Most cars (although I think there actually are some now that do) cannot recognise impaired capabilities in their driver.
Humans _can_ recognise impairment to some degree, though, and have a responsibility to do so. If you see a friend about to drive drunk, you have a moral responsibility to prevent them, and (at least here) there are advertising campaigns to that effect. If someone who is clearly intoxicated to the point that it is affecting their decision-making comes on to you, you should at least consider the possibility that it is something they would regret when sober, and refrain (but hey, get their number, because they might still be interested when they sober up).
Lets change the situation a little though... lets say you are at a swanky hollywood party and some rich celebrity walks over to you and hands you $100,000 in cash. The celebrity is clearly drunk, but says something like "I just looooove to help people you know? and you look like you could use this." Is it criminal to accept that money? If so would you say it's on the same level as if you stole the money from the celebrity?
Lets change the situation a little though... lets say you are at a swanky hollywood party and some rich celebrity walks over to you and hands you $100,000 in cash. The celebrity is clearly drunk, but says something like "I just looooove to help people you know? and you look like you could use this." Is it criminal to accept that money? If so would you say it's on the same level as if you stole the money from the celebrity?
I am not a lawyer, but I don't think it's criminal to accept the money. I think it's different in that you could accept the money, but hold off on spending it until you talked to the celebrity once they sobered up - and if the celebrity changed their mind and asked for the money back, you could give it back. You can't un-sex someone.
Edit: amended from un-rape to un-sex per Blinking Spirit's suggestion below. I think the point - that it is a lot easier to undo the consequences of taking someone's money while they are drunk than those of having sex with someone while they are drunk - still stands, though.
Just a point of order, but this is begging the question a bit since whether or not it's rape is what we're trying to decide. I think it is rape, but you should really be saying at this point of the argument, "You can't un-sex someone." (Pace Lady Macbeth.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Most cars (although I think there actually are some now that do) cannot recognise impaired capabilities in their driver.
Humans _can_ recognise impairment to some degree, though, and have a responsibility to do so. If you see a friend about to drive drunk, you have a moral responsibility to prevent them, and (at least here) there are advertising campaigns to that effect. If someone who is clearly intoxicated to the point that it is affecting their decision-making comes on to you, you should at least consider the possibility that it is something they would regret when sober, and refrain (but hey, get their number, because they might still be interested when they sober up).
Like I said, I am talking about levels of responsibility.
You seem to be attempting to take the onus of responsibility AWAY from the drunk woman. Why else would you not mention the drunk woman at all and instead talk about responsible friends and responsible individuals who will consider how much the woman might regret the actions and decisions she took that night?
As does virtually every advocate who says "it's not the drunk woman's fault for having sex that she didn't consent to" (again, very deliberate use of phrasing here).
If it isn't her fault, then why is it not her fault? Because she's drunk? But, like I said, there is a conflict here with the way we treat drunk driving. Clearly the driver is responsible for driving while drunk, because he/she should have known better. Because should have known how much of a danger he/she is posing to him/herself and others. Etc etc.
Oh my. I just inadvertently mentioned a bunch of "becauses" that would really piss advocates off if I used them against drunk women instead of drunk drivers. But these "becauses" perfectly allowable against drunk drivers because... Why? What? Huh?
This is all going to basically say- What happened to the woman? Does she cease to exist the moment she's drunk? Does her choices and decisions not matter at all because she's drunk? I guess so, because she's incapable of giving consent when she's drunk.
Consider what that phrase means beyond sex for a moment. Then compare that to the fact that no one ******* says that for men.
If you're going to get drunk, it seems to me that you have a responsibility to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure you are not going to commit a crime against someone else, same as when you're sober. You don't have a responsibility to ensure that someone is not going to commit a crime against you any more than you have that responsibility when you are sober. Being drunk doesn't relieve you of the responsibility to not commit crimes, nor does it create a new responsibility to ensure that you are not a victim of a crime.
I think there's more to it than that. While you can certainly have non-rape sex when drunk, you can also be raped when drunk. If you are too drunk to understand what's happening, and someone has sex with you that you don't want, that's rape. Because you didn't understand what was happening, you aren't in a position to consent. You don't have a responsibility to make sure no one tries to have unwanted sex with you, drunk or not.
It's a crime to drive while drunk because you have, drunk or not, a responsibility to drive safely. Being drunk impairs your ability to do that.
Exactly!
Am I understanding this correctly that magickware99 is maintaining that a drunk person cannot have sex with a sober person without the drunk person being raped? Also that magickware99 is stating as support for this the criminality of drunk driving?
