Rape, consent, and TRP. | PurplePillDebate

alphabetmod · 2013-10-22T21:45:41+00:00

There is a lot of discussion on what rape actually means. The legal definitions vary just as wildly as personal opinions on the matter. This thread is for...

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

The whole "accidental rape" thing is largely coming at it from the wrong angle I think.

Look at it this way, assume you were an actual, honest to god rapist. What would be the most practical way to do what you do and not get caught?

It's not lurking in an alley with a knife, it would be getting your victims drunk, and then trying to create as much doubt as possible in their eyes and in observers as to what happened.

And as studies have shown this is how rapists (repeat rapists too, something like 80 percent of sex crime is by the same subset of men) largely operate.

And people buy it, because people go "oh well that doesent sound like real rape, real rape happens in an alley, also she was drunk. I had drunken sex I regret once and you don't see me crying rape" and then do the rules lawyering thing you see often in subs like this. ("so we're changing the definition of rape now? if two drunk people have sex are they raping each other then?! Not buying it buddy")

The whole "teaching men not to rape" thing is largely about taking away predators social license to do this. In a society where the social norm was that fucking drunk women is decidedly not-ok you'd see a hell of a lot less rape.

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]jacobman-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]jacobman0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]permajetlag"That Guy"0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (61 children) | Copy Link

My question is: If two people have been drinking and both consent to sex, is that considered rape by you?

Rape requires a victim, so if one (or more) of the parties involved felt violated and they were at a level of drunkenness that makes it impossible to consent, then yes they were both raped.

It's like asking if two drunk people crash into each other, are they guilty of drink driving? Just because they are a victim as well as a perpetrator doesn't magically make the crime disappear.

How much is too much to consent?

There is no set level. When alcohol affects someone's judgement to a significant degree, then they cannot consent.

What if one person is sober and the other is below the legal BAC limit and consents?

If one person is sober and the other is significantly impaired by alcohol, then it is undeniably rape.

Where do you personally draw the line on who can and cannot consent to sex?

Personally? I'd have strong reservations about having sex with someone who I wouldn't feel comfortable with being behind the wheel of a car. This isn't to say that someone who is only technically over the legal driving limit cannot consent (and therefore rape, etc) but rather I take a reasonably stringent approach because getting my dick wet is not worth the risk of raping someone. Others may disagree.

[–]mrsamsa4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Danabanana9 said:

rape is a specific intent crime, meaning the accused has to have intended to have sex with the "victim" without obtaining consent or DESPITE lack of consent. if he is intoxicated to a certain point, he is as incapable of forming the requisite consent as the victim is incapable of giving legal consent due to intoxication.

My reply:

rape is a specific intent crime, meaning the accused has to have intended to have sex with the "victim" without obtaining consent or DESPITE lack of consent.

Half true. Mens rea is required in some places for some forms of rape, but (for example) most places adopt the position of strict liability on things like statutory rape - meaning that regardless of what the perpetrator thought, it's a crime.

So yes, to be accused of rape the person does need to be guilty of mens rea but this isn't limited to intent. There are 4 levels of mens rea; 1) Purposeful (the intent you talk about), 2) Knowing (no intent required), 3) Reckless (no intent required), and 4) Negligent (no intent required).

There is no real difficulty in demonstrating rape occurred without intent because there is an expectation that people behave in ways that are consistent with a law abiding citizen. And if they purposefully attempt to circumvent knowledge of the person not consenting, then they can even still be slapped with willful ignorance.

if he is intoxicated to a certain point, he is as incapable of forming the requisite consent as the victim is incapable of giving legal consent due to intoxication.

Agreed - as I state above, both parties being significant intoxicated does not prevent rape from occurring. He is still guilty of his crimes though.

[–]ANewMachine6153 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]3MinuteHero 5 points5 points5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

Both of these things are wildly subjective. What someone ends up "feeling" is more a product of their individual personalities, not the situation.

There's nothing subjective about it, at least no more so than practically every other crime. The conditions for the crime are met, but whether someone is guilty of that crime depends on whether there is a victim.

If I catcall and whistle at my girlfriend, and then slap her ass, I have met the criteria for sexual harassment and assault. If she wanted to, she would be within her rights to file a complaint against me and I could be possibly found guilty. If I'm running late for work and need gas money, and I quickly grab some out of my sister's purse, then I have met all the criteria necessary for theft. But whether I'm guilty of theft depends on whether she feels violated by my actions.

Rape is exactly the same. It depends on whether there was a victim.

And knowing when someone's judgement is "significantly" affected is impossible unless you're dealing with people are aren't even buzzed (not affected) or who are falling over drunk (affected), or unless you have superpowers.

Absolutely true! Which is why people are fucking retarded for risking raping someone just to get some action.

[–]ZackcidCrimson Pill1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZackcidCrimson Pill1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

By facts, I mean: "did he stick his penis in your vagay-gay without your consent?" YES or NO.

Asking something like: "Did you feel regretful for sleeping with him? If you did, then it means you were violated and raped". This is based on her feelings, not based on factual evidence.

But if you want to take this back to yesterday's conversation, I'll put it this way: reality exists, but no one can see it objetively. As long as we have eyes, ears, a mind, every bit of information we receive from our senses is captured, analysed, and then shown to you in a distorted manner. How many times how you seen an object at a distance and you were so sure it was something, but it turned out to be something else? In your reality, you thought you saw a bunny because your eyes/mind told you that, but in "reality", it turned out to be a squirrel. There is no reality because reality implies ultimate objectivity. This is the problem because perception is not objective. Your senses can be wrong.

[–]mrsamsa3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZackcidCrimson Pill1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZackcidCrimson Pill1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZackcidCrimson Pill-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What, in your opinion, would be a better method at convicting rapists? Is there a better method than our current one?

I'm not sure I know of one. For starters though, we do need to change the atmosphere and approach to treating women who are the victims of rape - i.e. making it easier for them to come forward, not automatically treating them as liars, not organising witch hunts in the public to shame them, etc.

Of course, this doesn't mean we take the opposite approach and automatically assume they are telling the truth, but rather we treat it like we do any other crime.

I don't see how this sentence is relevant. Not having enough evidence doesn't mean you've falsely accused someone of rape. Those women that are accused, it's because they've made false allegations.

Not at all. There's a paper that MRA's like to wave about whenever this topic comes up that shows a large percentage of rape allegations are false; but this number includes all the cases that were rejected on lack of evidence or other circumstantial matters.

This doesn't mean everyone who accuses women of false allegations are using this inflated and inaccurate figure, but I'm just saying that many people do.

[–]Zackcid0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

we do need to change the atmosphere and approach to treating women who are the victims of rape - i.e. making it easier for them to come forward, not automatically treating them as liars, not organising witch hunts in the public to shame them, etc.

While I strongly disagree with the way you think rape victims are treated (I see the opposite), you should also understand that, like comparable things in life, if you make something too easy, it leaves the door open for those who take advantage of the system. If accusing someone of rape becomes so easy and rewarding, you can bet that a lot of women would falsely accuse on a whim and then be congratulated by everyone for stepping up and "doing the right thing". Only those who are lying should be afraid of accusing, those who are telling the truth shouldn't fear anything at all because they have the Truth on their side.

This doesn't mean everyone who accuses women of false allegations are using this inflated and inaccurate figure, but I'm just saying that many people do.

Do you feel the wrath of having to explain NAWALT? Here I was, telling you something along the lines of "not all evidence lacking accusations of rape are false accusations" and you had to correct yourself and say that "not all" are. It's just a funny feeling having this dynamic turned against a blue piller for once. My own self-amusement :)

[–]mrsamsa4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

While I strongly disagree with the way you think rape victims are treated (I see the opposite),

That would be very naive though. The problem of the treatment of rape victims is well-documented, and there are a number of academic papers and programs aimed at addressing the very issue.

you should also understand that, like comparable things in life, if you make something too easy, it leaves the door open for those who take advantage of the system. If accusing someone of rape becomes so easy and rewarding, you can bet that a lot of women would falsely accuse on a whim and then be congratulated by everyone for stepping up and "doing the right thing".

