Pickup Artists Preyed on Drunk Women, Brought Them Home, and Raped Them

[TirielWoW]

They think not wanting to deport all refugees, even the ones who've never committed any crimes, means you're willing to protect rapists if they're the right kind of rapist. Or something.

I haven't seen anyone on this forum say that actual rapists who are asylum seekers shouldn't be deported at the first opportunity. That bullshit seems to come squarely from idiot politicians and paper-pushers, and nowhere else. That's all I'm saying.

[Deleted]

A marriage that has not been consummated [/URL]

I am not seeing anything in there that says it gives you any right to rape your partner.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I think you're confusing people actually posting on this forum, and idiot bureaucrats.

Yeah it's weird, when you see these people say that people on this forum say stuff like that, you're like "nobody here has actually said that... a politician said it... once, but I've never actually seen people defend rapist refugees here."

Then they look stupid for trying to point it out, they know the look stupid, and they start flying off on tangents.

[Raelbo]

what is not 'okay' is not illegal.

Alright, gotcha. You're arguing about what existing laws say. I am arguing about what is right and how the law should change for a just society. As you see it, the law says XYZ and therefore this is how we are supposed to conduct ourselves. I call bullshit on that. There is right and there is wrong, and staying within the letter of law while ignoring the spirit of the law, ie knowing that what we are doing is wrong, then it's not ok, even if it is technically not illegal.

Yes but see it is not in fact about what the 'victim' thinks, but rather whetter or not a reasonable person believes the 'victim' consented or not. If we had super duper mind control technology, a 'victim' may feel raped as much as humanly possible, but it would still not matter if the accused reasonably believed there was consent.

This is essentially what I am saying if we could agree on the definition of consent. But it seems to me that in your opinion consent should have nothing to do with what a person wants so much as what they say. And while I agree that in many cases, we have to rely on what people say, in reality you have to consider the context in which it is said. Because in reality, as we all know, people can be coerced, forced, manipulated or tricked into saying things that do not correspond with what they want. And if it turns out that a rape accused had reasonable grounds to suspect that a given consent was only given due to some form of duress or incapacity on the part of the victim, then consent should be considered to null and void.

you know what this means though? women are not equal actors to men, which then leads to special protections to protect them.
I don't know about you but treating all women as if they are retarded or children is, Misogynist.

The funny thing is that I have taken care to ensure that my entire argument is gender neutral. ie the principles apply equally to men and women. The whole gender issue was put there by you. Then again, you're a famous misogynist on these forums. It's clear every time you comment on these rape cases.

No, not plain and simple - People who are drunk are capable of consent.

I said this before and I'll say it again. You are being disingenuous.

People who are drunk cannot be relied upon to provide accurate judgment. Period. We all know this. Which is why a lot of people will, in order to have sex with someone who they believe doesn't really want to, get them drunk in the hopes that they'll act stupidly.

This is not ok, and pretty only a sociopath would think it is.

because legally this do not and should not matter.

I am talking about a double standard on your part. Which explains why are incapable of recognising why existing laws might not be adequate.

FYI, I haven't at any stage in my argument tried to define what the law should say. What I have tried to do is lay down a set of principles that the law should seek to defend. Your principle seems to be that the law should primarily be concerned with protecting the rights of a falsely convicted rape accused. My argument is that such a stance is idiotic. The law should be primarily concerned with justice. Which in the case of rape means giving less benefit of the doubt on the accused, and more to the victim, because clearly in the past the balance has not been right, which has allowed rapists to basically operate unimpeded.

One of the implications of such a change in the way the law works is that it would place more burden on people to be more circumspect before having sex with other people. I cannot see that as a bad thing. In fact the way I see it is that the only people who would object are people who believe that it is ok to get sex from people who don't really want to give it, and I see no reason to entertain their wishes.



In short, if someone chooses to act recklessly and stupidly and carelessly when engaging is sex with someone, and they then get accused of rape, they have only themselves to blame and should be prepared to suffer the consequences of a possible criminal conviction.

