Wait, This Need To Be Taught?

[runic knight]

Well... yes. I would argue that that's one of a school's many functions/purposes/goals. First of all, not everyone will or can get that from their parents, even in a perfect world, and there's no harm in it being reinforced even if they do. Second of all, aren't schools a pretty major part of the "society" that you think bears some responsibility, especially where the children they educate are concerned? Third of all, children in this country will spend, at minimum, something like 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, the majority of the year for at least 14 of the first 18 years in their life. School is where kids do a lot of their growing, of course schoolshave some responsibility in helping shape children morally and socially.

You are right, they have responsibility of reinforcing. The problem is that reinforcing morality isn't teaching it wholesale. Reinforcing in schools is using the established moral framework and demonstrating it in a sort of test social framework. This should be where differences in individual moral understandings are ironed out before they are put into full society. Not where you start from the base and give them all the moral guidance the parents can't be asked to.

Schools have an ever increasing curriculum of practical base skills and social experiences to teach kids as it is, adding in morality as well and one has to ask what the hell the point of parents are at that point when the school is the one doing all the work at that point. And that is before we even get into the ways some schools try to push morality, such as through religion.

Like making certain that kids hear about it as they grow up? Possibly from a source of authority in their young lives? Maybe in some sort of educational setting...

Yeah, like the people who have legal guardian ship of them in the first place, or even gave birth. The people who's responsibility in society thanks to having the children or ownership of the children include raising that child to be a well adjusted member of the society.

don't get me wrong, reinforcing the idea though school is great, but that wasn't ever what I was arguing against. I was arguing against the school having responsibility to teach morality in the first place. Though I suppose there is a question to ask about how they can do even that much since, you know, sex isn't something that happens under guidance and permission in the school and is acknowledged as something proper if done right. Or did I miss where schools let you have sex on the premise because it was a valuable life experience they were suppose to help teach?

Except, well, they don't. If nothing else, this thread has made that pretty clear. Everyone knows "Rape(tm)" is wrong, but lots of people only think of "Rape" as a violent stranger assault. People don't think about rape in the context of consent, or lack thereof. Even people who do think of that can have trouble determining what "consent" is, and when it's been obtained. Hell, even among the 40-odd posts on this forum, we haven't reached a clear consensus on that. If only we could educate ourselves better, and make certain that society as a whole was educated better. Possibly from a source of authority? Maybe in some sort of educational setting...

Yeah, parents, the people legally responsible for that instead of an already overly relied on nanny school system whose over-use of has lead to this mess some anyways as parents heave more and more responsibility for actually raising the kids into contributing members of society onto. Thought we went over that one before? Also, call me crazy, but do you think, maybe, that you might have been lied to about what is believed about rape in relating to consent because some people wanted to weasel out of responsibility for their actions and saying "I didn't know" was a nice way to try to play dumb or justify an action that was despicable?

I mean yeah, you can get into some confusing situations where one or neither people are in the right state of mind such as at a party, but even then it is still kinda easy to pick up on if they are consenting or not. And if I recall right I was taught, and reinforced about in school no less, at around 5 years old that you ask permission and accept no when told to you if you wanted to play with a toy or person.

So, if I go out and decide to steal someone's wallet, because I see they're drunk and will be an easy target, that's on them?

No, because stealing a wallet is a crime of theft that isn't based on consent. Sort of like that other example you gave, the state of the person it is perpetrated on doesn't change that you are doing something illegal to them unlike when the state of the crime is based on consent, such as rape.

Here, let me put it this way, lets say you convinces someone drunk, who chose to drink themselves stupid without your help, to give you $50. Is THAT theft? Because that is the argument in a nutshell here, that a person is no longer responsible for their actions after they get themselves drunk. Except the amount of time a person has been charged with murder for drinking while driving, hell the amount of people charged with cow-tipping has shown that you never stop being responsible for your actions in the eyes of the law, even when you consciously choose to make yourself stupider beforehand. And do note, this all only applies when the person consciously chooses to drink themselves, not spiking a drink or any of that stuff. Or would getting shitfaced excuse me from the responsibility of acting like a productive member of society and thus allow me to go around harassing women by grabbing at them since I was no longer responsible for the choices I make after the initial choice of drinking like a fish, knowing full well my decision making would be hindered?

