No Means Yes If You Know How To Spot It

[Jokodo]

<snip>and usually that's ok. <snip>

"usually" is not good enough. Usually, when someone takes the driving seat while totally drunk, they'll get home without an accident. But the chance that they don't is much increased relative to the baseline. That's apparently good enough to legally require drivers to be sober. So why wouldn't the fact that the chance of miscommunication (and ensuing trauma) is much increased when relying solely on implicit communication relative to a baseline of explicit communication be good enough for college codes of conducts (note: we're not even talking about laws here) to proscribe the latter?

 

[Togo]

My apologies, post 103. I'll go back and edit the original.

I'm also going to stop replying for a few hours, and see if the thread calms down a bit.

In other words, you've talked yourself into a corner because the actual policies dont say at all what you claimed they said...

I gave you the post where it was cited, above.

I've lost track of which standard exactly you're talking about.

Yes, I noticed. That doesn't seem to have stopped you condemning my opposition to it.

I've repeatedly asked you to point out the exact wording you find objectionable,

I think you've only asked me once, based on two quotations that hadn't appeared before... I've cited what I feel is an unreasonable standard. If you're arguing that no one actually requires that standard, doesn't that suggest we agree?

In the last post I replied to, you are on record claiming....

Ok, I'm concerned you want to discuss me rather than the topic. I'll leave your post here.

Togo, I don't understand your rationale for 'holding in place until orgasm is complete'? Isn't that use of force? Isn't force explicitly denied in the two university standards?

Which two? There's the standard Derec cited near the start of the thread, which is apparently from Antioch, there's the OSU standard from post 103, and there's the two that Jokodo introduced more recently. Apparently the two OSU standards don't match, so one is probably in error.

Use of force isn't specifically called out in all of the sources, which tend to rely on consent or lack of it. I suspect that's the more normal approach, since consensual sex can be forceful, and non-consensual sex doesn't need to be forceful to be a problem.

The reason I called out that particular example is because it's an often discussed classic edge case - an assho person uses the 'tensing of muscles during orgasm' as an excuse to force someone to stay in place during orgasm. It's a highly deniable move, breaks almost all the rules, and is in practice almost impossible to impose any conseqence for.

The point I was trying to make was that it can for, purely practical reasons, be difficult to withdraw permission at a critical moment, which is why I prefer on-going consent to consent in advance.

Several posters have responded to what I've said, in the spirit in which I said it. In such a highly charged topic, however, it is inevitable that some people will attempt to draw posters into familiar conflicts. That's the only reason I can think of why Rhea would accuse me of supporting rape, or you would accuse me of having dishonest motives, and attempting to build a straw man argument against... well I'm not sure.

If you would like to link to where I accused you of supporting rape, I would happily explain what I was thinking when I said it. It's possible that I did think exactly that, since several posters on this thread lead me to conclude they are advocating that failing to punish rapes is better than stopping rapes, whenever there is a possibility that someone will not get the sex s/he thinks s/he deserves.

So link it and I will be happy to explain what I was thinking.

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...w-How-To-Spot-It&p=64562&viewfull=1#post64562

This was largely what I was thinking about when I mentioned 'being drawn into familiar conflicts', but I can't discount the idea that you were genuinely offended.

It still comes across as quite a few on this board would rather risk raping someone than risk not having sex.

Which is rather disturbing.

It's too much effort to have a conversation with a potential sexual partner?

I think this is a problem that's worth facing. While it seems obvious that rape is worse than not getting sex, you need to put the choice into context. The chance of a misunderstanding so serious as to result in assault/rape may appear extremely small, if not in 'theoretical but not actual'. Not in general, but for that particular person at the particular time. People don't tend to think that they're going to make a massive mistake. On the other side, you're talking about people who are horny, possibly in love with someone they may not be able to acquire as a partner without making a serious pass at them, and quite possibly drunk. The point is not that it's worth risking assault to get sex, it's whether an abstract blanket rule intended to avoid sexual assualt in general should be ignored just this once for this particular case. That's why it's so critical that the rule be simple, easy to follow, and have face validity (they must appear to be an obviously valid and desirable rule, rather than something clumsy and overcautious).

Did you read what I actually wrote in full? The policies will eliminate the ability of predators to hide behind the excuse of "misunderstanding".

