idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
If neither party can consent, and there's no additional force (physical, chemical, or psychological*), then it isn't a rape. Or it's a double rape. Who knows. In either case, it's not a situation we prosecute for, for obvious reasons.
Unless one party says "I was raped" though. In which case the "who knows" part becomes incredibly problematic, and the rampant confusion and mixed messages about this issue makes things vastly worse.
But the basic rule of thumb is there. And it's literally only an issue if you're the kind of @#%^ who would wait until the absolute limit before deciding not to have **** with someone who might be unable to consent. It shows how little you care about the idea of raping someone.
It's an issue if two people are both drunk, both appear to consent at the time, both have sex, but then one claims that she (or he!) was too drunk to consent so it was rape. And if we follow your proposed rules it *is* rape. Which is why your legal limit guidelines are silly.
Here's a rule of thumb: If you aren't sure she's sober enough, don't have **** with her, wait for her to come down more, etc.
Yeah. Cause that's a workable solution. And it now is basically telling women that they can't have **** if they're intoxicated. Doesn't a woman have just as much right to get rip roaring drunk and have **** as a man does? Or don't you care about women's rights?
Basically, don't be an opportunistic piece of sh*t.
Or, put another way, don't let women have fun. You do understand that many women *want* to have sex, right? It's kind the whole point of the sexual revolution. If we accept that, then say "yeah. You can have **** if you want, but only if you're sober" it puts a damper on the whole thing.
LOL @ gbaji making a mens rights post in response to something I literally never argued.
You didn't argue it, but what you are arguing leads pretty solidly to it. It's just unworkable to have a set of rules that say it's socially acceptable for women to be sexually aggressive, and to drink, and do everything in these areas that men do, but if a man has **** with a woman while she's drunk he's taking a random risk of being convicted of a **** crime. And it's sexist to have those rules apply differently based on the **** of the person involved. I know that you didn't make that argument directly, but that is the way our current rule tend to work out, and applying your "legal limit" rule would just make that even worse than it already is.
You're right - it IS sexist to hold that it's a rape when a sober man has **** with a drunk woman, but it isn't a rape when a sober woman has **** with a drunk man. I agree that it's rape.
And I disagree that it's rape. I think it's rape if a party does not consent to **** but the other forces it (in some way). Simply being drunk should not prevent you from consenting. Being unable to consent prevents you from consenting. It's a much simpler standard to use IMO. Is she unconscious? Unresponsive? Head wobbling and unable to walk without assistance? She's not consenting to you carrying her into a room and having **** with her. Seems pretty simple, and it perfectly applies to the earlier case that was mentioned. Drunk chick dirty dancing with you, making out with you, suggesting you take the party someplace private and then actively participating in some crazy **** in a broom closet *is* consent. It's just not that hard to tell the difference.
Setting some kind of arbitrary limit on BAC is not only unworkable, it's unnecessary. If our objective is education, then let's be reasonable about what we teach people. Let's focus on what consent is.
I also agree that it's far less likely to be reported, that because we live in a culture that celebrates male sexuality it's unlikely to be seen as problematic by the victim.
Which is itself a holdover from before the sexual revolution and presumably something we want to eliminate from society, right? Do you see how saying that it's somehow different for women is counter to that goal? We should be celebrating female sexuality, not claiming it's ok, but then creating rules to make sure that women can't actually enjoy themselves cause we don't want to risk them making a mistake. If we insist that women need to be treated like delicate china dolls who can't handle their own sexual choices, then we may as well just chuck out the whole concept of sexual freedom for women.
But it's still a rape - it was a purposeful sexual act with someone incapable of consenting while the assailant was in a position they could understand that distinction.
Again though, my issue is with your arbitrary decision that someone is incapable of consenting to **** because they have a BAC above a certain point. I think it makes a lot more sense to focus on whether consent was given, and not worry about whether some third party thinks it counts. Because then it's not "no means no", but "yes means no for certain BAC levels". Which is really really really stupid. Edited, Jun 5th 2013 6:45pm by gbaji