Confusion continues surrounding drunken consent

[Mistame]

One leads to the legal action of being intoxicated, and the other leads to the illegal action of committing rape while intoxicated. Not sure how that's the same.

Again, if she consented, it wasn't rape. I'm not sure what part of that you don't understand. That's the part of your logic that's flawed. If one is capable of consenting, one is not too drunk to consent. Ie, if he asks, "You want to have sex?" and she's capable of saying, "Yes", or she initiates sex, then she is capable of given consent she did.

The law views any person intoxicated to the point of impairment or incompetence as being unable to give consent. There's no legal grey area on the subject.

That's right. And that point is actually not being able to consent. In other words, so drunk she can't speak, walk or is unconscious. Not "might regret it the next day".

Neither party in this case was capable of granting consent because they were both impaired. However, the defendant initiated intercourse without consent. That's a federal crime.

Apparently, they weren't. Consent while drunk is not, as you say, a gray area. If you're capable of deciding to have sex, you're capable of consenting.

Let's establish a few things first. If the male in this incident did in fact initiate intercouse on his own, do you acknowledge that, under the law, he raped this girl?

Under the law, he only raped her if she was either unconscious, unable to actually respond or did not actually consent.

[Bodakane]

So i'll repeat myself, apparently i have to..

Taking an Advil isn't the same thing as shooting up heroin, both will take away your headache but that doesn't mean that they are the same thing. Your body reacts differently to them and they are not used for the same things or in the same settings. The same goes for alcohol and anesthesia, they arent remotely the same thing.
As for the law, you are incorrect it not only matters how impaired you are, it also matters how you came to be impaired, being roofied isn't the same thing as you getting drunk. And when you are knocked out you can not consent, that is when you are impaired enough not to be able to consent, because you physically can not consent when you are not conscious. You fucking some guy and regretting it is not even remotely being impaired enough that it isn't your own fault.
I will state it again, if you drink you are still responsible for your own actions.

Sigh.

When I ask you what the difference is between what anesthesia and alcohol do to your judgement, telling me about the difference between Advil and heroin is literally meaningless. Lots of things affect judgment which means they affect one's ability to give consent. You choosing to act like that isn't a thing or valid or even the law makes you look ridiculous and proves you don't understand the first fucking thing about this topic.

Getting drunk is not a crime nor is it an action that removes responsibility from other people around you...except in your delusional world where any loophole you can use to fuck is awesome.

If you drink you are taking risks, but that doesn't;t mean everything that happens is your fault.

The real issue is you believe if a woman drinks she deserves to be fucked, just admit it.

- - - Updated - - -

You're kidding me right? you're comparing someone using a date rape drug to stalk and forcibly rape someone, to a couple friends who hooked while drunk. I see now that you have zero experience in the real world, because there is a massive difference between these two things. Meeting up with a girl, while you are both drunk and hooking up literally happens millions of times a year, and people accept their actions. This girl, who knew what she was doing, regretted it later, boohoo.

Someone finding someone, slipping drugs into their drink with the intentions of raping them is completely different, and it blows my mind you are unable to see how that's different.

The fuck are you talking about?

[TheRickyB]

Drunk man Crashes Car = Mans Fault

Drunk woman Crashes Car = Womans Fault

Drunk Man has sex with Drunk Woman = Mans Fault

Drunk Woman has sex with Drunk Man = Mans Fault. . . .

Wonder why its so "hard" to figure this out. . . .

[Vyuvarax]

So both are rapists then.

- - - Updated - - -


He was drunk too, so does that mean both get to be called rapists?

No, under federal law the instigating party would be guilty of rape when both are drunk.

- - - Updated - - -

No, he claims he asked repeatedly if she really wanted sex, not that he propositioned.
You are trying to twist this again.

Nothing in his or her account indicates she ever asked if the male defendant wanted to have sex. That's an enormous, unfounded inference.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, if she consented, it wasn't rape. I'm not sure what part of that you don't understand. That's the part of your logic that's flawed. If one is capable of consenting, one is not too drunk to consent. Ie, if he asks, "You want to have sex?" and she's capable of saying, "Yes", or she initiates sex, then she is capable of given consent she did.



That's right. And that point is actually not being able to consent. In other words, so drunk she can't speak, walk or is unconscious. Not "might regret it the next day".



