Rape: A hypothetical question

Jan 24, 2008 11:45

...inspired by recent events, but not intended as speculation about them ( Read more... )

bitchassness, negro please!

Leave a comment

Comments 139

toodani January 24 2008, 17:34:33 UTC
I am very very scared for the state of women's safety.

Reading some of these comments...

This needs to be a clear black and white issue because the slope is a long one. Consent while drunk as always null and void.

Men, if you don't like that, then stop having sex with drunk people. You can only save yourself.

To answer the question, absolutely it is rape.

Reply

nshgrl January 24 2008, 17:43:25 UTC
I absolutely agree with you.

Reply

guttaperk January 24 2008, 17:46:24 UTC
Getting drunk with the intent of having sex has legally constituted implicit consent, where that intent could be clearly established.

Is that wrong?

Reply

toodani January 25 2008, 05:53:25 UTC
wrong and legal are not the same. And you are now asking a different question from your first. Is it wrong to have sex with a drunk person. No. Is it something that can get you in legal trouble? Absolutely. And if you know nothing about that person you are taking the gamble of your life.

Reply


littleeva January 24 2008, 18:11:48 UTC
I say yes it's rape but it's difficult. I'm sober now but when I drank I blacked out often, however I did not pass out, I'd be conscious, walking around, talking etc but if you asked me the next day what I did, I seriously could no remember; I clearly remember a party at Yale in 1979 where I blacked out in the middle of a conversation where we were talking about the hostages in Iran and suddenly I was in the car going home, to this day I don't know what happened during those four hours.

However if a woman is obviously drunk, slurring her words, staggering, don't have sex with her because that's rape.

Reply

guttaperk January 24 2008, 18:23:45 UTC
A consent process initiated while the person was clearly incapable of giving consent is invalid.

"When was consent effectively given?"
and
"Were they clearly incapable of giving consent at that time?"

become valid questions.

However, seeking to answer those questions easily blurs into character assassination in practise, it seems.

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

guttaperk January 24 2008, 19:37:50 UTC
Discussing the complexities of this difficult situation does not constitute justification of rape.

Sex involving the deliberate incapacitation of people's objections by force, threat, or chemical restraint is rape.

Getting stone drunk with the clear intent of having sex, and then realising that you got a different kind of sex from that which you wanted, is a grey area. It might be rape; it might not; it depends on the circumstances of the individual case.

Morning-after regrets do not nullify night-before consent.

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

guttaperk January 24 2008, 19:51:50 UTC
Your misrepresentation of my position is inappropriate and disrespectful. Please don't tell me what I mean, and I will accord you the same respect.

I have never argued that an incapacitated person is able to give consent. If it seems otherwise to you, I will be happy to politely clarify any aspect of my position if asked.

I agree with you that explicit legal classification of rape would be useful.

cheers

adrian.

Reply


cognative January 24 2008, 21:39:12 UTC
If the person is DRUNK, then it seems obvious they can't give any real consent.

However, how "drunk" do they have to be for it not to count? That's the only issue here. Sureley we're not saying that every person who's slept with someone who was not stone cold 0.00% sober is a rapist.

Reply


cleojones January 24 2008, 21:40:03 UTC
YES. It's rape.

This is my man's take and one of the many reasons he's my man...

If a girl is drunk, her ability to JUDGE anything is impaired. Any person willing to sleep with a drunk woman does so because they know this. That's rape. It's "roofies"-lite.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up