Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
To begin with, what is "drunk"?

Blood alcohol level .08. It's called legal intoxication (the point where the law starts to care how much you've been drinking). Someone that drunk? You'll almost certainly be able to smell it on their breath.

I am pretty sure that .08 only applies to driving a motor vehicle, and judgement does gets impaired at lower levels.

My view is if the person has consumed any amount of alcohol its not ok.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
What do you expect in a sex fueled society on the edge of decadence. Society allows TV and just about everything else to focus on sex and violence because it entertains, our society cares very little for real emotion and relationships.

Not a lot of places in this world were a 15 year boy is placed on a TV show for getting 5 girls pregnant. Not only does he get his 10 minutes of fame, no one truly condemns his acts, cause teens will be teens. At 15 how many more partners will he have and risk getting an STD, and then spread it to each new girl. He has no concept of relationship and probably has no clue how to be in one. Has no feelings of love or at the very least how to connect deeply with someone. He is good at putting Vagina on a pedestal and getting laid. He'd call me jealous and that doesn't matter.

The scariest thing is most people out there do not find anything wrong with what he does.

Our Sex Negative culture is the reason for this, not that TV is showing to much sex. Look at japan, they fully embrace that people hve sex, that sex exists and they acknowledge the fact teens have sex. and their teen pregnancy rate is WAY lower than ours.

 Peregrine wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I remember when my 7th(?) grade teacher showed us was can happen if you contract certain diseases. One showed a penis with black and white coloring, like a cows skin kinda.
That Scared living hell out of me and my classmates. I know I use condoms

Honestly, most of those pictures are wildly exaggerated to make a point. Sure, it's a real photo, but they conveniently omit things like "patient had severe immune system problems and left the disease untreated for years". The reality is that most STDs, in normal people, are either easily treatable and/or not that severe. You certainly don't want to get any of them but it really doesn't help to blow the risks way out of proportion to scare people into not having sex.

It's like the fear mongering in drug education where they say stuff like "If you smoke one joint you will die!" Then when someone does smoke a joint and doesn't die, they can think "they lied about the joint, maybe they lied about other drugs, too?".

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
What do you expect in a sex fueled society on the edge of decadence. Society allows TV and just about everything else to focus on sex and violence because it entertains, our society cares very little for real emotion and relationships.

Not a lot of places in this world were a 15 year boy is placed on a TV show for getting 5 girls pregnant. Not only does he get his 10 minutes of fame, no one truly condemns his acts, cause teens will be teens. At 15 how many more partners will he have and risk getting an STD, and then spread it to each new girl. He has no concept of relationship and probably has no clue how to be in one. Has no feelings of love or at the very least how to connect deeply with someone. He is good at putting Vagina on a pedestal and getting laid. He'd call me jealous and that doesn't matter.

The scariest thing is most people out there do not find anything wrong with what he does.

Our Sex Negative culture is the reason for this, not that TV is showing to much sex. Look at japan, they fully embrace that people hve sex, that sex exists and they acknowledge the fact teens have sex. and their teen pregnancy rate is WAY lower than ours.

Well, Japan has sort of the opposite issue. They've gotten so much fake sex into their culture they've basically lost the desire for the real thing.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Our Sex Negative culture is the reason for this, not that TV is showing to much sex. Look at japan, they fully embrace that people hve sex, that sex exists and they acknowledge the fact teens have sex. and their teen pregnancy rate is WAY lower than ours.

...and on the other hand, Japan is the breeding stock of the most disgusting porn on the planet including drawn child pornography (loli) to be a form of art by many. Two extremes.

 Grey Templar wrote:

My view is if the person has consumed any amount of alcohol its not ok.

This is not a reasonable standard. Not only is it unreasonable to think someone would be impaired to any meaningful extent after 1 drink. It makes no sense in our cultural context.The idea is to set up rules that help protect people, not mandate rigid temperance for the 6-hour period preceding any fething.

 Chongara wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

My view is if the person has consumed any amount of alcohol its not ok.

This is not a reasonable standard. Not only is it unreasonable to think someone would be impaired to any meaningful extent after 1 drink. It makes no sense in our cultural context.The idea is to set up rules that help protect people, not mandate rigid temperance for the 6-hour period preceding any fething.

The issue is that the amount of drinks to be intoxicated is different from every individual, and you can't tell at what point someone is inebriated or not without a barrage of tests.

If someone has had any amount of alcohol its not worth the risk.

Yes, this rule exists to protect people. You might not like it, but it does protect people. Both from being raped and being accused of rape.

Undue burden?

Maybe before anyone has sex they have to go see a doctor (but only one in a centre where they can admit them to hospital), talk through all the horrible things that can result from going through with sex, the woman can get a transvaginal ultrasound scan and the bloke can get a prostate exam, then they get to wait a couple of days to make sure they have thought things through and then come back and have sex while the doctor watches.

There is nothing to discuss if you don't understand or accept that intoxicated = unable to give consent.

 Grey Templar wrote:
There is nothing to discuss if you don't understand or accept that intoxicated = unable to give consent.

