‘Gray Rape’: A New Form of Date Rape?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I argue that two drunk people should get charged (not put on sex offender lists or face prison time, community service is fine) for having sex with eachother.

Just like two kids.

And I say that's ludicrous. If both are drunk, then there's no crime being committed, by any stretch of the imagination.

Drunk people are incapable of giving consent. Just like kids. Or retarded people.

You cannot really be saying that mentally retarded people should be legally prevented from ever having sex???

This is fascist.

I agree that it takes a lot of drunk to get to that level (I have been there, I no longer get there, thankfully no one took advantage of me).

I am not saying that the state should go out looking for drunk people and charging both. It just isn't reasonable without a big invasion of privacy.

And therein lies the big problem. How can the law determine the level of drunkenness after the fact? Unless they can catch them in the act and give a test, it would be impossible to determine.

However, if one person is charging another with rape, and they were both drunk. Then both should get the same response as if they statutory raped each other now.

Or how about neither gets charged in this case, so our already overburdened legal system is worrying about cases like this?

There is a pretty high threshold for proving rape, which is as it should be. If it's a case of two equally drunk people complaining after the fact, then they're equally responsible for their own "plights" they should just get shooed out of court and not waste its time.

Similarly, if only one was drunk (the accuser), then the accused should get statutory rape charged.

This isn't similar, this is a different scenario. If one party was clearly intoxicated to a level that they couldn't consent and the other wasn't, and this can be proven, then of course charges are warranted. That's not remotely the same as two impaired people humping each other.

And face it, ethically John's are responsible for the conditions the prostitue is in. If she is a sex slave then the John is party to that. If she is being forced, then the John is party to that, even if he didn't physically force her himself.

Bull****. Unless the prostitute is actually being coerced into the sex by the john, there's no ethical problem for the john. It's two adults making a business transaction with each other, which should be every adult's right. If the prostitute is being coerced, charge the person coercing her.

I think two consenting adults should be allowed to have sex with each other for whatever reason they choose, and it's nobody else's business why they do it.

[Jon Miller]

What causes the crime?

Lack of consent.

There is a lack of consent, so there should be a crime.

BTW, this doesn't have to be about sex. There are other sorts of lack of consent as well. This is the reason why we have banned slavery, even the ones where the person who entered into it did so of their own free will (see Haitians in the US).

JM

[Deity Dude]

Drunk people have to take responsibility for their own actions. Many people seek to take advantage of intoxicated people. (bars, casinos etc.) Why do businessmen have expense accounts? Should casinos be charged for illegal gambling. Should businessmen be charged with contract fraud.

If a person voluntarily gets drunk (they weren't unwillingly drugged or something) and voluntarily has sex, it is their own fault. Instead of claiming rape they should perhaps go to an AA meeting and try and figure out A) why they get so drunk and B) why they do things when they are drunk that they wouldn't do if they were sober.

As far as I know the law and society keep telling us voluntary alcohol consumption isn't an excuse for bad behavior. As adults we are assumed responsible enough to determine how much we drink and are accountable for our actions. Even if it means voluntarily having sex with someone who is sober that you normal wouldn't want to.

If someone could use the argument that they were drunk therefore they are not responsible for their actions there would NEVER be a drunk driving arrest. I wonder how many murders occur when the murderer kills someone in a drunken rage. How many time does vandalism occur when people are drunk. I'm sure all of these people will say they wouldn't have done it sober and regret what they did the morning after.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What causes the crime?

Lack of consent.

There is a lack of consent, so there should be a crime.

There is also a lack of consent when two 15 year olds have sex (as 15 year olds can't consent), but in a great deal of jurisdictions that is not considered to be a crime (it's called the "Romeo & Juliet" exemption).

[Winston]

Excellent post, Deity Dude.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

What causes the crime?

Lack of consent.

There is a lack of consent, so there should be a crime.

There is also a lack of consent when two 15 year olds have sex (as 15 year olds can't consent), but in a great deal of jurisdictions that is not considered to be a crime (it's called the "Romeo & Juliet" exemption).

Often times there is this within 2 age rule. I think that that is an issue of 'this is natural, we can't fight it' raher than saying that because both peopel can't consent, the fact that they can't consent doesn't matter.

Additionally, as you said, only some jurisdictions. I agree with them in practicality (no real reason to punish), but disagree with them ethically.

How about two 11 yearolds?

JM

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
What causes the crime?

Lack of consent.

There is a lack of consent, so there should be a crime.

Ok, so since JM thinks mentally retarded people can't consent, whenever they have sex, even with another mentally retarded person, it's rape. Got it.

BTW, two people being really drunk doesn't necessarily mean there was a lack of consent. If they both started out sober and each had the intent to have sex then, but they then proceeded to get drunk together and then do it, it can hardly be said that it's nonconsensual.

