Drunk rape justified?

[pentagathus]

 

[kurczak]

The traditional legal definition is not sex without consent, but sex by use of force or under threat of force. Big difference, huuuge.

Feeling a bit dumb here - could you explain the difference? I don't understand how something can happen without consent or force. Accidentally?

Force or threat of force is only a subset of lack of consent. Lack of (valid) consent can be also caused by intoxication, unconsciousness, mental retardation, blackmail or low age.

These are usually covered by the "new" crimes such as the aforementioned sexual assault.

Personally I tend to dislike the "I was high I didn't know what I was doing." mentality. If you intoxicate yourself voluntarily, you voluntarily accept the consequences of that state of mind and you should be responsible for your actions while intoxicated at least as gross negligence, if not indirect intent (much like the drunk driver is). That doesn't mean it's ok to (actually) rape an intoxicated person (i.e. have sex with an unconsenting intoxicated person), but merely that consent of drunk person can be taken as a legitimate consent.

 

[Pharaoh Llandy]

Personally I tend to dislike the "I was high I didn't know what I was doing." mentality. If you intoxicate yourself voluntarily, you voluntarily accept the consequences of that state of mind and you should be responsible for your actions while intoxicated at least as gross negligence, if not indirect intent (much like the drunk driver is). That doesn't mean it's ok to (actually) rape an intoxicated person (i.e. have sex with an unconsenting intoxicated person), but merely that consent of drunk person can be taken as a legitimate consent.

That doesn't help people who've been purposely fed alcohol or drugs by their attacker, for the very purpose of putting them in a state that removes their ability to consent or object.

 

[kurczak]

Hence "if you intoxicate yourself voluntarily".

 

[K-64]

And what about those that are still exploring drink, as it were? Is it their fault that they don't yet know their limits?

 

[Lost-Lamb]

And what about those that are still exploring drink, as it were? Is it their fault that they don't yet know their limits?

Jeez, I told you I was sorry No need to bring it up all the time.

 

[kurczak]

And what about those that are still exploring drink, as it were? Is it their fault that they don't yet know their limits?

What about those drivers that just got their driving license? Are they not responsible for the accidents they cause?

Rights come with responsibility. Claiming rights and avoiding responsibility is a sign that the person probably shouldn't have been given the rights in the first place.

 

[Sir Saladin]

Is Drunk rape justified? Does a bear **** in the woods? I'm just kidding everyone, haha, joking. The topic title just seemed funny to me.

 

[K-64]

And what about those that are still exploring drink, as it were? Is it their fault that they don't yet know their limits?

What about those drivers that just got their driving license? Are they not responsible for the accidents they cause?

Rights come with responsibility. Claiming rights and avoiding responsibility is a sign that the person probably shouldn't have been given the rights in the first place.

The thing is, alcohol is the same price at any age. Car insurance isn't, so the comparison falls right apart

 

[Seff]

Is Drunk rape justified? Does a bear **** in the woods? I'm just kidding everyone, haha, joking. The topic title just seemed funny to me.

I was trying to make sure all the hotheads swarmed here instead of the dating thread.

 

[K-64]

You think I'm hot? D'awwwwwwwwwww

 

[kurczak]

The thing is, alcohol is the same price at any age. Car insurance isn't, so the comparison falls right apart

1) The premiums rarely if ever affect the driver's behavior. If s/he is convinced that he is a good driver and can get away with driving like a cretin, then s/he is not gonna care about what the insurance company thinks of the probability of his causing an accident.
2) The victim of a car accident gets the same money regardless of the age of the driver. The extra money is there to protect the insurance company, not the victims.
3) No amount of monetary compensation is gonna help you if you die in the accident. It is also not much of a consolation if you become disabled etc.
4) You only need insurance when you own a car, you can drive a car and cause accidents even when you don't own one and thus pay no insurance at all.


Edit: Also, Dave Chapelle on a semi-related note.

 

[Ambalon]

I'm with kurczak on this one.

 

[Jhessail]

There may be something to this, but personally, I think it is viewed in the same way extreme sporters getting injured, and then suing whomever. The most common response I hear to "she asked for it." is about how people should have the ability to be slutty or vulnerable without incurring the lustful assaults (or even advances) of others, which is rightly so, but a deflection of the point. I see slutwalks, even demands for anti-rape education (includeing self defense) to be changed from prevention for women into manditory premption for men. Its stupid, if it is even effective at all, because it is not only the furthest thing from pragmatic, its assumes that rapists and rape-defenders do not intellectually understand ethics, which barring sociopaths, is not the case.

Risky behavior will incure bad results, thats why being slutty is risky. The misunderstanding here is that speakers on the issue are stuck in the sociological bucket. Rape is viewed as a social, and not also, perhaps mostly a psychological or biological phenomenon. Women have ~6% as much testosterone, the source of sexual behavior, and its highly cyclical. Testosterone is much more stable at high levels in men, but even among individuals it is highly variable. Meaning, the likely pool of victims and advocates have little clue of the nature of the beast they are dealing with and don't understand the risks.

