As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Rape, Consent, and the Presumption of Innocence

11011121416

Posts

  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    Sticks wrote: »
    Yes, but that doesn't really fly from a legal perspective. If it did, we could simply pass one law and be done with it:

    "It is illegal to bad things."

    Which is why I also presented the rest of my arguments, which encompassed agreeing legally with the ideas put forward in the OP!

    What, precisely, in my posts are people disagreeing with, or what isn't clear?

    I think that the legals implications of my points are rather easy to determine, and if not, then please explain why.

  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    Arch wrote: »
    No one is arguing that after a certain point of drunkenness your body becomes fair game, but at least a couple people seem to be worried about getting into a situation where they have sex with someone they think is consenting but in actuality isn't/can't be. I don't think this is actually possible because of the way I interpret "unable to give consent." Such a state to me is a) incredibly obvious, and b) means the other person isn't capable of meaningful communication without which I can't possibly have received any sort of consent.

    I agree with you 100%, hence why my advice to those worrying about this situation is "don't put yourself into it you goddam silly goose."

    I'm not actually worried because worrying if for squares but the issue at hand is what constitutes "unable to give consent". I don't know why you left that out of Sticks' post, but it's the fucking thing we're talking about here.

    What do you consider "too drunk to give consent"?

  • Squidget0Squidget0 Registered User regular
    Arch wrote: »
    3. In the event of situation wherein someone "decides" they didn't want to have given consent to sex, we refer both to point 1 and 2. That is, if someone's mental faculties are impaired, then it can be assumed that the default state applies, and that the default state is one of exclusivity. This functions similarly during acts of coercion.

    I suspect this is the point you'll find the most disagreement on, because most of the time we hold people responsible for their actions while they are drunk. If I crash a car while drunk, I will still be held accountable despite my judgement having been impaired. If I buy an expensive TV while drunk I don't get to sue the store for forcing me into a contract, even if the clerk wasn't drunk when he sold me the TV. So the idea that you can never consent while drunk runs contrary to the way our society treats intoxication: it suggests that drunk people are not responsible for the actions they take, and that sober people they interact with are responsible for being their keepers. This is a position that creates all kinds of problems when you try to apply it more generally.

    People are uncomfortable with the idea of drunken consent being invalid because you can't always judge drunkenness the way you can judge unconsciousness. If someone agrees to sex with me, do I have to give them a breathalyzer test to see if they're drunk? If they are legally drunk, do I have to decline sex because their consent isn't valid? What blood alcohol level should I consider drunk? If they disagree with the breath test, am I obligated to submit a sample of their blood for a lab test before I consider their consent valid?

    Of course not. You are responsible for your actions while drunk, including consent to sex. That's the only way things can reasonably work. Likewise, note that you aren't responsible for your actions while unconscious, which might be the point you're actually trying to argue.

    Apothe0sis
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    I don't think comparing the act of purchasing a television to sexual consent while intoxicated is a particularly useful metaphor.

    I also think that comparing giving consent while drunk to drunk driving is fatuous, as driving while intoxicated is very explicitly against the law.

    Your argument is essentially "you made a bad decision, now deal with it." If people were asking me about how mine would play out legally, I would ask you the same thing.

    If being drunk "sticks" you with your decision, can one then never claim to be raped if they have had alcohol?

    To flip Julius' question around, you are essentially postulating that once a person becomes intoxicated, that they can then never claim they were raped. So then, what is the point at which that occurs? How many beers until someone can't claim I raped them if we have sex?

    This again goes back to the OP and the nature of implicit consent. I find this question in its entirety disingenuous, as I believe there is no case where the nature of consent hinges on how wasted a particular party was.

    And if there is, I would be delighted to hear of it, because I think it would be incredibly useful to have a tangible example instead of convoluted postulated scenarios.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    3. In the event of situation wherein someone "decides" they didn't want to have given consent to sex, we refer both to point 1 and 2. That is, if someone's mental faculties are impaired, then it can be assumed that the default state applies, and that the default state is one of exclusivity. This functions similarly during acts of coercion.

