Wall Street Journal thinks that rape is not a crime or that women are criminals for being raped.

[riqster]

http://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2014/02/12/wall-street-journal-rape-is-not-a-crime-or-women-are-criminals-for-being-raped/

"Christ on a fruitcake, really? Yes, really. Those are the only logical meanings one can draw from their writer, one James Taranto. According to a recent editorial, if a woman has had a drink or two, she is equally “at fault” for being raped.

You see, to Mr. Taranto, rape isn’t the fault of the rapist. He compares rape to an accident involving two drunken drivers: two people committing equally criminal acts. And this shows what a misogynistic f***wit he is.

Rape is a violent crime, with a perpetrator and a victim. It is not a crime committed by two criminals (like his flawed drunken driving analogy): in the case of rape, the rapist assaults the victim, who either does not consent or is not capable of consenting. The victim is not, repeat NOT committing a criminal act. Having a drink is not a crime.

Mark this well: if someone cannot legally consent, the answer is no. That is common law, understood for business dealings, elections, and other interactions: drunk people cannot legally enter into so much as a car loan or a poker game. And if you steal a drunk’s wallet, you are still a thief. If you break into a drunk’s house and beat the s*** out of them, you are still assaulting them.

But if you rape a drunk, that is somehow different, according to this guy.

Apparently, he does not think sexual assault is a crime. Shoot a drunk, beat a drunk, those are crimes, but if a penis is involved in a violent crime, then it’s somehow OK, right?

Wrong. Just ask the two scumbuckets from Steubenville who are doing time for raping a drunk girl. Ask anyone busted for drugging a girl and then raping her. These. Are. Crimes. Using a penis as a weapon does not excuse the criminal. Getting her drunk first doesn’t either.

The Wall Street Journal apparently thinks otherwise. And hey, a dick wrote that editorial, and bunch of dicks decided to print it, so maybe they are all thinking with the wrong head. But only a person who thinks solely with his dick would say that rape is not a crime. "

Source info at the link.

[oldhippie]

1. Misleading headline .....

The quotes in the headline imply someone actually said that. They didn't. They are the conclusions of some blogger.

The point may be valid, but the headline is a FAIL.

[riqster]

4. Fair point. Fixed.

Thanks!

[CurtEastPoint]

2. Read up on this asshole Taranto....

He pursued a degree in journalism at California State University, Northridge (CSUN) but "never bothered to graduate" after "conflict with teachers and professors"

Translates as: he was a jerk who couldn't get along with anyone.

[jsr]

3. He couldn't get a degree from California State University, Northridge. LOL.

[CurtEastPoint]

8. I take it's not like Stanford, eh?

[alp227]

9. Ana Kasparian (The Young Turks) graduated from there

With both bachelor and master degrees. Also teaches a TV journalism class there. A little off topic but interesting fact.

[Blue_Tires]

29. Translates as: He thought he was 'above' doing corsework

or had other priorities like parties, Greek life, etc. and was pissed off when he found out he couldn't successfully beg every professor for an unearned passing grade at the end of the semester...

I work at a university now, and 99.9997% of "conflicts with professors" boil down to some variation of the above statement...

[Xyzse]

36. Nah, basically it means he is a failure that can't make the grades any way.

Actually, WTF happened to WSJ? They used to at least have some level of credibility.

Oh, yeah, they got snapped up by the Murdock...
Damn.

[Enthusiast]

86. You mean he's a typical Republican?

[seabeyond]

5. the headline is absolutely appropriate. firstly... it is what is within the text. so,

whether a reader agrees with the conclusion or not, it is still appropriate per the article. *edit to add, i see you just grab headline as is, as it should be. gotcha.

and secondly, .... i agree that is what was being said by taranto and do not see how anyone can infer anything differently.

right on

has the dude gotten in any trouble or any repercussions for this article? anyone know?

[Nye Bevan]

6. Here is what the article *actually* said:

Which points to a limitation of the drunk-driving analogy. If two drunk drivers are in a collision, one doesn't determine fault on the basis of demographic details such as each driver's sex. But when two drunken college students "collide," the male one is almost always presumed to be at fault. His diminished capacity owing to alcohol is not a mitigating factor, but her diminished capacity is an aggravating factor for him.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304558804579374844067975558

If an intoxicated man has sex with an intoxicated woman, is it reasonable to automatically conclude that the man, but not the woman, is guilty of rape?

[riqster]

7. He left the critical bit out: consent.

Rape is NOT "having sex".

[joeglow3]

11. Sure it is, when alcohol is involved

By virtue of the fact that someone cannot give consent while drunk. Thus, the original question is still valid. If both parties are drunk and incapable of giving consent, how do you determine who was raped?

[riqster]

16. What a load of misogynistic twaddle.

Having sex while drunk is not a crime.

Raping a drunk while drunk is a crime.

And once again, rape is not sex.

Get that through your head.

[joeglow3]

18. So, you believe consent CAN be given while drunk?

edit to add: your link makes the claim that there are situations where consent cannot be given. That very clearly appears to be the situation that the original op/ed was referring to. Thus, if you believe there is not a situation where two conscious, drunk perople canNOT give consent, then the entire link you provide is invalid.

[riqster]

25. There are situations where consent cannot be given.

Statutory rape is one. Being unconscious is another. And being so drunk that one cannot verbalize an objection is another.

"Drunk" is a state with many degrees, and not a binary condition.

[joeglow3]

28. The op/ed seemed to be based on a premise separate from your view

Many people believe being drunk makes any consent received invalid. Given that mindset, it leads to an interesting discussion of who the victim is when both parties are drunk. My reading of the original op/ed seemed to be discussing this. Under that set of assumptions, I believe it is a completely valid discussion and does NOT mean someone thinks women who are raped need to share in the fault.

Now, I have no problem with what I believe to be your view on the matter of consent. However, I think it is unfair for the author of this piece (who appears to have a view regarding consent that is similar to yours) to apply his/her view on consent to the WSJ's piece without understanding the viewpoint of THAT author regarding their view on consent. In short, it appears to be faux outrage story and shows extremely poor journalisitic ethics that take a backseat to the author's desire to drive foot traffic. Sadly, in the internet age, that has become the norm.

