‘Gray Rape’: A New Form of Date Rape?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


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

JM

okay

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


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

I didn't suggest it was. I haven't articulated a no rape in marriage clause. However, if there was an understanding 'we will get drunk and have sex', that is another matter. Marriage or no marriage.

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.

I am not suggesting there is a 'grey rape'. I am saying that the non-violent versions of rape that exists now... like statutory rape, also would apply to these drunk situations. If you want to say that two kids can't statutory rape each other, and that drunk people can't salutatory rape each other, fine. I disagree but fine.

Basically, I am pointing out that it is obvious that the reasons behind statutory rape exists are the same reasons why it is wrong to get a girl drunk and have your way with her. Both these are different the forcibly raping someone who can give consent.

I agree that these are different things. I have tried to point out 'mild' that might not be the best way of expressing it. Maybe just saying that it is statutory rape... just like having sex with a young teen?

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I didn't suggest it was. I haven't articulated a no rape in marriage clause. However, if there was an understanding 'we will get drunk and have sex', that is another matter. Marriage or no marriage.

Do you usually have these conversations before going out with your partner? Or is it just usually assumed that if you both go out and get drunk that sex may be something that happens and that's ok?

I am not suggesting there is a 'grey rape'. I am saying that the non-violent versions of rape that exists now... like statutory rape, also would apply to these drunk situations. If you want to say that two kids can't statutory rape each other, and that drunk people can't salutatory rape each other, fine. I disagree but fine.

That's kind of why they are suggesting a 'gray rape'. That's kinda the WHOLE POINT of the argument encapsulated in the OP! That non-violent versions of rape do NOT apply to mutual drunk situations... mostly because society realizes that it is stupid.

Basically, I am pointing out that it is obvious that the reasons behind statutory rape exists are the same reasons why it is wrong to get a girl drunk and have your way with her. Both these are different the forcibly raping someone who can give consent.

Getting girl drunk so you can have your way with her =/= both parties getting drunk and finding their way in bed.

I agree that these are different things. I have tried to point out 'mild' that might not be the best way of expressing it. Maybe just saying that it is statutory rape... just like having sex with a young teen?

So if two 12 year olds were having sex, you'd charge them both? Most of us consider that to be the height of insanity.

[Jon Miller]

IF one is accused of stat. rape, then both would be (Baring other circumstances), yes.

And if you and your partner have the understanding that sex might occur after the night of drinking, then maybe you don't need explicit consent. I would still get it though, just to make sure we are on the same page (that there is no miscommunication).

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
IF one is accused of stat. rape, then both would be (Baring other circumstances), yes.

Why? What's the point? What does such a law actually serve to do?

Statutory rape laws are in place to prevent adults from taking advantage of minors, due to the fact that adults are more easily able to coerce minors due to greater experience (to preempt Ozzy, Ageism!).

If one cannot consent at a certain age, then one is also not capable of having a criminal intention at that age. Unless you wish to toss the whole concept of intent out of the criminal justice system to punish those evil 12 year olds who are having sex.

It seems you are just interested in punishing people because they are engaging in dirty sex before the age you've determined they should be able to and not for any reasons of coercion.

And if you and your partner have the understanding that sex might occur after the night of drinking, then maybe you don't need explicit consent. I would still get it though, just to make sure we are on the same page (that there is no miscommunication).

Like something in writing? Does it need to be documented by tape recorder?

I'd think that getting drunk and making out seems indicate implicit consent for sexual relations in the absence of one of the parties saying no later.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
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

But the question here is what if that DOES happen?

Why do you keep ignoring the issue of equal consent?

With equal consent, there can be no force, coercion or duress. Without any of those, there is no crime.

[Boris Godunov]

[SIZE=1]
Basically, I am pointing out that it is obvious that the reasons behind statutory rape exists are the same reasons why it is wrong to get a girl drunk and have your way with her. Both these are different the forcibly raping someone who can give consent.

We're not talking about a situation where someone gets another person drunk but remains sober enough to be taking advantage of the person. That ISN'T gray rape, that's just plain old rape. Because their consent level is unequal, the sex is forcible.

