<p>
</p>
<p>The federal government disagrees with you.</p>
<p>
Which I think is despicable. If the women pushing certain sexual assault cases and laws truly want “justice”, then accountability is a great place to start. </p>
<p>
They are equivalent because in the eyes of the law agreements between two parties require that both parties have the capacity to knowingly enter into the agreement. I get that all sounds very legalistic and clinical for a sexual encounter, but it is still a fact. Thus anyone under the age of consent, anyone that is of limited mental capacity, anyone that is drunk or high on drugs, etc. are all considered, in the eyes of the law, as unable to knowingly enter into an agreement. If it were a simple contract and exchange of money where you, for example, sold your car for $5 when you were drunk, usually just voiding the contract and returning the money and car fixes things. Sex is clearly a different matter, hence there are criminal penalties involved. The point for you to understand is that any agreement, be it signing a contract or consenting to sex (a type of verbal contract), has to be entered into with both parties being capable of understanding what they are agreeing to. A drunk woman, or man for that matter, is not considered capable of knowing what they are agreeing to. </p>
<p>Here is the complete Time article (I could not get to it via the OPs link as I don’t subscribe to Time):</p>
<p><a href=“Service - WordPress Support”>Service - WordPress Support;
<p>And so what am I to make of this article? Well, that we are not dealing with an epidemic of stranger rape on our campuses, with girls being snatched off the street, or cornered in an isolated part of a dorm or library, and raped by a stranger. The epidemic of sexual assault is tied directly to “date rape”, and sex under the influence of alcohol and drugs.</p>
<p>I don’t have to be concerned about my sons, who, by the way, were taught not to assault people period, but they won’t be participating in those alcohol-fueled parties where the point of the parties, known to all of the men and women who choose voluntarily to attend those parties, is to end up off in some secluded place to hook up, as the nasty slang refers to it. I won’t have to be concerned about daughters, either, who will be wise enough not to attend these parties. My daughter would not be interested in the kind of guys who would go to such parties so no point in spending time with them in such an environment.</p>
<p>Should a young woman who chooses to attend such a party, and chooses to guzzle alcohol, and then chooses (albeit in her incapacitated state, a state she put herself into) to walk off alone with a guy, or two guys, or a whole team of football players, and then finds herself the object of their sexual desire, have the right to say no? Of course she does. But in her incapacitated state, is she even capable of making her change in mind clear? And who does she think she is trying to talk to? Rational clear-headed young men? No, she is talking to another incapacitated drunk, or several of them.</p>
<p>What goes into the thinking of a young woman who would voluntarily put herself in that position? And if young women these days think that being able to go these alcohol-fueled parties, and engage in all of the drinking, and get as drunk as skunks, just like the guys, is the epitome of female empowerment, and they persist in doing this, then I suggest they make additional plans - like make sure one of their girlfriends is the designated non-drunk, who can serve as the chaperone, or maybe attend the party with a big brother, or bring along Dad and his shotgun.</p>
<p>Or if all of these young people, men and women, so intent on participating in these really fun drunken parties, are so concerned about the sexual assault that seems to be occurring more often between couples that meet at these parties, then how about making these parties safer by utilizing a lockdown policy, where nobody leaves the party without checking out with someone in charge. Put into play a ChuckECheese policy - get your hands stamped along with all of those in your personal group of attendees, and when it comes time to leave, you cannot leave until everyone with the same stamp on their hands checks out, too.</p>
<p>I feel bad for girls who wake up to find themselves being violated by the young men they chose to leave the party with, and I don’t dismiss the trauma they feel, and I, of course, have no tolerance for the kind of young men who would look forward to having opportunities to get easy sex with drunk girls. Perhaps no greater leeches exist than those kinds of young men and, in truly a case of violent rape, and not consensual, drunken sex, then emasculating them would be proper punishment. But are the solutions so difficult?</p>
<p>Reading through these posts makes me wonder what was so bad and oppressive towards women about the old fashioned notions of chaperones during courting, sex after marriage, gentlemen not getting drunk in the presence of women, etc.</p>
<p>I have to wonder, too, why it is young women give sex away so freely? They are willing to give it away to young men on a first date - and not even a date, but just some meet up at some party or bar - and they don’t even get any money in return for hooking up. Do young women these days even consider that they may be less empowered than the prostitute?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Extend the logic…if they have both been drinking how can only one be “responsible”. They can’t and that is why saying that the women is “weaker” and needs additional protections is ludicrous and is going to result in lawsuits. If they are both drinking they are both incapable of getting informed consent from the other.</p>
<p>There lies the rub, momof3. Often contrary to your logic, the fellow often IS held responsible. In fact many posters in this thread think it should be so.</p>
<p>
=D> </p>
<p>Just yes. </p>
<p>One problem I have with this kind of discussion is that we all have our own ideas about what happens most often, and what rarely happens. Perhaps we can agree that it rarely happens on college campuses that an unknown stranger leaps out of the bushes and assaults somebody, and that it very frequently happens that college students have consensual sex, including with people they don’t know well. In between, though, we seem to have different ideas about what happens often and what doesn’t. Does it, in fact, happen frequently that two people both get very drunk and then go have sex? Or does it happen frequently that a man deliberately creates a situation in which a targeted woman is much drunker than he is so he can have sex with her? In what situation is a woman most likely to report an incident as assault? I think it makes a difference.</p>