    I suspect this is the point you'll find the most disagreement on, because most of the time we hold people responsible for their actions while they are drunk. If I crash a car while drunk, I will still be held accountable despite my judgement having been impaired. If I buy an expensive TV while drunk I don't get to sue the store for forcing me into a contract, even if the clerk wasn't drunk when he sold me the TV. So the idea that you can never consent while drunk runs contrary to the way our society treats intoxication: it suggests that drunk people are not responsible for the actions they take, and that sober people they interact with are responsible for being their keepers. This is a position that creates all kinds of problems when you try to apply it more generally.

    People are uncomfortable with the idea of drunken consent being invalid because you can't always judge drunkenness the way you can judge unconsciousness. If someone agrees to sex with me, do I have to give them a breathalyzer test to see if they're drunk? If they are legally drunk, do I have to decline sex because their consent isn't valid? What blood alcohol level should I consider drunk? If they disagree with the breath test, am I obligated to submit a sample of their blood for a lab test before I consider their consent valid?

    Of course not. You are responsible for your actions while drunk, including consent to sex. That's the only way things can reasonably work. Likewise, note that you aren't responsible for your actions while unconscious, which might be the point you're actually trying to argue.

    Well, the point was made that in contracts (and other transactions) it is at least theoretically possible for the dissenting party to, once sober, be made whole. I can argue that you took advantage of my diminished faculties, and give the television back for a refund. Or the home I purchased, or any other contract or agreement.

    Can't get my sex back, though.

    But unless, at the time the sex occurred, an assault wasn't occurring...so what? If you were coherent enough to understand what was about to happen, and said yes, it's not really an assault. And if you can't be "made whole" again (for the "contract" you'd otherwise not have entered into)...so? And what the fuck does that even mean in the context of a sexual partner that, while intoxicated, you consented to? How do you even define that "harm?"

    I find it amusing because as I said before, there's almost some level of misogyny involved in this entire line of argument. Only it's not on the "MRA" side. The fact that this even gets defined as a "men's rights" issue seems almost misogynistic. Because you basically never hear a guy get blackout drunk, fuck a chick who he'd not touch with a ten foot pole and is embarrassed as hell about having fucked afterwards, and try to call it rape. Even if he doesn't remember what happened, and would undo it if possible. And I'm sorry, that's not all "mechanics" of how sex operates. Men can have sexual contact, or even intercourse, when pretty fucked up. Not reliably, but it can be done. No, I get the feeling sometimes that it has more to do with our societal norms about sex. How sex is a thing "given" by women, or "taken" by men. How sexual history is judged more harshly (and thus an regretful sexual encounter more harmful) when it comes to women than men. That men are expected to have been cool with sex any time they were able to get hard. Hell, this is probably why we entirely ignore any other sexual orientation when having this discussion...even though it covers a non-trivial portion of sexual acts (among both men and women).

  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    But unless, at the time the sex occurred, an assault wasn't occurring...so what? If you were coherent enough to understand what was about to happen, and said yes, it's not really an assault. And if you can't be "made whole" again (for the "contract" you'd otherwise not have entered into)...so? And what the fuck does that even mean in the context of a sexual partner that, while intoxicated, you consented to? How do you even define that "harm?"

    I can't even begin to unpack this post, and with that I am done.

    Yes this is incredibly snarky, and you would think I would have learned by now.

    Not only did you just validate the point I made on the previous page (that people who advocate this line are really trying to establish a line where anything that happens "isn't really assault") but you also fundamentally misunderstand the word "misogyny".

    I don't know if your point was to argue the same lines I was: that this entire line of thinking in regards to alcohol (i.e. "how much is too much") is both a ridiculous question as well as a way of obfuscating the issue, but nevertheless you pretty adequately demonstrated my point.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Arch wrote: »
    I don't think comparing the act of purchasing a television to sexual consent while intoxicated is a particularly useful metaphor.