...which is a meaningless definition legal-wise.

Given how it plays out in the US, its clearly not a useless definition.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Given how it plays out in the US, its clearly not a useless definition.

Good luck proving that to a court of law, e.g. claiming you were unable to make proper decisions after a single beer. Next, the other person said that he didn't know you drank anything. Or says you said to him that you didn't.

That's what I was getting at.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Given how it plays out in the US, its clearly not a useless definition.

Good luck proving that to a court of law, e.g. claiming you were unable to make proper decisions after a single beer. Next, the other person said that he didn't know you drank anything. Or says you said to him that you didn't.

That's what I was getting at.

"I'm sorry your honor, it wasn't rape because I didn't think he was drunk"

"It wasn't rape, she only had a single shot your honor"

Sorry, thats just pants on head stupid if you think that doesn't change it. Its seriously disgusting dude.

The standard of justice is beyond a shadow of a doubt, Grey.... the idea that a woman who had a beer, and then went home with someone could then have them arrested for rape is full of doubt. Well beyond the legal limit. You would be hard pressed to find a jury of peers that would convict anyone of being incapable of giving consent after one beer, or one shot, barring any extenuating circumstances, like slurred speech or falling over.

I choose to believe a woman, who isn't showing any signs of intoxication and has had a single drink is perfectly capable of making her own decisions.

No, its beyond reasonable doubt. Not a shadow of a doubt.

The number of drinks is irrelevant in light of the fact that there was alcohol involved. Both parties could be lying. What is more likely? That someone only had one beer and is now accusing someone of raping them OR that the person was in fact intoxicated and got taken advantage of?

I don't disagree that someone could be sober after one beer and give consent then cry rape later when they decided after the fact they didn't like what happened, but thats not as likely as they did in fact get taken advantage of.

Signs of intoxication aren't always true or exact. People can be totally blacked out and appear fully conscious. Judgement also gets impaired before motor functions do, and not everyone gets their motor functions impaired to the same level. Someone can be totally jacked up and only appear to be slightly tipsy. Likewise, some people get effected by alcohol way faster on fewer drinks.

And there we go overthinking things again.

The law exists because there are people who seek to take advantage of other people when they are in a vulnerable state. It happens. It happens a lot. Colleges in particular field these incidents annually. "She/he was drunk" is not an excuse for taking advantage of them.

Whether or not a crime was committed, or if two people got drunk and carried away, is something for police to figure out. That's why we have police. Laws do no exist in a vacuum absent human reason.

This law has existed for a long time, and no matter how much certain people try to pretend, there is not a rampant epidemic of false rape accusations coming from people who did something dumb and want the law to make it better.

 LordofHats wrote:
And there we go overthinking things again.

The law exists because there are people who seek to take advantage of other people when they are in a vulnerable state. It happens. It happens a lot. Colleges in particular field these incidents annually. "She/he was drunk" is not an excuse for taking advantage of them.

Whether or not a crime was committed, or if two people got drunk and carried away, is something for police to figure out. That's why we have police. Laws do no exist in a vacuum absent human reason.

This law has existed for a long time, and no matter how much certain people try to pretend, there is not a rampant epidemic of false rape accusations coming from people who did something dumb and want the law to make it better.

^ This right here.

Sorry, folks, but if you require your sexual conquests to be intoxicated (whether via alcohol or drugs) in order for you to score? You might be a rapist. In fact, you are a rapist.

I found this article interesting.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2015/02/drunk_sex_on_campus_universities_are_struggling_to_determine_when_intoxicated.html

Definitely agree with the line about police should be handling these things. I hate campus cops. From personal experience on three different campuses, the school doesn't give a damn who was right and who was wrong, who was hurt and who wasn't. it just wants the problem to go away with as little controversy as possible, and that usually involves one of two things;

Proclaim that nothing happened and move on.

Someone gets arbitrarily punished because it is deemed expedient.

EDIT: And of course, this is all part of the related issue of campus drinking, which schools often only pretend to do something about.

 Grey Templar wrote:


Sorry, thats just pants on head stupid if you think that doesn't change it. Its seriously disgusting dude.

How do you prove it? Your "opinion" doesn't matter here. If it comes to a court of law, how do you prove that someone's guilty? In most cases, it's a he said - she said that doesn't go anywhere. There are very clear cases where people are drunk beyond all doubts, but in a ton of cases, I bet that it ain't that clear.

If you tried to sue someone for rape after someone had a single beer, claiming that he was no longer able to willingly take actions, if I was the other side's lawyer, I'd laugh at your face and see your client waste money.

 Sigvatr wrote:
How do you prove it? Your "opinion" doesn't matter here. If it comes to a court of law, how do you prove that someone's guilty? In most cases, it's a he said - she said that doesn't go anywhere. There are very clear cases where people are drunk beyond all doubts, but in a ton of cases, I bet that it ain't that clear.

Witnesses would be the primary source of evidence. Many, if not most, of these cases involve drinking in public.