This slippery slope makes no sense though - even if the stigma and social pressures were removed from filing a rape charge, it doesn't make it 'easy'. It makes it 'easier', as in, as easy as filing any other charge.

It's currently extremely easy to file a theft charge. Why aren't there angry MRA's out there complaining that men are falsely being accused of theft?

Only those who are lying should be afraid of accusing, those who are telling the truth shouldn't fear anything at all because they have the Truth on their side.

And we've already established that the truth in rape cases is very hard to demonstrate, due to the nature of the evidence in such cases. Combine that with a justice system which treats the accuser as the criminal, and we end up with the situation we have now - a severely underreported crime, with even the guilty rapists being set free.

Do you feel the wrath of having to explain NAWALT? Here I was, telling you something along the lines of "not all evidence lacking accusations of rape are false accusations" and you had to correct yourself and say that "not all" are. It's just a funny feeling having this dynamic turned against a blue piller for once. My own self-amusement :)

That makes no sense though because I never made the generalisation that all people who accused women of making false allegations did so on cases that failed due to lack of evidence, so there is no NAWALT since I never made a generalisation that had to be corrected to include exceptions.

To reduce my statement to it's simplest form, this is how the discussion went:

ME: Some people say X.

YOU: But not all people say X.

ME: True, like I said, only some people say X.

YOU: It's funny how you had to make the NAWALT argument.

It makes no sense.

[–]Zackcid0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That would be very naive though. The problem of the treatment of rape victims is well-documented, and there are a number of academic papers and programs aimed at addressing the very issue.

Strange, all I see is support from all her peers. People urging her to tell the police. Same caring words over and over again about how it's not her fault, etc. Countless rape assistance programs, organizations, shelters, etc. I'd say that rape victims are the most cared-for victims out of them all. And since rape is feminists favourite topic, I am certainly not surprised that they'd publish a bunch of papers trying to show how hard it is for rape victims.

This slippery slope makes no sense though - even if the stigma and social pressures were removed from filing a rape charge, it doesn't make it 'easy'. It makes it 'easier', as in, as easy as filing any other charge.

I wouldn't call it a slippery slope. And the right term that I should have used (in case I didn't) was "encouraged", rather than "easy". If people start shoving it in my face how it's extremely important for me to report anything I witness that appears to be theft and how rewarding it can be to do so, I might begin to feel an urge to report things that are almost theft. Thus comes in false rape allegations. If the stigma was as strong as you claim it to be, I don't think we'd be having these false allegations.

It's currently extremely easy to file a theft charge. Why aren't there angry MRA's out there complaining that men are falsely being accused of theft?

I could ask you the same thing about homicide. Homicides are much more common and devastating than rape, why aren't angry feminists complaining about those? Your answer would be something like "because women are primarily concerned with rape". And to that, I'd say "well men are primarily concerned when it comes to false rape accusations. And we're dealing with Men's Rights Activists."

hat makes no sense though because I never made the generalisation that all people who accused women of making false allegations did so on cases that failed due to lack of evidence, so there is no NAWALT since I never made a generalisation that had to be corrected to include exceptions.

There was the implication because you tied both sentences together, one right after the other.

It makes no sense.

That last part was for my own amusement. I could have been wrong, but I still got a nice laugh out of it and that's all that matters to me right now.

[–]mrsamsa3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Strange, all I see is support from all her peers. People urging her to tell the police. Same caring words over and over again about how it's not her fault, etc. Countless rape assistance programs, organizations, shelters, etc. I'd say that rape victims are the most cared-for victims out of them all.

You only see this because there has been an active effort to push for better treatment of rape victims. This is a modern shift and it's not complete or perfect by any stretch of the imagination.

And since rape is feminists favourite topic, I am certainly not surprised that they'd publish a bunch of papers trying to show how hard it is for rape victims.

Who said anything about feminists? We're talking about scientists.

I wouldn't call it a slippery slope. And the right term that I should have used (in case I didn't) was "encouraged", rather than "easy". If people start shoving it in my face how it's extremely important for me to report anything I witness that appears to be theft and how rewarding it can be to do so, I might begin to feel an urge to report things that are almost theft. Thus comes in false rape allegations. If the stigma was as strong as you claim it to be, I don't think we'd be having these false allegations.

Realistically, the idea that a change in approach to law will result in more false charges being filed is something we can safely reject as ridiculous. Any increase, if there is one at all, would be so negligible as to be inconsequential.

I could ask you the same thing about homicide. Homicides are much more common and devastating than rape, why aren't angry feminists complaining about those? Your answer would be something like "because women are primarily concerned with rape". And to that, I'd say "well men are primarily concerned when it comes to false rape accusations. And we're dealing with Men's Rights Activists."

No, feminists aren't concerned about homicide because when a woman reports a homicide, she isn't faced with accusations that she's lying.

There was the implication because you tied both sentences together, one right after the other.

Directing my comments at "some" necessarily negates any similarity to NAWALT.

That last part was for my own amusement. I could have been wrong, but I still got a nice laugh out of it and that's all that matters to me right now.

Fair enough, but yeah you were definitely wrong. There was no similarity at all.

[–]Zackcid0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zackcid0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And frankly, the same can be said about rape. The odds of a woman getting raped is very close to 0.

Not really.. 1 in 5 women will experience rape in their lifetime, and that number jumps to 1 in 4 if you count attempted rape.

We can also say the same about volcanoes: volcanic eruptions happen so rarely, why should we even bother researching and paying attention to them?

Volcano eruptions happen a lot and have massive societal effects, not to mention studying them leads to information regarding how the very planet we live on works and operates.

I'm curious, would you then consider a statement that goes "women want to be fucked hard" as being the same thing as "all women want to be fucked hard"? I'm sure you know where I'm going with this...

I don't see how it could make any sense to interpret it any other way. If they mean "some", then they've phrased it very poorly.

Compare it to my statement:

and women are accused of making false allegations.

Notice how there is no implication or need to interpret that as all accusations made are based on data that includes 'lack of evidence' cases? In fact, with the very phrasing of my statement, it would be impossible to reasonably reach that conclusion from what I've said.

[–]Zackcid0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Volcano eruptions happen a lot and have massive societal effects, not to mention studying them leads to information regarding how the very planet we live on works and operates.

Rape stats are debatable and I won't even bother getting into that. As for the volcanoes, I thought of that on the spot. I was hoping to forward the point that people still research rare or "insignificant" things, so why shut off attention from those things?

Notice how there is no implication or need to interpret that as all accusations made are based on data that includes 'lack of evidence' cases?

LOL. There's no implication? If there weren't any implication, I wouldn't have even brought it up in the first place. But the way I read it at first, it did seem like you linked it that way.

In fact, with the very phrasing of my statement, it would be impossible to reasonably reach that conclusion from what I've said.

If you were so sure of yourself, I'm sure you could have easily just added the word "some" in there to avoid confusion. And the phrasing of your statement doesn't look like anything special. It looks almost exactly like the way "women want to be fucked hard" was designed.

[–]mrsamsa2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Rape stats are debatable and I won't even bother getting into that.

No more debatable than any other established scientific finding...

As for the volcanoes, I thought of that on the spot. I was hoping to forward the point that people still research rare or "insignificant" things, so why shut off attention from those things?