Hell, you want a prime example of this, see any gambling casino. You start winning, they start giving you free drinks in hopes you do something stupid and lose it. That is intentionally trying to get people drunk to get them to do something stupid and is still legally acceptable since the person's actions are still their damn own, why does that suddenly stop when you mix sex into it? And it seems that is the only case where a person is no longer responsible for their own choices in society, or can change their mind about it after the fact and regret sinks in. Or could I drag the MGM Grand to court and sue for damages since they gave me free alcohol and because that may have impede my judgement, caused me to make stupid bets that cost me thousands?

 

[Netrigan]

I think it's mostly about drunk rape, though. Hell, it wasn't until a couple of years ago that I learned having sex with someone who is drunk was considered rape.

Certainly entering into a bit of a gray area. Even in business contracts being drunk can be grounds for throwing out the contract, although in practice you have to establish the person was taken advantage of while being completely incapacitated or that someone deliberately plied them with alcohol or drugs in order to take advantage of them.

And I think most folks understand the line between drunk girl coming on to you and taking advantage of semi-conscious drunk girl. If she's not an active participant, then you're in creepy territory. If you're having sex with someone who isn't capable of getting anything from the experience (save perhaps an STD or unwanted pregnancy), then you're being an asshole. Case closed.

The problem is it's hard coming up with a legal standard here. A woman could be completely off-her-face and a very willing participant... but even back in my college days (late 80s) when there wasn't any discussion of drunk consent, I witnessed a friend of mine refusing the sexual advances of a very drunk girl... despite him being a virgin and desperate to get laid. But then the girl confessed to really liking him, so he scooped that up later when there was no danger of her vomiting on him.

 

[Auron225]

Stuff

I'm with you regarding initial reaction - "Why on earth is none of that common sense?". However, reading the responses here of studies and such, I guess you can't be too careful. Never underestimate the vast depths of human stupidity.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The problem is it's hard coming up with a legal standard here. A woman could be completely off-her-face and a very willing participant... but even back in my college days (late 80s) when there wasn't any discussion of drunk consent, I witnessed a friend of mine refusing the sexual advances of a very drunk girl... despite him being a virgin and desperate to get laid. But then the girl confessed to really liking him, so he scooped that up later when there was no danger of her vomiting on him.

That seems, by far, the sensible way of doing it.

I mean, even if you're pretty sure she'd be into it sober, nothing much can go wrong if you don't have sex, but it really, really can if you do.

Stuff

I'm with you regarding initial reaction - "Why on earth is none of that common sense?". However, reading the responses here of studies and such, I guess you can't be too careful. Never underestimate the vast depths of human stupidity.

Well...not necessarily stupid, but otherwise sensible people can end up believing all sorts of things that would seem obviously wrong.

 

[briankoontz]

Am I overreacting, or am I justified in thinking these people are fucking idiots for not knowing this by use of the lump three feet above their ass, is it a societal problem, or is it something in the middle that I'm not seeing? I sincerely want to know, because I want to slap the shit out the people that are saying they didn't know they could say no and I want to know if I'm justified in feeling that way.

Well, wow, think about this on a basic level.

The most successful people in the world are also some of the worst. Corporations dominate the global economy, and by design a corporation is a psychopathic wealth accumulator, which is only bounded by whatever outside forces can put pressure on it. The amount of time that high-paid supermodels and actresses put into their appearance makes it very difficult for them to care about anything besides their appearance.

Men are encouraged to wealth accumulate at any cost, women are encouraged to be shallow and be only concerned with their faces and bodies.

I'm really surprised that amid all this society manages to continue. It's amazing and a testament to just how resilient humanity is amid all the terror, abuse, and debasement.

