Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Sexual Assaults in the militaryFollow

#52 Jun 05 2013 at 12:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,390 posts
To be fair (speaking as someone who gets much of their news from the CNN website) that kind of article was more the exception rather than the rule. I don't remember many sympathetic articles on there. Though there was discussion that if the men were found innocent, the work by Anonymous would make them guilty in everyone's eyes. That was kind of more of an anti-vigilante thing more than anything else though.

Edited, Jun 5th 2013 12:00pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#53 Jun 05 2013 at 1:02 PM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,495 posts
Olorinus the Ludicrous wrote:
[
In all seriousness, Smash is absolutely right. The only real solution to rape is to get rid of rape culture which leaves people thinking it's ok to rape. I mean look at those Stuebenville football kids - they all seemed to genuinely think it was okay to drag an unconscious woman around raping her when they felt like it. They honestly seemed to think it was all good fun.
If your problem is 'rape in the US' and your goal is to bring down the numbers of rape in the US then sure, making sure all citizens know it's against the law to rape others is a good method - to start with anyways.

If your problem is that you're a sexy 21 year old woman attending college and you want to avoid being 1 of 12 getting raped during your tenure - you have a lot of other options available to you.



____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#54 Jun 05 2013 at 1:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
One summary does not a media make. And I don't even read it as "sympathetic" as you seem to. Yes, they had bright futures. They threw it away. They fucked up. That doesn't make them victims, it makes them rapists and fools.

On the other hand, this isn't a topic I'm especially interested in beating into the ground so, sure, bad media.

Edited, Jun 5th 2013 2:04pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#55 Jun 05 2013 at 1:14 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,191 posts
It doesn't anywhere say "they threw it all away" or anything like that though. It mentions they will be registered sex offenders, but once again, in a "aww poor boys" way. They barely even mention the victim, and don't mention at all what she was going through, or how this affected her. The men who broke the law are the sympathetic actors. The woman who was brutalized is all but ignored.

I get that you don't want to argue this, but this kind of media coverage (even if it was, as you seem to be suggesting from only one media outlet) is part of the problem. It creates a narrative of sympathy for the people who committed the crime. It makes it all about them in the exactly wrong kind of way. It doesn't ask tough questions. No where do they say "why would these young men with such bright futures commit such a horrible crime?" No where do they even seem to refer to them in a way that suggests they are aware these young men dragged an unconscious woman around to several different houses sexually assaulting her - and laughing at the thought of her being dead.

I mean seriously, these guys don't deserve an ounce of sympathy - yet they got a pound of it. Even if it was "just" CNN that had that kind of coverage, wouldn't you agree that's problematic? Don't you think that if anyone deserves sympathy and humanization it's the young woman who was violated? Yet not one gram of sympathy is given to her. No discussion is made of how she has to deal with the community hating her because somehow they think it is her fault for these young guys being creeps. No discussion of how the community tried to downplay the issue. No discussion on her emotional well being or how this experience will affect HER future. None at all.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#56 Jun 05 2013 at 1:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,390 posts
What did you think of the rest of CNN's coverage of this case, outside of this one segment?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#57 Jun 05 2013 at 1:31 PM Rating: Decent
******
43,122 posts
Olorinus the Ludicrous wrote:
I mean seriously, these guys don't deserve an ounce of sympathy
They made a huge mistake and their lives are ruined. Fuck 'em, death penalty.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#58 Jun 05 2013 at 1:38 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,495 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Olorinus the Ludicrous wrote:
I mean seriously, these guys don't deserve an ounce of sympathy
They made a huge mistake and their lives are ruined. Fuck 'em, death penalty.

That's draconian. Just cut off their pecker.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#59 Jun 05 2013 at 1:39 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,115 posts
Elinda wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Olorinus the Ludicrous wrote:
I mean seriously, these guys don't deserve an ounce of sympathy
They made a huge mistake and their lives are ruined. Fuck 'em, death penalty.

That's draconian. Just publicly dip their genitals in acid.