[riqster]

33. You are missing a central point of the OP.

The WSJ author attempted to concatenate criminal and legal behavior by comparing having sex while drunk (not a crime) with drunken driving ( a crime).

In the case of the driving scenario, yes, both drivers would be at fault, since they were both committing a crime.

In the case if a drunken rape, the rapist is the criminal and thus at fault. The victim is not at fault, having committed no crime.

That is the central point of the OP. The fuzzier matters of "how drunk" and the like are interesting but not central to the post.

[joeglow3]

43. No, I am not missing a central point

To many people, ANY sex while drunk is a crime, as consent cannot be given. Thus, he is comparing a crime with a crime. Your position is that no view other than yours regarding consent while drunk exists, let alone is valid. So, AGAIN, to someone with a view that consent CANNOT be given while drunk, his point is completely valid. He is NOT talking to someone with your point of view.

[passiveporcupine]

64. I believe your argument needs back up

You say "To many people, ANY sex while drunk is a crime, as consent cannot be given."

Can you show some data that supports this argument?

[joeglow3]

73. Look in this very thread

There are a number of people making that argument.

[passiveporcupine]

100. Then the word "drunk" is being misused by a lot of people here

I think it would be better to use the phrase "diminished capacity", which means no consent can be given.

[Orrex]

46. Of course, a person *can* still enter into legally binding contracts while drunk

Provided the other party or parties isn't aware that the drunk person is drunk.

So, if both parties are drunk to the point that they can't tell that the other person is drunk, then who is at fault?

[noiretextatique]

30. do you?

Do you really believe consent can be given while drunk? Congratulations: welcome to the mind of a rapist.

[7962]

38. I believe his point is that BOTH are drunk and consenting at the time.

If both parties are drunk and the man doesnt force himself on the woman, how can she claim rape the following day when she realizes what happened? Now, if the male is sober thats a whole different story. Then he's taking advantage of her.
Personally, I cannot drink enough to get to the point that I dont know what I'm doing. I'll get sick first. But I have friends who can; Ive seen them, both male and female. And not remember a thing the next day.

[noiretextatique]

42. let me clarify

A drunk is too impaired to give consent...period. if every drunk female claimed drunk sex was rape AND every accused rapist was prosecuted, perhaps there would be an issue. However, as a mature person, what I grasp is this: do not have sex with people who cannot consent.

[joeglow3]

44. You failed to address the point

Is a drunk female having sex with a drunk male guilty of raping the male?

[noiretextatique]

48. yes

So now your silly game can end. Two drunken idiots who cannot consent but do are equally capable.

[joeglow3]

49. And THAT was the point of the WSJ op/ed

Thus, the linked article above is faux outrage in an attempt to drum up web traffic. Of course, looking at that blogger's past makes this type of behavior par for the course.

[noiretextatique]

52. the point was to excuse poor decision-making

I was drunk, she was drunk. Neither can give consent = bad idea. Of course this scenario has nothing to do with someone who an asshole who stalks and murders a woman he does not know. I think THAT is the only point of the article.

[Orrex]

51. It's not quite that cut and dried

From Nolo

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.(emphasis mine)

Unless that boldfaced part is true in a given case, then a drunk person can generally enter into a contract (i.e., give consent). Obviously it's still morally reprehensible to take advantage of a person whose capacity is diminished by drugs or alcohol, but legally that diminished state doesn't negate a contract (i.e., does not automatically void consent).

It is untenable to "welcome" someone "to the mind of a rapist" simply for accepting the legally-recognized ability to enter into contract.

[noiretextatique]

56. life experience is more realistic than legal screeds

It is much easier to not fuck drunk people than to know the exact text of laws, wouldn't you agree?

[riqster]

57. Oh hellz yeah.

37 years in the music business taught me that one. Watching drunks hook up. Eedjits.

[Orrex]

60. Easier? Maybe. Better? Not necessarily.

If the matter goes to court, then it's better to know in advance if you're going to be considered legally able to consent, wouldn't you agree?

It is much easier to not fuck drunk people than to know the exact text of laws, wouldn't you agree?

It's much easier not to fuck when either party is drunk, wouldn't you agree?

[Rex]

68. "It's much easier not to fuck when either party is drunk, wouldn't you agree?"

Agree 100%.

[Squinch]

76. Entering the body of someone who is not able to give consent is rape. You seriously don't get this?

[joeglow3]

80. So, my passed out friend is a rapist?

He passed out after a party in college. We let him sleep where he was, in his study room and checked on him periodically. When some went to check on him, his drunk date had removed his clothes and hers and was in the process with “entering” him into her body. Under your logic, he raped her, since they were both drunk and she cannot consent.

However, based on your curt, arrogant response, either you are too cocky to have an honest discussion with or you are willfully making irrational statements.

[Squinch]

81. Oh, dear God. You call this an honest discussion? Seriously?

How many times do you need to have the same question answered?

He's passed out. He can't consent. She is the one acting.

You seem to be hell bent to have someone say that your friend committed rape so you can say, "Aha! Look at all this double standard! The poor men are all being falsely accused!"

This isn't an honest discussion, and I suspect you know that.

[joeglow3]

88. I was hoping you would say that

Now, pretend we are on a spectrum and the (female) date has a constant level of drunkedness. At the far end, is the scenario I laid out. On the opposite end, lets pretend my friend is stone cold sober. We can both agree that if he was sober and she was drunk, she cannot consent and is a victim. Under the scenario that I laid out, we agree my friend was the victim.

At what point on the spectrum does the victim change from my friend (at the point he was passed out) to the female (at the end where he was sober).

What if this happened five minutes before he passed out and was willing. Under your aforementioned logic, since they are both conscious and he is "entering" her, she is by default a victim. If that is not your position, please clarify it.

[Squinch]

91. Oh, get a grip. Clearly you think you are diabolically clever. And yet you are simply making

exactly the moronic argument I described.

What you don't seem to understand is that most people have no trouble recognizing when a rape happens, and essentially what you are doing here is saying, "all those wimmens are falsely accusing the poor drunk men who have sex with them while they can't consent. Really, its the poor men being raped!"

It isn't confusing. It isn't a "fine line." And if you and your friends are really so incapable of discerning when rape begins when alcohol is involved, I suggest you avoid alcohol altogether.

