Is rape always rape? (2 Viewers)

[Arcadian Empire]

no but feminists claim that drunk women can't consent, that's what makes it rape

So basically, if women get too drunk they're unable to make correct desicions about having sex, but men, who are as drunk or even more drunk are expected to realise that these women can't make sound decisons.
Which is to say, drunk men have to understand drunk women's state of mind better than the drunk women can themselves.

Basically this. If you have sex with someone and both of you are drunk, you should all be locked up given you each raped each other!

Other than totally outlawing drunken sex, Idk how you get around this one. Not saying that rape is not always rape, it is, but the legislation on this isn't practical.

 

[Garygaz]

someone should do a test case where a male claims he was given alcoholic drinks by a female, got too drunk to remember anything and woke up in the morning to find he had had sex with her. the male then proceeds to lay rape charges with the police.

i ~wonder~ how that would go

gender equality only when it works for you, hell yeh!

 

[Graney]

I think the law we have now is fine, and accurately defines rape. I am interested to hear how people/sylviab think the law should be changed.

If you change the law to say that substantially intoxicated people are fully capable of informed consent, or that it isn't rape if the rapist is also drunk, the ramifications of this are upsetting. It might be an imperfect system, but the alternative is nightmarish.

 

[Graney]

I think the law we have now is fine, and accurately defines rape. I am interested to hear how critics/sylviab think the law should be changed.

If you change the law to say that substantially intoxicated people are fully capable of informed consent, or that it isn't rape if the rapist is also drunk, the ramifications of this are upsetting. It might be an imperfect system, but the alternative is nightmarish.

 

[Lolsmith]

except you're using rape in a non-standard way here

i.e. most people wouldn't consider it rape

Oh right, that makes a lot of sense actually, but also goes to my point to better encourage a more rigorous standard of obtaining consent

I think the law we have now is fine, and accurately defines rape. I am interested to hear how people/sylviab think the law should be changed.

If you change the law to say that substantially intoxicated people are fully capable of informed consent, or that it isn't rape if the rapist is also drunk, the ramifications of this are upsetting. It might be an imperfect system, but the alternative is nightmarish.

Yep

It's not necessarily taking on a new set of values.

You're equating "I have been told by X that they do not want to have sex with me, but I'm going to have sex with X anyway" with "Whilst X hasn't said they don't want to have sex with me, they are fairly intoxicated and its possible they might not be in the right state of mind to give consent"

I'm not equating them in the same level of severity, but they are both attitudes that should be discouraged and sought to be adjusted. Having a set of values determining that you should forgo sex if you can't get clear, rational consent is something that would help minimise situations like these.

someone should do a test case where a male claims he was given alcoholic drinks by a female, got too drunk to remember anything and woke up in the morning to find he had had sex with her. the male then proceeds to lay rape charges with the police.

i ~wonder~ how that would go

gender equality only when it works for you, hell yeh!

I don't think any women or prominent feminists have said that men can't be raped.

 

[enoilgam]

I think the law we have now is fine, and accurately defines rape. I am interested to hear how critics/sylviab think the law should be changed.

If you change the law to say that substantially intoxicated people are fully capable of informed consent, or that it isn't rape if the rapist is also drunk, the ramifications of this are upsetting. It might be an imperfect system, but the alternative is nightmarish.

I agree, I think the statutory guidelines on rape and in particular consent in this state are some of the most comprehensive around.

 

[Arcadian Empire]

so all the drunken sex you people havent been having on account of being on bos is rape, because no matter what consent is gained, it is not admissible

Im not disagreeing, but it seems wicked that a person could potentially prosecute another on such a loose line

 

[enoilgam]

so all the drunken sex you people havent been having on account of being on bos is rape, because no matter what consent is gained, it is not admissible

Im not disagreeing, but it seems wicked that a person could potentially prosecute another on such a loose line

It isnt absolute though, refer to this post:

From the Act:

(6) The grounds on which it may be established that a person does not consent to sexual intercourse include:

(a) if the person has sexual intercourse while substantially intoxicated by alcohol or any drug

From my interpretation of that, being drunk does not always negate consent. It "may" negate consent and the person must be "substantially intoxicated". So drunk for the purposes of determining drunk driving and consent are most likely different.

You would probably need to go to the caselaw for a more detailed explanation of "substantially intoxicated".

 

[townie]

It isnt absolute though, refer to this post:



You would probably need to go to the caselaw for a more detailed explanation of "substantially intoxicated".

If you need to refer to case law to determine what "substantially intoxicated" means, doesn't that make it slightly difficult for joe average to decide whether another person meets the definition, especially if joe average is just as intoxicated.

 

[jenner1995]

yes

 

[soloooooo]

I agree, I think the statutory guidelines on rape and in particular consent in this state are some of the most comprehensive around.

And are you saying that is good or bad?