15 percent of women are raped while incapacitated during their freshman year at college

[Colonel Sanders]

Bilby

Just as it is common for people to drive drunk, and get away with it, it is common for people to fuck drunk people and get away with it. But that doesn't render it lawful.

[/quote]Nope. Impaired fucking is unlawful in and of itself. Of course, people get away with it all the time, and many people think that it's no big deal; but that is also true of DUI.

Anything done to you by someone else while you are drunk is their fault.

I know I fucked up the quote thing, sorry.

Anyway, I'm afraid you're incorrect. Here are the pertinent California statutes:

Effective: September 9, 2013
West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code § 261
§ 261. “Rape” defined

(a) Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following circumstances:
(1) Where a person is incapable, because of a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability, of giving legal consent, and this is known or reasonably should be known to the person committing the act...

(2) Where it is accomplished against a person's will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another.

(3) Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused.

(4) Where a person is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act, and this is known to the accused. As used in this paragraph, “unconscious of the nature of the act” means incapable of resisting because the victim meets any one of the following conditions:
(A) Was unconscious or asleep.
(B) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant that the act occurred...


The most obvious thing as it pertains to drunk people is that some kind of force or intoxication must overcome their will for the act to be considered rape. To interpret it as saying that drinking and having sex is illegal is, well, just wrong. Here's more legalese:

A charge that the defendant accomplished the act of sexual intercourse against the will of the victim, together with evidence that places in dispute the willingness of the victim to engage in intercourse, entitles the defendant to an instruction that the act was not criminal if it was committed with the victim's actual consent.

But also, if the victim was so intoxicated at the time of the act and did give consent, that's not an affirmative defense to a charge of rape because that consent wasn't lawfully given.

Generally, other States will pattern their own statutes after California's, and even the Federal Government has taken its cues from California on many occasions. So while it's not the same in every state, California's a good barometer.

As to the OP? I don't know. I've read so many of these cases where the defendant has been falsely accused that the only realistic way to look at it is on a case by case basis. I've read cases where prior false accusations of rape haven't been allowed into evidence due to the tough rules against bringing the alleged victim into court. On appeal, the defendant sits in prison. Some of those cases are overturned, many are not.

Of course this doesn't mean all rape allegations are false. Not even close. And the penalties for the crime and the protections afforded the victims rightly reflect society's intolerance for the crime.

 

[Metaphor]

Your ability to think of (implausible) situations where a crime occurs in circumstances which entirely mitigate the actions of the perpetrator

I'm sorry, what? When did I come up with an implausible situation, and when did I say that waking up to being raped 'mitigated' the rapist's actions? Huh?

Or are you saying that two drunken people having sex is implausible?

 

[Metaphor]

The situation you describe is one in which one would hope, if it were brought to court, that the case of the person who was asleep at the beginning of the encounter would lead either to an acquittal (despite their technical guilt), or to a zero or token punishment; While the case of the person who initiated sex with a sleeping person would lead to a conviction and severe punishment.

Or perhaps you need to revise your understanding of what rape is, if waking up to being raped by someone to drunk to consent to sex makes you a rapist also.

 

[prideandfall]

No. Unless, of course, I was in an impaired state, where I was unable to understand what was going on, and that I had the option to say 'No'. In that case, yes, I would have been mugged.

right, but according to you, what you do while you're drunk is still your responsibility - you've said that being drunk doesn't excuse you for your behavior or actions while drunk.
so, how does that not necessarily infer that being drunk or not doesn't change your culpability in that scenario?

Nothing I have said is specific in any way to gender; The exact same rules apply whether the protagonists are both men, both women, or one of each (in either role - victim or perpetrator). There is no standard here that applies only to women.

i'm still seeing a double standard here in that you're basically saying that if two people are drunk and have sex that the woman has been raped and the man is the rapist, but if you apply the exact same argument to why the woman is the one who has been raped then you're saying the man has been raped, since neither of them consented to the act - which also logically means the man can't be raping the woman, since 'rape' requires some sort of intent to engage in intercourse without (or willful ignoring of the lack thereof) the consent of the other party.
it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

[bilby]

Bilby

Nope. Impaired fucking is unlawful in and of itself. Of course, people get away with it all the time, and many people think that it's no big deal; but that is also true of DUI.

Anything done to you by someone else while you are drunk is their fault.

I know I fucked up the quote thing, sorry.

Anyway, I'm afraid you're incorrect. Here are the pertinent California statutes:

Effective: September 9, 2013
West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code § 261
§ 261. “Rape” defined

(a) Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following circumstances:
(1) Where a person is incapable, because of a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability, of giving legal consent, and this is known or reasonably should be known to the person committing the act...

(2) Where it is accomplished against a person's will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another.