This parsing of the definition of rape is absurd, and belittling to the victims, both male and female. Again, there is no fine line between consensual sex and rape. If you think there is, you need to educate yourself.

Now, your next post will say, "Gotcha, you didn't answer my question of exactly where does sex end and rape begin." If that is your response, then you clearly have very little understanding of what rape is.

[joeglow3]

102. And yet, you didn't define where the fine line is

This reminds me of "I can't define porn, but I know it when I see it." Problem is, that didnt hold up in a legal setting then and what you have laid out here doesn't either.

[Squinch]

103. Because there is no fine line and the suggestion that there is is disgusting. As is this

conversation. Given that you don't seem to be able to grasp the concept that the distinction between sex and rape is not a matter of splitting hairs, I don't really give a crap what you think holds up.

[gollygee]

106. The thing is

that the idea that people can't tell the difference between rape and sex is scary. If the other person wants it, and is able to express that in some way, it's sex. If the other person doesn't want it or is unable to show or communicate that he/she wants it, it is rape. Surely you can tell if someone wants sex?

[bettyellen]

124. no- he has made it quite obvious that he can't tell the difference between rape and sex

he keeps asking badgering questions about it, but perhaps should seek answers from a professional.

[redqueen]

127. It is frightening as hell.

The feigned confusion is stomach-churning and it's sad but not surprising that spewing such RW bullshit is tolerated here.

[cui bono]

110. The aggressor is the rapist. How can you seriously post that question???

[joeglow3]

112. How do you determine who the aggressor is?

My question is to those who say no one who is drunk can give consent? If two drunk people willingly have sex and you believe a drunk person cannot give consent, how do you determine who the aggressor is?

[AtheistCrusader]

34. But, who raped who?

That was the poster's question.

If BOTH parties are equally incapacitated in the consent department, AND they engage in intercourse, who violated which non-consenting party?


Edit: I see you clarified your position downthread. Consider this answered. But this thread fork is likely predicated on a miscommunication, as the other poster pursuing it is asking you to clarify that specific position.

[alp227]

12. Depends who took advantage of whom.

Usually the male, unfortunately.

[Nye Bevan]

22. Imagine that a male and a female college student get drunk together.

Later that night they pass out on a bed. The woman wakes up at some point and performs a sexual act upon the man, who is still passed out. She goes back to sleep, and later on the man wakes up and performs a sexual act on her. The next morning, both of them regret what happened as neither of them really wanted to have sex, and each feels that the other took advantage of their intoxicated state.

In this scenario, are both the man and the woman guilty of rape? Or just the man? Or neither?

[OnlinePoker]

53. Both

There was no ability for either to consent when they are passed out.

[bettyellen]

59. Not sure why you would think molesting an unconcious person is possibly okay, ever? It never is.

Last edited Wed Feb 12, 2014, 04:44 PM - Edit history (1)

Kind of disturbing to think anyone here thinks this is up for debate.

And we hear all the time that people understand rape laws- apparently not. ducate yourself, please!

[Squinch]

78. Lot's of people jumping on the bandwagon of that argument. Very scary.

[cinnabonbon]

61. Unfortunately so.

We live in a society where men get a thumbs up for having a lot of conquests, so perhaps it's no surprise that certain gentlemen go for the incapacitated girls in order to feel more like a man. Women doesn't do it quite so often, because we're told to stay pure and to protect our virginity/purity/decency as if it's something that can be stolen from us. It's really messed up, when you think about it.

[BKH70041]

77. Yeah, I tend to read what the person actually wrote.

I find it more enlightening than how some summarize what they think they read. This OP's summary isn't even the 900 quintillionth cousin to what the WSJ writer said.

I swear, I have never had more times when I've read comments on what someone else wrote only to wonder how in the world they determined that's what the person was saying as I have at this site. There needs to be a Reading Comprehension Group with forced participation of a whole bunch of members here.

[Stonepounder]

10. Slight correction to your epic rant.

I couldn't agree with you more the guy is a total jerk. But the problem is way bigger than just one idiot writing in the WSJ. It is the pervasive attitude that, somehow, rape isn't 'really' a crime. It is a widespread cultural attitude - if a guy has many 'conquests' he's a stud, a 'cock master', etc. If a woman has multiple sexual partners she's a 'slut', a 'whore', 'easy', etc. Insurance companies have absolutely no problem covering Viagra and the like, and drug stores have big displays of condoms. But look at the hoo-rah about covering any form of birth control for women.

And the slight correction to your OP. You said 'Just ask the two scumbuckets from Stubenville who are doing time'. Believe it or not, one of the two has already been released, after serving less than half his 2 year sentence. Upon his release, his family issues a statement, requesting privacy. Of course they made no mention of the victim and no apology.

So, you get an underage girl drunk, drag her around from one party to another, rape her, and take pictures you share all over, you are just a good old boy, and when you finally get caught, you get 10 months. If you give some weed to a buddy and ask for a couple of bucks to cover the cost and the buddy turns out to be a narc, you get convicted of dealing and sentenced to 20-life.

Tell me this country isn't fucked up.

[joeglow3]

14. Answer me a couple questions

A male friend of mine was petrified of getting a girl pregnant while in college, as it would throw off his plans. Thus, he vary rarely had sex while there. One night, at a frat party, he passed out drunk in his study room. A few friends walked in to find his date had taken off his clothes and was climbing on top of him. Would that have been rape if our friends hadn't interrupted her?

What is she was drunk, just not passed out like he was. Would she have still be raping him?

What if they were both shit-faced, but neither was passed out and they had sex? How do you determine who raped who?

[riqster]

19. Rape is having sex with someone who does not or cannot consent.

Stop trying to cloud the issue.

And yes, if a woman rapes a man, it's a crime. Just like if a man rapes a woman, a man rapes another male, or a woman rapes another female.

Rape is rape. It is NOT sex.

[joeglow3]

21. Define "cannot consent"

Can someone who is drunk consent to having sex?

[riqster]

26. See post 25.

[noiretextatique]

32. Yes...

Someone who is drunk cannot make informed decisions would you allow that person you would fuck to drive you home? If so, you need to use your other brain.