If that is the case, the drunk driving laws actually support the opposite position. A drunk person is not absolved of responsibility due to his drunken state. He is assumed to have put himself in the situation to start with. A drunk person has the responsibility to find some other means of travel or else of making sure, prior to getting drunk, that he was with people who could do that for him. Being drunk does not make it all right.
Being drunk does not make it all right to come on to someone (even a sober person) for sex, have one's advances accepted, and then be the victim in the end. Just as with driving, a drunk person has the responsibility to make his own sexual decisions or else of making sure, prior to getting drunk, that he is in a situation where this will not be an issue.
Being drunk does not make it all right to come on to someone (even a sober person) for sex, have one's advances accepted, and then be the victim in the end. Just as with driving, a drunk person has the responsibility to make his own sexual decisions or else of making sure, prior to getting drunk, that he is in a situation where this will not be an issue.
Sadly, that's not how it works in the up is down title IX courts. One young man was branded as "responsible" their version of guilty even though both were drunk and two girls present during the whole thing testified the "victim" initiated because both were drunk but that didn't mean she could be responsible for anything just him.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
I think there's more to it than that. While you can certainly have non-rape sex when drunk, you can also be raped when drunk. If you are too drunk to understand what's happening, and someone has sex with you that you don't want, that's rape. Because you didn't understand what was happening, you aren't in a position to consent. You don't have a responsibility to make sure no one tries to have unwanted sex with you, drunk or not.
The entire premise of "incapable of giving consent when she's drunk" is that details get thrown out of the window. As I understand it, it means that there is no differentiation between "drunk" and "so drunk that you might as well pass out right this instant".
I mean, look at what the phrase says verbatim!
That's why I have a problem with it.
That's why I wrote all those things above. As far as "incapable of giving consent when she's drunk" goes, all of them should be perfectly valid.
See, look at what you did. You yourself went from "drunk" to "too drunk to understand what's happening".
Am I understanding this correctly that magickware99 is maintaining that a drunk person cannot have sex with a sober person without the drunk person being raped? Also that magickware99 is stating as support for this the criminality of drunk driving?
I'm going to assume, although you haven't addressed it directly, that you agree that:
1. Having sex with a person who is unconscious is rape
2. Having sex with a person so intoxicated that they can barely slur monosyllables is rape
I'll add:
3. Having sex with someone who is sober and consents is not rape
(Feel free to mention if you disagree with any of the above.)
From the above, I assert that there is indeed a point of intoxication between 2. and 3. where practical-consent shifts from possible to not possible; 'incapable of giving consent when he or she is drunk'. I don't claim to know where it is; I don't drink, so I am not the best person to ask. However, I think it's reasonably evident that such a point exists.
Are you arguing that there is no level of intoxication at which a man or woman is incapable of giving consent for sex?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
Am I understanding this correctly that magickware99 is maintaining that a drunk person cannot have sex with a sober person without the drunk person being raped? Also that magickware99 is stating as support for this the criminality of drunk driving?
If that is the case, the drunk driving laws actually support the opposite position. A drunk person is not absolved of responsibility due to his drunken state. He is assumed to have put himself in the situation to start with. A drunk person has the responsibility to find some other means of travel or else of making sure, prior to getting drunk, that he was with people who could do that for him. Being drunk does not make it all right.
Being drunk does not make it all right to come on to someone (even a sober person) for sex, have one's advances accepted, and then be the victim in the end. Just as with driving, a drunk person has the responsibility to make his own sexual decisions or else of making sure, prior to getting drunk, that he is in a situation where this will not be an issue.
You seem to have recapitulated his argument, not contradicted it. The question is: what does this "drunk responsibility" imply about the ability to consent to sex while drunk?
The entire premise of "incapable of giving consent when she's drunk" is that details get thrown out of the window. As I understand it, it means that there is no differentiation between "drunk" and "so drunk that you might as well pass out right this instant".
I mean, look at what the phrase says verbatim!
That's why I have a problem with it.
That's why I wrote all those things above. As far as "incapable of giving consent when she's drunk" goes, all of them should be perfectly valid.
See, look at what you did. You yourself went from "drunk" to "too drunk to understand what's happening".
The law says "The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity."
The law says "The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity."
Before I write anything else, I need to ask you- do you agree with what LordOwningtonIII wrote in this thread?
Also, note that "so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity" is incredibly open-ended, especially if you have people like LordOwningtonIII interpreting the law. In fact, that's why I specifically pointed out how you went from talking about "drunk" people to "too drunk to understand what's happening".
I was using "drunk" in the context of the law, I assumed it was clear because that's what this thread is about.
I'm pretty sure I don't agree with what LordOwlington wrote, but I'm pretty confused about what his point is.
The word "drunk" never appears in the written text of the law. That is why my "you cannot give consent if you are drunk" interpretation is simply an interpretation (albeit possibly an extreme one since I built it in response to what LordOwingtonIII wrote and what I recall of advocates wrote in general regarding the matter).
