Confusion continues surrounding drunken consent

[Ghostpanther]

Myep. I mean from the texts it looks like she was into it, so...

Yet I can see a prosecutor using the text message as a way to show he was in control of the situation and she was not.

[SupBrah]

If the girl consents, drunk or not, she consents. Alcohol doesn't magically make you unable to make any rational decisions.

Ask yourselves this: If you're 100% straight, do you bang gay guys because you're drunk? Probably not, because no matter how drunk you are, you're not going to be magically attracted to men.

Same logic goes for the gay users here. Are you going to suddenly get the urge to sleep with the opposite sex after X amounts of shots? Probably not, because no matter how drunk you are, you're rational enough to not do it.


Even as a straight guy, I'm not going to sleep with a woman i'm not attracted to. As a married guy, I'm more than capable of not sleeping with other women when I'm out drinking during a business trip.


Edit: Also, Black out does NOT equal pass out. Anyone who's ever done some hard drinking has had moments where they can't remember what exactly happened during a certain time period. Maybe you looked at your phone the next morning and saw you apparently were texting your ex but you don't remember any of it? That's blacking out.

[Deleted]

I agree with that. But you are still a scumbag if you take advantage of someone when they are drunk was my point. You are also stupid to drink and drive and can be held accountable.

What if both parties are just as drunk, are both just as willing, and afterwards one of them regrets what they did and starts claiming rape and so on? Weren't they both just as scumbaggy and just as much taking advantage of each other?

Or does regretting what you did wipe all responsibility and accountability away.

[Findlyn]

and to the people who keep chanting that black out=passed out, explain this; I had a friend growing up who ended up having a very extensive drug problem. He had a black out of 3 weeks, 3 weeks that one day he just kind of started asking questions confused about where he was. Last thing he actually remembered was like 3 weeks prior. You are telling me that in those 3 weeks that we were actively hanging out/talking etc, he was actually pass out the entire time?

Were we in some weird twilight zone meets weekend at bernies?

[Varitok]

Myep. I mean from the texts it looks like she was into it, so...

Stop being sexist! She wasn't into it! If anything, those texts mean she wasn't into! /s

[Ghostpanther]

What if both parties are just as drunk, are both just as willing, and afterwards one of them regrets what they did and starts claiming rape and so on? Weren't they both just as scumbaggy and just as much taking advantage of each other?

Or does regretting what you did wipe all responsibility and accountability away.

Each case needs to be investigated. I do not think you can dismiss a rape charge simply on the basis of both being drunk. I am not even saying this guy was guilty of rape. I am saying the police did not do a good job of investigating it from the details we know.

[Deleted]

why would this mean not too drunk???

it demand some coordination so she cant be that drunk, and the action cant be misunderstood.

[Noradin]

I agree with that. But you are still a scumbag if you take advantage of someone when they are drunk was my point. You are also stupid to drink and drive and can be held accountable.

So, the girl should be held accountable if the boy has been drunk?

- - - Updated - - -

Yet I can see a prosecutor using the text message as a way to show he was in control of the situation and she was not.

You can just as well argue that he was really drunk and only realized what he had done the next day when he sent those messages.
Thus you can use them as "proof" that he was unable to consent and according to the girl's testimony she came onto him.

[Alydael]

I can clear up all the confusion for you.

If the girl is drunk, even if she gives consent at the time- you are at risk.

She could claim the next day that she didn't give consent and you took advantage of her when she was drunk.

If, at that point, you can't prove she gave consent- you are facing a trial (and who knows which way that will go).

Even if you can prove she gave consent, she can still claim that she was soooooo drunk that she didn't even know where she was and you are still facing a trail.

There. I cleared up all this "great confusion" in four simple sentences for you.

[Noradin]

What if both parties are just as drunk, are both just as willing, and afterwards one of them regrets what they did and starts claiming rape and so on? Weren't they both just as scumbaggy and just as much taking advantage of each other?

Or does regretting what you did wipe all responsibility and accountability away.

Well apparently both sides regretted it or were unsure about it the next day.
It's just that one party was a girl whose mother made her call the police to report rape while the boy checked with the other party first.

[Mehrunes]

I never said anything about people who do not drink. How do you keep on missing this point? Drinking and having sex with someone is fine, provided you have some basis upon which to assume that consent would still be valid. This basis has to be founded on events that happened before drunkenness ensued.

You keep trying to push this narrative (while making walls of projections and other fallacies - vide your first post - that get longer and longer with each thread), but this isn't how consent works. As long as a person is capable of giving valid consent, which applies to most levels of inebriation, their consent is well, valid. It is not reliant on "valider" consent, or the idea of what it would be, in another situation. Trying to make it so would result in legal nonsense in general, and would be godawful from procedural perspective.

As for the case in the OP, it does fall into a grey area legally. The facts that should be assumed based on reasonable doubt are that the guy in question did try to ascertain consent and thought it was enough, although it's also clear based on his texts that he has some inkling that the girl involved is not okay with what happened, and (given that he had to ask 5 times) he wasn't entirely convinced at the time either. But it seems he is also just a kid and kids do stupid things, especially when, like him they consume alcohol. What he is mostly guilty of is acting irresponsibly and making a poor decision. And in a rational society, you have to accept that kids will do stupid things, they will make poor decisions, and we have to be able to recognise when such mistakes are genuinely due to the ignorance of youth, and to turn those mistakes into learning opportunities rather than destroy their lives because of it (note: this is different to an adult doing the same thing, or where it's clear that the 'kid' in question is acting with malice)

What? Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it (if he did). You talk about other people not rooting their arguments in logic (meanwhile: "kids will be kids, nothing can be done about it, even if they are late teens, let's give them a free pass") or what have you and yet you're constantly not rooting your own in the legal reality of the world. Which is sort of relevant to the topic of crime. More so than your emotions (as per a later post).

