Confusion continues surrounding drunken consent

[Vyuvarax]

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

Instigation isn't part of the statute, but the courts have given precedence that the instigating party determines who is guilty of the unwanted sexual act.

[Chrysia]

Instigation isn't part of the statute, but the courts have given precedence that the instigating party determines who is guilty of the unwanted sexual act.

But did they strictly define instigation as solely a one-party action, or can instigation be mutual? I'd argue it can be and often is.

[Deleted]

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.

An officer acting improperly doesn't equal that they where wrong about the case. It only proofs his innocence as far as im concerned, had their been that level of improper handling then we would have heard much more of this.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Then go make a thread about that, i was discussing this case together with all other people here, that you are discussing something else, somehow??, isn't anyone else their faults, it is on you.

- - - Updated - - -

But did they strictly define instigation as solely a one-party action, or can instigation be mutual? I'd argue it can be and often is.

It is, but that doesn't follow their mantra.

[Windirmere]

Can you charge a woman for sexual assault if she comes on to you hard while intoxicated? Seems like entrapment

[Katchii]

What's the magic point where someone loses the ability to consent and after the fact, how do you determine whether or not a person was at or beyond that point?

I say "magic" because anyone who's been around alcohol enough can tell you that there are a LOT of factors involved and one of the standards used, BAC, isn't a precise indication of how ambulatory or cognitive you are, just how much you've been drinking. I've seen people who are "light weights" that act completely drunk (unbalanced, wobbly, forgetful, etc..) after just a few beers, and other folks who have a MUCH higher tolerance can drink a whole case and act completely normal and just have a little red in their face.

I think part of this discussion is about how the law needs to change because the current one is far too black and white, when situations like this are rarely so clear cut. I'll concede that I don't even know what the law says NOW about situations like this, but isn't the root of this issue centered in what the law says and how cases like this are handled?

[antelope591]

I don't have an issue with the outcome in this case....personal responsibility still has to be a factor. Otherwise its a he said/she said situation where you're only taking the word of one side. That's a slippery slope that we're already going down on.

[Bodakane]

Then go make a thread about that, i was discussing this case together with all other people here, that you are discussing something else, somehow??, isn't anyone else their faults, it is on you.

Complete bullshit. Complete. Bull. Shit.

The title of the thread is about a broader point then just the case and the VAST majority of the discussion in this thread has been talking about general terms and not the case specifically.

Your attempt weasel out of admitting you got handled is pathetic.

[Vyuvarax]

But did they strictly define instigation as solely a one-party action, or can instigation be mutual? I'd argue it can be and often is.

A sexual act is defined as being instigated by one party, so no.

[unbound]

One of the points which stands out is that the public needs to unlearn rape culture. The question is how to go about this.
Also, how does a friend walking someone to a car turn into this? What kind of friend is that...

Unlearning rape culture is similar to any other aspect of discipline in that people need to understand that just because you can doesn't mean you should.

If the person has been drinking heavily, the answer is to simply not get involved in something sexual unless you are already in that type of relationship with them. It doesn't matter that you want to and you can get them to say a magic word, you know, deep down, that it is wrong; so use some discipline and just don't do it.

And stop using the 1 in a 1,000 example to rationalize your position. Yes, there are some grey situations that go down, but the vast majority of these problems are not grey at all.

We will know when we've defeated rape culture when we hear, "But what was the victim wearing / doing / etc" so seldom that it becomes the exception instead of the rule like it is today.

[buck008]

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.

So, the fact that one party was not consciously aware of what was happening and the other party suspected something was off, but continued anyway doesn't enter into your thinking here? Also, calling what was done an investigation is fairly generous on your part.

[Chrysia]

A sexual act is defined as being instigated by one party, so no.

Can you specifically cite that, because I can't find anything that states this.

- - - Updated - - -

So, the fact that one party was not consciously aware of what was happening and the other party suspected something was off, but continued anyway doesn't enter into your thinking here? Also, calling what was done an investigation is fairly generous on your part.

There's no indication that he thought, at the time, that something was off. Asking for consent repeatedly is not, in itself, an indication of a belief that something is off, as most sexual conduct manuals specifically instruct you to reaffirm consent if any part of the sexual encounter changes.

He certainly, in hindsight, after becoming sober, suspected that perhaps she was drunker than he thought at the time, but there's no evidence that that was true during the actual act.

[Noradin]

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.

So you were simply trying to derail this thread by putting up strawmen?

[Mistame]

For example I mentioned "rape culture" because that represents the way things are: We live in a society where people like @MeHMeH (and once again, I apologise profusely for ever confusing you with him) and @Mistame think that all is fine when someone elects to have sex with someone else when they have doubts about the veracity of the consent given (ie the only reason this person said yes to sex is because they're so drunk they don't really know what they're saying).

This is, at best, a misrepresentation of the conversation. That you "feel" that someone stating facts in regards to this particular case is indicative of a larger belief of the acceptability of one person taking advantage of another being intoxicated beyond the ability to consent shows more your lack of rational thought and/or reading comprehension than anything else.

I can accept that this makes it challenging to form a legal framework, but if people can't even recognise the problem, and go so far as to actually support the status quo, then I have to question their personal integrity.

You're free to question whatever you want. That doesn't make your doubt warranted. But the fact of the matter is that what you call the "status quo" is the best we have. You cannot make drunken sex illegal. Nor can you charge someone without actual evidence.

