Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

A lot of people who are skeptical of the figures note that only around 25% of e.g. Mary Koss' survey classified what happened to them as rape. Nobody is telling women who claim they were raped "you weren't really raped".

The figures which are debated include a minority of women who claim they were raped, and majority of women who do not think they were raped but a researcher is classifying it that way.

If someone claims they were raped, that can be taken at face value whilst still being critical of how the surveys are constructed. If we went off the beliefs of the women involved, the campus rape figure would actually drop by 50-75% depending on the study. So there's no basis to accuse people who doubt the higher figure of dismissing rapes that women themselves have reported.

[Neonivek]

It depends, did the survey outright say on it "were you raped?"

[GavJ]

If two drunk people have sex, and one of the people does not initiate advances (whether or not also physically forced, etc.), then only the one who did initiate is a rapist.
If two drunk people have sex, and both of them initiate, they are both rapists.

It's a pretty straightforward conclusion. Drunk = no consent. So anybody pushing for sex with a drunk person = rape. Nothing about that implies it has to be limited to one rapist.  If you're sober enough to carry out the physical process of initiating and engaging in sexual acts, then you're sober enough to realize something as simple as the other person being drunk.

(An exception might be made if people agreed while sober to have sex later while drunk, but that's a bit fuzzy, as it would not allow for changing your mind after a point, which opens up opportunities for sketchiness and loss of autonomy.)

And if the person initiating is too drunk to be thinking clearly, that is irrelevant, since legally (and reasonably), voluntary consumption of alcohol is not an excuse for anything that comes after, since you knowingly put yourself into a position of removing your own judgment.  Just like you don't get away with killing somebody with a car because "oh I was drunk, I didn't know any better looool!"

[Neonivek]

If two drunk people have sex, and one of the people does not initiate advances (whether or not also physically forced, etc.), then only the one who did initiate is a rapist

That makes no sense. It is equally taking advantage if you accept a drunken person's request. So it should be equally rape.

Just like you don't get away with killing somebody with a car because "oh I was drunk, I didn't know any better looool!"

Manslaughter it is a mitigating factor.

THEN AGAIN you are poking holes in your own argument. After all the person is intentionally getting drunk, KNOWS that they will have sex with anyone if they get drunk enough, and yet still keeps drinking.

Lets not poke those sort of holes in your own argument please

They cannot be responsible for committing crimes while drunk and not responsible for being an accessory to crime.

[Reelya]

Researchers don't actually count people agreeing to things whilst drunk as rape. In fact, that's a dangerous position to take on the issue, because it casts doubt on what the statistics are measuring. Saying "yes" to something when you're drunk isn't counted in the published campus rape statistics- they are VERY clear that they're measuring people in an incapacitated state, and claiming "drunken consent" incidents as rapes only throws doubt on legitimacy of published rape statistics.

the modern studies are very careful to word things so it's not ambiguous, precisely because some of the early studies came in for that criticism.

GavJ wrote:

> voluntary consumption of alcohol is not an excuse for anything that comes after, knowingly put yourself into a position of removing your own judgment.

Doesn't that apply to both parties then? If one drunk person says "how about sex" GavJ's rules would call that person a rapist because they knowingly got drunk, and asked first. If the other person then says "ok, let's do it" GavJ's rules would label this person a "rape victim" and exempt these people from the outcome of their own decisions, precisely because being drunk excuses their decision. It all feels a bit arbitrary.

[Rolan7]

Step 1 to handling the concept of rape: If your partner says you didn't have their consent, you should assume you didn't. Even if you really thought you did at the time. Even if you really really thought everything was cool.

Step 2: There is no step 2. If you actually follow step 1, all further actions will be sensible.

No...  If someone gives consent, they can't later retroactively make you a rapist by retracting it.  That's not rape, that's probably regret.

A healthy relationship does mean setting and respecting boundaries, though.

Giving benefit of the doubt to all parties means*, "Well, she says she was raped, so I'm going to take her at her word", and "Well, he says he wasn't trying to rape her, so I'm going to take him at his word", and going from there, noting carefully that those are not mutually exclusive statements.

You're suggesting that, in that case, we simply take her word that he raped her.  And that he didn't mean to rape her, but did.  Dogmatic belief in false victims greatly weakens faith in actual victims.  If we're told to trust all accusations implicitly, we end up trusting none.  "Oh, just another lady 'raped' because she was embarassed".  That's horrible, because (and I hate to have to keep repeating this):  Rape is one of the worst things that can happen to someone.  It is NOT waking up with a hangover next to an ugly person.  It is about being forcibly violated, against your will.  Being drugged is not the same as drugging yourself.

It doesn't mean that you need to take time off from talking about the actual actions that occurred to debate the fucking semantics of what does or does not constitute rape, nor does it mean that telling people "You weren't really raped" is preferable to diluting the word.

The "fucking semantics" are important when people go to a bar, drink, go home with someone, have sex, then claim they were raped.
Because here are people claiming that that's rape, when the other partner has done literally nothing to force sex on the first partner.

People are innocent until proven guilty...  Legally.  Media and community are not so just.  Being labelled a rapist can ruin an innocent person, especially if they start to believe it.

*You can swap the genders of the pronouns, it makes no difference and was an arbitrary choice.

What, did you flip a coin?  If it was actually arbitrary, you could use gender-neutral language instead of framing it in the stereotypical male-vilifying way.

[Neonivek]

Rape is one of the worst things that can happen to someone.  It is NOT waking up with a hangover next to an ugly person.  It is about being forcibly violated, against your will.  Being drugged is not the same as drugging yourself.

This is why I believe in degrees of rape in the same way there are degrees of assault.

Because you have the light "The person asked me over and over and I gave in" and then you have by force/threat/drug.

