"The words or other acts of one of the parties have but one reasonable meaning, his undisclosed intention is immaterial except when an unreasonable meaning which he attaches to his manifestations is known to the other party"
As in, drunk or not, if you act in a way that has one reasonable meaning, it has that meaning unless you indicate otherwise.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks 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
Under New Zealand law, if one of the parties to a contract is drunk to the point of impaired decisions, and the other party knows this, the contract may be voidable. Again, degree of impairment is key.
How would you word the law to take the degree of drunkenness into account, given that accurate blood measurements at the time are likely unobtainable?
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?
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.
Except that is exactly what LordOwingtonIII and people here-
Myth: If the assailant, victim, or both are under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the victim is free to consent to sex and the assailant therefore cannot be charged with rape.
Fact: When intoxicated, an individual cannot legally consent to sexual activity. Forcing sex on someone who is too drunk to give consent is still Criminal Sexual Conduct in the Third Degree. Rape is a serious offense, and people who commit crimes while under the influence of alcohol or drugs are not considered free from guilt.
I mean... what does "intoxicated" mean?
Merriam-Webster defines it as-
"affected by alcohol or drugs"
Which is incredibly vague and broad. As I've been repeatedly bringing up, drunk, or in this case intoxicated, can mean "becoming more uninhibited when compared to one's normal behavior" to "losing fine control over basic motor skills like walking" to "incapable of staying conscious and so passing out".
Hopefully you can see why I'm alarmed. Could it be overly dramatic? Sure. But given what I've read from advocates on this matter, I personally feel that my alarmist attitude is warranted.
Advocates tend to be extreme in their advocacy, for a variety of reasons. Allowing them to take control over the political process/power and the narrative is rarely a good idea.
-----
Lastly, and back to the drunk driver comparison-
Quote from »
Myth: A person can avoid being raped as long as he or she follows certain guidelines, such as acting or dressing conservatively, not going out at night alone, and refraining from drinking alcohol or doing drugs.
Fact: Rape can happen to anyone at any time, no matter how cautious they are. Advising people to follow “guidelines” to avoid being sexually assaulted puts the responsibility of the assault on the victim. Instead, it is the responsibility of the assailant to avoid sexually assaulting others, and as a community, it is our responsibility to understand and promote the fact that sexual assault is never trivial, excusable or deserved, and
it is never the victim’s fault.
You wrote this earlier-
"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."
And I responded with "exactly!".
I did so because, as I wrote, I believe that a person never loses responsibility over their actions, regardless of their mental state. If you realize that being overly drunk can impair your ability to respond to events or situations, then you need to deal with it appropriately. People get outraged over drunk driving PRECISELY because those who drive while drunk (presumably) realize the dangers, but do so anyways.
This is also why people rarely forgive dangerous behaviors and actions people take while drunk. Because you should have known better. You should have known that your ability to control what happens in a meaningful fashion is greatly reduced (possibly to the point of nil) if you are drunk, and so you should never allow yourself to get that drunk in the first place.
But as soon as the conversation turns to drunk women and consent, me saying anything like the above makes me incredibly evil and insensitive.
I don't think LordOwlington is talking about his interpretation of this law. The website you link definitely is not talking about an interpretation of this law. I don't see what relevance they have.
Being drunk does not relieve one of the repsonsibility to avoid committing crimes. It also does not create a new repsonsbility to avoid being a victim. We'd say the same thing about someone who was conned out of money because they were too drunk to understand what was happening.
This is also why people rarely forgive dangerous behaviors and actions people take while drunk. Because you should have known better. You should have known that your ability to control what happens in a meaningful fashion is greatly reduced (possibly to the point of nil) if you are drunk, and so you should never allow yourself to get that drunk in the first place.
But as soon as the conversation turns to drunk women and consent, me saying anything like the above makes me incredibly evil and insensitive.
Why?
Because discussing sex in the states automatically creates a double standard. In any other situation, if you're drunk and mess up its on you. But with sex, if you're drunk and mess up the other person faces criminal charges.