    I also think that comparing giving consent while drunk to drunk driving is fatuous, as driving while intoxicated is very explicitly against the law.

    Your argument is essentially "you made a bad decision, now deal with it." If people were asking me about how mine would play out legally, I would ask you the same thing.

    If being drunk "sticks" you with your decision, can one then never claim to be raped if they have had alcohol?

    To flip Julius' question around, you are essentially postulating that once a person becomes intoxicated, that they can then never claim they were raped. So then, what is the point at which that occurs? How many beers until someone can't claim I raped them if we have sex?

    They can claim they were raped if, at the time the sex occurred, they weren't conscious and didn't give some form of positive consent.

    I'm not sure what you're even asking. Yes, being drunk "sticks" you with your decision. That decision, in this context, is the decision to have sex. If you don't make that (drunken) decision...then yes, you can still claim to be raped? If you did make that (drunken) decision, then...no? This is difficult to understand? I mean I get if you don't agree, but the concept is pretty damn straightforward.

    The idea is that a conscious person who can still comprehend what is about to happen (as in, doesn't think they're agreeing to eat apple pie, but does apparently understand that they are nodding "yes" to sex) can never claim rape if they give consent. Their level of intoxication is irrelevant. The only time it would become relevant is if that intoxication was involuntary. And even then, if the accused wasn't the one that caused the involuntary intoxication, they shouldn't be the one culpable.

    mcdermott on
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    Arch wrote: »
    I don't think comparing the act of purchasing a television to sexual consent while intoxicated is a particularly useful metaphor.
    Why not? The question here is whether someone else can be blamed for your actions when you're drunk.
    I also think that comparing giving consent while drunk to drunk driving is fatuous, as driving while intoxicated is very explicitly against the law.
    Either you're saying that giving consent while drunk should be illegal or you're just not getting what the point is there.

    If someone says "yes, hand me the keys" when asked to drive while drunk is that person to be blamed for then driving drunk? And if so, does that also apply to sex?
    To flip Julius' question around, you are essentially postulating that once a person becomes intoxicated, that they can then never claim they were raped. So then, what is the point at which that occurs? How many beers until someone can't claim I raped them if we have sex?

    This again goes back to the OP and the nature of implicit consent. I find this question in its entirety disingenuous, as I believe there is no case where the nature of consent hinges on how wasted a particular party was.

    Wait...so you're saying that it's simple consent no matter the state of mind?

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Arch wrote: »
    But unless, at the time the sex occurred, an assault wasn't occurring...so what? If you were coherent enough to understand what was about to happen, and said yes, it's not really an assault. And if you can't be "made whole" again (for the "contract" you'd otherwise not have entered into)...so? And what the fuck does that even mean in the context of a sexual partner that, while intoxicated, you consented to? How do you even define that "harm?"

    I can't even begin to unpack this post, and with that I am done.

    Yes this is incredibly snarky, and you would think I would have learned by now.

    Not only did you just validate the point I made on the previous page (that people who advocate this line are really trying to establish a line where anything that happens "isn't really assault") but you also fundamentally misunderstand the word "misogyny".

    I don't know if your point was to argue the same lines I was: that this entire line of thinking in regards to alcohol (i.e. "how much is too much") is both a ridiculous question as well as a way of obfuscating the issue, but nevertheless you pretty adequately demonstrated my point.

    I'm saying that part of the reason we see this double standard regarding date rape (or more specifically date rape involving intoxicated consent) is because of the fucked up standards women are held to, even in modern society, regarding sexual conduct. Which are misogynistic. Assuming you consented, regardless of how voluntarily intoxicated you were, what is the harm? To the "victim," that is? A sexual partner they wish they could take back? A lack of mutual benefit? What? "I got drunk and chose to do something with somebody I wish I hadn't done." Take sex out of the picture, and it's probably a funny story. Add sex, and it's a felony and a feeling of deep victimization. I don't know that we get there without the fairly misogynistic values we apply to the sexuality of women.

