Liberals have declared that people who are drunk can't give consent to sex

[Blackrook]

Liberals have declared that people who are drunk can't give consent for sex.

However, if both the man and woman are drunk, the man has raped the woman.

Google

Feminists and liberals, please explain.

As a side note, when I was a teenager, I was in a hot tub, a girl grabbed me and gave me a full kiss on the lips. I did not encourage her in any way. She was so drunk that she didn't even remember the kiss the next morning, and I didn't tell her.

Question: Did she rape me, or did I rape her?

 

[bucs90]

What if two gay male Democrats get drunk and bang each other? Who raped who?

 

[Lumpy 1]

Liberals have declared that people who are drunk can't give consent for sex.

However, if both the man and woman are drunk, the man has raped the woman.

Google

Feminists and liberals, please explain.

As a side note, when I was a teenager, I was in a hot tub, a girl grabbed me and gave me a full kiss on the lips. I did not encourage her in any way. She was so drunk that she didn't even remember the kiss the next morning, and I didn't tell her.

Question: Did she rape me, or did I rape her?

Must have been quite a kiss...

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Blackrook
It is the responsibility of the two people to decide what happened, how to talk about it, and what to do.

What I suggest, especially in cases where maybe multiple people were involved in a rape and are blaming each other for legal cover,
is for communities to set up their own third area of law, outside civil and criminal,
to address community health and safety, including addiction, and relationship abuse.
Some private campuses already have policies for students to sign consent forms before having sexual relations.
Many homeowners associations already have their own ordinances and procedures for issuing complaints and requiring corrections.

If people complain about abuse, it doesn't have to require "blaming one side or the other"
The solution is for the people to go into counseling until the conflict is solved, and both people feel safe
and agree the problems are resolved. Both partners, or all people involved in a complaint, could be require to finish the counseling process until a consensus is reached, and there is no longer any threat or fear of abuse or violation. Whatever the community agrees to require for resolving complaints.

Since this is PERSONAL I suggest communities organize around their school, their church or civic organization, their police community relations, or whatever group or center they agree to use as central, and run meetings as a team to form some agreed policy or procedure to address "complaints of abuse" before they become civil or criminal violations.

Most of the rape and bullying incidents could be cut short by earlier intervention at the first sign of abusive attitudes.
If there is no blame placed, but only counseling required by agreement of residents as part of their local ordinance,
since even victims of bullying and harassment benefit from counseling then this will help solve the problem regardless what went wrong.
The people may not even agree who did what, and they can solve the problems that led up to the incident.

 

[80zephyr]

Women want equal rights...until they don't.

Mark

 

[emilynghiem]

Women want equal rights...until they don't.

Mark

More like Liberals want free choice until they want federal govt to pay for birth control.

(cf Conservatives want religious freedom until Muslims ask for it)

 

[Blackrook]

There's something wrong when two consenting adults, a male and a female, have sex while intoxicated, and the woman can now accuse the man of rape, but not the other way around.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

So much for ladies night at the bar.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

What if two gay male Democrats get drunk and bang each other? Who raped who?

And what about the other eight homos at the bath house?

 

[Syriusly]

Liberals have declared that people who are drunk can't give consent for sex.

However, if both the man and woman are drunk, the man has raped the woman.

Google

Feminists and liberals, please explain.

As a side note, when I was a teenager, I was in a hot tub, a girl grabbed me and gave me a full kiss on the lips. I did not encourage her in any way. She was so drunk that she didn't even remember the kiss the next morning, and I didn't tell her.

Question: Did she rape me, or did I rape her?

How hilarious- your 'link' is to a bunch of people's opinions.

Tell me Blackrook- if a person is so drunk that they pass out- and you have sex with the unconscious drunk person- is it consensual?

 

[Syriusly]

There's something wrong when two consenting adults, a male and a female, have sex while intoxicated, and the woman can now accuse the man of rape, but not the other way around.

From your 'link'- really- didn't you pretend to practice law at one point?

