13 ms·

Putting aside the details of Assange's case for a moment: > Not that I'm condoning his behaviour, but unless I'm missing a piece of the puzzle that I'm not un

Putting aside the details of Assange's case for a moment: > Not that I'm condoning his behaviour, but unless I'm missing a piece of the puzzle that I'm not understanding: Last I checked, anywhere outside of Sweden, having sex with a partner who appeared to be willing (until after the fact) is not rape. If that's the case, how do people not get charged with rape all the time? That's actually not true at all - there are a number of situations in which a person can be legally incapable of consent. In various jurisdictions this can include someone who is too intoxicated, someone who is under the age of consent, someone who is a ward of the state (e.g. prisoners are legally unable to consent to sex), someone who is emotionally pressured or coerced, etc. Rape convictions are very hard to secure for a number of reasons (the biggest one being that most victims don't pursue charges[0]), but that shouldn't confuse what is and isn't rape under the law. > This kind of scenario has played out in countless movies and every university dorm since the beginning of time. Usually it's the guy who gets drunk and tries to escape, but the plot is the same. Yes, and this is what is often referred to with the statement "rape culture" (which is often misunderstood and dismissed). There are a lot of things that are commonplace in movies that would be considered sexual assault in real life. [0] Even if you were 100% sure that you could get a conviction, it's an incredibly exhausting, taxing and humiliating process for the victim, so most ultimately choose not to risk their mental health in the process.

balabaster 12y ago
What I'm saying is that this is applying a "rape culture" label to something that I'm not really sure should be considered rape culture. I can point you in the direction of countless men and women that have had drunk sex and enjoyed it and gone back for more... many of whom proclaim the joys of morning sex and being woken up that way. How do you differentiate that from someone who is only having sex with you because they're drunk and waking up the next morning and regretting it? They're surely equally as likely to wake up the next morning, think they've scored and go back for second helpings... There is a morally fine line for sure... but I think "legally incapacitated" is reaching. She wasn't drugged to the point that she wasn't able to make decisions. Arguably she was drugged (by her own alcohol consumption) enough to make shitty decisions (perhaps). Lord knows we've all done that to ourselves at some point or another. But being drunk and making shitty decisions comes in the realm of don't drink and drive. It's not illegal for someone to get in the car with you while you're drunk at the wheel. Stupid, for sure, but if they get behind the wheel drunk and you get in the passenger seat equally drunk and they get in an accident and kill someone, are you an accessory to that crime? If they kill themselves because you let them get behind the wheel is that your fault? They made the shitty decision, you let them. Sure you'll probably feel terrible for letting that happen, their family might blame you for not keeping them out of trouble, but legally...? At what point does being drunk excuse you? How much alcohol do you have to consume? Did she initiate? Did he? Was he that drunk too? Does that matter? Can any of it be proven either way? In a court of law, being drunk doesn't legally excuse you from the ability to make decisions... which is why when you drink and drive, they're still legally able to charge you with "Causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink." (in the UK) and "Driving While Intoxicated" or "Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol" in North America. If you are legally culpable for decisions contributing to a crime when under the influence of alcohol, then you cannot claim that someone is legally incapacitated from making decisions regarding sex when they consent to do so. You can have it one way or the other, but not both. If they're legally incapacitated from making decisions about their sex life, then surely they're legally incapacitated from making the decision to drink and drive, and thus are not legally responsible. Where does legal culpability draw the line?
- toothbrush 12y ago
  > Arguably she was drugged (by her own alcohol consumption) enough to make shitty decisions ... being drunk and making shitty decisions comes in the realm of don't drink and drive... This comparison is wrong to the point of being offensive. It's classic victim blaming. You're drunk, get raped? Your fault! "Being raped" and "driving a dangerous piece of equipment" seem very obviously different in terms of who is the victim and who the perpetrator.
  - balabaster 12y ago
    That's not at all what I'm saying. You're twisting my words to fit your own agenda... What I'm saying is they were drunk and horny and wanted sex - both parties, consensual (from the way the media portrayed it.) Not rape. It wasn't until after the fact that she backtracked and changed her mind and decided that she retroactively didn't want sex after all and cried rape. That's like me going back to a partner and saying, yeah, I know we had sex last night, but I'm regretting it now because I heard you had sex with my room mate, so I'm going to report you for rape. Which is exactly how it was portrayed. Making a shitty decision to have sex with someone while under the influence of alcohol is entirely different than getting shit-face drunk (or drugged) and getting raped. These are two entirely different scenarios. The first is what I'm getting at - bad decision to have (consensual) sex, regretting it after the fact; the second is what you're getting at - getting too drunk to be in charge of your own destiny and unable to fend yourself off from someone you don't want sex with - this is rape and is inexcusable. In the scenario you're presenting, I'm entirely in agreement with you, but that's not the scenario as I perceived it, nor as I presented it. As the media presented it, I didn't see any real victim. I saw someone that played the victim card only as a result of coercion. The way her testimony was portrayed, I'm not even convinced that she felt she was a victim, she was a willing participant and only seemed to be going along with the rape allegation as part of some outside coercion or pressure. I genuinely read it like she had some affection for him and that she was sexually into him. My point regarding the getting drunk and driving a dangerous piece of equipment is about legal culpability with regards to the ability to make decisions while under the influence of alcohol - not victim blaming. It's not about the indirect consequences of her decisions. It's about making a decision to participate in sex while under the influence of alcohol. In the legal sense this is no different than making a decision to drive a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. If you're legally considered to have the mental capacity to make decisions in one scenario, you're legally considered to have the mental capacity to make decisions in the other. If someone decides to have sex with someone while under the influence of alcohol, they can't use the legal excuse they were drunk. In exactly the same way as you can't get into a car accident and claim legal immunity because you were were drunk. In other words, you cannot be deemed legally able to make a decision in one scenario but not the other because you're drunk. If it was rape and indeed it was non-consensual on her part, then her being drunk is irrelevant, just as it would be irrelevant what she was wearing. Rape is rape. But this was not portrayed as rape.