I think you're taking my point further than what I was saying. If people want to study them, then by all means go for it. There is importance in establishing the rate of false rape charges and that work has been thoroughly carried out. The problem is that the emphasis on false rape charges is severely unproportional to how often they actually occur and they're overall damage.

In other words, it's like we're medical researchers trying to figure out what questions in medicine need answering and where to allocate our resources. The MRAs have come out screaming that we need to study homeopathy and whether it has an effect. We say, well, I guess everything needs an answer so we'll study it. We study it a bit and find no effect. Unhappy with this, they scream for more research, as "Science is sometimes wrong!" they say. Okay, we study it more and more and more, until we reach the point that we're studying the possible effects of homeopathy more than we're actually studying the cancer that it's supposed to cure.

The point being that, yes, it's a worthwhile question but we already have decent information on it. How about we focus some attention on the more serious problem of actual rape.

LOL. There's no implication? If there weren't any implication, I wouldn't have even brought it up in the first place. But the way I read it at first, it did seem like you linked it that way.

There's no implication and you misreading it does not provide evidence of such an implication.

If you were so sure of yourself, I'm sure you could have easily just added the word "some" in there to avoid confusion.

I am so sure of myself that I am saying that I don't need to include the word "some" in there, because it's impossible to interpret it in any other way. Including the word "some" in there would only lead to confusion.

And the phrasing of your statement doesn't look like anything special. It looks almost exactly like the way "women want to be fucked hard" was designed.

The two aren't even comparable. Let's compare:

My statement says: "This is a problem because it can lead to women being accused of X".
Your statement says: "Women want Y".

They aren't even vaguely similar.

[–]fhqwhgads_1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zackcid1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ZackcidCrimson Pill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bostick0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ZackcidCrimson Pill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

Yes, if two people are at equal levels of intoxication and both verbally consented to sex, then I don't feel that rape can ever occur in that situation.

That is truly horrific.

Attempting to consent is not the same as consent. Both drunk people telling the other I want to have sex with you, then consequently having sex with each other is consensual sex. I'm not talking about NOT SAYING NO. I'm talking about an enthusiastic YES. From both parties.

It doesn't matter how enthusiastic it is when consent cannot be given at all.

To make the situation clearer, imagine one party is blind drunk and the other is sober. You'd surely agree rape has occurred there despite "enthusiastic consent", right? So how can that individual suddenly develop the ability to consent when facts about the other individual change?

Surely the person can either consent or not consent, and the alcohol level of other people in the near vicinity doesn't change that fact.

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery[S] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago* (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmod0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmod1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

We're talking about one person being drunk and consenting to a sober person, and then the sober person getting drunk so (according to you) it isn't rape.

You said it yourself right here. "One person being drunk and consenting to a sober person," - Yes. that is not rape, because as you said, they are consenting. But, I know, I know, they can't consent according to you.

But, California's law, for example says:

a person is prevented from resisting (sex) by any intoxicating, narcotic or anesthetic substance. . . ."

Prevented from resisting, doesn't sound the same as "not being able to consent" does it?

New York State Penal Law, § 130.05 specifies that "lack of consent" is a condition that exists in one of the four situations:

"Forcible compulsion"
"Incapacity to consent"
If the act is a form of forcible touching, there is a lack of consent if the victim does not does not "expressly or impliedly acquiesce to the actor's conduct"
If the act is a form of rape, there is a lack of consent if the victim "clearly expressed that he or she did not consent to engage in such act, and a reasonable person would understand such words and acts as an expression of lack of consent."

"Forcible compulsion" is defined elsewhere in the Penal Law, but the definition is pretty straightforward.

Being "incapable of consent" is a little less clear, and is defined as a condition where any of the following apply to the victim (as specified in subsection 3 of NYS Penal Law § 130.05):

The individual is less than seventeen years old.

The individual is "mentally disabled".

The individual is "mentally incapacitated".

The individual is "physically helpless".

The individual is incarcerated.

The individual is committed to some kind of medical facility (e.g. a hospital).

In New York, you are considered "mentally disabled" if you have some sort of mental or neural condition which prevents you from realistically judging the consequences of your actions.

You would be considered "mentally incapacitated" if you were under the influence of an intoxicating substance only if you did not serve yourself the substance, although you might be "physically helpless" if you drank enough.

In other words, according to the laws of New York,if you got yourself drunk, but weren't so drunk that you became helpless, you are capable of giving consent, although if someone spikes your drink or puts a date rape drug or something of that nature in it, it is always considered rape.

The actual point at which you would become helpless is something a judge would analyze if you filed a complaint and the local attorney decided they had enough evidence to prosecute.

The definitions of some of the other terms--

"Mentally disabled" means that a person suffers from a mental disease or defect which renders him or her incapable of appraising the nature of his or her conduct.

"Mentally incapacitated" means that a person is rendered temporarily incapable of appraising or controlling his conduct owing to the influence of a narcotic or intoxicating substance administered to him without his consent, or to any other act committed upon him without his consent.

"Physically helpless" means that a person is unconscious or for any other reason is physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an act.

"Forcible compulsion" means to compel by either: a. use of physical force; or b. a threat, express or implied, which places a person in fear of immediate death or physical injury to himself, herself or another person, or in fear that he, she or another person will immediately be kidnapped.

[–]mrsamsa1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmod1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmod0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You don't understand that outside prison rape women are more likely victims? Not to mention the discussion has been framed as the hypothetical woman and man couple the entire time.

I do understand that, I was just taking a little stab at the way a number of red pillers in this thread have dishonestly tried to pull "gotcha" games, where the discussion will be about a hypothetical where the man rapes a woman, the blue piller will respond using the genders described in the hypothetical, and the red piller will respond with: "BUT MEN CAN BE VICTIMS TOO!".

Well I posted the law as well. But that was somehow "interpreted wrong."

I was on my phone so didn't have time to point out all the flaws, but here are the details.

California law: As explained by a lawyer here, voluntary intoxication can negate consent. As Nelson Drake found out.

So are the Californian lawyers and courts wrong when it comes to interpreting their own laws, or is it more likely that you, a laymen, have misunderstood them?

New York: Again, the lawyers disagree with you there.

MRAs get banned from /r/feminism every day, so saying it's an MRA sub is ridiculous.

It's run by MRAs and they oppose rules where only feminists can respond to questions in /r/askfeminists. Also, feminists are banned from there all the time.

Bottom line is that even feminists disagree with your definition of consent

Who gives a shit what people on the internet think?

which is a pretty radical one obviously.

The law is not "radical".

This discussion won't end productively so I'll just leave it alone. Neither of us is changing our mind on this.

Because I abide by the law, I don't just reinterpret it to fit some ideological agenda.

[–]alphabetmod0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I do understand that, I was just taking a little stab at the way a number of red pillers in this thread have dishonestly tried to pull "gotcha" games, where the discussion will be about a hypothetical where the man rapes a woman, the blue piller will respond using the genders described in the hypothetical, and the red piller will respond with: "BUT MEN CAN BE VICTIMS TOO!".

I've never done this, so I'm not sure why it's relevant here.

Unfortunately, it is not at all uncommon for a woman to make false accusations of date rape against her boyfriend or romantic partner. She may be angry at him because she feels he is cheating on her, neglecting her, rejecting her, or about to break up with her. She retaliates by going to the police and accusing him of date raping her.

The paragraph above is from your first link. Pretty interesting, seeing as how you've said false rape accusations are so rare.

The example from your first link is as follows:

Example: Tom and Jody go out on a date and later back to Tom's place for drinks. Jody gets so drunk that she passes out. While she's passed out, Tom pulls down her pants and begins having sex with her. Under these circumstances, Tom could be charged under California's date rape laws.

I agree 100% that this is rape, and Tom should rot in prison.

