NationStates Jolt Archive

I dunno how I'd answer this thread myself, so while I will put up a poll I won't respond to it right away.

Consider the following scenario:

Elizabeth is at a frat party with a few of her friends and has quite a lot to drink. She knows her own limits but goes over them anyway, as it's the end of the semester and all finals have been passed and she just feels like celebrating. At some point in the party she's taken upstairs, not voluntarily but she doesn't fight either (alcohol having lowered her inhibitions enough that she doesn't fight) and is stripped down and taken advantage of by 3 or 4 guys. Who is to blame?

Jeff is at a frat party with a few of his friends and has quite a lot to drink. He knows his own limits but goes over them anyway, as it's the end of the semester and all finals have been passed and he just feels like celebrating. At some point in the party he gets into his car, not bothering to wait for this designated driver. (alcohol having lowered his inhibitions enough that he doesn't worry about it) On his way home he flies through a red light and broadsides a minivan, severely injuring the passengers. Who is to blame?

I'm not advancing an agenda or opinion. It just occurred to me that if we apply the exact same standards to both Jeff and Elizabeth, one way or the other we come to a conclusion that may be uncomfortable. (Either the drunk driver isn't to blame, or the rape victim is.) Is this a false dichotomy?

Is this a false dichotomy?
OBVIOUSLY. The 3 or 4 guys who take advantage are to blame. The 3 or 4 people Jeff hit are not. Next?

Elizabeth is at a frat party with a few of her friends and has quite a lot to drink. She knows her own limits but goes over them anyway, as it's the end of the semester and all finals have been passed and she just feels like celebrating. At some point in the party she's taken upstairs, not voluntarily but she doesn't fight either (alcohol having lowered her inhibitions enough that she doesn't fight) and is stripped down and taken advantage of by 3 or 4 guys. Who is to blame?
She is to blame.
Jeff is at a frat party with a few of his friends and has quite a lot to drink. He knows his own limits but goes over them anyway, as it's the end of the semester and all finals have been passed and he just feels like celebrating. At some point in the party he gets into his car, not bothering to wait for this designated driver. (alcohol having lowered his inhibitions enough that he doesn't worry about it) On his way home he flies through a red light and broadsides a minivan, severely injuring the passengers. Who is to blame?
He is to blame.

if elizabeth is drunk but has consented to sex with 3 or 4 men, there is no one to blame. nothing wrong has been done.

I dunno how I'd answer this thread myself, so while I will put up a poll I won't respond to it right away.

Consider the following scenario:

Elizabeth is at a frat party with a few of her friends and has quite a lot to drink. She knows her own limits but goes over them anyway, as it's the end of the semester and all finals have been passed and she just feels like celebrating. At some point in the party she's taken upstairs, not voluntarily but she doesn't fight either (alcohol having lowered her inhibitions enough that she doesn't fight) and is stripped down and taken advantage of by 3 or 4 guys. Who is to blame?

Jeff is at a frat party with a few of his friends and has quite a lot to drink. He knows his own limits but goes over them anyway, as it's the end of the semester and all finals have been passed and he just feels like celebrating. At some point in the party he gets into his car, not bothering to wait for this designated driver. (alcohol having lowered his inhibitions enough that he doesn't worry about it) On his way home he flies through a red light and broadsides a minivan, severely injuring the passengers. Who is to blame?

I'm not advancing an agenda or opinion. It just occurred to me that if we apply the exact same standards to both Jeff and Elizabeth, one way or the other we come to a conclusion that may be uncomfortable. (Either the drunk driver isn't to blame, or the rape victim is.) Is this a false dichotomy?

1) She's been gang raped, regardless of whether she "consented" or not. No means no, and if she's drunk yes means no.
2) He's an idiot and the world is better off without him.

The first one is a little more muddy, considering she should be more careful, but at the same time, it isn't your fault your car gets stolen even if you park it in a bad area; it's the thief's. Yes, she made herself vulnerable. No, she didn't force the guys to take advantage of her. It's not her fault, but she still could have been more careful.

The second case? All the driver's fault. The accident is his fault, he should have been more careful, and he is in no way a victim.

I dunno how I'd answer this thread myself, so while I will put up a poll I won't respond to it right away.