Though I pretty much have to believe in degrees of rape given that people have stretched the definition unfathomably. Either that or give it an arbitrary severity limit.

It is NOT waking up with a hangover next to an ugly person

There is something deeply shallow to me about someone who pronounces something as rape only because the person they woke up next to is ugly... But if they were sexy well lets just ignore it.

Then again... The sheer amount of novels where a character gets a "It isn't rape or assault or sexual assault he is sexy!" is staggering.

I don't know there was always something fishy about "Rape after the fact", but it is something I cannot wrap my head around. Mostly because to me, it shouldn't be up to the person whether or not it was rape, if they actually can decide then it wasn't. They can be ignorant that it was a rape and make the wrong judgment, but they cannot decide the rape wasn't rape.

Mind you I doubt this is a real issue...

As people have said it is hard enough to prove a real rape was rape.

---

Then again this feels REALLY far from the topic, but at the same time... Anita still hasn't put the next part up yet... and we need two more videos before she finishes her second part.

[GavJ]

That makes no sense. It is equally taking advantage if you accept a drunken person's request. So it should be equally rape.

I mean like, lying there or something. Not saying "yes please sex me I agree."  That would be ... okay initiating is a poor word.   Initiating OR reciprocating?  Participating? Whatever.

So yes, both people willingly participate, or whatever term, they would both be rapists if both are drunk.



I'm simply following the necessary extension of the logic that "you cannot consent while drunk."  If that's a rule, then drunken sex is rape, at least from one person, possibly both. Not including that in the statistics, or whatever, is undermining the definition which throws everything into fuzziness.

[Neonivek]

That makes no sense. It is equally taking advantage if you accept a drunken person's request. So it should be equally rape.

I mean like, lying there or something. Not saying "yes please sex me I agree."  That would be ... okay initiating is a poor word.   Initiating OR reciprocating?  Participating? Whatever.

Doesn't matter they are an accessory, that means they are equally responsible.

Especially since if consent is questionable why the heck would offer be A-OK?

That would mean if you got someone drunk and they asked YOU for sex... agreeing to it would make it not rape...

[GavJ]

Doesn't matter they are an accessory, that means they are equally responsible.

Especially since if consent is questionable why the heck would offer be A-OK?

That would mean if you got someone drunk and they asked YOU for sex... agreeing to it would make it not rape...

Whaaa?  I don't see how you're getting any of this from what I wrote...

If you willingly proceeded and participated in sex, and your partner was drunk, then that is rape if we are going with "no consent while intoxicated"  That's it, not more complicated than that.
If you simply apply that to both parties, the conclusion you get is that if both are drunk and both willingly participate, both committed rape. Simply because they both qualify under the above conditions.

And in the scenario you just described, no. They're drunk, they offer sex, you agree, then you participated willingly in sex with a drunk person = rape. (They may also be guilty of rape if you're drunk too, not if youre sober)

[Neonivek]

Now lets bring practicality into this discussion

Two people enter a bar, they both get smashed on purpose, they both agree to have sex with each other and take a cab home first, they have sex with each other, then they are both sentenced to +5 years in a maximum security prison.

They may also be guilty of rape if you're drunk too, not if youre sober

Unless you know, they force themselves onto you... Or they agreed ahead of time... or they are drinking with the explicit intent to have sex with you.

[GavJ]

Now lets bring practicality into this discussion

Two people enter a bar, they both get smashed on purpose, they both agree to have sex with each other and take a cab home first, they have sex with each other, then they are both sentenced to +5 years in a maximum security prison.

Well if the district attorney was next to you in the cab, then maybe. Otherwise, you'd have to press charges against each other, even knowing the other would do the same, in order for anybody to find out, which would be pretty dumb.

Unless you know, they force themselves onto you... Or they agreed ahead of time... or they are drinking with the explicit intent to have sex with you.

The scenario as described included you agreeing, so we already know they didn't force themselves. And I don't think agreeing ahead of time is necessarily morally justifiable, since you need to account for the possibility they might have wanted to change their mind in between had they remained sober, and only went ahead due to being drunk.  The last thing suffers from the same flaw.

[Neonivek]

Now lets bring practicality into this discussion

Two people enter a bar, they both get smashed on purpose, they both agree to have sex with each other and take a cab home first, they have sex with each other, then they are both sentenced to +5 years in a maximum security prison.

Well if the district attorney was next to you in the cab, then maybe. Otherwise, you'd have to press charges against each other, even knowing the other would do the same, in order for anybody to find out, which would be pretty dumb.

So Prisoner's Dilemma. You want to press charges against them first.

As well you created the dreaded "Rape after the fact" factor... Where it isn't rape until one of them decides they don't like the person they slept with, even though in this ONE scenario it is both their dang faults.

And EVEN THEN you still gave a scenario where they can both be charged for 5+ years anyway.

[GavJ]

You could both go get a notarized letter that you slept with each other on that date and that you were both willing at the time (just don't mention the alcohol either way). Lol.

Then even if one person presses charges, they are on record for having been awake and willing thus sealing their fate as a rapist as well. wheeeeee


But in all seriousness, the problem isn't "Rape after the fact." Because in that scenario, it was always rape and would continue to be rape. Whether you like them or not. The decision after the fact, if any, isn't making it rape. It's just disclosing information about illegal activity that already was illegal.

[Neonivek]

You could both go get a notarized letter that you slept with each other on that date and that you were both willing at the time (just don't mention the alcohol either way). Lol.

Then even if one person presses charges, they are on record for having been awake and willing thus sealing their fate as a rapist as well. wheeeeee

You cannot make contracts agreeing to illegal activities, they are not recognized by the courts.

And if one person presses charges, they have the camera.

This is of course ignoring that the person could easily say that they were forced to write the contract under coercion supported by the fact that the contract was written AFTER the sex.