‘Gray Rape’: A New Form of Date Rape?

[ColdPhoenix]

I wouldn't say that he's prudish following some of the comments I've seen him make in the past about porn.

That said, the idea that two drunken people having sex should be punished is over the top. Leaving aside the impracticality it's an invasion of privacy, an infringement of freedom and people should be responsible for what they do while drunk.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by 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'.

That actually my reasoning for how you come up with the insane ramblings on this issue that you have. The fact that you believe that's the counter argument indicates your lack of reading comprehension.

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.

So basically, they shouldn't ever be allowed to have sex? Ever. Without their partners being accused of rape?!

And you wonder why some have called you a Fascist here.

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.

I think a greater understanding of contract law would really help you out here.

Children CAN enter into contacts. However, if the contract is between a child and an adult, the child may not be liable for his end of the bargain. However, children cannot disaffirm contracts for necessities. A lot of cases involve those who are minors entering into contracts for buying a car.

Hell, when children go on television, who do you think signs those contracts? It is the parents AND the children!

When a mentally retarded person goes to work (and they do, btw), you don't think they sign contracts with their employer?

Also, you realize in contract law if you breach your contract, you are entitled to damages. So therefore, if we are "being consistent" and a woman agrees to sex before hand, but says no prior to it, the man should recieve a form of liquidated damages, right?

[Jon Miller]

Obviously there are different levels of mental retardation. I mean such that they aren't considered legally fit.

Would you quit going after strawmen? I didn't say that sex was a contract. I was saying that the decision to have sex is a decision... which means we should treat it as one like we do for other decisions (ie signing a contract).

It isn't like 'will have eat a peanut butter sandwich today'.

The fact that you haven't addressed me arguments (for the most part) and your replies have hinged on the 'lol, you are a prude' factor, is why your argument is that 'lol,
you are a prude'.

If people don't agree to have sex, then yeah, they shouldn't have sex. Seems pretty easy to me. And yeah, that includes people who are incapable of agreeing to have sex.

Children sign contracts with their parents. Obviously that isn't something we allow them to decide on their own. Similarly with sex, they can't decide on their own (and it is inappropriate for parents to decide with them).

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

Would you quit going after strawmen? I didn't say that sex was a contract. I was saying that the decision to have sex is a decision... which means we should treat it as one like we do for other decisions (ie signing a contract).

Backing away from your statements?

Yes, we should treat it the decision to have sex as we do for, say, signing a contract. Which is, minors are allowed to enter into them, but we are very wary when they enter into them with adults.

The fact that you haven't addressed me arguments

There is that reading comprehension again.

Your arguments have been dealt with over and over again, but you want to change goalposts in order to make it seem like they haven't been... its not going to work.

Basically your arguments make no sense and you resort to idiotic statements about mentally retarded people never being able to have sex in order to try to stay consistent.

If people don't agree to have sex, then yeah, they shouldn't have sex. Seems pretty easy to me. And yeah, that includes people who are incapable of agreeing to have sex.

So, once again, mentally retarded people should NEVER have sex?

Fascist.

Children sign contracts with their parents. Obviously that isn't something we allow them to decide on their own.

Wrong. Minors have been able to enter into contracts for work, for cars, without their parents all the time. My parents never had to sign off for me getting a part time job when I was under 18.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
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.

No, that's not my standard. I don't think being drunk is enough to remove consent, actually. You have to be so drunk that you really are unable to consent or not consent. That's pretty damn drunk--severely impaired motor skills, unable to stand up, etc. This was why I was asking JM for a blood alcohol level he thought was suitable to accuse rape, and I scoffed at the notion that it should be the same as the legal driving limit, which is absurdly low.

Regardless, the burden of proof would have to be on the woman to prove that she was too drunk to consent. Since the only witnesses would likely be the same ones who saw her invite herself over to your table and leave the bar with you under he own power, then I doubt that would be possible.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And you wonder why some have called you a Fascist here.

Hey, I never called JM a fascist. I said I felt what he was proposing was fascistic. There is a difference, just as there's a difference between calling someone stupid vs. calling one thing they say stupid.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
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.

I generally shy away from calling anything the "height" of insanity. Crazy people might take it as a challenge to come up with something worse.

[Chemical Ollie]

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Docfeelgood
o.... your but hole before prison.

O.... your but hole while in prison.

: O

[Fake Boris]

An excellent point has been made: if you drive or assault someone while drunk, you're still responsible for your actions. Why would we treat sex differently? Well the answer is obvious: some people (and it seems very prevalent in America) have an incredibly prudish and victorian conception of sex.

I would agree though that if you sleep with a passed out woman that couldn't talk or move, a case could be made that you've raped her. But a drunk woman who said yes and followed you somewhere? C'mon.

According to someone in this thread, there's a majority of rapists in society.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
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.

Addition to #4: if you've given prior consent, then it isn't rape. What an excellent new grey area: "Yes, your honour, although we were both very drunk at the time, and she was severely bruised down there and claims she wouldn't have slept with me on that particular night, she did say yes to me on many previous occasions, and indicated to me in a text message that she was horny. Thus I couldn't have raped her." (Or hell, what about a drunken threesome- does her husband get away with it while their male friend is arrested? Awesome!)

No no and no! Rape is not rape based on consent way prior to the event (or historical license) or because either or both parties was drunk. Rape is rape based solely on whether the parties consented to it at the time. If you can't know whether it was rape, I suppose you can use drunkeness to assume it was rape and charge both parties... but that's clearly foolish.

The one question that will sum up your entire position more clearly than any other response, Jon: if you ever got really hammered one time, and ended up sleeping with a really gorgeous girl (Which going by your posts here you would not consent to doing whilst sober), would you then seek to have her arrested for it if the law was how you are advocating here?

[Jon Miller]

Why do you need to say really gorgeous chick? (I Am assuming one I didn't know before hand, as there are cases I would be very eager to have sex with a gorgeous chick) My response would be the same if it was a man.

And it would probably be to be ashamed, which is the usual case for victims of rape.

Since they wouldn't consider it rape, it is likely I wouldn't prosecute.

JM

[Elok]

Is there some reason you can't just go after the brewer for raping both of you?

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Why do you need to say really gorgeous chick? (I Am assuming one I didn't know before hand, as there are cases I would be very eager to have sex with a gorgeous chick) My response would be the same if it was a man.

Just to indicate it's some woman who isn't doing this because she's disgusting and desperate, but just because you were out drinking in the same area, and you both thought it'd be a good idea to go home together at the time.

And it would probably be to be ashamed, which is the usual case for victims of rape.

So you would actually consider it to be rape? I hope that when you meet women in situatons where alcohol is involved, that you tell them not to try and funny business later on or they'll be raping you

I think there should be some kind of differentiation here, that has not yet been mentioned. To some extent alcohol merely removes inhibitions, and people do things they would be less likely to do whilst drunk- but still enjoy them and not regret them. I'm sure many of us have done silly things with others when we're drunk- without the need to put ourselves on the same level as a rape victim. (With too much alcohol it can go further than that of course and it would be rape if someone deceitfully got someone drunk to have their way with them.)

[Cort Haus]

wd to Imran, DD and others for double portions of sensible comment in the face of some illiberal nonsense here.

I didn't read every post, but did someone really suggest that the level of alcohol to equate with consent being meaningful be the same as the drink-driving limit? If so FFS get a grip whoever said that.

In a free society the principle of people being responsible for their actions is paramount. As soon as sex after a couple of drinks = rape, all hell breaks loose. Next - sex under the influence of romantic films, music or novels is rape, as the poor little shrinking violet was obviously not in possession of her faculties etc....