ELI5: if a man and a woman both get drunk and have intercourse, why is the man charged with rape due to the woman not being able to consent due to being intoxicated, when, by the same logic, the man is intoxicated so cannot give consent either? • /r/explainlikeimfive

This isn't an accurate statement of the law, at least not in any jurisdiction I'm familiar with (I'm a military prosecutor by trade). However, this is consistent with what I've seen from many victim advocacy groups. Frankly misinformation like this does more harm than good from a prosecutor's standpoint, because any smart defense counsel will ask the victim if this is what she was taught. If so, they can then argue that she only "cried rape" because her miseducation about the subject caused her to believe she was sexually assaulted, when in reality, she made a decision that she now regrets.
Just being "drunk" has no legal significance for either the victim or the accused. Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to sexual assault. Therefore a court can only view the accused's actions through the eyes of how a reasonable, sober person would act. The law states that a person who is "substantially incapacitated" cannot consent to sex and that the accused knew or should have known about that condition. Basically that means that a victim has to be so drunk that they lose the capacity to consent, i.e., really, really drunk, and the offender knew it.
The choice of whether to charge this case in civilian jurisdictions belongs to the prosecutor and in military jurisdictions it belongs to the commander (who almost always follows the recommendations of his prosecutor). Hopefully the prosecutor takes all of the facts into account before charging someone in this type of case.
TLDR - The system works as well as it reasonably can, but this poster is a misstatement of the law.

 

[Blackrook]

Liberals have declared that people who are drunk can't give consent for sex.

However, if both the man and woman are drunk, the man has raped the woman.

Google

Feminists and liberals, please explain.

As a side note, when I was a teenager, I was in a hot tub, a girl grabbed me and gave me a full kiss on the lips. I did not encourage her in any way. She was so drunk that she didn't even remember the kiss the next morning, and I didn't tell her.

Question: Did she rape me, or did I rape her?

How hilarious- your 'link' is to a bunch of people's opinions.

Tell me Blackrook- if a person is so drunk that they pass out- and you have sex with the unconscious drunk person- is it consensual?

I was not talking about that, was I?

What's happening is a criminalizing of normal sexual behavior between men and women.

George Orwell predicted this would happen in 1984.
Junior Anti-Sex League:
In George Orwell's novel 1984, an organization for young people that advocated complete celibacy for both sexes. The Party intends to abolish the institution of the family, so all children will be the products of artificial insemination and grow up in public institutions. Members wear red sashes around their waists. Julia,Winston Smith's lover, is a member of the Junior Anti-Sex League, though she does not share their ideals.
[FONT=Source Sans Pro, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Roboto, Arial, sans-serif]Urban Dictionary: Junior Anti-Sex League[/FONT]

 

[Blackrook]

There's something wrong when two consenting adults, a male and a female, have sex while intoxicated, and the woman can now accuse the man of rape, but not the other way around.

From your 'link'- really- didn't you pretend to practice law at one point?

ELI5: if a man and a woman both get drunk and have intercourse, why is the man charged with rape due to the woman not being able to consent due to being intoxicated, when, by the same logic, the man is intoxicated so cannot give consent either? • /r/explainlikeimfive

This isn't an accurate statement of the law, at least not in any jurisdiction I'm familiar with (I'm a military prosecutor by trade). However, this is consistent with what I've seen from many victim advocacy groups. Frankly misinformation like this does more harm than good from a prosecutor's standpoint, because any smart defense counsel will ask the victim if this is what she was taught. If so, they can then argue that she only "cried rape" because her miseducation about the subject caused her to believe she was sexually assaulted, when in reality, she made a decision that she now regrets.
Just being "drunk" has no legal significance for either the victim or the accused. Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to sexual assault. Therefore a court can only view the accused's actions through the eyes of how a reasonable, sober person would act. The law states that a person who is "substantially incapacitated" cannot consent to sex and that the accused knew or should have known about that condition. Basically that means that a victim has to be so drunk that they lose the capacity to consent, i.e., really, really drunk, and the offender knew it.
The choice of whether to charge this case in civilian jurisdictions belongs to the prosecutor and in military jurisdictions it belongs to the commander (who almost always follows the recommendations of his prosecutor). Hopefully the prosecutor takes all of the facts into account before charging someone in this type of case.
TLDR - The system works as well as it reasonably can, but this poster is a misstatement of the law.

I am not inclined to trust the "system" and I'm not inclined to trust prosecutors not to abuse their power.

In my experience, prosecutors are interested only in getting convictions, and it doesn't matter to them whether or not the defendant is actually guilty of the crime. Also, they will pile on as many charges as possible to leverage the defendant into a plea deal.

The only people I trust less than prosecutors is cops. I have seen cops lie on the stand, and they know that they will never be punished for it.

 

[Katzndogz]

Dear Blackrook
It is the responsibility of the two people to decide what happened, how to talk about it, and what to do.

What I suggest, especially in cases where maybe multiple people were involved in a rape and are blaming each other for legal cover,
is for communities to set up their own third area of law, outside civil and criminal,
to address community health and safety, including addiction, and relationship abuse.
Some private campuses already have policies for students to sign consent forms before having sexual relations.
Many homeowners associations already have their own ordinances and procedures for issuing complaints and requiring corrections.

