Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Sexual Assaults in the militaryFollow

#77 Jun 05 2013 at 7:48 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,383 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.


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
******
35,010 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
****
9,526 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 *** 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 ***. 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 ***, 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 *** 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.


#80 Jun 06 2013 at 12:58 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 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.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#81 Jun 06 2013 at 4:46 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,938 posts
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#82 Jun 06 2013 at 6:44 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 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 *** 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 *** 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 *** 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
*****
16,595 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 *** 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 ***. 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 ***, 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 *** 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:
I lost my post
#84 Jun 06 2013 at 7:19 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,383 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 *** while drunk.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


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
******
20,020 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 *** 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
******
35,383 posts
How can you take responsibility away from someone who's drunk and consents to *** 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 ***, responsible for driving?

We're not talking about someone who's passed out here.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


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!
*****
16,938 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 *** is the one with the *****!

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
******
20,020 posts
Drunk driving isn't a relevant analogy. It's illegal to drive drunk, it's not illegal to have *** 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 *** 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
******
35,383 posts
Quote:
It's illegal to drive drunk, it's not illegal to have *** while drunk.
Well, if we're setting a line of .08 as a limit, then apparently it is illegal to have *** while drinking.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


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
*****
13,440 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
******
20,020 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
It's illegal to drive drunk, it's not illegal to have *** while drunk.
Well, if we're setting a line of .08 as a limit, then apparently it is illegal to have *** 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
*****
16,595 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:
I lost my post
#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
******
20,020 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
*****
14,174 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
*****
16,595 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 *** 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:
I lost my post
#97 Jun 06 2013 at 11:08 AM Rating: Excellent
******
20,020 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
*****
13,440 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
******
20,020 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
*****
13,440 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
******
20,020 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: 63 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (63)