____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#60 Jun 05 2013 at 1:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
26,664 posts
This thread is in dire need of a derail.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#61 Jun 05 2013 at 1:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,390 posts
Okay, what would you prefer to have dipped in acid?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#62 Jun 05 2013 at 1:46 PM Rating: Good
******
43,122 posts
Technically, this is the derail.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#63 Jun 05 2013 at 2:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,509 posts
Elinda wrote:
Olorinus the Ludicrous wrote:
[
In all seriousness, Smash is absolutely right. The only real solution to rape is to get rid of rape culture which leaves people thinking it's ok to rape. I mean look at those Stuebenville football kids - they all seemed to genuinely think it was okay to drag an unconscious woman around raping her when they felt like it. They honestly seemed to think it was all good fun.
If your problem is 'rape in the US' and your goal is to bring down the numbers of rape in the US then sure, making sure all citizens know it's against the law to rape others is a good method - to start with anyways.

If your problem is that you're a sexy 21 year old woman attending college and you want to avoid being 1 of 12 getting raped during your tenure - you have a lot of other options available to you.





I'm assuming you mean this in terms of what constitutes rape, not actual confusion that rape is illegal? As in, what is and is not consent?

Because I definitely agree that's needed. Too many guys will accept the consent of a girl who is wasted. Or use any other bullsh*t excuse to imply consent ("if she passed out in my house, she obviously wanted my dick in her!").

But increased punishments and rates of convictions have been shown, at least in the context of the military, to have no effect on the rate of rape. I don't know if that's true in the civilian sector, but rapists in the armed forces today are far more likely to face punishment, and the minimum punishments for all sex crimes have gone up quite a bit. I don't care enough to look up the actual statistics right now, but that's what I remember from coverage about yesterday's opening discussions.

And I'm not really surprised. Rape doesn't strike me as a risk vs. reward sort of crime. It's power play. These @#%^s have a need to prove their dominance, and I doubt anything but a direct threat of punishment would prevent that.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#64 Jun 05 2013 at 3:20 PM Rating: Decent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
Since when did someone being drunk and saying yes to sex not count as consent?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#65 Jun 05 2013 at 4:05 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,191 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Olorinus the Ludicrous wrote:
I mean seriously, these guys don't deserve an ounce of sympathy
They made a huge mistake and their lives are ruined. Fuck 'em, death penalty.


I never said that, but they certainly don't deserve to be coddled and cried over. It's highly doubtful that this was their first time doing this either. And how about the woman's life they ruined? Once again, it goes back to crying over the perpetrator rather than feeling for the person who was raped. It sends entirely the wrong message, but sure... poor little men finally got caught after raping multiple young women and now they have to face some very weak consequences. Waaa waaa.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#66 Jun 05 2013 at 4:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,592 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Since when did someone being drunk and saying yes to sex not count as consent?


I think it's different if they had two drinks with dinner vs they are unconscious, lying in a pool of vomit.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#67 Jun 05 2013 at 4:34 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Since when did someone being drunk and saying yes to sex not count as consent?


I think it's different if they had two drinks with dinner vs they are unconscious, lying in a pool of vomit.
Yea, that's not drunk or wasted, that's passed out and unconscious.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#68 Jun 05 2013 at 4:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,592 posts
It's a touchy subject... (to some).

I don't think it's rape if the woman had enough drinks to loosen her up. (Pun not intended). But I do think you don't have to wait until they are passed out before the ability to consent is long gone. But I'm sure there are plenty of people that disagree with any alcohol being involved. At least there was back when I was in college and the local Women's organization released a news letter on campus denouncing any amount of alcohol being used in pre-sex courtships. Sparking a few letter's to the editor from people for/against.

There's plenty of area between 0.00 and Alcohol Poisoning.

Edit:
And I'm talking alcoholic drinks, consumed by choice without hidden drugs, obviously.

Edited, Jun 5th 2013 6:50pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#69 Jun 05 2013 at 5:51 PM Rating: Decent
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,158 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Olorinus the Ludicrous wrote:
I mean seriously, these guys don't deserve an ounce of sympathy
They made a huge mistake and their lives are ruined. Fuck 'em, death penalty.


Never known you to show sympathy for criminals before.

I suppose this is an issue close to your heart.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#70 Jun 05 2013 at 6:20 PM Rating: Decent
******
43,122 posts
Kavekk wrote:
I suppose this is an issue close to your heart.
"Guaranteed response."
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#71 Jun 05 2013 at 6:51 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Olorinus the Ludicrous wrote:
I get that you don't want to argue this, but this kind of media coverage (even if it was, as you seem to be suggesting from only one media outlet) is part of the problem. It creates a narrative of sympathy for the people who committed the crime. It makes it all about them in the exactly wrong kind of way. It doesn't ask tough questions. No where do they say "why would these young men with such bright futures commit such a horrible crime?" No where do they even seem to refer to them in a way that suggests they are aware these young men dragged an unconscious woman around to several different houses sexually assaulting her - and laughing at the thought of her being dead.


