Mutual rape

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

https://www.facebook.com/Official.Freedomain.Radio/photos/a.10151448472249183.507474.18322869182/10153667063929183/?type=3

''But Jake couldn't consent too, so then they mutually raped each other.''

''2 people cannot rape eachother at the same time, aaarrgh! this logic...''

 

1. Consent while drunk is invalid

2. Sex without a party's valid consent is rape

3. Both are drunk

4. Neither can consent.

5. They are raping each other.

 

Does rape require consent of the rapist?

 

[Cantharis]

P1 is invalid. There is no problem with giving consent while you are drunk, you are responsible for any action you do while under the influence because you are in that state of consciousness by your own choice.

[SamuelS]

I think the problem here is in how the interaction is framed. If I have -- through my choices and actions -- lost my capacity to be a rational actor, I don't think it's proper to assign responsibility to that temporarily irrational self that has been created but rather to the rational actor that chose to imbibe. If a drunk were to kill someone, we would call that negligent homicide and a tragic accident but not likely murder. So, in this case, I'd say they accidentally had sex w each other.

[bugzysegal]

P1 is invalid. There is no problem with giving consent while you are drunk, you are responsible for any action you do while under the influence because you are in that state of consciousness by your own choice.

The argument against this, is that at a certain point you are no longer conscious of your actions. So.ewhere between sobriety and blackout. We dont hold sleepwalking people responsible because they elect to go to sleep.

[dsayers]

The argument against this, is that at a certain point you are no longer conscious of your actions.

This isn't an argument against what was said as it doesn't assail what was said. rottenx51 pointed out that the choice to imbibe is voluntary. That's true whether you have 1 or 51 drinks. You pointing out what happens AFTER the drinks are imbibed doesn't challenge the claim that choosing to imbibe BEFORE doing so is voluntary.

 

This thread also needs a (pre-emptive) debunking of voodoo pharmacology. The fallacy that drugs have the ability to make you do things you wouldn't otherwise do. If you respect property rights, you're not going to rape just because you're intoxicated. If you raped while you were intoxicated, you don't get a pass because alcohol isn't responsible for the behavior and even if it were, the rapist chose to imbibe.

 

Does rape require consent of the rapist?

Self-ownership requires control and understanding. So in the absolute, yes, rape requires the consent of the rapist. It's just that alcohol doesn't remove this consent.

[MagnumPI]

https://www.facebook.com/Official.Freedomain.Radio/photos/a.10151448472249183.507474.18322869182/10153667063929183/?type=3

''But Jake couldn't consent too, so then they mutually raped each other.''

''2 people cannot rape eachother at the same time, aaarrgh! this logic...''

 

1. Consent while drunk is invalid

2. Sex without a party's valid consent is rape

3. Both are drunk

4. Neither can consent.

5. They are raping each other.

 

Does rape require consent of the rapist?

No means no, but nobody said it. And in order for agression to take place, there has to be a perpetrator. Here, we're looking at two victims, presumably.

 

And I don't think sleepwalking is much of a defense. Not anymore than falling asleep at the wheel. You're still going to be liable for damage. They won't just brush that aside.

[bugzysegal]

This isn't an argument against what was said as it doesn't assail what was said. rottenx51 pointed out that the choice to imbibe is voluntary. That's true whether you have 1 or 51 drinks. You pointing out what happens AFTER the drinks are imbibed doesn't challenge the claim that choosing to imbibe BEFORE doing so is voluntary.

 

This thread also needs a (pre-emptive) debunking of voodoo pharmacology. The fallacy that drugs have the ability to make you do things you wouldn't otherwise do. If you respect property rights, you're not going to rape just because you're intoxicated. If you raped while you were intoxicated, you don't get a pass because alcohol isn't responsible for the behavior and even if it were, the rapist chose to imbibe.

 

 

Self-ownership requires control and understanding. So in the absolute, yes, rape requires the consent of the rapist. It's just that alcohol doesn't remove this consent.

Drugs don't make you do anything you wouldn't unless you have underlying comorbid psychological conditions, but let's talk about stages of drunkenness. You can be buzzed where you only have slight impairment in motor control and reaction time. You can be drunk with greater losses in motor control and executive functioning. You can be blacked out, that is you will have no memory of your decisions and still mobile acting as though you are full conscious. And you can drink until total unconsciousness as distinct from sleep. If you drink to unconsciousness and someone slips it in you...that's rape. If you are moving around, but are blacked out....this seems like rape. Just buzzed...not rape. Where these points meet, I don't know. Consciousness is emergent and quite complex. The point at which you no longer have control is hard to measure. 

[dsayers]

let's talk about stages of drunkenness.

Don't need to. The first time you tried this approach, I pointed out: "You pointing out what happens AFTER the drinks are imbibed doesn't challenge the claim that choosing to imbibe BEFORE doing so is voluntary." If you feel this is inaccurate in some way, I would prefer you address it rather than carry on as if the clarification hadn't been provided.

[bugzysegal]

Don't need to. The first time you tried this approach, I pointed out: "You pointing out what happens AFTER the drinks are imbibed doesn't challenge the claim that choosing to imbibe BEFORE doing so is voluntary." If you feel this is inaccurate in some way, I would prefer you address it rather than carry on as if the clarification hadn't been provided.

Consent is something that can be given in certain ways. What can't be done is consenting of an unconscious actor. You can have DNRs and such to describe what should be done to you in the even you lose consciousness, but merely imbibing alcohol doesn't cede your right to make decisions. I also chose to put on socks today. Doesn't mean I consented to you raping me in my sleep while I wear socks.

Consent is something that can be given in certain ways. What can't be done is consenting of an unconscious actor. You can have DNRs and such to describe what should be done to you in the even you lose consciousness, but merely imbibing alcohol doesn't cede your right to make decisions. I also chose to put on socks today. Doesn't mean I consented to you raping me in my sleep while I wear socks.

Saying that is like saying you consent to whatever happens to you under anesthesia. That's insane.

[dsayers]

I also chose to put on socks today. Doesn't mean I consented to you raping me in my sleep while I wear socks.

Saying that is like saying you consent to whatever happens to you under anesthesia. That's insane.

If you weren't putting words into my mouth, you might be able to address what was actually said. If you choose to partake of an intoxicant, you don't get to later rape and use the excuse that you were not in full possession of your faculties in the moment because the reason you weren't was a direct result of a choice you made.

 

I can't tell if you are lacking in cognitive skills or so eager to defend the drunk rapist that a simple A then B then C timeline eludes you.

[bugzysegal]

If you weren't putting words into my mouth, you might be able to address what was actually said. If you choose to partake of an intoxicant, you don't get to later rape and use the excuse that you were not in full possession of your faculties in the moment because the reason you weren't was a direct result of a choice you made.

 

I can't tell if you are lacking in cognitive skills or so eager to defend the drunk rapist that a simple A then B then C timeline eludes you.

Wait what, I somewhere lost complete track of your train of thought. I was distracted, because I had typed up 65% of the thread I'm about to start and hit "back" thus deleting it all. You can't imagine my frustration. Sorry I'll go back and read what you said. (hooray for word documents btw)

 

Ok,  "for any action you do while under the influence because you are in that state of consciousness by your own choice." So as you are being anesthetized you loose track of what's going on and lash out and strike the nearest doctor. Are you responsible?  I don't think so, or at leas I'm unsure.  Under this broad definition, could an unconscious girl never be raped, since she achieved that state of consciousness by her own choice? 

[dsayers]

Under this broad definition, could an unconscious girl never be raped, since she achieved that state of consciousness by her own choice? 

From the opening post:

 

Does rape require consent of the rapist?

This thread is about consent of the rapist. Also, 50% of rape victims are male.

[labmath2]

I see what dsayers is saying. You made a choice to drink fully aware of the consequences. Yet, you wish to not be held accountable once those consequences kick in.

 

I have a question. If a girl is drunk but consents to sex with a sober person (the consent is on tape), is her state of mind relevant to the consent? What if instead of consent to sex, she signed a contract, would the contract be valid?

[bugzysegal]

From the opening post:

 

This thread is about consent of the rapist. Also, 50% of rape victims are male.

factoring in prison rape, correct?

Also, yeah I get the point Ace was trying make, but my objection was to rottenx's definition.

[dsayers]

my objection was to rottenx's definition.

Already covered: "rottenx51 pointed out that the choice to imbibe is voluntary. That's true whether you have 1 or 51 drinks. You pointing out what happens AFTER the drinks are imbibed doesn't challenge the claim that choosing to imbibe BEFORE doing so is voluntary." So if you have an objection, you have yet to voice it.

[bugzysegal]

Already covered: "rottenx51 pointed out that the choice to imbibe is voluntary. That's true whether you have 1 or 51 drinks. You pointing out what happens AFTER the drinks are imbibed doesn't challenge the claim that choosing to imbibe BEFORE doing so is voluntary." So if you have an objection, you have yet to voice it.

I would ask how these facts are relevant if you are not conscious by any regular use of the word. That is, is there sufficient reason to suspect that one is not fully conscious during their actions after they have imbibed the alcohol? If so, the voluntary nature of that drinking of 1-51 is irrelevant. I'll analogize to the anesthesia example. Drinking is voluntary, undergoing anesthesia in a medical setting is voluntary (hopefully). Signing a contract for becoming an organ donor after the point the anesthesia has taken effect is an act that would otherwise be consensual, and having sex while still moving about is one that would otherwise be considered consensual. In both instances, I would argue that at some point, despite there being motor function, the impaired state renders the actor incapable of consent. 

[dsayers]

I think you still think that we're talking about consent of the raped when we're talking about consent of the rapist. To remove ambiguity, will you please say that you think it is okay for person A to rape person B since person A is intoxicated and therefore not responsible for their actions?

 

Somebody having a seizure isn't responsible for assault if they happen to backhand somebody because they were not in control of their arm at the time. Somebody who chooses to drink an intoxicating substance and then strikes somebody is responsible for assault. Does this make sense?

[bugzysegal]

I think you still think that we're talking about consent of the raped when we're talking about consent of the rapist. To remove ambiguity, will you please say that you think it is okay for person A to rape person B since person A is intoxicated and therefore not responsible for their actions?

 

Somebody having a seizure isn't responsible for assault if they happen to backhand somebody because they were not in control of their arm at the time. Somebody who chooses to drink an intoxicating substance and then strikes somebody is responsible for assault. Does this make sense?

I would say I'm unsure. I'm going to look into the psyiology of the sympathetic and parasympathetic nerve systems, and their relationship with alcohol. Is your argument that if you have any degree of motor control, you are responsible? My question to scientist would be, could alcohol reliably strip away the higher reasoning parts of our brain(the forebrain I believe?), or at least prevent these from communicating with the motor functions while still able to move about? If we were stripped down to our reptilian brains, I'm not sure what I'd have to say. Enforcability might be off the table and I'll grant you that...but I think the facts matter. Also, I realize that to you, action=responsibility in some sense.

[dsayers]

Why don't you instead look up what before means and what after means? What chronology and chain of causality are. Whatever you find out about AFTER drinking alcohol would only serve as an argument to NOT drink alcohol. It would do nothing to absolve a person from the direct effects of their voluntary actions. You act as if this claim is inaccurate, yet you refuse to show me how.

[regevdl]

The argument against this, is that at a certain point you are no longer conscious of your actions. So.ewhere between sobriety and blackout. We dont hold sleepwalking people responsible because they elect to go to sleep.

But we do hold drunk drivers responsible, even if they don't remember 'getting into the car'.  Sleep is a vital necessity for humans.  drinking alcohol is not, that is why sleep walkers are not held responsible for their acts during their sleep walking episodes. Because sleep is like a 'bodily function'.  drinking alcohol is a choice.

Ace the Versatile, I think you have to look at this one step before.  If I know drinking impairs my judgement and I drink anyway, then I am voluntarily increasing my risk of bodily harm or doing harm to others based on bad choices.  I agree with rottenx51 that then it falls on personal liability and responsibility.

 

So both parties are aware that drinking impairs judgement and good decision making.  So even if they regret their consent after the sex act...they are still reponsible for voluntarily putting themselves in a compromising position.  Now that is not to 'blame the victim' but if they even give drunk consent....that is their responsibility to bear.  

 

but raping each other?  just seems like a logical fallacy (maybe I'm wrong) but to rape is to have sex by force without consent.  So if I force sex on you while you are simultaneously forcing on me it means we BOTH want sex and if we both want it, then it's not rape and if we both want it, then force is not necessary.  If force is not necessary, then it's not rape.

I see what dsayers is saying. You made a choice to drink fully aware of the consequences. Yet, you wish to not be held accountable once those consequences kick in.

 

I have a question. If a girl is drunk but consents to sex with a sober person (the consent is on tape), is her state of mind relevant to the consent? What if instead of consent to sex, she signed a contract, would the contract be valid?

This seems tricky but shouldn't be.   Even if the sober person on the other end knows your are drunk or if they do not know you are drunk, you gave consent.  I think we always need to come with the approach that we voluntarily take mind-altering substances.  And once that line is crossed, we fully accept that it impairs good decision making, judgement and behavior, etc.  So whatever comes of it IS the responsiblity of that person.  That means....they might be in a position where a sober person would take advantage.  That doesn't make the sober person correct or right by any means and should be held responsible as well.  It's pretty gross for a sober person to take any type of advantage over a drunk person but in my mind, drunk consent is consent and should be a recourse to be more careful while drinking.  

 

This might be a stretch but it's like when I get into my car, I have no way of knowing if any of the other drivers are drunk or not.  We go out there with this sort of 'social agreement' that we will all follow the rules of the road.  Because someone is drunk, does that mean the 'social contract' of following the road rules doesn't apply to them or actually exempts them.  no....it means it's applied even more seriously to them as they already broke the 'social contract or agreement' by getting into the car drunk in the first place. 

 

So if we follow this logic, a contract could be void if the person isn't in a clear state of mind but again....they choose to enter the situation with an impaired mind and my guts tells me we have to hold that person accountable for their actions.

 

They voluntarily chose to drink knowing it can impair them.  They voluntarily chose to drink to a level that they may black out, etc.  Of course they may regret it later but that doesn't relieve them of their responsibility and liability.  Now, once they come to and feel regret, they can maturely approach the other person  to try to reverse any of the bad decision (cancel the contract etc).  Obviously if it involves sex...there is not much reversal that can be done.  It makes the sober people in those scenarios sleeze-bags of course.  

[labmath2]

This seems tricky but shouldn't be.   Even if the sober person on the other end knows your are drunk or if they do not know you are drunk, you gave consent.  I think we always need to come with the approach that we voluntarily take mind-altering substances.  And once that line is crossed, we fully accept that it impairs good decision making, judgement and behavior, etc.  So whatever comes of it IS the responsiblity of that person.  That means....they might be in a position where a sober person would take advantage.  That doesn't make the sober person correct or right by any means and should be held responsible as well.  It's pretty gross for a sober person to take any type of advantage over a drunk person but in my mind, drunk consent is consent and should be a recourse to be more careful while drinking.  

 

This might be a stretch but it's like when I get into my car, I have no way of knowing if any of the other drivers are drunk or not.  We go out there with this sort of 'social agreement' that we will all follow the rules of the road.  Because someone is drunk, does that mean the 'social contract' of following the road rules doesn't apply to them or actually exempts them.  no....it means it's applied even more seriously to them as they already broke the 'social contract or agreement' by getting into the car drunk in the first place. 

 

So if we follow this logic, a contract could be void if the person isn't in a clear state of mind but again....they choose to enter the situation with an impaired mind and my guts tells me we have to hold that person accountable for their actions.

 

They voluntarily chose to drink knowing it can impair them.  They voluntarily chose to drink to a level that they may black out, etc.  Of course they may regret it later but that doesn't relieve them of their responsibility and liability.  Now, once they come to and feel regret, they can maturely approach the other person  to try to reverse any of the bad decision (cancel the contract etc).  Obviously if it involves sex...there is not much reversal that can be done.  It makes the sober people in those scenarios sleeze-bags of course.  

 

I have been pondering this myself and i cannot come up with good arguments against this position. I have a gut feeling that its wrong, bu I do not have the argument.

[bugzysegal]

But we do hold drunk drivers responsible, even if they don't remember 'getting into the car'.  Sleep is a vital necessity for humans.  drinking alcohol is not, that is why sleep walkers are not held responsible for their acts during their sleep walking episodes. Because sleep is like a 'bodily function'.  drinking alcohol is a choice.

 

Fair. I still think the anesthesia analogy holds. Some people elect for anesthesia for certain medical treatments.There is a sharp difference between saying someone is capable of consent, and holding them responsible for their actions. I think if a party knows your drunk, and this can be proved, then you won't be held responsible for a contract. This might be why drunken sexual battery cases are so difficult to bring to trial. It would sort of be like defrauding someone I suppose. As far as being responsible for your actions however, such that we know drugs and alcohol impair our decision making, the responsibility of those actions falls upon us since we know that we are risking the safety of others. I suppose you can risk your own safety without being defrauded, but you can't endanger others. 

[J. D. Stembal]

No means no, but nobody said it. And in order for agression to take place, there has to be a perpetrator. Here, we're looking at two victims, presumably.

 

And I don't think sleepwalking is much of a defense. Not anymore than falling asleep at the wheel. You're still going to be liable for damage. They won't just brush that aside.

 

Interestingly, a man with a sleep disorder murdered his wife, and in this case, the prosecutors dropped the charges. By this logic, if I am incapacitated in a similar manner, I may rape or attempt to rape a woman (sex without consent) and not be guilty of any crime.

 

Here's the link: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/nov/20/brian-thomas-dream-strangler-tragedy

[bugzysegal]

Interestingly, a man with a sleep disorder murdered his wife, and in this case, the prosecutors dropped the charges. By this logic, if I am incapacitated in a similar manner, I may rape or attempt to rape a woman (sex without consent) and not be guilty of any crime.

 

Here's the link: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/nov/20/brian-thomas-dream-strangler-tragedy

I think a line can be drawn between giving consent to a contract, and responsibility for harmful actions....or at least thats how I think the law approaches it.

[bugzysegal]

I have been pondering this myself and i cannot come up with good arguments against this position. I have a gut feeling that its wrong, bu I do not have the argument.

So there is what's called a good faith argument. If a deal is brokered in bad faith, a contract may be voidable. An example would be insider trading. Could you lump intoxication/contracts in with this? So if I'm at a party and for whatever reason, I notice a female friend of mine is far past her limit, and an unscrupulous gentleman offers her a ride home, do I say "she did this to herself voluntarily, who am I to step in?" I'm not saying I'd restrain her, but I might have some choice words for the guy and probably try and get others to shame him. Predatory behavior should be met with hostility, no? 

[MagnumPI]

Interestingly, a man with a sleep disorder murdered his wife, and in this case, the prosecutors dropped the charges. By this logic, if I am incapacitated in a similar manner, I may rape or attempt to rape a woman (sex without consent) and not be guilty of any crime.

 

Here's the link: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/nov/20/brian-thomas-dream-strangler-tragedy

This guy got away with murder. Manic depressive, impotent, pissed off man in a camper accidentally strangles wife... Dangerous precedent. I'll be damned.

[dsayers]

Interestingly, a man with a sleep disorder murdered his wife, and in this case, the prosecutors dropped the charges. By this logic, if I am incapacitated in a similar manner, I may rape or attempt to rape a woman (sex without consent) and not be guilty of any crime.

 

Here's the link: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/nov/20/brian-thomas-dream-strangler-tragedy

There's a couple problems with this. The first is that "prosecutors dropped the charges" has all the rigor of "these dudes said something this one time." The second being that there's a difference between sleep DISORDER and VOLUNTARILY drinking something that is know to impair judgement and slow reaction time.

 

I notice a female friend of mine is far past her limit, and an unscrupulous gentleman offers her a ride home, do I say "she did this to herself voluntarily, who am I to step in?" I'm not saying I'd restrain her, but I might have some choice words for the guy and probably try and get others to shame him. Predatory behavior should be met with hostility, no? 

Why are you friends with somebody who would drink so much, she'd let a total stranger use her body to get off?

[regevdl]

I have been pondering this myself and i cannot come up with good arguments against this position. I have a gut feeling that its wrong, bu I do not have the argument.

 

 

lol.  That's fair.  look, even when I wrote it out I had to stop myself a few times because something 'didn't feel right'.  lol  I couldn't decipher if it's sociological conditioning that I was resisting or logical fallacy.  I'm still not clear and maybe others might be able to expand on it, refine it better but it is an important question to ponder and interesting one.  I guess my motive for 'defending' this position how I presented it was to create a sort of check/balance for people in their decision making choices.  It's a fine line of blaming the victim if the victim compromised their firewalls of security (body/money/property) but to be sure it does not clear the moral or ethical responsiblity whatsoever for those who take advantage of those who are voluntarily impaired.  This I wanted to make very clear.  There should be recourse as well against those who take advantage in exploitive means....especially if they knew they would NOT receive consent if the person is without mental disablers.

 

Fair. I still think the anesthesia analogy holds. Some people elect for anesthesia for certain medical treatments.There is a sharp difference between saying someone is capable of consent, and holding them responsible for their actions. I think if a party knows your drunk, and this can be proved, then you won't be held responsible for a contract. This might be why drunken sexual battery cases are so difficult to bring to trial. It would sort of be like defrauding someone I suppose. As far as being responsible for your actions however, such that we know drugs and alcohol impair our decision making, the responsibility of those actions falls upon us since we know that we are risking the safety of others. I suppose you can risk your own safety without being defrauded, but you can't endanger others. 

I agree and maybe I didn't say that clearly enough but yes....to defraud or exploit someone whether you know they are impaired or not SHOULD hold its own recourse...absolutely.  I cannot stress that enough.  But that doesn't remove all responsiblity from one who intentionally impaired themselves and this is where I slightly disagree.  

Then there is really no deterrent or recourse for those choosing to impair themselves and the consequences.  I guess I want deterrant measures on both ends of the issues.  

 

That is the point I want to also push.  That just because some tries or defrauds an impaired individual, doesn't mean we cannot see that crime for what it is in its entirity but also have recourse (doesn't need to be criminal) but some recourse or disincentive to being impaired and trying to drive, sign contracts, etc.  

 

Anesthesia is elective, of course but.... it's not a leisure activity so I don't see it as an equal comparison.  And anesthesia is typically in the context of life or health saving procedures, not hook-up bars and night clubs, etc.  Of course is someone is put under and as they come to agree to sex or to sign over their life savings, this would not be a legal contract and anyone who took advantage of that person should have recourse against them (lose practicing license/insurance, etc).  But patients do not perform their own anesthesia.  This comes after a relationship is established, appointments, check ups, tests, etc...a trust is established, etc, contracts and releases signed, agreements all beforehand.    

 

If I get drunk before I leave my house and go to the car dealership, the salesman may or may not smell alcohol on my breath (or confuse it for their own lol) but may not be able to assess how 'drunk' I am if at all and we sign the contract.  Later I sober up and freak out.  If the salesman is question he could lie or simply say...well..I thought I smelled alcohol but how am I suppose to know how much someone can drink or handle?..then you get into the hairy issue of what is 'drunk' and how a perfect stranger can assesst hat without police equipment, etc.

 

  And even stating 'drunk' is  arbitrary.  Are we defining it by the 'legal' limits which vary from state to state or even by counties or by behavioral cues? If so, will everyone need to be tested before signing contracts, etc? I don't think it would be so easy to prove and why some responsibility should be in the hand of those who not only choose to inhibit themselves but then try to conduct commerce or put themselves in certain enviornments that may bring negative consequences.  It's just risk assessment that's all. Go out, have fun, get drunk but know society will hopefully hold them AS WELL AS those who try to prey on the inhabilitated.  I"m not saying the inhabilitated should get as strong of recourse but should be held to some level of responsiblity to serve as a deterrent for future repetition and warning to others. 

[bugzysegal]

being impaired and trying to drive, sign contracts, etc.  

 

Anesthesia is elective, of course but.... it's not a leisure activity so I don't see it as an equal comparison.  And anesthesia is typically in the context of life or health saving procedures, not hook-up bars and night clubs, etc.  Of course is someone is put under and as they come to agree to sex or to sign over their life savings, this would not be a legal contract and anyone who took advantage of that person should have recourse against them (lose practicing license/insurance, etc).  But patients do not perform their own anesthesia.  This comes after a relationship is established, appointments, check ups, tests, etc...a trust is established, etc, contracts and releases signed, agreements all beforehand.    

 

Strictly on philosophical terms, the argument for deterrence is social utility, one which I assure you runs against the Libertarian grain. That is why this is somewhat concerning. Why should we admonish something we have no moral compulsion to? Is it like admonishing someone for liking chocolate ice cream? A libertarian must say yes, and yet this feels wrong. This is at least my understanding of how the arguments would play out and labmath2 seems to be under a similar impression.

[bugzysegal]

 

There's a couple problems with this. The first is that "prosecutors dropped the charges" has all the rigor of "these dudes said something this one time." The second being that there's a difference between sleep DISORDER and VOLUNTARILY drinking something that is know to impair judgement and slow reaction time.

 

Why are you friends with somebody who would drink so much, she'd let a total stranger use her body to get off?

 

Do you, or have you, drink(drank) in excess? Yes by drinking to excess she exposes herself to the possibility that she will have high risk sex, but to say she ordinarily would do such a thing is quite different. To say she drank with the intent of that eventuality....I snowboard, but I don't intend to fall. However, gravity is a cruel mistress. The difference is, gravity doesn't have the choice to not make me fall.

[dsayers]

I don't see how that answers my question. Or acknowledges my point that you are trying to argue by putting forth outlandish scenarios with no honesty about them being outlandish. I live in a world where people believe in the bogey man while not categorizing the State as a predator. Why would I complicate my life by being "friends" with somebody who would get taken advantage of if I wasn't there to manage their lives in addition to mine? If somebody like that was in your life, you have self-knowledge work that would be more important than trying to work out chain of causality and levels of consciousness. I mean, you're still trying to talk about consent of the raped in a thread asking about the consent of the rapist.

[bugzysegal]

I don't see how that answers my question. Or acknowledges my point that you are trying to argue by putting forth outlandish scenarios with no honesty about them being outlandish. I live in a world where people believe in the bogey man while not categorizing the State as a predator. Why would I complicate my life by being "friends" with somebody who would get taken advantage of if I wasn't there to manage their lives in addition to mine? If somebody like that was in your life, you have self-knowledge work that would be more important than trying to work out chain of causality and levels of consciousness. I mean, you're still trying to talk about consent of the raped in a thread asking about the consent of the rapist.

I have literally no problem with your views of two people getting drunk and having sex. Of course that's not rape granted there was sufficient context to imply consent for both. That scenario however, straightforwardly follows from your beliefs about motor control and responsibility (if that's all you wanted to read, stop here).

 

I know that I've departed from the original topic of the thread and that is because in the process of evaluation related arguments, new questions arose. The questions that are easy to answer aren't always the most important and the questions that live at the fuzzy edges of morality aren't always irrelevant. Would you say that sex with someone who is completely unconscious is not rape, if they chose to knock themselves out for whatever reason? If you say no, on the basis that they have no motor control at this point and thus could not give consent, I wonder if that's not quite right. That would be equivalent to saying that sex with someone who is about to pass out is moral, but the second they do...then what? Driving a car is high risk behavior, but I'd stop a friend from getting into an accident if I could, especially if she was only driving because her brain chemistry was screwy due to a poor childhood(referencing Stefan's views on why people do drugs). 

[dsayers]

I have literally no problem with your views of two people getting drunk and having sex.

I haven't expressed a view and I'm not talking about two people getting drunk and having sex. Question in OP is does rape require consent of the rapist. The answer is yes, which makes the follow up question of whether a drunk person can consent to raping somebody else (regardless of the mental state of that person). If you're not going to read what I write, I'm not going to read what you write. Keep it honest and we can have a conversation if you'd like.

[bugzysegal]

I haven't expressed a view and I'm not talking about two people getting drunk and having sex. Question in OP is does rape require consent of the rapist. The answer is yes, which makes the follow up question of whether a drunk person can consent to raping somebody else (regardless of the mental state of that person). If you're not going to read what I write, I'm not going to read what you write. Keep it honest and we can have a conversation if you'd like.

Wasn't the original question about mutual rape? That was the conclusion, no?  The actual question the thread creator asked was based on a false premise, that two people can rape each other simultaneously because of alcohol. That confusion comes from people trying to redefine consent such that it is impossible to be given if someone is at all intoxicated. Thats where the continuum slipped in, and I got sidetracked no?