because of certain attitudes present in our society, and in an effort to combat this notion some of you have expressed those very attitudes.

(05-09-2016, 10:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: How is it a straw man?


That is what you said.

(05-09-2016, 10:30 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: You don't lose your logical functions when you're drunk. They might be impaired but you don't lose it. There's nothing factually inaccurate to that statement.

(05-09-2016, 10:31 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Because I never said you cannot refuse consent when you're drunk. His statement is a straw man because he said "Or people who think the only time a drunk person cannot consent is when they are "blacked out"." His statement is saying that if you're drunk you cannot refuse consent. Which is obviously a straw man.

(05-09-2016, 10:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Impaired vs. loss is really irrelevant. You're grasping at straws here. Even impaired judgement/logic is too drunk to consent. If someone will do something they would not have done sober then they are at a point where their consent should not stand. Period.


No, it is not. He is saying that you said the only time a person cannot consent, meaning incapable of doing so, is when they are blacked out.it is exactly what you have been saying.

(05-09-2016, 09:33 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: I would think that the prosecutor would continue the case if they know that they could still win w/o her testimony. The case that you described had him admitting it, and had a witness, plus some physical evidence. Personally I don't think any prosecutor would let that case go, because it would be a very easy win for the prosecutor.

(05-09-2016, 10:44 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Lol there is a MAJOR difference between the loss of logical function and impairment of logical function. Being drunk doesn't mean that you lose the ability to consent. You still have your agency. Being black out drunk is. There's a reason why the law is on my side and not yours.

(05-09-2016, 10:44 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: He should have typed it more clearly then, because the way he typed it meant that someone couldn't refuse to consent due to being drunk.

(05-09-2016, 10:51 PM)Benton Wrote: I've never heard a prosecutor move to dismiss because the victim of a robbery didn't want to come forward and get his stuff back, or the victim of an assault didn't want to stand up in court and say they got beat up in front of everyone. 

(05-09-2016, 11:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Impaired or lost, if a person is willing to do something under the influence of alcohol that they would not do sober, they are at a point which they are unable to give consent. That is why it is irrelevant. And yes, there is a reason the law in most places is on your side. The biggest is the inability to have a concrete basis of measurement for these things, and the other is because of the rape culture that exists and permeates our justice system.

I'm not going to bother continuing trying to convince you. If you want to try to keep justifying your position to others to make you feel better about yourself, feel free. I will continue to feel that anyone that acts on a yes from an intoxicated partner is doing so without actual consent. Never had sex while intoxicated or with someone who was, and never will.


No, it didn't mean that. I am not even sure how you came to that conclusion.

(05-09-2016, 11:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You're kind of arguing against yourself here. Victims of the crimes you listed may not feel they were are active participant in the crime committed against them. However, a rape "victim" may feel that he or she was an active member in a situation that got out of hand because both parties had lowered their inhibitions.