Consider the following scenario:

Elizabeth is at a frat party with a few of her friends and has quite a lot to drink. She knows her own limits but goes over them anyway, as it's the end of the semester and all finals have been passed and she just feels like celebrating. At some point in the party she's taken upstairs, not voluntarily but she doesn't fight either (alcohol having lowered her inhibitions enough that she doesn't fight) and is stripped down and taken advantage of by 3 or 4 guys. Who is to blame?

Jeff is at a frat party with a few of his friends and has quite a lot to drink. He knows his own limits but goes over them anyway, as it's the end of the semester and all finals have been passed and he just feels like celebrating. At some point in the party he gets into his car, not bothering to wait for this designated driver. (alcohol having lowered his inhibitions enough that he doesn't worry about it) On his way home he flies through a red light and broadsides a minivan, severely injuring the passengers. Who is to blame?

I'm not advancing an agenda or opinion. It just occurred to me that if we apply the exact same standards to both Jeff and Elizabeth, one way or the other we come to a conclusion that may be uncomfortable. (Either the drunk driver isn't to blame, or the rape victim is.) Is this a false dichotomy?

I don't see at all how we'd be "applying the exact same standards" if we found both of them at fault, since one of them made a decision to do something selfish and stupid and one of them did not. The only "exact same standard" I could see would be something like "drinking is bad," but, of course, "drinking is bad" has nothing to do with why rape is bad or drunk driving is bad. The person at fault is the person who made the choice to do something wrong. Period.

At some point in the party she's taken upstairs, not voluntarily but she doesn't fight either (alcohol having lowered her inhibitions enough that she doesn't fight)

what exactly does this mean? If alchohol has resulted in lower inhibitions, and those lower inhibitions cause her not to protest, then isn't she going voluntarily? She might be volunteering to do something that she might not otherwise volunteer to sober, but if she goes along as a result of her "lowered inhibitions" she's still going of her own free will

I dunno how I'd answer this thread myself, so while I will put up a poll I won't respond to it right away.

Consider the following scenario:

Elizabeth is at a frat party with a few of her friends and has quite a lot to drink. She knows her own limits but goes over them anyway, as it's the end of the semester and all finals have been passed and she just feels like celebrating. At some point in the party she's taken upstairs, not voluntarily but she doesn't fight either (alcohol having lowered her inhibitions enough that she doesn't fight) and is stripped down and taken advantage of by 3 or 4 guys. Who is to blame?

Jeff is at a frat party with a few of his friends and has quite a lot to drink. He knows his own limits but goes over them anyway, as it's the end of the semester and all finals have been passed and he just feels like celebrating. At some point in the party he gets into his car, not bothering to wait for this designated driver. (alcohol having lowered his inhibitions enough that he doesn't worry about it) On his way home he flies through a red light and broadsides a minivan, severely injuring the passengers. Who is to blame?

I'm not advancing an agenda or opinion. It just occurred to me that if we apply the exact same standards to both Jeff and Elizabeth, one way or the other we come to a conclusion that may be uncomfortable. (Either the drunk driver isn't to blame, or the rape victim is.) Is this a false dichotomy?

I would say, both are responsible for their behaviour, but only Jeff is responsible for the consequences.

While Elizabeth was too drunk to object to sex, she did not actively do anything wrong. The blame is on the guys who took advantage of the situation.
Jeff on the other hand, by knowing to be drunk and still driving, has to take full responsibility.

See, a lot of people are saying Elizabeth isn't at fault and Jeff is... well certainly that's how the law works and I too feel the same thing in my gut...

But why? If both allowed themselves to have their reason compromised by getting drunk, then how is it different?

She can't consent to a ganbang if she's plastered, so if it happens we call it rape. Alright fine... but if Jeff's reason is similarly compromised, how can one truly judge him?

It seems to me that both made a stupid decision by getting drunk in the first place, and this is why I don't drink... but it's just not that simple.

Is it?

1) She's been gang raped, regardless of whether she "consented" or not. No means no, and if she's drunk yes means no.

Oh, yes, also, drunks shouldn't have to pay when they spend all of their money at the bar, they were too drunk to know what they were doing, and when they're drunk, "Yes I want another *hic* drink bartender" means "No I don't want another drink.":rolleyes:

what exactly does this mean? If alchohol has resulted in lower inhibitions, and those lower inhibitions cause her not to protest, then isn't she going voluntarily? She might be volunteering to do something that she might not otherwise volunteer to sober, but if she goes along as a result of her "lowered inhibitions" she's still going of her own free will

But isn't that legally a form of statutory rape in that she isn't capable of consenting in her state?