The second example from your first link:

Example: Richard, while staying at a hotel, goes downstairs and meets Rachel at the hotel bar. While Rachel looks away, he slips the drug Rohypnol in her drink. As she loses consciousness, he assists her to his room and engages in sexual intercourse with her. Under these circumstances, Richard can be charged with date rape (along with battery and other criminal charges).

I shouldn't even have to clarify this, but in this scenario, once again, this is 100% unequivocally rape. It's despicable.

The last two paragraphs in the first link you provided state that previous consent does mean that consent is given in the future, which I obviously agree with. That's just common sense. It is my belief, and the laws, as it should be, that consent must be acquired before each and every sexual encounter. The final paragraph states that one must register as a sex offender if convicted of rape. Again, no problems there.

Your second link says that Nelson Drake is being charged with "rape by intoxication." It defines rape by intoxication as:

If she's wasted, intoxicated, asleep, or unconscious, she cannot give legal consent, no matter what she says to you.

It doesn't define wasted or intoxicated. I agree that if someone is unconscious, she cannot give legal consent, no matter what she says. (Although it seems kind of redundant, because if someone is unconscious they're not going to be saying much of anything.) But whatever, it's from a news article.

Pay attention to the warning signs including: slurred speech, staggered walk, lack of motor skills, loud speech, vomiting, passing out, falling asleep, and unconsciousness.

All of these things make someone too drunk to consent. I've never said I disagree. You're contention is that she is unable to consent when:

There is no set level. When alcohol affects someone's judgement to a significant degree, then they cannot consent.

Either you can't, or don't want to define what is "significant" because you, for some reason that is not clear to me, either want women to have an "out" after having regrettable consensual sex, or don't know what the "significant" cut off point would be. If it's the latter, then it is up to the man to somehow discern what the woman's state of mind is, and whether or not she is capable of giving consent, which is a ridiculous notion.

Your third link, found here means absolutely nothing to me. It is essentially an advertisement for a law firm. No meaningful information to be found there.

It's run by MRAs and they oppose rules where only feminists can respond to questions in /r/askfeminists. Also, feminists are banned from there all the time.

I'm not talking about /r/askfeminists, although anyone who the mods don't consider a feminist who answers with a top level comment gets banned from there too. I'm talking about /r/feminism, and you propose a ridiculous notion that "it's run by MRAs, lol. This post, where they completely demonize an "MRA" is on their front page RIGHT NOW.

Who gives a shit what people on the internet think?

Apparently me and you both do, lest we wouldn't be this deep into this conversation that is going in circles.

The law is not "radical"

You're right. I linked the law. You linked some news articles and ads for law offices, none of which helped your arguments.

Because I abide by the law, I don't just reinterpret it to fit some ideological agenda.

You may very well abide by it, but you are most certainly reinterpreting it to fit your own agenda, as I have outlined above.

[–]mrsamsa1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The paragraph above is from your first link. Pretty interesting, seeing as how you've said false rape accusations are so rare.

Not sure how it contradicts anything I've said? "Not uncommon" doesn't mean "common", so it doesn't negate the fact that it's rare.

It's not uncommon for countries to be hit by tsunamis, but it is rare.

The final paragraph states that one must register as a sex offender if convicted of rape. Again, no problems there.

You haven't addressed the significant parts of the link, namely:

Voluntary intoxication may negate consent If you have sex with an individual who voluntarily consumes enough alcohol and/or drugs to the point where he/she is unable to resist the sexual encounter, prosecutors could charge you with Penal Code 261 PC date rape.

and

In individual cases, it's up to the judge or jury to determine whether...under the circumstances...the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the alleged victim was, in fact, too intoxicated to consent to the activity.

In other words, you ignored the actual description of how the law is interpreted to focus solely on the example given.

It doesn't define wasted or intoxicated. I agree that if someone is unconscious, she cannot give legal consent, no matter what she says. (Although it seems kind of redundant, because if someone is unconscious they're not going to be saying much of anything.) But whatever, it's from a news article.

In law, "unconscious" refers to either physical unconsciousness or, what they describe as "being unconscious to the consequences of their actions". That is, someone is "unconscious" if they are intoxicated to the point where they cannot make reasonable choices as they would when they were sober.

All of these things make someone too drunk to consent. I've never said I disagree.

Wait, wait. Hold up there. All of those things make someone too drunk to consent? So you agree that if someone is staggering around and slurs a "yes" in consent to a sexual proposition, then any sex that takes place is rape since they are too drunk to consent?

Then we're in agreement!

Either you can't, or don't want to define what is "significant" because you

I've defined it in multiple different ways and you are refusing to listen, I can only assume that it's because you want an out in order to excuse rapists when they abuse women.

"Significant" refers to the point at which a person becomes so impaired that they cannot make free choices that they would as if they were sober. I've also given you examples, like suggesting that someone who is staggering around and slurring is probably unable to consent, and in your comment above you have now agreed with my definition of significant when described by an independent website!

If it's the latter, then it is up to the man to somehow discern what the woman's state of mind is, and whether or not she is capable of giving consent, which is a ridiculous notion.

No, it's up to whoever is attempting to engage in consensual sex that the other person is able to consent, whether it be a man or woman.

The difficulty in discerning mental states is why the law uses "reasonable judgement", which depends on what a reasonable person would have done in the same situation. A good rule of thumb is that if you're not sure if a person is too drunk to consent, then chances are you probably shouldn't do it.

It's really not that fucking hard.

Your third link, found here[1] means absolutely nothing to me. It is essentially an advertisement for a law firm. No meaningful information to be found there.

Ah yes, those lawyers obviously don't know what they're talking about.

I'm talking about /r/feminism[4] , and you propose a ridiculous notion that "it's run by MRAs, lol. This post[5] , where they completely demonize an "MRA" is on their front page RIGHT NOW.

/r/feminism is run by MRA's. Are you serious? You don't know the history of r/feminism? And no, that post doesn't demonise MRAs at all anyway.

Apparently me and you both do, lest we wouldn't be this deep into this conversation that is going in circles.

Har har, very clever. But just in case you weren't trying to be a troll, my comment obviously refers to getting legal advice. Nobody cares about what people on the internet think the law should be.

You're right. I linked the law. You linked some news articles and ads for law offices, none of which helped your arguments.

That's because you're so stuck in your own ideology you refuse to change your position based on objective evidence.

You may very well abide by it, but you are most certainly reinterpreting it to fit your own agenda, as I have outlined above.

In what magical world have you shown anything I've said to be wrong?

[–]alphabetmod1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmod-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmod1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Lol, ok. This is getting ridiculous. Besides being unable to consent, what constitutes being drunk enough that one is unable to consent.

I'm not sure what you're struggling with. There is no hard and fast line, no test you can do. It comes down to whether a person is fully in control of their decisions or whether they are too impaired to reasonably be considered capable.

Yes, but how drunk is too drunk? Please don't say "they're too drunk if they can't consent."

When their ability is too impaired to make reasonable choices.

Topping someone's drink off is not inherently creepy. If they're doing it without the owner of the drink seeing or knowing, then yes it's obviously creepy.

Not inherently creepy but can be incredibly creepy. And it can be with the owner knowing but not encouraging it.

[–]TRP_5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]ANewMachine6153 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

Except BAC is only one part of determining whether you're fit to drive. You can get a DUI with a lower-than-.08 BAC. Let's examine a statute on the issue. I'll use my jurisdiction, because I'm familiar with it. New Hampshire RSA 265-A:2, for those following along at home.

I. No person shall drive or attempt to drive a vehicle upon any way or operate or attempt to operate an OHRV:
(a) While such person is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any controlled drug, prescription drug, over-the-counter drug, or any other chemical substance, natural or synthetic, which impairs a person's ability to drive or any combination of intoxicating liquor and controlled drugs, prescription drugs, over-the-counter drugs, or any other chemical substances, natural or synthetic, which impair a person's ability to drive; or
(b) While such person has an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more or in the case of a person under the age of 21, 0.02 or more.