Just as much as you are happy for a rape victim, who chose to act recklessly stupidly and carelessly and thus ended up getting raped, to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

[Deleted]

Alright, gotcha. You're arguing about what existing laws say. I am arguing about what is right and how the law should change for a just society. As you see it, the law says XYZ and therefore this is how we are supposed to conduct ourselves. I call bullshit on that. There is right and there is wrong, and staying within the letter of law while ignoring the spirit of the law, ie knowing that what we are doing is wrong, then it's not ok, even if it is technically not illegal.

I dont care about what is 'not okay, or okay'.
And i don't want this subset made illegal, because you cant reasonably separate okay acts from not okay acts.
If two people go out and drink, then meet and have sex, that is okay.
The alternative, 'not okay', is not discernible from the other behavior - And I would rather not make legal behavior illegal.

This is essentially what I am saying if we could agree on the definition of consent. But it seems to me that in your opinion consent should have nothing to do with what a person wants so much as what they say.

because if person A answers affirmative to the question 'do you want to watch Netflix and chill' It is reasonable to assume there is consent.

And while I agree that in many cases, we have to rely on what people say, in reality you have to consider the context in which it is said. Because in reality, as we all know, people can be coerced, forced, manipulated or tricked into saying things that do not correspond with what they want. And if it turns out that a rape accused had reasonable grounds to suspect that a given consent was only given due to some form of duress or incapacity on the part of the victim, then consent should be considered to null and void.

Those exemptions already exist - Its called the reasonable person standard.

The funny thing is that I have taken care to ensure that my entire argument is gender neutral. ie the principles apply equally to men and women. The whole gender issue was put there by you. Then again, you're a famous misogynist on these forums. It's clear every time you comment on these rape cases.

lets not pretend this 'gender neutral' shit works here - Its men that will be charged exclusively.

I said this before and I'll say it again. You are being disingenuous.

How can i discern another person's relative alcohol impairment, and then compare it to an objective standard when evaluating their answer?

People who are drunk cannot be relied upon to provide accurate judgment. Period. We all know this. Which is why a lot of people will, in order to have sex with someone who they believe doesn't really want to, get them drunk in the hopes that they'll act stupidly.

If they voluntarily imbibed, they are liable for their actions still.
Regretting saying yes the night before does not magically turn it into rape.

This is not ok, and pretty only a sociopath would think it is.

I have never gotten a girl drunk with the intent to sleep with her (or gotten a girl drunk for any intent and then slept with her).

Your principle seems to be that the law should primarily be concerned with protecting the rights of a falsely convicted rape accused. people.

Yes, because that is a cornerstone of a justice system.

Which in the case of rape means giving less benefit of the doubt on the accused, and more to the victim, because clearly in the past the balance has not been right, which has allowed rapists to basically operate unimpeded.

Why not for all crimes? - Are rape victims more trustworthy? Is rape more heinous?
Why not get rid of all due process for everything?
Oh and since you are now proffering a 'listen and believe' mantra, last month when i visited Cape town for a day, you raped me.

One of the implications of such a change in the way the law works is that it would place more burden on people to be more circumspect before having sex with other people. I cannot see that as a bad thing. In fact the way I see it is that the only people who would object are people who believe that it is ok to get sex from people who don't really want to give it, and I see no reason to entertain their wishes.

Having sex is legal, so discerning the legal acts from the illegal acts is hard, its even harder when there is no evidence - As long as evidence of sex is just evidence of sex, this is never going to be resolved.
I have a better idea, an idea that will solve this problem completely:
All sex is now illegal, only exempting marriage, isn't that a wonderful idea?

Just as much as you are happy for a rape victim, who chose to act recklessly stupidly and carelessly and thus ended up getting raped, to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

yeah no.
Recognizing that there is nothing to be done for someone who feel raped, if they weren't actually raped, is not the same thing as being 'happy' - Far from.