Drunk rapes aren't a misunderstanding and they can't pretend they are. They're hard to prosecute due to her lack of recollection of details, not due to pretending they were misunderstandings.

What if both people were drunk? (a recent case in the UK)

You seem to be objecting to those colleges' definitions of assault and consent, but I really can't see why. They perfectly fit with (part of) the criteria you've outlined right here. Surely you agree that having sex with someone you hardly know, you've only met days or hours before, without explicit unambiguous consent is a behaviour that is likely to make trauma happen? Than what's the problem?

Because they define normal, expected human behavior as rape.

I agree that this is a potential problem.

...trendy little quips like 'yes means yes' or 'not-no means yes' or 'it's not rape if you say surprise' or whatever the SJWs or MRAs dream up this week doesn't solve the problem that it is far more complicated than that, and that those who disagree that the intent behind the rule is faulty will figure out a way to skirt it. It's beating around the bush and it makes problems and solves nothing.

This bit, I'm not so sure. There are people who arrive at university having had no real experience of the opposite sex, or worse having only witnessed somewhat reckless behaviour at high school or similar. There are people who really do need guidelines, and have never really thought about what things would be like from the other person's point of view, and having a code of conduct is genuinely helpful, terrifying though it might seem. Similarly there are people who have very firms ideas about how to behave around the opposite sex, ideas that you don't want to be used at your university. Again these people benefit from having some kind of standard, if only so you don't get, for example, London attitudes in Rome, or Rome attitudes in London.

 

[Jokodo]

In other words, you've talked yourself into a corner because the actual policies dont say at all what you claimed they said...

I gave you the post where it was cited, above.

I've lost track of which standard exactly you're talking about.

Yes, I noticed. That doesn't seem to have stopped you condemning my opposition to it.

I've repeatedly asked you to point out the exact wording you find objectionable,

I think you've only asked me once, based on two quotations that hadn't appeared before... I've cited what I feel is an unreasonable standard. If you're arguing that no one actually requires that standard, doesn't that suggest we agree?<snip>

Reasonable or not, it doesn't make true what you allege it does.

 

[Bronzeage]

It still comes across as quite a few on this board would rather risk raping someone than risk not having sex.

Which is rather disturbing.

It's too much effort to have a conversation with a potential sexual partner?

That does seem to be trend. And yes it is disturbing.

And it is that attitude right there for which these careful rules were written. To take away the perceived permission they feel they are entitled to by making it crystal clear in writing that no one buys their premise.

I think it is not that a person would rather risk rape than risk loosing their chance to have sex, but close. An essential element of sex for this kind of man, is the feeling of conquest. Even if it is only in his mind, there must be an overbalance of power in his favor. Her submission is evidence of his power. When he is required to ask politely for permission, the illusion(or the reality) is destroyed.

Human sexuality is a bizarre thing. We are caught in a place no other animal will ever be. We want to perpetuate our species, in a general kind of way, but it gets complicated. The drive to have sex is in us all, to some extent. We are the only animal who has to deal with the fact that sex and our choice of sex partner can have serious effects on our lives. It would be much simpler if the right display of plumage or the best dance steps was all a man or woman needed. Just being the biggest and strongest would take out a lot of guess work. We have so much to consider and so little time, and never enough information.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This thread has taken some bizarre turns.

I have never once in my life seriously thought I might have consensual sex with a woman and she might later accuse me of rape. It strains my imagination to think of how I might be put in that situation. There are men who appear to see this as a clear and present danger, but not to themselves, of course. The danger is to mankind, in general. They play the part of hero savior, out to warn and rescue vulnerable men. It's sort of like ringing a fire alarm, before the fire actually starts.

Just because you never considered it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

How in the world can the Vassar case be interpreted as anything other than exactly this happening?

 

[Bronzeage]

This thread has taken some bizarre turns.

I have never once in my life seriously thought I might have consensual sex with a woman and she might later accuse me of rape. It strains my imagination to think of how I might be put in that situation. There are men who appear to see this as a clear and present danger, but not to themselves, of course. The danger is to mankind, in general. They play the part of hero savior, out to warn and rescue vulnerable men. It's sort of like ringing a fire alarm, before the fire actually starts.

