"I wonder what got into her when she wrote the particular part,"

Do you? Do you really?

Do I really? Yes, Thucy, I do really. I really did not find it cool that this woman - who doesn't know this girl carrying her mattress around campus (YES, she was on the news in Europe too) - judges this particular individual case - which she can't - on the basis of an analysis of the GENERAL situation, which she CAN and which seems correct and even original.

That piece wasn't analysis. It was character assassination disguised as an op ed.

redhouse is a maggot pusswad.

TYYJ

@ semck83: "My question: given all of this, do you consider THIS incident rape?"

I have literally no idea. I very much doubt the linked articles give the full story, and you've linked to nothing that attempts to give the claimed victim's perspective. So, I'm not a judge or a prosecutor, and I have literally no means of judging whether or not a rape took place.

This is not even slightly relevant to my initial complaint that the link in your OP is women-hating bullshit, and that you are an asshole for posting it.

That accusation still stands.

@damian OK, that seems a reasonable viewpoint. The concept of "too drunk to consent," seems a bit silly to me, for reasons you've already expounded on. If we're going to have such a concept, it needs to be clearly defined in the law. Since, I, for one, have no desire to let the government determine when of if I am too drunk to consent, I oppose such ideas uniformly.

@jeff kuta you roofie parallel isn't really a fair one though. Obviously slipping something into a woman's drink is a nonconsenting act. This particular case, as damian presents it (I didn't read) seems to be one of two people consenting to get drunk, and then consenting to have sex.

Most of the article is tripe.
So I am somewhat skeptical of the case as it presents it. Especially since as Thucy mentioned it doesn't present the other side of the story at all.

However, if we assume its accounts is accurate then that case is messed up.
It suggests there may be a problem in how we approach consent when alcohol is involved.

I'm of the opinion that if you made the decision to get plastered.
That you are responsible for the decisions you make while drunk.

If the lady in the case gave enthusiastic consent, as it is presented in the article when drunk she aught to be responsible for that.

Regarding date rape drugs, the use of those is already illegal and no consent was given. Nor could it be given during the act.

Again though, this is all based on an assumption that the article is accurately portraying the case.

@Jamie,

Actually, I linked an article that has a direct link to the university's 82-page investigative report about the case, including witness interviews, etc., and the victim's own account. I saw no facts that seemed to materially change the picture described in the original article, but of course I don't want to speak for you.

Here is the direct link to said report, for those interested:

http://www.thefire.org/investigation-report-from-public-interest-investigations-inc/

If someone is intoxicated, either by their own or malicious intent, can they give consent?

The answer is No.

@Thucy,

Thank you for your comments on the actual article. I appreciate your reading and engaging it.

No, I disagree with several things in the article (and agree with some). It presented interesting facts and important issues, and took provocative positions on them. I therefore figured it would stimulate interesting, if strongly-worded discussion. I did not realize that webdippers' collective stomachs had gotten so weak that they could literally no longer read things they strongly disagreed with (but props to jamie, damian, warden and a couple others for making it through).

Oh, and @Jamie, I didn't ask the question because I was trying to change your opinion of me for posting the article, I asked because I was (and am) still actually interested in your opinion, and in hearing actual argumentation and anything other than outrage and complaint. Thanks for trying, and should you get time to look over the linked material, I'd still be interested in your opinion.

@Jeff,

So in your estimation, then, both people were guilty of rape in this case? (If you don't want to read over the materials yourself, you can assume arguendo that they're substantially as presented in the article).

I can only handle so much racism and sexism and other cruelty a day. Reddit (Ebola threads in which a common opinion is to quarantine an entire continent of 1.1 billion, lately) usually tops me up by noon. This was just too much. It's absolutely blatantly sexist.

OK Thucy.

On the last page, around 11 PM EDT ("Abge and others...") I posted links to more measured articles on this general subject. Should you be inclined to read any of them, I'll welcome your thoughts.

@semck83:
I did read the article in the OP. Lots of opinion and little analysis therein. I was not impressed. Not gonna read the rest of the links. As an aside, picking an inflammatory article may work to spark discussion, but those sparks often degenerate into flame wars. Works great as click bait though.

I live in California, have teenagers, and pay attention. This law could apply to all my kids in the very near future.

If neither party is able to give consent, and yet the deed still happens, both are culpable.

Jeff,

Sorry for leaving you off the list of people who read the article.

And thank you for the answer. I think that calling two people mutual rapists because both are drunk is a very silly position, but it has the benefit of partial consistency, at least, which is not peanuts, and which is better than the college's position; and I do appreciate the answer.

And yes, it seems that opinionated articles are not the best for discussion-seeding.

I agree with semck. I've had sex while intoxicated many times. I have never been raped, and I certainly don't hold the women involved "culpable" on any level.