That was covered elsewhere though. The particular article linked was about sentencing and the effect it would have on the lives of the two men. And I got more of a warning to other young men not to do something so stupid and ruin their lives vibe from it than that they were downplaying it or feeling sorry for the offenders. The problem is that a lot of rapists in this sort of situation don't see what they're doing as rape. So demonizing rape and rapists doesn't really work as a deterrent.


idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I'm assuming you mean this in terms of what constitutes rape, not actual confusion that rape is illegal? As in, what is and is not consent?

Because I definitely agree that's needed. Too many guys will accept the consent of a girl who is wasted. Or use any other bullsh*t excuse to imply consent ("if she passed out in my house, she obviously wanted my dick in her!").


Absolutely. The problem there is that we send mixed messages, not just from society and media, but also from those who get perhaps a bit too excessive in the cause of fighting rape. It would perhaps be useful to settle on some reasonable standards somewhere between "if a chick is drunk it means she wants to have sex" and "if you have sex with a woman who's consumed a single sip of alcohol, it's rape".


TirithRR wrote:
But I'm sure there are plenty of people that disagree with any alcohol being involved. At least there was back when I was in college and the local Women's organization released a news letter on campus denouncing any amount of alcohol being used in pre-sex courtships. Sparking a few letter's to the editor from people for/against.


Yup. That's honestly just not helping the issue at all, and quite possibly makes things worse. It's such an absolute (and stupid) rule that most people will disregard it entirely, which leans them more towards accepting the "drunk chicks want sex" side of things. Which, if we're approaching this from the "educate men so that they don't do this" side of the issue, is a really counterproductive thing to do. I agree that we can educate men about this, but it has to be done reasonably, and we have to also accept that it's not going to help in all cases. Education is only going to affect the subset of potential rapists who (as I pointed out earlier) don't realize that what they're doing is rape. But within that subset, it's only going to be effective if our messages are reasonable and workable.



And just to touch on something brought up earlier in the thread, for the other set of potential rapists, the equivalent of locking your car doors that Elinda proposed is still a really really good idea. Doesn't mean you can't go out for a drive, but don't make yourself an easy victim if you don't have to.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#72 Jun 05 2013 at 6:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,509 posts
My understanding is that the legal limit for being considered drunk, .08 or .1 depending on the state, is what is used to define consent vs. non-consent.

Granted, a borderline case is impossible to prove after the fact. But for the most part, instances of alcohol-related date rapes likely occur at BACs much higher than that.

It's considered the point by which you are now mentally impaired. We tend to think of it that way, because we think about the deteriorated control of our bodies as the rational for deciding it's the drunk driving threshold, but it's also correlated with a massive reduction in our inhibitions and other rational processes. Those begin at a lower point, but this is when they start to get severe.

.12 is generally where the "wasted" symptoms would begin. That's relative to each person, and their own developed resistance, but your ability to make rational decisions will be seriously impaired at that point. You lose ability to absorb and process information, etc.

So legally, consent requires that a person be below the legal limit.

The problem, of course, is that it can be extremely difficult to prosecute this forms of rape regardless of how drunk you were. Assuming, at least, you don't have reliable witnesses regarding how drunk you were.

edit:

Quote:
Absolutely. The problem there is that we send mixed messages, not just from society and media, but also from those who get perhaps a bit too excessive in the cause of fighting rape. It would perhaps be useful to settle on some reasonable standards somewhere between "if a chick is drunk it means she wants to have sex" and "if you have sex with a woman who's consumed a single sip of alcohol, it's rape".


There is a clear threshold. It's not super easy to use, but it's clear. It's usually pretty clear when someone has reached the point they shouldn't be driving, legally. Same exact scenario.

As with all things, when in doubt, don't put your penis in it.

Edited, Jun 5th 2013 8:55pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#73 Jun 05 2013 at 7:00 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
How about, if we're relying on witnesses, we judge based on obvious signs of consent rather than how drunk someone is. Because in your case, what happens if both parties are equally drunk, neither party says no, and both go off together to room and have sex? Do you charge someone with rape then because they had sex over some arbitrary legal limit?