    But whatevs, I'm probably just a dude looking to bang drunk chicks. Being an MRA, and all.

  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    @Arch, you're being incredibly disingenuous. The argument is that utterances of consent given while drunk (In a sufficiently interactive manner) are indeed to be understood as utterances of consent. I do not see how this translates to "People can never claim to be raped if they have had alcohol."

    Apothe0sis on
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    this conversation has really made me hate sex. And alcohol

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    Arch wrote: »
    But unless, at the time the sex occurred, an assault wasn't occurring...so what? If you were coherent enough to understand what was about to happen, and said yes, it's not really an assault. And if you can't be "made whole" again (for the "contract" you'd otherwise not have entered into)...so? And what the fuck does that even mean in the context of a sexual partner that, while intoxicated, you consented to? How do you even define that "harm?"

    I can't even begin to unpack this post, and with that I am done.

    Yes this is incredibly snarky, and you would think I would have learned by now.

    Not only did you just validate the point I made on the previous page (that people who advocate this line are really trying to establish a line where anything that happens "isn't really assault") but you also fundamentally misunderstand the word "misogyny".

    I don't know if your point was to argue the same lines I was: that this entire line of thinking in regards to alcohol (i.e. "how much is too much") is both a ridiculous question as well as a way of obfuscating the issue, but nevertheless you pretty adequately demonstrated my point.

    I thought you weren't actually arguing that point. But whatevs.

    I feel pretty safe in saying that if you agree to sex, and then demonstrate that you understand what you're agreeing to by your actions, it's not assault. It would be utterly ridiculous to argue otherwise.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    I thought you weren't actually arguing that point. But whatevs.

    I feel pretty safe in saying that if you agree to sex, and then demonstrate that you understand what you're agreeing to by your actions, it's not assault. It would be utterly ridiculous to argue otherwise.

    Except that we have people in this thread arguing that exact ridiculous point. That instead we need to have mutual benefit, and a "meeting of the minds."

    I find the whole idea of "how much is too much" to be preposterous, but for (I suspect) the opposite reason as Arch. Because as far as I'm concerned as long as the intoxication is voluntary nothing is too much. If you are conscious enough to signal both consent and some basic grasp of what you are consenting to, your level of intoxication is irrelevant. How you feel about it tomorrow, or if you even remember it tomorrow, is equally irrelevant.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Arch wrote: »
    3. In the event of situation wherein someone "decides" they didn't want to have given consent to sex

    Everything that follows from the premise, "It is possible to revoke consent to sex after sex has occurred." is problematic nonsense. Given how both time and consent work, we cannot entertain the notion that consent to sex can be revoked after sex occurs.

    We can change our mind during sex. That's fine. We can say "no more".

    But we can't say, "I consented to sex. But it's a week later and I totally shouldn't have done that. So, for that week we were fine, but now I'm retroactively not-consenting, so you're a retroactive rapist."

    One cannot be a rapist after the fact. If Player-A consents to doing X with Player-B, then that’s the end of the conversation.

  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    Part of the reason we're concerned about drunkenness impairing consent is that we feel that there's such a thing as "too secretly drugged to give consent".

    To pull out another of our ridiculous examples, if your date attempts to secretly drug you, screws up the dose to the point where you aren't significantly impaired, asks you if you want to have sex, and you agree, have you been raped? If the answer is no (which I think it should be, since the sex was still entirely voluntary despite the motives of the other party), is there some point where sufficiently increasing the dosage will turn the situation into rape? I'm actually not sure what my answer is for that, but the only difference between the two cases is the degree of impairment of the victim, not the intent of the other party.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    intoxicated consent

    I think, for the sake of clarity, we need to avoid phrases such as

    - intoxicated consent
    - forced consent
    - coerced consent

    Because they’re very confused terms. Either X is consent, or X is not consent.