Too many young middleclass women, raised far from the urban streets, seem to expect adult life to be an extension of their comfortable, overprotected homes. But the world remains a wilderness. The price of women’s modern freedoms is personal responsibility for vigilance and self-defense.

[TirielWoW]

Yeah it's weird, when you see these people say that people on this forum say stuff like that, you're like "nobody here has actually said that... a politician said it... once, but I've never actually seen people defend rapist refugees here."

Then they look stupid for trying to point it out, they know the look stupid, and they start flying off on tangents.

Yes. You can point out that the behavior is beyond the pale, and those who exhibit it should be punished and removed (because we don't want them, quite frankly, and no, it doesn't matter if mommy never explained to them that they can't just rape the nearest woman showing skin), and also support the resettlement of innocent people who just want to live without bombs falling on their heads. These things are not mutually exclusive.

[AndaliteBandit]

If two people go out and drink, then meet and have sex, that is okay.
The alternative, 'not okay', is not discernible from the other behavior - And I would rather not make legal behavior illegal.

Four people testified that she had passed out in a puddle of her own vomit.

But you cannot discern the difference between that and someone who is a little tipsy.

[Deleted]

Four people testified that she had passed out in a puddle of her own vomit.

But you cannot discern the difference between that and someone who is a little tipsy.

please don't quote me out of context here.
the person i replied to want to make more acts illegal - I oppose that, that does not mean i oppose any acts that currently are illegal being illegal.
In short, i wasn't talking about this case.

[CMartel]

When has that ever happened in the USA?

They are handing out infractions for those who would provide links so if you want to know you will have to use a search engine.

[Raelbo]

the person i replied to want to make more acts illegal

No I don't. I want the legal system to become more effective at recognising rape as rape. Rape itself is already illegal.

- - - Updated - - -

I dont care about what is 'not okay, or okay'.

Yep, glad we cleared that up.

If two people go out and drink, then meet and have sex, that is okay.
The alternative, 'not okay', is not discernible from the other behavior - And I would rather not make legal behavior illegal.

Of course it's ok, provided that both people actually want that. What is not ok is one person seeking to take advantage of another person in a drunken state.

lets not pretend this 'gender neutral' shit works here - Its men that will be charged exclusively.

My argument is gender neutral though.

How can i discern another person's relative alcohol impairment, and then compare it to an objective standard when evaluating their answer?

If they voluntarily imbibed, they are liable for their actions still.
Regretting saying yes the night before does not magically turn it into rape.

Here's the reality: Drunk people say and do stupid things, things they would not ordinarily do. People know this, and unscrupulous people will take advantage of it to rape others. It's that simple.

Here's a simple example: If I get my wife totally drunk and then get her to verbally agree to let me mortgage the house to buy a Porsche, I should absolutely expect her to go ballistic if I wake to the sound of a revving V8 Porsche engine the next morning. It would be obvious, given my knowledge of our finances and the kind of person my wife is, that she would never in a sober state agree to such an outrageous request, so tricking her into making an agreement while she is drunk is highly duplicitous and no reasonable person would expect her to honour such an agreement made in that way.

Simply put, consent given for sex by a drunk person should never, as a matter of principle, be taken at face value. The facts and context surrounding the event and the people involved should also be taken into consideration to determine whether consent could reasonably have been expected by the person requesting it. Now obviously with sex it can be tricky to discern fact from fiction, but that is the job of a judge to figure out based on evidence, both hard and circumstantial.

As a matter of principle, regarding what should be considered as "valid" consent: If the initiator of the sex doesn't have any firm reason to believe that the drunk person they intend to have sex would have said yes in a more sober state, or if they had any reason at all to believe that the drunk person would have said no, then they should consider consent to not have been given and proceed accordingly.

