This topic is locked from further discussion.
Legally one is not allowed to make a contract in a state of impairment. So don't expect that being with a drunk girl won't have consequences. In fact....the ethical thing to do is send them home. I feel no sympathy for anyone that preys on a drunk whether male or female.LJS9502_basicWhen a person agrees to sex they aren't agreeing to a legally binding arrangement that is enforceable by court. If that where the case people would be able to sue you if you agreed to sex, with a sober mind, and then turned them down.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Legally one is not allowed to make a contract in a state of impairment. So don't expect that being with a drunk girl won't have consequences. In fact....the ethical thing to do is send them home. I feel no sympathy for anyone that preys on a drunk whether male or female.Diablo-BWhen a person agrees to sex they aren't agreeing to a legally binding arrangement that is enforceable by court. If that where the case people would be able to sue you if you agreed to sex, with a sober mind, and then turned them down. That's not the same thing at all. Impairment means one is NOT able for form the correct decision and as such is not liable for said decisions vis a vis a contract. It's the same principle with sex. They are impaired and may not be aware of what is going on. I think knowing the consequences should alter people to the fact that it shouldn't be done from a societal viewpoint. You don't get to take advantage of impaired individuals.
[QUOTE="Diablo-B"] So your saying that once a person drinks they should no longer be held responsible for their actions?VandalvideoNo one is saying that. In the law you can still charge a minor for murdering someone even though we see them as an impaired individual in the case of statutory rape. In the case of alcohol, it is equally the case that the person isn't completely absolved of the responsibility of any acts committed. This is the difference between exculpating defenses and mitigating defenses. A person who engaged in drinking prior to an act, heavy drinking, may receive a lesser charge than one of a sober mind. But this absolutely does not excuse the moral impetus of the second party to not act. Regardless of the state of mind of the first party, the second party has a strict liability to not act and can also be charged. Both parties; Drunken woman AND Mr. DR have responsibilities. But strict liability does not focus on state of mind or negligence. It is merely; you did X, you are in trouble buddy. So Jack is at a party. Mary comes up to him and says, "I want you bad." He follows her and they have sex. Next week he gets a greeting from the police saying that he took advantage of a drunk person. Your saying Jack is a rapists and should go to jail?
[QUOTE="Diablo-B"] So a Jack is at a party. Mary comes up to him and says, "I want you bad." He follows her and they have sex. Next week he gets a greeting from the police saying that he took advantage of a drunk person. Your saying Jack is a rapists and should go to jail?VandalvideoYup, welcome to strict liability. As Lord Reid said in Haughton v. Smith; "The law may sometimes be an [rectum]". So I guess people need to walk around with breathalyzers before they hook up with someone.
However we are off topic. The columnist didn't contend to whether its legal or not but that in reality its not rape if a situation like the one mentioned above takes place.
So I guess people need to walk around with breathalyzers before they hook up with someone.However we are off topic. The columnist didn't contend to whether its legal or not but that in reality its not rape if a situation like the one mentioned above takes place.Diablo-BTo gerrymander your logic, because this is what I do, let us apply this to the charge of statutory rape. Ought we to require pedophiles to walk around with carbondating machines to determine the ages of girls they are attracted to? Especially considering that many young girls nowadays look relatively mature due to the infusion of steroids and growth hormones in our food products.
[QUOTE="Diablo-B"] So I guess people need to walk around with breathalyzers before they hook up with someone.However we are off topic. The columnist didn't contend to whether its legal or not but that in reality its not rape if a situation like the one mentioned above takes place.VandalvideoTo gerrymander your logic, because this is what I do, let us apply this to the charge of statutory rape. Ought we to require pedophiles to walk around with carbondating machines to determine the ages of girls they are attracted to? Especially considering that many young girls nowadays look relatively mature due to the infusion of steroids and growth hormones in our food products. I can see the point you wanted to make but let me discuss what you actually said. Pedophiles are people who are attracted to prepubescent kids. They aren't being tricked by boys/girls who look older they they are. They purposely search for "YOUNG" looking people. Thats the definition of a pedophile. Pedophiles aren't people that just happen to accidentally fall into a sticky situation.