I would say, both are responsible for their behaviour, but only Jeff is responsible for the consequences.

While Elizabeth was too drunk to object to sex, she did not actively do anything wrong. The blame is on the guys who took advantage of the situation.
Jeff on the other hand, by knowing to be drunk and still driving, has to take full responsibility.

But if Elizabeth can't consent to sex, how can Jeff have consented to drive?

Oh, yes, also, drunks shouldn't have to pay when they spend all of their money at the bar, they were too drunk to know what they were doing, and when they're drunk, "Yes I want another *hic* drink bartender" means "No I don't want another drink.":rolleyes:

Most states it's illegal to serve alcohol to someone who's intoxicated.

See, a lot of people are saying Elizabeth isn't at fault and Jeff is... well certainly that's how the law works and I too feel the same thing in my gut...

But why? If both allowed themselves to have their reason compromised by getting drunk, then how is it different?

She can't consent to a ganbang if she's plastered, so if it happens we call it rape. Alright fine... but if Jeff's reason is similarly compromised, how can one truly judge him?

It seems to me that both made a stupid decision by getting drunk in the first place, and this is why I don't drink... but it's just not that simple.

Is it?

The actions they take or don't take are different.
She put herself in a situation in which she can be taken advantage of. Not really what I would call clever, but not immoral and certainly not illegal. The pary behaving illegally and immorally in this case are the guys raping her.
He on the other hand through his bahaviour actively endangered innocent others on the road. That's both immoral and illegal.

Yes, both did something under the influence of alcohol. But what they actually did makes one a vicitm and the other the criminal.

See, a lot of people are saying Elizabeth isn't at fault and Jeff is... well certainly that's how the law works and I too feel the same thing in my gut...

But why? If both allowed themselves to have their reason compromised by getting drunk, then how is it different?

She can't consent to a ganbang if she's plastered, so if it happens we call it rape. Alright fine... but if Jeff's reason is similarly compromised, how can one truly judge him?

It seems to me that both made a stupid decision by getting drunk in the first place, and this is why I don't drink... but it's just not that simple.

Is it?

the rape status of the "gangbang" is dependant on her consent. if she went willingly to do something she wouldnt do if she had been sober, its not rape.

if they grabbed an incapacitated woman and had sex with her when she was unable to fight them off, its rape.

the better (if sleazy) comparison would be if jeff was drunk at the party and started handing out money. if he handed stranger $100 bills willingly, its not theft. if he sat on the sofa in an alcoholic haze with his wallet in his hand and strangers reached in and took $100 bills, it is theft.

The actions they take or don't take are different.
She put herself in a situation in which she can be taken advantage of. Not really what I would call clever, but not immoral and certainly not illegal. The pary behaving illegally and immorally in this case are the guys raping her.
He on the other hand through his bahaviour actively endangered innocent others on the road. That's both immoral and illegal.

Yes, both did something under the influence of alcohol. But what they actually did makes one a vicitm and the other the criminal.

Interesting... But since the very element that makes one a victim and the other a criminal is the same... How can we truly judge?

I think these questions seem to be odd in terms of emphasis. I think getting into a car whilst drunk makes the likelihood of harm being inflicted upon other people and their property increase a lot. I think the emphasis is toward expecting a drunk driver to cause harm - and the law takes this view.

I wonder what circles people move in when they advance an argument which seems to state that a drunk girl being taken advantage of is as likely as a drunk driver slamming into a minivan or a mailbox or whatever.

And of course, it raises the question of action vs incation. The question is comparing the drunk driver with the drunk party-goer. So in this scenario it seems that the 3/4 guys are the minivan, crashed into by the drunk party-goer and they can't help being injured (or, in this case, can't help raping her).

the rape status of the "gangbang" is dependant on her consent. if she went willingly to do something she wouldnt do if she had been sober, its not rape.

if they grabbed an incapacitated woman and had sex with her when she was unable to fight them off, its rape.

the better (if sleazy) comparison would be if jeff was drunk at the party and started handing out money. if he handed stranger $100 bills willingly, its not theft. if he sat on the sofa in an alcoholic haze with his wallet in his hand and strangers reached in and took $100 bills, it is theft.

