Confusion continues surrounding drunken consent

[Vyuvarax]

No, it's not. You can't give consent if substantially impaired (which I've already explained) due to intoxication. "Drunk" is a generic term used to cover a few drinks to passed out.



And again, she was capable of consenting given that she was able to walk to her car and carrying on a conversation.



Instigation is only applicable or relevant when there's a lack of consent. There was no demonstrable lack of consent.



No court, huh? So you're saying there's not a single court that understands what black-out drunk is? This has been explained ad nauseam and again, has neither a correlation nor relevance to one's cognitive abilities or the ability to consent.



Irony?



No, you have to prove she was substantially impaired. The fact that she walked to her car proves that to not be the case.



He was referring specifically to being drunk, not rape. That you insist on calling it "rape" when the girl is drunk is ignorant.



No, it's not. Most guys do the insertion. If she'd have asked him to fuck her (which could be the case), he still would have been the one putting it in. Clearly you know about as much about sex as you do law. Which isn't much.



Wrong. You have prove that she was substantially impaired, which is not black-out drunk and even if it was, her claiming to not remember is not proof. Failing that, you have to prove consent was not given. And, as a reminder, the burden of proof lies on the accuser.



Again, patently wrong.



That's right. But if two people consent, it's not rape and thus both are "instigating" it. That's how that actually works.



She was not passed out. Your analogy is irrelevant.

Your conception of substantially impaired isn't close to how the courts treat intoxication. Any toxicologist or DEA agent could testify as an expert witness and explain that if someone blacked out from being drunk they'd exhibit signs long before hand.

[Freighter]

If you cannot express yourself properly and demonstrably do not understand the posts of others (cannot spot subjunctive mood for one) then that can certainly give you the illusion that others misrepresent you. In truth, however, it is more a case of you misrepresenting yourself and misunderstanding others.

Nope.

"Then the guy could not have consented to have sex with her too so she raped him."

He explicitly said that he thinks she raped him too if she was raped under law.

[Vyuvarax]

So your definition of rape is "the guy did it" because he is the one with a penis.

Not what I said. If ability to give consent is in doubt for all parties then the party that acted is considered the guilty party. If she'd grabbed his dick and inserted it inside herself she'd be guilty instead.
Good thing the law isn't as sexist as you, eh.

[Noradin]

Nope.

"Then the guy could not have consented to have sex with her too so she raped him."

He explicitly said that he thinks she raped him too if she was raped under law.

Again you missed the subjunctive mood.
Maybe you should look it up?

- - - Updated - - -

Not what I said. If ability to give consent is in doubt for all parties then the party that acted is considered the guilty party. If she'd grabbed his dick and inserted it inside herself she'd be guilty instead.
Good thing the law isn't as sexist as you, eh.

And you are sure that isn't what she did?

[Vyuvarax]

And you are sure that isn't what she did?

Of course not. The facts as presented, however, make it extremely unlikely.

[Shinzai]

Not what I said. If ability to give consent is in doubt for all parties then the party that acted is considered the guilty party. If she'd grabbed his dick and inserted it inside herself she'd be guilty instead.
Good thing the law isn't as sexist as you, eh.

Isn't this just a case of disregarding all the prior consent, then claiming she blacked out? Given that she was able to converse and consent numerous times prior to the act, I some how doubt the guy just humped her limp, unconscious body, if that's the claim to be believed.

The point is there is no way to prove who 'did or didn't act', as either party can just randomly claim to have 'blacked out' and attempt to use that as an infallible argument.

Why is it that almost all the women in these cases use the claim of blacking out mid coitus? Is this just the easy, go-to defence at the moment for an open-shut case?

[Deleted]

“Survivors deserve better,” wrote Denis. “They need to know that it is never their fault, regardless if they’ve intentionally consumed alcohol, this does not make them responsible for the assault.”

She is not responsible for drinking herself to unconsciousness? Great lesson there Denis, here's your darwin award.

[Vyuvarax]

Isn't this just a case of disregarding all the prior consent, then claiming she blacked out? Given that she was able to converse and consent numerous times prior to the act, I some how doubt the guy just humped her limp, unconscious body, if that's the claim to be believed.

The point is there is no way to prove who 'did or didn't act', as either party can just randomly claim to have 'blacked out' and attempt to use that as an infallible argument.

Why is it that almost all the women in these cases use the claim of blacking out mid coitus? Is this just the easy, go-to defence at the moment for an open-shut case?

For one thing she doesn't claim to have blacked out while having sex. That's a projection on your part. She blacked out beforehand.

More importantly, if a person is intoxicated to the point of impairment they're not legally considered capable of granting consent. Doesn't matter if she said yes a hundred times and twerked like no tomorrow in front of him. You don't instigate intercourse on a party that is impaired. You will be without legal recourse if you do.

[Bodakane]

You can sigh all you want, but it is you that simply doesn't understand the difference between using different substances.

If alcohol doesn't remove your responsibilities then that means that you would be responsible for your choices too. Funny how you keep "forgetting" that..
The real issue here is that you believe that sex is something that is done to a woman, that is incredibly sexist.

Your substance argument is pointless. The thing you're choosing to cling to has no bearing in this argument. It doesn't matter how these things effect your judgement, it just matters that they do.

You don't understand the word consent. You cannot consent if you're severely hindered by substances, by definition. All your BS doesn't change that simple fact. Argue it, cry, stomp your feet....it doesn't matter. Consent can only be given if the person is in their right mind.

[Deleted]

Your substance argument is pointless. The thing you're choosing to cling to has no bearing in this argument. It doesn't matter how these things effect your judgement, it just matters that they do.

