‘Gray Rape’: A New Form of Date Rape?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
And just what level would that be? How is it determined? Who gets to decide such a thing?

When they are capable of making legal decisions for themselves? Basically, if they need a legal caretaker, then they aren't capable of giving consent.

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

A nice legal definition would be the driving limit, probably. The ethical definition is obvious though, it is when the person is no longer able to think rational.

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.

OK, then let's say the example where both injure the other?

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

It isn't authoritarianism because it is just being consistent in the application of ethics.

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.

Get off the focus on sex for one thing. When a kid uses drugs they are both the perpetrator and victim at the same time.

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.

How does it contradict my previous system? I think you are having a hard time getting past your preconseived notions.

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.

If we make it a slap on the wrist, it will be a slap on the wrist. We are talking about how we make the law here.

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.

You are the one who can't get past his views on sex to recognize that we are talking about whether someone can give consent about something to deal with their own body. We have said that the mentally ill, the insane/under influence, and children aren't able to give consent.

This includes marriage, contracts, sex, drugs, and all sorts of other things. You have this view on sex being some special case, somehow different from all other cases. It just doesn't make sense.

JM

[Gibsie]

I think characterising two drunk people having sex with each other as being "rape" is trivialising the issue, to be honest. So a husband and wife go out to a party, get wasted, and have sex with each other and you'd have them arrested? Or would you include a "husband cannot rape his wife" clause?

[Traianvs]

I've been raped a while back

By a girl I knew, and who had been eyeballing me for a long time. And who I had rejected. Face to face, multiple times.

One day, when celebrating the farewell of some erasmus students, she somehow managed to haul me off to her place. Luckily pretty much the only thing I remember is I was so drunk I needed the walls to navigate through the streets.

I was awfully pissed off, and I pretty much stopped being nice to her since then. It doesn't make me want to file a complaint though. Just live with it and continue with life I say. It's only bad if you remember it too well!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
When they are capable of making legal decisions for themselves? Basically, if they need a legal caretaker, then they aren't capable of giving consent.

You are prepared to sunder many relationships based on this definition.

A nice legal definition would be the driving limit, probably. The ethical definition is obvious though, it is when the person is no longer able to think rational.

The problem with the former is that it's ridiculously low for making consensual choices. If a person can be charged with a DUI based on their ability to choose to drive a car while intoxicated, then logically they are also able to choose to have sex. And the problem with the latter is that "rational" is a subjective term, and many people don't think rationally sober, particularly when it comes to sex.

OK, then let's say the example where both injure the other?

Are kids going to go to court over that? Or are they going to have permanent records as adults? I doubt it. But that's what people would get over this dumb "mutual rape" idea.

It isn't authoritarianism because it is just being consistent in the application of ethics.

Having internal consistency doesn't mean something isn't authoritarian.

Get off the focus on sex for one thing. When a kid uses drugs they are both the perpetrator and victim at the same time.

Are they, legally, considered a victim? No, because if they were, they could drop the charges against themselves.

But that is a good example of a stupid law, like what you propose. Nobody should be considered to be "perpetrating" a crime when it's an act they commit on themselves. And they CERTAINLY shouldn't be considered a victim.

How does it contradict my previous system? I think you are having a hard time getting past your preconseived notions.

You stated that prostitutes who were forced into their circumstances by means beyond their control were legally distinguishable from those who weren't, based on your willingness to charge their respective johns with the crime of rape. Yet in the hypothetical, you were treating two people under threat of death the same as you would some schmuck who date raped a drunk partner.

If we make it a slap on the wrist, it will be a slap on the wrist. We are talking about how we make the law here.

Permanent records, Jon. No matter how much a "slap" you make it, it will show up. So someone who has this "slap" goes to apply for a job, and the perspective employer sees a "RAPE" charge. No matter how he tries to explain it, there goes any shot he has of getting that job. Well done.