But of course this debasement has an effect, and we see that all the time. Men are encouraged to be aggressive within the economy and within society, as long as they aren't TOO aggressive. Fucking lots of women without regard to anyone's feelings (as long as consent exists between them and their partner-at-the-moment) is just fine and in fact it makes one "more of a man" than foolishly loving someone. Wilt Chamberlain took this to the logical extreme - fucking thousands of women, essentially keeping his "man-score" and adding 1 point for every new woman fucked. His value TO HIMSELF was, quite literally, based on the precise number of women he fucked. In gamer terms, fucking was like killing a monster and gaining XP - Wilt Chamberlain was a Level 20,000 Woman-fucker, melting Ice Queens with his Fiery Longsword.

Why should it surprise anyone that within our culture there's a lot of sexual abuse and rape? It's just ONE STEP REMOVED from what our culture celebrates.

Football's a good analogy. It's fine to bash someone to unconsciousness, fine to paralyze them (as long as it's accidental) - in fact it's part of what makes a good football player. But a line is drawn. So football players are encouraged to get as close to the line as they possibly can without crossing it.

Here's what happens with this kind of logic - people step over the line all the time, often unintentionally. Our culture tells us that the best people dance on the line, and the difference between success and failure is staying on the right side of the line. Stay on the right side of the road and you speed to your destination. Shift to the wrong side and you crash, killing people.

It's utterly insane. Welcome to the modern world. Enjoy dancing on the line.

 

[Netrigan]

These people are under the assumption the teaching this will somehow make rape stop happening.

Or, alternatively, that the number of rapes would be reduced.

I think one of the more infuriating aspects when it comes to discussions about consent and such matters is this particular idea:

From all my interactions with women on the subject, this isn't completely literal.

The frustration centers around how often the woman's behavior or clothing being brought up. That it's their responsibility to not act or dress in any manner that might incite a rape. You're supposed to focus on the first part of that statement, to not say it's her fault she got raped.

Unfortunately, so many people seem to leap-frog over that bit and focus like a laser beam on the second part, as if women don't already take extraordinary measures to protect themselves. Not too long ago a series of animated gifs popped up on my Tumblr feed. The first one has a professor asking his male students "how many of you pull out your keys before you get to your car?" A few hands go up. "Okay, how many of you make sure no one is in the back seat before you get into your car?" A total of four men have their hands in the air. "How many women do both of those things all the time?" Just about every woman puts her hand in the air.

And this is the intended meaning behind that sign. Women are sick and tired of having their rapes excused because they didn't do enough to prevent them. This is why they get so pissed off at victim-blaming. They locked the doors, barred the windows, armed themselves, and they're still held accountable for letting it happen to them

Because, and this bit of knowledge came as a surprise to me when I finally figured it out after chiming in on the subject many, many, many times, they already know everything that is going to come out of their mouth. A rape victim already blames herself. She's already trying to work out what she could have done differently to prevent her rape. All those points we men keep trying to inject into this discussion should be met with a patronizing pat on the head because we've got so much less experience on the subject of personal safety than the average woman that the vast, vast, vast majority of times our "insightful" thoughts are dead-obvious to anyone with half a brain. Every 13 year old can come up with the "don't walk down a darkened alley at night and expect not to be victimized" thought, but it doesn't stop an infinite number of idiots from speaking that out loud like the thought has never occurred to anyone before.

Now, this isn't to say that an incoming freshmen doesn't need to be taught how to protect herself, because they're entering into a new environment where they don't know the rules yet. You usually don't have to tell a young woman to attend any such class on the subject, because they're usually well-aware they can easily be physically over-powered by the average man.

But the frustration is on the flip side, where guys are often not called out on their rapey behavior by their fellow men. I wish I could remember where I read it, but a guy talked about the Rape Talk his college gave him, which essentially amounted to "don't fuck crazy" because they'll file false rape-charges against you... because when told that 10-20% of rape accusations are false, we have this tendency to ignore the larger percentage and focus on the much smaller number that applies to us.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'm really surprised that amid all this society manages to continue. It's amazing and a testament to just how resilient humanity is amid all the terror, abuse, and debasement.