[QUOTE="Diablo-B"] I can see the point you wanted to make but let me discuss what you actually said. Pedophiles are people who are attracted to prepubescent kids. They aren't being tricked by boys/girls who look older they they are. They purposely search for "YOUNG" looking people. Thats the definition of a pedophile. Pedophiles aren't people that just happen to accidentally fall into a sticky situation.VandalvideoSo are you saying that we should prosecute pedophiles for having sex with younger looking people more harshly than those who go for ones that are older looking? That seems awfully unfair to those older looking, yet equally young children who could also get taken advantage of. Im not sure you fully understand what a pedophile is. A pedophile isn't a person who sleeps with a minor of 17 - 15 years of age. A pedophile is a person who targets kids before they hit puberty. You really can't mistake a person thats prepubescent for a post-pubecsent person.
Yup, welcome to strict liability. As Lord Reid said in Haughton v. Smith; "The law may sometimes be an rectum". So I guess people need to walk around with breathalyzers before they hook up with someone.[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Diablo-B"] So a Jack is at a party. Mary comes up to him and says, "I want you bad." He follows her and they have sex. Next week he gets a greeting from the police saying that he took advantage of a drunk person. Your saying Jack is a rapists and should go to jail?Diablo-B
However we are off topic. The columnist didn't contend to whether its legal or not but that in reality its not rape if a situation like the one mentioned above takes place.
Here's an easy rule, if the girl looks completely wasted, don't sleep with her, easy as that.
[QUOTE="Diablo-B"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]The one who did the action should be at fault in both scenarios...and in many cases it wasn't the girl. They do pass out.....LJS9502_basic100% true. However thats not the case that the columnist brought up. We are talking about a drunk person actively making a bad decision. If you make the conscience decision to consume large amounts of alcohol who is to blame for you not being able to make the best decisions? Only yourself.Legally one is not allowed to make a contract in a state of impairment. So don't expect that being with a drunk girl won't have consequences. In fact....the ethical thing to do is send them home. I feel no sympathy for anyone that preys on a drunk whether male or female.
What if both parties are impaired? Is it simultaneous rape then if neither can legally consent? I certainly agree that it is wrong for a sober man to prey on a drunken women, but if both parties are drunk and consent, how do you prosecute that?
Legally one is not allowed to make a contract in a state of impairment. So don't expect that being with a drunk girl won't have consequences. In fact....the ethical thing to do is send them home. I feel no sympathy for anyone that preys on a drunk whether male or female.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Diablo-B"] 100% true. However thats not the case that the columnist brought up. We are talking about a drunk person actively making a bad decision. If you make the conscience decision to consume large amounts of alcohol who is to blame for you not being able to make the best decisions? Only yourself.xXBuffJeffXx
What if both parties are impaired? Is it simultaneous rape then if neither can legally consent? I certainly agree that it is wrong for a sober man to prey on a drunken women, but if both parties are drunk and consent, how do you prosecute that?
Same way I suppose you prosecute other crimes involving impairment. If the girl didn't consent or was too impaired to consent that doesn't let the guy off the hook if he was impaired from what I recall of the law.Here's an easy rule, if the girl looks completely wasted, don't sleep with her, easy as that.theone86What about a person who only had 1 drink? or only 2? or only 3? or only....Where is the cut off point when a person can say he/she is impaired and absolved of responsibility for their actions?
Rape is an act of power and control, not sex, LockedgeThat is not true of all legal definitions of rape.