As for measuring intoxication; How the hell can someone else be able to gauge if you are SO drunk that you can't make informed decisions? I know plenty of women that seem perfectly normal while on the verge of black-out drunk. Shouldn't we, as in ANY other situation, consider how the other party could reasonably interpret the situation? Reasonable observation seems to go out the window when sex is involved; why is that?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks 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
Governor Cuomo is planning on implementing this in New York starting with the colleges but wants it to be the law for the state criminal system.
At least he's striving for consistency. Another weird thing about the California law we haven't really touched on yet is that it makes "sexual assault" among college students different than "sexual assault" as a crime in the population at large.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Because discussing sex in the states automatically creates a double standard. In any other situation, if you're drunk and mess up its on you. But with sex, if you're drunk and mess up the other person faces criminal charges.
As for measuring intoxication; How the hell can someone else be able to gauge if you are SO drunk that you can't make informed decisions? I know plenty of women that seem perfectly normal while on the verge of black-out drunk. Shouldn't we, as in ANY other situation, consider how the other party could reasonably interpret the situation? Reasonable observation seems to go out the window when sex is involved; why is that?
(4) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in the disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented to the sexual activity if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant was unable to consent to the sexual activity under any of the following circumstances:
I did so because, as I wrote, I believe that a person never loses responsibility over their actions, regardless of their mental state.
How broadly should I be interpreting the phrase 'mental state' here? If person A is slipped rohypnol, or a similar drug, by person B, and then they 'consent' to sex with person B, is person A responsible?
Also, in this thread, sex has been compared to contract transactions, and to gifts of money. Money can be given back, and transactions reversed. If the law is more cautious about sex than money, it's because you can't un-sex someone.
I don't think LordOwlington is talking about his interpretation of this law. The website you link definitely is not talking about an interpretation of this law. I don't see what relevance they have.
You're missing my point.
I am saying that I believe the law is vague enough such that people with beliefs such as LordOwingtonIII and folks in that website I presented can use it for their own ends, which I believe is decidedly against what the majority of the people in this thread believes in.
Being drunk does not relieve one of the repsonsibility to avoid committing crimes.
Dude. We've already been over this.
Car accidents aren't a crime. Because accidents can happen. Drunk car accidents are most decidedly a crime.
Why? You wrote it yourself!
"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."
So it is the act of being drunk that makes it illegal and a crime. Because being sufficiently drunk (I'll be using this phrase from now on for consistency's sake) impairs your ability to drive safely.
It also does not create a new repsonsbility to avoid being a victim.
This is also an asinine argument.
This is like saying I don't have a responsibility to protect myself from theft or murder or anything bad happening to me for that matter.
OF COURSE I HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT MYSELF FROM BAD THINGS HAPPENING TO ME.
And if you know that being sufficiently drunk prevents yourself from fulfilling said responsibility, then you shouldn't get sufficiently drunk.
Edit- There's a whole line of thought that is supposed to connect things together here, but honestly I'm much too tired to expand on it right now.
Perceptive people should be able to notice it, since I've been implying it but not outright saying it thus far because I'm worried it would make me look evil.
How broadly should I be interpreting the phrase 'mental state' here? If person A is slipped rohypnol, or a similar drug, by person B, and then they 'consent' to sex with person B, is person A responsible?
Define responsible.
When I write "never loses responsibility" I am saying that a person is always responsible, to varying degrees, for the actions that they take and actions taken upon them.
But, here's the thing- Just because you need to take (partial) responsibility for something, doesn't mean you should be blamed either.
Blame and responsibility are two completely different things. I get the feeling that people conflate the two when it comes to sexual harassment and rape, and that is why advocates tend to make the claim that women are NEVER responsible for what happened to them.
To me, responsibility simply means that you yourself took some action that contributed to some event. That's pretty much all I mean by it. I mean it in the manner that you are a genuine being with the ability to make real choices. And you need to accept that you did make those choices.
