<p>Much2learn, the issue in your example is the “says no.” I don’t think anybody in this conversation would say that a person who has sex with a person who says no is blameless, no matter how drunk any of the parties may be. The problem is that a person who is really drunk may say nothing at all, or may say yes when they would have said no when sober. Then, it seems to me, a lot turns on the mental state of the other person–if he was also really drunk, then perhaps it’s not really a crime–but I’m concerned about the predator who isn’t really that drunk–how do we prevent/punish him without criminalizing all drunken sex?</p>
<p>younghoss:
That is a helpful clarification. </p>
<p>When I see people say that “Drunk sex is not rape” or that it is not rape if the woman did not physically resist, I get confused. It is helpful to know that those types of statements are not absolute. Perhaps we are not as far apart as I first thought.</p>
<p>Follow-up question:</p>
<p>I saw your comment that “But Yes can mean No? Or does a reluctant Yes mean No? Don’t see it.” and " I think all adults have the right and responsibility to enjoy or suffer the consequences of their actions."</p>
<p>What about the situation where a person gets voluntarily drunk, and another person get them to sign a paper that legally transfers property to them, do you think that the drunk person should be responsible for their actions and lose the property?</p>
<p>If personal accountability is the law, I think that is fine, as long as it applies to all situations consistently. However, I have the feeling that many who think a drunk woman should be responsible for saying “yes” no matter how drunk she is, do not think that they should be held equally accountable when it is detrimental to them. </p>
<p>Am I wrong?</p>
<p>
I believe the law is pretty clear on this. As you posit the situation, the non-drunk party “g(o)t them to sign” the paper, knowing the person was drunk. That is a clear-cut case of taking advantage of a person that is incapacitated and is not legal. There is no law against getting drunk as an adult. So the first person did nothing wrong, and in this case in particular it is not especially foreseeable someone would use that situation to get you to sign over your car. The second person is completely in the wrong for taking advantage of the situation, as would be a person having sex with someone that is clearly drunk.</p>
<p>That is actually a pretty black and white issue, as you presented it. Showing poor judgement by getting drunk at a frat party doesn’t make you legally responsible for getting raped. It doesn’t even make you morally responsible, but it still shows bad judgement given all the info out there about this issue. The big difference between this and the car example is that this result is foreseeable, and so the person is guilty of even poorer judgement than the person that lost their car. But sticking to your car example, there the person who got drunk is clearly not in the wrong or responsible, as long as drinking, and even drinking to excess, is not against the law. It only means they are naive if they don’t think that getting themselves to that state doesn’t invite bad things happening to them.</p>
<p>I’m not sure the law is black and white in the case of contracts. Not sure how valid this particular source is. Perhaps an attorney can chime in.</p>
<p><a href=“Capacity to Contract | Examples of Contractual Capacity | Nolo”>http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/lack-capacity-to-contract-32647.html</a></p>
<p>“Alcohol and Drugs:
People who are intoxicated by drugs or alcohol are usually not considered to lack capacity to contract. Courts generally rule that those who are voluntarily intoxicated shouldn’t be allowed to avoid their contractual obligations, but should instead have to take responsibility for the results of their self-induced altered state of mind. However, if a party is so far gone as to be unable to understand even the nature and consequences of the agreement, and the other (sober) party takes advantage of the person’s condition, then the contract may be voidable by the inebriated party.”</p>
<p>Men can be assaulted too, y’know. </p>
<p>True - and if women can retroactively recant their consent than so can men and believe me some wild and crazy male college student will try it (say they were forced to have sex but was too drunk to know what they were agreeing to) if the colleges take this to the ridiculous. </p>
<p>A better idea is to give all incoming college freshman a pocket breathalizer - “Do you want to have sex?” Are you sure you want to have sex?"“Are you really, really sure?” “Here blow into this thing for me before we begin just so I’m certain you know what you’re saying.”</p>
<p>Niquii says “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.” That’s certainly true. Is the video an example of rape, or not? Is the man committing a crime, or not?</p>
<p><a href=“www.whoareyou.co.nz - YouTube”>www.whoareyou.co.nz - YouTube;
<p>My question was not about the law. Rather, it was attempting to understand whether @young hoss’s view regarding personal responsibility is general one. If the law should be that if you get yourself drunk, then you can not use being drunk as an excuse to relieve your responsibility for any actions you may have taken while in that state. </p>