[noiretextatique]

37. Yes again

Apparently you have been drunk. Do you think you are in a position to give consent when you are drunk? Works the same way with people you want to fuck.

[joeglow3]

45. You keep responding to the wrong person

I agree you regarding consent. The person I have been responding to disagrees with your view.

[tableturner]

31. Need clarification....

A man and a woman go out on a date. Both get very drunk. They then go to one of their homes, start kissing, then they both participate in petting, then they take their clothes off, then the mutual petting escalates to the point where both perform orally upon the other. Up to this point, is the man guilty of sexual assault because of the mutual oral activity, is the woman guilty of sexual assault because of the mutual oral activity, are both guilty of sexual assault in this circumstance, or are neither guilty of sexual assault?

Then a man inserts his penis into the woman who had just performed orally upon him while he was performing orally upon her. Is that rape by the man? Is the man more responsible than the woman for the fact that they are having intercourse, and if so, why? If the man is guilty, but not the woman, is that because he did the inserting?

If you say that the man in the above situation is guilty of raping the woman because he did the inserting, what if the woman takes the man's penis and inserts it into herself? Is the man guilty of rape, is the woman guilty, are both guilty, or is nobody guilty of rape?

Does the answer to the question center around who physically takes the penis and does the actual inserting? If so, then when the man does the actual inserting, does the fact that a few moments before, the woman was orally performing upon the man absolve the man of his possible guilt? Also, under this scenario, how would it be determined who did the actual inserting?

Also, in a recent thread somebody posited that the man was guilty when both were drunk because the man was the "giver", while the woman was the "receiver". In this person's opinion, the physiological difference (the man has the "projectile", while the woman has the opposite) made the man guilty of rape. Would it be fair for the man to be guilty because he is the one with the "projectile", in other words, is he guilty, while she is not, simply due to the physiological differences?

Please.....I hope for a reasoned discussion that is based on ALL of the circumstances noted above, not just the ones somebody may cherry pick.

[noiretextatique]

39. easy...do not rape

You know when you cross the line, do not do it. You can make a choice.

[joeglow3]

47. You didn't answer the questions

But, i think you know that and responded the way you did on purpose.

[noiretextatique]

50. i did...if you are an adult

Like I am, then you may encounter situations that require principled decisions. I do not have sex with drunk people...period. so I do not fret about false or drunken accusations. Try it! It will ease your troubled mind.

[joeglow3]

58. Your decision to now attack my maturity because of a philisophical discussion also speaks volumes

Your very mindset is why we need tenure at schools. People create a philisophical discussion that others don't like and they attack the personally.

[Recursion]

115. But that's precisely how you are being immature: trying to reduce a complex and painful situation

to a thought experiment.

Yes, our mores and laws about sex are the product of centuries of prejudices and -ism's that we don't like. Yes, there is an assumption built in to our culture that a man "wants sex" while a woman "doesn't", which adds some difficult edge cases to an already difficult problem (yes, we probably should figure out what to do in a situation where two people are both too drunk to consent and both feel victimized afterwards -- let me know when one of those cases makes its way into a court).

But you're insisting, insisting, that your "philosophical questions" be answered before any attempt at stopping the arterial bleed that we actually know is happening right now, namely the sexual assault of women by men facilitated by alcohol.

As I said downthread, when 1 in 4 -- or even 1 in 400 -- college-age men express the fears of sexual assault that college-age women do, I'll be right there with you. Until then, maybe the philosophical musings are better kept to a different thread. This is a writer in a national newspaper who is blaming women who got drunk for the fact that they got raped. And this is in the historical context of that exact line being used to silence rape victims for decades now.

You can make philosophical arguments in a vacuum. That's why they're seductive and, ultimately, why they tend not to work. You can't make a policy or ethics argument (I suppose this is "ethics" in the literal sense; "about human activities and practices&quot in a vacuum. Taranto is making the same argument that was used for years and years and years to keep women from seeking justice for rape.

Let me put it this way: let's say someone talking about the current voting-rights restrictions in North Carolina makes an argument based on the principle of States' Rights. It's quite possibly a thoughtful argument, and it may even have merit, but it's still the exact argument Bull Connor made, and no amount of gymnastics on anyone's part can get around that. Ideas have histories, and we do well to remember that, and the history of Taranto's idea is very, very dark.

Does he have a right to make that argument? Sure. Is it a good idea? I'm going to go with no. If you can't find a way to express your idea that doesn't hurt people, you should probably re-examine your idea.

[bettyellen]

126. it's not a philosphical arguement at all- it is about being incapciateted, which has a legal

definition. You'd think if you cared about the issue, you might find out the basics yourself instead of making up ridiculous scenarios where no one can ever guess how incapacitated people are. You know it crucially matters, yet omit it from your little puzzles. What a fucking waste of time.

Philosophical? Don't flatter yourself.

[tableturner]

55. Please...

Please....do not answer a question, the point of which is in effect to try to define under particular circumstances whether rape occurred, with "Do not rape". Yes...do not rape. But again, the questions were designed to ferret out which if any of the circumstances are in fact rape. So really, you did not answer my questions.

[riqster]

41. If either partner goes beyond what has been explicitly consented to, they are in the wrong.

[Nye Bevan]

54. So it is possible for both the man and the woman to be guilty of rape for the same incident, right?

If nobody has "explicitly consented" to anything, but they get drunk together and perform sexual acts upon each other, and the next day both parties feel that the other took advantage of their drunkenness and did not obtain "explicit consent", this could be a situation where both the man and the woman are guilty of rape.

[Recursion]

114. I tell you what: when 1 in 4 college-age men reports unwanted sexual activities by women, we'll talk

I'm dead certain there are predatory women who get men drunk and sleep with them. I'm absolutely certain that happens, somewhere, some time.

When this becomes even 1 / 100th of the problem that predatory men getting women drunk and sleeping with them becomes, I'll be right there with you.

While it's obviously an interesting thought experiment (and, frankly, not so far removed from a thought experiment for a lot of us) about what the moral dimension of a man's being too drunk to give consent means, or whether there's a patriarchal subtext to the assumption that the man is necessarily the sexual aggressor in a "two drunk people" situation (and remember, the patriarchy is nobody's friend here...), we're still left with

A) the biological fact that the physical capacity for intercourse puts an upper bound on how drunk the man can be, but not the woman (and oh how that bound falls as the years go on...), and
B) the sociological fact that sexual predation of women in college is one of if not the biggest campus safety concerns in higher ed right now (and for the past 50 years or so).