Also, I think you're confusing two different things here: criminal law and what it means to be a good person. There are a lot of horrible things you can do that probably won't get a criminal conviction, but the fact that you don't spend a few decades in prison doesn't mean that you did the right thing. Drawing the line at "not drunk at all" is a pretty good idea if you care about more than just whether or not you can get away with something.

If you tried to sue someone for rape after someone had a single beer, claiming that he was no longer able to willingly take actions, if I was the other side's lawyer, I'd laugh at your face.

Well yes, but nobody here is claiming that you'd win that suit.

PS: it's very important to understand the difference between civil trials and criminal trials. Sentencing, the burden of proof, etc, are all very different. And, very importantly, in criminal trials it is the state on the other side, not the accuser.

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, its beyond reasonable doubt. Not a shadow of a doubt.

The number of drinks is irrelevant in light of the fact that there was alcohol involved. Both parties could be lying. What is more likely? That someone only had one beer and is now accusing someone of raping them OR that the person was in fact intoxicated and got taken advantage of?

I don't disagree that someone could be sober after one beer and give consent then cry rape later when they decided after the fact they didn't like what happened, but thats not as likely as they did in fact get taken advantage of.

Signs of intoxication aren't always true or exact. People can be totally blacked out and appear fully conscious. Judgement also gets impaired before motor functions do, and not everyone gets their motor functions impaired to the same level. Someone can be totally jacked up and only appear to be slightly tipsy. Likewise, some people get effected by alcohol way faster on fewer drinks.

Okay, challenge for you- if one beer counts as "too drunk", what do you do when both parties have had something to drink? Do we start handing out verdicts of "Mutual Rape"? Does having had one beer provide an ironclad defence (Since obviously you are no longer able to consent to sex either).

Not saying that there is no such thing as "too drunk", just saying that a standard of one-and-done is way to simple for this issue.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, its beyond reasonable doubt. Not a shadow of a doubt.

The number of drinks is irrelevant in light of the fact that there was alcohol involved. Both parties could be lying. What is more likely? That someone only had one beer and is now accusing someone of raping them OR that the person was in fact intoxicated and got taken advantage of?

I don't disagree that someone could be sober after one beer and give consent then cry rape later when they decided after the fact they didn't like what happened, but thats not as likely as they did in fact get taken advantage of.

Signs of intoxication aren't always true or exact. People can be totally blacked out and appear fully conscious. Judgement also gets impaired before motor functions do, and not everyone gets their motor functions impaired to the same level. Someone can be totally jacked up and only appear to be slightly tipsy. Likewise, some people get effected by alcohol way faster on fewer drinks.

Okay, challenge for you- if one beer counts as "too drunk", what do you do when both parties have had something to drink? Do we start handing out verdicts of "Mutual Rape"? Does having had one beer provide an ironclad defence (Since obviously you are no longer able to consent to sex either).

Not saying that there is no such thing as "too drunk", just saying that a standard of one-and-done is way to simple for this issue.

The state of California requires audible, direct consent. You are literally required to ask and receive a clear "Yes". Now, it's not as lame as "Can we feth now? Y/N"... there's a bunch of "instructional videos" out there for pointers and guidelines, and such.

I have to say, though, that, if you play your cards right? Those Q&A sessions can get... pretty hot.

Picking up dates at a Q&A session on affirmative consent.

Bad ass

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

Okay, challenge for you- if one beer counts as "too drunk", what do you do when both parties have had something to drink? Do we start handing out verdicts of "Mutual Rape"? Does having had one beer provide an ironclad defence (Since obviously you are no longer able to consent to sex either).

At this point, it becomes a wild race of "Who can run to the next police station the fastest?". The winner is the victim, loser is the rapist.

@GreyTemplar: Just to reiterate on my previous post: we can agree on the law being there being good. What I am getting to is going straight into the waters - and test its borders. Law is good and well, but when and how could you possibly claim it? And when /should/ you be able to do so? If you go by the 1-drink rule, you got an extremely easily exploitable law and thus it would never have the slightest chance of going through.

It very much depends on the other evidence. I doubt anyone is going to claim they were intoxicated after only one beer, but they potentially could. Its then up to the jury to determine if that is what happened or not.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
The standard of justice is beyond a shadow of a doubt, Grey.... the idea that a woman who had a beer, and then went home with someone could then have them arrested for rape is full of doubt. Well beyond the legal limit. You would be hard pressed to find a jury of peers that would convict anyone of being incapable of giving consent after one beer, or one shot, barring any extenuating circumstances, like slurred speech or falling over.

I choose to believe a woman, who isn't showing any signs of intoxication and has had a single drink is perfectly capable of making her own decisions.

California will make that the legal standard within five years. Its already the legal standard in California universities BY LAW for potential expulsion proceedings.

Also speaking of the rise of STD's, has anyone seen Kronk lately?

Kronk ?

Back on topic - in other words, cut out the LULZ POASTS.

 Alpharius wrote:
Back on topic - in other words, cut out the LULZ POASTS.

We don't cotton to no poasts round these parts.