• 'Too drunk to consent' - footballer jailed for rape
    707 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Trogdon;35706631]it has nothing to do with an arbitrary number, he is just saying if you use deception then it should be illegal. i'm sure he doesn't oppose mentally retarded people having sex, but th it's easier to deceive people with less mental prowess. just imagine the girl in this scenario being swapped with a mentally retarded girl, would that make your views on it different?[/QUOTE] Nope. if the drunken state was replaced with a mental illness it wouldn't really change anything, your point?
[QUOTE=Hobo4President;35706645]What? Where did you get that idea from? I'm saying that consent by a mentally retarded person is consent the same, as it is when from a person impaired by alcohol. If you're talking about the deceipt bit I believe that if any deceipt is used to get someone to give consent, whether sober, mentally retarded, or impaired by a drug, it is and should be illegal.[/QUOTE] You're right, I concede. Someone who's drunk out their mind should be able to give consent, I mean after all they did it to themselves right? They deserve to be taken advantage of, it's their fault. They put themselves in the position. While they're at it, they probably should've dressed more conservatively if they didnt want anything to happen to them. They also wouldn't have acted that way if they didn't want someone to have sex with them. That's the archaeic though process that people who wind up committing sexual assault think.
[QUOTE=Trogdon;35706540] it's gender specific in that it is perpetrated by men. that's what i meant.[/QUOTE] Again, you are right that the majority of perpetrators are men, but it is not perpetrated exclusively by men. [QUOTE=InvaderNouga;35706746]You're right, I concede. Someone who's drunk out their mind should be able to give consent, I mean after all they did it to themselves right? They deserve to be taken advantage of, it's their fault. They put themselves in the position. While they're at it, they probably should've dressed more concervatively if they didnt want anything to happen to them. They also wouldn't have acted that way if they didn't want someone to have sex with them. That's the archaeic thinking that people who wind up committing sexual assault think.[/QUOTE] Where did I say that a drunken person in ANY state can give consent? As long as they have the ability to say no, or stop the sex, then it would be consensual if they agree to have sex. Where did I also say that someone should dress more conservative to stop being raped?
[QUOTE=Hobo4President;35706749]Again, you are right that the majority of perpetrators are men, but it is not perpetrated exclusively by men. Where did I say that a drunken person in ANY state can give consent? As long as they have the ability to say no, or stop the sex, then it would be consensual if they agree to have sex. Where did I also say that someone should dress more conservative to stop being raped?[/QUOTE] well the majority is so vast that you can basically discount the rest, when you are looking at statistics of upwards of 90% males that kind of shows something here. why do you think they have the ability to say nor or to stop the sex? do you think she had the ability to say no or to stop it? do you think not drunk women have the power to say no or stop sex that is currently happening?
[QUOTE=Trogdon;35706483]yes please do, and stop using analogies you cannot compare these things to rape.[/quote] But, as best [i]I[/i] can tell, it isn't rape. [quote]rape is a gender specific crime,[/quote] No it isn't. [quote]one pretty much every time perpetrated by men, against another.[/quote] Yea, men are the majority rapist. But only the majority. [quote]rape is not just a slip-up, it is a serious issue.[/quote] I agree. [quote]it's more serious than selling alcohol to minors, than driving drunk, or any other analogies used.[/quote] Driving drunk is debatable- it all depends on what happens before, during and after the driving episode. And I agree, most everything is more serious than selling alcohol to minors- I would have no fun in life if people didn't do that (bit of exaggeration- less fun). BUT this whole time we're being told to find an analogy that includes consent, and then I bring one forth and it is deterred for a whole different reason? Suddenly we're not serious enough! Back to the lack-of-consent-having analogies! (This was a bit of a jibe, I hope it doesn't degrade my credibility too much) [quote]it's not the same thing, and no matter how much you compare them, it will not be the same.[/quote] Nothing is the same thing. I know they are not the same. But the important variables line up, which make them comparable. [quote]if you do not understand why this difference should exist, then you do not understand the ramifications of rape.[/quote] Rape is sexual intercourse without consent of one party, correct? Assuming you answered yes: both parties had consented. You assume, we assume, we have to assume, that Evans had taken advantage in this scenario. I don't think that is the case, but I don't really know. I am going off the fact that there are no typical signs of rape. She wasn't, presumably, drugged. She wasn't forced. It is said she was inviting to the act. And so, unless the footballers are lying, which, they admitted to the intercourse, so I'd give them the benefit of the doubt, it was consensual as far as Evans could see. [quote]i'll admit it's a difficult concept, but it is not at all like other crime.[/quote] It's not a difficult concept. Rape is rape. Rape is traumatizing. I am sure of that. Rape is horrible. I agree to that. This thread's debate is not, "Should we support rape or not?" Rather it's a simple debate between "Should people be held responsible for all they [i]say[/i] and do?" with no true answer. [quote]there is a reason why law disparity exists and why you are responsible for the analogies you have used, and not responsible for engaging in sexual intercourse with someone in a much better state of mind than you.[/QUOTE] I don't doubt that there is a reason. But I think it should be taken into consideration, again, and, at least, re-written. To what extent? I don't know. [QUOTE=InvaderNouga;35706746]They deserve to be taken advantage of, it's their fault.[/quote] Just desserts are not what we're arguing. It's just a fact. [quote]they probably should've dressed more concervatively if they didnt want anything to happen to them. They also wouldn't have acted that way if they didn't want someone to have sex with them.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, but if you keep telling us to use "inaccurate analogies," you need to do the same. [editline]24th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Trogdon;35707002]why do you think they have the ability to say nor or to stop the sex? do you think she had the ability to say no or to stop it? do you think not drunk women have the power to say no or stop sex that is currently happening?[/QUOTE] The difference is, one guy acts under the impression he is allowed, where the other knows he is wrong.
no i just mean to keep analogies out of it, analogies really just differ the point and don't really solve much ever. and i understand that you don't see this as rape, but the jury does. they had more evidence than we did, and so according to law they have made the correct decision based upon variables that were presented to them in a trial. there's not really much more to it than that. i think you see rape as something violent, which isn't always the case. it is taking advantage of other people, which is why one person was arrested, he took advantage of the girl.
Okay. It was fun. Now I am out.
This thread is still going?
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;35707110]This thread is still going?[/QUOTE] unfortunately.
[QUOTE=hoodoo456;35648921]but they still took advantage of her drunken state, is the thing. Anyways, I think, providing that the girl wasn't drugged, both parties were at fault here.[/QUOTE] I agree that its generally irresponsible for men to approach women who are incredibly drunk (even if the man is also incredibly drunk) but this is really a case of "he said, she said" and there's no evidence to back up any statements. The only clear facts here are that she got drunk and she had sex with him [/evidence]. Would a man get as much presumed innocence in the same situation? Shit like this really does nothing but reinforce cultural conceptions about gender competence. If she decided to get really drunk she must have been aware that getting drunk clouds your judgement. Both parties made mistakes here, but these are not the sort of mistakes that should be punishable by a prisoner sentence for [I]just one party[/I]. [editline]25th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lonestriper;35707110]This thread is still going?[/QUOTE] Holy shit, didn't realize how old this was.
Except there is other evidence.
okay, let's say there's a drunk guy. he got wasted completely of his own accord - he's stumbling around and his friends have lost him. a stranger comes up to him and hassles him for his wallet. "give me your wallet, man," he says. giving in to the stranger's persuasive argument, the guy says "okay" and hands the stranger his wallet, promptly before throwing up. let's also say a police officer saw this happen. does s/he step in and stop this stranger from taking the guy's wallet? the answer is, of course he or she fucking does. now please try to relate what I just said to this case.
What about the hundreds of thousands of teenagers and young adults that visit clubbing and drinking resorts like in Ibiza and Maguluf (a.k.a Shaguluf, there should be a clue there) every year? The normal thing people do when they go to these places is fill themselves up with cheap booze and have drunken sex, so is Ibiza basically a huge rape-fest where nearly everyone returns home either a rapist or a rape victim? In fact some of my friends have slept with girls after parties or whatever while both they and the girl were drunk, they're not rapists are they? It's just what young people do these days, and usually no one bats an eyelid. It's what drinking culture is like in the UK and in other countries (remember the phrase "Beer: helping ugly people get laid"?) Do you think the majority of brits are misoginistic rapists? I can't even watch post-watershed sitcoms without seeing at least one scene of people having sex while drunk, if that was actually rape I don't think they would be making such a joke about it... I'm sure the government are well aware of all of this, yet they still say that drunken sex always implies rape. It doesn't make sense. Whether deliberately taking advantage of a very drunk girl for sex when you're perfectly aware of what state she's in is rape is debatable, and spiking someone's drink in order to have sex with them is certainly rape, but I can't get my mind around why so many people seem to think sex with a drunk person is always rape. It just seems naive and out of touch to think that imo And to think that only men are capable of taking advantage of people's drunkness in order to have sex with them is patronising and nonsensical Also why do some people assume someone (who might be slightly drunk themselves) having sex with a drunk always involves them taking advantage of the other person's drunkness and pressuring/forcing them into sex?
[QUOTE=RobbL;35714266]What about the hundreds of thousands of teenagers and young adults that visit clubbing and drinking resorts like in Ibiza and Maguluf (a.k.a Shaguluf, there should be a clue there) every year? The normal thing people do when they go to these places is fill themselves up with cheap booze and have drunken sex, so is Ibiza basically a huge rape-fest where nearly everyone returns home either a rapist or a rape victim? In fact some of my friends have slept with girls after parties or whatever while both they and the girl were drunk, they're not rapists are they? It's just what young people do these days, and usually no one bats an eyelid. It's what drinking culture is like in the UK and in other countries (remember the phrase "Beer: helping ugly people get laid"?) Do you think the majority of brits are misoginistic rapists? I can't even watch post-watershed sitcoms without seeing at least one scene of people having sex while drunk, if that was actually rape I don't think they would be making such a joke about it... I'm sure the government are well aware of all of this, yet they still say that drunken sex always implies rape. It doesn't make sense. Whether deliberately taking advantage of a very drunk girl for sex when you're perfectly aware of what state she's in is rape is debatable, and spiking someone's drink in order to have sex with them is certainly rape, but I can't get my mind around why so many people seem to think sex with a drunk person is always rape. It just seems naive and out of touch to think that imo And to think that only men are capable of taking advantage of people's drunkness in order to have sex with them is patronising and nonsensical Also why do some people assume someone (who might be slightly drunk themselves) having sex with a drunk always involves them taking advantage of the other person's drunkness and pressuring/forcing them into sex?[/QUOTE] Again, in case you haven't read the thread there is a thing called reasonable belief. It basically means that if someone has significant reason to believe that the consent was valid than it is not considered rape. A couple examples of this would be if you had sex with someone who was drunk, but that person happened to be a regular sexual partner with you, or if you reasonably did not know that the person was drunk. Something that isn't an example of this is being sober and scoping out random strangers to find a drunk one to take advantage of. Also nobody is charged with anything if both parties are drunk, which is very likely why the first man in this article was acquitted.
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;35714689]Again, in case you haven't read the thread there is a thing called reasonable belief. It basically means that if someone has significant reason to believe that the consent was valid than it is not considered rape. A couple examples of this would be if you had sex with someone who was drunk, but that person happened to be a regular sexual partner with you, or if you reasonably did not know that the person was drunk. Something that isn't an example of this is being sober and scoping out random strangers to find a drunk one to take advantage of. Also nobody is charged with anything if both parties are drunk, which is very likely why the first man in this article was acquitted.[/QUOTE] Further back in this thread there were people giving the impression that they believed sex with a drunk person is always rape since they cannot consent, the post I made was aimed more at them
Another person as well as them also got arrested for tweeting her name, which breaks the law that rape victims are allowed to be left anonymous indefinitely. I guess theres obviously more to this case than we know, though, for example the CCTV footage they pulled up, eyewitness accounts and the video footage pulled off the guys phone at the window. If the judge came back guilty then they must have had good reason to think she was telling the truth. What sucks here, though, is that there is probably a chance that they weren't necessarily acting out of maliciousness and were just trying to have a good time, and genuinely did not realise that she was considered too drunk to consent. What they did may be have been wrong, but do they deserve to be locked in prison for 5 years and lose their career over it? I'd say you would have to be pretty cold hearted to wish that on someone who isn't really a horrible person. Maybe we ought to clear up the laws on alcohol and rape somehow to prevent things like this happening. I mean, she may have been considered 'too drunk to consent', but was she 'too drunk to resist'? The way I see it if she wasnt in a complete stupor and would have been able to try and stop them if she had wanted at the time then it shouldnt really be considered rape, more so if the other parties were under the influence too.
[QUOTE=James*;35691299] However her claim is she was too drunk and therefore incapable of giving consent, which is a perfectly valid stance [/QUOTE] However, it's word against word, and since she can't remember anything she can't really make a statement that can be considered any sort of evidence.
[QUOTE=Zacca;35721558]However, it's word against word, and since she can't remember anything she can't really make a statement that can be considered any sort of evidence.[/QUOTE] But the camera footage and witnesses can be considered evidence.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.