[tableturner]

62. So two drunk people are naked and performing orally on each other.....

If the guy asks "Do I have your permission to insert my penis into your vagina?", and the woman answers "yes", then if he puts the penis into the vagina it is not rape? However, if both parties are drunk, both have performed orally upon the other, and then the man inserts his penis into the vagina without explicitly asking permission, it is rape? What if neither is drunk.....must the man explicitly ask for permission to insert the penis to avoid the action being determined to be a rape?

If so, then would you say that a man needs to explicitly ask for permission every time he is ready to insert the penis? Can the woman's performing orally on the man imply that it is okay for the man to insert into the vagina? Must the man always say something similar to "Excuse me, Susan, may I insert my penis into your vagina?" to avoid a rape charge?

Plus, getting permission from the drunk woman would not be getting an informed consent, due to the fact that she is drunk, so maybe no matter what, a man cannot insert his penis into a drunk woman, even if he is also drunk? Wouldn't that mean that it would be unlawful anytime any two people copulate when both are drunk? Does that make sense?

Edit: added "into" in the second paragraph.

[bettyellen]

63. the law centers on the person who acts without receiving consent. SIMPLE. NOT CONFUSING TO MOST.

And, not philosophical, it's legal. Philosophy (or a random opinion) has nothing to do with it at all.

[tableturner]

65. So if they are both drunk, each has orally performed on the other...

....and the woman puts the penis into her vagina without asking, then she has committed sexual assault, and if the man does it without asking, he has committed sexual assault?

If he or she, both drunk, asks the other person for permission before insertion, isn't that still a crime since neither drunk person can give informed consent?

Therefore all copulation between drunk people is a crime?

Edited to add: It is NOT simple. If it were so simple, you would have answered the questions I posed in post #31.

[bettyellen]

67. your conclusion" -all sex between drunk people is a crime" is so fucking ridiculous- you obviously

need to read up- especially if you think there is some one size fits all answer that applies to your vauge hypothetical.
As if buzzed= drunk= incapciatated. I bet you know better than that, and you are just being coy.

But yeah, your conclusion is totally ridculous, it's incapacitated- not drunk. Get up to speed on the issue if youd like to discuss it.

[tableturner]

83. About the law.....

.....I remember reading and hearing countless times that "if someone is drunk, they lack the capacity to give informed consent". Over and over again I have heard and read that explanation and standard, or something very similar, as being the law. In other words, the incapacity is caused by being drunk, and a person need not be passed out and completely incapacitated to have been sexually assaulted.

So I think that you are factually wrong about the law. Drunk is the standard. How drunk? Even you do not know (and I think that you do not even know the law, much less be able to interpret it), nor can anybody else. But I am fairly sure that drunk is the standard, and if so, then someone who thought what you stated (the standard being "incapacitated - not drunk&quot , and had sex with a person who was drunk, but not fully incapacitated, would be breaking the law.

This points out how difficult it CAN BE to know for sure. CAN BE, i.e., meaning not always, but sometimes, so don't castigate me by interpreting what I write as being totally clueless. There are aspects of the law in certain circumstances that can be difficult to interpret.

Instead of attacks masquerading as ambiguous answers, why not answer the questions I asked in post #'s 31, 62, and 65?

[passiveporcupine]

96. I think people need to get on the same page with the word "drunk"

Last edited Wed Feb 12, 2014, 09:36 PM - Edit history (1)

the definition of drunk is being intoxicated to the point you have impairment of physical or mental faculties. If you are intoxicated, but you are both consenting (with your body language, and/or verbally) then it is consensual and not rape. If you change your mind and say no at any time, the other person needs to stop.

It doesn't matter if you are intoxicated, it matters how intoxicated. If you are lucid enough to actively and willingly participate in the encounter, that is considered consent. If you are too incapacitated to actively participate or give verbal consent or denial, you are not able to give consent.

"The law says each of us is responsible for making sure our sexual partners are giving their free consent to what we want to do. The law says you must have a ‘reasonable belief’ that the other person wants to do what you want to do. A reasonable belief is something active. You must go on their body language as well as their words. If in doubt, ask!" *

"Diminished capacity exists when an individual does not have the capacity to consent. Reasons for this inability to consent include, but are not limited to: sleeping, drugged, passed out, unconscious, mentally incapacitated, etc.

It is important to understand diminished capacity because oftentimes victims of sexual assault in these situations blame themselves because they drank, did drugs, etc. It is essential to emphasize that it is not his or her fault, that the aggressor is the one who took advantage of his or her diminished capacity." **

If you ask me, if two people are actively engaging in sex, even while intoxicated, they are giving consent. Actively participating is consent. If only one is, that means the other has diminished capacity to participate or to say yes or no, and therefor it would be wrong to continue it. There is no consent from that party, either physically or verbally.

the information quoted above came from these two links:
* http://www.galop.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Consenting-To-Sex-A4.pdf
** http://www.rainn.org/get-information/types-of-sexual-assault/drug-facilitated-assault

I suggest anyone who is "confused" contact the Rainn.org to get more clarification privately.

[tableturner]

109. What you wrote makes a lot of sense......

However, I'm not so sure that what you wrote is in conformance with the law. I'm not saying that it is not in conformance with law, but I'm not sure. Again, what you wrote is a reasonable approach, but I think quite a few jurisdictions are a bit stricter than that.

And please.....it's not so black and white as some would contend, and it would be to everybody's benefit if we all could be absolutely certain about this issue. For instance, right this minute....I'm not sure what the exact standard is, and I see no real signs that many of us ARE sure. I'm still not absolutely sure if a person can legally have sex with a drunk person who knows what he or she is doing, but is still legally drunk. Even in this thread, there are varying opinions on this, plus, I think the law varies by jurisdiction.

What is so wrong with wanting this to be clarified? That's not excusing rape to even the slightest degree.

