Another poll on attitudes to rape

[Bells]

why is it that you are so interested in what other think about rape? Do you have a "hidden" side that really is your "dark side" ?

I just don't understand how he is unable to understand the 'incapacitated' rule (for lack of a better term). That if someone is so incapacitated that they can't consent or understand what they are consenting to, then yes, it can be classified as rape, even if the individual said yes and participated. That if they can't understand what they're saying yes to, that it can amount to rape. That if someone plies another with alcohol and/or drugs so they are so incapacitated that they can't understand and say yes and even participate, when the individual knows that if they were sober they would have said no, it is rape. I mean really, is it that hard to understand?

 

[Randwolf]

I just don't understand how he is unable to understand the 'incapacitated' rule (for lack of a better term). That if someone is so incapacitated that they can't consent or understand what they are consenting to, then yes, it can be classified as rape, even if the individual said yes and participated. That if they can't understand what they're saying yes to, that it can amount to rape. That if someone plies another with alcohol and/or drugs so they are so incapacitated that they can't understand and say yes and even participate, when the individual knows that if they were sober they would have said no, it is rape. I mean really, is it that hard to understand?

What's hard for me to understand, is who judges these things? Who decides if someone is too inebriated to be of sound judgement? The examples of someone who is comatose are obvious. However, on a related thread it was pointed out that the actual law of the land has changed, and it is no longer necessary to prove force as an element of rape. In fact, quite the contrary. I think this is what ABS is going on about. Can a person, male or female, decide retroactively, as in the next morning, "Oh, I was drunk last night, so even though I said please fuck me, I was actually incapacitated, so, therefore, you will be spending the next 20 years in prison." Is this right? It may be a hypothetical question right now. but you can bet it will be tested in reality soon. We already had cases of people inaccurately labeled guillty of rape, this would seem to only open the door further for this sort of false accusation.

How do you know? If it's so easy to understand, explain how the burden of proof plays out under these new laws.

 

[angrybellsprout]

It may be a hypothetical question right now. but you can bet it will be tested in reality soon. We already had cases of people inaccurately labeled guillty of rape, this would seem to only open the door further for this sort of false accusation.

I already showed you an example of how this isn't a hypothetical question. Though it is pretty telling that they don't want to talk about what happens when both individuals have had a few drinks, as that would go against their world view that all men are rapists and women are simply innocent victims.

Also, it has long been the burden of proof to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are in fact innocent, as opposed to ever having to really prove that you are guilty.

Another good question is how many other things can you simply say, oh but I was drunk, and get away with? Is it really your fault if you are too drunk to consent to driving yourself home? Can you honestly be held liable if you shoot someone when you can't even recall your own name? It is obvious that anything that you say yes to and then actively involve yourself in after a few drinks cannot be held against you.

 

[Bells]

What's hard for me to understand, is who judges these things? Who decides if someone is too inebriated to be of sound judgement? The examples of someone who is comatose are obvious. However, on a related thread it was pointed out that the actual law of the land has changed, and it is no longer necessary to prove force as an element of rape. In fact, quite the contrary. I think this is what ABS is going on about. Can a person, male or female, decide retroactively, as in the next morning, "Oh, I was drunk last night, so even though I said please fuck me, I was actually incapacitated, so, therefore, you will be spending the next 20 years in prison." Is this right? It may be a hypothetical question right now. but you can bet it will be tested in reality soon. We already had cases of people inaccurately labeled guillty of rape, this would seem to only open the door further for this sort of false accusation.

How can I put this. I've been approached by people who have claimed as your example. When I read the file and speak to the police officers who deal with the case or complaint, one thing usually becomes blatantly clear. Regret. And no, in such cases, we wouldn't even try the case. When I say regret I mean as you state.. that someone wakes up the next morning after a drinking session and thinks "fuck.. I had sex with that?.. What in the hell was I thinking?.."... then tries to save face by saying they must have been raped because they have standards, etc, and yes, these people will tell the police that when they are filing their complaint.

Why don't we try it? Because it is usually impossible to do so.

If the next morning they can remember saying "yes.. please fuck me", and at the time they knew and understood what they were saying yes to (you can usually tell the one's who were so incapacitated that they could not understand), then no, no prosecutor would touch it. Those who are so incapacitated and didn't or couldn't consent are usually the ones who feel violated and abused the next morning. Usually can't remember the exact details due to the levels of inebriation. It's usually those people and they end up losing time in the night before.. wake up in a strange place or without their underwear.. have no recollection of how they got there or how their underwear was taken off.. and again.. feel violated, abused and physical pain.. sometimes if it's a woman, she'll still be feeling the man's sperm exiting her body and she knows she didn't have sex or can't remember any of it. They're usually the ones who are investigated and usually tried. Let me put it this way. I had one defendant video tape the whole thing and tried to say that the mess of the woman, who was so drunk she couldn't stand up, who said "yes.. oh god yes" and then broke into a fit of giggles and then burst into tears, asked repeatedly who he was, then asked where she was, when he initiated it all, had consented. It was obvious to anyone even with half a brain that the woman was in no way able to consent to anything. But he and his lawyer tried to say that she said "yes", so she consented. When in reality she had not because she was too drunk to understand anything, let alone consent.