(3) Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused.

(4) Where a person is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act, and this is known to the accused. As used in this paragraph, “unconscious of the nature of the act” means incapable of resisting because the victim meets any one of the following conditions:
(A) Was unconscious or asleep.
(B) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant that the act occurred...


The most obvious thing as it pertains to drunk people is that some kind of force or intoxication must overcome their will for the act to be considered rape. To interpret it as saying that drinking and having sex is illegal is, well, just wrong. Here's more legalese:

A charge that the defendant accomplished the act of sexual intercourse against the will of the victim, together with evidence that places in dispute the willingness of the victim to engage in intercourse, entitles the defendant to an instruction that the act was not criminal if it was committed with the victim's actual consent.

But also, if the victim was so intoxicated at the time of the act and did give consent, that's not an affirmative defense to a charge of rape because that consent wasn't lawfully given.

Generally, other States will pattern their own statutes after California's, and even the Federal Government has taken its cues from California on many occasions. So while it's not the same in every state, California's a good barometer.

Not to me; My state sure as fuck doesn't model its legislation on anywhere in the USA. You do know that the USA is only 5% of the world, right?

Regardless, nothing in that California statute renders my response incorrect; 'being drunk' is the colloquial phrase that in legalese reads "prevented from resisting by any intoxicating [...] substance". California also requires that this state of intoxication is known to the accused, so having sex with a drunk person (knowing that they are drunk) is rape, according to the law. Whether a perpetrator can persuade a court that he did not know his victim was drunk or incapacitated is a matter for the courts.

As to the OP? I don't know. I've read so many of these cases where the defendant has been falsely accused that the only realistic way to look at it is on a case by case basis. I've read cases where prior false accusations of rape haven't been allowed into evidence due to the tough rules against bringing the alleged victim into court. On appeal, the defendant sits in prison. Some of those cases are overturned, many are not.

Of course this doesn't mean all rape allegations are false. Not even close. And the penalties for the crime and the protections afforded the victims rightly reflect society's intolerance for the crime.

 

[bilby]

Your ability to think of (implausible) situations where a crime occurs in circumstances which entirely mitigate the actions of the perpetrator

I'm sorry, what? When did I come up with an implausible situation, and when did I say that waking up to being raped 'mitigated' the rapist's actions? Huh?

Or are you saying that two drunken people having sex is implausible?

I meant what I said. If you are incapable of understanding it, that's not really my problem. And if you think I suggested or implied that you said that "waking up to being raped 'mitigated' the rapist's actions", you clearly didn't understand any of what I wrote.

 

[bilby]

right, but according to you, what you do while you're drunk is still your responsibility - you've said that being drunk doesn't excuse you for your behavior or actions while drunk.
so, how does that not necessarily infer that being drunk or not doesn't change your culpability in that scenario?

I presume you mean "imply"; and it very obviously doesn't imply that - My being drunk renders me vulnerable (which is not a crime of any kind); Taking advantage of a vulnerable person's vulnerability IS a crime.

Nothing I have said is specific in any way to gender; The exact same rules apply whether the protagonists are both men, both women, or one of each (in either role - victim or perpetrator). There is no standard here that applies only to women.

i'm still seeing a double standard here in that you're basically saying that if two people are drunk and have sex that the woman has been raped and the man is the rapist,

No, I just EXPLICITLY said they are exactly equal

but if you apply the exact same argument to why the woman is the one who has been raped then you're saying the man has been raped,

Yes. Yes. That. Why is that so hard to understand?

since neither of them consented to the act - which also logically means the man can't be raping the woman, since 'rape' requires some sort of intent to engage in intercourse without (or willful ignoring of the lack thereof) the consent of the other party.
it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

So I see. That seems to be because you confuse inability to consent with inability to have intent. They are different things; Drunkenness eliminates the ability to consent; but does not mitigate unlawful intent.

 

[Metaphor]

I'm sorry, what? When did I come up with an implausible situation, and when did I say that waking up to being raped 'mitigated' the rapist's actions? Huh?

Or are you saying that two drunken people having sex is implausible?

I meant what I said. If you are incapable of understanding it, that's not really my problem. And if you think I suggested or implied that you said that "waking up to being raped 'mitigated' the rapist's actions", you clearly didn't understand any of what I wrote.

I described two situations, neither of which are implausible.

You suggested that someone waking up to being raped might be guilty of rape if the person raping them is unable to consent.

Indeed, your definition is so absurd that if we apply it, someone in a coma is guilty of rape if someone who is too young to consent or too intoxicated to consent has sex with the comatose body.

You have an untenable definition of rape, but that doesn't seem to bother you.

 

[rousseau]

It's time, we need a forum dedicated solely to rape threads.