<p>Enthusiastic and sober consent should be given before proceeding with a sexual encounter in college. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Except that the drunk man is liable for expulsion or suspension from college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This quote really finds its truth in the fact that the federal government is not about logic, but about victimhood and politics; victimhood is determined by politics, not logic or common sense.</p>
<p>Understanding the above, then it follows that equality for women stops where there is a political gain to be had, a victim card to be played, and votes to be collected. Therefore, women cannot be held accountable, as men for their actions because it is not politically expedient. However, the results are that woman are seen as weaker in than men and not smart enough to know how to drink responsibly. Sad for women to be seen that way, while they simultaneously say they are equal to men. Counterproductive to their equality cause.</p>
<p>And the fact so many posters on this thread think women should be held to a lower standard of responsibility and accountability says there is a political advantage to be gained, logic be damned. That is sad too, as they sacrifice women for a fleeting political gain.</p>
<p>Not surprising, this par-for-the-course for government, e.g., Jim Crow laws are bad because they used race as a factor to determine service etc. But, a certain government program that uses the same criteria is OK if the races are reversed. It is not about logic; it is about victimhood. What is surprising is the proponents of such policies do not see that it really weakens the supposed victims, not strengthens them. </p>
<p>Hmmm. It seems to me that there might be something political in the efforts by some to protect serial sexual predators from consequences for their actions. If there isn’t, then maybe it isn’t fair for them to ascribe political motives to those with different opinions.</p>
<p>Let me add this: I think people on both “sides” of this issue are essentially lazy. It’s an easy and lazy answer to say that we’ll just punish men whenever they have sex with a drunken woman, no matter what the circumstances are. But it’s just as easy and lazy to say that we’ll just tell women to be responsible for themselves, and never punish men who take advantage of them when they’re drunk, no matter what the consequences are. If we weren’t all so lazy, maybe we’d find a way to punish people who do bad things without also punishing people who don’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nor is it ideal there exists someone called a serial killer. Short of going on a mind-reading witch hunt to arrest such guys before they perpetrate and juxtaposing against basic freedoms afforded everyone until proved guilty, there are some sucky things in life, which we have to deal with. This situation, unfortunately, may be one of them. </p>
<p>Maybe the ideal solution lies with the very FIRST accosted female - she should speak up and file charges. If all women spoke up pronto and filed real charges in a real court immediately, then such guys have less chance of being serial offenders on a college campus. The power seems, to me, to be in the females’ hands.</p>
<p>
But see, the first time it happens with any particular guy, it looks a lot like the drunk sex situations that you don’t want to punish. He’ll say he was drunk, too, and it will be awfully hard to prove that he wasn’t. That’s what makes this hard. The woman isn’t “accosted.” She’s at a party, and a guy encourages her to drink a lot, and he drinks, too, but not that much. He then leads her to his room, and they have sex–but only she is really drunk. My problem is that in a system in which the woman takes all the risks when she drinks, that guy gets away with it.</p>
<p>and there is even some grey area in Hunt’s thoughtful post.
Is “taking advantage” rape? Sill talking about legal adults and voluntary intoxication, if a woman’s boozing affects her best judgment, and she says Yes when she would likely have said No, is that more than just taking advantage? Is it rape?</p>
<p>Is admitting to being drunk a defense for DUI? Could a woman say(successfully) that she was so voluntarily drunk she drove because her judgment was clouded, she didn’t know better? Could she argue some man was at fault because he should have stopped her, even though she said yes?</p>
<p>I am trying to understand the position of those who believe that whatever happens between two drunk adults is not a legal issue.</p>
<p>If your college age son gets drunk with the guys, and is then raped by another drunk guy while he is conscious and says no, but is too drunk to physically resist his attacker, is the victim equally responsible? Should there be any legal recourse against the attacker? or would you say that he is equally responsible, and accepted that risk when he started drinking?</p>
<p>How do you think about that situation?</p>
<p>@momofthreeboys - I actually meant the situation where either the woman was drunk OR the man was drunk, not both at the same time, although I certainly wasn’t clear about that. IMHO, if both are drunk then both are equally at fault for getting drunk and equally unable to consent to the act, although I understand from posters on here that doesn’t appear to be the case in many jurisdictions and/or schools. Now that assumes a lot, obviously there can be numerous scenarios where one party is more culpable. I am not trying to get into all that. I just wanted to clarify my original intent. I tend to agree that it defies logic to say if the woman is drunk she is not responsible but if the man is drunk he still is. Absent some direct comment from people that drafted legislation that made this the case, as opposed to supposition that it is all because of our penchant for victimhood and politics, I will continue to think that while this is wrongheaded, it is the law and so men have to be very very careful.</p>
<p>I can give my opinion to much2learn to explain my position on the query.
I don’t think anyone on this thread has said that when one party says No, but the other party continues anyway, that it isn’t rape. That was your scenario.
I don’t think anyone here said it’s OK to have sex with someone passed out and unable to speak.</p>
<p>There is some uncertainty about when one party says Yes, but it’s up to the other party to determine if the Yes was reasonable or if the party was too drunk to understand what Yes meant.
Some will argue No means No, and Yes means Yes.
Others will say No means No, and Yes can mean Yes or No, depending on circumstances, and it is up to the male to know, understand, and make the proper determination for the adult that said Yes.</p>
<p>In the YouTube video linked in the first page of this thread:
<a href=“www.whoareyou.co.nz - YouTube”>www.whoareyou.co.nz - YouTube;
<p>do you say that woman consented? Certainly we never see any “Yes” from her. </p>
<p>The video linked by saintfan is an example of a man taking advantage of an over-intoxicated woman so he could have sex with her. </p>