Just because you never considered it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

How in the world can the Vassar case be interpreted as anything other than exactly this happening?

I never considered it happening to myself, because I have never put myself in that situation.

What does a man have to do to make a rational woman falsely accuse him of rape? Is it something a rational woman would not do? Does this mean every rape victim should have a psychological exam before the charges can be filed?

 

[RavenSky]

Let's look at this from a different perspective... There are a few different things (and I will not accept that they are all 'rape' insofar as the connotations of 'RAPE' don't actually apply in all situations).

Person A gets sexually assaulted at gunpoint. As a result, sex has been associated with a traumatic experience. They have sexually-triggered PTSD as a result of this. This is pretty much one of the worst things you can do, robbing someone of their ability to enjoy something awesome. It's evil as fuck and the REASON that rape laws exist to proscribe such behavior.

not "the" reason, but "a" reason, yes.

Person B gets drunk at a frat party and because they are drunk, say YES. They regret this the next day. They have no trauma. They have lost nothing except some self esteem for doing something they choose to accept as 'foolish' after choosing to be a fool.

They were drunk, which means there was not actually true consent, and anyone who knowingly takes advantage of Person B while s/he is drunk has crossed the line. However, in the real world, if Person B knows they did say yes they will almost certainly chalk it up to doing something "foolish" and that's the end of it.

Person C goes to the same party, and gets black-out drunk. They wake up the next morning surrounded by half the people that went there, naked, and sore in the tender bits. The next day video surfaces which shows that they were pressured into it by drunken arguments, and there was even a 'no' involved. The guys did something bad, but again the shame is the result, not of the sex, but of the 'slut shaming' and the laws that say 'this was rape' and the culture that says 'feel traumatized because you were raped'. Sex was neither necessary nor sufficient in and of itself to invoke the trauma of situation A.

Wrong wrong oh so wrong. What you are describing here is full-on, no doubt about it RAPE. Not "the guys did something bad" - they RAPED Person C, and they fully deserve to go to prison. And you are wrong wrong wrong about the trauma. Person C was traumatized by the violation to their body. They may be additionally traumatized by the "slut shaming" too, but for anyone to dismiss the violation of Person C is appalling.

So what appears to be the case is that making rape it's own crime, special and apart from, and even in the absence of 'willfully or ignorantly induced trauma'

Just because you choose to dismiss it doesn't mean it wasn't traumatic for the victim. Moreover, the amount of trauma to the victim is not the bar by which we prosecute people. Did Person R rape Person C or not? Clearly and obviously in this case as you have described it, Person C was raped. THAT is the bar, NOT the amount of trauma Person C feels, or should feel according to you.

laws (the general case which rape laws are intended to address and prevent/punish/correct) we turn more things into 'RAPE!'.

No one has turned "more things into rape". We simply do not accept the falsehoods anymore. Examples: she's his wife - it wasn't rape. She's a prostitute - it wasn't rape. She was drunk - it wasn't rape.

Our society rapes some of them far more than any penis ever did.

That I agree with, but not for the same reasons. Our police system and justice system does tend to re-victimize the rape victims again, and so do the arm-chair juries with their judgements about who should and shouldn't feel traumatized, or worse, the ones who call the victim a liar on the basis of nothing more than their own biases.

It further means we are more focused on spending money 'catching that dirty RAPIST!' Than treating the PTSD.

Frankly *we* don't spend near enough time/money trying to catch rapists - not even the dirty kind that raped your Person A above. Do a little research into the backlog of untested rape kits at almost every police department in this country... meanwhile the rapists are still raping. I will agree with you that *we* do not spend enough time/money treating the victims for PTSD too, but it isn't due to funds being directed at catching the rapists.

Don't get me wrong, giving people PTSD is nearly as destructive and antisocial as murder, and we should seek to treat, exile, or bury such people as is necessary to protect society. But we need at least as much funding toward helping the victims to stop feeling victimized, and making the laws not explicitly be about the PTSD and making fiddly technical rules lawyer laws about what yesses are real yesses doesn't address the idea of rape itself.

Understand (& educating our young people about) what real consent actually looks like - what yesses are real yesses, as you put it - is the most important aspect.

It makes it harder to prosecute nonsexual induced trauma.

