Laws are changing, and yes you are correct, some places in Europe as well as some states in the USA have determined that drinking is a voluntary act and consent under the influence or lack of non-consenting does not make the other person guilty of rape or assault.
I'm not saying it's right, however, I do understand where it's coming from. Anytime a person voluntarily does something risky or with inherent dangers they took a risk and it can be hard to hold others accountable for their poor choice.
Put it in context of DUI, you voluntarily consumed, you may not remember getting in a vehicle, but if an accident happens you will be sited and in some places you're at fault even if the other person may have been the main cause. Reason, because you may have been able to avoid the accident if you had not been under the influence.
Same standard can be applied to skydiving, scuba diving, just about anything a person voluntarily elects to do that has known risks.
Now, just like drinking, the bar or host may have some responsibility to prevent certain crimes.
You know the old saying everyone's a 10 by closing time. It works for male and females, and a lot of us have asked ourselves in the morning what was I thinking. However, buyers remorse is not grounds for rape charges.
I know this opinion is not popular, but as we approach a more unisexed/antisexed equal application of laws around the world. Individuals are going to have to accept responsibility for their actions, and the first irresponsible action that takes place, that could have prevented the crime, may become more important, especially in sex crimes.
I havent heard of those court cases. You see that girl that just made that post saying "my boyfriend wont break up with me and I hate his sister but he wont break up with me" those are the ones that willingly have sex then the next day cry rape because they regret it the next day.
Mpo regret/revenge rape allegations are truely few and far, however, one that gets caught making a false allegation makes it extremely hard on the true cases.
That being said, back to the OP, people do change their minds when they've consumed alcohol. As I said in my 1st post as the alcohol flows both M and F have been known to pick up or go home with people they normally would not have even thought about.
So maybe a seminar on responsibility of drinking or the effects of alcohol/chemicals when consumed might be better.
Being entitled to get drunk and stupid in public seems to be very much a USA thing. A lot of countries just like Espaina think public drunkenness is disgraceful. We are raise with wine and alcohol and to get drunk, with few exceptions, is your fault and you need to know/learn your limits.
The cases I mentioned, we actually discussed on here maybe 6 months ago. But if I remember correctly I believe there are at least 4. 2 US cases Minnesota and either Oregon or Washington, one in France one in Germany I think! Probably more but those are the one that grabbed the media's attention in the last year or so.
Please don't take my comments as supporting rape actions. Rape is rape and if a person says no, No is no! However, that No is only good for that conversation.
A person can and does change their mind. So if a person comes back a week, month, or even an hour later, the no from the previous conversation may not apply and needs to be restated. If the new answer is yes, even if alcohol is involved or actions do not show a negitive response. That previous no is most likely not going to work to make a case for rape.
Just a brief response to something you said in both comments, combined into one:
First, not a fan of the DUI comparison. Drunk driving is illegal, whether or not it causes an accident. It can and does put other drivers in a situation where it’s harder for them to avoid an accident. Existing as a drunk woman is not illegal in and of itself, and it does not put rapists in a situation where it’s more difficult for them to avoid raping someone.
Secondly, No is always good for any conversation and it always applies unless expressly stated otherwise. Not only does it never need to be restated, it doesn’t need to be stated in the first place. Consent has to actively be given every single time and the absence of active consent is non consent, or rape.
And just on the general idea that drunk people should be at fault or responsible…it’s not like they’re being raped by inanimate objects. They’re being raped by people, people who should still be held responsible for their own actions. They don’t get a free pass to do whatever they want just because they found an easier target.
I agree to a certain point but you're missing the point of my DUI comparison.
Yes dui is illegal so is rape. Drinking and or drugs in some cases are not. Agree!
However, my point was whether or not you remember getting in the car after drinking doesn't matter. Same in sexual cases, there are many cases initiated and investigated where a person consented or appears from club videos or eyewitness statements to be consenting and responding in kind. Just because you don't remember giving your consent does not make it rape.
Second, on the notion of saying (No) once, you are wrong, at least in every legal argument I been involved in.
Any contract can be amended and believe me, we use it all the time. "Females have a right to change our minds". That's actually is a very true statement and applies to everybody M or F.
Affirmations do not have to be verble, you can respond with numerous positive or negitive non-verble signs from a nod or shake of the head, hand shake, shove away, kiss, hugs, many other ways.
The point being if the person appears to be voluntarily accepting and even responding in an agreeable manor. Even if intoxicated, it can be interpreted as agreement.
Even if you said No at work the week before or even that same day before getting intoxicated.