    When we start to talk about this wishy-washy “intoxicated consent” which was consent, but not really, depending on how someone feels later, it just amounts to nonsense.

    So, if we don’t think that consent can be given when one has become intoxicated to Blood Alcohol Y%, let’s just refer to that as “drunken babbling” rather than “intoxicated consent”.

    Because then we don’t have to suss out whether or not it counts as consent. It’s not consent. It’s just intoxicated babbling.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    "Intoxicated consent" is just shorthand I was using for "consent given while intoxicated." But I agree that it's no different.

    As much as I'd like to treat it no differently than any other consent out there, we have folks taking up the argument that it is indeed different. Or rather that consent can't be given after a given point of intoxication, such that we must define that level of intoxication independent of the utterance and indication of general understanding as to the meaning of the utterance. That "meeting of the minds" be a necessity.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Or rather that consent can't be given after a given point of intoxication, such that we must define that level of intoxication independent of the utterance and indication of general understanding as to the meaning of the utterance. That "meeting of the minds" be a necessity.

    This seems practically and theoretically silly.

    Practically, it would involve persons bringing breathalyzers on dates.

    Theoretically, because it states that at some level of intoxication one loses one’s right to consent. That’s simply metaphysically problematic.

    It’s as if at 18 years old the consent fairy magically appears and grants them the ability to consent, but then when they get shitfaced they drop the consent, or the fairy appears and revokes it, to keep it safe, until they sober up?

    Further, we have the epistemological problem of having to discern whether a persons linguistic utterance, “I consent to sex” actually carries with it the “meaning” or “actuality” of consent.

    It’s also difficult that we’re treating consent as both a thing that can be obtained, and an attitude.

  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    As we're using it, level of intoxication is more or less a shorthand for level of impairment, despite not actually being shorter. There are a huge number of factors tied into it.

  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    intoxicated consent


    Because then we don’t have to suss out whether or not it counts as consent. It’s not consent. It’s just intoxicated babbling.
    At the level of intoxication we are talking it is probably not even babbling more like "drunken seemed like they were into it"

    This is where we get back to the question of strict liability. Is it a person's responsibility to not get so drunk that they might give someone the impression that they wanted to have sex.

  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    As far as I understand the thread, the only people talking about that level of intoxications are you and maybe Arch.

    Everyone else is talking about a level of intoxication whereby one may not remember their activities from the preceding evening but was otherwise apparently in the driver's seat, so to speak.

    Apothe0sis on
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    As far as I understand the thread, the only people talking about that level of intoxications are you and maybe Arch.

    Everyone else is talking about a level of intoxication whereby one may not remember their activities from the preceding evening but was otherwise apparently in the driver's seat, so to speak.
    McD at least is on record saying unconsciousness is the cut off (even with prior consent) and then only if the accused knew that they were unconscious.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    intoxicated consent


    Because then we don’t have to suss out whether or not it counts as consent. It’s not consent. It’s just intoxicated babbling.
    At the level of intoxication we are talking it is probably not even babbling more like "drunken seemed like they were into it"

    This is where we get back to the question of strict liability. Is it a person's responsibility to not get so drunk that they might give someone the impression that they wanted to have sex.

    "Responsibility" and "liability" are, perhaps, unhelpful ways to discuss this. That leads to a mentality of "It's your responsibility to not get raped", which is terribly problematic and heads towards victim blaming.

    In contrast to that sentiment, though, we do have the problem of trying to articulate the relationship between drunken hookups and rape.

    Saying that a person was incapable of consenting, due to a particular level of intoxication, is problematic.
    1) How can a partner determine another's level of intoxication?
    2) How does someone "lose" their ability to consent?

    But given the loss of inhibition, it does seem as if a drunken "yes" is qualitatively different than a sober "yes". Though, maybe it isn't, and we're creating a problem by making that distinction.

    Rape is confusing.

