That's not how the law works though. Degree of drunkenness is an important aspect, if you're so drunk you don't understand wtf is going on then it's rape regardless of consent. Rape laws does not make drunk sex illegal, they make it illegal to engage in sexual acts with someone who doesn't know wtf is going on due to being too drunk.
Last edited by Freighter; 2017-07-25 at 01:01 AM.
Whatever go troll elsewhere.
- - - Updated - - -
Yeah and I think that's reasonable in principle. But a law like this is hard to apply. How do you know if someone is too drunk to know what's going on if they testify that they were conscious and able to respond to their environment? I think more concrete terms need to be applied here; otherwise it only serves as a means of siding with the sympathetic party.
Last edited by Underverse; 2017-07-25 at 01:08 AM.
I had to stop reading this thread by the third page of posts because it seems 75% of you think "blacked out" = "unconscious". It doesn't. In the case of drinking and alcohol "blacked out" simply means you don't have memory of what happened afterwards. It is impossible for other people to tell when someone else is at the stage of black out drunk because what it has to do with is forming memories, not their state of wakefulness at the time.
Exactly. And the problem is people don't care about the legal definition at the time, regardless of the fact that knowing when someone is unable to consent isn't always an objective thing. If someone is unconscious then clearly they are objectively unable to consent. Except blacking out and not remembering things except for a few blurred moments of the sexual encounter doesn't equivocate to the person being unconscious and not participating in having sex during the act. They could very well have been involved, even aggressively, and simply not remember it. And saying that there's a subjective magical line between having a buzz and unconscious that renders someone incapable of consenting is ridiculous. The reality is if we even-handedly charged people with rape in instances of drunken sex where they were, by legal definition, both incapable of consenting there'd be a hell of a lot of men and women charged with rape on a daily basis in about every college town or city in the US, let alone everyone else. The entire topic is sadly laughable because actual rape is a horrible thing. Regret, however, does not equal rape.
Passed out, can barely walk, puking on themselves? yeah, they cant consent.
2-3 beers, a good buzz going, unzipping some guys pants and blowing them? yeah, they are totally consenting.
There is a difference between buzzed and shitfaced. And the wording says if someone is that drunk they cannot consent to sex. So if they are both drunk, are we to assume the woman is the lesser human, being unable to consent while the equally drunk male can? If that is the argument, it sounds like a big steaming pile of horseshit. The girl in this case was obviously date raped. You cant throw a blanket law down when there are varying degrees of inebriation. If you are going to hold them to the "drunk is drunk" standard, then there should be no legal limit for DUI. any alcohol found in the system would be sufficient to arrest and charge. Shit's getting way out of hand, there has to be proper discernment.
1. Sucks for everyone involved in this particular story. Guy apparently tried to do the right thing, but it still went sideways, and the fact that they were friends before this makes it worse.
2. There is no objective standard of too drunk to consent. I have seen people pass out after 3 beers, I have seen other people rally after 15 shots, and retold the story of the entire night to everyone else the next day. Passed out is passed out, but it isn't immediately clear whether she was passed out and non responsive, or partially conscious but still apparently coherent. It can be exceedingly difficult to tell the difference in most cases.
3. Authority figures in general need to better informed about how to handle these types of situations, whether it is blaming the victim, or unjustly punishing the suspect based in a false accusation. Both happen with too high a frequency for any sane person to be comfortable with.
4. For the uninformed in this thread - a contract signed while under the influence of drugs or alcohol is unenforceable and will be voided by the courts if challenged in the vast majority of cases. This does not include spending your money on something you ordinarily wouldn't, but specifically putting pen to paper and agreeing to terms.
5. The idea that drunks-cant-consent means DUIs are not the responsibility of the drunk driver is abhorrent. There are laws specifically forbidding the operation of a motor vehicle above a given level of intoxication, objective assessment of whether the offender is above that level of intoxication, and absolutely zero grey area. Until we pass a law saying you can't consent above a 0.08 Blood Alcohol Level and start administering breathalyzers to would-be sexual partners, there is no such objectivity in cases like this.
All that said - I used to work at a retailer that sold mostly accurate breathalyzer keychains, and would highly recommend anyone intending to go out drinking with the intent to hook up get one, and use it. Much better to get rejected because the breathalyzer is a bitthreadsthan charged with rape because you couldn't be added to double check.
Also, agreed on banning these types of threads. I'm a new poster but a long time lurker, I've seen dozens of these threads, and they ALWAYS turn out the same way.