Well, society developed with that sort of thing as a given, though.

Football's a good analogy. It's fine to bash someone to unconsciousness, fine to paralyze them (as long as it's accidental) - in fact it's part of what makes a good football player. But a line is drawn. So football players are encouraged to get as close to the line as they possibly can without crossing it.

Here's what happens with this kind of logic - people step over the line all the time, often unintentionally. Our culture tells us that the best people dance on the line, and the difference between success and failure is staying on the right side of the line. Stay on the right side of the road and you speed to your destination. Shift to the wrong side and you crash, killing people.

Huh, actually that is a pretty good way of putting it there, I'll have to remember that.

 

[R0guy]

You're supposed to focus on the first part of that statement, to not say it's her fault she got raped.

Unfortunately, so many people seem to leap-frog over that bit and focus like a laser beam on the second part,

In this case, I don't think you can say that people are "supposed" to focus on anything other than THE EMBOLDENED AND UNDERLINED PART OF A SIGN POST WRITTEN IN CAPITAL LETTERS, HELD UP OVER A LARGE CROWD, MENTIONING ONE OF SOCIETIES MOST EXTREME AND HEAD-TURNING CRIMES LIKE MURDER AND PEDOPHILIA.

This is how you make a sign-post.

 

[Netrigan]

You're supposed to focus on the first part of that statement, to not say it's her fault she got raped.

Unfortunately, so many people seem to leap-frog over that bit and focus like a laser beam on the second part,

In this case, I don't think you can say that people are "supposed" to focus on anything other than THE EMBOLDENED AND UNDERLINED PART OF A SIGN POST WRITTEN IN CAPITAL LETTERS, HELD UP OVER A LARGE CROWD, MENTIONING ONE OF SOCIETIES MOST EXTREME AND HEAD-TURNING CRIMES LIKE MURDER AND PEDOPHILIA.

This is how you make a sign-post.

Feminists usually come out of academia. They have a bad habit of over-thinking stuff and not realizing their jargon or their discussions aren't known to the average person.

But it doesn't excuse people from deciding half the words on a sign don't mean anything, so they can inject the most obvious thoughts into the discussion. Thunderb00t did a video on that sign and I don't think he came up with a single thought which didn't occur to me at the age of 17. Now, perhaps I was just the smartest person on the planet when I was 17, but I think the much more likely scenario is I was a dumbass who didn't realize that the discussion is far beyond my meaningless points. They're discussing calculus and I'm trying to tell them 2x2=4 and expecting to be treated like the smartest person in the room.

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

I'm not gonna lie - the status on being drunk is incredibly confusing to me, and I say this as someone who actively doesn't fuck. If a married couple get drunk together and fuck, were they both raped? What about someone who actively goes to a bar with the intent of getting themselves drunk and getting laid? What about someone who's had just enough drinks to not be legally allowed to drive, but is still very coherent? If someone get's smashed, laid, then states afterwards that they consented, is it still rape? Where exactly is the line for somebody to be too drunk for sex?

Fortunately, I think I could safely say that I wouldn't fuck someone I thought was drunk even if I did fuck. However, these are still questions that I feel need answering.

 

[R0guy]

You're supposed to focus on the first part of that statement, to not say it's her fault she got raped.

Unfortunately, so many people seem to leap-frog over that bit and focus like a laser beam on the second part,

In this case, I don't think you can say that people are "supposed" to focus on anything other than THE EMBOLDENED AND UNDERLINED PART OF A SIGN POST WRITTEN IN CAPITAL LETTERS, HELD UP OVER A LARGE CROWD, MENTIONING ONE OF SOCIETIES MOST EXTREME AND HEAD-TURNING CRIMES LIKE MURDER AND PEDOPHILIA.

This is how you make a sign-post.

Feminists usually come out of academia. They have a bad habit of over-thinking stuff and not realizing their jargon or their discussions aren't known to the average person.