I honestly cannot understand your reluctance to accept such a principle. Is the "right" to sex really that important that, when it doubt, we should simply assume that consent is valid and risk the other person experiencing the event as a rape? Surely it is far more reasonable standard is that when in doubt, we should simply pass up sex and wait until we are in a better position to assess whether this is really what the other person wants?

Because really that is exactly what rape is all about: People having sex with other people who don't want it. And while I get that it sucks if the person you want to have sex with doesn't want to have sex with you, tricking them into it doesn't suddenly make it ok.

I have never gotten a girl drunk with the intent to sleep with her (or gotten a girl drunk for any intent and then slept with her).

I never said you did. But your argument seems to indicate that you have no qualms if other people did this.

Why not for all crimes? - Are rape victims more trustworthy? Is rape more heinous?
Why not get rid of all due process for everything?
Oh and since you are now proffering a 'listen and believe' mantra, last month when i visited Cape town for a day, you raped me.

What I am saying is that the principle of reasonable doubt needs to become a bit more reasonable which is achievable if the law starts placing a greater burden on people to provide justification for why they believed that consent was indeed valid, as opposed to the opposite approach which requires 100% proof that consent was denied.

The mindset needs to change from "I didn't notice anything that should indicate that he/she didn't want it" to "I noticed XYZ that indicated she did". And if someone's justification for why they thought consent was given is dodgy, then they have only themselves to blame when they are charged with rape. The status quo actively encourages would be rapists to actively avoid any form of definitive answer on the question of consent because they are given the benefit of the doubt.

Having sex is legal, so discerning the legal acts from the illegal acts is hard, its even harder when there is no evidence - As long as evidence of sex is just evidence of sex, this is never going to be resolved.
I have a better idea, an idea that will solve this problem completely:
All sex is now illegal, only exempting marriage, isn't that a wonderful idea?

That is utterly misrepresentative of anything I have been saying. What I am saying is that having sex with someone whose consent is in doubt should put you at risk of landing on the wrong side of the law. What I am saying is that we need to stop assuming that "grey area" consent is affirmative. People should, at least in their own minds, be certain, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the person they intend to have sex with wants it too.

Recognizing that there is nothing to be done for someone who feel raped, if they weren't actually raped, is not the same thing as being 'happy' - Far from.

Saying you're "happy" with the situation is simply a common figure of speech implying you accept the situation without objection. It's pretty clear that in your opinion, if someone gets completely drunk and some unscrupulous person takes advantage of the situation, then the entire burden of responsibility lies with the person who are got drunk, and the person who took advantage is entitled to do whatever they please.

[Canpinter]

No I don't. I want the legal system to become more effective at recognising rape as rape. Rape itself is already illegal.

only if the alleged rapists cannot reasonably believe he/she has consent. what your doing is basically trying to remove mens rea. In order for someone to be guilty or rape they must both have sex with someone who did not consent, AND know, or should have known by the reasonable person standard, they are doing so.

with some cases this is easy, no reasonable person would think that if they jump out of the bushes at night bash a women over the head with a rock and drags her into his van to have sex would think she was consenting. But when alcohol is involved it becomes much more grey because everyone has different reactions to alcohol and not everyone displays intoxication the same. someone passed out in a pool of their own vomit definitely cant consent, but someone staggering a bit with some slurred speech?

[Raelbo]

only if the alleged rapists cannot reasonably believe he/she has consent. what your doing is basically trying to remove mens rea. In order for someone to be guilty or rape they must both have sex with someone who did not consent, AND know, or should have known by the reasonable person standard, they are doing so.

Agreed. That being said, and as is evident from the attitudes of some posters here, there are people who refuse to even acknowledge what consent actually means. As far as they're concerned as long as the word "yes" was said at some, then the sex was consensual, even if it was patently obvious that the consenter didn't want it, or was so totally non compos mentis that they could not have known what they were saying.

But when alcohol is involved it becomes much more grey because everyone has different reactions to alcohol and not everyone displays intoxication the same. someone passed out in a pool of their own vomit definitely cant consent, but someone staggering a bit with some slurred speech?