[F4lconF16]

120. ^This post

answers 95% of any of the multiple ridiculous and degrading arguments people have brought up in this thread. Having had 3 very close friends raped and being currently dating a woman who was raped and abused for years, it is incredible and disgusting to me that people still find the need to argue with this. Rape is rape. If the person is actively consenting and is not impaired (whether through alcohol or anything else, as well defined by PassivePorcupine above), than it is not rape. Drunk sex is not rape. If the person is either too impaired to give consent or denies consent in any way (such as the bullshit "both molest each other while passed out" argument also voiced above), than it is rape. It is that simple. It applies to both men and women, I don't care who does it.

It truly sickens me that people don't understand this, and it is even worse when people do and purposely cloud the issues at hand by presenting arguments as have surfaced in this thread. The fact is, rape is almost always of women. I personally think statistics are skewed and should reflect even more rapes of women that have not been reported, as of my three friends I know not one of them has told more than a couple people for fear of being shamed. I have asked them whether they would admit to it in a survey, and they are so ashamed about what happened that they will not admit to it even anonymously. This is insane. We need to get past these ridiculous arguments and focus on the real problems. There is a rape culture and it hurts people every day. Arguments like the ones in this thread only make things worse by creating false equivalencies.

I apologize if my tone is a bit harsh and my words perhaps not as eloquent as they could be; this is a very personal issue to me, and people I love have been hurt deeply by the culture of rape that so sadly persists today.

-Falcon

Edit: fixed a couple of typos.

[redqueen]

128. Thank you for this post.

Your tone is entirely warranted.

[bettyellen]

125. most here are muddying the water because they PREFER it that way. i explained it's incapacitated

not just this vague drunk BS, and was met with more silly scenarios not indicating the level of incapacitation- which they were TOLD was the crucial factor. Too many people on this thread want to give plausible deniability to rapists - wondering if it;s okay to perform sex acts on people who are passed out. Their asses should be booted off DU.

[bettyellen]

123. not interested in your ridculous hypotheticals or the assumption that people do not understand

incapacitation- or ability to consent. I notice you are relying on conversations with people about "being drunk" instead of reading up on case law. Obviously, you want to play silly games instead of learning anything. Carry on.

[heaven05]

15. "tell me this country isn't fucked up."

I'm not going to tell you that this country isn't fucked up.

[BainsBane]

98. Yep, it's called rape culture

That is indeed the problem.

[heaven05]

13. ?????

what a cave dwelling dumbass. geez.

[niyad]

17. so my question to you, jimmy boy, is just how many women have you raped while

they were drinking?

there is an old expression that says, "a man never thinks to look under a bed unless he has hidden there himself". . .

[dilby]

20. This is the reason I don't ever have sex with a woman who has been drinking, even a girlfriend.

When I was in the UK I had some coworkers who lived there that were surprised that when we would go out I would never bring a girl back to my hotel. I had plenty of chances but I pretty much said I don't want to go to jail in the UK for rape. They were all flabbergasted by this notion that having sex with someone who was drunk and willing was rape. Anyways they would always tease me about needing to have a permission slip in my wallet next to a condom for sex in the US.

[Vox Moi]

23. Liability vs Responsibility

I know a guy who insisted on driving on the thruway at exactly the speed limit in the left-hand lane.
I rode with him one time and watched as traffic pressed us from behind and cars passed us on the right.
I told him that he was creating a hazardous situation and I was not comfortable.
He replied with great indignation that he was entirely within his rights, that other people were breaking the law by driving faster than the speed limit. Fuck them.
A few months later, he was read-ended and he and his passenger ended up in the hospital. Both cars were totaled.
The other driver was at fault and found to be liable.
However, this was an accident waiting to happen.
I saw it as a case of someone relying on the letter of the law as an excuse for using poor judgment and putting others at risk, just to make a point.

[7962]

40. OMG I cant stand those people!!!!!!!!!

This deserves its own thread. I drive over a thousand miles a week, mostly on interstates, and this problem has gotten worse every year. When I started this particular job I rarely saw it. It seems as though it started about 10 yrs ago for some reason.
I dont cae what lane you drive in, but when someone comes up behind you, move over. In many states, its actually the LAW.

[rhett o rick]

113. My friend and I drove almost 1,000 miles in Great Britain and never once were we passed on the wrong

side. I couldnt believe it. People passed and then immediately, in fact so immediate that you had to get used to it, they pulled into the slow lane. I found that in other European countries. It works soo smooth. I was on a tour bus in Europe. The driver would drive his allowed speed in the slow lane until he got like one car length behind someone slower then he would change lanes even if there was a car approaching in the other lane. Immediately after he was around the slower car, like one car length, he pulled back. They all understood and made it work. Americans are the worse drivers.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

74. Slow left lane drivers are self-centered and oblivioous, at best, and self-righteous jerks in many

cases.

Aside from drinking and driving, failure to keep right is perhaps the most hazardous action on roadways, said Assemblyman Declan O’Scanlon (R-Monmouth), also a co-sponsor
“One driver cruising along in the left lane can cause dozens of other drivers to become frustrated, leading to more incidents of aggressive driving and additional, unnecessary lane changes — which, in turn, lead to more accidents,” he said.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/06/highway_left-lane_hogs_could_see_fines_double_for_failing_to_move_over.html

Driving slowly in the fast lane is more than just annoying, it's also illegal in many states. Wanna know if your 45-mph, Buick-borne grandma is breaking the law on the interstate? Just consult our handy map.P

The most popular law follows the Uniform Vehicle Code, which says a car driving below the "normal speed of traffic" should be driven in the right-hand lane. Because it indicates "normal speed" instead of saying "speed limit" a driver going above the speed limit but slower than most traffic is still in the wrong.

http://jalopnik.com/5501615/left+lane-passing-laws-a-state+by+state-map

[redqueen]

130. What, exactly, does your unrelated story have to do with this thread? nt

[Vox Moi]

