I just don't get it.

[Summerwind]

No. It's a case by case basis.

And there in a nutshell is the problem. Responsibility while drunk shouldn't be a case by case issue. Either you're responsible for all decisions made while willfully drunk or not. It doesn't seem right, or just, for women to allowed this singular area of where they hold no responsibility for their choices. It's anti-choice and I'm pro-choice. Women shouldn't be treated like we're stupid or inferior, and making exceptions to responsibility does just that.

 

[Anagram]

And there in a nutshell is the problem. Responsibility while drunk shouldn't be a case by case issue. Either you're responsible for all decisions made while willfully drunk or not. It doesn't seem right, or just, for women to allowed this singular area of where they hold no responsibility for their choices. It's anti-choice and I'm pro-choice. Women shouldn't be treated like we're stupid or inferior, and making exceptions to responsibility does just that.

Yes it should absolutely be a case by case issue. There are times when somebody is so drunk they literally have no idea what's going on, just getting them to say the word yes does not make it okay to have sex with them especially if you're much closer to being sober. If they are so drunk they are comatose as you said in your OP there is no excuse whatsoever for having sex with them. On the other hand, having one beer absolutely does not mean that you can claim that any sex that you have was rape. It should absolutely be up to an investigation and a trial to determine which occurred.

 

[Anagram]

And there in a nutshell is the problem. Responsibility while drunk shouldn't be a case by case issue. Either you're responsible for all decisions made while willfully drunk or not. It doesn't seem right, or just, for women to allowed this singular area of where they hold no responsibility for their choices. It's anti-choice and I'm pro-choice. Women shouldn't be treated like we're stupid or inferior, and making exceptions to responsibility does just that.

It's also not really a double standard. Men could have the same thing happen to them by a woman and have it be considered a crime, there is just a considerably smaller chance of it happening.

 

[Summerwind]

It's also not really a double standard. Men could have the same thing happen to them by a woman and have it be considered a crime, there is just a considerably smaller chance of it happening.

Even a drunk man having sex with a sober woman, where the man said yes, ...?????.... I'll bet it would get laughed out of court unless it was somehow used for blackmail or other criminal activity.

 

[Anagram]

Even a drunk man having sex with a sober woman, where the man said yes, ...?????.... I'll bet it would get laughed out of court unless it was somehow used for blackmail or other criminal activity.

Well I admit that it is unlikely that it would get treated properly, but if a case like that should ever occur it should be treated the same way it does when the woman is the victim.

 

[Summerwind]

It's also not really a double standard. Men could have the same thing happen to them by a woman and have it be considered a crime, there is just a considerably smaller chance of it happening.

So by your definition here, I have to notice then that not only are prostitutes guilty of prostitution, but if their johns BAL is over .08% then they are also rapists. huh.

 

[Summerwind]

Well I admit that it is unlikely that it would get treated properly, but if a case like that should ever occur it should be treated the same way it does when the woman is the victim.

As I mention above, it's happening all the time since drunk johns can't give consent. So it is only a crime if you have afterthoughts of remorse?

 

[Anagram]

So by your definition here, I have to notice then that not only are prostitutes guilty of prostitution, but if their johns BAL is over .08% then they are also rapists. huh.

No. Buying a prostitute is clear consent.

 

[Summerwind]

No. Buying a prostitute is clear consent.

But he's drunk, he can't give consent. That's what you've been saying. Or have I misunderstood and your only issue is if the person is comatose?

 

[Anagram]

As I mention above, it's happening all the time since drunk johns can't give consent. So it is only a crime if you have afterthoughts of remorse?

Being drunk doesn't mean you can't give consent. There are levels of drunk where you can't, and that is what needs to be determined on a case by case basis.

 

[Anagram]

But he's drunk, he can't give consent. That's what you've been saying. Or have I misunderstood and your only issue is if the person is comatose?

Not necessarily comatose, but extremely drunk. Being drunk itself does not necessarily mean you can't give consent, but there are certainly levels of drunk where you can't. This is why it needs to be determined on a case by case basis.

 

[Summerwind]

Being drunk doesn't mean you can't give consent. There are levels of drunk where you can't, and that is what needs to be determined on a case by case basis.

Which avoids answering the question as we know the level of drunk we're talking about, the level where you do things you might not otherwise do.

 

[MaggieD]

And I'm sorry, ladies, I never have. I get the animosity most of you and some men will be throwing at me, but since it seems date rape is in the news this week, it's the right time to ask.

Please explain how you resolve these two conflicting legal concepts as discussed and generally upheld these days.

An intoxicated woman, who has chosen to become intoxicated, allows herself to be "raped" by either intoxicated agreement or consuming enough to become comatose. She becomes a victim, with all that righteous fervor behind her.

