Confusion continues surrounding drunken consent

[buck008]

And people who are asking for consent drunk as a skunk can also have no idea what they are doing, it is all pretty irrelevant. Even IF, and that is a really big if, she was unable to consent because she was to drunk, it is still irrelevant as other have pointed out. You still need to prove that the other person could have reasonably known that this was the case that she could not consent.

And it is the only outcome, as when it is not the case then something else has happened, and this something needs to be proven. But this is the standard that everyone can pretty safely use, granted, you can continue from there, but it is the logical starting point. When people are drunk and consented to sex then the consent stands until you can prove something different.

So all in all, if you do not want to get mixed up in situations like this, then you should not have sex while drunk as a skunk. This goes for both sexes, that means that there is no such thing as revoking consent the next day because you feel bad about it.

1. In this case, I already conceded that this is true. That is not the case everywhere.

2. This point reads, "this is the only thing that could happen unless something else happened." You are treating a claim of consent being given as absolute here as well. Presumption of innocence does not require this. That is something that would need to be established during investigation or potential trial. So we don't ever start from a notion that consent was there. The case that started this thread is interesting primarily because she admits she likely gave consent while intoxicated. That usually isn't the case.

3. Arguably, some people that have sex while drunk don't want to have sex while drunk, but are told that they consented and maybe they shouldn't drink. This is circular logic that goes nowhere.

- - - Updated - - -

Let me get this straight:
Two people are both equally drunk. Both would blow the EXACT same BA level. If they have sex with both parties actively participating and no one saying no, some people around here believe that the man is actually raping the woman because she's too drunk to consent??? How does that work? How is the woman not raping the man instead? Why do people think that women are so stupid that they cannot consent when a man with the same BA can? Do liberals hate women that much?

Reality is that this comes up far too frequently when the next day the woman regrets the actions she CHOSE to take and decides that she's going to ruin the man's life instead of accepting personal responsibility for her choices. Men are expected to accept responsibility, but somehow women are absolved of that responsibility. I believe women are capable of being better than that. I believe women have the same capabilities as men to accept responsibility for their actions. I believe in EQUAL rights.

If you are done with your fake soapbox, there are actual legal principles at play here that I explained a few times. Feel free to read up and come back with an actual point.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't understand why a rapist would be concerned with the wellbeing of their victim including making sure they got home ok after drinking.

Because you think rapists are violent criminals preying on strangers that they'll never see again. That's not reality for the majority of cases.

[perasite]

If you are done with your fake soapbox, there are actual legal principles at play here that I explained a few times. Feel free to read up and come back with an actual point.

Ah yes, the legal principle of women have no responsibility for their actions when drunk but men have full responsibility for theirs when equally drunk. Makes perfect legal sense that one class has rights that another does not. Because that is exactly how the US legal system works. Not equal protections under the law. Manufactured protections based on the class of the citizen.

[Deleted]

1. In this case, I already conceded that this is true. That is not the case everywhere.

2. This point reads, "this is the only thing that could happen unless something else happened." You are treating a claim of consent being given as absolute here as well. Presumption of innocence does not require this. That is something that would need to be established during investigation or potential trial. So we don't ever start from a notion that consent was there. The case that started this thread is interesting primarily because she admits she likely gave consent while intoxicated. That usually isn't the case.

3. Arguably, some people that have sex while drunk don't want to have sex while drunk, but are told that they consented and maybe they shouldn't drink. This is circular logic that goes nowhere.

- - - Updated - - -



If you are done with your fake soapbox, there are actual legal principles at play here that I explained a few times. Feel free to read up and come back with an actual point.

- - - Updated - - -



Because you think rapists are violent criminals preying on strangers that they'll never see again. That's not reality for the majority of cases.

1. It is pretty much the same for every case like this, drunk people having sex, these rules always apply.

2. Because the claim in of itself is absolute, when two drunk people consent to have sex they have consented to have sex. Presumption of innocence absolutely needs this, you need to prove that someone got raped. The thing that needs to be established during trail is that a rape did occur, not that a rape didn't occur. So until the time that it is proven that a rape has occurred, presumption of innocence can do nothing else but dictate that consent that was given was actual consent.

3. It does go somewhere, it goes to personal responsibility, from all parties involved. But lets be honest, the party that has trouble with it the next day is probably the party that shouldn't drink that much. Drinking alcohol isn't some magical potion that makes you not responsible for the choices you make, it is a magical potion that makes you not care at the moment that you do it. When you drink alcohol you should know this and act responsible with it and most importantly, you should not fault other people for your own misguided choices.

All in all, people need to take responsibility for their own actions.