This is one reason it is so hard to prove and prosecute date rape cases where drugs are used. Short of a toxicology test showing what drug and proof of them putting it in a drink or at least opportunity to do so. It can appear that the person is consenting and voluntary returning advances.
Again, I'm not contesting if a person says No or if they are so intoxicated they're passed out. Rape is rape and no is no. However, the OP implies, just because the person said no sober, that a person should never ask or try again. I disagree, alcohol does lower inhibitions, people do agree or consent to things they may not when sober.
I've actually had people come on to me that as sober denied being bi. The next day they want to blame it on alcohol and make sure their secret is safe.
So if you see a drunk person and try to drag them back to your car or start to try and make out with them because they can't fight it off its okay right? The fact they are drunk and can't push you away means they said yes right?
"I'm not talking again about the person that continues to show signs of resisting, is passed out, or obviously to drunk to stand. I'm talking about a person that goes out drinking and for what ever reason responds in an agreeable manor to advances. Can dance, hold a conversation, walk, talk and chew bubble gum. Then says that somebody took advantage of them while intoxicated."
That's a quote from the comment I made 10 or so days ago.
I think I understand the point you were trying to make with the DUI comparison, but that’s why many places rightfully have laws in place that say, at a certain point, a person severely under the influence of alcohol or drugs is unable to give consent, similar to how children are unable to give consent under any circumstances, and it doesn’t matter if they actually say yes or otherwise agree to it. If they’re too drunk to remember if they said yes or not, they were probably too drunk to consent in the first place. I go back to the point I made before that these people aren’t with inanimate objects. People can and should be expected to make sure the person they’re about to have sex with is of sound mind and body.
On the topic of saying no, I’m not sure which part you’re claiming that I’m wrong about. You said no is only good for that conversation and it has to be restated and I pointed out that that’s simply not true, because no doesn’t have to be stated in the first place. No is the default. If there is no indication that the answer is yes, then the answer is no. Anything in between yes and no, is no. Personal responsibility means making sure the person you’re about to have sex with actually wants to have sex with you.
If you’re only taking about the OP specifically, they didn’t even use the word rape. They said it’s not okay and it’s predatory. If you take advantage of a drunk person’s lower inhibitions to get them to do something they’ve told you they don’t want to do sober, that’s predatory and not okay, regardless of whether or not you think it should be considered rape.
I think you or we are getting hung up on semantics.
Answers can be verbal or implied. I agree once no is said or a yes is never given then the default is no. However, a yes or affirmative actions or reactions even when intoxicated can be considered agreement to continue.
The problem with " of sound mind or too drunk to remember" is it is subjective. Some people function relatively well even when fully intoxicated. Police can tell you they've seen people function really well that BA test shows they should be almost dead. The opposite is also true, we've all heard the saying they're drunk after smelling the cap. So everybody should carry a blood alcohol meter with them?
I'm not talking again about the person that continues to show signs of resisting, is passed out, or obviously to drunk to stand. I'm talking about a person that goes out drinking and for what ever reason responds in an agreeable manor to advances. Can dance, hold a conversation, walk, talk and chew bubble gum. Then says that somebody took advantage of them while intoxicated.
I don't know if you drink or not, but most of us have done things willingly and voluntarily while intoxicated that we would not have done sober, that embarrassed us, that we regret. However, that does not make the boss I told to go f-- himself, a predator or at fault for asking what I thought.
As far as the term rape. I use that along with the term sexual assault in my first comment because when you say someone in a sexual situation is a predator, wrong, not okay, wrongly took advantage of, then you are implying sexual assault and or rape.
Even if you are talking just morally wrong, then you might as well make alcohol illegal, close the bars, and clubs. They are all feeding grounds for people to prey on people while their inhibitions are down.
This includes sales people who take people out and buy them a drink or two. It's all meant to lower those inhibitors and get agreement. So all sales people that take a person out to eat and a few drinks are predators. (I might agree)!
Really we're back to square one. Where I said things are changing and the law is starting to agree, drinking is voluntary, has inherent dangers, and alcohol should be used with caution. The drinker/intoxicated person bares some responsibility.
Doesn't matter whether you and I agree or disagree, unless we get the laws changed to reflect an intoxicated person is/are not responsible for their actions. But that opens up a whole new bunch of problems.
Should we make seminars on why you shouldn't violate drunks?
← View full post
Laws are changing, and yes you are correct, some places in Europe as well as some states in the USA have determined that drinking is a voluntary act and consent under the influence or lack of non-consenting does not make the other person guilty of rape or assault.