But even so... if it's going to be that much a slap on the wrist, why they **** should we bother? That's just a further example of why it's authoritarianism, because it's senselessly making a crime out of something that you're not planning to actually punish people for anyway. Why clog courts with this nonsense? Why subject people to the costs?

It's all the easier, with a better result, that such cases get dismissed anyway.

You are the one who can't get past his views on sex to recognize that we are talking about whether someone can give consent about something to deal with their own body. We have said that the mentally ill, the insane/under influence, and children aren't able to give consent.

As I said before and later, the issue is equal consent. The legal definition of rape as I cited refers to their being some level of force/coercion. If BOTH parties are at an equal level of being able to consent, there is no force or coercion. By definition, there would have to be an unequal consent level for that to be in play.

This includes marriage, contracts, sex, drugs, and all sorts of other things. You have this view on sex being some special case, somehow different from all other cases. It just doesn't make sense.

JM

If the consent levels are equal in those situations, there is no (or should be) no crime. Two underaged kids getting married? You charge their parents if they broke the law, but you don't charge the kids. That's exactly what happened in the Jim Jefford case. Contracts? If both parties agree to legally untenable contract terms, then the contract is null and void. We don't prosecute them both, do we?

It is you who are advocating a draconian solution for something that doesn't even require such a remedy, which just makes your position baffling.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Traianvs
I've been raped a while back

Under Jon's silly definitions, I've been raped too, since I've had some pretty drunk sex.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by 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.

If you don't want to accept the consequences of drinking, don't drink. Simple as that. I have zero sympathy for someone who agrees to anything while drunk and regrets it later. Unless you're drugged - and forced or unwitting intoxication counts as drugged - you have NO excuse, period.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Gibsie
I think characterising two drunk people having sex with each other as being "rape" is trivialising the issue, to be honest. So a husband and wife go out to a party, get wasted, and have sex with each other and you'd have them arrested? Or would you include a "husband cannot rape his wife" clause?

Prior consent, as already discussed many times.

JM

[Jon Miller]

You stated that prostitutes who were forced into their circumstances by means beyond their control were legally distinguishable from those who weren't, based on your willingness to charge their respective johns with the crime of rape. Yet in the hypothetical, you were treating two people under threat of death the same as you would some schmuck who date raped a drunk partner.

If one of them charged the other!

JM

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller

If one of them charged the other!

JM

And you still have the problem of equal consent, which you keep dodging. There is only one person to charge in that scenario, and that's the person responsible for the coercion. And that would be the gunman.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Jon Miller

When they are capable of making legal decisions for themselves? Basically, if they need a legal caretaker, then they aren't capable of giving consent.

So basically, adults who are mentally competent but for physical reasons or elderly age need a caretaker are to be denied their own private right to consent to having sex with someone else?

Married elderly couples, beware of the authoritarian ambitions of JM.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


And you still have the problem of equal consent, which you keep dodging. There is only one person to charge in that scenario, and that's the person responsible for the coercion. And that would be the gunman.

If neither of them charge the other, then it wouldn't go to court.

Just like the vast vast majority of 15 yearolds screwing now.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by MrFun




So basically, adults who are mentally competent but for physical reasons or elderly age need a caretaker are to be denied their own private right to consent to having sex with someone else?

Married elderly couples, beware of the authoritarian ambitions of JM.

Are you misreading me purposefully?

JM

[MrFun]

Then I guess you have qualifications or exceptions from your statement about people who need a caretaker.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Prior consent, as already discussed many times.

JM

Marriage, by itself, is NOT prior consent to sex. Basically, you've articulated a no rape in marriage clause.

If neither of them charge the other, then it wouldn't go to court.

It probably wouldn't go to court anyway, because they were both in equal circumstances. Ie, there is no such thing under the law as "gray rape" - it is something that some people want in there.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by MrFun
Then I guess you have qualifications or exceptions from your statement about people who need a caretaker.

Legal caretaker. As in someone is required to handle legal matters.

JM