I think it's a lot better standard to say that if someone is non-responsive, and is carried/staggered/dragged into a room for sex then that's rape. But if she drunk off her ass, flashing her boobs at the crowd, and yelling "Woo hoo! I'm gonna get laid!" while heading into a room with someone, it's consensual, no matter how drunk she is. Our legal system does not remove responsibility for our actions based on our level of intoxication. That ought to apply to consent to sexual activity as well.

Roofies and whatnot excepted of course.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#74 Jun 05 2013 at 7:05 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
There is a clear threshold. It's not super easy to use, but it's clear. It's usually pretty clear when someone has reached the point they shouldn't be driving, legally. Same exact scenario.


I disagree. It's pretty darn sexist to assume that men are able to make decisions when drunk and be held responsible for those decisions, but women are not and should not. Part of the flip side to sexual liberty is sexual responsibility. It's hypocritical to say that women are free to pursue sexual activities as they wish, but then assume that they aren't actually capable of making the same sexual choices that men are. Either you want a world where women are expected to be prim and proper and men gentlemen, or you accept the fact that it's ok for women to be sexual aggressive and men will allow them to be. Which means sometimes getting drunk and having sex with someone you later regret having sex with.

Cause if that's not the case, there's a couple fat chicks I'd like to charge with date rape.

Edited, Jun 5th 2013 6:07pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#75 Jun 05 2013 at 7:12 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,509 posts
Congratulations, this may be the longest you've ever made it into a thread without proving yourself to be a disgusting pig.

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.

This does assume relatively equal levels of intoxication and no other factors. It also assumes no premeditation, etc. He can't decide he wants to rape a girl and get wasted just so that he has a defense. It's super hard to prove, and it's subjective. Which is precisely why we use juries.

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 sex with someone who might be unable to consent. It shows how little you care about the idea of raping someone.

Here's a rule of thumb: If you aren't sure she's sober enough, don't have sex with her, wait for her to come down more, etc.

Basically, don't be an opportunistic piece of sh*t.

[EDIT]

LOL @ gbaji making a mens rights post in response to something I literally never argued.

You're right - it IS sexist to hold that it's a rape when a sober man has sex with a drunk woman, but it isn't a rape when a sober woman has sex with a drunk man. I agree that it's rape.

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. 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.

Edited, Jun 5th 2013 9:16pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#76 Jun 05 2013 at 7:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
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.

Quote:
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 sex 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.

Quote:
Here's a rule of thumb: If you aren't sure she's sober enough, don't have sex 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 sex if they're intoxicated. Doesn't a woman have just as much right to get rip roaring drunk and have sex as a man does? Or don't you care about women's rights?

Quote:
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 sex if you want, but only if you're sober" it puts a damper on the whole thing.

Quote:
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 sex with a woman while she's drunk he's taking a random risk of being convicted of a sex crime. And it's sexist to have those rules apply differently based on the sex 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.

Quote:
You're right - it IS sexist to hold that it's a rape when a sober man has sex with a drunk woman, but it isn't a rape when a sober woman has sex 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 sex 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 sex 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 sex 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.

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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 sex 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
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#77 Jun 05 2013 at 7:48 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
If we're working off the sole basis of someone having .08 blood alcohol, all anyone has to do who is being charged of rape is counter charge that they were the one actually raped. At a party, almost everyone is going to be over .08.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#78 Jun 05 2013 at 8:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
If we're working off the sole basis of someone having .08 blood alcohol, all anyone has to do who is being charged of rape is counter charge that they were the one actually raped. At a party, almost everyone is going to be over .08.


Pshaw! Low hanging fruit.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#79 Jun 06 2013 at 12:56 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,191 posts
See this hair splitting is exactly the issue. Come on, Diggory has it right. I mean, maybe I'm an exceptional person but I've never had sex where my desires weren't vocalized and I didn't likewise hear my partner's desires and assent. If you are too drunk to discuss birth control and STD's in a rational, verbal way, you shouldn't be having sex. Do I sound like a killjoy?