I'm not saying it's right, however, I do understand where it's coming from. Anytime a person voluntarily does something risky or with inherent dangers they took a risk and it can be hard to hold others accountable for their poor choice.
Put it in context of DUI, you voluntarily consumed, you may not remember getting in a vehicle, but if an accident happens you will be sited and in some places you're at fault even if the other person may have been the main cause. Reason, because you may have been able to avoid the accident if you had not been under the influence.
Same standard can be applied to skydiving, scuba diving, just about anything a person voluntarily elects to do that has known risks.
Now, just like drinking, the bar or host may have some responsibility to prevent certain crimes.
You know the old saying everyone's a 10 by closing time. It works for male and females, and a lot of us have asked ourselves in the morning what was I thinking. However, buyers remorse is not grounds for rape charges.
I know this opinion is not popular, but as we approach a more unisexed/antisexed equal application of laws around the world. Individuals are going to have to accept responsibility for their actions, and the first irresponsible action that takes place, that could have prevented the crime, may become more important, especially in sex crimes.
--
1WeirdGuy
1 year ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I havent heard of those court cases. You see that girl that just made that post saying "my boyfriend wont break up with me and I hate his sister but he wont break up with me" those are the ones that willingly have sex then the next day cry rape because they regret it the next day.
--
darefu
1 year ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Mpo regret/revenge rape allegations are truely few and far, however, one that gets caught making a false allegation makes it extremely hard on the true cases.
That being said, back to the OP, people do change their minds when they've consumed alcohol. As I said in my 1st post as the alcohol flows both M and F have been known to pick up or go home with people they normally would not have even thought about.
So maybe a seminar on responsibility of drinking or the effects of alcohol/chemicals when consumed might be better.
Being entitled to get drunk and stupid in public seems to be very much a USA thing. A lot of countries just like Espaina think public drunkenness is disgraceful. We are raise with wine and alcohol and to get drunk, with few exceptions, is your fault and you need to know/learn your limits.
The cases I mentioned, we actually discussed on here maybe 6 months ago. But if I remember correctly I believe there are at least 4. 2 US cases Minnesota and either Oregon or Washington, one in France one in Germany I think! Probably more but those are the one that grabbed the media's attention in the last year or so.
Please don't take my comments as supporting rape actions. Rape is rape and if a person says no, No is no! However, that No is only good for that conversation.
A person can and does change their mind. So if a person comes back a week, month, or even an hour later, the no from the previous conversation may not apply and needs to be restated. If the new answer is yes, even if alcohol is involved or actions do not show a negitive response. That previous no is most likely not going to work to make a case for rape.
--
Correction
1 year ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
1WeirdGuy
1 year ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Just a brief response to something you said in both comments, combined into one:
First, not a fan of the DUI comparison. Drunk driving is illegal, whether or not it causes an accident. It can and does put other drivers in a situation where it’s harder for them to avoid an accident. Existing as a drunk woman is not illegal in and of itself, and it does not put rapists in a situation where it’s more difficult for them to avoid raping someone.
Secondly, No is always good for any conversation and it always applies unless expressly stated otherwise. Not only does it never need to be restated, it doesn’t need to be stated in the first place. Consent has to actively be given every single time and the absence of active consent is non consent, or rape.
And just on the general idea that drunk people should be at fault or responsible…it’s not like they’re being raped by inanimate objects. They’re being raped by people, people who should still be held responsible for their own actions. They don’t get a free pass to do whatever they want just because they found an easier target.
--
darefu
1 year ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
I agree to a certain point but you're missing the point of my DUI comparison.
Yes dui is illegal so is rape. Drinking and or drugs in some cases are not. Agree!
However, my point was whether or not you remember getting in the car after drinking doesn't matter. Same in sexual cases, there are many cases initiated and investigated where a person consented or appears from club videos or eyewitness statements to be consenting and responding in kind. Just because you don't remember giving your consent does not make it rape.
Second, on the notion of saying (No) once, you are wrong, at least in every legal argument I been involved in.
Any contract can be amended and believe me, we use it all the time. "Females have a right to change our minds". That's actually is a very true statement and applies to everybody M or F.
Affirmations do not have to be verble, you can respond with numerous positive or negitive non-verble signs from a nod or shake of the head, hand shake, shove away, kiss, hugs, many other ways.
The point being if the person appears to be voluntarily accepting and even responding in an agreeable manor. Even if intoxicated, it can be interpreted as agreement.