[Saft]

I'm getting the feeling people arguing for her innocence have never actually been drunk or have experienced something resembling a brownout or blackout. On the topic of drugs blackout is always used to describe the memory loss or amnesia. If she passed out she lost consciousness for a time and if she blacked out she was aware but don't remember anything.
Drug-related blackout is pretty much always the go to word for memory loss, not passing out which is the go to word for losing your consciousness. If this bitch can't say which it is then throw the case out.

[Findlyn]

I wouldn't bother Saft, its pretty clear everyone in this thread had their mind sets as soon as they saw it was about a girl claiming rape.

This has been a 46 page thread, of the same stuff being said ad nauseam with people seemingly to be willingly obtuse.

[Mistame]

If your defense is that the other person was intoxicated but still cognizant, you need to establish that somehow. That has nothing to do with the presumption of innocence.

Actually, she would have to prove she wasn't cognizant. 1. The burden of proof lies on the accuser. 2. One is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Your comment conflicts with those two facts.

I don't understand why a rapist would be concerned with the wellbeing of their victim including making sure they got home ok after drinking.

They wouldn't.

Because you think rapists are violent criminals preying on strangers that they'll never see again. That's not reality for the majority of cases.

Actually, the majority of actual rapes are more about control/power than they are about sex. And there's very little remorse/regret involved. While it's certainly not uncommon for cases of uncertain drunken sex to be referred to as "rape cases", doing so negates the impact of the word. In fact, most of these cases are legally defined as sexual assault rather than rape because rape implies the perpetrator acts in spite of a clear lack of consent. Someone who believes a person to be capable of consent, and that person does consent, is not a "rapist".

[Tennis]

It's really easy. Ban all alcohol. Make it a crime with a long term prison sentence for possession... worse for consumption. Return back to the days of Prohibition... If you find yourself in trouble, and alcohol was involved... welp, you played with fire and got what was coming to you for going against the laws.

This could work but I doubt public opinion would allow such a low to come into effect. Heck we haven't even banned smoking yet.

[Jayburner]

I once was asked to pay for an abortion after I had sex with a woman that I have no damn recollection of having sex with...true story. this was my new girlfriend at the time that hated sex/...so i was doubly suprised I actually performed the deed on her, let alone get her pregnant...so damn weird.

[buck008]

Ah yes, the legal principle of women have no responsibility for their actions when drunk but men have full responsibility for theirs when equally drunk. Makes perfect legal sense that one class has rights that another does not. Because that is exactly how the US legal system works. Not equal protections under the law. Manufactured protections based on the class of the citizen.

Actually, no. Not at all. But you didn't bother to read anything I had to say, so you aren't worth replying to any further. Have fun.

- - - Updated - - -

1. It is pretty much the same for every case like this, drunk people having sex, these rules always apply.

2. Because the claim in of itself is absolute, when two drunk people consent to have sex they have consented to have sex. Presumption of innocence absolutely needs this, you need to prove that someone got raped. The thing that needs to be established during trail is that a rape did occur, not that a rape didn't occur. So until the time that it is proven that a rape has occurred, presumption of innocence can do nothing else but dictate that consent that was given was actual consent.

3. It does go somewhere, it goes to personal responsibility, from all parties involved. But lets be honest, the party that has trouble with it the next day is probably the party that shouldn't drink that much. Drinking alcohol isn't some magical potion that makes you not responsible for the choices you make, it is a magical potion that makes you not care at the moment that you do it. When you drink alcohol you should know this and act responsible with it and most importantly, you should not fault other people for your own misguided choices.

All in all, people need to take responsibility for their own actions.

Yes, if people consented. But you can't always know that people consented. You are pretty much making the argument that if someone said consent was there, and they were both drunk, that we just go ahead and agree that they both consented. Presumption of innocence means you don't enter the jury box with preconceived notions and that you allow the facts of the case to decide. It doesn't mean we need to just accept that anyone consented to anything until testimony is heard and evidence is shown.

You are right. Alcohol is not a magic potion that takes away responsibility for your choices. It's a damn good thing that I never said it was. Not even close. I said that alcohol doesn't mean you automatically consented to anything nor does it mean your consent is necessarily valid. I'm trying to paint in grey and maybe show you that your absolutism here is misguided. That maybe you should consider that occasionally drunk people are actually taken advantage of and it isn't really their fault for being drunk. Personal responsibility is fine and well, but you seem to only want to put it on the purported victim here, while claiming that I only want to put it on the accused. Being drunk is a choice that people make, and it can have consequences. This is a true statement. I want that statement to apply to everyone. Even the poor drunk boy who had sex with the girl that he knew was drunk, when he knew that might be an issue. I'm not saying this kid is a criminal or a rapist, but he ain't a victim.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, she would have to prove she wasn't cognizant. 1. The burden of proof lies on the accuser. 2. One is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Your comment conflicts with those two facts.