Agreed. But part of my argument is that we should recognise grey areas as grey areas and assume that by default consent given under such circumstances shouldn't be trustworthy. The problem is a lot of people don't like this idea because it means less easy sex and being a bit more responsible. And while I accept that this leads to less "fun" in a lot of cases, I don't believe that "fun" is justified by the price we as society pay in terms of rape.

Look, in the end, when any rape case is heard, the context has to be considered on it's own merits. I am not saying that people cannot mix sex and alcohol. But what I am saying is that we need to start being a bit more circumspect about it, and take it into account when propositioning sex. As a general rule of thumb, hooking up with a drunk stranger should be something that people regard as risky behaviour, not a free fuck.

I simply cannot respect the opinion of someone like GoblinP who reckons that if the opportunity for sex presents itself you just go ahead and take advantage, and hey, if the person is upset about it and "feels" raped the next day, it's their problem. Rather be objective in your assessment that this is what the other person wants before going ahead, and if in doubt, rather just back off. Because in the end the difference is one person getting easy sex vs another person being raped. They're totally not comparable.

[Deleted]

No I don't. I want the legal system to become more effective at recognising rape as rape. Rape itself is already illegal.

Rape has a definition - You want for more acts to count as rape.
What part of that was off?

Yep, glad we cleared that up.

because i recognized ages ago that making laws based on mere morality does not end well.

Of course it's ok, provided that both people actually want that. What is not ok is one person seeking to take advantage of another person in a drunken state.

my scenario and your scenario have some indiscernible overlap.

My argument is gender neutral though.

the enforcement wont be.

"How can i discern another person's relative alcohol impairment, and then compare it to an objective standard when evaluating their answer?"
you missed that one.

Here's the reality: Drunk people say and do stupid things, things they would not ordinarily do. People know this, and unscrupulous people will take advantage of it to rape others. It's that simple.

Its only rape if the person was in a vulnerable state, having a few beers and then making a bad choice, is not rape.

Simply put, consent given for sex by a drunk person should never, as a matter of principle, be taken at face value.

This line of reasoning will effectively make any male sleeping with a female a criminal.

The law will create "a haze of fear and confusion over what counts as consent."

That's a quote from a proponent of affirmative consent - That's the very point of the garbage you peddle.

As a matter of principle, regarding what should be considered as "valid" consent: If the initiator of the sex doesn't have any firm reason to believe that the drunk person they intend to have sex would have said yes in a more sober state, or if they had any reason at all to believe that the drunk person would have said no, then they should consider consent to not have been given and proceed accordingly.

So learn mind reading and time travel.

I honestly cannot understand your reluctance to accept such a principle.

Because it is patently unjust and authoritarian on its face and will in practice be draconian sexism.

Because really that is exactly what rape is all about: People having sex with other people who don't want it.

At that particular moment, not in a week or a month, but during the act.

I never said you did. But your argument seems to indicate that you have no qualms if other people did this.

My moral compass also things abortions should be illegal - Why isn't that a valid law to base on morality?

What I am saying is that the principle of reasonable doubt needs to become a bit more reasonable which is achievable if the law starts placing a greater burden on people to provide justification for why they believed that consent was indeed valid, as opposed to the opposite approach which requires 100% proof that consent was denied.

To require the defndant to prove anything or do anything means no longer placing the burden of proof on the prosecution - Again, Authoritarian and draconian.

That is utterly misrepresentative of anything I have been saying. What I am saying is that having sex with someone whose consent is in doubt should put you at risk of landing on the wrong side of the law. What I am saying is that we need to stop assuming that "grey area" consent is affirmative. People should, at least in their own minds, be certain, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the person they intend to have sex with wants it too.

Another quote from a proponent of an affirmative consent law:

If successful, the law will cause all or most college men "to feel a cold spike of fear when they begin a sexual encounter."