Sorry but what the hell is that suppose to mean? Are these black people less credible because they're not academics? Or are you saying that academics over-think things to the point of being needlessly antagonistic? Because MLK was one and somehow the civil rights movement didn't devolve into incoherent "teach whites to not be racist" campaigns. So that's nonsense.

Here's another couple of "non-academics" who didn't "over-think" their movement into antagonistic drivel.

And another

 

[Netrigan]

I'm not gonna lie - the status on being drunk is incredibly confusing to me, and I say this as someone who actively doesn't fuck. If a married couple get drunk together and fuck, were they both raped? What about someone who actively goes to a bar with the intent of getting themselves drunk and getting laid? What about someone who's had just enough drinks to not be legally allowed to drive, but is still very coherent? If someone get's smashed, laid, then states afterwards that they consented, is it still rape? Where exactly is the line for somebody to be too drunk for sex?

Fortunately, I think I could safely say that I wouldn't fuck someone I thought was drunk even if I did fuck. However, these are still questions that I feel need answering.

At the moment, it's one of those weird legal judgment calls. By being drunk, you can't legally consent to sex, which means you have grounds to pursue legal action afterwards.

This, by the way, is true of contract law. If you're drunk when you sign a contract, you have grounds to pursue legal action to get out of the contract.

And this is where the legal judgment call comes in. Absolutely everyone understands that being drunk doesn't absolve you from bad decisions. The question becomes did someone take advantage of you being drunk to get you to do something you didn't want to do. Did they ply you with alcohol to get you to submit? Did they take advantage of you when you were clearly in a state of advanced inebriation? If you're signing a contract and the other side comes in completely drunk, then don't sign the contract until a sober representative is there. That's how you protect yourself.

Odds are nothing is going to come of it. Odds are the worse that will happen when you drunkenly hook up the drunken girl is no more than her disappointment in your poor performance and the giggles of her friends every time you enter a room

But a good rule of thumb is to avoid hooking up with a girl who is extremely drunk. She may not remember agreeing to sex the following morning, she may vomit on you, she may just be really annoying. Basically, an extremely drunk person (male or female) is an albatross about your neck. Get them home safely and leave it at that.

 

[Netrigan]

You're supposed to focus on the first part of that statement, to not say it's her fault she got raped.

Unfortunately, so many people seem to leap-frog over that bit and focus like a laser beam on the second part,

In this case, I don't think you can say that people are "supposed" to focus on anything other than THE EMBOLDENED AND UNDERLINED PART OF A SIGN POST WRITTEN IN CAPITAL LETTERS, HELD UP OVER A LARGE CROWD, MENTIONING ONE OF SOCIETIES MOST EXTREME AND HEAD-TURNING CRIMES LIKE MURDER AND PEDOPHILIA.

This is how you make a sign-post.

Feminists usually come out of academia. They have a bad habit of over-thinking stuff and not realizing their jargon or their discussions aren't known to the average person.

Sorry but what the hell is that suppose to mean? Are these black people less credible because they're not academics? Or are you saying that academics over-think things to the point of being needlessly antagonistic? Because MLK was one and somehow the civil rights movement didn't devolve into incoherent "teach whites to not be racist" campaigns. So that's nonsense.

Here's another couple of "non-academics" who didn't "over-think" their movement into antagonistic drivel.

Did you happen to catch the phrase "bad habit" in the section you quoted?

Academia is a terrible place to come up with your slogan. They're fucking awful at it. They over-intellectualize everything and it often comes out the other side as stupid.

In the end you get a sign which goes in two directions at once. They're pissed because men keep telling them something which is immaterial, while men get pissed because the second part suggests they don't know rape is wrong.

But then many people seem to be very good at getting defensive when something is aimed in their general direction. I personally don't get upset when people share their bad Gamer stories, because I don't do those sort of asshole things. Other people get offended for exactly the same reason because they're Gamers and don't act like assholes... although often I'd suggest they rethink that particular opinion, because their overly insulting response suggests otherwise

Same situation here. I do my best to condemn men who cross the line. I can see what they're driving at even if they didn't select their words with enough care. I'm not offended by it. Other people get all offended because they don't see themselves as having any responsibility as they've never raped anyone.

 

[Netrigan]

To better illustrate what I think that sign was going toward. The Steubenville Rape Case.

A girl got incredibly drunk and was raped by two football players when she wasn't capable of intelligible speech, much less consent to sex.

Yet many people focused on her getting that drunk, as if rape was just one of those things which naturally happens when you pass out drunk somewhere. People made this point so heavily, it often sounded like they were excusing the two boys who raped her.

And, yes, you do have to be careful getting that drunk anywhere. There's a bit of an object lesson to be had here. Getting insensibly drunk is never a smart thing, regardless of gender. But it doesn't make you responsible for the actions of others.

But those two boys still made the decision to rape her. The responsibility is 100% on them. Her being drunk doesn't in any way excuse their actions. At all. Not even a tiny, tiny bit. They're rapist assholes.

 

[Doclector]

Yeah, I kept seeing these posters in the SU saying "sex if she doesn't want it is rape". Kind of an obvious one, but apparently, there are people who split hairs and I suppose, convince themselves that somehow, under some bizarre condition, it was okay. I don't see what a poster is going to do to change the mind of one so twisted, but hey, I guess it couldn't do much harm.

Also, there's first world countries that don't have compulsory sex education? Does...does britain have compulsory sex education? I mean, I know I had it. Jesus, I had it once on the ass end of primary, twice in secondary, and yet fucking again in college! But you mean to tell me there's some schools in britain teaching kids around the age of puberty that don't fucking have sex education? That's all kinds of fucked up. I mean, male or female, our sex education pretty much boiled down to "Use a condom, here are some gross pictures of what happens if you don't" so mine wasn't really good, but jesus christ, at least I HAD it.

 

[runic knight]

To better illustrate what I think that sign was going toward. The Steubenville Rape Case.

A girl got incredibly drunk and was raped by two football players when she wasn't capable of intelligible speech, much less consent to sex.

Yet many people focused on her getting that drunk, as if rape was just one of those things which naturally happens when you pass out drunk somewhere. People made this point so heavily, it often sounded like they were excusing the two boys who raped her.

And, yes, you do have to be careful getting that drunk anywhere. There's a bit of an object lesson to be had here. Getting insensibly drunk is never a smart thing, regardless of gender. But it doesn't make you responsible for the actions of others.

But those two boys still made the decision to rape her. The responsibility is 100% on them. Her being drunk doesn't in any way excuse their actions. At all. Not even a tiny, tiny bit. They're rapist assholes.

100% agreed.

Being that she couldn't give consent, or any intelligible speech or that matter, the action was done without consent and thus was rape. Problem is, most cases of "I was drunk so it was rape" aren't about the ones who passed out drunk. If you are passed out, or completely incoherent, you can no longer give consent so yeah, anything you do with them would be by definition rape.

Instead it becomes an issue of giving consent while intoxicated and influenced by alcohol and whether or not that is legally acceptable consent. Drinking affects decision making processes and can make a bad decision seem less so. Thus in order to address the argument that intoxication affects decisions and thus consent, I went about defining it as I have done before along the lines of who made the decision to get drunk in the first place.

My conclusion was "If you choose to get drunk, you still have to accept responsibility for the actions you agree to while under the influence, since the initial decision to reduce your critical thinking was voluntarily taken." Anything less is justification to excuse any action taken while drunk, and would, for example, also excuse the actions of the rapists if they too had been intoxicated.

Being intoxicated is not an excuse for poor decisions, and should never be attempted to be used to avoid personal responsibility, regardless how much the decision is later regretted. The men who raped her should be persecuted for her lack of consent. Those that hook up with someone at a bar should not.

 

[Netrigan]

To better illustrate what I think that sign was going toward. The Steubenville Rape Case.

A girl got incredibly drunk and was raped by two football players when she wasn't capable of intelligible speech, much less consent to sex.

Yet many people focused on her getting that drunk, as if rape was just one of those things which naturally happens when you pass out drunk somewhere. People made this point so heavily, it often sounded like they were excusing the two boys who raped her.

And, yes, you do have to be careful getting that drunk anywhere. There's a bit of an object lesson to be had here. Getting insensibly drunk is never a smart thing, regardless of gender. But it doesn't make you responsible for the actions of others.

But those two boys still made the decision to rape her. The responsibility is 100% on them. Her being drunk doesn't in any way excuse their actions. At all. Not even a tiny, tiny bit. They're rapist assholes.

100% agreed.

Being that she couldn't give consent, or any intelligible speech or that matter, the action was rape. Problem is, most cases of "I was drunk so it was rape" aren't about the ones who passed out drunk. If you are passed out, or completely incoherent, you can no longer give consent.

Instead it becomes an issue of giving consent while intoxicated and influenced by alcohol and whether or not that is legally acceptable consent. Thus the defining it as I have done before along the lines of who made the decision to get drunk in the first place.

Thus the conclusion of "If you choose to get drunk, you still have to accept responsibility for the actions you agree to while under the influence, since the initial decision to reduce your critical thinking was voluntarily taken." Anything less is justification to excuse an action taken while drunk, and would, for example, also excuse the actions of the rapists if they too had been intoxicated.

Being intoxicated is not an excuse for poor decisions, and should never be attempted to be used to avoid personal responsibility, regardless how much the decision is later regretted.

This is why you're in the gray area... but it's always been treated as a gray area, as men have been plying women with alcohol and not minding terribly if they were or weren't conscious during sex.

Coming up with clear-cut laws on the situation is tough. And from what I understand a rape trial is an incredibly humiliating thing for a woman to go through. Considering all the drinking and drunken regretful sex which happens and we're not neck deep in drunk rape cases, I don't think it's an enormous problem. Certainly a concern and something to try to deal with in a fair manner, but there's a lot of rights balancing going on... and that's why we have jury trials. Trust me, even if you have a jury made up exclusively of women, they're not going to be terribly keen to accept a "I agreed to have sex with him, but I was drunk" accusation. Pretty much everyone knows that's bullshit.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Also, there's first world countries that don't have compulsory sex education? Does...does britain have compulsory sex education? I mean, I know I had it. Jesus, I had it once on the ass end of primary, twice in secondary, and yet fucking again in college! But you mean to tell me there's some schools in britain teaching kids around the age of puberty that don't fucking have sex education? That's all kinds of fucked up. I mean, male or female, our sex education pretty much boiled down to "Use a condom, here are some gross pictures of what happens if you don't" so mine wasn't really good, but jesus christ, at least I HAD it.

I live in Canada, and while we had sex ed just about as much as you did, rape never really came up in the topic. STDs were brought up, protection, anatomy, but I don't remember rape being given any sort of attention. Makes sense not to talk about it at the Elementary school level, but it should definitely be a topic in junior high.

I think that it would be a good thing to teach, not only for the people who might commit the rape, but also for bystanders or victims. Just to give them extra confidence in thinking "Okay, this is actually not okay, I'm not just being crazy"

 

[runic knight]

This is why you're in the gray area... but it's always been treated as a gray area, as men have been plying women with alcohol and not minding terribly if they were or weren't conscious during sex.

Coming up with clear-cut laws on the situation is tough. And from what I understand a rape trial is an incredibly humiliating thing for a woman to go through. Considering all the drinking and drunken regretful sex which happens and we're not neck deep in drunk rape cases, I don't think it's an enormous problem. Certainly a concern and something to try to deal with in a fair manner, but there's a lot of rights balancing going on... and that's why we have jury trials. Trust me, even if you have a jury made up exclusively of women, they're not going to be terribly keen to accept a "I agreed to have sex with him, but I was drunk" accusation. Pretty much everyone knows that's bullshit.

I've seen rape accusations alone, even over-turned ones, still destroy people's careers and lives because of the social stigma of even being accused. Hell, Brad Wardell had one claim that was dropped that still results in him being harassed to this day thanks to the media trumpeting about it the way they did. It is very humiliating to be accused of rape as well, and that doesn't stop if the accusations are determined false. So it is not a good issue to be on either side of the court on for the innocent party.