131. Hey Redqueen. Nice to hear from you.

It seems to me that this thread was too contentious and so I tired making a parallel argument about what is legally right but still questionable behavior and also about the difference between liability and responsibility.
Nobody got it. My bad. I wanted to drop this because it's such a hot-button issue but I still have questions.
In the driver analogy (a true story) the left-lane hog stood in his legal rights regarding the speed limit. No question that he was within his rights but also no question that he was creating a hazardous situation. The outcome was not unexpected.
Although my friend was not liable for what happened in any way, I always felt that he shared responsibility. It was an accident waiting to happen. Later, a law was passed that makes passing-lane hogging illegal for just that reason.
Some of the rape scenarios imagined by the author of the article in question seemed similar to me. A woman is completely within her rights to drink or party with a guy but that is also a hazardous situation that she is contributing to. That is what I believe the author was saying. He did not say that the woman is guilty of anything and neither do I. It's a question of responsibility and common sense.
The reason for posting at all is that it makes me very sad to see threads like this devolve into vitriolic exchanges and not gravitate towards something more positive. If it is clear that rape - or car accident - are known to be likely in a particular circumstance then both parties should take the responsibility to avoid that situation. If defensive driving is a commonly acceptable idea, maybe defensive dating - for both sexes - should be too.
Like my lane-hogging friend, the woman might be perfectly within her rights and like my friend she might end up in the hospital. Like the guy who hit my friend, the man might be guilty of something he did not set out to do. Everyone involved lost and everyone involved could have done something to prevent it.

[redqueen]

133. Yeah I thought so. Thing is, rapes are not accidents.

Rapists rape people on purpose.

Your analogy is flawed.

[dickthegrouch]

24. Having a drink is not a crime..

I'm sure many of the rapists feel they are entitled to sex after the other party has accepted four or five drinks without ever offering to pay for 'a round'. That's how I got raped.

I should clarify - I only had two drinks, one of which I'd paid for. The other was MUCH stronger than I was used to.

[radicalliberal]

27. Speaking as a 63-year-old man, this is another reason for me to hate the WSJ.

Frankly, I'm not at all surprised. Just more poisoned water from the same well.

[cinnabonbon]

35. The more I hear about him the less I like him.

The writer has several good points:

This attitude toward rape victims has implications that extend far beyond Taranto himself. The pervasive notion that it’s women’s responsibility to avoid rape — and that they can effectively avoid becoming victimized if they dress differently, or drink less alcohol — has a huge impact on the way that survivors are treated if they decide to come forward about a sexual assault. Rather than receiving compassion and support, rape victims are typically greeted with suspicion and shame. They’re either told that the crime was their own fault because they should have been smarter, or they’re assumed to be lying.

It's also worth noting that if a woman "take responsibility" and avoid excessive drinking, that won't fix the problem. That will just mean that she avoids getting raped that time, but the rapist will find another girl at the party to give drinks to instead. That's not a good message to send to girls.

[alp227]

69. He has a history of being a misogynist in the name of combatting "political correctness".

1990: "Marxism isn't the only fashionable ideology of the campus left, of course. Radical feminism, environmentalism, anti-white racism and militant homosexuality all find a home in the American academy."

On his website http://www.jamestaranto.com/ he proudly displays his 24 years of crazy.

[cinnabonbon]

71. Why he sounds like

a delightful fellow.

Sneering at those ideologies (Radical feminism, environmentalism, 'anti-white racism' and 'militant homosexuality') sounds very republican to me, so he should have no trouble fitting into that party.

[cinnabonbon]

72. Also: His website really is something. Good grief nt

[jmowreader]

66. I have to ask...

Hypothetical situation: two people who are not drunk have mutually consented to go out, get drunk off their asses then go somewhere and have sex because they each like drunk sex. Does consent made before they got drunk remain valid, or does it terminate when they start drinking? (No one I've ever slept with has wanted to try drunk sex so this isn't a "did I fuck up" question, but people do what I described.)

[Rex]

70. IMO, it remains valid up until the point one of them says STOP!

I've been drunk more times then I care to admit. I've had sex a few times drunk, but it was extremely hard to do - for both of us. Even drunk as a skunk, I always could still recognize what the intent of my partner was.

SO I don't really buy this BS of, 'gee I was drunk and I did not notice her scratching my face or trying to get away from me.'

Jus sayin...

[bettyellen]

75. it's not drunk- it is incapciatated. and there's lots of info out there regarding the definition of

incapacitated if you are truly interested in further clarification.

[Xithras]

79. One problem with this line of thinking: Sex is a decision.

When a woman initiates sexual activity, it is because she has made the decision to do so. When a man decides to initiate sexual activity, it is because he has made a decision to do so. If you are capable of making that decision, you are capable of giving consent.

The problem is that women are capable of having sex long after they lose the ability to make that decision and provide consent. If a woman cannot make that decision and is incapable of initiating sex, she can still be stripped and her body can be used for sex without her consent. If a MAN is so drunk that he is no longer capable of consenting, then he won't be initiating sex with anybody.

Therefore, if a drunk man has sex with a drunk woman, and she was incapable of giving consent, then it is is ALWAYS rape. The very fact that the man was able to INITIATE the sex means that he was also able to make THE DECISION to begin sexual activity, which also means that he was capable of giving CONSENT. Unless he can somehow prove that he was sleep-fucking, then he made the CHOICE to initiate sex with a partner who was incapable of giving consent.

The defining line here isn't gender, but the identity of the INITIATOR of the sexual activity. If both people initiate the sexual activity, then it is consensual. If only one person initiates the activity, then it is rape. It is NOT possible to INITIATE sexual activity once you are so drunk that you cannot consent (your body may respond to it, but you can't start the process on your own).

And yes, that does go both ways. If a man is so drunk that he cannot initiate sex, and a woman initiates sex with him anyway, then it IS rape. The fact that his body responds to the stimulation is irrelevant to consent. Consensual sex is always mutually initiated. Sex that is not mutually initiated is always rape.


The problem with a lot of these pundits is that they conflate "being drunk" with "ability to consent". A woman can be drunk AND be capable of giving consent. A man can be drunk AND be capable of giving consent. You lose your ability to consent when you get SO drunk that you lose your decision-making abilities. Most of these "the guy was drunk too" nimrods deliberately confuse "I was so drunk I got stupid" with "she was so drunk that she was practically unconscious". They are very different things. If the man was genuinely as drunk as the woman in these cases, there wouldn't have been a rape to begin with.

[Squinch]

82. ^^^^ This. And the only place I would disagree with you

is in your use of the phrase "having sex" when one is unconscious.