The same woman drinks the same amount and has an accident which kills someone, for drama let's say is a grandma and her two grandkids in a crosswalk.... some how she's not a victim anymore, is she. Now we want to hold her responsible and the law does just that, even to teens.

How is it that a drunk woman is responsible for driving drunk and risking harm to herself and others, but is a victim and not responsible for dating drunk and risking harm to herself?

Putting on my flame retardant suit, now... ready, blast me.

In your first scenerio, being raped while drunk or comatose, a crime is being committed against her, In your second scenerio, she is committing a crime. What is so hard to understand about that?

 

[Anagram]

Which avoids answering the question as we know the level of drunk we're talking about, the level where you do things you might not otherwise do.

It depends. There are levels of drunk that I do things I normally would not where I can still give consent and there are those that I can't. It's definitely case by case. As much as it sucks there is no black and white line on this.

 

[Summerwind]

In your first scenerio, being raped while drunk or comatose, a crime is being committed against her, In your second scenerio, she is committing a crime. What is so hard to understand about that?

At this point it's easiest to refer you to read the entire thread. That discussion is happening and is layers deep now.

 

[Summerwind]

It depends. There are levels of drunk that I do things I normally would not where I can still give consent and there are those that I can't. It's definitely case by case. As much as it sucks there is no black and white line on this.

Okay, so how come there isn't that same level of case by case consideration for other drunk activities that result in harm to self due primarily to bad decisions made while intoxicated? Does the law say you're only guilty of DUI if you're a little drunk? You're responsible regardless and the more drunk, the more responsible for your choices. When it comes to women and consent, it's exactly opposite.

 

[Anagram]

Okay, so how come there isn't that same level of case by case consideration for other drunk activities that result in harm to self due primarily to bad decisions made while intoxicated? The law say you're only guilty of DUI if you're a little drunk, you're responsible regardless and the more drunk, the more responsible for your choices. When it comes to women and consent, it's exactly opposite.

Well you aren't blood alcohol tested immediately after having sex when drunk, otherwise they could probably set a line for consent like the .8 for drunk driving.

Being drunk also does not absolve you of any crimes you commit while drunk, which includes driving and forcing yourself on someone too drunk to give consent. It's a case by case basis to determine if that happened or not.

 

[Summerwind]

Well you aren't blood alcohol tested immediately after having sex when drunk, otherwise they could probably set a line for consent like the .8 for drunk driving.

Being drunk also does not absolve you of any crimes you commit while drunk, which includes driving and forcing yourself on someone too drunk to give consent. It's a case by case basis to determine if that happened or not.

You keep injecting "forcing" wherein that is not the case in the scenarios presented. Of course if force used under any circumstance, it's rape. Here apparent consent is given, as has been stated many times.

 

[Anagram]

You keep injecting "forcing" wherein that is not the case in the scenarios presented. Of course if force used under any circumstance, it's rape. Here apparent consent is given, as has been stated many times.

I don't really mean force but more like instigation. If you try to get somebody clearly too drunk to understand what's going on to say yes to sex, even if they do, its a crime.

 

[Summerwind]

I don't really mean force but more like instigation. If you try to get somebody clearly too drunk to understand what's going on to say yes to sex, even if they do, its a crime.

Again you construe, I clearly said she gets willfully intoxicated. No forcing there either.

 

[Anagram]

Again you construe, I clearly said she gets willfully intoxicated. No forcing there either.

I didn't say she didn't choose to get intoxicated. And I agreed that maybe force is the wrong word.

 

[Anagram]

Actually, I see my phrasing was bad. I didn't mean you try to get them drunk. I meant you see somebody who is clearly too drunk to understand what is going on and you try to get them to "consent" to having sex.

 

[Summerwind]

I didn't say she didn't choose to get intoxicated. And I agreed that maybe force is the wrong word.

Nonetheless, you are attributing a level of conniving upon the male that isn't indicated and is not part of this. That would be a crime, drugging or somehow tricking someone into intoxication, then taking advantage. The topic here is about a woman who chooses her level of intoxication and is only held responsible for part of her decisions, while someone else becomes responsible for her sexual decisions.

 

[Anagram]

Nonetheless, you are attributing a level of conniving upon the male that isn't indicated and is not part of this. That would be a crime, drugging or somehow tricking someone into intoxication, then taking advantage. The topic here is about a woman who chooses her level of intoxication and is only held responsible for part of her decisions, while someone else becomes responsible for her sexual decisions.

My phrasing was bad, I did not in any way mean that the male was trying to get her drunk.

 

[Thom Paine]

Then they shouldn't get drunk and say "yes." I think perhaps you are the sociopath because you sort of are suggesting the people want to have drunk accidents and kill people. People do things they don't really want to do when they're drunk. My question is why are they responsible for their drinking when they drive, but not when they date?

BINGO... the perfect question.

Reasonable questions sometimes appear unreasonable

Thom Paine