Still, how do we clear things up? Honestly, outside of banning alcohol for how it affects judgement to remove the complaint there-in, you will always have the complaint of affected judgement versus what constitutes conscious consent (ignoring for the moment unconsciousness, as that is pretty damn obviously rape due to lack of consent). What is even worse, because of how law descriptions work, outside of having a breathalyzer and body-weight blood alcohol chart to determine if someone is "too drunk to consent properly", there would be little way to accurately assess things, and that is even if you are aware the exact legal definitions or were not intoxicated yourself when the opportunity came up. Really, it still devolves into a big mess.

People who willingly choose to reduce their ability to think critically and make decisions shouldn't be protected from the results of their decisions, and especially shouldn't be able to do harm to others because of regret for those decisions.

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

I'm not gonna lie - the status on being drunk is incredibly confusing to me, and I say this as someone who actively doesn't fuck. If a married couple get drunk together and fuck, were they both raped? What about someone who actively goes to a bar with the intent of getting themselves drunk and getting laid? What about someone who's had just enough drinks to not be legally allowed to drive, but is still very coherent? If someone get's smashed, laid, then states afterwards that they consented, is it still rape? Where exactly is the line for somebody to be too drunk for sex?

Fortunately, I think I could safely say that I wouldn't fuck someone I thought was drunk even if I did fuck. However, these are still questions that I feel need answering.

At the moment, it's one of those weird legal judgment calls. By being drunk, you can't legally consent to sex, which means you have grounds to pursue legal action afterwards.

This, by the way, is true of contract law. If you're drunk when you sign a contract, you have grounds to pursue legal action to get out of the contract.

And this is where the legal judgment call comes in. Absolutely everyone understands that being drunk doesn't absolve you from bad decisions. The question becomes did someone take advantage of you being drunk to get you to do something you didn't want to do. Did they ply you with alcohol to get you to submit? Did they take advantage of you when you were clearly in a state of advanced inebriation? If you're signing a contract and the other side comes in completely drunk, then don't sign the contract until a sober representative is there. That's how you protect yourself.

Odds are nothing is going to come of it. Odds are the worse that will happen when you drunkenly hook up the drunken girl is no more than her disappointment in your poor performance and the giggles of her friends every time you enter a room

But a good rule of thumb is to avoid hooking up with a girl who is extremely drunk. She may not remember agreeing to sex the following morning, she may vomit on you, she may just be really annoying. Basically, an extremely drunk person (male or female) is an albatross about your neck. Get them home safely and leave it at that.

Fortunately, I don't drink either, so I doubt that this will ever be a problem for me personally. Nevertheless, it still seems like something that needs a lot more clarity, for the good of the general public. So much grey area on such a serious issue doesn't seem acceptable, imho.

What's scary to me is what could happen to someone who straight-up wasn't trying to take advantage of a drunk person or rape them, but genuinely thought that they were stable enough for their consent to actually qualify as consent. Take this hypothetical scenario:

A guy chats with a woman after a movie. They both hit it off well, with her speaking clearly and not showing any clear signs of being intoxicated. After a while, things get a little spicy and next thing you know they're fucking at the woman's apartment, with her having fully agreed to it. Turns out after the fact though, that the woman was a bit buzzed at the time due to having a shot before the movie (and I do mean only a bit buzzed, for this scenario), and now regrets having said sex.

By law, it seems like the woman could now press charges for rape, if she wished. This can go both ways, of course - anyone could be stuck in a situation where they genuinely believed that the person they slept with was sober enough to give consent (meaning no obvious signs of being drunk) and didn't mean any harm whatsoever, only to find themselves facing charges that would ruin their lives even if found innocent. That's absolutely terrifying to me, especially when you factor in whether the accuser genuinely feels raped or not (leading to two very horrible, yet different scenarios).

I hoped I explained that well enough.

EDIT: Edited for clarity.