Originally Posted by
spinner981
So basically, if the 'complainant', who would be the person who is 'raped' if such a rape is alleged, is incapable of giving consent, induced by somebody to have sex (induce - to lead or move by persuasion or influence, as to some action or state of mind), expresses a lack of agreement to have sex through either words or conduct or later expresses such lack of agreement during the activity.
So first things first. What qualifies as being 'incapable of giving consent' which I assume refers to consent given 'by words or conduct'. If somebody is drunk but still physically capable of what would be qualified as giving consent? Is that still rape? If so, how drunk do they have to be? Do they have to have zero alcohol in their system in order to be capable of giving consent? Does the person's drunkenness have to be known to the alleged 'rapist' in order for the rapist to be convicted of rape, or is the alleged 'rapist' out of luck if the 'complainant' gives consent but had a shot of beer a couple hours earlier? Where do we draw the line here and what does it mean to be 'incapable of giving consent'? What if both parties involved are drunk and/or therefore unable to give consent for whatever reason?
Second, what qualifies as words or conduct that expresses consent? Once again, where do we draw the line and why? Demanding that we do not discuss the semantics here is basically demanding that we discuss nothing. You make accusations and complaints about what people say, you just outright say people are wrong or false, and whenever somebody demands you give reasoning for your words you complain and tell them you don't need to and that it is just up to the jury or is in the law somewhere or something.