4 ms·

I don't know about WA or King County, specifically, but in many jurisdictions it is statutorily rape to have intercourse with someone who's too intoxicated to m

by rosser 9y ago

I don't know about WA or King County, specifically, but in many jurisdictions it is statutorily rape to have intercourse with someone who's too intoxicated to meaningfully consent. Even in those places, her drunkenness is used as a mitigating factor by the defense — and often also the police and prosecutors.

Spooky23 9y ago
“Officer, I don’t understand. She was into it, didn’t seem drunk at all.”
- rosser 9y ago
  "Too drunk to meaningfully consent". It is ludicrous on its face to claim you didn't know someone was that drunk. And, anyway, in the jurisdictions I'm talking about, it doesn't matter if you knew or not; if she was that drunk, it's rape. That's what "statutorily" means.
  - Spooky23 9y ago
    Did she get a breathalyzer? How do the police prove she was drunk? People close to me have been victims of acquaintance rape in their homes. It’s a horrific crime that shakes the victim to her core and leaves her violated in many ways. The process of getting justice is like getting victimized again.
DoreenMichele 9y ago
Even in those places, her drunkenness is used as a mitigating factor by the defense — and often also the police and prosecutors. That is probably at least in part because men and women both routinely drink in order to get past personal sexual hang-ups in a quick and dirty fashion so they can get laid at all, hang-ups that would take years of therapy to really fix. So voluntarily choosing to drink with or in the company of a member of the opposite sex can be reasonably interpreted as intent to try to get yourself laid. This is part of why people vehemently object when I (a woman myself) suggest things like "In order to protect themselves, women should not drink under x, y and z circumstances."
- rosser 9y ago
  There's a fine line between cautioning someone on how best to protect themselves, and victim-blaming. I don't think you're doing the latter, but people who (demonstrably) have less nuanced opinions on this kind of thing probably aren't going to be able to see that distinction. That said, I also think there's a bright-line distinction between using intoxication to explain an assault, versus using it to excuse one. People tend not to see that line, either, though.
  - DoreenMichele 9y ago
    Part of what I am saying is that clear "bright line" consent itself is kind of a mythical unicorn we chase. People who grow up with Catholic guilt or who were sexually abused as a child (etc ad nauseum) may, themselves, feel conflicted about having sex at all, even with their spouse. (I speak from firsthand experience as someone who was sexually abused as a child.) Sexual consent is just not the nice, simple thing that some people want it to be. There are people who can't get laid without getting liquored up. There are people who have rape fantasies because they want sex, but don't want to be "at fault" for doing something that they have internalized is inherently bad and verboten. This element is mostly not discussed. The subject of rape comes up, and people don't want to talk about how personal baggage intersects with sexual morality and seriously muddies the waters on exactly what constitutes a consenting moral sexual encounter. If you need to have a drink to get laid at all, telling people you need to be sober amounts to telling them you can't get laid until you work out your personal demons. (Which is not what I am saying, but it may be what people "hear" when I say certain things.) This is incredibly problematic.
    - rosser 9y ago
      I was too, and I've done decades of work on it — using more and stranger modalities than you'd believe. I understand the subtleties. That's a very large part of why I'm so ardent about the issue — because most people haven't, and don't, and swing mile-wide (and often self-serving) generalities around something where the subtleties are measured in microns. I'm also not talking about "bright line consent". I'm talking about drawing a flashing-neon line on the near side of using intoxication to excuse shitty behavior. It never excuses anything. E.g., you get behind the wheel, over the limit, that is 100% on you, no matter what.
caminante 9y ago
> in many jurisdictions it is statutorily rape to have intercourse with someone who's too intoxicated to meaningfully consent. Can you point to a jurisdiction where this rule doesn't require direct evidence? Re-quoting parent's ask here: >Do we have video of the event? Do we have eye witnesses who saw the sexual encounter? Do we know for sure what happened between two people when most likely no one else was around?

by rosser 9y ago

Spooky23 9y ago

“Officer, I don’t understand. She was into it, didn’t seem drunk at all.”

rosser 9y ago
"Too drunk to meaningfully consent". It is ludicrous on its face to claim you didn't know someone was that drunk. And, anyway, in the jurisdictions I'm talking about, it doesn't matter if you knew or not; if she was that drunk, it's rape. That's what "statutorily" means.
- Spooky23 9y ago
  Did she get a breathalyzer? How do the police prove she was drunk? People close to me have been victims of acquaintance rape in their homes. It’s a horrific crime that shakes the victim to her core and leaves her violated in many ways. The process of getting justice is like getting victimized again.

DoreenMichele 9y ago

Even in those places, her drunkenness is used as a mitigating factor by the defense — and often also the police and prosecutors. That is probably at least in part because men and women both routinely drink in order to get past personal sexual hang-ups in a quick and dirty fashion so they can get laid at all, hang-ups that would take years of therapy to really fix. So voluntarily choosing to drink with or in the company of a member of the opposite sex can be reasonably interpreted as intent to try to get yourself laid. This is part of why people vehemently object when I (a woman myself) suggest things like "In order to protect themselves, women should not drink under x, y and z circumstances."

rosser 9y ago
There's a fine line between cautioning someone on how best to protect themselves, and victim-blaming. I don't think you're doing the latter, but people who (demonstrably) have less nuanced opinions on this kind of thing probably aren't going to be able to see that distinction. That said, I also think there's a bright-line distinction between using intoxication to explain an assault, versus using it to excuse one. People tend not to see that line, either, though.
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  Part of what I am saying is that clear "bright line" consent itself is kind of a mythical unicorn we chase. People who grow up with Catholic guilt or who were sexually abused as a child (etc ad nauseum) may, themselves, feel conflicted about having sex at all, even with their spouse. (I speak from firsthand experience as someone who was sexually abused as a child.) Sexual consent is just not the nice, simple thing that some people want it to be. There are people who can't get laid without getting liquored up. There are people who have rape fantasies because they want sex, but don't want to be "at fault" for doing something that they have internalized is inherently bad and verboten. This element is mostly not discussed. The subject of rape comes up, and people don't want to talk about how personal baggage intersects with sexual morality and seriously muddies the waters on exactly what constitutes a consenting moral sexual encounter. If you need to have a drink to get laid at all, telling people you need to be sober amounts to telling them you can't get laid until you work out your personal demons. (Which is not what I am saying, but it may be what people "hear" when I say certain things.) This is incredibly problematic.
  - rosser 9y ago
    I was too, and I've done decades of work on it — using more and stranger modalities than you'd believe. I understand the subtleties. That's a very large part of why I'm so ardent about the issue — because most people haven't, and don't, and swing mile-wide (and often self-serving) generalities around something where the subtleties are measured in microns. I'm also not talking about "bright line consent". I'm talking about drawing a flashing-neon line on the near side of using intoxication to excuse shitty behavior. It never excuses anything. E.g., you get behind the wheel, over the limit, that is 100% on you, no matter what.

caminante 9y ago

> in many jurisdictions it is statutorily rape to have intercourse with someone who's too intoxicated to meaningfully consent. Can you point to a jurisdiction where this rule doesn't require direct evidence? Re-quoting parent's ask here: >Do we have video of the event? Do we have eye witnesses who saw the sexual encounter? Do we know for sure what happened between two people when most likely no one else was around?