This is why I think the "women cannot consent if they're drunk" attitude is treating women as dolls. Drunk or not, they still possess the ability to make choices. I think to claim that they are incapable of making choices is belittling them.
Also, in this thread, rape has been compared to contract transactions, and to gifts of money. Money can be given back, and transactions reversed. If the law is more cautious about sex than money, it's because you can't un-sex someone.
If I understand Fluffy_Bunny correctly, he was making the comparison on the basis of "drunk enough to make impaired decisions".
And please do not repeat the mistake that B_S told you about earlier.
Governor Cuomo is planning on implementing this in New York starting with the colleges but wants it to be the law for the state criminal system.
At least he's striving for consistency. Another weird thing about the California law we haven't really touched on yet is that it makes "sexual assault" among college students different than "sexual assault" as a crime in the population at large.
Na, that thing is perfectly explainable.
The "adults" have now come to the conclusion that college students can't take care of themselves.
In short- they're infants who need their hands held.
Edit- On a probable tangent- I really do think a lot of laws these days are predicated on the assumption that people don't know well enough to take care of themselves. Thus, we need laws to take care of them.
If I understand Fluffy_Bunny correctly, he was making the comparison on the basis of "drunk enough to make impaired decisions".
And please do not repeat the mistake that B_S told you about earlier.
I'll go back and edit 'sex' in over 'rape'. I intended to make that distinction anyway - hence 'sex than money' and 'un-sex' - but I was posting/editing in haste and didn't catch that.
My _point_, that was addressed in neither instance, is that you can't redress sexual acts in the same way you can financial ones. That's why the financial analogies fail.
When someone is sufficiently-drunk, their judgement is impaired. They can still make choices, but those choices are not made with the full benefits of their faculties. That's the _point_. It's not belittling someone to observe that alcohol can impact their judgement, it's saying they have normal human physiology.
I don't think blame and responsibility are in fact "two completely different things". They're literally synonymous.
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?
If I understand Fluffy_Bunny correctly, he was making the comparison on the basis of "drunk enough to make impaired decisions".
And please do not repeat the mistake that B_S told you about earlier.
I'll go back and edit 'sex' in over 'rape'. I intended to make that distinction anyway - hence 'sex than money' and 'un-sex' - but I was posting/editing in haste and didn't catch that.
My _point_, that was addressed in neither instance, is that you can't redress sexual acts in the same way you can financial ones. That's why the financial analogies fail.
Sorry havent been on here in a while but I have to address this. If we go back to my example of a super drunk rich person giving away money... would they have a legal way to go about forcing you to give them back the money? I doubt it. If someone hands you cash there is no way for them to prove what happened and even if they did, how likely is a judge to decide "yeah that guy was drunk give him back his money"?
If that's the way it worked I can imagine a lot of shrewd business people would have a drink or two (and make sure someone saw them) before making business deals so if it went to ***** they could come back and claim being to intoxicated to make that decision.
On a different note (not responding to the quote anymore). I really really hate it when people start trying to claim that people should have zero responsibility to protect themselves. It's pure bull***** and you should know that. I know that I should lock my doors when I am not home, I know I should not leave my keys in my car, I know I should not leave valuables in plain view in my car, I know I should not just start running across a crosswalk on a busy street, I know I should not walk through downtown Detroit in the dark by myself. Does that mean it's my "fault" if I get robbed or hurt after doing one of these things? Kinda. Yeah, you should not get robbed no matter what you do. Failing to protect yourself is not an excuse for the criminal but it is doing yourself a disservice. If you pass out drunk holding a giant wad of cash in a bar, it is still wrong and illegal for someone to take your fat wad of cash, but you are also an idiot for putting yourself in that situation.
To me, responsibility simply means that you yourself took some action that contributed to some event. That's pretty much all I mean by it.