The issue is situations where both participants are at equal consent levels--both adults unable to consent, according to your definition based on intoxication. In that case, you're saying there's still a crime and both people could face charges. What I'm saying is, there is NO crime, because there was equal consent levels, and therefore no force/coercion, which is a NECESSARY part of declaring adult sex rape.

Statutory rape statutes are specialized, narrow ones designed to protect a particular demographic and not apply to the general population. So they aren't really relevant to adult rape statutes, which make no distinction based on demographic.

[Theben]

Read pages 1,2, and 4 partly so someone may have mentioned this already, but I feel part of the problem is the social pressure on young men to 'score'. That is, the power young men seek isn't over the women, it's over other men, to move to a higher social status amongst hs peers (aka the 'scorecard' ). To this end women don't even need to be acknowledged as people... they are 'resources' to be utilized and the way for men to access that resource is thru sex. To combat this we need new ways of addressing how young men view themselves.

The other thing to note is most of this 'grey rape' is involving alcohol and/or drugs. So perhaps the immediate solution is to make having sex with people over a certain blood alcohol level equal to lack of consent, and if you choose to pursue sex you better be sure they aren't gonna charge you afterwards. Of course this doesn't solve the issue if both are drunk and would be hard to prove after the fact, but it's something.

Sorry to "BBC" this "post" so much.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
We're not talking about a situation where someone gets another person drunk but remains sober enough to be taking advantage of the person. That ISN'T gray rape, that's just plain old rape. Because their consent level is unequal, the sex is forcible.

If the person getting drunk is doing so of free-will and they are an adult how is it forcible. Isn't the adult that is voluntarily getting drunk presumed to be old enough to drink alcohol and accepts the consequences of their adult behavior?

Not that this is going to happen since I am a married man now, but, according to your standard the following would be rape.

On my way home from work I stop at the bar and get a cheeseburger. A beautiful woman sits down at my table. She must have been drinking or she wouldn't come and sit at my table LOL. She says she thinks I am sexy and asks me to buy her a drink. I have to get up early in the morning so I am just having soda water but offer to buy her whatever drinks or food she may want. She has a few more drinks as the night passes. We talk, we laugh, we dance, we hit it off great. She invites me home for a little hanky panky. In the morning she is hungover as hell, doesn't quite remember the entire evening, doesn't really like my looks and wished she had never invited me home.

By your standard I raped her.

I think not. An adult that drinks voluntarily has no one to blame but themselves for the their actions while drunk. As I said earlier, if drinking and remorse were an excuse for bad behavior there would never be a drunk driving arrest.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Theben

The other thing to note is most of this 'grey rape' is involving alcohol and/or drugs. So perhaps the immediate solution is to make having sex with people over a certain blood alcohol level equal to lack of consent, and if you choose to pursue sex you better be sure they aren't gonna charge you afterwards.

This thread is getting ridiculous. Are you seriously suggesting the only way you can feel safe if a woman wants to blow you is if you make her blow into a breathalyzer first.

So much for romance. "It's Valentine's Day and I want our first date to be something special. Let's have a candlelight dinner with a fine bottle of red wine and for dessert a blood test. I'll bring the syringe and Blood Alcohol Content analysis kit. "

God I am glad people like you aren't in charge.

[ColdPhoenix]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Do you usually have these conversations before going out with your partner? Or is it just usually assumed that if you both go out and get drunk that sex may be something that happens and that's ok?

If you're having consensual sex regularly with your wife or gf then you'll have implied consent while drunk. No need for prior discussion. Until surprisingly recently a husband always had implied consent with his wife but that has now thankfully changed.

Beyond that, if you don't know and trust the girl then these days there'll always be a (small) risk attached to the classic drunken hump.

All of the above relates to UK law but I don't imagine the US is too different.

[Az]

let's make it simple:

By these draconian rules some people are implying should be the norm, here - is there anyone who hasn't committed rape? is there anyone who wasn't raped?

Theben's point about the scorecard notwithstanding, men probably do feel a need to have meaningless sex more often. HOWEVER, the fact that this occurs more often shouldn't be a reason for various individuals to be hunted down for somewhat silly and reckless behavior. Each wide gray area wrt the law is just another hit against the rule of law, and meaningless legislation which won't be enforced is the worst. Let us not go there.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Why? What's the point? What does such a law actually serve to do?