Apparently, they weren't. Consent while drunk is not, as you say, a gray area. If you're capable of deciding to have sex, you're capable of consenting.



Under the law, he only raped her if she was either unconscious, unable to actually respond or did not actually consent.

If either party was drunk to the point of impairment, neither is considered capable in the eyes of the law of giving consent. Your definition of consent is simply wrong based on the language of the federal statute.
Here's the link to the applicable statute.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/920

[Noradin]

No, under federal law the instigating party would be guilty of rape when both are drunk.

In this case that would be the girl then. Thank you.

- - - Updated - - -

Nothing in his or her account indicates she ever asked if the male defendant wanted to have sex. That's an enormous, unfounded inference.

So she instigated sex with a drunk boy and didn't even ask for consent, why is he the rapist then?

[Toogoodman]

(a)Rape.—Any person subject to this chapter who commits a sexual act upon another person by—

(1) using unlawful force against that other person;
(2) using force causing or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm to any person;
(3) threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping;
(4) first rendering that other person unconscious; or
(5) administering to that other person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or consent of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby substantially impairing the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct;

is guilty of rape and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

That's not a couple of drinks, that's not even drunk, that's not even blackout drunk (meaning you are unable to retain memories), this means you are unable to function. This girl was walking, talking, and having full on conversations. Case closed.

[Protean]

So are you saying she was losing her memory than?



I dont even know why i even bother answer to someone that doesent even read the OP lol.

Memory is a fun thing. When you lose it, it's like you were asleep for the duration of the loss. That doesn't mean you were asleep.

"woke up" is just the point where her memory started getting stored again, probably because her alcohol levels were dropping.

[Toogoodman]

In this case that would be the girl then. Thank you.

- - - Updated - - -



So she instigated sex with a drunk boy and didn't even ask for consent, why is he the rapist then?

Because in modern society, only men can be rapists, duh.

[Vyuvarax]

In this case that would be the girl then. Thank you.

- - - Updated - - -



So she instigated sex with a drunk boy and didn't even ask for consent, why is he the rapist then?

What in either account, without inference, would lead a reasonable observer to believe she instigated intercourse instead?

[Toogoodman]

Sigh.

When I ask you what the difference is between what anesthesia and alcohol do to your judgement, telling me about the difference between Advil and heroin is literally meaningless. Lots of things affect judgment which means they affect one's ability to give consent. You choosing to act like that isn't a thing or valid or even the law makes you look ridiculous and proves you don't understand the first fucking thing about this topic.

Getting drunk is not a crime nor is it an action that removes responsibility from other people around you...except in your delusional world where any loophole you can use to fuck is awesome.

If you drink you are taking risks, but that doesn't;t mean everything that happens is your fault.

The real issue is you believe if a woman drinks she deserves to be fucked, just admit it.

- - - Updated - - -



The fuck are you talking about?

What the fuck are you on about? no one ever said that.... if someones drinking and doesn't want to have sex, good for them. You sound like youre projecting your sexism against men, and think they're all animals, "just admit it", as you said.

[McFuu]

The article literally states she consented, she just doesn't remember. Why is this 24 pages long?
I also love the cry's for us to get over rape culture. When infact we need to get over "rape culture". There is no rape culture, and thinking there is a "rape culture" is just a death of logic.

What she should have done is go the guy and talk to him about what happened. Seeing as he contacted her first, the morning after to see how she was doing.

[Toogoodman]

The article literally states she consented, she just doesn't remember. Why is this 24 pages long?
I also love the cry's for us to get over rape culture. When infact we need to get over "rape culture". There is no rape culture, and thinking there is a "rape culture" is just a death of logic.

What she should have done is go the guy and talk to him about what happened. Seeing as he contacted her first, the morning after to see how she was doing.

No good deed goes unpunished. As for rape culture you're correct, everyone does need to get over this false victim hood mentality of blaming others for their mistakes.

Also, if you need to ask someone "do you think it was rape?", not only does that show that you're probably just embarrassed, it also shows that it was in fact, not rape.

[Bodakane]

What the fuck are you on about? no one ever said that.... if someones drinking and doesn't want to have sex, good for them. You sound like youre projecting your sexism against men, and think they're all animals, "just admit it", as you said.

I don't think they're all animals, I'm not for example.

