Print

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

[Phmcw]

And willingly having sex with somebody beyond a ~0% chance of being too inebriated to make proper decisions = unacceptable chance of rape. If you are correct that a ~0% chance is indeed at ~0.08 BAC, then that's about the right cutoff (I'm just taking your word for it on that)

0.08 Bac  (or 0.05) is choosen so your reflexes are not affected. It's VERY low.

People embezzle and make illegal moonshine and weave in and out of traffic too, and don't give a fuck what I think about it. What does this have anything to do with criminality of actions?

In one word, demontrable harm. Though I'm really not sure about moonshine.

which is routinely interpreted in case law as applying well before the point of being blackout drunk. It is basically a case by case courtroom argument thing.

And it's never, slightly tipsy. Delirous, irresponive,.... yeah.

But hey, you should stop having sex : how can you know that your partner really want it? Maybe he/she's pressured by cicrumstances, blackmailed, or temporarily insane. By your standard you're guilty under all these circumstances.

* Honest mistake =/= rape. This is simply not the law anywhere I'm aware of.

Intentionality is a requirement in English law. In Belgian law it is too, and in American law I cannot be sure. Actually, I think it depend from state to state.

Basically, your definition of rape is abhorent and pratically useless.

[Neonivek]

The law has a huge problem with rape for more then one reason but here are the two biggest ones IMO
-1) It is nearly impossible to prove. You could have it videotaped and still reasonably lose the case.
-2) It is brimming with technicalities and practical issues. Did the person you have sex with say he was rich? Is it rape?

I think the only rape law specific where I live, but I am probably wrong, is for underage sex... and otherwise it is handled under sexual assault or something... I cannot remember.

[Reelya]

Rape culture isn't actually a thing though.

https://rainn.org/images/03-2014/WH-Task-Force-RAINN-Recommendations.pdf

Those figures are in line with what I've read separately: the average rapist has raped about 6 girls. So as a vague figure you take the prevalence and divide it by 6 to get the offenders rate. that means if 20% of women are victims, about 3% of men are the perpetrators. Which is actually exactly what they find when surveying directly.

Massively overplaying that there's a "rape culture" actually emboldens rapists by making them feel that their actions are normal and secretly supported by other men. (Negative Social Proof: people feel more ok doing something if they believe other people do it).

The proper strategy is in fact anti-rape language, but in a way that emphasizes that the vast bulk of the male population are against it and the rapists are isolated and reviled.

[GavJ]

"You can drink all you want, but just stop having fun once your drunk"

If fun for you = rape, then yes. You are not allowed to have that kind of fun once you are drunk. Absolutely.

You are encouraged to have other types of fun while drunk.

0.08 Bac  (or 0.05) is choosen so your reflexes are not affected. It's VERY low.

The specific number is unimportant. I am just arguing that there is going to be some level of intoxication where your judgment starts having a significantly >0% chance of being impaired. This level could be experimentally researched (and I'm sure it has been). It may or may not be similar to the threshold for motor reflexes used for relevant laws for motor reflexes.

WHATEVER that level is, that's the point at which having sex is unacceptable.

Researchers could also determine reliable measures and indicators that correlate closely with being near or above that level, once they determine what it is -- things that would be more applicable than a breathalizer to real life social situations. These could then be practically used in real life.

And it's never, slightly tipsy.

See above clarification. The level determined using the above methods may or may not exceed what you would call "slightly tipsy"

Intentionality is a requirement in English law.

Yes, you intended to drink alcohol. (if you didn't, and were acting irrationally after being unknowingly drugged, that would and does in actual case law change everything). This is the relevant point of intentional decision (again, in actual case law, I'm not just making this up), since everybody knows that drinking lowers their ability to make good subsequent decisions, and it is purely YOUR responsibility to control yourself within your own limits of rationality.

[Neonivek]

Even if that is true Reelya I am something who utterly despises lying.

I HATE how justified people think themselves when altering statistics, misrepresenting facts, and outright lying all to serve a greater purpose.

I had to read an essay written by a MEMBER OF CONGRESS on why revisionist history is good and we should always teach altered history over real history.

[GavJ]

Rape culture isn't actually a thing though.

https://rainn.org/images/03-2014/WH-Task-Force-RAINN-Recommendations.pdf

Those figures are in line with what I've read separately: the average rapist has raped about 6 girls. So as a vague figure you take the prevalence and divide it by 6 to get the offenders rate. that means if 20% of women are victims, about 3% of men are the perpetrators. Which is actually exactly what they find when surveying directly.

Massively overplaying that there's a "rape culture" actually emboldens rapist by making them feel that their actions are normal and secretly supported by other men. (Negative Social Proof: people feel more ok doing something if they believe other people do it).

The proper strategy is in fact anti-rape language, but in a way that emphasizes that the vast bulk of the male population are against it and the rapists are isolated and reviled.

Rape culture does not mean a social tendency to go around raping. The term applies both to actual rape and to people who apologize for rape and make jokes casually about it, etc. even if they themselves do not rape people. Which obviously covers far more than the population of actual rapists. And that full population is relevant, because it influences the rate of actual rapists that cross over the threshold into action vs. not.

It influences them by social acceptance of their actions, and by practical acceptance/ease of getting away with it insofar as things like universities or police not pursuing investigations like they should, etc.

[Reelya]

It's not lying. Saying there's a secret rape culture and that rape is a widespread deliberate means of class subjugation is the lie. And it's a lie that actually "normalizes" rape due to the Social Proof effect.