You don't understand the word consent. You cannot consent if you're severely hindered by substances, by definition. All your BS doesn't change that simple fact. Argue it, cry, stomp your feet....it doesn't matter. Consent can only be given if the person is in their right mind.

Fact is that she wasn't severely impaired enough to not be able to consent, this is what a police investigation concluded. None of your BS changes this simple fact, you are wrong. This guy wasn't charged, it is only you and your zealot companions that somehow think that she was raped. None of your empty bullshit arguments can change this simple fact.

[Vyuvarax]

Fact is that she wasn't severely impaired enough to not be able to consent, this is what a police investigation concluded. None of your BS changes this simple fact, you are wrong. This guy wasn't charged, it is only you and your zealot companions that somehow think that she was raped. None of your empty bullshit arguments can change this simple fact.

An independent review of the case found the officer acted improperly and mishandled the case, so I'm not sure what exactly you think you're proving by holding up a mishandled case.

[Bodakane]

Fact is that she wasn't severely impaired enough to not be able to consent, this is what a police investigation concluded. None of your BS changes this simple fact, you are wrong. This guy wasn't charged, it is only you and your zealot companions that somehow think that she was raped. None of your empty bullshit arguments can change this simple fact.

Where the fuck have I been talking about this specific case? Exactly, I haven't. I was talking in general and you fucking know it.

[Chrysia]

You can have agreed upon conduct that you decide upon while sober in a relationship. In this case that wasn't possible as they never agreed to anything while sober. Your example is horribly inaccurate.

But we didn't. We didn't agree to sex before getting drunk. We both initiated sex after getting drunk.

- - - Updated - - -

An independent review of the case found the officer acted improperly and mishandled the case, so I'm not sure what exactly you think you're proving by holding up a mishandled case.

"The officers mishandled the case" is not equivalent to "the officers were wrong about the facts." You can come to the correct conclusion even if you failed to follow proper procedure.

[Vyuvarax]

But we didn't. We didn't agree to sex before getting drunk. We both initiated sex after getting drunk.

Just for quick clarification, the person who initiated intercourse is the person who inserted genitals into either themselves or the other party. This is important to keep straight because the statute is looking at insertion as criminal offense if the party inserting does not have consent.

In certain kinds of prior relationships, the court takes into account mitigating factors like past experience. However, if you were the one doing the instigating and your gf was too drunk to consent, she would be within her rights to press charges. It's unlikely she would win, but the statute would be on her side.

"The officers mishandled the case" is not equivalent to "the officers were wrong about the facts." You can come to the correct conclusion even if you failed to follow proper procedure.

You can, but an officer's conclusion, true or false, isn't permissible in court if they failed to uphold police procedure.

[Deleted]

I'm sorry but this is a whole lot of bullshit. Nobody is too drunk to consent.

I get drunk all the time but I don't have casual sex with random strangers. If someone does, it's because they are like that even without the alcohol. Alcohol only magnifies the behaviour, it doesn't magically change your morals. So don't blame the alcohol for your own behaviour and choices.

But it's always easy to blame something other than yourself for behaviour you regret. And that's why we're here I guess.

[Aphrel]

Your substance argument is pointless. The thing you're choosing to cling to has no bearing in this argument. It doesn't matter how these things effect your judgement, it just matters that they do.

You don't understand the word consent. You cannot consent if you're severely hindered by substances, by definition. All your BS doesn't change that simple fact. Argue it, cry, stomp your feet....it doesn't matter. Consent can only be given if the person is in their right mind.

Shouldnt both ppl be on trial then? Both had been drinking afterall. Did she ask him for consent? IF not doesnt that by default make her the rapist?

[Vyuvarax]

I'm sorry but this is a whole lot of bullshit. Nobody is too drunk to consent.

I get drunk all the time but I don't have casual sex with random strangers. If someone does, it's because they are like that even without the alcohol. Alcohol only magnifies the behaviour, it doesn't magically change your morals. So don't blame the alcohol for your own behaviour and choices.

But it's always easy to blame something other than yourself for behaviour you regret. And that's why we're here I guess.

Your view doesn't square with the law on the issue, so I'm not sure what you're arguing. Also your basic premise here - that women who are raped are asking for it - is pretty gross.

- - - Updated - - -

Shouldnt both ppl be on trial then? Both had been drinking afterall. Did she ask him for consent? IF not doesnt that by default make her the rapist?

Depends on who inserted what, i.e. who committed the criminal act. The evidence here suggests it was the male.

[Chrysia]

Just for quick clarification, the person who initiated intercourse is the person who inserted genitals into either themselves or the other party. This is important to keep straight because the statute is looking at insertion as criminal offense if the party inserting does not have consent.

In certain kinds of prior relationships, the court takes into account mitigating factors like past experience. However, if you were the one doing the instigating and your gf was too drunk to consent, she would be within her rights to press charges. It's unlikely she would win, but the statute would be on her side.

Shouldn't that be insertion or envelopment?

Mutual instigation is a thing. We were both acting horny and both actively participated in each stage. There wasn't a single instigator.

[Vyuvarax]

Shouldn't that be insertion or envelopment?

Mutual instigation is a thing. We were both acting horny and both actively participated in each stage. There wasn't a single instigator.

Again, instigation means a specific thing in a rape case that's been told to you repeatedly. Your pattern of ignoring definitions and law immediately after they're told to you is disturbing.

[Chrysia]

Again, instigation means a specific thing in a rape case that's been told to you repeatedly. Your pattern of ignoring definitions and law immediately after they're told to you is disturbing.

No, it doesn't. Even your law.cornell link doesn't define instigation.