Last edited by Antiganon; 2017-07-25 at 01:49 AM.
if both are legally drunk no fault imo... or equal fault how can either consent? or read the other person?
Member: Dragon Flight Alpha Club, Member since 7/20/22
157.pants. Neslavas celšana
(1) Par apzināti nepatiesu, otru personu apkaunojošu izdomājumu tīšu izplatīšanu iespiestā vai citādā veidā pavairotā sacerējumā, kā arī mutvārdos, ja tā izdarīta publiski (neslavas celšana), —
soda ar piespiedu darbu vai ar naudas sodu.
(2) Par neslavas celšanu masu saziņas līdzeklī —
soda ar īslaicīgu brīvības atņemšanu vai ar piespiedu darbu, vai ar naudas sodu.
its not defamation if its true! they would have to prove its false for it to be defamation!
Last edited by mmocb949c9f970; 2017-07-25 at 02:05 AM.
The police didn't interview anyone for 5 days...was she supposed to collect the evidence herself? The police did perform a rape kit though..they just chose not to test it, cause you know "she shouldn't have drank so much"
Rape is also very hard to prove, thus convictions are hard to get. Some may view that as not-guilty, some may view it as "false accusation".
Last edited by chrisberb; 2017-07-25 at 02:06 AM.
--- Want any of my Constitutional rights?, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
I come from a time and a place where I judge people by the content of their character; I don't give a damn if you are tall or short; gay or straight; Jew or Gentile; White, Black, Brown or Green; Conservative or Liberal. -- Note to mods: if you are going to infract me have the decency to post the reason, and expect to hold everyone else to the same standard.
And if two drunk people start having sex, what then? WHAT THEN?!
Couple things:
Patently false.“If someone is under the influence, they cannot consent. They very literally can’t,” said Mason. “Society has infiltrated the minds of most people to say, well, you shouldn't have gotten drunk then.”
This is irrational logic. No intimate encounter proceeds in this manner. Logic dictates that if any point you want the encounter to stop, you say stop. Then it's the other person's responsibility to stop. If you're unconscious (not the same as "blacked out"), then obviously it's the other person's responsibility to stop.“It is the initiating partner’s responsibility to ensure that their partner is offering a full consent at every step of the sexual activity,” wrote Denis in an email.
So they were both unconscious?
"Black-out" drunk does not mean unconscious. It's the state in which your intoxication causes you to stop retaining memory. This typically happens while you're still conscious and capable of making decisions.
That's not how that word works.
Please, check your emo at the door.
How you do know they did? Were you there and did you see it happen? No? Then you don't know. Also, more than one ! or ? does not emphasize your statement. It just makes it look stupid.
It has everything to do with whether or not they're a rapist. Ask any judge.
Actually, they do. Your friend telling you it happened is neither evidence nor proof.
Actually, it's defamation it can't be proven to be true. Maybe learn how that works, eh?
Clearly the guy's a rapist still. Girls can't "rape" or take advantage of a guy. Ain't you heard? /s
judge dont have any say in if someone is rapist or not if people know they did it
no we dont need that!
no that is not how it works
157.pants. Neslavas celšana
(1) Par apzināti nepatiesu, otru personu apkaunojošu izdomājumu tīšu izplatīšanu iespiestā vai citādā veidā pavairotā sacerējumā, kā arī mutvārdos, ja tā izdarīta publiski (neslavas celšana), —
soda ar piespiedu darbu vai ar naudas sodu.
(2) Par neslavas celšanu masu saziņas līdzeklī —
translation of the law here would be would be
to knowingly distribute false statements, knowing them to be untrue and defamatory of another person, in printed or otherwise reprodeuced material, as well as orally, if made in public
if you know did they did it, it cant be false statements that are known to be untrue! that is like saying you cant call someone thief if they snatch your phone from your hands even if not convicted in court! not defamation to say what you know about people!
Last edited by mmocb949c9f970; 2017-07-25 at 02:51 AM.
If both were drunk well, this fits...
Blacking out just means you have no memory of it. Doesn't mean you aren't conscious.
Sure doesn't make it rape.
It's curious how feminists claim equal rights yet they want to absolve women of the consequences of their own actions by making them, ironically, look too immature to deal with them.
It's very simple, if you find yourself in such a situation stop drinking like a pig.
Absolutely disgusting and sexist.
Jesus Christ.
- - - Updated - - -
Another pants on head retarded thing. If you get drunk and start shit you get charged. If you get drunk and fuck someone the one you fuck gets charged.
What?