balabaster 12y ago

What I'm saying is that this is applying a "rape culture" label to something that I'm not really sure should be considered rape culture. I can point you in the direction of countless men and women that have had drunk sex and enjoyed it and gone back for more... many of whom proclaim the joys of morning sex and being woken up that way. How do you differentiate that from someone who is only having sex with you because they're drunk and waking up the next morning and regretting it? They're surely equally as likely to wake up the next morning, think they've scored and go back for second helpings... There is a morally fine line for sure... but I think "legally incapacitated" is reaching. She wasn't drugged to the point that she wasn't able to make decisions. Arguably she was drugged (by her own alcohol consumption) enough to make shitty decisions (perhaps). Lord knows we've all done that to ourselves at some point or another. But being drunk and making shitty decisions comes in the realm of don't drink and drive. It's not illegal for someone to get in the car with you while you're drunk at the wheel. Stupid, for sure, but if they get behind the wheel drunk and you get in the passenger seat equally drunk and they get in an accident and kill someone, are you an accessory to that crime? If they kill themselves because you let them get behind the wheel is that your fault? They made the shitty decision, you let them. Sure you'll probably feel terrible for letting that happen, their family might blame you for not keeping them out of trouble, but legally...? At what point does being drunk excuse you? How much alcohol do you have to consume? Did she initiate? Did he? Was he that drunk too? Does that matter? Can any of it be proven either way? In a court of law, being drunk doesn't legally excuse you from the ability to make decisions... which is why when you drink and drive, they're still legally able to charge you with "Causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink." (in the UK) and "Driving While Intoxicated" or "Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol" in North America. If you are legally culpable for decisions contributing to a crime when under the influence of alcohol, then you cannot claim that someone is legally incapacitated from making decisions regarding sex when they consent to do so. You can have it one way or the other, but not both. If they're legally incapacitated from making decisions about their sex life, then surely they're legally incapacitated from making the decision to drink and drive, and thus are not legally responsible. Where does legal culpability draw the line?

toothbrush 12y ago
> Arguably she was drugged (by her own alcohol consumption) enough to make shitty decisions ... being drunk and making shitty decisions comes in the realm of don't drink and drive... This comparison is wrong to the point of being offensive. It's classic victim blaming. You're drunk, get raped? Your fault! "Being raped" and "driving a dangerous piece of equipment" seem very obviously different in terms of who is the victim and who the perpetrator.
- balabaster 12y ago
  That's not at all what I'm saying. You're twisting my words to fit your own agenda... What I'm saying is they were drunk and horny and wanted sex - both parties, consensual (from the way the media portrayed it.) Not rape. It wasn't until after the fact that she backtracked and changed her mind and decided that she retroactively didn't want sex after all and cried rape. That's like me going back to a partner and saying, yeah, I know we had sex last night, but I'm regretting it now because I heard you had sex with my room mate, so I'm going to report you for rape. Which is exactly how it was portrayed. Making a shitty decision to have sex with someone while under the influence of alcohol is entirely different than getting shit-face drunk (or drugged) and getting raped. These are two entirely different scenarios. The first is what I'm getting at - bad decision to have (consensual) sex, regretting it after the fact; the second is what you're getting at - getting too drunk to be in charge of your own destiny and unable to fend yourself off from someone you don't want sex with - this is rape and is inexcusable. In the scenario you're presenting, I'm entirely in agreement with you, but that's not the scenario as I perceived it, nor as I presented it. As the media presented it, I didn't see any real victim. I saw someone that played the victim card only as a result of coercion. The way her testimony was portrayed, I'm not even convinced that she felt she was a victim, she was a willing participant and only seemed to be going along with the rape allegation as part of some outside coercion or pressure. I genuinely read it like she had some affection for him and that she was sexually into him. My point regarding the getting drunk and driving a dangerous piece of equipment is about legal culpability with regards to the ability to make decisions while under the influence of alcohol - not victim blaming. It's not about the indirect consequences of her decisions. It's about making a decision to participate in sex while under the influence of alcohol. In the legal sense this is no different than making a decision to drive a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. If you're legally considered to have the mental capacity to make decisions in one scenario, you're legally considered to have the mental capacity to make decisions in the other. If someone decides to have sex with someone while under the influence of alcohol, they can't use the legal excuse they were drunk. In exactly the same way as you can't get into a car accident and claim legal immunity because you were were drunk. In other words, you cannot be deemed legally able to make a decision in one scenario but not the other because you're drunk. If it was rape and indeed it was non-consensual on her part, then her being drunk is irrelevant, just as it would be irrelevant what she was wearing. Rape is rape. But this was not portrayed as rape.