If that's what you mean, that's what you mean. But know that it's not what most people mean, or what the law means. So when you say that a drunken person is "responsible" in this situation, people are going to interpret that as you blaming the victim, and it is not unreasonable of them to do so. Try using the term "volition" or "agency" instead.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
If that's what you mean, that's what you mean. But know that it's not what most people mean, or what the law means. So when you say that a drunken person is "responsible" in this situation, people are going to interpret that as you blaming the victim, and it is not unreasonable of them to do so. Try using the term "volition" or "agency" instead.
You're right. I've been using the wrong word the entire time!
I am saying that I believe the law is vague enough such that people with beliefs such as LordOwingtonIII and folks in that website I presented can use it for their own ends, which I believe is decidedly against what the majority of the people in this thread believes in.
Simply quoting those people does not constitute evidence that the law is too vague.
Dude. We've already been over this.
Car accidents aren't a crime. Because accidents can happen. Drunk car accidents are most decidedly a crime.
Why? You wrote it yourself!
"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."
So it is the act of being drunk that makes it illegal and a crime. Because being sufficiently drunk (I'll be using this phrase from now on for consistency's sake) impairs your ability to drive safely.
Driving unsafely is a crime whether you are drunk or not. Being drunk is just one way in which you might be unable to drive safely.
This is also an asinine argument.
This is like saying I don't have a responsibility to protect myself from theft or murder or anything bad happening to me for that matter.
OF COURSE I HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT MYSELF FROM BAD THINGS HAPPENING TO ME.
And if you know that being sufficiently drunk prevents yourself from fulfilling said responsibility, then you shouldn't get sufficiently drunk.
Edit- There's a whole line of thought that is supposed to connect things together here, but honestly I'm much too tired to expand on it right now.
Perceptive people should be able to notice it, since I've been implying it but not outright saying it thus far because I'm worried it would make me look evil.
I'll pick it up after I've slept.
I disagree. The only person responsible for a crime is the person who commits the crime. I do not have some active responsibility to make sure I am not raped - if I get raped, the person who is responsible for that is the rapist. This doesn't change if I'm drunk.
Leaving alcohol aside for a moment: in the case where a person is genetically mentally impaired and therefore of sufficiently-unsound-judgement, should it be considered rape to have sex with them?
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?
[
So you never lock your home or car? You leave cash laying out? etc...
I lock my home and my car, but not because I have a responsibility to do so. If I leave my house unlocked and someone comes in and takes my stuff, the only person who has failed to live up to their responsibilities is the robber.
Simply quoting those people does not constitute evidence that the law is too vague.
I didn't quote them to provide evidence that the law is vague.
I am claiming that the law IS vague, and vague enough that people with opinions like that of LordOwingtonIII and those folks behind that website can use it in a manner that I strongly disagree with.
Driving unsafely is a crime whether you are drunk or not. Being drunk is just one way in which you might be unable to drive safely.
It could be argued that falling asleep while driving is the single most dangerous/unsafe thing you can do while driving. You truly have no ability to control your actions while you sleep.
Falling asleep while driving is not a crime in quite a number of states.
Point being- You are flat out wrong when you write "Driving unsafely is a crime whether you are drunk or not."
Drunk driving is not targeted because it makes you an unsafe driver. It is targeted because you are drunk, and because there are a number of negative connotations connected to being drunk.
I disagree. The only person responsible for a crime is the person who commits the crime. I do not have some active responsibility to make sure I am not raped - if I get raped, the person who is responsible for that is the rapist. This doesn't change if I'm drunk.
You are also responsible to keep yourself safe and secure. In fact, the entire point of the lives of most people is to find that security and safety. That's sort of why we work to gain resources. Resources that make us more secure and feel safer.
Thus, of course you have an active responsibility to make sure you're not raped, or that no crime happens to you in the first place. Those things are labeled as crimes BECAUSE they rob us of our ability to secure ourselves and feel safe.
As such, to claim otherwise is to claim that you don't have a responsibility to keep yourself safe.
And if you do claim that, then I have nothing more to say to you because I can't take you seriously.