If people complain about abuse, it doesn't have to require "blaming one side or the other"
The solution is for the people to go into counseling until the conflict is solved, and both people feel safe
and agree the problems are resolved. Both partners, or all people involved in a complaint, could be require to finish the counseling process until a consensus is reached, and there is no longer any threat or fear of abuse or violation. Whatever the community agrees to require for resolving complaints.

Since this is PERSONAL I suggest communities organize around their school, their church or civic organization, their police community relations, or whatever group or center they agree to use as central, and run meetings as a team to form some agreed policy or procedure to address "complaints of abuse" before they become civil or criminal violations.

Most of the rape and bullying incidents could be cut short by earlier intervention at the first sign of abusive attitudes.
If there is no blame placed, but only counseling required by agreement of residents as part of their local ordinance,
since even victims of bullying and harassment benefit from counseling then this will help solve the problem regardless what went wrong.
The people may not even agree who did what, and they can solve the problems that led up to the incident.

Or, the victim can just get a gun and blow her rapist off the planet. That is an acceptable way for two people to resolve those violent differences. Not this restorative justice crap.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Blackrook
It is the responsibility of the two people to decide what happened, how to talk about it, and what to do.

What I suggest, especially in cases where maybe multiple people were involved in a rape and are blaming each other for legal cover,
is for communities to set up their own third area of law, outside civil and criminal,
to address community health and safety, including addiction, and relationship abuse.
Some private campuses already have policies for students to sign consent forms before having sexual relations.
Many homeowners associations already have their own ordinances and procedures for issuing complaints and requiring corrections.

If people complain about abuse, it doesn't have to require "blaming one side or the other"
The solution is for the people to go into counseling until the conflict is solved, and both people feel safe
and agree the problems are resolved. Both partners, or all people involved in a complaint, could be require to finish the counseling process until a consensus is reached, and there is no longer any threat or fear of abuse or violation. Whatever the community agrees to require for resolving complaints.

Since this is PERSONAL I suggest communities organize around their school, their church or civic organization, their police community relations, or whatever group or center they agree to use as central, and run meetings as a team to form some agreed policy or procedure to address "complaints of abuse" before they become civil or criminal violations.

Most of the rape and bullying incidents could be cut short by earlier intervention at the first sign of abusive attitudes.
If there is no blame placed, but only counseling required by agreement of residents as part of their local ordinance,
since even victims of bullying and harassment benefit from counseling then this will help solve the problem regardless what went wrong.
The people may not even agree who did what, and they can solve the problems that led up to the incident.

Or, the victim can just get a gun and blow her rapist off the planet. That is an acceptable way for two people to resolve those violent differences. Not this restorative justice crap.

Dear Tipsycatlover
I am talking about when the FIRST sign of trouble comes up.

In the case of Raymond Clark
Suspect in Killing of Yale Graduate Student Pleads Guilty to Murder, Attempted Rape | Fox News
One of his former girlfriends came forward after the rape/murder at Yale with previous experiences where his control and anger issues frightened her into cutting relations for her own safety, so badly she contacted police:
Raymond Clark's Ex Details History of His Anger Problems
And according to additional reports:
"Branford authorities investigated Clark in 2003 after a girlfriend claimed she had been forced to have sex with him and feared what Clark might do if she broke up with him."

Poor Annie Le might be alive if he had been diagnosed sooner as having abuse or criminal illness issues. She would know not to be anywhere near him, or without supervision, if she knew his history of having these problems.

Why wait for a rapist to attack?
Why not intervene sooner, increase the rate of catching illness in advance, as well as treatment or detainment of dangerous people posing
threat to public health and safety, and DECREASE the cases of risk of unchecked undetected people running free without supervision.

Tipsycatlover it isn't "either/or"
It is using Restorative Justice for the cases we can catch and do something about.
This will reduce the backlog overfilling mental and prison wards, and save the focus of police and prisons on the REALLY dangerous crime, if the fixable problems are found and solved in advance. Otherwise we waste and stretch our resources and don't have enough police when and where we need them.

We still need the armed security and defenses for the really dangerous crime that isn't found until there is a crime and/or confrontation with law enforcement.

You are like saying not to listen to doctors advice not to smoke, to watch diets and eat right to reduce cancer risks, because the really serious cases of cancer that happen require a lot more than that to fix! Of course they do!

That's why we need to work on prevention so we REDUCE the serious cases that require more dangerous expensive risky procedures. We need BOTH.