Good analogy... But then how is it that it's rape? Since just being that drunk makes a person legally unable to consent... How does that affect it?

But if Elizabeth can't consent to sex, how can Jeff have consented to drive?

Fact is, he did drive. And that requires a lot more consent than to just pass out from drink and have 3 guys fuck you. You actually need to actively get the car on the road and drive.

Most states it's illegal to serve alcohol to someone who's intoxicated.

It is!?!?

...

Wow. I didn't know that. *Checks to see if it is in Maryland*
In any case, SOME states. Say it isn't in one of those states.

Both are at fault for being stupid, but that doesn't excuse the guys who took advantage of Elizabeth, who should still have charges brought against them.

Fact is, he did drive. And that requires a lot more consent than to just pass out from drink and have 3 guys fuck you. You actually need to actively get the car on the road and drive.

True.

So let me ask you this. Suppose that Elizabeth, totally shitfaced, just drunk beyond anything she'd ever been before, INVITES the guys to the bedroom. IIRC that's still rape since she was totally drunk and they knew it, but how does that affect your opinion?

I am very surprised how anyone can think that it is not Elizabeth's fault that she had sex with those guys.
She got drunk, she agreed, she got laid! End of story! I can't see how it can be anyone else's fault. She should have thought of the consequences. Besides, she could have enjoyed it if she hadn't been drunk.

Both are at fault for being stupid, but that doesn't excuse the guys who took advantage of Elizabeth, who should still have charges brought against them.

That's true.

Fact is, he did drive. And that requires a lot more consent than to just pass out from drink and have 3 guys fuck you. You actually need to actively get the car on the road and drive.

Ah, but he never said she passed out.

Interesting... But since the very element that makes one a victim and the other a criminal is the same... How can we truly judge?

By the actions they take.
Taking advantage of a drunk person is illegal, no matter if you rape them or steal their wallet or strip them naked and tie them to a lamp post.
Acting illegally under the influence of alcohol is not excusable by being drunk, no matter if you drive a car, attack someone or pee against a national monument.

One is simply about consent, which cannot be given when drunk.
The other is about action, which cannot be excused by being drunk.

'She's taken upstairs', 'she's stripped down', 'she's taken advantage of'.

Compare that to...

'He gets into his car', 'he flies through a red light'.

The 3-4 guys are in a more comparable situation to Jeff than the girl is.

The main difference is that Jeff has specifically done something illegal, he's both driven drunk as well as gone through a red light. By law, he's utterly responsible.

Whether the guys have done something illegal would depend on factors not outlined here.

Good analogy... But then how is it that it's rape? Since just being that drunk makes a person legally unable to consent... How does that affect it?

its LEGALLY rape because we consider that women are children who dont really know what they are doing and cant possibly have wanted a certain sexual outcome. and because sex is only desired by MEN, its something women "give up" at some cost to themselves. after all, its never that the drunken MAN has been raped due to his diminished capacity in similar circumstances.

the reality that millions of women go out every weekend to get drunk and have a (sexual) good time is just some ....aberration.

By the actions they take.
Taking advantage of a drunk person is illegal, no matter if you rape them or steal their wallet or strip them naked and tie them to a lamp post.
Acting illegally under the influence of alcohol is not excusable by being drunk, no matter if you drive a car, attack someone or pee against a national monument.

We agree on this.



One is simply about consent, which cannot be given when drunk.
The other is about action, which cannot be excused by being drunk.

Why? (philosophically speaking)

I am very surprised how anyone can think that it is not Elizabeth's fault that she had sex with those guys.
She got drunk, she agreed, she got laid! End of story! I can't see how it can be anyone else's fault. She should have thought of the consequences. Besides, she could have enjoyed it if she hadn't been drunk.

supposing that elizabeth went willingly there is not fault to be assessed. nothing wrong happened.

Oh, unless she passed out. Then it's their fault, of course. It's like having sex with a sleeping girl

But isn't that legally a form of statutory rape in that she isn't capable of consenting in her state?