Saying you're "happy" with the situation is simply a common figure of speech implying you accept the situation without objection. It's pretty clear that in your opinion, if someone gets completely drunk and some unscrupulous person takes advantage of the situation, then the entire burden of responsibility lies with the person who are got drunk, and the person who took advantage is entitled to do whatever they please.

I recognize that the justice system must acquit in many such situations because a non trivial amount of those cases are not even remotely speaking 'immoral' or illegal.

[Canpinter]

Agreed. That being said, and as is evident from the attitudes of some posters here, there are people who refuse to even acknowledge what consent actually means. As far as they're concerned as long as the word "yes" was said at some, then the sex was consensual, even if it was patently obvious that the consenter didn't want it, or was so totally non compos mentis that they could not have known what they were saying.



Agreed. But part of my argument is that we should recognise grey areas as grey areas and assume that by default consent given under such circumstances shouldn't be trustworthy. The problem is a lot of people don't like this idea because it means less easy sex and being a bit more responsible. And while I accept that this leads to less "fun" in a lot of cases, I don't believe that "fun" is justified by the price we as society pay in terms of rape.

Look, in the end, when any rape case is heard, the context has to be considered on it's own merits. I am not saying that people cannot mix sex and alcohol. But what I am saying is that we need to start being a bit more circumspect about it, and take it into account when propositioning sex. As a general rule of thumb, hooking up with a drunk stranger should be something that people regard as risky behaviour, not a free fuck.

I simply cannot respect the opinion of someone like GoblinP who reckons that if the opportunity for sex presents itself you just go ahead and take advantage, and hey, if the person is upset about it and "feels" raped the next day, it's their problem. Rather be objective in your assessment that this is what the other person wants before going ahead, and if in doubt, rather just back off. Because in the end the difference is one person getting easy sex vs another person being raped. They're totally not comparable.

so you acknowledge that what your are proposing would result in a lot more innocent people going to jail but that its worth it to send more actual rapists to jail as well? Because with your new definition, most people are both rapists and rape victims. hell by your definition i'm a rape survivor because i had sex i defiantly would not have had sober.

[Raelbo]

so you acknowledge that what your are proposing would result in a lot more innocent people going to jail but that its worth it to send more actual rapists to jail as well?

Absolutely not. Maybe a few more, but certainly not a lot more. You need to acknowledge that any justice system will occasionally result in innocent people being found guilty and that the pursuit of reducing this number to zero would completely incapacitate any effort to find guilty people guilty.

In other words, while we should always try to minimise the chance of finding the non-guilty guilty it has to be done within reason. Hence the words "reasonable doubt" as opposed to "any doubt".

Because with your new definition, most people are both rapists and rape victims. hell by your definition i'm a rape survivor because i had sex i defiantly would not have had sober.

I suppose if you decide to cherry pick elements of what I said I can understand that you could draw such a conclusion. But this certainly is not what I was saying, nor is it a logical extension of what I have said when taken in full context.

Having sex with someone who is not sober is not by any definition rape. It is only rape if the "victim" can be considered to have their judgement seriously compromised and that in the absence of intoxication, consent would not have been likely.

At no point have I ever argued that simply having sex with someone who is intoxicated is automatically rape. What I am saying is that under certain conditions it can be and that a "yes" given while intoxicated is in and of itself insufficient to be considered consent.

What I am saying is that where consent is dubious, it should be assumed to be a no rather than a yes. This should be obvious. My guess is that some people don't like it because:
1) They've never been a victim of rape and don't believe it will ever happen to them
2) Such a situation would make it more difficult to procure sex. ie it's an inconvenience

In the end, what I am advocating is that everyone should be a bit wary when it comes to having sex with drunk people and to establish the parameters of a sexual relationship in a state of sobriety. And if you're not prepared to do this, then accept that there could be consequences if the other person decides to make an accusation of rape.

While you'd call the rape accused innocent, I would argue that this is not the case. They may not be guilty of intentionally raping someone, but in the very least they are guilty of negligence.