 

[ronburgundy]

So, looking at the study, all my predictions were correct. The women do not indicate they were "raped", nor that the sex was unwanted.

The vague phrase "incapacitated by drugs or alcohol" is never defined. Thus, guaranteeing massive unreliability in how women interpreted it, with many likely treating being intoxicated but still aware and willing as qualifying. In addition, being retrospective, we know that the women are coloring the experience via their current feelings about the person, which given the short life of college flings will be negative post-breakup feelings about an event that occurred while they were together.

Also, not also were general drug/alcohol consumption and number of sexual experiences significant predictors of these incidents of "rape", but so was the women's beliefs that alcohol enhances sex and lowers sexual inhibitions. These beliefs are not likely to be predictors of incidents of rape that are clearly forced and non-consensual. Thus, casting further doubt that many of the incidents reported in this study are more than women getting intoxicated, sometimes because they believe it will make sex more likely and better, consenting to sex, and then later when asked thinking that their intoxication qualifies as being "incapacitated" and then dishonest ideologues call this "rape". This also explains why the overwhelmingly greatest and massive predictor of these incidents in college was whether the same women had such an incident before college.

 

[bilby]

I meant what I said. If you are incapable of understanding it, that's not really my problem. And if you think I suggested or implied that you said that "waking up to being raped 'mitigated' the rapist's actions", you clearly didn't understand any of what I wrote.

I described two situations, neither of which are implausible.

You suggested that someone waking up to being raped might be guilty of rape if the person raping them is unable to consent.

Indeed, your definition is so absurd that if we apply it, someone in a coma is guilty of rape if someone who is too young to consent or too intoxicated to consent has sex with the comatose body.

You have an untenable definition of rape, but that doesn't seem to bother you.

Not in the slightest. That's probably because your belief about how I define rape is incorrect; But given your demonstrated inability to comprehend what I wrote, and the total lack of impact of your opinion on my life, I have zero interest in trying to correct your error.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Here is a Thanksgiving chewtoy for you MRAs out there:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-11/joso-sfh111315.php





I'll see if I can dig out the study.

Given similar prior "research", odds are extremely high that few of these women said they were "raped" while "incapacitated", and these are just the author's unscientific efforts to put words in these women's mouths against their will. What these 15% probably said is that they had sex while intoxicated.

Here is the most informative part of what was quoted.

[P] Researchers found that freshmen women who'd been victims of such assaults before college were at substantial risk of being victimized again. Overall, nearly 18 percent of students said they'd been raped while incapacitated before college, and 41 percent of those young women were raped again while incapacitated during their freshman year.[/P]

So, if you do the algebra to solve for the % "raped" in college who were not "raped" before college, the equation is .41(.18) + X(.82) = .15.
X = .093. This means that the probability of getting "raped" as a freshmen were 9% if you weren't "raped" previously but 41% (over 4.5 times as high) if you were "raped" previously.

Wow. That's an amazing coincidence that the women that got "raped" before college are almost 5 times more likely to get raped again, even though they are in a whole different setting, different city, and around different people. What major causal determinant of such "rape" is the same across these scenarios that could so strongly determine which freshman get "raped" and which do not? The answer lies in the saying "Wherever you go, there you are."

No, this doesn't mean women are the cause of actual rape. This study didn't measure actual rape. The study measured which women gave a response that the researchers categorized as being "raped while incapacitated from drug use or alcohol".

Odds are also great that general drug/alcohol use and number of sexual partners are strong predictors of these "rape" incidents both pre and during college. This is because if rape is defined as a co-occurrence of drug use and sex, then anyone who does either or both more frequently will inherently be more likely to have them co-occur and thus be "raped".

Since young ladies who often get incapacitated from getting drunk will have a higher frequency of getting raped while incapacitated, you don't seem to be saying anything informative.

 

[Metaphor]

I described two situations, neither of which are implausible.

You suggested that someone waking up to being raped might be guilty of rape if the person raping them is unable to consent.

Indeed, your definition is so absurd that if we apply it, someone in a coma is guilty of rape if someone who is too young to consent or too intoxicated to consent has sex with the comatose body.

You have an untenable definition of rape, but that doesn't seem to bother you.

Not in the slightest. That's probably because your belief about how I define rape is incorrect; But given your demonstrated inability to comprehend what I wrote, and the total lack of impact of your opinion on my life, I have zero interest in trying to correct your error.

You said: anyone who has sex with someone who cannot consent is 'technically' guilty of rape. You said a definition that works under most circumstances except the most unusual is okay. But, if you actually have a definition of rape that avoids the absurd implications, why wouldn't you use it?

- - - Updated - - -

 

[JonA]

How do such things happen? Really.