Not really. To rise to that point of being rape by virtue of intoxication, she has to be so intoxicated as to not be able to render any real consent. Effectively passed out or essentially incoherent. In your example she was drunk, certainly, but still lucid, and still capable of making a choice. A drunk choice yes, a choice she would not have made sober, yes, but still a choice. To be rape, she would have effectively had to be so drunk as to not be aware of her surroundings, and have no ability to consent to them. LIkewise if Jeff was that drunk, he wouldn't even be able to drive or operate the vehicle much at all. Both got drunk, but both were still capable of making decisions (drunk ones though they may be) so both are culpable for them.

its LEGALLY rape because we consider that women are children who dont really know what they are doing and cant possibly have wanted a certain sexual outcome. and because sex is only desired by MEN, its something women "give up" at some cost to themselves. after all, its never that the drunken MAN has been raped due to his diminished capacity in similar circumstances.

the reality that millions of women go out every weekend to get drunk and have a (sexual) good time is just some ....aberration.

Dear God, did we just agree? *World Asplodes*http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/b/b5/Exploding-head.gif

Not really. To rise to that point of being rape by virtue of intoxication, she has to be so intoxicated as to not be able to render any real consent. Effectively passed out or essentially incoherent. In your example she was drunk, certainly, but still lucid, and still capable of making a choice. A drunk choice yes, a choice she would not have made sober, yes, but still a choice. To be rape, she would have effectively had to be so drunk as to not be aware of her surroundings, and have no ability to consent to them. LIkewise if Jeff was that drunk, he wouldn't even be able to drive or operate the vehicle much at all. Both got drunk, but both were still capable of making decisions (drunk ones though they may be) so both are culpable for them.

Ok thanks for clarifying that.

True.

So let me ask you this. Suppose that Elizabeth, totally shitfaced, just drunk beyond anything she'd ever been before, INVITES the guys to the bedroom. IIRC that's still rape since she was totally drunk and they knew it, but how does that affect your opinion?

It's tricky, as it places the burden of proof on the wrong party. Basically, the guys in question are required to be able to guess the amount of drink she's had, and gauge if she's still sober enough to actually be able to legally agree...

I know that's not easy, and I know a good few guys, probably with some drink in them at the time, wouldn't think twice.
Safest bet would be for the guys to decline unless they are 100% sure she's absolutely and totally ok with it....

So let me ask you this. Suppose that Elizabeth, totally shitfaced, just drunk beyond anything she'd ever been before, INVITES the guys to the bedroom. IIRC that's still rape since she was totally drunk and they knew it, but how does that affect your opinion?

No, not really, it's not. Again, rape is sex without consent. Drunk consent is STILL consent. Sex with a woman who is intoxicated is not per se rape. The intoxication has to rise to the level of rendering her incapable of giving consent. Namely passed out or otherwise unaware of her surroundings. If she is aware of what she is doing, and consents to it, even if she would not have consented to it sober, it's not rape.

Indeeed, as Ashmoria pointed out, if we go along those lines, and state that "intoxicated persons can not consent to sex" then the drunk guy who has sex with the drunk girl is ALSO raped. And if we twist your hypo a bit to state that the three guys who gangbanged her were just as drunk as she was, that would mean she raped them.

As pointed out, it's extremely sexist perspective that assumes sex is a thing done by men to women.

Why? (philosophically speaking)

Let's put it this way : If she gave every single one of the guys a blowjob, and then cried rape the next day, I'd say she doesn't have a case.
If she just lay there, incapable and/or unwilling to play along, there is a case.

Philosphically speaking. ;)

It's tricky, as it places the burden of proof on the wrong party. Basically, the guys in question are required to be able to guess the amount of drink she's had, and gauge if she's still sober enough to actually be able to legally agree...

I know that's not easy, and I know a good few guys, probably with some drink in them at the time, wouldn't think twice.
Safest bet would be for the guys to decline unless they are 100% sure she's absolutely and totally ok with it....

Oh my god! This is so ridiculous. Is that how Americans think nowadays?

Dear God, did we just agree? *World Asplodes*

well now that would depend on exactly what you agreed with there.

supposing that elizabeth went willingly there is not fault to be assessed. nothing wrong happened.

But we're supposing that she didn't agree, and just wasn't able to make herself clear, aren't we?
Otherwise the debate would be about frivolous accusation of rape, rather than the influence of alcohol on personal responsibility.

Oh, wait! Cabra West is from Europe? The world is doomed if it reached Europe >_< I thought we're all normal here...

Oh my god! This is so ridiculous. Is that how Americans think nowadays?

