Feminism Thread

[NynJa]

This is an excellent argument for not having sex with girls who consent to said sex while drunk. I'm glad we're on the same page finally.

And yet, the guy just now said he almost got called a rapist and would wind up in jail over a girl who consented WHILE SOBER, and if he didnt have the texts on his phone proving otherwise, he wouldnt be able to tell the story because he would be in jail.

Of course, I'm pretty sure you'll just spin this around to "once she got drunk, consent was revoked"

[Qalbert]

"I was drunk and not in control of my actions" does not excuse criminal behavior because sober or not, a criminal act is still a crime. Assuming the scenario is a sober guy intentionally hooking up with a drunk chick: Having sex with someone who is capable of consenting is not a crime. The drunk girl is not doing anything illegal. Irresponsible, sure, but not illegal. Having sex with someone who is not capable of legal consent IS a crime. The sober guy IS doing something illegal.

Drunk A, sober B, B has sex with A because A was saying "FUCK ME". Crime. B at fault, A being drunk cannot legally consent. A may choose not to press charges/not care, but it was still illegal.

Drunk A and Drunk B have sex. Crime. Both at fault as neither could legally consent. They may choose not to press charges/not care, but it was still illegal.

Sober A and Sober B say "lets get drunk and have sex" Not crime, neither at fault.

[Qalbert]

I've said in the past that consent can be established prior to the inebriation, just to make that clear. I'm not saying its rape for two people to PLAN to get drunk and fuck. But "being drunk at a bar" does not constitute "planning to get drunk and fuck someone". Most of the arguments I am making are for two people who are not in an established relationship, and who have not set ground rules for what they do and do not consent to.

[quannum]

I guess those republicans were right when they started going off about 'real' rape. this mutual rape stuff is lunacy.

[Ksandra]

I've said in the past that consent can be established prior to the inebriation, just to make that clear. I'm not saying its rape for two people to PLAN to get drunk and fuck. But "being drunk at a bar" does not constitute "planning to get drunk and fuck someone". Most of the arguments I am making are for two people who are not in an established relationship, and who have not set ground rules for what they do and do not consent to.

I appreciate you adding this. I agree with what you said, I think the problem with people like hey is they can't seem to rationalize outside of just one night stands at a bar.

For sure, don't have drunk sex with chicks/guys you just met.

But it is high on ridiculous to claim rape if people are in an establish relationship and decide to have drunk sex one night.

[Qalbert]

mutual rape or whatever you want to call it does sound stupid, but the fact remains that both parties had sex with someone who could not legally consent, and legally speaking the other party has the right to seek recourse. I certainly doubt anything would come of it, simply for how easy it is to make it sound like it's some ridiculous concept, and a jury is far more likely to go "oh it was just a drunken mistake, deal with it", but by current legal definitions both parties have committed a crime, and could conceivably be held accountable for it. basically goes back to what's been said countless times, don't fuck drunk people and you don't have to worry about it.

[archibaldcrane]

If you consent while sober, and don't recind that consent later, it's fine and dandy. People in long term sexual relationships/marriages come to understandings early on about what is and isn't ok when drunk or passed out (some dudes may love waking up to bjs, some wives have no problem with being fucked after passing out, for example - while springing anal for the first time on your drunk wife could very well enter rape territory). But if the only consent you've received is from someone who is already drunk, you are on thin ice and if you don't trust that person completely, you need to flip the "off" switch.

[quannum]

a victimless crime that devalues rape should be done away with. Unless we have technology that can determine if too much alcohol was the reason for a given action, all we're left with is innocent people, whoops i mean rapists, having their lives destroyed. "don't have sex with drunk people" just demonstrates a lack of ability to deal with the real world.

[Qalbert]

oh ok

[Mazmaz]

Gotta say I'm pretty proud of Qal.

[Marootsoobutsu]

Really, I can't believe you want to devalue rape this badly. And this isn't snark or sarcasm. You are hurting rape victims by saying the shit you are saying.

Thank you for reiterating this.

As the victim of rape, let me be very clear: I don't give a shit what my rapists motivations were. I give a shit what *I* went through, and what it did to *ME*. Y'know, the victim.