Maybe, but seriously there is more than just "is it rape or not" at stake here. If people are too drunk to vocalize about those basics of safe sex, they are too drunk to consent. It isn't even a really difficult line (I know I can vocalize my sexual needs/desires after a number of drinks, easily) - it's a matter of if someone is wasted - if YOU are wasted, having sex is a terrible idea cause you aren't making rational choices, period. I mean unless you want to put yourself at unnecessary risk.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#80 Jun 06 2013 at 12:58 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,862 posts
I think the moral of the story here is, if you want to rape somebody, you'd better be drunk as a skunk; or at least enough to not remember the event.
____________________________
"Observe what happens when you force a man to change"
Just as Planned.
#81 Jun 06 2013 at 4:46 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,592 posts
Olorinus the Ludicrous wrote:
See this hair splitting is exactly the issue. Come on, Diggory has it right. I mean, maybe I'm an exceptional person but I've never had sex where my desires weren't vocalized and I didn't likewise hear my partner's desires and assent. If you are too drunk to discuss birth control and STD's in a rational, verbal way, you shouldn't be having sex. Do I sound like a killjoy?

Maybe, but seriously there is more than just "is it rape or not" at stake here. If people are too drunk to vocalize about those basics of safe sex, they are too drunk to consent. It isn't even a really difficult line (I know I can vocalize my sexual needs/desires after a number of drinks, easily) - it's a matter of if someone is wasted - if YOU are wasted, having sex is a terrible idea cause you aren't making rational choices, period. I mean unless you want to put yourself at unnecessary risk.


But "sex is a bad idea" and rape are two different things. Two drunk people have sex and exchange STDs... sorry, tough luck. No real legal issue there, just poor judgement. Get pregnant? Well, at least there's always that A-word, if it's really that big of an issue for them.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#82 Jun 06 2013 at 6:44 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,509 posts
But this is generally a non-issue, because all rapes charges (to the best of my knowledge) are reviewed by a jury. No jury is going to convict someone of rape if he was wasted* and sex with another wasted person. If he's at .08 and they're at .16? Then yeah, there's a very good chance he'd be convicted, because he's still conscious and his victim isn't. He was in a state where his rational consent would have no legal merit, while his victim was in a state where she literally could not give consent.

*Note that this does not apply to forcible rape, which is a more heinous crime. That's where physical or chemical aggression is used to subdue someone. This is a discussion of rape where one of the parties failed to gain consent.

And rational consent is what's at stake here. Rational consent requires you have full control of your faculties. If one party has the capacity for rational consent, and the other does not, it's rape. If neither have the capacity for rational consent, you'd use the reduced form of consent that you have available as your measuring stick.

It's not a difficult concept at all - don't have sex with someone significantly more inebriated than you. That REALLY shouldn't be an issue.

And because Olorinus brought it up, legally speaking you DO need clear consent for a sexual act. Assumptions that your partner wants to have sex generally aren't legally accepted.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#83 Jun 06 2013 at 6:57 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,495 posts
Olorinus the Ludicrous wrote:
See this hair splitting is exactly the issue. Come on, Diggory has it right. I mean, maybe I'm an exceptional person but I've never had sex where my desires weren't vocalized and I didn't likewise hear my partner's desires and assent. If you are too drunk to discuss birth control and STD's in a rational, verbal way, you shouldn't be having sex. Do I sound like a killjoy?

Maybe, but seriously there is more than just "is it rape or not" at stake here. If people are too drunk to vocalize about those basics of safe sex, they are too drunk to consent. It isn't even a really difficult line (I know I can vocalize my sexual needs/desires after a number of drinks, easily) - it's a matter of if someone is wasted - if YOU are wasted, having sex is a terrible idea cause you aren't making rational choices, period. I mean unless you want to put yourself at unnecessary risk.
Clearly you are an exceptional person, but being drunk does not allow you to dismiss the consequences of your actions - legal or otherwise.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#84 Jun 06 2013 at 7:19 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
I don't think anyone disagrees that someone who's passed out can't give consent. That's not what I'm taking issue with.

I think we're in some dangerous territory though when we say you're responsible for what you do when you decide to drive drunk but not if you have sex while drunk.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#85 Jun 06 2013 at 8:10 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,509 posts
The clear problem with your argument is that you are placing the woman in the actionable position.

If you're holding the keys to a car, and you give them to a drunk person who clearly intends to drive, you are legally responsible.

If you are sober, and you have sex with a person who is drunk, you are legally responsible.

Your example of choosing to drive drunk isn't an appropriate analogy in the first example, because it's an interaction between a person and an inanimate object. Not the interaction between two people. A car can't consent to let you drive it. Well, some sort of can, which is why they make vehicles with breathalyzers built in.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#86 Jun 06 2013 at 8:32 AM Rating: Decent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
How can you take responsibility away from someone who's drunk and consents to sex but later says I was too drunk to make that call, so I was raped. But then hold that same person who was too drunk to make the call on having sex, responsible for driving?