But I really don't understand this authoritarian desire to slap two people with a crime for a sex act they engaged in with each other, involving nobody else, and where their level of consent was equal.

Speaking in that light, it's not about a lack of consent, but a lack of equal consent. If a gunman takes a man and a woman hostage, and for his own amusement forces them to have sex with each other under threat of death, should they both be charged with raping each other after the fact? Both consented under extreme coercion, after all.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Often times there is this within 2 age rule. I think that that is an issue of 'this is natural, we can't fight it' raher than saying that because both peopel can't consent, the fact that they can't consent doesn't matter.

I think its more of a WTF, statutory rape laws were NOT meant for this ****.

Statutory rape laws were meant to punish older people who preyed on minors.

How about two 11 yearolds?

How about 'em?

[Chemical Ollie]

Juliet was 11

[Dinner]

And look what happened to her.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Ok, so since JM thinks mentally retarded people can't consent, whenever they have sex, even with another mentally retarded person, it's rape. Got it.

At levels of mental retardation where consent can't be given, yeah, I consider all sex as being rape.

BTW, two people being really drunk doesn't necessarily mean there was a lack of consent. If they both started out sober and each had the intent to have sex then, but they then proceeded to get drunk together and then do it, it can hardly be said that it's nonconsensual.

I already addressed that long ago. I said that consent should be obtained before drunkiness.

But I really don't understand this authoritarian desire to slap two people with a crime for a sex act they engaged in with each other, involving nobody else, and where their level of consent was equal.

Nothing to do with authoritarianism. As I Said, we already apply this principle to other areas of life.

For example, if a kid who had a bunch of money (let's say 50000$) gave another kid all of his money... wouldn't we do something about it?

Speaking in that light, it's not about a lack of consent, but a lack of equal consent. If a gunman takes a man and a woman hostage, and for his own amusement forces them to have sex with each other under threat of death, should they both be charged with raping each other after the fact? Both consented under extreme coercion, after all.

Unless one charged the other, it would never go to court. If one charged the other, then yeah.. I would say they both should get a slap on the wrist (baring other evidence). Rape doesn't imply that there is just one victim.

A lot of people are so hung up on sex that when it comes up they start treating it completely different then all other areas of life.

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

At levels of mental retardation where consent can't be given, yeah, I consider all sex as being rape.

And we should consider your opinion beyond this, why?

[Jon Miller]

What is the definition of rape?

Sex without consent.

I don't see how this is difficult. I don't see how I am unreasonable. I don't see how my definition is not relevant.

JM

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
At levels of mental retardation where consent can't be given, yeah, I consider all sex as being rape.

And just what level would that be? How is it determined? Who gets to decide such a thing?

I already addressed that long ago. I said that consent should be obtained before drunkiness.

How much "drunkiness?" What blood alcohol level is the tipping point beyond which given consent is invalid?

Nothing to do with authoritarianism. As I Said, we already apply this principle to other areas of life.

For example, if a kid who had a bunch of money (let's say 50000$) gave another kid all of his money... wouldn't we do something about it?

Would we be charging either kid with a crime? Of course not, so it's a silly example. No crime is committed if a kid gives his money away, whether or not the other is forced to give it back.

It IS authoritarianism, because it's criminalizing something that needs not be criminalized.

Unless one charged the other, it would never go to court. If one charged the other, then yeah.. I would say they both should get a slap on the wrist (baring other evidence). Rape doesn't imply that there is just one victim.

I'm not aware of any case of rape where someone can be both the victim and perpetrator at the same time. That's why this is so ludicrous.

But this also contradicts your previous position wrt prostitutes. You made excuses for prostitutes that "have no choice" but to be prostitutes due to their situation in life, but here you're saying it would be OK to charge someone who was under threat of death.

And again, no sex crime--no matter how much you try and call it a "slap on the wrist"--will actually be treated as such, given what was mentioned earlier about offender registries and backgroun checks.

A lot of people are so hung up on sex that when it comes up they start treating it completely different then all other areas of life.

JM

You're the one who agrees with making sex between consenting adults a criminal act based on the reasons why they choose to have sex, not me. So this is just hypocrisy.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
What is the definition of rape?

Sex without consent.

I don't see how this is difficult. I don't see how I am unreasonable. I don't see how my definition is not relevant.

JM

Actually, it isn't.

According to findlaw:

The crime of rape (or "first-degree sexual assault" in some states) generally refers to non-consensual sexual intercourse that is committed by physical force, threat of injury, or other duress.

Statutory rape is of course covered under a different definition, but it's a narrow one as well.

But just having sex while hammered is not being under physical force, threat of injury or duress IF their level of ability to consent is equal.

Even using the word rape casually to refer to two really drunk people having sex seems rather cheap, to me, as it reduces the impact of the word.