Statutory rape laws are in place to prevent adults from taking advantage of minors, due to the fact that adults are more easily able to coerce minors due to greater experience (to preempt Ozzy, Ageism!).

If one cannot consent at a certain age, then one is also not capable of having a criminal intention at that age. Unless you wish to toss the whole concept of intent out of the criminal justice system to punish those evil 12 year olds who are having sex.

It seems you are just interested in punishing people because they are engaging in dirty sex before the age you've determined they should be able to and not for any reasons of coercion.



Like something in writing? Does it need to be documented by tape recorder?

I'd think that getting drunk and making out seems indicate implicit consent for sexual relations in the absence of one of the parties saying no later.

Will you get off your ridiculous 'you must be some unreasonable prudish person because you wish to restrict sex' nonsense.

Do you need to obtain something in writing for non-drunken sex? Quit being stupid.

Quit associating me with someone who thinks that sex is dirty/etc.

I have set up a clear line of reasoning. To reiterate, the line is this:

1. In all of life, including with sex but other areas as well, we limit what some members can do.
2. Why we do this is because those members can't understand the consequences/don't have the experience needed/etc. The child can not give consent to the contract. The mentally retarded can not give consent to the contract.
3. Alcohol (And other drugs) also can make it so that someone can't understand the consequences/etc and so they can't consent. Any of you who have been really drunk should know this.
4. There, like in contracts, in sex people who are out of their mind (the very drunk/under influences of drugs/insane) are not capable of giving consent.

And saying 'lol, you are a prude' is not a counter argument.

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Will you get off your ridiculous 'you must be some unreasonable prudish person because you wish to restrict sex' nonsense.

Well I do find you to be an unreasonable prudish person.

Do you need to obtain something in writing for non-drunken sex? Quit being stupid.

That's the logical implication of your statement.

I have set up a clear line of reasoning. To reiterate, the line is this:

1. In all of life, including with sex but other areas as well, we limit what some members can do.
2. Why we do this is because those members can't understand the consequences/don't have the experience needed/etc. The child can not give consent to the contract. The mentally retarded can not give consent to the contract.
3. Alcohol (And other drugs) also can make it so that someone can't understand the consequences/etc and so they can't consent. Any of you who have been really drunk should know this.
4. There, like in contracts, in sex people who are out of their mind (the very drunk/under influences of drugs/insane) are not capable of giving consent.

I think your #2 doesn't flow from your #1. We limit what some members can do so they aren't TAKEN ADVANTAGE by others. A dimished capacity leads people to be easily influenced by others who have a greater capacity and that's what is to be avoided.

Restricting voluntary activities (sex, alcohol) between people of equal cognitive abilities because you don't think people can handle it is incredibly paternalistic and, yes, prude. The only rational reason for laws dealing with age of consent is to prevent coercion based on varying levels of experience.

If both people are drinking, then BOTH have a dimished capacity and no one can reasonably be assumed to have taken advantage of the other.

And saying 'lol, you are a prude' is not a counter argument.

The fact that you actually think that's the argument speaks incredibly low of you, btw.

The argument is that your reasons for charging two 12 year olds for statutory rape for having sex with each other holds no water. The fact that your argument says the mentally retarded people are raped EVERY TIME they have sex should show how utterly insane your argument is.

The only conclusion I can come to is that your beliefs come from a prudish view on life.

[Jon Miller]

How is referring to 'dirty sex between 12 year olds' and your continued unreasonable representations of my points to be interpreted any other way?

As you yourself said, you see me as an unreasonable prude. So yeah, your counter argument is based on 'lol, you are a prude'.

How in the world should mentally retarded people, people who can't sign a contract because they don't have the brains, have the ability to agree to sex? That is just stupid. It is entirely inconsistent.

All I am doing is starting from a consistency of other areas of life. Like contracts.

We limit contracts between 12 yearolds. Why? Because they can't give consent. #2 does follow from #1, in every non-sexual case and in many states for sex as well.

If the mentally retarded person can't sign a contract, then they aren't mentally capable of agreeing to have sex.

JM