We're not talking about someone who's passed out here.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#87 Jun 06 2013 at 8:33 AM Rating: Default
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,592 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
The clear problem with your argument is that you are placing the woman in the actionable position.


Clearly. We all know the only actionable person during sex is the one with the penis!

Joking aside, I think the legal vehicle operating limit of 0.08 to 0.10 shouldn't be used. Have you seen people with 0.08? While the effects vary by person, many are coherent, (nearly) fully capable people. 0.08 can be achieved by as little as two beers with a dinner depending on the person, some less. I'd wager the reason why the legal limit for operating is that low is not because those people cannot have any idea about what they are doing, but because a little alcohol is severely impairing their motor skills, reaction time, etc, opposed to their thinking capacity.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#88 Jun 06 2013 at 9:05 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,509 posts
Drunk driving isn't a relevant analogy. It's illegal to drive drunk, it's not illegal to have sex while drunk. And despite that issue, we also don't establish those laws for the same reason: drunk driving laws are primarily a public health initiative. A stupid one, because they probably don't work, but the reason drunk driving punishments are harsh is primarily due to a wish that they'll act as a deterrent for drunk driving.

I'm not a fan of the concept. Nor am I fan of the same concept for rape charges, particularly since it IS proven that increased sentences have no impact on the frequency of rape within populations.

Another problem is that the reason we prosecute for drunk driving isn't the same reason we prosecute for rape. We prosecute for drunk driving because it poses a clear danger to other people for a drunk person to operate a vehicle. We prosecute for rape because it's a fundamental violation of another person's human dignity. It's a different concept of victimization.

And finally, drunk driving is again its own beast, because it is one of the few crimes you can commit that is fundamentally based in inebriation. For most crimes, inebriation can work to reduce your sentence, in the best case scenario. In the worst case scenario, it won't make it worse.

DWIs are fundamentally different from other crimes. Maybe that means we should rethink our treatment of them (which I would agree to), but it definitely means they shouldn't be used as our measuring stick for other crimes.

If you are sober, and you have sex with someone you know or suspect is drunk, you have made the decision that you don't care if they can offer informed consent or not. That's the degradation of their human dignity.

It doesn't matter if the woman would have made the same decision while sober, because the crime is your dismissal of her right to give informed consent. It doesn't matter if you think that it should count, because inebriation is a violation of the fundamental concept of rational consent.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#89 Jun 06 2013 at 9:11 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
Quote:
It's illegal to drive drunk, it's not illegal to have sex while drunk.
Well, if we're setting a line of .08 as a limit, then apparently it is illegal to have sex while drinking.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#90 Jun 06 2013 at 9:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,390 posts
I'm guessing usually a jury/judge is the one determining whether or not someone was coherent enough to consent?

Edited, Jun 6th 2013 8:14am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#91 Jun 06 2013 at 9:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,509 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
It's illegal to drive drunk, it's not illegal to have sex while drunk.
Well, if we're setting a line of .08 as a limit, then apparently it is illegal to have sex while drinking.


Touche.

someproteinguy wrote:
I'm guessing usually a jury/judge is the one determining whether or not someone was coherent enough to consent?

Edited, Jun 6th 2013 8:14am by someproteinguy


To the best of my knowledge, rape charges require a grand jury in at least most states. I think most plea bargains means the charge becomes aggravated sexual assault, which doesn't.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#92 Jun 06 2013 at 9:21 AM Rating: Default
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,495 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:

It doesn't matter if the woman would have made the same decision while sober, because the crime is your dismissal of her right to give informed consent. It doesn't matter if you think that it should count, because inebriation is a violation of the fundamental concept of rational consent.

But it's not criteria that can be allowed when determining someone's liability or consequence. If a sober man asks you for a ten-spot when you're drunk and you give it to him, you can certainly claim he took advantage of you, but your blood-alcohol level doesn't make the exchange a crime.





____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#93Almalieque, Posted: Jun 06 2013 at 9:22 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) And you avoid rapists by avoiding scenarios where a rapist might take advantage of you.
#94 Jun 06 2013 at 9:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,509 posts
Elinda wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:

It doesn't matter if the woman would have made the same decision while sober, because the crime is your dismissal of her right to give informed consent. It doesn't matter if you think that it should count, because inebriation is a violation of the fundamental concept of rational consent.