I am so sick of these, "Gotcha, you don't really think the way you say you do about rape! Gotcha, look at all these double standards about rape! All the men are being falsely accused of rape and all the women are actually raping!" posts.

[Xithras]

84. I debated that one, but chose to stick with it for clarity.

I made it clear that I was discussing sex without consent, and sex without consent IS rape. Always.

I chose to use the word "sex" consistently just for the sake of clarity. I originally wrote it as "sexual intercourse", but I used the term so many times that it got a bit wordy and repetitive. Apologies if it offended.

[Squinch]

87. No, no offense, and I appreciate the sanity of your post. (An oasis in a pretty insane thread.)

[joeglow3]

90. I agree with everything you posted

Now the legal question is, how do you delineate between levels of drunkedness? I can honestly say I don't know. Personally, as a male, I had a couple college encounters that I would NEVER have had if I was sober. However, I really don't consider myself a victim, either.

[Xithras]

93. That is the catch, isn't it?

Before I left for college, my dad took me aside and suggested the "four step rule". Basically, if you and the woman have been drinking and you're not sure about consent, walk at least four steps away from her (preferably further) and give her a "come hither" look. If she can walk to you unaided and under her own power, and she re-initiates the sexual contact of her own free will, then you're probably safe. If she is incapable of walking over to you and choosing to have sex on her own, or does not show interest in doing so, then she's incapable of giving consent or is choosing not to provide it.


That last bit in your post tends to be a bit more controversial. There's a difference between consent and clarity. You can consent to sex that you later regret. That doesn't make it rape, but it does make it a bad decision. I've had sex with people while drunk who I would have never slept with sober, but that's not the same thing as rape. It was a bad decision, but it was still a decision I was capable of making. In that regard, it's a bit like drunk driving...you may feel like an idiot when you wake up in jail the next morning, but it's because of a decision you willingly made on your own. You are responsible for bad decisions you make while you're drinking, as long as you are capable of making them.

That's a completely different situation than what we're talking about here though. If a person is so drunk they can't initiate sex on their own, then they aren't making a decision at all. If there is no decision, there is no consent...and without consent there is only rape. You are NOT responsible for decisions other people make for you while you are incapacitated.

[BainsBane]

85. and he finds defenders

What a shock.

[riqster]

89. Yeah, isn't it ever so very shocking?

[Squinch]

92. This thread is chock full of posts making the thinly veiled argument that boils down to, "lots of

these rape accusations when alcohol is involved are false."

And they are fighting tooth and nail to insist that that is a common occurrence, and that there is a fine line between sex and rape. We have had rape victims right here, male and female, who were raped under the influence of alcohol. None of them had any question whether it was sex or rape.

The ignorance - or is it conscious justification? - is like a river of slime.

[BainsBane]

94. Then when a PSA is directed at men

They insist men don't need education about rape. Clearly they do. These sorts of threads demonstrate as much.

Here's a news flash. It doesn't matter one bit what they think they should be able to do. The law is clear: They penetrate someone too drink to consent, they are rapists. Period.

[Squinch]

95. Yes. And when I see people suggesting that plenty of accusations of rape are, effectively,

splitting hairs, I fervently hope that Karma is real.

[BainsBane]

97. It's not too difficult to figure out if a woman wants sex

When she does, she's enthusiastic about it. The "splitting hairs" argument makes it seem like they don't know what it's like when a woman actually wants to be with someone.

[Squinch]

99. If they think there is some fine line between sex and rape, you have to be right.

[Recursion]

116. It's like some men fear "accidentally" running afoul of these "very complex" rape laws we have

To which I guess I would say, "Yes, dude, yes. If you literally are incapable of determining on your own whether a sexual advance is appropriate, you should probably just retire from 'the game' for a while and work on your EQ until it's as stunningly obvious to you as it is to non-sociopaths".

[BainsBane]

117. Well said

If they would only heed your advice.

[BainsBane]

117. Well said

If they would only heed your advice.

[arthritisR_US]

122. I think their confusion comes about because

they expect their dates to act exactly like their blow up dolls at home.

[BainsBane]

134. That can be a challenge

[Xithras]

129. Indeed. More men should use something like the "four step" rule I mentioned above.

If a man and woman are both drinking and the man wants to make sure he has consent, he should stand up, walk at least four steps away from her, and give her a "come hither" look.

If a woman can't walk over to you unassisted, or won't reinitiate physical contact on her own, then she's either too drunk to consent or is unwilling to do so. Any contact after that is rape.

Consent isn't rocket science. If she wants sex and has the ability to consent, she'll be all over you. My dad gave me that little tidbit before I went off to college, and I skipped sex more than once because a potential partner couldn't do that one little thing. If she can't walk, she can't consent. If she won't walk, she's not consenting.

I've never understood the "fine line" argument either.

[gollygee]

101. What is the argument?

I don't get it. I'm sure nobody here thinks someone should be able to have a couple of drinks before raping someone and be able to use that as a get-out-of-jail-free card. Because that's what the argument sounds like to my ears and I can't believe that's what is actually being argued. I don't understand what people are actually arguing if it isn't that.

[BainsBane]

104. They insist it isn't rape

That the law isn't relevant, that there is a "fine line" between consensual sex and rape. There is no fine line. There is consent or the absence of consent, which is rape. Someone drunk to the point of incoherence cannot consent, period.

If you look at surveys of college students about sexual assault, a sizable number of men confess to perpetrating acts that are legal rape, though they don't identify it by that name. A larger percentage say they would perpetrate such acts if they could get away with it. That survey might be available on the RAINN website.

[Squinch]

105. Nope. You got it pretty well. The other point being made is that there is just a tiny difference

between rape and drunk sex. One that is barely distinguishable.

This is one of the most disgusting threads I have ever seen, even on DU.

[Aerows]

107. On the crazy scale

WSJ > People on Bath salts > Shit house rats

[Squinch]

108. Way too many people in this thread saying that they don't know the difference between sex and rape.

[riqster]

111. Yep. Sickos.

Hope none of them tries that shit with either of my girls. He would (probably) live to regret it.

[grahamhgreen]

119. Remember WSJ is now part of Fox News empire.

[riqster]

121. Oh, yes. Stopped reading it for work purposes years ago.

Sad.

[Harmony Blue]

132. Fuck the WSJ