As already said: If in doubt, don't assume consent.

Unless they are a teen. Then assume mere ignorance and brush it all under the carpet.

Every single thread about rape you're here spouting your emotionally vapid garbage. It's tiresome. You're either intentionally being disengenuous or you just outright lacking any capacity for empathy.

Fascinating. Especially in context of the previous few paragraphs.

Your attitude is totally selfish and self centred. You claim to support the idea of "taking responsibility" but your arguments are utterly devoid of supporting that notion - let alone logic, consistency, reason or critical analysis. I am not going to "debate" until you can demonstrate that you're capable of actually engaging in discussion instead of trying to ram your unsubstantiated opinion down everyone's throat. Time to grow up man.

Out of curiosity, does "people who disagree with my narrative that has no basis in the law are devoid of empathy" count as a support of a notion? I won't aim for logic, reason or critical analysis with this one, but I can still try with support thing.

Getting drunk is not, and never has been, a license for other people to take advantage of you. I agree that it is a risk you take when you get drunk that other unscrupulous people may do so, however that does not make it acceptable that they do, and they should be held accountable for it when they do.

Then how is the girl partially responsible again?

I never accused you of that. I accused you of the opposite: spouting emotionally void garbage.

You actually said vapid.

[Noradin]

Each case needs to be investigated. I do not think you can dismiss a rape charge simply on the basis of both being drunk. I am not even saying this guy was guilty of rape. I am saying the police did not do a good job of investigating it from the details we know.

So you are in favour of investigating if the girl was the one raping the boy instead, too?

[TyrannicalPuppy]

One was not conscious, the other was not.

I'm gonna give you a chance to read over that again lmao.

[Noradin]

I can clear up all the confusion for you.

If the girl is drunk, even if she gives consent at the time- you are at risk.

She could claim the next day that she didn't give consent and you took advantage of her when she was drunk.

If, at that point, you can't prove she gave consent- you are facing a trial (and who knows which way that will go).

Even if you can prove she gave consent, she can still claim that she was soooooo drunk that she didn't even know where she was and you are still facing a trail.

There. I cleared up all this "great confusion" in four simple sentences for you.

Good job reading nothing but the title of this thread and then putting your imagination and prejudices to good use coming up with a narrative.

[Martymark]

Most women are willing to have sex with a drunk man. Most women are rapists. Teach women not to rape.

[TyrannicalPuppy]

4. She was blacked out, the boy is stupid and should be jailed. He could clearly fucking see that she's blacked out.

Well, I'm certainly glad that you're able to see the world through his eyes. Thank the fucking heavens for your psychic powers!

Tit.

- - - Updated - - -

However in this case it looks like the girl was so drunk that she needed help to get to her car. The guy on the other hand? He seems rather opportunistic doesn't he? Wasn't he just walking her to the car?

You people will bend this any way to ruin his life over one regretted night.

Why did this shit have to go public? They were both drunk. He apologised profusely. What else can he do now? They should have talked it out either 1-on-1 or with their parents instead blowing this through hell and high water.

[Toogoodman]

So, whats sad about this is that both parties were drunk.... sigh, but in these cases its ALWAYS going to be the guys fault, because that's how society treats it, because society thinks that there must be someone to blame. If she was PASSED OUT i.e. unconscious, and he had sex with an unconscious person, then yeah, that's obviously bad. But if they were both drunk talking to each other, how would either be able to assess the situation.

Grey area here, if you cannot consent to sex while drunk, how can either party be at fault, since both were under the influence?

Also, when i had to sit through "sexual assault classes" in the Military, the basic rule was, if you're both loaded, and you wake up next to each other, who ever calls the cops first is the victim.... Pretty sad considering this completely fucks up peoples lives.

Moral of the story, don't drink, because in today's society, people will do anything to fuck you over.

[turboether]

That awkward moment when she was screaming yes but in the morning it's rape.

[Shadowferal]

Dumb arguments.
Simply not having sex will always be the right answer.

[Toogoodman]

This this and this.

The actual events will never be known. This should not be a case of rape. At some point women need to take responsibility. Dont go to a party and get shit faced, something is going to happen. And most women go to clubs and parties to hook up with someone. Screaming rape afterwards is just messing up someone elses life.

Too much gray area in the "Rape Definition"

You dont go into the woods carrying a 10lb bag of fresh meat...you know a bear may kill your ass for it.

What amuses me most about situations like this is when people say "oh, women shouldn't have to worry about what may happen to them when they're drunk", yet no one says that about guys? What about all the men and women who get busted for drinking and driving, or parking lot fights. When guys get the shit kicked out of them, its a "suck it" and boys will be boys situation (unless life threatening). How many guys get raped while drunk? yet police usually say "nah, that didn't happen", yet women get 100% of the attention in situations like this, how many girls have taken advantage of drunk guys? yet people say "oh, well you probably enjoyed it", maybe they did, but shouldn't the same standard be applied to women? Shit is so one sided its disgusting.