The way those guys express their opinions makes their viewpoints appear borderline sociopathic, and completely unsuitable for forming any kind of ethical framework for a civilised society.

This kind of attack of character merely exposes the fact that your argument is based on emotion which is irrational and has no relevance to ethics. Not to mention the the apparent lack of understanding of how the word sociopath works.

For my opponents, I just get the sense they are interested only having sex, with little care given for how that might affect the person they're having sex with. If they see an opportunity they see it as their right to just take it, to hell with consequences for the other person or applying your mind to assess the situation. What's even more ridiculous is they want to dismiss any notion of bringing emotion into the picture under the guise of remaining rational. Considering that the biggest harm caused by rape is emotional, I have to argue that to ignore the emotional aspect of the event is completely irrational.

Once again, a complete misrepresentation of the arguments made. And again, emotion has no place in a rational discussion, especially as it pertains to the legal ramifications of a particular scenario.

He wasn't charged with anything because even though it's obvious that what happened was unacceptable, the legal system and the police simply don't know how to deal with it. You're arguing that because the law didn't punish him, what he did was ok. This rests on the flawed assumption that the law is infallible.

He wasn't charged with anything because she wasn't intoxicated beyond the ability to consent (as demonstrated by the fact that she walked to her car) and the fact the given the information we have, she apparently consented five times. That's not including information that may have been left out due to the bias in the article.

Your conception of substantially impaired isn't close to how the courts treat intoxication.

You understand that this implies that courts don't follow the law, right? Because my explanation is what it is meant by "substantially impaired".

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.

Um, no they wouldn't, because that claim is patently false.

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.

Again, substantially impaired. If you're going to use words, use them correctly. Also, if she was capable of "twerking", she wasn't substantially impaired. Pay attention.

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.

First, just because you say something does not make it so. Secondly, "instigation" only applies to actual rape cases, not cases where two people were drunk. Not to mention that the entire argument based on "instigation" is nonsense.

A sexual act is defined as being instigated by one party, so no.

No, it's not. Again, you're making shit up.

So, the fact that one party was not consciously aware of what was happening and the other party suspected something was off, but continued anyway doesn't enter into your thinking here? Also, calling what was done an investigation is fairly generous on your part.

Black-out drunk is not unconscious or even unconsciously aware. Again, it's simply the state in which you stop retaining memories.

[Bodakane]

So you were simply trying to derail this thread by putting up strawmen?

Jesus...

The thread title alludes to a bigger issue. The vast majority of this thread is dealing with the bigger issue.

The only people derailing the thread are people like yourself who know your stance is wrong but lack the fortitude to admit it so you try to deflect and semantics your way out of admitting your wrong.

[Noradin]

So, the fact that one party was not consciously aware of what was happening and the other party suspected something was off, but continued anyway doesn't enter into your thinking here? Also, calling what was done an investigation is fairly generous on your part.

Failure to transfer something to long term memory does not happen at the beginning of the stretch of time it affects, but at the end, thus it is no reliable indicator about how drunk she was at the beginning or during the time stretch nor about how impaired she was or acted.

- - - Updated - - -

Jesus...

The thread title alludes to a bigger issue. The vast majority of this thread is dealing with the bigger issue.

The only people derailing the thread are people like yourself who know your stance is wrong but lack the fortitude to admit it so you try to deflect and semantics your way out of admitting your wrong.

Nice ad hominem, why do you keep derailing?

[Bodakane]

Nice ad hominem, why do you keep derailing?

More words you don't understand.

[Deleted]

Complete bullshit. Complete. Bull. Shit.

The title of the thread is about a broader point then just the case and the VAST majority of the discussion in this thread has been talking about general terms and not the case specifically.

Your attempt weasel out of admitting you got handled is pathetic.

Right, the title... that is just silly.
This whole thread has been about this case and maybe cases that are alike, if here wasn't found any fault then other cases alike will be the same.
Forgot to take your pills again?

- - - Updated - - -

So, the fact that one party was not consciously aware of what was happening and the other party suspected something was off, but continued anyway doesn't enter into your thinking here? Also, calling what was done an investigation is fairly generous on your part.

She wasn't consciously unaware, she had a black out, those are two very different things. Him being drunk also means that he isn't likely to pick up on things like he would sober, all in all, if she doesn't want to have drunken sex like this then she should not consent to drunken sex like this.

[Ariktu]

I guess the big problem is if you have two drunk people who are by definition not in a capacity to make decisions why would one party be still responsible for a crime?

Do we have any idea how drunk he was versus her? Is it a competition on the least drunk gets charged with rape?

The fact that he was able to remember some of what happened and she also remembered some of it does not really tell us who was most drunk.

If they were in a Friend zone he might have been surprised she said yes so many times in looking back at it while sober. That still does not mean he was less drunk or more capable of making a decision at the time.

I guess we could just toss both parties into jail since they both raped the other since neither was able to give consent.

[Bodakane]

Right, the title... that is just silly.
This whole thread has been about this case and maybe cases that are alike, if here wasn't found any fault then other cases alike will be the same.
Forgot to take your pills again?

Stop lying. The majority of this thread has been about the concept of consent in general. You know that and have argued with me about it.

I get you won't admit you've been wrong about consent, alcohol, the law, etc. but don't be so pathetic that you're going to lie when we can ll red the truth right here.

[Anastacy]

Wait, so we want men to continually ask for consent for each time a sexual act escalates, but we want to also use that against him as proof he was unsure that what he was doing was appropriate?

Dafuq.