  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    As far as I understand the thread, the only people talking about that level of intoxications are you and maybe Arch.

    Everyone else is talking about a level of intoxication whereby one may not remember their activities from the preceding evening but was otherwise apparently in the driver's seat, so to speak.
    McD at least is on record saying unconsciousness is the cut off (even with prior consent) and then only if the accused knew that they were unconscious.

    I guess? But that isn't what anyone else including mcdermott is talking about. And viewing unconsciousness as "the cut off" seems to construe his point uncharitably - it seems to me that he was using that was the far end of the continuum which would be uncontroversial "unconscious people are not and cannot be consenting" the aim of which being finding the cutoff between sober, enthusiastic consent and the rape of the unconscious - and even more specifically between the nuanced "rape given while intoxicated can be rescinded" and "there is a level of intoxication after which point consent utterances are invalid".

  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    As far as I understand the thread, the only people talking about that level of intoxications are you and maybe Arch.

    Everyone else is talking about a level of intoxication whereby one may not remember their activities from the preceding evening but was otherwise apparently in the driver's seat, so to speak.
    McD at least is on record saying unconsciousness is the cut off (even with prior consent) and then only if the accused knew that they were unconscious.

    I guess? But that isn't what anyone else including mcdermott is talking about. And viewing unconsciousness as "the cut off" seems to construe his point uncharitably - it seems to me that he was using that was the far end of the continuum which would be uncontroversial "unconscious people are not and cannot be consenting" the aim of which being finding the cutoff between sober, enthusiastic consent and the rape of the unconscious - and even more specifically between the nuanced "rape given while intoxicated can be rescinded" and "there is a level of intoxication after which point consent utterances are invalid".

    Sometimes I lose the plot with all the Socratic method stuff so if I misread something i am sorry.

    So what is everyone's actual position?

  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    The reason there's this inherent misogyny is because men lose their lives on rape accusations, rather than convictions. Obviously there needs to be better tort laws and identity protections first, before we talk about extending (if we even bother doing it) what constitutes rape.

    False rape claims need to be felonies before we can even talk about this, and rapes of this variety shouldn't be assaults or anything. I guess you'd say this is a civil matter, but I don't know how I feel about that either.

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2012
    rockrnger wrote: »
    So what is everyone's actual position?

    Rape is bad.

    Consent is ambiguous, but needs to be not ambiguous.

    Time moves forward, not backward.

    _J_ on
    Apothe0sis
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    One cannot be a rapist after the fact. If Player-A consents to doing X with Player-B, then that’s the end of the conversation.

    We already have a concept for this.

    I don't remember the exact term. Usually it only comes up when a person disguises themselves as someone else to trick another person into sex. Not unreasonable to have a special consideration for this situation.

    But often times I see it applied to situations where a guy tries to pass himself off as rich or something.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    The reason there's this inherent misogyny is because men lose their lives on rape accusations, rather than convictions.

    That would be misandry, actually.

    I see misogyny because most of the "harm" we're talking about from a sexual encounter that was consented to while too intoxicated to remember (and which is regretted later) seems to come from our sexual norms, many of which are pretty misogynistic. For instance, since it seems to me bodily autonomy is maintained (chose to get drunk, then while drunk chose to consent regardless of mutual benefit) there's no real "harm" in such an encounter. It seems like the only way this can be seen a a "harm" from which the victim must be "made whole" stems from our idea that sex is a thing of value that generally flows from women to men, and that the sexual value (or even personal value) of women is somehow reduced if they "give too much of it away." That sex is a thing "given" by women or "taken" by men. Otherwise, what's the issue with a drunken mistake? What's it matter if you got "mutual benefit?" You lost nothing, and you made the choice. You move on.

    Assuming consent was given, regardless of how (voluntarily) intoxicated, I fail to see how this particular act transcends any other bad drunken choice you might make, and becomes a violent felony somebody else committed against you. I don't see how we get there without some longstanding sexual values and gender roles.