The law's text is not quite as extreme as LordOwingtonIII and what many of those advocates say. But I do find it broad enough that, if they were in charge, they could feasibly push it to mean it in that manner. After all, laws are generally written in such a manner that they are open for interpretation. It is not a good thing to assume that the law means what you think it means and only that.
Regarding the word drunk- That word itself is incredibly vague. Am I drunk the moment I become less inhibited in my actions? Or am I drunk the moment I start stumbling and otherwise start to lose control over certain basic motor skills?
You yourself know that there is a difference.
"While you can certainly have non-rape sex when drunk, you can also be raped when drunk. If you are too drunk to understand what's happening, and someone has sex with you that you don't want, that's rape."
At the very least in the above quote, you clearly defined it as - It is rape when you are "too drunk to understand what's happening"
But, in the preceding sentence, you also use "drunk" to refer to a very broad spectrum.
Now, if one took "incapacitate" to mean what it actually means, then the law is fairly clear. But I've come to realize that people take "incapacitate" to mean things that I don't think it means, and so I think this gets a lot murkier. For the very reason I pointed out in your quote above.
I think it would be very difficult to argue that having a few drinks and being a bit less inhibited is the same as being incapacitated and unable to understand what's happening. I think you're suggesting the law is broader than it actually is.
Drink-driving laws use measured levels of alcohol to determine when someone is too drunk to drive.
This is practical because these measurements are taken at the precise time of the offense.
I doubt that such measurements are currently practical in the situation we are describing, but you and I have both pointed out that there is a point beyond which a person's judgement is too impaired to realistically consent. If we can't measure the victim's drunkenness, how should the law be worded? I don't think intoxication should be ignored.
Edit: between two and four standard drinks - depending on bodyweight and gender - is enough to impair judgement, reason and caution.
The record is convincing that Zehmer was not intoxicated to the extent of being unable to comprehend the nature and consequences of the instrument he executed, and hence that instrument is not to be invalidated on that ground. C.J.S. Contracts, §, 133, b., p.483; Taliaferro v. Emery, 124 Va. 674, 98 S.E. 627. It was in fact conceded by defendants' counsel in oral argument that under the evi- dence Zehmer was not too drunk to make a valid contract.
Kinda sounds like:
The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity.
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
Lets change the situation a little though... lets say you are at a swanky hollywood party and some rich celebrity walks over to you and hands you $100,000 in cash. The celebrity is clearly drunk, but says something like "I just looooove to help people you know? and you look like you could use this." Is it criminal to accept that money? If so would you say it's on the same level as if you stole the money from the celebrity?
Edit: amended from un-rape to un-sex per Blinking Spirit's suggestion below. I think the point - that it is a lot easier to undo the consequences of taking someone's money while they are drunk than those of having sex with someone while they are drunk - still stands, though.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Like I said, I am talking about levels of responsibility.
You seem to be attempting to take the onus of responsibility AWAY from the drunk woman. Why else would you not mention the drunk woman at all and instead talk about responsible friends and responsible individuals who will consider how much the woman might regret the actions and decisions she took that night?
As does virtually every advocate who says "it's not the drunk woman's fault for having sex that she didn't consent to" (again, very deliberate use of phrasing here).
If it isn't her fault, then why is it not her fault? Because she's drunk? But, like I said, there is a conflict here with the way we treat drunk driving. Clearly the driver is responsible for driving while drunk, because he/she should have known better. Because should have known how much of a danger he/she is posing to him/herself and others. Etc etc.
Oh my. I just inadvertently mentioned a bunch of "becauses" that would really piss advocates off if I used them against drunk women instead of drunk drivers. But these "becauses" perfectly allowable against drunk drivers because... Why? What? Huh?
This is all going to basically say- What happened to the woman? Does she cease to exist the moment she's drunk? Does her choices and decisions not matter at all because she's drunk? I guess so, because she's incapable of giving consent when she's drunk.
Consider what that phrase means beyond sex for a moment. Then compare that to the fact that no one ******* says that for men.
Oh God. That sounds ******* sexist.
Because I do not believe that you lose responsibility when you're drunk.
Oh, and it is not a crime to cause a car accident. Because car accidents happen. It IS a crime when you cause a car accident while drunk.
Why's that?
It's a crime to drive while drunk because you have, drunk or not, a responsibility to drive safely. Being drunk impairs your ability to do that.
Oh ok.
In that case please read what I wrote more carefully because that's the stance that I'm writing from, and I believe I made it clear enough.
Exactly!
Am I understanding this correctly that magickware99 is maintaining that a drunk person cannot have sex with a sober person without the drunk person being raped? Also that magickware99 is stating as support for this the criminality of drunk driving?