But it's not criteria that can be allowed when determining someone's liability or consequence. If a sober man asks you for a ten-spot when you're drunk and you give it to him, you can certainly claim he took advantage of you, but your blood-alcohol level doesn't make the exchange a crime.


Increase that sum to a level where it would be legal to sue them and it is considered theft, and you can be prosecuted for it.

And if it's an amount that exceeds the legal minimum, you can sue them for it.

Probably wouldn't bother for $20, but for $300 you certainly might take it to civilian court.

I have no clue at what point anyone would bother charging them with a crime, but that doesn't really matter, now does it? Because I'm inclined to think that someone's human dignity isn't equatable to a couple hundred bucks.

[EDIT]
Quote:
And you avoid rapists by avoiding scenarios where a rapist might take advantage of you.


Well no wonder you were terrified of letting teh geys into the military.

Edited, Jun 6th 2013 11:38am by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#95 Jun 06 2013 at 9:43 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,158 posts
Quote:
I have no clue at what point anyone would bother charging them with a crime, but that doesn't really matter, now does it? Because I'm inclined to think that someone's human dignity isn't equatable to a couple hundred bucks.


Not familiar with the concept of wage labour, I see.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#96 Jun 06 2013 at 9:51 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,495 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:

Increase that sum to a level where it would be legal to sue them and it is considered theft, and you can be prosecuted for it.

And if it's an amount that exceeds the legal minimum, you can sue them for it.

Probably wouldn't bother for $20, but for $300 you certainly might take it to civilian court.
You can sue for about anything. There is no law being broken that would cause you to win a lawsuit however.

Quote:
I have no clue at what point anyone would bother charging them with a crime, but that doesn't really matter, now does it? Because I'm inclined to think that someone's human dignity isn't equatable to a couple hundred bucks.

That's hyperbole. And it's really obvious.

I have no clue why you think that a person who is drunk loses their human dignity because they have sex when under the influence.

Women are people, equal to men in both rights and responsibilities. They're not feeble, or ill-informed, or unable to make a decision when under the influence. Maybe not a good decision, but they have to be given the same opportunity to make a bad decision as men.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#97 Jun 06 2013 at 11:08 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,509 posts
I said rape degrades human dignity - it violates it - not that they lose it.

And I never even inferred that rape was exclusively about men vs. women. I've made it clear that I think it's a two way street, and that both genders are capable of rape.

But congrats, you're now using the same staw man as gbaji.

Yes. Women and men can both make bad decisions. That doesn't give sober men and women the right to capitalize on their inebriation and sexually assault them.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#98 Jun 06 2013 at 11:17 AM Rating: Good
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,390 posts
If you teach women how to keep from being raped you're sending the message that men don't have to take responsibility for their actions.

If you educate men about their actions you're sending the message that the women are feeble, helpless, and can't stay safe without a man's help.

If you ignore the problem you're oppressing the disadvantaged.

What's your poison?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#99 Jun 06 2013 at 11:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,509 posts
I'd educate everyone that taking advantage of someone inebriated is rape. No need to make it about gender at all.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#100 Jun 06 2013 at 11:34 AM Rating: Good
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,390 posts
Then you're just glossing over the most common form of the problem.

Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#101 Jun 06 2013 at 12:01 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,509 posts
I don't think so. The only possible solution to rape culture is by elevating the value of women in our culture to be equal with men. Any solution that doesn't treat both genders equally is doomed to fail as a long term solution. And any plan that specifically addresses women as needing protection will actually restrict their ability to advance to equal status in our culture.

Also important, because we DO have a rape culture, it's imperative that we work to change the language surrounding incidents. "Boys will be boys," which has already been mentioned in this thread, is such a dis-empowering statement for everyone. It infers that men are slaves to carnal nature, that they cannot be anything more than base creatures, and that the victimization of women by men is natural. But it's a phrase our culture rarely considers so problematic.

I think men are likely lagging behind women in terms of anti-misogyny education, and as a result most rapes are committed by men (though not necessarily against women). So if you HAVE to do a targeted campaign, their the smarter target from a utilitarian perspective. But I'd much rather a universal approach, if at all possible.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 44 All times are in CDT
Aethien, Kastigir, LordMagius, Timelordwho, Anonymous Guests (40)