@Jeff
"If someone is intoxicated, either by their own or malicious intent, can they give consent?
The answer is No. "

You're arguing from the position of what does the law say. Fair enough.
My point is that the law is messed up.
The basic assumption behind "you can't give consent while intoxicated", is that you aren't culpable for your actions when you're inebriated. Personally I think that's a load of crock. Regardless of what the laws may say on the matter. If you make the decision to get drunk, you should be accountable for your actions. But then, that's just an opinion.

Aside from that point though, there is a serious problem with sexism in general on campuses. I can't begin to count the number of times I've heard people describe "conquests" and I've seen several counts of truly insane behavior, like traffic light parties were only the women were expected to participate in the traffic light aspect. Implying they were only there for the men. On the whole, its royally screwed up.

This is bringing back memories - we had this conversation on the forum before... I remember now because I scoffed then at the notion that Jeff is presenting, and I was actually ignorant of the law (I forgot again here) because he is right that this is the law in some (all?) states IIRC.

And it is messed up.

@damian:
"The basic assumption behind "you can't give consent while intoxicated", is that you aren't culpable for your actions when you're inebriated."

That's not at all the assumption. It's pretty straightforward:

Are you in condition to give consent? (Yes/No)
Is your partner in condition to give consent? (Yes/No)
Have you given consent? (Yes/No)
Has your partner given consent? (Yes/No)
If yes to all of the above, HAVE FUN!

"If you make the decision to get drunk, you should be accountable for your actions."

Sure, drunk rapists should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Drunk victims of sober rapists? Not so much.

@jeff I think you may be oversimplifying just a bit. Here's the problem I see.

In the eyes of the law, a person who is drunk cannot consent. Therefore to have sex with that person is a crime. The crime is rape. This means that at several points in my life, I have been both a rapist and a victim of rape. Wives and husbands rape each other after a night out on the town.

Nobody here is questioning what the law says, we are questioning the validity of the law. At what point is a person "too drunk to consent?" Who should be the one who sets the boundary on when a person is too drunk to consent? You? Big brother? I am fully capable of making the decision to drink for myself, with full awareness of the effects of alcohol on my judgment, and the possible repercussions of it.

Please note that this argument should not be conflated with having sex with an unconscious woman, or doping her drink, or ignoring her lack of consent. These actions are clearly over the line. But it sounds like you (and the law) are arguing that I should be prosecuted every time my girlfriend and I get drunk and have sex.

Rest easy, Yellowjacket. In the eyes of the law, a person who is drunk CAN give consent. One can be so intoxicated as to be unable to give consent, but being drunk does not in and of itself mean that one cannot give consent.

Just because you and a girl were both hammered when you went back to the dorm does not make you a rapist/victim. When a husband and wife get drunk after a night on the town, go home, and decide to make love, that is not rape. It's rape if one party is too intoxicated to give consent. How do we determine when someone is too intoxicated to give consent? Each state is somewhat different, I imagine.

Jeff is just wrong here. I'm surprised semck83 hasn't stated that more clearly. Or damian. I think he's also a lawyer. You won't be prosecuted every time you and your girlfriend have a few too many shooters but still go ahead and have sex as you normally would. The legal and academic definitions of rape are, unfortunately, becoming unmoored from one another.

"A person who is drunk CAN give consent." Can anybody verify this? That's what I used to think, but the last time we had a similar conversation I became convinced otherwise.

http://share.cornell.edu/policies-laws/sex-alcohol-and-clear-consent/

"When a person is the recipient of sexual advances but is highly intoxicated, he or she may be unable to consent to any sexual conduct."

The link is from a campus code, but a law professor was the author of that piece. And anyhow, campus codes are almost inevitably STRICTER than the statutes when it comes to things like this.

The inquiry is whether someone is too drunk to consent, not simply whether someone is drunk.

It depends upon the person. Some people after less than a drink have no control compared to a heavy drinker that is well aware of what is happening.

You can't legally drive while intoxicated. I know several people that drive better drunk than sober because they know the consequences of getting caught DWI. They watch the road and other cars, don't talk as much, and stay below the speed limit. One friend slept over because while there was almost no traffic between my place and his at that hour, he knew he would get pulled over for driving below the speed limit in order to ensure he didn't have an accident.

The same thing happens with consent while drunk. Some people even drunk and use to it know exactly what they are doing while others can't.

@invictus... yeah see that word "may" is really a grey area. Or course they may.

I don't know how the rules work where you guys live, but I have intimate knowledge of Liberty "University"'s behavior codes. Talk about parochial and fundamentalist...no wonder all the Liberty kids traipse across town to party with the Lynchburg College students.

"yeah see that word "may" is really a grey area. Or course they may."

Well, this isn't a statute or case law. It's an adapted newspaper article. I include it because it was a top Google result, it was written by a law professor, and because if anything campus codes are stritcer than the law on the books because of a host of reasons that ought to be obvious if you've read anything Thucydides has ever written.

The point you should be catching is that the legal inquiry is into whether the person was to drunk to be able to consent, not just whether the person was drunk. I'm sure you can imagine the ways a drunk person could enthusiastically show their consent.