It's exactly the same principle that applies if someone is drunk, you don't hand them the keys to your car and ask if they want to drive. It's reckless, negligent and can result in serious harm. And an excuse like "I didn't know that they would have an accident" or "But it was their choice" doesn't cut it if you knew that they were intoxicated.

[Canpinter]

Absolutely not. Maybe a few more, but certainly not a lot more. You need to acknowledge that any justice system will occasionally result in innocent people being found guilty and that the pursuit of reducing this number to zero would completely incapacitate any effort to find guilty people guilty.

In other words, while we should always try to minimise the chance of finding the non-guilty guilty it has to be done within reason. Hence the words "reasonable doubt" as opposed to "any doubt".



I suppose if you decide to cherry pick elements of what I said I can understand that you could draw such a conclusion. But this certainly is not what I was saying, nor is it a logical extension of what I have said when taken in full context.

Having sex with someone who is not sober is not by any definition rape. It is only rape if the "victim" can be considered to have their judgement seriously compromised and that in the absence of intoxication, consent would not have been likely.

At no point have I ever argued that simply having sex with someone who is intoxicated is automatically rape. What I am saying is that under certain conditions it can be and that a "yes" given while intoxicated is in and of itself insufficient to be considered consent.

What I am saying is that where consent is dubious, it should be assumed to be a no rather than a yes. This should be obvious. My guess is that some people don't like it because:
1) They've never been a victim of rape and don't believe it will ever happen to them
2) Such a situation would make it more difficult to procure sex. ie it's an inconvenience

In the end, what I am advocating is that everyone should be a bit wary when it comes to having sex with drunk people and to establish the parameters of a sexual relationship in a state of sobriety. And if you're not prepared to do this, then accept that there could be consequences if the other person decides to make an accusation of rape.

While you'd call the rape accused innocent, I would argue that this is not the case. They may not be guilty of intentionally raping someone, but in the very least they are guilty of negligence.

It's exactly the same principle that applies if someone is drunk, you don't hand them the keys to your car and ask if they want to drive.

you are literally reversing one of the corner stones of criminal law mens rea and criminalizing an act that most adults have done in there life ie having sex when they might not have had sober.

[Raelbo]

you are literally reversing one of the corner stones of criminal law mens rea and criminalizing an act that most adults have done in there life ie having sex when they might not have had sober.

That's a gross oversimplification of what I put some effort into explaining. As such it literally bears very little resemblance to what I was actually saying.

Essentially what you seem to be arguing is a false equivalence: namely that if we are to criminilise sex under one context in which the alleged victim is drunk, then that would mean that all contexts in which one participant is drunk should be crimilised.

A big part of the problem seems to stem from people who cannot cope with the idea that any degree of circumspection must be applied to a sexual encounter. You people want a hard and fast set of simple rules so that you can tick a checkbox and then say with absolute clarity whether something was rape or wasn't. What you fail to realise is that such a wish is impossible because of the myriad possible scenarios and how a subtle difference can be important.

If such a checklist existed, it would provide the perfect instruction set on how to get away with rape. Which is exactly why most efforts aimed at rape awareness focus on principles rather specific scenarios and rely on the human being in the equation to apply some degree of thought when applying those principles.

My argument has focused on one specific principle: A person who is intoxicated might not be capable of giving consent

How you apply this principle to a specific scenario depends on the scenario, and someone should be able to justify their application of the principle if he/she is to be safe from the possibility of a rape accusation and conviction down the line.

Anyhow I have devoted enough time to trying to explain this in rational terms to the obstinately stubborn among you. Most people get it first time, and can summarise it as follows:

Don't be douche. And if you are, don't be surprised when one day someone accuses you of rape and the rest of society sides with the victim.

If you make the effort to sincerely figure out what the person you intend to have sex with wants, and act accordingly, the odds of ever being accused of rape are slim, and the odds of actually being falsely convicted are close to zero.