I lock my home and my car, but not because I have a responsibility to do so. If I leave my house unlocked and someone comes in and takes my stuff, the only person who has failed to live up to their responsibilities is the robber.
If not responsibility, what would you call protecting yourself? I can't imagine you live in a fairy-tale where you believe that no matter what you do nothing bad will ever happen to you. By locking your doors you accept that on some level you can do something to protect yourself/your belongings.
Rape seems to be literally the only crime where when suggestions for how to avoid being a victim are raised masses of people shout about how wrong it is to suggest that people try to protect themselves.
Person A: This is a good way to avoid being raped.
Person B: OMG how dare you suggest such a thing!!!! people should just stop raping!!!!
Person A: This is a good way to not have you stuff stolen.
Person B: Thanks for the suggestion.
1. The University's sexual misconduct policy shall apply to all members of the University community (students, faculty, staff, administrators). The type and severity of the punishment for a particular offense shall be comparable among all these groups (i.e. if the punishment for a student guilty of sexual assault is expulsion, a faculty, staff member, or administrator guilty of the same offense shall be removed or fired).
2. Sexual assault has three elements: A, B, and C. All three must be true to convict.
(A) Physical sexual activity occurred between the victim and the accused.
(B) At the time the sexual activity occurred, one or both of the following were true:
i. the sexual activity was unwanted from the perspective of the victim, or;
ii. the victim could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity (due to unconsciousness, intoxication, mental disability, or any other reason).
(C) An objectively reasonable person, standing in the shoes of the accused at the time the sexual activity took place, would not have believed the sexual activity was consensual. [This could also be phrased as "The accused did not posses an objectively reasonable belief that the sexual activity was consensual."]
How is this policy not superior to the new UC policy?
If not responsibility, what would you call protecting yourself?
I generally call it "protecting yourself". The difference is that "responsibility" implies an obligation. If you don't live up to a responsibility, like driving carefully or making the mortgage payment or feeding your children, then you have done something morally and/or legally wrong. But you're not in the wrong if you keep your doors unlocked or post your name and SSN online or leave your wallet where anyone can get it. It's better for you if you don't, of course, but you're morally and legally free to do it.
Rape seems to be literally the only crime where when suggestions for how to avoid being a victim are raised masses of people shout about how wrong it is to suggest that people try to protect themselves.
Person A: This is a good way to avoid being raped.
Person B: OMG how dare you suggest such a thing!!!! people should just stop raping!!!!
Person A: This is a good way to not have you stuff stolen.
Person B: Thanks for the suggestion.
Seriously? WTF.
Rape is an especially sensitive subject, but you can cause friction on just about any subject if you patronize people with unsolicited advice. Wouldn't you be really annoyed if you suffered a break-in and then random strangers on the internet started saying, "You had it coming; you should have put bear traps under all your windows"? The key is really just to be mindful of the time, place, and manner in which you offer your opinion. Women actually do think about, and discuss with people they trust, cautious drinking habits and safe walking routes and the use of Mace and other means of avoiding assault; they don't live in your fairy-tale world either. But recent victims don't need to hear all that, especially not from people they've never met.
If not responsibility, what would you call protecting yourself?
I generally call it "protecting yourself". The difference is that "responsibility" implies an obligation. If you don't live up to a responsibility, like driving carefully or making the mortgage payment or feeding your children, then you have done something morally and/or legally wrong. But you're not in the wrong if you keep your doors unlocked or post your name and SSN online or leave your wallet where anyone can get it. It's better for you if you don't, of course, but you're morally and legally free to do it.
It would be interesting to see how a case would go if a person did post all of their financial info online and had it stolen. I imagine that the credit card companies would not be as quick to forgive the fraudulent purchases and I imagine that there would be a decent chance of courts siding with them.
It would be interesting to see how a case would go if a person did post all of their financial info online and had it stolen. I imagine that the credit card companies would not be as quick to forgive the fraudulent purchases and I imagine that there would be a decent chance of courts siding with them.