    _J_ wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    So what is everyone's actual position?

    Rape is bad.

    Consent is ambiguous, but needs to be not ambiguous.

    Time moves forward, not backward.

    This, pretty much.

    I think the most reasonable standard of consent is that the person be conscious, give some positive consent through words and actions, and give the impression that they understand what it is that they are consenting to. Nothing more. Keep it as unambiguous as possible.

    Reaching back to the OP, I fully realize this will make a large portion (probably a majority) of legitimate rape accusations difficult or impossible to prosecute, but this is unavoidable. And given any reasonable standard of evidence and burden of proof, this would likely be the case regardless.

  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    Time moves forward, not backward.

    I'm not sure I agree with you on this. I'd think you'd want to hedge that at "Our perceptions of time appear to follow a linear progression that can't be reversed."

    What is this I don't even.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Sheep wrote: »
    One cannot be a rapist after the fact. If Player-A consents to doing X with Player-B, then that’s the end of the conversation.

    We already have a concept for this.

    I don't remember the exact term. Usually it only comes up when a person disguises themselves as someone else to trick another person into sex. Not unreasonable to have a special consideration for this situation.

    But often times I see it applied to situations where a guy tries to pass himself off as rich or something.

    This is also unreasonable. Off the top of my head, I see two reasons.

    One, it requires us toll defines how numerous and substantial the misrepresentations must be to qualify. On, say a scale of pretending to like Radiohead to pretending to be a Saudi prince. People lie, on a small scale, all the time in the hopes of getting laid. So if the intent is there, is the Radiohead lie "rape by fraud?"

    Second, the idea of "rape by fraud" largely depends on that same idea of women trading sex as an item of value, and more importantly that this value is somehow diminished if it's traded too often. Yet, in this context, apparently feminists are on board?

  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    Applicable?
    http://www.wwltv.com/around-the-web/Man-released-after-11-years-in-jail-after-daughter-admits-rape-claim-was-a-lie-145871615.html

    I still think we need better tort ramifications. I also don't see how trying her will cause less rape reports, obviously completely fabricating the thing and admitting to it and being mistaken when claiming rape are two different legal scenarios.

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    Applicable?
    http://www.wwltv.com/around-the-web/Man-released-after-11-years-in-jail-after-daughter-admits-rape-claim-was-a-lie-145871615.html

    I still think we need better tort ramifications. I also don't see how trying her will cause less rape reports, obviously completely fabricating the thing and admitting to it and being mistaken when claiming rape are two different legal scenarios.

    We already have all of the protections that we need on rape or any other crime (perjury and filing a false police report). What you are asking for is only going to put an additional barrier to reporting rape.

    "someone raped me"
    "did you know you could be liable for up to a million dollars in damages and 10 years in prison if you are wrong"
    "never mind"

  • SticksSticks Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    In this case, I don't know what ramifications could possibly be reasonable. You are talking about charging a child with lying to the police 10 years after the fact. The really scary thing about that is apparently having a child means you, as a father, have a non-zero risk of going to prison and being put on the sex offender registry. I guess it's a reason to not be a shitty father, but still...

    edit: I also wonder if the scenario might not be that he DID rape her, but she feels guilty about "ruining his life" or something along those lines. My understanding is that it is not an uncommon emotion for victims to feel towards a perpetrator that they knew well.

    Sticks on
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Applicable?
    http://www.wwltv.com/around-the-web/Man-released-after-11-years-in-jail-after-daughter-admits-rape-claim-was-a-lie-145871615.html

    I still think we need better tort ramifications. I also don't see how trying her will cause less rape reports, obviously completely fabricating the thing and admitting to it and being mistaken when claiming rape are two different legal scenarios.

    We already have all of the protections that we need on rape or any other crime (perjury and filing a false police report). What you are asking for is only going to put an additional barrier to reporting rape.