<p>I think that is okay, as long as it is applied to all situations, and not only to rape-related situations. Whatever someone else gets you to do or agree to, while you are drunk, is entirely each individuals responsibility and each person takes that risk when they begin to drink. Others are free to attempt to take as much advantage as they wish. If they can get you to do something stupid, or sign something you shouldn’t, it is your problem and can not be used as a defense in court.</p>
<p>I haven’t been drunk in a very very long time, so I think this would be fine, but I doubt that either the left or the right is ready for that much personal responsibility.</p>
<p>The weekend that article came out some of my daughter’s friends were meeting at our house to go to the beach. I immediately thought that would be a perfect opportunity to talk to all the girls about safety and sexual assault, but then I thought perhaps I didn’t want to be that mom who gave out college rape talks on beach day. So as I straightened up, I strategically placed the Time magazine on the edge of the coffee table. After they left I saw the Time magazine on the sofa. Yay, someone read it!</p>
<p>I’d say it was rape. There was intent behind his actions. </p>
<p>I think many men would say it was not rape, because she did not resist when he towed her out on the dance floor and began pawing her, or when he dragged her out to the taxi. </p>
<p>And I’d also say that if he had been as drunk as she was, there would have been no intercourse. She was apparently too drunk to remove her clothes, for example. There’s not going to be any intimacy when neither person can initiate an action.</p>
<p>things like this are happening everywhere but its more about how they are happening is it because students are going to parties and getting drunk and then are doing this or are students barging into the dorm rooms and forcing themselves on the female after the cause has been determine the best way to stop it would be to eliminate the cause</p>
<p>@amarylandmom - good citation. My presumption was, indeed, that the inebriation was such that there was no capacity to consent to anything. But no doubt, this is a very hard thing to prove in many cases. So I guess I will have to shift my position somewhat to say that the best solution is to not get drunk. Not really much of a shift, as I have always advocated that. But it does seem to me that if the law is going to say that anyone that is even tipsy cannot consent to sex, then it should hold the same standard for all types of consent. It is very muddled. Clearly as it now stands the standard for consenting to sex is different than for other consensual acts. Which just reinforces what I said earlier, men especially have to be very very careful. As they should be,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The sexual predator may have gotten the victim drunk or drugged enough to not remember much at all about the incident, making arrest and prosecution less likely to be successful. That probably helps the sexual predator get away with multiple rapes before being stopped (if stopped at all).</p>
<p>It seems to me that we need more accurate data about the magnitude of this problem. But if in fact 1 in 4 college women are being raped, then the colleges need to:
- Find a way to significantly reduce the
- Successfully prosecute these criminals and put them in prison</p>
<p>If they fail at 1 and 2, then they need to allow firearms on campus. If the school can’t protect women, then they should have the right to defend themselves. I am pretty sure that after the first couple of rapists eat a .357, the rate will drop precipitously.</p>
<p>Women who are victimized while drunk or drugged (which is likely the common method of sexual predator rapes in college environments) are not in a good position to defend themselves, with or without firearms.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are two issues here: 1) drugs and 2) drunked-ness. </p>
<p>Not sure what anyone expects to do about someone drugging females. There is a point where all that can be hoped for is the guy gets caught. Sadly, not all criminals are caught first try. This, sadly again, mirrors the real world, so females need to learn, from college, the precautions to take. College is not some fake bubble devoid of standard societal ills. </p>
<p>I do not buy into the “get someone drunk” thing. The female does not have to drink to such an extent. This simply perpetuates the myth that females have no decision-taking capability about how much to drink. For example, in college, my wife did not drink beer or wine. I offered once at a party, she refused and never asked again. She had her first glass of wine when we got engaged and has wine now at special occasions. Extreme case, I know. However, this illustrates control is possible.</p>
<p>Man here. One who absolutely believes women should be given every instruction they can to avoid being in that very situation. It is absolutely rape. He knew perfectly well she was incapable of consenting. They should of, however, taken it back one more time to the point where the young lady says “no thanks, I’ve really had enough”. As the video shows there are so many things which could have occurred to prevent the rape. That guy at the end of the first half of the video should be prosecuted, however, as the rest of the video shows, it could easily have been stopped at a variety of points. </p>
<p>
I was under the impression that the majority of the cases occur between someone the girl is familiar with or when she has been drinking. Both situations decrease the likelihood of her toting a gun and one is a situation where she shouldn’t be in control of a gun at all. </p>