 

[visceral_instinct]

oh shit, I just clicked on the ones I agreed with, no the ones I didn't!

 

[visceral_instinct]

It's very simple. If the person says NO and you force them to have sex, it is rape.

If the person is unconscious, or too stoned/drunk to know what they are doing (and therefore to be able to consent), and you have sex with them, it is rape.

 

[Asguard]

VI did you see my short list for you in the other thread

I DID manage to narrow it down to 3 rules surprsingly enough

Bells did you see my post to you in that old thread on the abortion limit?

 

[visceral_instinct]

No I didn't...I'll go have a look

 

[Bells]

I already showed you an example of how this isn't a hypothetical question. Though it is pretty telling that they don't want to talk about what happens when both individuals have had a few drinks, as that would go against their world view that all men are rapists and women are simply innocent victims.

As has been pointed out on numerous occasions in this forum, such cases are extremely hard to prove. Cases where incapacitation through alcohol or drugs is a factor are hard to prove when both have had a few drinks and one regrets it the next day. In such cases, it doesn't make it to court. Some women and men are innocent victims of rape. Why? Because rape victims are innocent. There are some individuals who, through feelings of embarrassment and revenge, will try to claim a rape, when there hasn't been one (a rape that is). But there are also people who, through alcohol and/or drugs, are raped and who were too incapacitated to understand what they were saying yes to. Usually, the police will question any witnesses to try to ascertain just how drunk the person may have been. And it is through such testimonies that they can decide to build a case or not.

Another good question is how many other things can you simply say, oh but I was drunk, and get away with? Is it really your fault if you are too drunk to consent to driving yourself home?

No.

Can you honestly be held liable if you shoot someone when you can't even recall your own name? It is obvious that anything that you say yes to and then actively involve yourself in after a few drinks cannot be held against you.

In the case of murder, diminished capacity can come into play. If I recall correctly, in the US, the case of State v. Keeton, the court did allow evidence of diminished capacity, to show that the defendant was simply too drunk to fulfill the mental state required for first degree murder. In other words, while it doesn't absolve the defendant of the crime, it can reduce the degree of the crime itself, as well as negate specific intent. Don't ask me about the details, but I'm pretty sure that is correct.

 

[visceral_instinct]

Basically, ABS, if he/she is too drunk to hold a conversation or understand what you're saying, don't fuck him/her. Is that simple enough for you?

 

[Asguard]

if they cant tell you your name 2 min after saying it they are too drunk, if they are falling over they are too drunk (though admitedly PB and i had sex when we were in that state)

 

[angrybellsprout]

Kind of hard to remain active and participatory if you are falling over, or are you too focused on throwing around strawmen to give a damn?

 

[Asguard]

actually no she was quite a willing paticipant

The difference was i was who she thought she was with.

 

[angrybellsprout]

Why don't you at least attempt to keep up with your own posts that I reply to?

 

[Orleander]

oh shit, I just clicked on the ones I agreed with, no the ones I didn't!

LOL, yeah, me too.

 

[visceral_instinct]

if they cant tell you your name 2 min after saying it they are too drunk, if they are falling over they are too drunk (though admitedly PB and i had sex when we were in that state)

I had sex with a guy after he had to lean on me because he was drunk.

He wasn't incoherent or overly out of it though, just kind of disinhibited. And seeing as it was him who initiated it, and he was 6'2 and I could hardly have forced him to do anything he didn't want to...I find it hard to see that as rape.

 

[Randwolf]

I had sex with a guy after he had to lean on me because he was drunk.

He wasn't incoherent or overly out of it though, just kind of disinhibited. And seeing as it was him who initiated it, and he was 6'2 and I could hardly have forced him to do anything he didn't want to...I find it hard to see that as rape.

Well, if the femnazis heard about this without the gender specified, I am pretty sure they would be quick to call it rape. But no VI, you did nothing wrong. That's the whole point. People need to be responsible for themselves, and stop crying "victim" all the time.

 

[draqon]

Bells vote

 

[draqon]

I had sex with a guy after he had to lean on me because he was drunk.

He wasn't incoherent or overly out of it though, just kind of disinhibited. And seeing as it was him who initiated it, and he was 6'2 and I could hardly have forced him to do anything he didn't want to...I find it hard to see that as rape.

but you raped him...he never agreed to having sex with you, he was drunk.

 

[Randwolf]

but you raped him...he never agreed to having sex with you, he was drunk.

OMG, draqon, stop pretending that just because someone has a few drinks that they are incapable of consenting to sex. And leave VI alone...