So, this actually creates two ways you can fulfill the crime's elements: drive/attempt to drive while actually under the influence, or with a BAC of .08 or greater. This means that there are conditions under which a BAC reading of <.08 could result in a conviction, provided you were "under the influence" (which, to make a long story short, has to do with impairment of driving ability).

What you're trying to argue is that only (b) matters, while what we're saying is that (a) matters just as much. The question is not a mechanistic question of whether your BAC is over .08, but whether you are impaired. Similarly, we're not necessarily saying that all sex over BAC .08 is rape, but that all sex where one party is physically and mentally incapable of consenting is rape. So the question isn't "is .08 always and forever totally incapable of forming consent," but rather "is this person (regardless of BAC) still capable of actually forming consent?"

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

Thanks for the reply. I am aware that I'm oversimplifying it, but that seems to be the only way to get a clear answer when people say things like:

Similarly, we're not necessarily saying that all sex over BAC .08 is rape, but that all sex where one party is physically and mentally incapable of consenting is rape.

Statements like this make it impossible for a guy. Who decides whether or not one party is incapable? If the party that you say is incapable of consenting, but they're right there in front of a guy begging for sex, is that rape?

So the question isn't "is .08 always and forever totally incapable of forming consent," but rather "is this person (regardless of BAC) still capable of actually forming consent?"

Yes, this is the question. The problem is, who decides what the answer is to this question. Obviously the person that's been drinking can't decide (according to you). But if this same person is trying to pull my pants down and put my dick in her mouth, is it now on me to stop her? Especially if I'm less capable of consent than she is? Who was raped in this situation?

I'll give you my answer, though I'm also looking forward to yours. NOONE WAS RAPED. If two adults both consent to sex, whether or not they were drunk, then it's not rape. Why is consensual sex the only thing women can't be held accountable for if they've had a few drinks.

[–]ANewMachine6157 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

Statements like this make it impossible for a guy. Who decides whether or not one party is incapable? If the party that you say is incapable of consenting, but they're right there in front of a guy begging for sex, is that rape?

It's an edge case where the prudent thing to do, if you're capable, is to not have sex. Sex is, as TRP is oh so fond of saying, rather a cheap commodity these days, so the responsible thing is to forego it where there's any substantial doubt as to your partner's ability to consent. No?

The problem is, who decides what the answer is to this question.

Several people, depending on the context. Probably the most important are the people who were intoxicated, and the prosecutor who ends up investigating the incident.

But if this same person is trying to pull my pants down and put my dick in her mouth, is it now on me to stop her? Especially if I'm less capable of consent than she is? Who was raped in this situation?

Both people.

If two adults both consent to sex, whether or not they were drunk, then it's not rape.

Right, but that presumes the capacity to consent at the time, since they both have to consent. Consent is more than just saying "yes," it's having the capacity to understand what you're agreeing to, the consequences, etc. If you're so drunk you can't understand those factors, it's not real consent, no matter how much you slurringly say you don't want it.

Why is consensual sex the only thing women can't be held accountable for if they've had a few drinks.

Again: you're presuming the existence of consent in your question, which makes you sound more reasonable, but is just obfuscating the point. And, as a side note, it's not the only thing. Incapacity is generally a defense to contracts, for instance, allowing you to void an otherwise-valid contract if you were sufficiently drunk at the time.

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

It's an edge case where the prudent thing to do, if you're capable, is to not have sex. Sex is, as TRP is oh so fond of saying, rather a cheap commodity these days, so the responsible thing is to forego it where there's any substantial doubt as to your partner's ability to consent. No?

For the purposes of continuing our discussion, let's say that the partner that is consenting is a woman. If we assume this is the case here, you're putting the onus on the man to not only decide if a woman that consented to sex is actually capable of consenting, you're also stripping the woman of any agency, in that even though it's her decision to have sex, just as it would be her decision to get in her car and drive away should she so feel compelled, you're also telling the guy in this situation to treat the woman like he would a child (as in he should know what's best for her regardless of her choice to do what she wishes with her own body).

Both people.

I find it a fruitless exercise to debate someone who feels that two people having sex consensually are also simultaneously raping each other, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

If you're so drunk you can't understand those factors, it's not real consent, no matter how much you slurringly say you don't want it.

I assume you meant "no matter how much you do want it" here?

Why is it that with every other human interaction, criminal or otherwise, drunkenness is not an excuse?

Again: you're presuming the existence of consent in your question, which makes you sound more reasonable, but is just obfuscating the point.

I'm not presuming anything. In my hypothetical scenario consent was explicitly given.

And, as a side note, it's not the only thing. Incapacity is generally a defense to contracts, for instance, allowing you to void an otherwise-valid contract if you were sufficiently drunk at the time.

What else is "incapacity" a defense to? Being drunk does not excuse one from any other person to person contact besides sex, in the mind of feminists, and other misguided persons. Sex is not a contract. It is much more ambiguous than a contract, and should be treated as such.

Bottom line: It's not fair or just to put the onus on men to decide whether or not a woman is capable of making her own decisions. And it is certainly not fair or just to potentially ruin a man's life after he had sex with a consenting woman who (whether it be she or anyone else) decides that she isn't capable of said consent after the fact.

[–]ANewMachine6157 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

let's say that the partner that is consenting is a woman

Once more: You're presuming the existence of consent where I'm saying the parties are potentially incapable of consent. You don't see how you're arguing right past me?

I'm not presuming anything. In my hypothetical scenario consent was explicitly given.

If the person is capable of consent, and gives it, then it's obviously not rape. The question is whether an outward apparent manifestation of consent, when given by someone who is very intoxicated, is actual consent or not.

Bottom line: It's not fair or just to put the onus on men to decide whether or not a woman is capable of making her own decisions. And it is certainly not fair or just to potentially ruin a man's life after he had sex with a consenting woman who (whether it be she or anyone else) decides that she isn't capable of said consent after the fact.

We're not having a productive argument here, and it's really your fault. You keep saying in your hypotheticals that everyone consents. Well fine and dandy, there's no rape. My problem is with your assumption that "hey I wanna fuck you" by someone you've seen down an entire handle of vodka is actually being processed by their brain in any meaningful way.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ANewMachine6152 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

Once more: You're presuming the existence of consent where I'm saying the parties are potentially incapable of consent. You don't see how you're arguing right past me?

You're saying potentially. I'm saying that's not the case. This argument comes down to whether or not someone (again, a woman, for the purposes of this debate) is capable of giving consent. I say giving consent is giving consent. You say giving consent is not actually giving consent by someone who is (and you make your own inferences here as to how intoxicated said person is) intoxicated, therefore it makes it rape.

We're not having a productive argument here, and it's really your fault.

I disagree. You concede that:

You keep saying in your hypotheticals that everyone consents. Well fine and dandy, there's no rape.

And then add the straw man:

My problem is with your assumption that "hey I wanna fuck you" by someone you've seen down an entire handle of vodka is actually being processed by their brain in any meaningful way.

It's not me that's debating dishonestly. Anyone can add an addendum to my position like you did here and change the meaning. It is not me that is keeping us from having a productive argument.

[–]ANewMachine6152 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

I think the key here is your apparent assertion that all outward manifestations of consent are actual consent. I assert that not all outward manifestations are actual consent, you disagree. OK. I mean, we can all dream up situations where consent, though it might look OK, isn't really consent. Say, some guy has your entire family tied to a bomb, and says he'll detonate it if you don't go have sex with someone. Is that real consent? Probably not. It's obtained under duress, which invalidates it.