??? This doesn't even make sense

It induces trauma in the otherwise non-victimized.

nor this, unless you are still referring to Person C whom you think shouldn't be traumatized, but you are wrong

And it lets people who engage in behaviors which will likely induce trauma walk because every more specific definition to a general act introduces loopholes.

wrong

It will also produce false positives when the coach's daughter gets drunk and he goes half-cocked on his daughter's 'rapist' because he wants revenge on the dirty sunnuvabitch that deflowered his precious girl. Never mind she didn't even feel shame (nor should she!), coach halfcock has a rule and he's going to exploit it to defend his indignation, and she's not about to stand up to her dad, and she was ambivalent about the guy in the first place.

If she expressed that she was ambivalent, the boy should have stopped. You are demonstrating here exactly why it is so very important to teach "what yesses are real yesses" because "ambivalent" sure as heck is not a "yes"

The questions should be 'do you feel traumatized?' And of the other person 'is trauma likely to happen because of how you "do business"?' And if the answer to the first is yes, treatment for trauma, and if the answer to the second is 'no', then they walk away without consequence*. And if the answer to the first is 'no, and the answer to the second is 'yes' then he gets treatment, exile, or execution, and no further social consequences. No expulsions, no additional stigma. No societally enforced shame. *but he gets watched closely, depending on how he acquits himself, and if it happens again at a higher frequency than the baseline frequency in the population, evaluate with additional scrutiny.

wrong wrong wrong wrong again.

What the victim is or is not feeling at any given moment in time has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a crime was committed and what consequences the rapist should face. Many rape victims (even your Person A above) may shove all of their feelings so far inside themselves in order to not have to feel the trauma. And even if they do feel it, some victims don't want to give their rapist any more power by admitting how traumatized they feel. (and this, by the way, applies to all kinds of crime - B&E, theft, car-jacking, etc) We do not decide whether the car thief gets prosecuted based on how upset the car owner was by the loss of the car. That is just absurd on its face.

 

[RavenSky]

Did you read what I actually wrote in full? The policies will eliminate the ability of predators to hide behind the excuse of "misunderstanding".

Drunk rapes aren't a misunderstanding and they can't pretend they are. They're hard to prosecute due to her lack of recollection of details, not due to pretending they were misunderstandings.

Rapists do rely on "misunderstanding" all the time

It still comes across as quite a few on this board would rather risk raping someone than risk not having sex.

Which is rather disturbing.

It's too much effort to have a conversation with a potential sexual partner?

I don't see anyone saying that. What some of us are saying is that the proposed rules are incompatible with how sex actually works.

saying it, but failing to demonstrate it as anything other than an opinion... a very disturbing opinion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Just because you never considered it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

How in the world can the Vassar case be interpreted as anything other than exactly this happening?

I never considered it happening to myself, because I have never put myself in that situation.

What does a man have to do to make a rational woman falsely accuse him of rape? Is it something a rational woman would not do? Does this mean every rape victim should have a psychological exam before the charges can be filed?

About the only way you can protect yourself is to follow the old adage about not sticking your dick in crazy. However, sometimes crazy doesn't show itself at first. It's certainly impossible to avoid in a casual sex situation.

- - - Updated - - -

Drunk rapes aren't a misunderstanding and they can't pretend they are. They're hard to prosecute due to her lack of recollection of details, not due to pretending they were misunderstandings.

Rapists do rely on "misunderstanding" all the time

It still comes across as quite a few on this board would rather risk raping someone than risk not having sex.

Which is rather disturbing.

It's too much effort to have a conversation with a potential sexual partner?

I don't see anyone saying that. What some of us are saying is that the proposed rules are incompatible with how sex actually works.

saying it, but failing to demonstrate it as anything other than an opinion... a very disturbing opinion.

Have you ever had a partner ask every step of the way? What steps did they ask at?

 

[Bronzeage]

I never considered it happening to myself, because I have never put myself in that situation.

What does a man have to do to make a rational woman falsely accuse him of rape? Is it something a rational woman would not do? Does this mean every rape victim should have a psychological exam before the charges can be filed?

About the only way you can protect yourself is to follow the old adage about not sticking your dick in crazy. However, sometimes crazy doesn't show itself at first. It's certainly impossible to avoid in a casual sex situation.