[Reelya]

Rape culture isn't actually a thing though.

https://rainn.org/images/03-2014/WH-Task-Force-RAINN-Recommendations.pdf

Those figures are in line with what I've read separately: the average rapist has raped about 6 girls. So as a vague figure you take the prevalence and divide it by 6 to get the offenders rate. that means if 20% of women are victims, about 3% of men are the perpetrators. Which is actually exactly what they find when surveying directly.

Massively overplaying that there's a "rape culture" actually emboldens rapist by making them feel that their actions are normal and secretly supported by other men. (Negative Social Proof: people feel more ok doing something if they believe other people do it).

The proper strategy is in fact anti-rape language, but in a way that emphasizes that the vast bulk of the male population are against it and the rapists are isolated and reviled.

Rape culture does not mean a social tendency to go around raping. The term applies both to actual rape and to people who apologize for rape and make jokes casually about it, etc. even if they themselves do not rape people. Which obviously covers far more than the population of actual rapists. And that full population is relevant, because it influences the rate of actual rapists that cross over the threshold into action vs. not.

It influences them by social acceptance of their actions, and by practical acceptance/ease of getting away with it insofar as things like universities or police not pursuing investigations like they should, etc.

So does saying there's a rape culture. Social proof theory suggests that inflating figures of some activity actually encourages that activity. Campaigns that say "lots of people do X. X is bad" have been shown to actually increase activity X.

[Neonivek]

It's not lying. Saying there's a secret rape culture and that rape is a widespread deliberate means of class subjugation is the lie. And it's a lie that actually "normalizes" rape due to the Social Proof effect.

Ohh I see. Ok sorry I misunderstood you.

There seems to be an odd counter push on feminist statistics and facts by feminists who are tired of being defended by fake crap.

[Morrigi]

Even if that is true Reelya I am something who utterly despises lying.

I HATE how justified people think themselves when altering statistics, misrepresenting facts, and outright lying all to serve a greater purpose.

I had to read an essay written by a MEMBER OF CONGRESS on why revisionist history is good and we should always teach altered history over real history.

Revising views on history in light of new information is common practice, and failing to do so is considered to be dishonest among historians.

[GavJ]

So does saying there's a rape culture. Social proof theory suggests that inflating figures of some activity actually encourages that activity.

...except like I just explained in that very quote, "there is a rape culture" is NOT inflating the statistics of rates of rape. Because the great majority of what the term means is stuff that isn't rape.

More concretely, if the actual rate of rapists is, say 3% of men as suggested above, and I say "50% of men contribute to the rape culture" (made up number for sake of argument) both of those statements can be true simultaneously, and do not contradict one another.

It would simply mean that 3% are raping, and those same people (usually) + another 47% are joking about it / minimalizing it / apologizing / not investigating or intervening / etc.

[Phmcw]

Yes, you intended to drink alcohol. (if you didn't, and were acting irrationally after being unknowingly drugged, that would and does in actual case law change everything). This is the relevant point of intentional decision (again, in actual case law, I'm not just making this up), since everybody knows that drinking lowers their ability to make good subsequent decisions, and it is purely YOUR responsibility to control yourself within your own limits of rationality.

What? In my senario, both partener enthousiastically consented, but one of them was actually pretty drunk, without the other noticing (for the sake of realism, we'll admit that they both drank, but that's irrelevant). In the morning, that partner realized that it was actually a bad idea. Is there rape?

For me, English law and Belgian law, no there is not. US law I'm not definitely sure.

I assume that neither partner were irresponsive or near irresponsive.

[Morrigi]

Yes, you intended to drink alcohol. (if you didn't, and were acting irrationally after being unknowingly drugged, that would and does in actual case law change everything). This is the relevant point of intentional decision (again, in actual case law, I'm not just making this up), since everybody knows that drinking lowers their ability to make good subsequent decisions, and it is purely YOUR responsibility to control yourself within your own limits of rationality.

What? In my senario, both partener enthousiastically consented, but one of them was actually pretty drunk, without the other noticing (for the sake of realism, we'll admit that they both drank, but that's irrelevant). In the morning, that partner realized that it was actually a bad idea. Is there rape?

For me, English law and Belgian law, no there is not. US law I'm not definitely sure.

I assume that neither partner were irresponsive or near irresponsive.

In almost all states in the U.S., that is not rape. That said, there might be some slightly fucked up laws in places like California.
Edit: I can't into grammar

[Neonivek]

Even if that is true Reelya I am something who utterly despises lying.

I HATE how justified people think themselves when altering statistics, misrepresenting facts, and outright lying all to serve a greater purpose.

I had to read an essay written by a MEMBER OF CONGRESS on why revisionist history is good and we should always teach altered history over real history.

Revising views on history in light of new information is common practice, and failing to do so is considered to be dishonest among historians.

That isn't revisionist history. Revisionist history is when you alter history in order to benefit the current beliefs of the time.

If you change history because we found out something new that is just updating it.

[GavJ]

What? In my senario, both partener enthousiastically consented, but one of them was actually pretty drunk

And I'm saying this is a contradiction in terms, because you cannot consent if you're truly pretty drunk (terminology which pretty strongly evokes images of being past the point of impaired judgment or what you should have assumed as an unacceptably high chance of impaired judgment).

In almost all states in the U.S., that is not rape.

It may not be "Rape" but it is illegal in nearly every state (often this situation goes by other names in statute like various forms of "sexual assault," etc., but practically same thing)

Assuming that the person SHOULD have reasonably been able to tell that their partner was inebriated (which seems obvious if they're "pretty drunk"), that is. Not noticing something that any normal (sober) person would have noticed doesn't get you off the hook for stuff.