If that is the case, the drunk driving laws actually support the opposite position. A drunk person is not absolved of responsibility due to his drunken state. He is assumed to have put himself in the situation to start with. A drunk person has the responsibility to find some other means of travel or else of making sure, prior to getting drunk, that he was with people who could do that for him. Being drunk does not make it all right.
Being drunk does not make it all right to come on to someone (even a sober person) for sex, have one's advances accepted, and then be the victim in the end. Just as with driving, a drunk person has the responsibility to make his own sexual decisions or else of making sure, prior to getting drunk, that he is in a situation where this will not be an issue.
Sadly, that's not how it works in the up is down title IX courts. One young man was branded as "responsible" their version of guilty even though both were drunk and two girls present during the whole thing testified the "victim" initiated because both were drunk but that didn't mean she could be responsible for anything just him.
The entire premise of "incapable of giving consent when she's drunk" is that details get thrown out of the window. As I understand it, it means that there is no differentiation between "drunk" and "so drunk that you might as well pass out right this instant".
I mean, look at what the phrase says verbatim!
That's why I have a problem with it.
That's why I wrote all those things above. As far as "incapable of giving consent when she's drunk" goes, all of them should be perfectly valid.
See, look at what you did. You yourself went from "drunk" to "too drunk to understand what's happening".
O_o
What.
1. Having sex with a person who is unconscious is rape
2. Having sex with a person so intoxicated that they can barely slur monosyllables is rape
I'll add:
3. Having sex with someone who is sober and consents is not rape
(Feel free to mention if you disagree with any of the above.)
From the above, I assert that there is indeed a point of intoxication between 2. and 3. where practical-consent shifts from possible to not possible; 'incapable of giving consent when he or she is drunk'. I don't claim to know where it is; I don't drink, so I am not the best person to ask. However, I think it's reasonably evident that such a point exists.
Are you arguing that there is no level of intoxication at which a man or woman is incapable of giving consent for sex?
He seems to be saying that that's what the law implies, and that he disagrees with the law for this reason.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The law says "The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity."
Before I write anything else, I need to ask you- do you agree with what LordOwningtonIII wrote in this thread?
Also, note that "so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity" is incredibly open-ended, especially if you have people like LordOwningtonIII interpreting the law. In fact, that's why I specifically pointed out how you went from talking about "drunk" people to "too drunk to understand what's happening".
These are REAL differences, and they do matter.
I'm pretty sure I don't agree with what LordOwlington wrote, but I'm pretty confused about what his point is.
The word "drunk" never appears in the written text of the law. That is why my "you cannot give consent if you are drunk" interpretation is simply an interpretation (albeit possibly an extreme one since I built it in response to what LordOwingtonIII wrote and what I recall of advocates wrote in general regarding the matter).
The law's text is not quite as extreme as LordOwingtonIII and what many of those advocates say. But I do find it broad enough that, if they were in charge, they could feasibly push it to mean it in that manner. After all, laws are generally written in such a manner that they are open for interpretation. It is not a good thing to assume that the law means what you think it means and only that.
Regarding the word drunk- That word itself is incredibly vague. Am I drunk the moment I become less inhibited in my actions? Or am I drunk the moment I start stumbling and otherwise start to lose control over certain basic motor skills?
You yourself know that there is a difference.
"While you can certainly have non-rape sex when drunk, you can also be raped when drunk. If you are too drunk to understand what's happening, and someone has sex with you that you don't want, that's rape."
At the very least in the above quote, you clearly defined it as - It is rape when you are "too drunk to understand what's happening"
But, in the preceding sentence, you also use "drunk" to refer to a very broad spectrum.
Now, if one took "incapacitate" to mean what it actually means, then the law is fairly clear. But I've come to realize that people take "incapacitate" to mean things that I don't think it means, and so I think this gets a lot murkier. For the very reason I pointed out in your quote above.
This is practical because these measurements are taken at the precise time of the offense.
I doubt that such measurements are currently practical in the situation we are describing, but you and I have both pointed out that there is a point beyond which a person's judgement is too impaired to realistically consent. If we can't measure the victim's drunkenness, how should the law be worded? I don't think intoxication should be ignored.
Edit: between two and four standard drinks - depending on bodyweight and gender - is enough to impair judgement, reason and caution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_v._Zehmer
I wonder what would happen if we applied the same standard to drunk sex cases?
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
Kinda sounds like:
Yikes considering the basic intent of "Affirmative Consent" is to turn consent into http://www.gameparadisestore.com/wordpress/gotcha-a-silly-keep-up-with-the-rules-party-game/ and thus get more convictions, this is frightening.
That's probably asking a little much.