Actually, the majority of actual rapes are more about control/power than they are about sex. And there's very little remorse/regret involved. While it's certainly not uncommon for cases of uncertain drunken sex to be referred to as "rape cases", doing so negates the impact of the word. In fact, most of these cases are legally defined as sexual assault rather than rape because rape implies the perpetrator acts in spite of a clear lack of consent. Someone who believes a person to be capable of consent, and that person does consent, is not a "rapist".

Presumption of innocence means withholding judgement until the facts are known. It means, the accused is not a rapist until found guilty. It doesn't mean everything he says is true unless proven false. The burden of proof is on the state to prove it false, yes. That doesn't make it true. It makes it the accused's version of events. OJ wasn't found guilty of murder. That doesn't mean his version of events was the truth, it means the prosecution couldn't prove it wasn't. That's a pretty damn important distinction.

With regard to demographics of rape, and why I phrased things the way I did, most rapists are known to the victim. Alcohol is a frequent tool used to disarm a potential victim. Also, sexual assault is the legal term that rape falls under in many states. In any case, I have frequently said that I don't think this kid is a rapist. I think we need to dispel the notion that all rapists are violent sociopaths. You can accidentally kill someone. You can, with an error in judgement and no malice, cause millions of dollars in financial losses. And you can rape someone without being a monster. But you persist in operating in these absolutes.

[purebalance]

Wait wait wait

If I get drunk, have sex, wake up and don't remember it, I got raped? SOB!

If you're a woman.

[Dreknar20]

If you're a woman.

things are generally confusing when drunk

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, if people consented. But you can't always know that people consented.

nor is consent verbal most of the time

[endersblade]

This is just another lame excuse to perpetuate rape culture. Rape culture shouldn't even be a thing, but then articles like this crop up from time to time. It's a cop-out, it's an excuse for people to scream rape for no reason. "Oh, I was blacked out, I don't remember saying yes, so I'm calling RAPE!" All because the guy stopped calling her, or made her mad, or just because she's a cunt and wants to get into trouble.

Rape culture - the witch hunt of the 21st century.

[Dreknar20]

If you find yourself in trouble, and alcohol was involved

already is like that

Crash your car into a nursery full of nuns and children killing half of them?
Saying "soz bro I was wasted" wont cut it in court

[Mistame]

Presumption of innocence means withholding judgement until the facts are known. It means, the accused is not a rapist until found guilty. It doesn't mean everything he says is true unless proven false. The burden of proof is on the state to prove it false, yes. That doesn't make it true. It makes it the accused's version of events. OJ wasn't found guilty of murder. That doesn't mean his version of events was the truth, it means the prosecution couldn't prove it wasn't. That's a pretty damn important distinction.

You missed the point. If the victim's version of events state that she either did not consent or was too intoxicated to consent, she (or the prosecution) has to prove it.

I think we need to dispel the notion that all rapists are violent sociopaths. You can accidentally kill someone. You can, with an error in judgement and no malice, cause millions of dollars in financial losses. And you can rape someone without being a monster. But you persist in operating in these absolutes.

And that's fine, as long as we also stop calling drunk sex "rape". Again, rape implies an explicit lack of consent, as in they're unconscious, so drunk they can't respond (the "substantially impaired" part referred to by law) or explicitly says no, with the perpetrator knowing that consent has either not been given or was explicitly denied. There's no such thing as "accidental rape".

[Findlyn]

This could work but I doubt public opinion would allow such a low to come into effect. Heck we haven't even banned smoking yet.

yeah, they have already tried that, it was called the prohibition era. Google it(hint: it didn't work out to well, and just created a huge criminal element)

- - - Updated - - -

You missed the point. If the victim's version of events state that she either did not consent or was too intoxicated to consent, she (or the prosecution) has to prove it.



And that's fine, as long as we also stop calling drunk sex "rape". Again, rape implies an explicit lack of consent, as in they're unconscious, so drunk they can't respond (the "substantially impaired" part referred to by law) or explicitly says no, with the perpetrator knowing that consent has either not been given or was explicitly denied. There's no such thing as "accidental rape".

no, didnt you hear? You can trip and your penis just lands right in the vagina. Happens all the time apparently!

[Dreknar20]

That doesn't make it true. It makes it the accused's version of events. OJ wasn't found guilty of murder. That doesn't mean his version of events was the truth, it means the prosecution couldn't prove it wasn't. That's a pretty damn important distinction.

a distinction that is irrelevant

Truth is useless unless you can prove it in court.

[buck008]

You missed the point. If the victim's version of events state that she either did not consent or was too intoxicated to consent, she (or the prosecution) has to prove it.



And that's fine, as long as we also stop calling drunk sex "rape". Again, rape implies an explicit lack of consent, as in they're unconscious, so drunk they can't respond (the "substantially impaired" part referred to by law) or explicitly says no, with the perpetrator knowing that consent has either not been given or was explicitly denied. There's no such thing as "accidental rape".

I didn't miss the point, I said exactly that.

Call it what you like, but I never said accidental. I said it didn't require malice or violence.

- - - Updated - - -

no, didnt you hear? You can trip and your penis just lands right in the vagina. Happens all the time apparently!

Hilarious. I never said accidental. So you're trying to mock me by using a word that someone else tried to assign to my position? Well played. When will I learn not to not say things like that.

- - - Updated - - -

a distinction that is irrelevant

Truth is useless unless you can prove it in court.

Call me pedantic, but I like to use words appropriately to their meaning.

[Findlyn]

I didn't miss the point, I said exactly that.

Call it what you like, but I never said accidental. I said it didn't require malice or violence.

- - - Updated - - -



Hilarious. I never said accidental. So you're trying to mock me by using a word that someone else tried to assign to my position? Well played. When will I learn not to not say things like that.

- - - Updated - - -



Call me pedantic, but I like to use words appropriately to their meaning.

On the defensive much? FFS I never even referenced you, I was just trying to make a joke to lighten the mood. I would tell you to take the stick out of your ass, but afraid you would accuse me of rape somehow...

[Mistame]

Call it what you like, but I never said accidental. I said it didn't require malice or violence.

Rape absolutely requires malice as, again, the word implies knowledge of the lack of consent while still engaging in the encounter.

Call me pedantic, but I like to use words appropriately to their meaning.

And by that same logic, one literally cannot rape someone who gives consent, even while drunk.

[Deleted]

Actually, no. Not at all. But you didn't bother to read anything I had to say, so you aren't worth replying to any further. Have fun.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes, if people consented. But you can't always know that people consented. You are pretty much making the argument that if someone said consent was there, and they were both drunk, that we just go ahead and agree that they both consented. Presumption of innocence means you don't enter the jury box with preconceived notions and that you allow the facts of the case to decide. It doesn't mean we need to just accept that anyone consented to anything until testimony is heard and evidence is shown.

You are right. Alcohol is not a magic potion that takes away responsibility for your choices. It's a damn good thing that I never said it was. Not even close. I said that alcohol doesn't mean you automatically consented to anything nor does it mean your consent is necessarily valid. I'm trying to paint in grey and maybe show you that your absolutism here is misguided. That maybe you should consider that occasionally drunk people are actually taken advantage of and it isn't really their fault for being drunk. Personal responsibility is fine and well, but you seem to only want to put it on the purported victim here, while claiming that I only want to put it on the accused. Being drunk is a choice that people make, and it can have consequences. This is a true statement. I want that statement to apply to everyone. Even the poor drunk boy who had sex with the girl that he knew was drunk, when he knew that might be an issue. I'm not saying this kid is a criminal or a rapist, but he ain't a victim.

- - - Updated - - -



Presumption of innocence means withholding judgement until the facts are known. It means, the accused is not a rapist until found guilty. It doesn't mean everything he says is true unless proven false. The burden of proof is on the state to prove it false, yes. That doesn't make it true. It makes it the accused's version of events. OJ wasn't found guilty of murder. That doesn't mean his version of events was the truth, it means the prosecution couldn't prove it wasn't. That's a pretty damn important distinction.

With regard to demographics of rape, and why I phrased things the way I did, most rapists are known to the victim. Alcohol is a frequent tool used to disarm a potential victim. Also, sexual assault is the legal term that rape falls under in many states. In any case, I have frequently said that I don't think this kid is a rapist. I think we need to dispel the notion that all rapists are violent sociopaths. You can accidentally kill someone. You can, with an error in judgement and no malice, cause millions of dollars in financial losses. And you can rape someone without being a monster. But you persist in operating in these absolutes.

What you are saying is that you would presume people to be guilty, and that can not happen in a court of law. As soon as one of the two claims consent was given then consent was given unless you can prove otherwise.

If people are taken advantage of then that is something that also needs to be proven, until this is proven the defendant is presumed innocent.
I do lay responsibility to both parties, and doing something stupid while you are drunk falls directly under this.
And again, if you want to hold the boy here responsible for having sex with someone who is drunk then you also need to put this same responsibility to the other person, and you refuse to do this.