You're free to put your own assets at risk, not the assets of the credit card company. They are well within their rights to expect you to use caution when it's their money on the line. That doesn't tell us anything interesting about the issue of responsibility in this thread.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"The words or other acts of one of the parties have but one reasonable meaning, his undisclosed intention is immaterial except when an unreasonable meaning which he attaches to his manifestations is known to the other party"
As in, drunk or not, if you act in a way that has one reasonable meaning, it has that meaning unless you indicate otherwise.
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
How would you word the law to take the degree of drunkenness into account, given that accurate blood measurements at the time are likely unobtainable?
Except that is exactly what LordOwingtonIII and people here-
http://www.stsm.org/myths-and-facts-about-sexual-assault-and-consent
are saying.
Look specifically at these in the link-
I mean... what does "intoxicated" mean?
Merriam-Webster defines it as-
"affected by alcohol or drugs"
Which is incredibly vague and broad. As I've been repeatedly bringing up, drunk, or in this case intoxicated, can mean "becoming more uninhibited when compared to one's normal behavior" to "losing fine control over basic motor skills like walking" to "incapable of staying conscious and so passing out".
Hopefully you can see why I'm alarmed. Could it be overly dramatic? Sure. But given what I've read from advocates on this matter, I personally feel that my alarmist attitude is warranted.
Advocates tend to be extreme in their advocacy, for a variety of reasons. Allowing them to take control over the political process/power and the narrative is rarely a good idea.
-----
Lastly, and back to the drunk driver comparison-
You wrote this earlier-
"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."
And I responded with "exactly!".
I did so because, as I wrote, I believe that a person never loses responsibility over their actions, regardless of their mental state. If you realize that being overly drunk can impair your ability to respond to events or situations, then you need to deal with it appropriately. People get outraged over drunk driving PRECISELY because those who drive while drunk (presumably) realize the dangers, but do so anyways.
This is also why people rarely forgive dangerous behaviors and actions people take while drunk. Because you should have known better. You should have known that your ability to control what happens in a meaningful fashion is greatly reduced (possibly to the point of nil) if you are drunk, and so you should never allow yourself to get that drunk in the first place.
But as soon as the conversation turns to drunk women and consent, me saying anything like the above makes me incredibly evil and insensitive.
Why?
Being drunk does not relieve one of the repsonsibility to avoid committing crimes. It also does not create a new repsonsbility to avoid being a victim. We'd say the same thing about someone who was conned out of money because they were too drunk to understand what was happening.
Because discussing sex in the states automatically creates a double standard. In any other situation, if you're drunk and mess up its on you. But with sex, if you're drunk and mess up the other person faces criminal charges.
As for measuring intoxication; How the hell can someone else be able to gauge if you are SO drunk that you can't make informed decisions? I know plenty of women that seem perfectly normal while on the verge of black-out drunk. Shouldn't we, as in ANY other situation, consider how the other party could reasonably interpret the situation? Reasonable observation seems to go out the window when sex is involved; why is that?
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
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
How broadly should I be interpreting the phrase 'mental state' here? If person A is slipped rohypnol, or a similar drug, by person B, and then they 'consent' to sex with person B, is person A responsible?
Also, in this thread, sex has been compared to contract transactions, and to gifts of money. Money can be given back, and transactions reversed. If the law is more cautious about sex than money, it's because you can't un-sex someone.
You're missing my point.
I am saying that I believe the law is vague enough such that people with beliefs such as LordOwingtonIII and folks in that website I presented can use it for their own ends, which I believe is decidedly against what the majority of the people in this thread believes in.
Dude. We've already been over this.
Car accidents aren't a crime. Because accidents can happen. Drunk car accidents are most decidedly a crime.
Why? You wrote it yourself!
"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."
So it is the act of being drunk that makes it illegal and a crime. Because being sufficiently drunk (I'll be using this phrase from now on for consistency's sake) impairs your ability to drive safely.
This is also an asinine argument.
This is like saying I don't have a responsibility to protect myself from theft or murder or anything bad happening to me for that matter.