My point is that if alcohol has so clouded your brain that you're incapable of appreciating what you're actually doing, then your consent has been similarly invalidated. Which you're confusing by saying, so far as I can tell, that all outward manifestations of consent are actual consent. It's a state of mind, not a word or series of signs or whatever.

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

It's obtained under duress, which invalidates it.

I agree 100% with this.

My point is that if alcohol has so clouded your brain that you're incapable of appreciating what you're actually doing, then your consent has been similarly invalidated.

My problem is some third party being able to determine where this cloudiness becomes too much to give consent. My problem is someone giving consent and then the next day deciding that they had too much to drink. We could say it's a gender neutral scenario but it's not. In this case the man will possibly have his entire life ruined because he had sex with someone who he thought was consenting. Even if he's drunk as well, he's supposed to be able to determine when the person he wants to have sex with and wants to have sex with him has too cloudy of a brain for her consent to be taken at face value.

[–]ANewMachine6153 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

My problem is some third party being able to determine where this cloudiness becomes too much to give consent.

Intent and mental states are tested all the time by the criminal justice system. Mens rea is one of the basic parts of the vast majority of crimes. If your problem is that the criminal justice system can't give you epistemological certainty on that point, well, that's just the system we've got. It sucks, yeah, but how can you do any better?

My problem is someone giving consent and then the next day deciding that they had too much to drink.

So, what do you say of situations where one party gave verbal consent, but was blacked out at the time? Isn't that rape? I suppose at this point we're balancing injustices, but IMO, your scenario is far rarer than mine.

We could say it's a gender neutral scenario but it's not.

Here, we agree, it's not gender-neutral. It should be. Feminism, in my experience of it, stands opposed to the gendering of this problem, so I'm going to assume we disagree on the solution.

Even if he's drunk as well, he's supposed to be able to determine when the person he wants to have sex with and wants to have sex with him has too cloudy of a brain for her consent to be taken at face value.

Right, but which, in your opinion, is the worse injustice: a person being charged in a borderline case of rape, or a legitimate rape going unpunished? Because we've agreed that alcohol can destroy consent (or at least that's how I read your responses). We're into line-drawing here, and lines are going to be fuzzy in situations like this. So you have to figure out which problem you're more concerned with, draw the line in such a way as to account for it, and -- while attempting to minimize the other problem -- accept that it may well happen. The criminal justice system has a penchant for sentencing people to life in prison for crimes they apparently didn't commit, too, and holding them for twenty or more years of appeals and legal battles before releasing them. Shall we throw out the entire system because such injustices are possible? I don't think so.

So what you have to accept is that, drawing the line as you suggest (giving more leeway to drunken sex before calling it rape), you're going to make some actual rapes incapable of being punished. I accept that some people's lives will be ruined by false rape accusations. It's not perfectly just, but it is, IMO, better than the alternative.

[–]alphabetmod1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ANewMachine6152 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmod1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ANewMachine6152 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But, the way the accused rapist is treated in society, and in media, before a conviction, makes rape cases different

Oh? What about acquitted murderers, like OJ Simpson or Casey Anthony? It's hardly unique to rape cases to have your name dragged through the mud. Remember, Nancy Grace "called" those cases wrong just like she did the Duke lacrosse case, loudly and regularly.

And trust me, as an attorney who's done criminal work, the reaction of society to most criminal charges is pretty much the same, aside from drug and DUI cases. I worked on a white-collar accounting violation case, and the client was acquitted, but never able to work as an accountant again despite that. He lost a lot of friends who didn't want to be associated with an accused felon. He lost his job, his house, his professional standing... the list goes on. And he never regained it post-acquittal.

I think you just think that rape cases are different because you hear about them more in the MRA/TRP echo chamber.

[–]alphabetmod1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Oh? What about acquitted murderers, like OJ Simpson or Casey Anthony? It's hardly unique to rape cases to have your name dragged through the mud. Remember, Nancy Grace "called" those cases wrong just like she did the Duke lacrosse case, loudly and regularly.

You are right, but there needs to be more evidence even to charge someone with murder than someone's accusation.

I worked on a white-collar accounting violation case, and the client was acquitted, but never able to work as an accountant again despite that. He lost a lot of friends who didn't want to be associated with an accused felon. He lost his job, his house, his professional standing... the list goes on. And he never regained it post-acquittal. I think you just think that rape cases are different because you hear about them more in the MRA/TRP echo chamber.

I think that rape cases are different because my cousin was charged with rape after a false accusation. He sat in jail for 6 months right after getting a promotion at his job. While in jail, with no chance of bail, he lost his new high paying job, custody of his kids, his partner, his extended family, his house, his car etc... Only to have the woman who's word was the only reason he was sitting in jail recant her story. Where is he now? Still jobless, still without custody of his kids, and with no money left for lawyers and no place to live. Where is she? Walking free, no worse for wear.

[–]ANewMachine6152 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You are right, but there needs to be more evidence even to charge someone with murder than someone's accusation.

Not technically true, given that all you need is probable cause to bring charges in most jurisdictions. An accusation and circumstantial evidence (which is the basis of most rape cases) would likely clear that hurdle.

I think that rape cases are different because my cousin was charged with rape after a false accusation. He sat in jail for 6 months right after getting a promotion at his job. While in jail, with no chance of bail, he lost his new high paying job, custody of his kids, his partner, his extended family, his house, his car etc... Only to have the woman who's word was the only reason he was sitting in jail recant her story. Where is he now? Still jobless, still without custody of his kids, and with no money left for lawyers and no place to live. Where is she? Walking free, no worse for wear.

Yeah, sucks for your cousin, but I've seen that happen in non-criminal cases, too, where people lose homes, families, and livelihoods with no recourse. Why is it worse when it happens in a rape case, such that you feel the need to highlight it specifically? She could just as easily have charged him with beating her, or any list of other things, and the result would've been substantially the same.

[–]alphabetmod1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ANewMachine6153 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmod1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ANewMachine6153 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]redpillschool2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ANewMachine6153 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]redpillschool2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]polyhooly2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmod0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]polyhooly2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmod0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]polyhooly2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmod2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ANewMachine6153 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It's an edge case where the prudent thing to do, if you're capable, is to not have sex. Sex is, as TRP is oh so fond of saying, rather a cheap commodity these days, so the responsible thing is to forego it where there's any substantial doubt as to your partner's ability to consent.

Also, this doesn't really answer my question. What if a guy spends ten years in jail because of this "edge case?" Would that be okay with you? When both people are "incapable" as you put it, of consenting, you automatically put the responsibility on the guy here. The guy should do, as you put it "the responsible thing, and forego sex where there is any doubt." That is just such a load of bull. Why isn't the onus on the woman to do the "responsible thing" and not put a guy in that position?

Why can't anyone say that it's on the woman to be responsible in these situations lest they be called a rape-apologist, but there's no qualms about putting the responsibility on the guy to not only decide whether or not he wants to have sex, but to somehow be able to perform the inhuman feat of deciding whether or not the woman that just verbally consented wanted to have sex. And then it's his responsibility to make that judgement call on whether this woman is adult enough to make her own choices. And the consequence for his inability to be the responsible party for not only himself, but the woman that is begging to sleep with him, is his life is ruined if she decides the next day that she was was unable to consent.

[–]ANewMachine6157 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

When both people are "incapable" as you put it, of consenting, you automatically put the responsibility on the guy here.

Did I? You were the one who framed it as follows:

Statements like this make it impossible for a guy. Who decides whether or not one party is incapable? If the party that you say is incapable of consenting, but they're right there in front of a guy begging for sex, is that rape?

I answered. To expand on my answer, the girl should also refrain from sex under this circumstance, if she is capable of doing so. Is that explicit enough for you? I thought I was making the gender-neutrality of this advice pretty clear by using stuff like "your partner" rather than "the girl."