The right diet and not smoking doesn't replace treatment for cancer when it requires medical procedures. but why not prevent and intervene sooner and sooner, to reduce risks of deadly cancer that require more invasive procedures that also put the patient at risk?

 

[emilynghiem]

There's something wrong when two consenting adults, a male and a female, have sex while intoxicated, and the woman can now accuse the man of rape, but not the other way around.

From your 'link'- really- didn't you pretend to practice law at one point?

ELI5: if a man and a woman both get drunk and have intercourse, why is the man charged with rape due to the woman not being able to consent due to being intoxicated, when, by the same logic, the man is intoxicated so cannot give consent either? • /r/explainlikeimfive

This isn't an accurate statement of the law, at least not in any jurisdiction I'm familiar with (I'm a military prosecutor by trade). However, this is consistent with what I've seen from many victim advocacy groups. Frankly misinformation like this does more harm than good from a prosecutor's standpoint, because any smart defense counsel will ask the victim if this is what she was taught. If so, they can then argue that she only "cried rape" because her miseducation about the subject caused her to believe she was sexually assaulted, when in reality, she made a decision that she now regrets.
Just being "drunk" has no legal significance for either the victim or the accused. Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to sexual assault. Therefore a court can only view the accused's actions through the eyes of how a reasonable, sober person would act. The law states that a person who is "substantially incapacitated" cannot consent to sex and that the accused knew or should have known about that condition. Basically that means that a victim has to be so drunk that they lose the capacity to consent, i.e., really, really drunk, and the offender knew it.
The choice of whether to charge this case in civilian jurisdictions belongs to the prosecutor and in military jurisdictions it belongs to the commander (who almost always follows the recommendations of his prosecutor). Hopefully the prosecutor takes all of the facts into account before charging someone in this type of case.
TLDR - The system works as well as it reasonably can, but this poster is a misstatement of the law.

Dear Syriusly and Blackrook
I am trying to clarify two points I see in your posts
A. Syriusly points out it isn't just any degree of voluntary drunkenness
but the person has to be "substantially incapacitated", unable to consent, and the other person has to know that.
B. for Blackrook's point I think it's this
1. for the offender, either male or female, claiming they were drunk or incapacitated does not count,
but only for the complainant (male or female, who has to be SUBSTANTIALLY INCAPACITATED)
2. However, if the act occurred when both people were SUBSTANTIALLY INCAPACITATED and neither remember what happened
Blackrook is asking how can you determine which person is the
offender where being drunk doesn't count as a defense or the
complainant where being substantially incapacitated does count.

I agree with Blackrook in that
a. people in society will more likely blame or believe the man is the offender and the woman is the complainant
b. or I'd add the older person/teacher/authority figure is the offender and the younger person/student/subordinate person is the complainant

The law says it should not matter which gender or which role.
But in reality social biases will influence people making decisions here.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Liberals have declared that people who are drunk can't give consent to sex"

This is a lie – 'liberals' have 'declared' no such thing.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

What if two gay male Democrats get drunk and bang each other? Who raped who?

How did it work out for you?

 

[emilynghiem]

"Liberals have declared that people who are drunk can't give consent to sex"

This is a lie – 'liberals' have 'declared' no such thing.

I'm still trying to figure out liberals like C_Clayton_Jones and JakeStarkey (and maybe Timmy?)
who "declare" that ACA mandates don't take away any choice, liberty or freedom.

If you think forcing people to buy insurance or be fined "when they don't consent"
is "what they agreed to anyway with government and democratic processes"

What are you calling consent?
What about the part of the contract not to establish beliefs that discriminate by creed?

How is this "forced consent" any different from spousal abuse or rape:
Assuming if you agreed to marriage then even if the husband wants sex and forces it on his wife who says NO, she can't file complaints or charges of rape because she agreed to the marriage?
Only if she manages to prove it in court, then she has the right to complain of rape.
But if the police or courts don't agree, then she is delusional, cannot call it rape, but it must be "proven in court" before that complaint of rape has any basis in reality. She is ASSUMED to have consented because of the marriage contract, and until proven otherwise, the husband can keep raping her until she proves in court it isn't consensual.

Saying taxpayers have to vote other people into office to change the laws, but can't claim damages from past abuse, is like saying the woman has to marry someone else, and cannot seek charges or damages from the man who raped her because the marriage agreement "proves she consented to whatever the man did within marriage" until and unless proven otherwise in court.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Consent is two people of legal age agreeing through words or actions that they want to do something. Some of the extreme progressive woman are insane and just want to hang men with anything they can get their hands on.