Even if you said No at work the week before or even that same day before getting intoxicated.
This is one reason it is so hard to prove and prosecute date rape cases where drugs are used. Short of a toxicology test showing what drug and proof of them putting it in a drink or at least opportunity to do so. It can appear that the person is consenting and voluntary returning advances.
Again, I'm not contesting if a person says No or if they are so intoxicated they're passed out. Rape is rape and no is no. However, the OP implies, just because the person said no sober, that a person should never ask or try again. I disagree, alcohol does lower inhibitions, people do agree or consent to things they may not when sober.
I've actually had people come on to me that as sober denied being bi. The next day they want to blame it on alcohol and make sure their secret is safe.
--
Anonymous Post Author
1 year ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Correction
1 year ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
So if you see a drunk person and try to drag them back to your car or start to try and make out with them because they can't fight it off its okay right? The fact they are drunk and can't push you away means they said yes right?
--
darefu
1 year ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
You are not reading the comments
"I'm not talking again about the person that continues to show signs of resisting, is passed out, or obviously to drunk to stand. I'm talking about a person that goes out drinking and for what ever reason responds in an agreeable manor to advances. Can dance, hold a conversation, walk, talk and chew bubble gum. Then says that somebody took advantage of them while intoxicated."
That's a quote from the comment I made 10 or so days ago.
I think I understand the point you were trying to make with the DUI comparison, but that’s why many places rightfully have laws in place that say, at a certain point, a person severely under the influence of alcohol or drugs is unable to give consent, similar to how children are unable to give consent under any circumstances, and it doesn’t matter if they actually say yes or otherwise agree to it. If they’re too drunk to remember if they said yes or not, they were probably too drunk to consent in the first place. I go back to the point I made before that these people aren’t with inanimate objects. People can and should be expected to make sure the person they’re about to have sex with is of sound mind and body.
On the topic of saying no, I’m not sure which part you’re claiming that I’m wrong about. You said no is only good for that conversation and it has to be restated and I pointed out that that’s simply not true, because no doesn’t have to be stated in the first place. No is the default. If there is no indication that the answer is yes, then the answer is no. Anything in between yes and no, is no. Personal responsibility means making sure the person you’re about to have sex with actually wants to have sex with you.
If you’re only taking about the OP specifically, they didn’t even use the word rape. They said it’s not okay and it’s predatory. If you take advantage of a drunk person’s lower inhibitions to get them to do something they’ve told you they don’t want to do sober, that’s predatory and not okay, regardless of whether or not you think it should be considered rape.
--
darefu
1 year ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
I think you or we are getting hung up on semantics.
Answers can be verbal or implied. I agree once no is said or a yes is never given then the default is no. However, a yes or affirmative actions or reactions even when intoxicated can be considered agreement to continue.
The problem with " of sound mind or too drunk to remember" is it is subjective. Some people function relatively well even when fully intoxicated. Police can tell you they've seen people function really well that BA test shows they should be almost dead. The opposite is also true, we've all heard the saying they're drunk after smelling the cap. So everybody should carry a blood alcohol meter with them?
I'm not talking again about the person that continues to show signs of resisting, is passed out, or obviously to drunk to stand. I'm talking about a person that goes out drinking and for what ever reason responds in an agreeable manor to advances. Can dance, hold a conversation, walk, talk and chew bubble gum. Then says that somebody took advantage of them while intoxicated.
I don't know if you drink or not, but most of us have done things willingly and voluntarily while intoxicated that we would not have done sober, that embarrassed us, that we regret. However, that does not make the boss I told to go f-- himself, a predator or at fault for asking what I thought.
As far as the term rape. I use that along with the term sexual assault in my first comment because when you say someone in a sexual situation is a predator, wrong, not okay, wrongly took advantage of, then you are implying sexual assault and or rape.
Even if you are talking just morally wrong, then you might as well make alcohol illegal, close the bars, and clubs. They are all feeding grounds for people to prey on people while their inhibitions are down.
This includes sales people who take people out and buy them a drink or two. It's all meant to lower those inhibitors and get agreement. So all sales people that take a person out to eat and a few drinks are predators. (I might agree)!
Really we're back to square one. Where I said things are changing and the law is starting to agree, drinking is voluntary, has inherent dangers, and alcohol should be used with caution. The drinker/intoxicated person bares some responsibility.
Doesn't matter whether you and I agree or disagree, unless we get the laws changed to reflect an intoxicated person is/are not responsible for their actions. But that opens up a whole new bunch of problems.
Yeah I agree with all that seems like common sense.