You're assuming I'm applying a double-standard, constructing hypotheticals with that double-standard explicitly in mind, and complaining about a double-standard when I answer your hypothetical as asked. As I said, we're not having a productive argument here.

[–]MrsStrom3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]MorphologicalMayhem5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]n0c0ntr0l 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If the woman (or man!) is in a state of mind where she is more easily manipulated into sex that she otherwise would not want to have, then it is rape.

This is a problem. How is the guy(or gal) supposed to know what state of mind the other person is in. How can they assume that the other person would not want to have sex? How can they be sure that this other person is to the point where they're manipulating them into sex? The grey areas are what I'm most concerned about, as to me it seems that in any grey area the man is automatically assumed to be a rapist, and that he should somehow magically be able to not only consider the woman's state of mind, but also whether or not that state of mind is genuine or somehow distorted by the alcohol or whatever other drug she chose to take. Beyond that, it is assumed that men are actively "manipulating" women to have sex with them, as if they are these creatures that have no mind of their own after a few alcoholic beverages.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SudoTheAdmin0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (62 children) | Copy Link

A woman walks out of the bar drunk and over the legal driving limit. She goes into the pizza place across the street and says, "I want one large pizza." She is told it is $10. The guy cooks her the pizza, hands it to her, and asks for $10. She says, "Sorry I'm drunk and can't consent to a contract. Too bad!" She walks out of the restaurant and waves a cab. She says, "Take me to XYZ street." Cabbie drives her there and says, "That will be $10." She gets out and says, "I'm drunk and can't consent to a contract. Too bad!" She goes into her friend John's apartment. John has no idea she drank at all in the last 7 days, walked out of the restaurant without paying, or didn't pay the cabbie. She says, "Let's have sex!" They have sex and she spends the night. The next day she remembers everything that happened the night before.

Did she steal the pizza?
Did she steal a ride from the cab driver?
Was she raped?

Edit - The Answers:

In the US, the common law rule is contracts are unenforceable against an incapacitated party. That means if the girl lacked capacity she can enter contracts to buy goods or services, but the seller cannot compel payment. A contract for one pizza costing $10 was formed at the pizza place and a contract for the cab ride for $10 was formed with the cab driver.

The girl stole the food. Food is considered a necessity and lack of capacity is not a defense for contracts to buy food, so a drunk person has to pay the bill no matter what. This is how bars and restaurants can force drunk patrons to pay the bill.
The girl did not steal the cab ride. The parties formed a service contract for the ride but the payment is unenforceable because of her drunkenness. The cab driver is out $10. (Whether a judge/police would allow this unjust enrichment is a different story). Note: Because service contracts for a cab ride do not fit the necessity exception.
The sexual encounter was deliberately left ambiguous. She said "Let's have sex" and whether he consented is not in the facts. We don't know whether she assaulted him or even whether he consented and she raped him. We also don't know whether he lacked capacity, whether through inebriation, minority, or lack of mental capacity. I find it interesting it is assumed that she was raped but he was not. This shows a general bias against males. None of the respondents considered this equally plausible scenario.

[–]AcatalepticPolemic9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SudoTheAdmin0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AcatalepticPolemic6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SudoTheAdmin0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

She says, "Sorry I'm drunk and can't consent to a contract. Too bad!"

The sellers can get in trouble for exploiting someone's drunken state by overcharging or misleading them about what they are buying, but the person can absolutely be too drunk to legally agree to purchase an item. This doesn't absolve of theft though, it just means that if they had paid for the item, it's possible that they could challenge the transaction.

Importantly, being too drunk to sign a contract is, of course, an uncontroversial part of the law. Any contract entered into by someone under the influence of drugs or alcohol is null and void, just as consent is nullified by being significantly impaired by alcohol.

But it's weird how people don't come up with ridiculous hypotheticals for this situation. "WHAT IF BOTH PEOPLE ARE DRUNK WHEN SIGNING THE CONTRACT FOR SELLING A HOUSE? Stupid feminists trying to ruin the way we've always done things. Giving sellers alcohol makes them more likely to sell me their house cheaper, so why would I stop buying houses from drunk people?!".

Cabbie drives her there and says, "That will be $10." She gets out and says, "I'm drunk and can't consent to a contract. Too bad!"

Someone isn't absolved of the crime of theft because they were drunk. The woman could try challenging the cabbie for assuming she was sober enough to enter into the implicit contract, but likely the case would be thrown out on the grounds that there was no reason to suspect that alcohol impairment had played a role in the choice to catch a cab (as they needed to get home one way or another) and there was no evidence of the cabbie misleading or overcharging for the service to exploit the woman's drunkenness.

On the other hand, if she had stumbled in the taxi and asked to go to 'Funky Town', and he agreed, driving her all over the city increasing the tariff, then she would not legally be expected to pay as she was in no state to enter into such a contract.

She goes into her friend John's apartment. John has no idea she drank at all in the last 7 days, walked out of the restaurant without paying, or didn't pay the cabbie. She says, "Let's have sex!" They have sex and she spends the night.

And we all agree that that's rape, because I'm told red pillers don't support rape.

Did she steal the pizza?

Yes.

Did she steal a ride from the cab driver?

Yes.

Was she raped?

Yes.

Well, that was easy.

[–]permajetlag"That Guy"3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

One possible reasons is that social interactions immediately leading a house sale contract don't usually involve alcohol, but social interactions immediately leading to sex often involves alcohol, especially in a demographic looking for casual sex (bars, college parties, etc.)

Indeed, which is why I added the last line: "Giving sellers alcohol makes them more likely to sell me their house cheaper, so why would I stop buying houses from drunk people?!". If I started going around, feeding people alcohol and then convincing them to sell me their house really cheap, people would burn me at the stake.

It would be a horrible, manipulative, and undeniably disgusting thing that I was doing. And yet, somebody refers to alcohol as "social lubricant" and suddenly they're getting high-fives.

Could you explain this?

Which bit? A person too drunk to consent having sex with a sober person is surely rape. The second part refers to the fact that I'm told repeatedly that red pillers don't condone rape, so my comment was a hopeful wish that no red piller would try denying that that situation is clearly rape.

[–]SudoTheAdmin-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I find it interesting that you find the woman responsible for her actions in the pizza place and cab, but not the apartment.

I didn't. I explained above that she couldn't technically enter into any of those contracts.

And for US purposes, your legal analysis is incorrect. The common law rules are above.

In the US, the common law rule is contracts are unenforceable against an incapacitated party. That means if the girl lacked capacity she can enter contracts to buy goods or services, but the seller cannot compel payment. A contract for one pizza costing $10 was formed at the pizza place and a contract for the cab ride for $10 was formed with the cab driver.

You've seriously misunderstood the law. The intoxication defence in response to specific intent crimes like theft can only be raised if the defendant can sufficiently demonstrate that they lacked the condition of "knowing".

Whether they can legally enter a contract or not is irrelevant, as they can still be guilty of theft.

The sexual encounter was deliberately left ambiguous.

There was nothing ambiguous about it. You repeatedly stated that she could not consent.

She said "Let's have sex" and whether he consented is not in the facts. We don't know whether she assaulted him or even whether he consented and she raped him. We also don't know whether he lacked capacity, whether through inebriation, minority, or lack of mental capacity. I find it interesting it is assumed that she was raped but he was not. This shows a general bias against males. None of the respondents considered this equally plausible scenario.

No, it shows that I'm not going to make wild assumptions in hypotheticals without any evidence or reasoning to. I concluded that she was raped. I made no claim as to whether he was raped as well.