OF COURSE I HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT MYSELF FROM BAD THINGS HAPPENING TO ME.
And if you know that being sufficiently drunk prevents yourself from fulfilling said responsibility, then you shouldn't get sufficiently drunk.
Edit- There's a whole line of thought that is supposed to connect things together here, but honestly I'm much too tired to expand on it right now.
Perceptive people should be able to notice it, since I've been implying it but not outright saying it thus far because I'm worried it would make me look evil.
I'll pick it up after I've slept.
Define responsible.
When I write "never loses responsibility" I am saying that a person is always responsible, to varying degrees, for the actions that they take and actions taken upon them.
But, here's the thing- Just because you need to take (partial) responsibility for something, doesn't mean you should be blamed either.
Blame and responsibility are two completely different things. I get the feeling that people conflate the two when it comes to sexual harassment and rape, and that is why advocates tend to make the claim that women are NEVER responsible for what happened to them.
To me, responsibility simply means that you yourself took some action that contributed to some event. That's pretty much all I mean by it. I mean it in the manner that you are a genuine being with the ability to make real choices. And you need to accept that you did make those choices.
This is why I think the "women cannot consent if they're drunk" attitude is treating women as dolls. Drunk or not, they still possess the ability to make choices. I think to claim that they are incapable of making choices is belittling them.
If I understand Fluffy_Bunny correctly, he was making the comparison on the basis of "drunk enough to make impaired decisions".
And please do not repeat the mistake that B_S told you about earlier.
Na, that thing is perfectly explainable.
The "adults" have now come to the conclusion that college students can't take care of themselves.
In short- they're infants who need their hands held.
Edit- On a probable tangent- I really do think a lot of laws these days are predicated on the assumption that people don't know well enough to take care of themselves. Thus, we need laws to take care of them.
But that's a whole different can of worms.
I'll go back and edit 'sex' in over 'rape'. I intended to make that distinction anyway - hence 'sex than money' and 'un-sex' - but I was posting/editing in haste and didn't catch that.
My _point_, that was addressed in neither instance, is that you can't redress sexual acts in the same way you can financial ones. That's why the financial analogies fail.
When someone is sufficiently-drunk, their judgement is impaired. They can still make choices, but those choices are not made with the full benefits of their faculties. That's the _point_. It's not belittling someone to observe that alcohol can impact their judgement, it's saying they have normal human physiology.
I don't think blame and responsibility are in fact "two completely different things". They're literally synonymous.
Sorry havent been on here in a while but I have to address this. If we go back to my example of a super drunk rich person giving away money... would they have a legal way to go about forcing you to give them back the money? I doubt it. If someone hands you cash there is no way for them to prove what happened and even if they did, how likely is a judge to decide "yeah that guy was drunk give him back his money"?
If that's the way it worked I can imagine a lot of shrewd business people would have a drink or two (and make sure someone saw them) before making business deals so if it went to ***** they could come back and claim being to intoxicated to make that decision.
On a different note (not responding to the quote anymore). I really really hate it when people start trying to claim that people should have zero responsibility to protect themselves. It's pure bull***** and you should know that. I know that I should lock my doors when I am not home, I know I should not leave my keys in my car, I know I should not leave valuables in plain view in my car, I know I should not just start running across a crosswalk on a busy street, I know I should not walk through downtown Detroit in the dark by myself. Does that mean it's my "fault" if I get robbed or hurt after doing one of these things? Kinda. Yeah, you should not get robbed no matter what you do. Failing to protect yourself is not an excuse for the criminal but it is doing yourself a disservice. If you pass out drunk holding a giant wad of cash in a bar, it is still wrong and illegal for someone to take your fat wad of cash, but you are also an idiot for putting yourself in that situation.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You're right. I've been using the wrong word the entire time!
Simply quoting those people does not constitute evidence that the law is too vague.
Driving unsafely is a crime whether you are drunk or not. Being drunk is just one way in which you might be unable to drive safely.