What if both parties are impaired? Is it simultaneous rape then if neither can legally consent? I certainly agree that it is wrong for a sober man to prey on a drunken women, but if both parties are drunk and consent, how do you prosecute that?
xXBuffJeffXx
Here's the probvlem with that, the only person who can attest to the guy's drunkeness is the guy himself, what if he's just claiming to be drunk to get off the hook? I suppose there's some margin for error, but the primary purpose of the law is to prevent victims/potential victims, which is for the most part women. If you throw the entire date rape idea out the window because there might be a small percentage of situations where it's been abused then you'll be abadnoning all the women who were really taken advantadge of and do need the law.
[QUOTE="theone86"] Here's an easy rule, if the girl looks completely wasted, don't sleep with her, easy as that.Diablo-BWhat about a person who only had 1 drink? or only 2? or only 3? or only....
Where is the cut off point when a person can say he/she is impaired and absolved of responsibility for their actions?
Like I said, you can usually tell when they're drunk. If you're really that worried, don't sleep with someone you met at a party, get a number and set up a real date.
Here's the problem with that, the only person who can attest to the guy's drunkeness is the guy himself, what if he's just claiming to be drunk to get off the hook?...theone86Well I would think that the same would apply to the girl as well. The guy may be the only one able to attest to the fact that he was drunk or there may be witnesses who can testify that he was drunk but the same is true for the girl.
[QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Legally one is not allowed to make a contract in a state of impairment. So don't expect that being with a drunk girl won't have consequences. In fact....the ethical thing to do is send them home. I feel no sympathy for anyone that preys on a drunk whether male or female.LJS9502_basic
What if both parties are impaired? Is it simultaneous rape then if neither can legally consent? I certainly agree that it is wrong for a sober man to prey on a drunken women, but if both parties are drunk and consent, how do you prosecute that?
Same way I suppose you prosecute other crimes involving impairment. If the girl didn't consent or was too impaired to consent that doesn't let the guy off the hook if he was impaired from what I recall of the law. Why is it the guys fault inherently?That is not true of all legal definitions of rape. I'm aware, however I tend to disagree with legal definitions. Rape involves a sexual encounter, but it's based on one person controlling the other, which can include anything from physical violence to drugging a drink to being sober and preying on intoxicated folk who don't have the capacity to oppose. The only situation I can currently think of that doesn't involve power/control and is purely sexual is the drunk on drunk sex where neither says no/stop, but I don't see that as rape. If both parties are drunk and initially consented to sex and one wants it to stop and the other partner continues on, they're using their will and self to control the situation to what they want while ignoring the other person's request...which is rape. Maybe it's because my definition of sex differs from the legal definition, although I'm not sure how that could be possible. :P[QUOTE="Lockedge"] Rape is an act of power and control, not sex, LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="theone86"]Here's the problem with that, the only person who can attest to the guy's drunkeness is the guy himself, what if he's just claiming to be drunk to get off the hook?...Diablo-BWell I would think that the same would apply to the girl as well. The guy may be the only one able to attest to the fact that he was drunk or there may be witnesses who can testify that he was drunk but the same is true for the girl. You are aware that investigating is done before a case is brought to trial and it isn't easy for girls to claim any type of sexual assault and remain unscathed by the trial?
I think at least the things he said in the interview are correct. As an adult woman she should know the risk. If I where flammable clothes and run through a fire I should expect to get burned.jeremiah06There is a risk to driving a car at 2 AM when the bars close. Does that mean if one is hit by a drunk driver they are the ones at fault because there was a risk?
Also, I dont care how drunk or sober you are, but it is not rape unless the woman says "no".
Unless she is drugged and/or unconscious.
Well, according to the law(at least in MI) it is not possible to consent to sex if your ability to make decisions is impaired. So, sex whether or not she said yes while drunk is rape.Wow, he sounds like a complete dick. "Let's get this straight: any woman who heads to an EI party as an anonymous onlooker, drinks five cups of the jungle juice, and walks back to a boy's room with him is indicating that she wants sex, OK?" Or that she's drunk and doesn't understand entirely what she's doing. :| He really sounds like one of those "Women who dress xyz way really want it" people. In short, a rape apologist.Theokhoth
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment