7 ms·

It is not that rare when using the current standard of consent. If you include any man who has sex while drunk (and is hence incapable of giving consent) then r

It is not that rare when using the current standard of consent. If you include any man who has sex while drunk (and is hence incapable of giving consent) then rape of men by women is very common.

chris_wot 11y ago
I could be wrong about how rare it is, I don't know the statistics and I don't have any way of knowing how many men don't report the crime. My point was that it can and does happen. I probably shouldn't have said anything about how often it occurs as I don't know.
ZeroGravitas 11y ago
Can you define drunk as you intend it in this sentence? People seem to be very loose with this phrase recently and it's impossible to tell if they're doing so intentionally for political reasons, or if they're just not very good at communicating what they mean. Drunk can mean someone has had 1 beer (e.g. drunk driving in many locations). It can also mean aggressively or flamboyantly out-of-character after several drinks, or it can mean basically incapacitated and in danger of choking on their own vomit. Which part of this range were you ambigously referring to?
- thaumasiotes 11y ago
  As made explicit in the sexual assault policies of various US universities, a female is unable to consent if she's had any alcohol (the "1 beer" model of being drunk). It is not a defense, or grounds for a counterclaim, that the male might have been equally or more drunk. (I say made explicit; the "any alcohol" threshold is what's made explicit. The wording of formal policies is generally scrupulously gender-neutral, but their application isn't.) In an actual US criminal court, I believe drunken consent is no different from any other consent.
  - emp_zealoth 11y ago
    What the actual fuck. Are those people out of their goddamn minds? So any girl can basically claim she had one shot if she feels like ruining someone's life and make an innocent man into a "rapist"? What if it's two lesbians that shared a beer? Do the universe collapse or something? The arbitraryness and possibilities of malicious abuse just blow my goddamn brain.
    - chris_wot 11y ago
      Well, this is why it goes before a court. There needs to be proof or lack of reasonable doubt that the victim was intoxicated.
      - emp_zealoth 11y ago
        Except the article itself says "Seizing this logic, advocates for gender equality have persuaded the federal government, under civil-rights authority, to force higher-education institutions to investigate and punish crimes of sexual violence. Dozens of colleges are under investigation for failing to comply. Although not explicit in the rationale for this approach, the lower standard of proof required to bring campus disciplinary action—including expulsion—is surely attractive to antirape activists, as it is for other civil-rights advocates who pursue civil remedies." lower standard of proof disciplinary action including expulsion This is outright despicable. There already witch hunts going on in some unis (with NO actual filed complaints or charges)
      - jules 11y ago
        Isn't the point of the article that it doesn't go to a proper court, but should?
        chris_wot 11y ago
        Which is sort of the point I was trying to make, but evidently quite badly. Yes, I agree with the author - these cases should be dealt with through the court system.
  - ZeroGravitas 11y ago
    As much as I'd love to take your word on this, for me this still falls into the "they banned Christmas because of the Muslims" category of made up propaganda intended to enrage the more credulous (see the other reply for a demonstration of this). I asked for evidence on this once before on HN, and they came up with two links. Both referred to the exact same case. And that case involved two people so drunk that neither could actually recall what happened. That person at least provided links (admittedly they actually undermined his claims, but still). You've provided nothing but a bold assertion. My suggestion to you and the original poster: if what you claim is true, is actually true, then a) stop using the word "drunk" as it is ambiguous, use the phrase "after one alcoholic drink", as this massively bolsters your case that the policy is ill-thought out b) have a link from a reputable source that actually backs up the reality of what you claim since on the face of it you'd expect a bigger fuss to have been made about this if it was true (much like I'd have heard about it via standard channels, not forwarded emails from racist uncles, if someone had actually banned Christmas because of the Muslims). Edit: here's the first policy my Googling returned, it all seems very reasonable to me: https://share.cornell.edu/education-engagement/sex-alcohol-and-clear-consent/ https://share.cornell.edu/education-engagement/sex-alcohol-a... Key phrases: "drinking heavily", "highly intoxicated" and so on.
    - danieltillett 11y ago
      Here is Stanford's policy [1]. There is nothing about drinking heavily or being highly intoxicated. The policy just says "if intoxicated by drugs and/or alcohol". 1. http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/b6c0fa0511ba6bd299a0c17b60d41a56.pdf http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/b6c0fa0511ba6bd299a0c17b60d41a56...
      - ZeroGravitas 11y ago
        Before I even click, I notice that's not a Stanford link. But instead something hosted by a political organisation that takes a stand on this very issue. Should I be worried by this oddity? And now I've read it, and we've gone from confusion about what "drunk" means to confusion about what "intoxication" means. Do you have anything that actually defines this term in this context? Does a memo from 2009 have some kind of special legal force, that allows the widest possible interpretation of this term? If they meant after the first alcoholic drink, why didn't they clearly state that? Instead they used "intoxicated" which generally, but ambigously, means "really drunk" (thesaurus suggestion: "helplessly inebriated"). That's also what I would assume, but then I'm interpreting this memo in good faith.
  - mamon 11y ago
    If you are drunk that's your fault, not any defense. I mean: drunk sex is like drunk driving, being drunk should be held against drunk person, not used in his/her favor.
    - thaumasiotes 11y ago
      If you are accused of raping a girl on the sole grounds that she was drunk when you had sex, then the fact that you were also drunk should be grounds for a counterclaim of rape against her. Obviously, that would be ridiculous. But so far as I have read, only Brown's policy explicitly takes the position you advocate, that while the female being drunk casts blame on the male, the male being drunk casts even more blame on the male. ("A charged student’s use of any drug, including alcohol, judged to be related to an offense will be considered an exacerbating rather than a mitigating circumstance.")
- danieltillett 11y ago
  Thaumasiotes has already explained the situation on campus in regards what is considered drunk and consent, but even in the wider world you can only give consent when not intoxicated. The level of intoxication is not clear cut, but at least in Australia it needs to be “substantial” [1]. What exactly is substantial is up to the jury. The US case law is much more murky as this article explains [2]. 1. https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/25.%20Sexual%20Offences/consent https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/25.%20Sexual%20Offences... 2. http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/08/opinions/cevallos-sex-consent-laws/ http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/08/opinions/cevallos-sex-cons...
mirimir 11y ago
What if both parties are incapable of giving consent?
- bitwize 11y ago
  Then each party is criminally liable for the rape of the other, under law. But, in practice, for heterosexual liaisons the male partner will be charged and prosecuted while the female goes free. Disclaimer: ianal

It is not that rare when using the current standard of consent. If you include any man who has sex while drunk (and is hence incapable of giving consent) then rape of men by women is very common.

chris_wot 11y ago

I could be wrong about how rare it is, I don't know the statistics and I don't have any way of knowing how many men don't report the crime. My point was that it can and does happen. I probably shouldn't have said anything about how often it occurs as I don't know.

ZeroGravitas 11y ago

Can you define drunk as you intend it in this sentence? People seem to be very loose with this phrase recently and it's impossible to tell if they're doing so intentionally for political reasons, or if they're just not very good at communicating what they mean. Drunk can mean someone has had 1 beer (e.g. drunk driving in many locations). It can also mean aggressively or flamboyantly out-of-character after several drinks, or it can mean basically incapacitated and in danger of choking on their own vomit. Which part of this range were you ambigously referring to?

thaumasiotes 11y ago
As made explicit in the sexual assault policies of various US universities, a female is unable to consent if she's had any alcohol (the "1 beer" model of being drunk). It is not a defense, or grounds for a counterclaim, that the male might have been equally or more drunk. (I say made explicit; the "any alcohol" threshold is what's made explicit. The wording of formal policies is generally scrupulously gender-neutral, but their application isn't.) In an actual US criminal court, I believe drunken consent is no different from any other consent.
- emp_zealoth 11y ago
  What the actual fuck. Are those people out of their goddamn minds? So any girl can basically claim she had one shot if she feels like ruining someone's life and make an innocent man into a "rapist"? What if it's two lesbians that shared a beer? Do the universe collapse or something? The arbitraryness and possibilities of malicious abuse just blow my goddamn brain.
  - chris_wot 11y ago
    Well, this is why it goes before a court. There needs to be proof or lack of reasonable doubt that the victim was intoxicated.
    - emp_zealoth 11y ago
      Except the article itself says "Seizing this logic, advocates for gender equality have persuaded the federal government, under civil-rights authority, to force higher-education institutions to investigate and punish crimes of sexual violence. Dozens of colleges are under investigation for failing to comply. Although not explicit in the rationale for this approach, the lower standard of proof required to bring campus disciplinary action—including expulsion—is surely attractive to antirape activists, as it is for other civil-rights advocates who pursue civil remedies." lower standard of proof disciplinary action including expulsion This is outright despicable. There already witch hunts going on in some unis (with NO actual filed complaints or charges)
    - jules 11y ago
      Isn't the point of the article that it doesn't go to a proper court, but should?
      - chris_wot 11y ago
        Which is sort of the point I was trying to make, but evidently quite badly. Yes, I agree with the author - these cases should be dealt with through the court system.
- ZeroGravitas 11y ago
  As much as I'd love to take your word on this, for me this still falls into the "they banned Christmas because of the Muslims" category of made up propaganda intended to enrage the more credulous (see the other reply for a demonstration of this). I asked for evidence on this once before on HN, and they came up with two links. Both referred to the exact same case. And that case involved two people so drunk that neither could actually recall what happened. That person at least provided links (admittedly they actually undermined his claims, but still). You've provided nothing but a bold assertion. My suggestion to you and the original poster: if what you claim is true, is actually true, then a) stop using the word "drunk" as it is ambiguous, use the phrase "after one alcoholic drink", as this massively bolsters your case that the policy is ill-thought out b) have a link from a reputable source that actually backs up the reality of what you claim since on the face of it you'd expect a bigger fuss to have been made about this if it was true (much like I'd have heard about it via standard channels, not forwarded emails from racist uncles, if someone had actually banned Christmas because of the Muslims). Edit: here's the first policy my Googling returned, it all seems very reasonable to me: https://share.cornell.edu/education-engagement/sex-alcohol-and-clear-consent/ https://share.cornell.edu/education-engagement/sex-alcohol-a... Key phrases: "drinking heavily", "highly intoxicated" and so on.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    Here is Stanford's policy [1]. There is nothing about drinking heavily or being highly intoxicated. The policy just says "if intoxicated by drugs and/or alcohol". 1. http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/b6c0fa0511ba6bd299a0c17b60d41a56.pdf http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/b6c0fa0511ba6bd299a0c17b60d41a56...
    - ZeroGravitas 11y ago
      Before I even click, I notice that's not a Stanford link. But instead something hosted by a political organisation that takes a stand on this very issue. Should I be worried by this oddity? And now I've read it, and we've gone from confusion about what "drunk" means to confusion about what "intoxication" means. Do you have anything that actually defines this term in this context? Does a memo from 2009 have some kind of special legal force, that allows the widest possible interpretation of this term? If they meant after the first alcoholic drink, why didn't they clearly state that? Instead they used "intoxicated" which generally, but ambigously, means "really drunk" (thesaurus suggestion: "helplessly inebriated"). That's also what I would assume, but then I'm interpreting this memo in good faith.
- mamon 11y ago
  If you are drunk that's your fault, not any defense. I mean: drunk sex is like drunk driving, being drunk should be held against drunk person, not used in his/her favor.
  - thaumasiotes 11y ago
    If you are accused of raping a girl on the sole grounds that she was drunk when you had sex, then the fact that you were also drunk should be grounds for a counterclaim of rape against her. Obviously, that would be ridiculous. But so far as I have read, only Brown's policy explicitly takes the position you advocate, that while the female being drunk casts blame on the male, the male being drunk casts even more blame on the male. ("A charged student’s use of any drug, including alcohol, judged to be related to an offense will be considered an exacerbating rather than a mitigating circumstance.")
danieltillett 11y ago
Thaumasiotes has already explained the situation on campus in regards what is considered drunk and consent, but even in the wider world you can only give consent when not intoxicated. The level of intoxication is not clear cut, but at least in Australia it needs to be “substantial” [1]. What exactly is substantial is up to the jury. The US case law is much more murky as this article explains [2]. 1. https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/25.%20Sexual%20Offences/consent https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/25.%20Sexual%20Offences... 2. http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/08/opinions/cevallos-sex-consent-laws/ http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/08/opinions/cevallos-sex-cons...

mirimir 11y ago

What if both parties are incapable of giving consent?

bitwize 11y ago
Then each party is criminally liable for the rape of the other, under law. But, in practice, for heterosexual liaisons the male partner will be charged and prosecuted while the female goes free. Disclaimer: ianal