I disagree. The only person responsible for a crime is the person who commits the crime. I do not have some active responsibility to make sure I am not raped - if I get raped, the person who is responsible for that is the rapist. This doesn't change if I'm drunk.
So you never lock your home or car? You leave cash laying out? etc...
I lock my home and my car, but not because I have a responsibility to do so. If I leave my house unlocked and someone comes in and takes my stuff, the only person who has failed to live up to their responsibilities is the robber.
I didn't quote them to provide evidence that the law is vague.
I am claiming that the law IS vague, and vague enough that people with opinions like that of LordOwingtonIII and those folks behind that website can use it in a manner that I strongly disagree with.
It could be argued that falling asleep while driving is the single most dangerous/unsafe thing you can do while driving. You truly have no ability to control your actions while you sleep.
Falling asleep while driving is not a crime in quite a number of states.
Point being- You are flat out wrong when you write "Driving unsafely is a crime whether you are drunk or not."
Drunk driving is not targeted because it makes you an unsafe driver. It is targeted because you are drunk, and because there are a number of negative connotations connected to being drunk.
You are also responsible to keep yourself safe and secure. In fact, the entire point of the lives of most people is to find that security and safety. That's sort of why we work to gain resources. Resources that make us more secure and feel safer.
Thus, of course you have an active responsibility to make sure you're not raped, or that no crime happens to you in the first place. Those things are labeled as crimes BECAUSE they rob us of our ability to secure ourselves and feel safe.
As such, to claim otherwise is to claim that you don't have a responsibility to keep yourself safe.
And if you do claim that, then I have nothing more to say to you because I can't take you seriously.
If not responsibility, what would you call protecting yourself? I can't imagine you live in a fairy-tale where you believe that no matter what you do nothing bad will ever happen to you. By locking your doors you accept that on some level you can do something to protect yourself/your belongings.
Rape seems to be literally the only crime where when suggestions for how to avoid being a victim are raised masses of people shout about how wrong it is to suggest that people try to protect themselves.
Person A: This is a good way to avoid being raped.
Person B: OMG how dare you suggest such a thing!!!! people should just stop raping!!!!
Person A: This is a good way to not have you stuff stolen.
Person B: Thanks for the suggestion.
Seriously? WTF.
1. The University's sexual misconduct policy shall apply to all members of the University community (students, faculty, staff, administrators). The type and severity of the punishment for a particular offense shall be comparable among all these groups (i.e. if the punishment for a student guilty of sexual assault is expulsion, a faculty, staff member, or administrator guilty of the same offense shall be removed or fired).
2. Sexual assault has three elements: A, B, and C. All three must be true to convict.
(A) Physical sexual activity occurred between the victim and the accused.
(B) At the time the sexual activity occurred, one or both of the following were true:
i. the sexual activity was unwanted from the perspective of the victim, or;
ii. the victim could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity (due to unconsciousness, intoxication, mental disability, or any other reason).
(C) An objectively reasonable person, standing in the shoes of the accused at the time the sexual activity took place, would not have believed the sexual activity was consensual. [This could also be phrased as "The accused did not posses an objectively reasonable belief that the sexual activity was consensual."]
How is this policy not superior to the new UC policy?
Rape is an especially sensitive subject, but you can cause friction on just about any subject if you patronize people with unsolicited advice. Wouldn't you be really annoyed if you suffered a break-in and then random strangers on the internet started saying, "You had it coming; you should have put bear traps under all your windows"? The key is really just to be mindful of the time, place, and manner in which you offer your opinion. Women actually do think about, and discuss with people they trust, cautious drinking habits and safe walking routes and the use of Mace and other means of avoiding assault; they don't live in your fairy-tale world either. But recent victims don't need to hear all that, especially not from people they've never met.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It would be interesting to see how a case would go if a person did post all of their financial info online and had it stolen. I imagine that the credit card companies would not be as quick to forgive the fraudulent purchases and I imagine that there would be a decent chance of courts siding with them.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.