    "someone raped me"
    "did you know you could be liable for up to a million dollars in damages and 10 years in prison if you are wrong"
    "never mind"

    Why would you bother to say that? Do people need to know something's a crime to not do it? Maybe we should follow young people around and go "You know, having sex while underage could land you in jail and on the sex offender list for life." :rotate:

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    Sticks wrote: »
    In this case, I don't know what ramifications could possibly be reasonable. You are talking about charging a child with lying to the police 10 years after the fact. The really scary thing about that is apparently having a child means you, as a father, have a non-zero risk of going to prison and being put on the sex offender registry. I guess it's a reason to not be a shitty father, but still...

    edit: I also wonder if the scenario might not be that he DID rape her, but she feels guilty about "ruining his life" or something along those lines. My understanding is that it is not an uncommon emotion for victims to feel towards a perpetrator that they knew well.

    Wow. That's some serious victim blaming from you. Your misandry is disgusting. You're blaming an innocent man who had his entire life taken away from him.

    What is this I don't even.
  • SticksSticks Registered User regular
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    In this case, I don't know what ramifications could possibly be reasonable. You are talking about charging a child with lying to the police 10 years after the fact. The really scary thing about that is apparently having a child means you, as a father, have a non-zero risk of going to prison and being put on the sex offender registry. I guess it's a reason to not be a shitty father, but still...

    edit: I also wonder if the scenario might not be that he DID rape her, but she feels guilty about "ruining his life" or something along those lines. My understanding is that it is not an uncommon emotion for victims to feel towards a perpetrator that they knew well.

    Wow. That's some serious victim blaming from you. Your misandry is disgusting. You're blaming an innocent man who had his entire life taken away from him.

    Wow, my wondering about a plausible alternate scenario constitutes "serious victim blaming" and misandry? I think you just revealed a whole truck load of your own bias.

    But of course, I was stating categorically that this is how it went down, the scenario I proposed logically makes no sense, and we know 100% all of the facts from a single news article so there is no reason for speculation or playing devil's advocate.

    I apology profusely to the entire thread. I gnash my teeth and tear my clothes in abject remorse for my despicable actions.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Time moves forward, not backward.

    I'm not sure I agree with you on this. I'd think you'd want to hedge that at "Our perceptions of time appear to follow a linear progression that can't be reversed."

    For the purpose of this conversation, the idea is that consent is forward looking, rather than backwards looking.

    At Time-1 Player A consents to have sex with Player B at Time-2. Time-2 occurs; sex happens. Later, at Time-3, Player A cannot revoke the consent that occurred at Time-1 and Time-2.

    As to the metaphysics of time? That’s another thread.

  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    You can always take an excess of showers to clean the filth like McD and I have been doing apparently.

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    Sticks wrote: »
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    In this case, I don't know what ramifications could possibly be reasonable. You are talking about charging a child with lying to the police 10 years after the fact. The really scary thing about that is apparently having a child means you, as a father, have a non-zero risk of going to prison and being put on the sex offender registry. I guess it's a reason to not be a shitty father, but still...

    edit: I also wonder if the scenario might not be that he DID rape her, but she feels guilty about "ruining his life" or something along those lines. My understanding is that it is not an uncommon emotion for victims to feel towards a perpetrator that they knew well.

    Wow. That's some serious victim blaming from you. Your misandry is disgusting. You're blaming an innocent man who had his entire life taken away from him.

    Wow, my wondering about a plausible alternate scenario constitutes "serious victim blaming" and misandry? I think you just revealed a whole truck load of your own bias.

    But of course, I was stating categorically that this is how it went down, the scenario I proposed logically makes no sense, and we know 100% all of the facts from a single news article so there is no reason for speculation or playing devil's advocate.

    I apology profusely to the entire thread. I gnash my teeth and tear my clothes in abject remorse for my despicable actions.

    Or you were engaging in exactly the same sort of victim blaming that this thread was designed to discuss, but in an ironic role reversal.

    What is this I don't even.
This discussion has been closed.