Well now, there you go. Another important factor is the "don't be a crazy dick." Crazy isn't that hard to spot, if you are paying attention and ask oneself if it's really worth the risk. I don't see the point of making it difficult for a woman to accuse the man who abused her, or took advantage in someway, just to protect men who feel they have the right to sex with a woman because she seemed friendly at time in the evening.

As for crazy, claiming "she's crazy" as a defense, is a pretty dickish move on any man's part.

 

[RavenSky]

It still comes across as quite a few on this board would rather risk raping someone than risk not having sex.

Which is rather disturbing.

It's too much effort to have a conversation with a potential sexual partner?

I don't see anyone saying that. What some of us are saying is that the proposed rules are incompatible with how sex actually works.

saying it, but failing to demonstrate it as anything other than an opinion... a very disturbing opinion.

Have you ever had a partner ask every step of the way? What steps did they ask at?

Except for my very first time and the two times men tried to rape me, no sexual partner has ever failed to make sure they had my enthusiastic ongoing consent. How much detail would you like?

 

[Derec]

Well now, there you go. Another important factor is the "don't be a crazy dick." Crazy isn't that hard to spot, if you are paying attention and ask oneself if it's really worth the risk. I don't see the point of making it difficult for a woman to accuse the man who abused her, or took advantage in someway, just to protect men who feel they have the right to sex with a woman because she seemed friendly at time in the evening.

I.e. blame the victim because you just can't imagine women falsely accusing innocent men of rape despite it happening fairly often.

 

[Derec]

\
Because they define normal, expected human behavior as rape.

That.

I wonder how the supporters of the policy would react if they had a video showing a perfectly mutually consensual sex act but where both participants failed to solicit and obtain "explicit" consent at "every stage of intimacy". Would they call this clear case of consensual sex "rape" just because of a technicality?
If yes, would they call the male a "rapist" and the female a "victim" just because she regretted the sex the next day and falsely accused the man of rape even though both are guilty of exactly the same thing, if anybody is guilty of anything at all. What if the genders were reversed (not that college apparatchiks would take such a complaint seriously)?
If no, why do they support using the same flawed technicality to adjudicate cases where there is no video.

 

[Bronzeage]

Well now, there you go. Another important factor is the "don't be a crazy dick." Crazy isn't that hard to spot, if you are paying attention and ask oneself if it's really worth the risk. I don't see the point of making it difficult for a woman to accuse the man who abused her, or took advantage in someway, just to protect men who feel they have the right to sex with a woman because she seemed friendly at time in the evening.

I.e. blame the victim because you just can't imagine women falsely accusing innocent men of rape despite it happening fairly often.

No,it does not happen fairly often. What happens fairly often is a rapist who claims she really wanted it.

 

[bigfield]

Person B gets drunk at a frat party and because they are drunk, say YES. They regret this the next day. They have no trauma. They have lost nothing except some self esteem for doing something they choose to accept as 'foolish' after choosing to be a fool.

They were drunk, which means there was not actually true consent, and anyone who knowingly takes advantage of Person B while s/he is drunk has crossed the line. However, in the real world, if Person B knows they did say yes they will almost certainly chalk it up to doing something "foolish" and that's the end of it.

Drunkeness is a continuum of states. It is not true that consent at any level of drunkenness is not actually consent. The evidence is in the fact that people have consensual drunken sex all the time. We also consent to other things while drunk, such as buying drinks, buying food and paying for taxi fares.

If a person drinks to lowers their inhibitions and then has sex, then that is not rape. As you say, in the real world that is exactly how people usually think: they get drunk, get laid, and the next day feel foolish, embarrassed, etc. Is it your position that these people are all wrong and that they in fact were raped?

 

[Rhea]

Several posters have responded to what I've said, in the spirit in which I said it. In such a highly charged topic, however, it is inevitable that some people will attempt to draw posters into familiar conflicts. That's the only reason I can think of why Rhea would accuse me of supporting rape, or you would accuse me of having dishonest motives, and attempting to build a straw man argument against... well I'm not sure.

If you would like to link to where I accused you of supporting rape, I would happily explain what I was thinking when I said it. It's possible that I did think exactly that, since several posters on this thread lead me to conclude they are advocating that failing to punish rapes is better than stopping rapes, whenever there is a possibility that someone will not get the sex s/he thinks s/he deserves.