If you disagree, point out the part where I explicitly said that he wasn't raped or sexually assaulted. But hey, why stop there? You also didn't mention that after spending the night together, she murdered him with a toothbrush. Am I also biased for not pointing out the possibility that she was a murderer? Maybe she gathered together all of his personal info, stole his identity and set up a fake life where people still think he's alive so she can fund a highly profitable drug operation. Once she gathers together enough funds, she moves to a small developing country where she buys out the government and forms a powerful army, and plans to take over the world.

At this point she is literally Hitler, guilty of forming a dictatorship, bribing government officials, running a drug ring, stealing identities, and murder - and I didn't mention any of those possibilities in my reply to you!

OMG MISANDRY!

[–]cipahs -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]cipahs -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

It's only funny when it's hook-up regrets, or omg i just cheated on my boyfriend with hot frat star/football/rugby #12.

But that has nothing to do with what we're talking about, which is people being too drunk to consent.

Which is the only 'rape' i have ever seen,

Well that's truly wonderful for you, but most of us don't live in the magical world where false rape claims outnumber actual rapes.

is when two people are drunk and they bang out and one regrets it normally the women.

And that's probably because rapists are normally men.

So my advice to my bros is, "if you think the chick is going to drop the rape bomb on you, do it to her first, that way you don't get fucked. Sure her life is ruined but yours isn't."

Alternatively, you could say: "If you are attempting to have sex with someone who can't consent, then stop. Don't rape her".

But yeah, you can take your approach of raping the girl and then trying to make the life of a rape victim worse by filing a police report against her. I guess that works too.

[–]permajetlag"That Guy"2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmod1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]permajetlag2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

However, the standard for whether a participant was taken advantage of is if he/she thought they were, after the fact. (This is ignoring obvious factors like power imbalances in family/workplace.)

As is the necessary nature of impaired decision making (i.e. if they were capable to assess whether their decision making was impaired in order to choose differently at the time, then they would not have made the choice they did and would not have been taken advantage of to realise that later).

But obviously that doesn't imply that the person simply regretted the actions or "felt bad".

Thus, it is impossible for participants of drunken sex to be sure that they aren't committing rape, since they can't control the thought process of their partner afterwards.

Of course, which is why the law places the burden of what a reasonable law abiding person would think in that situation.

Combined with society's female slut shaming, women have more incentive to feel taken advantage of than men.

That seems like a huge stretch to me. I don't think there's any real evidence to suggest that women report regretted sex as rape, and there are huge reasons why they wouldn't (get harassed and called a liar, have to go through multiple police interviews, medical tests, long drawn out court process, incredibly low probability of winning a court case, etc).

It just seems so hugely improbable that, even if it did occur, it would be such a statistically negligible number that it's not worth bringing up in debates like this.

This is why many RPers see regret where you see rape and why they love talking about false rape.

I think part of the problem is that RPers also seem to think that rape is only nasty men hiding in bushes with knives. From the discussions in these threads, the only consistent response I've received is that it's only rape when: the girl is kicking and screaming, the girl is passed out and unconscious, or the girl is forced to consent due to threat of physical violence.

So what they are interpreting as "regret", is simply rape.

[–]alphabetmod0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

YOU CLAIM that consent doesn't mean consent.

I point out that the law states that someone cannot consent when they are unable to do so due to the effects of drugs or alcohol. You disagree with the law here, not me.

Therefore if a woman consents to sex, but feels the next day that she shouldn't be held responsible for consenting that makes it rape.

No, I don't agree with that. It has nothing to do with "responsibility".

Therefore, in your mind, no matter if the woman consents or not, there is some arbitrary things at play such asif the woman decides when she wakes up that even though she consented to sex, she wasn't able to consent to sex.

There is nothing arbitrary about it, it's how practically all crimes are determined to be crimes - the presence of a victim. What part aren't you understanding? Or do you truly believe that any technical violation of the written law is a crime? You're eating a bag of potato chips and I take one and eat it. You're saying I should be charged with theft, even if we were friends and you didn't mind me taking one?

Therefore, to you, consent means nothing if there's any drunkenness.

As the law states, you cannot consent if you are significantly impaired by alcohol.

All drunk sex is rape whether or not she consented because she can't consent.

Are you using "drunk" to refer to a significant state of intoxication where consent cannot be given? If so, then yes.

It's hard to keep up with the mental gymnastics but I'm trying here.

Come on, buddy. You can't accuse me of mental gymnastics for being perfectly consistent with my responses and entirely in line with the law. You're the one who has spent this entire discussion misrepresenting me and strawmanning me, refusing to answer simple questions. It's fucking incredible to watch but leads to no productive discussion.

[–]alphabetmod0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cipahs -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

Alternatively, you could say: "If you are attempting to have sex with someone who can't consent, then stop. Don't rape her".

Watch this magic I'm about to perform. Two people are drunk, neither can consent; so who raped who. Dunn Dunnnn Dunnnnnnn a predicament.

Now watch this. Alternatively, you could say: "If you are attempting to have sex with someone who can't consent, then stop. Don't rape him".

Because if he couldn't consent then he was raped. Because he had alcohol as well so obviously she must be the rapist

The amount of double think is absolutely amazing.

And that's probably because rapists are normally men.

Men regret a huge amount of ONS's that happen, but they don't bitch about it the next day and cry rape. Shit i could've had a few girls thrown away because normally i would of never had sex with them, but alcohol is a hell of a drug.

Person A had alcohol

Person B had alcohol

they had sex

who raped who? Because you don't know the gender.

[–]mrsamsa4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Watch this magic I'm about to perform. Two people are drunk, neither can consent; so who raped who. Dunn Dunnnn Dunnnnnnn a predicament.

I hate to break this to you, but ridiculous illogical statements aren't magic...

Now watch this. Alternatively, you could say: "If you are attempting to have sex with someone who can't consent, then stop. Don't rape him". Because if he couldn't consent then he was raped. Because he had alcohol as well so obviously she must be the rapist

Agreed.

The amount of double think is absolutely amazing.

...Where is the doublethink?

Men regret a huge amount of ONS's that happen, but they don't bitch about it the next day and cry rape.

Neither do women. Wow, the genders are so similar!

Person A had alcohol Person B had alcohol they had sex who raped who? Because you don't know the gender.

Why would gender affect the decision of whether one or both are rapists?

[–]cipahs -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]cipahs0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cipahs1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cipahs0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MrsStrom-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]MrsStrom0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MrsStrom-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_ 2 points2 points2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MrsStrom2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_ 1 points1 points1 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MrsStrom3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_ 1 points1 points1 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Right, and in our culture men are supposed to somehow determine if this walking talking woman is capable of giving consent. The responsibility lies upon the male to be responsible, and if he isn't God help him.

Let's say a guy has sex with someone that is seemingly coherent. In reality she's drunk, but happens to hold her liquor well. In this hypothetical the guy has had one or two beers over the course of an hour or so. He has not seen the woman drink any alcoholic beverage whatsoever. They're in a ONS situation, or so he thinks because she has grabbed his arm out of nowhere and led him up to a bedroom. Now remember, this guy doesn't know this girl at all. All he knows is that he thinks she's sexy, and seemingly horny as well. Let's say she has told him that she finds him sexy, and that she is indeed hornier than she's ever been. They get up to the room and have sex, her being the initiator the entire way. They go to sleep afterwards next to each other. The woman wakes up the next morning next to a strange man that she doesn't know. What is the hypothetical best possible outcome in this situation in your opinion? In your opinion if the guy was charged with rape, what should happen to him?

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_ 2 points2 points2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_ 2 points2 points2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]newuofh-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SudoTheAdmin3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Rape, consent, and TRP.
Author	alphabetmod
Upvotes	4
Comments	178
Date	October 22, 2013 9:45 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1p07sc/rape_consent_and_trp/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/rape-consent-and-trp.286686 https://theredarchive.com/post/286686

Comments