I *NEVER* was in a position where I had diminished capacity: my capacity at *ALL* wasn't a factor. My control was *TAKEN* from me. My existence became that of a *THING*. I was an object. It wasn't about the penis shoved in my mouth, or crotch getting fondled. It was about me being dehumanized. Literally the only thing I could compare it to would be slavery, albeit temporarily. It is someone *MAKING ME* a *THING*.

The implications beyond that-- that it was sexualized-- lead to all sorts of problems related to sex afterward, too.

I *resent* someone getting drunk, someone who *GAVE UP THEIR CAPACITY ON THEIR OWN FREE WILL*, who then *MADE A BAD DECISION IN THAT CAPACITY* being in any way put on the same level as what I went through. That person had *NOTHING* taken from them in any way that I can possibly relate to. Sex isn't a legal agreement, or at least no more so than buying a sandwich is.

Getting drunk isn't something that absolves you of the decisions you make when getting drunk, or at least it shouldn't be. I am not saying that a drunk person cannot be raped, and I know for certain that a lot of rape is a sober person pressuring and pushing a drunk person whose will to resist is diminished-- and that is most definitely rape. But especially the nonsense of "mutual rape"... that is impossible. Just, on a fundamental moral level, you cannot have "mutual rape".

There needs to be a differentiation between rape, and drunk-sex. I understand where people are coming from with the "no legal consent", but there is a massive difference between "legal consent" and actual consent. It's like a white guy getting called a cracker, and thinking he understands what black people have been through their entire lives. The difference in the experience is just laughable.

[archibaldcrane]

a victimless crime that devalues rape should be done away with. Unless we have technology that can determine if too much alcohol was the reason for a given action, all we're left with is innocent people, whoops i mean rapists, having their lives destroyed. "don't have sex with drunk people" just demonstrates a lack of ability to deal with the real world.

If you are correct that their drunk consent reflects their sober desires, you are fine. However, if you're wrong, you're a rapist, so tread lightly. But don't be too afraid, she almost definitely won't press charges, and if she does she will have a very hard time getting an arrest, much less a conviction.

So, basically, it's about whether you want to fuck someone who only wants to because she's drunk.

I mean

Who wants that?

[archibaldcrane]

There needs to be a differentiation between rape, and drunk-sex.

There is - rape has degrees for severity of the crime and different punishments follow said severity. I understand you want to "no true Scotsman" the word rape, and I understand why, but we're talking more about the laws in place.

[Qalbert]

There needs to be a differentiation between rape, and drunk-sex. I understand where people are coming from with the "no legal consent", but there is a massive difference between "legal consent" and actual consent. It's like a white guy getting called a cracker, and thinking he understands what black people have been through their entire lives. The difference in the experience is just laughable.

That's absolutely fine, the term isn't the issue, and you're right, perhaps a different term would help, but the core issue isn't the definition of rape, or what kind is or isn't 'real rape'/'worse rape', the issue is that there are people who try to justify having sex with someone who cannot provide consent because "oh she shouldn't have been drinking" oh she was screaming "fuck me!" or whatever other bullshit reason you want to provide. When you have people arguing about "oh that's not really rape that's just drunk sex" it obfuscates the actual issue, people thinking that nonconsensual sex is EVER ok. That's unacceptable, and is what people are trying to change by pushing education and legislation about what constitutes consent. No one wants to actively devalue anyone's trauma, and if I've come across that way I sincerely apologize.

[quannum]

if you were on a jury, let's say both parties press charges. are you for convicting both of them?

[NynJa]

I guess thats why bars have breathalyzers...not for the drunk drivers, but for making sure innocent people dont become rapists.

[Ksandra]

But don't be too afraid, she almost definitely won't press charges, and if she does she will have a very hard time getting an arrest, much less a conviction.

This isn't helpful at all.

[archibaldcrane]

if you were on a jury, let's say both parties press charges. are you for convicting both of them?

A single jury wouldn't be deciding guilt or innocence of both parties.

[quannum]

it's a hypothetical, you know that.

[NynJa]

This isn't helpful at all.

He is right. Girl claims she was drunk, defense lawyer just asks "what were your blood alcohol levels at the time of the alleged rape", girl has no proof of such, guy walks...but he's still tarnished for life now.

Atleast I figure thats how it would go