So link it and I will be happy to explain what I was thinking.

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...w-How-To-Spot-It&p=64562&viewfull=1#post64562

This was largely what I was thinking about when I mentioned 'being drawn into familiar conflicts', but I can't discount the idea that you were genuinely offended.

Ah, that post. Yeah, I was genuinely shocked that you spent so much time talking about how traumatized a person can be from failing to get the sex that they should have and spoke not a word about the trauma of being raped. I was quite surprised and disturbed by the tone.

"Look, I know we're talking about stopping rape, but what if those efforts cause two shy people to fail to get it on! I've seen this trauma, it's horrible! Therefore..."

Yes, I was genuinely disturbed. I imagined saying that to a room full of rape victims whose rapists had claimed it wasn't rape because they didn't say "no" clearly enough, and whose visit to the police department left an untested rape kit and a refusal to arrest because she was wearing a short skirt or was drunk, and I imagined them hearing your concerns about the couple who was traumatized by not getting laid. And yes, I was genuinely disturbed by the picture. The balance seemed off, you know?

 

[Rhea]

They were drunk, which means there was not actually true consent, and anyone who knowingly takes advantage of Person B while s/he is drunk has crossed the line. However, in the real world, if Person B knows they did say yes they will almost certainly chalk it up to doing something "foolish" and that's the end of it.

Drunkeness is a continuum of states. It is not true that consent at any level of drunkenness is not actually consent. The evidence is in the fact that people have consensual drunken sex all the time. We also consent to other things while drunk, such as buying drinks, buying food and paying for taxi fares.

If a person drinks to lowers their inhibitions and then has sex, then that is not rape. As you say, in the real world that is exactly how people usually think: they get drunk, get laid, and the next day feel foolish, embarrassed, etc. Is it your position that these people are all wrong and that they in fact were raped?

Yes, drunkenness is a continuum. I agree. And the further you travel down it, either yourself or your partner/target, the higher your chances of having sex with someone who was not actually okay with the event, even when you convinced yourself that they were. It's okay to be drunk, it's not legal to do things that are against the law while you are drunk.

Your risk of being accused of rape is a continuum. You can choose to stay way on the safe side of that. Or you can feel entitled to drunk sex without caring about taking extra steps at that time to stay away from the cliff of misunderstanding. Let me rephrase that - your risk of being a rapist is a continuum. You can choose to stay far away from the edge or you can flirt with the edge because the sex is worth it and it's too much trouble to adopt a personality of checking for consent. But it's worth noting that doing stuff that has crossed the line in other cases increases your risk of being the one crossing the line this time.

Drunk sex is lots of fun. And it's not that hard to add some steps to your repertoire to make it less likely to be a rapist.

(Plus this idea, "I am perfectly satisfied frequently having sex with people who are embarrassed the next day about having had sex with me," eeek!)

 

[Playball40]

They were drunk, which means there was not actually true consent, and anyone who knowingly takes advantage of Person B while s/he is drunk has crossed the line. However, in the real world, if Person B knows they did say yes they will almost certainly chalk it up to doing something "foolish" and that's the end of it.

Drunkeness is a continuum of states. It is not true that consent at any level of drunkenness is not actually consent. The evidence is in the fact that people have consensual drunken sex all the time. We also consent to other things while drunk, such as buying drinks, buying food and paying for taxi fares.

If a person drinks to lowers their inhibitions and then has sex, then that is not rape. As you say, in the real world that is exactly how people usually think: they get drunk, get laid, and the next day feel foolish, embarrassed, etc. Is it your position that these people are all wrong and that they in fact were raped?

Sometimes yes and sometimes no.

 

[RavenSky]

They were drunk, which means there was not actually true consent, and anyone who knowingly takes advantage of Person B while s/he is drunk has crossed the line. However, in the real world, if Person B knows they did say yes they will almost certainly chalk it up to doing something "foolish" and that's the end of it.

Drunkeness is a continuum of states. It is not true that consent at any level of drunkenness is not actually consent. The evidence is in the fact that people have consensual drunken sex all the time. We also consent to other things while drunk, such as buying drinks, buying food and paying for taxi fares.