 

[Metaphor]

Addressing the OP:

The respondents were asked how many times they had experienced five defined kinds of sexual assault (e.g., oral sex, completed intercourse) under four kinds of 'perpetrator tactics' which are

“overwhelm you with arguments about sex or continual pressure for sex,”
“use physical force,”
“threaten to harm you or someone close to you,” and
“perform sexual acts while you were incapacitated by drugs or alcohol and unable to object or consent.”

I don't know that the first 'tactic' amounts to rape, the second and third certainly do.

But the problem with the last one is that 'incapacitated' is not further defined: it's left up to the respondent's interpretation. For me personally, if I were to describe being 'incapacitated' by drugs/alcohol I'd be describing a situation of total intoxication, drifting in and out of consciousness, slurred speech, uncoordinated movements etc, and I would agree that in that situation, you cannot consent. But other people might regard 'incapacitated' as something else such as 'I am too drunk to drive'. Now there have been many times in my life that I am too drunk to drive but in no way is merely 'too drunk to drive' the same as 'incapable of giving consent'.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

To translate: 15% of freshmen females have had sex while drunk.

Why is it if a girl is drunk she is 'raped' while when a guy is drunk he is the 'rapist'?

That doesn't follow from the study.

I have a big problem with the study in that it reports a far higher rape rate than other data but I'm not seeing any obvious flaws--although I admit that at present I don't have time to read the whole thing.

One thing I do see just about immediately--it's mostly the same women it's happening to multiple times. They obviously don't care enough about what happened to quit putting themselves in the situation where it happened--this makes me think many of the incidents are actually welcome even though they weren't really in a state to consent.

Edit: After having finished the thread I think they must be using too broad a definition of "incapacitated".

- - - Updated - - -

No, 15% of females were raped while incapacitated. Plied with drugs or alcohol. There is a difference between rape and consensual sex.

The only drug they surveyed was pot--and the data does not show any appreciable relationship. (And given that pot is related to risk-taking and risk-taking is related to being raped a low correlation is probably spurious.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You wake up to a drunk person raping you. You recognise they are completely, off-their-tits drunk themselves, and are therefore incapable of consent to sex.

Are you also raping them? If you're not raping them, please explain how and show your work. Remember

i) you are having sex with them
ii) they are incapable of consent.

If you wake up and someone is raping you that means you are not raping anyone. It also means you are not having sex. It doesn't matter what state the other party is in, you are not having sex with them and you are not raping them.

Incorrect--you can have two people that are blackout-drunk and both wake up in the process.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If you wake up and someone is raping you that means you are not raping anyone. It also means you are not having sex. It doesn't matter what state the other party is in, you are not having sex with them and you are not raping them.

Incorrect--you can have two people that are blackout-drunk and both wake up in the process.

Okay, then. Let's suppose that you get drunk with Tom Cruise. You both wake up in bed together and but you don't remember much.

Would you feel violated?

Would Tom Cruise feel violated?

It's entirely possible that you raped Tom Cruise or Tom Cruise raped you and in each of these scenarios, neither of you remember it.

If Tom Cruise accused you of rape and had some kind of evidence against you, you'd probably get into legal trouble.

It would be a similar scenario to if you had a blackout and then decided while blacked out to drive a vehicle and killed Tom Cruise while driving drunk but did not remember it.

 

[laughing dog]

If you wake up and someone is raping you that means you are not raping anyone. It also means you are not having sex. It doesn't matter what state the other party is in, you are not having sex with them and you are not raping them.

Incorrect--you can have two people that are blackout-drunk and both wake up in the process.

I realize this is difficult for you but what exactly do you not understand about "If you wake up and someone is raping you "?

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Not to me; My state sure as fuck doesn't model its legislation on anywhere in the USA. You do know that the USA is only 5% of the world, right?

Regardless, nothing in that California statute renders my response incorrect; 'being drunk' is the colloquial phrase that in legalese reads "prevented from resisting by any intoxicating [...] substance". California also requires that this state of intoxication is known to the accused, so having sex with a drunk person (knowing that they are drunk) is rape, according to the law. Whether a perpetrator can persuade a court that he did not know his victim was drunk or incapacitated is a matter for the courts.

I don't know where you live, but if you were familiar with the law there, I think it's a good bet that it doesn't outlaw people drinking and having sex.

Second, unlike shoddy political arguments and personal opinion, you don't get to cherry pick one element of your choosing and then decide that it applies. All the elements must be present in order for the crime to be committed.

Third, colloquial phrases have no place in statutory law, nor do courts make rulings base on colloquial phrases, that is, unless you live in an incredibly sloppy legal system. Your interpretation of the rule you quoted is utterly without merit.

Finally, just because you don't know what you're talking about, it's no reason to lash out at others.