Regardless of morality, law and social adaptations, it's playing with fire. There is a fool born every day and some people really are jerks.

Slut shaming and victim blaming. Welcome to 2013. And they say that feminism is pointless by now.

 

[Cutpurse3]

I love reading about the women that were facedesk-****ingly drunk while being "raped" that usually call rape although they can't remember **** from that time.

 

[Magorian Aximand]

 

[Devercia]

There may be something to this, but personally, I think it is viewed in the same way extreme sporters getting injured, and then suing whomever. The most common response I hear to "she asked for it." is about how people should have the ability to be slutty or vulnerable without incurring the lustful assaults (or even advances) of others, which is rightly so, but a deflection of the point. I see slutwalks, even demands for anti-rape education (includeing self defense) to be changed from prevention for women into manditory premption for men. Its stupid, if it is even effective at all, because it is not only the furthest thing from pragmatic, its assumes that rapists and rape-defenders do not intellectually understand ethics, which barring sociopaths, is not the case.

Risky behavior will incure bad results, thats why being slutty is risky. The misunderstanding here is that speakers on the issue are stuck in the sociological bucket. Rape is viewed as a social, and not also, perhaps mostly a psychological or biological phenomenon. Women have ~6% as much testosterone, the source of sexual behavior, and its highly cyclical. Testosterone is much more stable at high levels in men, but even among individuals it is highly variable. Meaning, the likely pool of victims and advocates have little clue of the nature of the beast they are dealing with and don't understand the risks.

Regardless of morality, law and social adaptations, it's playing with fire. There is a fool born every day and some people really are jerks.

Slut shaming and victim blaming. Welcome to 2013. And they say that feminism is pointless by now.

I was shaming behavior I explicitly said people have the right to express? Interesting that you think so.  It must feel good to know that any ideas that conflict with your own must be the crackpot rantings of a despicable curmudgeon.

As for blame, it is not mutually exclusive to one party, nor does the presence of it in one party reduce it in the other, nor is the legal punishment of rape intended to be recompense for the victim, which means the relative difference between blame is more or less irrelevant. Those that argue the victim's foolishness is reason to overlook the issue are assholes.

@ Llandy, Tibertus explained it. I don't view slut as a label, its an action defined by circumstance.

 

[Argeus the Paladin]

There may be something to this, but personally, I think it is viewed in the same way extreme sporters getting injured, and then suing whomever. The most common response I hear to "she asked for it." is about how people should have the ability to be slutty or vulnerable without incurring the lustful assaults (or even advances) of others, which is rightly so, but a deflection of the point. I see slutwalks, even demands for anti-rape education (includeing self defense) to be changed from prevention for women into manditory premption for men. Its stupid, if it is even effective at all, because it is not only the furthest thing from pragmatic, its assumes that rapists and rape-defenders do not intellectually understand ethics, which barring sociopaths, is not the case.

Risky behavior will incure bad results, thats why being slutty is risky. The misunderstanding here is that speakers on the issue are stuck in the sociological bucket. Rape is viewed as a social, and not also, perhaps mostly a psychological or biological phenomenon. Women have ~6% as much testosterone, the source of sexual behavior, and its highly cyclical. Testosterone is much more stable at high levels in men, but even among individuals it is highly variable. Meaning, the likely pool of victims and advocates have little clue of the nature of the beast they are dealing with and don't understand the risks.

Regardless of morality, law and social adaptations, it's playing with fire. There is a fool born every day and some people really are jerks.

Slut shaming and victim blaming. Welcome to 2013. And they say that feminism is pointless by now.

There's something I never seem to understand regarding this view. Sure, nothing period excuses rape. And yet at the same time, in almost every culture, the wise would always advise that it's better to take precautions to prevent bad things from happening than to try to combat it when it happens. And that applies to all sort of things, not just rape. For instance and on a somewhat unrelated note, it's a well-known fact that

隐藏: Tourists, shoo. Nothing to see here. Honest

if you go outside after dark in certain part in my city and wear visible jewelry and/or a really nice-looking purse, you are that much more likely to be mugged. Hence the general advice parents would give to kids is, if you're going after dark, try not to do that.

Oh, and one more thing: I hope you guys would realize that "slutty" and "drunk" are two entirely different things. The former does not usually inhibit your ability to defend yourself and/or evading potential trouble should bad stuffs happen. The latter, however, does. There's a line right there.

 

[Ambalon]

隐藏: Tourists, shoo. Nothing to see here. Honest

if you go outside after dark in certain part in my city and wear visible jewelry and/or a really nice-looking purse, you are that much more likely to be mugged. Hence the general advice parents would give to kids is, if you're going after dark, try not to do that.

隐藏: dont rid pls huehue

Doing that, you'll get mugged anywhere at any time of the day in my country.

 

[Devercia]

I hope you guys would realize that "slutty" and "drunk" are two entirely different things. The former does not usually inhibit your ability to defend yourself and/or evading potential trouble should bad stuffs happen.

You've never walked with pace in high-heel have you?