If a person drinks to lowers their inhibitions and then has sex, then that is not rape. As you say, in the real world that is exactly how people usually think: they get drunk, get laid, and the next day feel foolish, embarrassed, etc. Is it your position that these people are all wrong and that they in fact were raped?

First of all, I very specifically stated that anyone who "KNOWINGLY TAKES ADVANTAGE OF Person B while s/he is drunk has crossed the line". There is, in my opinion, a big problem with "drinks to lower their inhibitions", especially as an excuse for possibly non-consensual sex. There likely are some people who do this, but knowing that Person B is drinking to lower their inhibitions regarding sex means Person R also knows that Person B would likely not consent if sober, so how can Person R sincerely believe they actually have consent.

The Person B scenario also gets into the all too common situation of a predator getting the victim drunk for the specific purpose of circumventing the victim's ability to consent. I would hope that no one here would disagree that drugging a victim in order to have some type of sexual interaction with him/her is, in fact, rape, right? Where it begins to get murky is when the predator is using alcohol - the predator knows what he is doing, the victim may just want to get drunk and dance. How do we, the arm-chair juries, know the difference? We can't assume Person B wants sex or consented to sex solely on the basis of getting drunk. Person B waking up the next day thinking "Wow that was stupid of me, but I do remember consenting, and I know I was drinking to lower my inhibitions", is almost certainly not picking up the phone to report a rape. The high school girl who gets to see a video of herself being dragged around unconscious while the boys brag about sexually assaulting her is a completely different story... or should be. In reality, far too many arm-chair juries still blamed her, still considered her the Person B from Jahryn's list of three, whereas I maintain those high school boys "crossed the line."

I also disagree with your position that "drunkenness" is a continuum wherein it is possible to consent while drunk, though this may be more of a semantics quibble (I hope). When someone says "she's drunk", I'm hearing a description of a person who is clearly, visibly and undeniably inebriated; not a description of someone who might be slightly tipsy. Someone who is clearly, visibly and undeniably inebriated cannot consent anymore than they can responsibly drive a car.

 

[Playball40]

Drunkeness is a continuum of states. It is not true that consent at any level of drunkenness is not actually consent. The evidence is in the fact that people have consensual drunken sex all the time. We also consent to other things while drunk, such as buying drinks, buying food and paying for taxi fares.

If a person drinks to lowers their inhibitions and then has sex, then that is not rape. As you say, in the real world that is exactly how people usually think: they get drunk, get laid, and the next day feel foolish, embarrassed, etc. Is it your position that these people are all wrong and that they in fact were raped?

First of all, I very specifically stated that anyone who "KNOWINGLY TAKES ADVANTAGE OF Person B while s/he is drunk has crossed the line". There is, in my opinion, a big problem with "drinks to lower their inhibitions", especially as an excuse for possibly non-consensual sex. There likely are some people who do this, but knowing that Person B is drinking to lower their inhibitions regarding sex means Person R also knows that Person B would likely not consent if sober, so how can Person R sincerely believe they actually have consent.

The Person B scenario also gets into the all too common situation of a predator getting the victim drunk for the specific purpose of circumventing the victim's ability to consent. I would hope that no one here would disagree that drugging a victim in order to have some type of sexual interaction with him/her is, in fact, rape, right? Where it begins to get murky is when the predator is using alcohol - the predator knows what he is doing, the victim may just want to get drunk and dance. How do we, the arm-chair juries, know the difference? We can't assume Person B wants sex or consented to sex solely on the basis of getting drunk. Person B waking up the next day thinking "Wow that was stupid of me, but I do remember consenting, and I know I was drinking to lower my inhibitions", is almost certainly not picking up the phone to report a rape. The high school girl who gets to see a video of herself being dragged around unconscious while the boys brag about sexually assaulting her is a completely different story... or should be. In reality, far too many arm-chair juries still blamed her, still considered her the Person B from Jahryn's list of three, whereas I maintain those high school boys "crossed the line."

I also disagree with your position that "drunkenness" is a continuum wherein it is possible to consent while drunk, though this may be more of a semantics quibble (I hope). When someone says "she's drunk", I'm hearing a description of a person who is clearly, visibly and undeniably inebriated; not a description of someone who might be slightly tipsy. Someone who is clearly, visibly and undeniably inebriated cannot consent anymore than they can responsibly drive a car.

Or that!