I just think any guy that preys on drunk women is, in fact, a piece of shit. They do it specifically because they know being drunk impairs judgement.

That's why a bunch of you are saying if a woman gets drunk, no matter who drunk, and get's fucked, it is her fault.

[Vyuvarax]

The article literally states she consented, she just doesn't remember. Why is this 24 pages long?
I also love the cry's for us to get over rape culture. When infact we need to get over "rape culture". There is no rape culture, and thinking there is a "rape culture" is just a death of logic.

What she should have done is go the guy and talk to him about what happened. Seeing as he contacted her first, the morning after to see how she was doing.

Where in the article are you seeing that she consented? Please quote the section of the article.

[Mistame]

If either party was drunk to the point of impairment, neither is considered capable in the eyes of the law of giving consent. Your definition of consent is simply wrong based on the language of the federal statute.
Here's the link to the applicable statute.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/920

You've already posted and linked this. And I've already addressed it. You seem to be ignoring the substantially part, which covers what I've already said. If you're going to reference laws, at least understand how they work.

Also, a few drinks and most people will be "impaired" to some degree. As you've already stated, there is no "gray area". Without such a gray area, all that leaves is definitive points, which the law covers with the term "substantially". Thus, if they're still capable of understanding the question, "Want to have sex" and they're still capable of saying, "Yes", then they can still give consent. If they're incapable of understanding or responding, they can't.

[Vyuvarax]

You've already posted and linked this. And I've already addressed it. You seem to be ignoring the substantially part, which covers what I've already said. If you're going to reference laws, at least understand how they work.

Also, a few drinks and most people will be "impaired" to some degree. As you've already stated, there is no "gray area". Without such a gray area, all that leaves is definitive points, which the law covers with the term "substantially". Thus, if they're still capable of understanding the question, "Want to have sex" and they're still capable of saying, "Yes", then they can still give consent. If they're incapable of understanding or responding, they can't.

No, if they are impaired - or incompetent to use the statute's language - they are considered legally incapable of giving consent. Since I'm assuming you didn't read the full statute based on your response, here's subsection 8 in full.

(8)Consent.—
(A) The term “consent” means a freely given agreement to the conduct at issue by a competent person. An expression of lack of consent through words or conduct means there is no consent. Lack of verbal or physical resistance or submission resulting from the use of force, threat of force, or placing another person in fear does not constitute consent. A current or previous dating or social or sexual relationship by itself or the manner of dress of the person involved with the accused in the conduct at issue shall not constitute consent.

[Noradin]

What in either account, without inference, would lead a reasonable observer to believe she instigated intercourse instead?

She was the one who started kissing and he was the one who felt the need to ask 5 times if she really was sure.
Both indicate she instigated intercourse and without getting consent from the drunk boy, too.

- - - Updated - - -

That's why a bunch of you are saying if a woman gets drunk, no matter who drunk, and get's fucked, it is her fault.

Please list who you mean.

[Chrysia]

Where in the article are you seeing that she consented? Please quote the section of the article.

According to the defendant she gave affirmative consent five times. Also according to the defendant he could not tell that she was impaired to the point of blacking out.

[Toogoodman]

I don't think they're all animals, I'm not for example.

I just think any guy that preys on drunk women is, in fact, a piece of shit. They do it specifically because they know being drunk impairs judgement.

That's why a bunch of you are saying if a woman gets drunk, no matter who drunk, and get's fucked, it is her fault.

Where talking about drunk guys, having sex with drunk women.

We are not talking about sexual predators, who would be men who actively look for drunk women to have sex with.

[Chrysia]

No, if they are impaired - or incompetent to use the statute's language - they are considered legally incapable of giving consent. Since I'm assuming you didn't read the full statute based on your response, here's subsection 8 in full.

(8)Consent.—
(A) The term “consent” means a freely given agreement to the conduct at issue by a competent person. An expression of lack of consent through words or conduct means there is no consent. Lack of verbal or physical resistance or submission resulting from the use of force, threat of force, or placing another person in fear does not constitute consent. A current or previous dating or social or sexual relationship by itself or the manner of dress of the person involved with the accused in the conduct at issue shall not constitute consent.

Substantially impaired, which is why there's confusion, because at what point does impairment become "substantial?" If it was just any level of impairment then virtually every male alive is guilty of rape, because virtually every male has had sex while his partner was tipsy.