How would I know how Americans think?

well now that would depend on exactly what you agreed with there.

The message sent with the staggering amount of sarcasm.

I'm glad I went back and read the replies in this thread, since the poll results alone were making me feel quite literally sick. I see that some of you read the scenario differently than I did. Personally, from the description of Elizabeth being "taken" upstairs unwillingly, I gathered that she had reached a stage of drunkenness such that she was incapable of standing up or struggling at all, which would seem to be pretty clearly past the line where she could give consent. If she did actually give consent, that makes this a different situation, where no one is "at fault," which is perhaps part of why the poll results confused me. I sincerely hope that all of you who voted that she was "at fault" read the situation differently, because if you honestly believe that a woman is at fault for getting raped because she got too drunk to be able to stop her rapists, then...I just don't even know what to say.

How would I know how Americans think?
Well, I just thought that it's very similar to that way of thinking... Sorry

legally speaking, the difference here is that jeff acted where as elizabeth didn't. Personally, i feel that you should either blame both or blame niether. The reason you are guilty when you drink and drive is because, according to the legal principles involved here, if you willingly intoxicate yourself, you are liable for what you do because you chose to get intoxicated. Thats why you are still on the hook when you drink and drive. The problem is that we don't hold people to that when it comes to sex. At that point, we claim that the "victim" couldn't have consented. It is one thing if she struggled but, due to alcohol, was too weak to put up a decent fight (which happenes. I have a friend who was raped like that). it is another thing if you get drunk and lose the judgement to accept. at that point, you have decided to not opject when you should and that is your fualt. If you claim your judgement was compromised, you should still bear the blame because you chose to intoxicate yourself. The reason the 2 are handled so differently is because as a society, we tend to villify sexual acts based on bias. we are inclined to assume rape too easily and we have grown accustomed to punish a man if a woman ever has an issue ater the fact with said male. We have gone to the opposite extreme of what things were like 60 years ago. now, a woman says "rape" or "sexual harassment" and the male involved is guilty before the facts have even been assessed. this hinges on social bias. One could even take this to the supreme court on the basis that this fails the "Equal Protection" clause of the constitution. This is a clear case of gender discrimination. anyone who thinks it isn't should think about the following: if elizabeth had been elliot instead, and the 3-4 guys had been girls, would we call it rape?

I'm glad I went back and read the replies in this thread, since the poll results alone were making me feel quite literally sick. I see that some of you read the scenario differently than I did. Personally, from the description of Elizabeth being "taken" upstairs unwillingly, I gathered that she had reached a stage of drunkenness such that she was incapable of standing up or struggling at all, which would seem to be pretty clearly past the line where she could give consent. If she did actually give consent, that makes this a different situation, where no one is "at fault," which is perhaps part of why the poll results confused me. I sincerely hope that all of you who voted that she was "at fault" read the situation differently, because if you honestly believe that a woman is at fault for getting raped because she got too drunk to be able to stop her rapists, then...I just don't even know what to say.

I read the scenario as she was drunk, but not so drunk she couldn't struggle, and was more of a clouded judgment sort of thing.

I'm glad I went back and read the replies in this thread, since the poll results alone were making me feel quite literally sick. I see that some of you read the scenario differently than I did. Personally, from the description of Elizabeth being "taken" upstairs unwillingly, I gathered that she had reached a stage of drunkenness such that she was incapable of standing up or struggling at all, which would seem to be pretty clearly past the line where she could give consent. If she did actually give consent, that makes this a different situation, where no one is "at fault," which is perhaps part of why the poll results confused me. I sincerely hope that all of you who voted that she was "at fault" read the situation differently, because if you honestly believe that a woman is at fault for getting raped because she got too drunk to be able to stop her rapists, then...I just don't even know what to say.


That's the problem with the hypo. Was she so drunk as to not be able to do anything, or just drunk to the point hwere she was willing to go along with it, even though she wouldn't otherwise? The line that she didn't do it voluntarily, but did it because alchohol lowered her inhibitions is confusing. If the effect of the alchohol was to "lower her inhibitions" then that seems to imply she, however drunkenly, consented. If she was drunk to the point of not being aware of her surroundings or do anything about it, then the "lowering inhibitions' effect of the alchohol seems irrelevant. To further throw a wrench into the story, if she was so drunk as to effectively be unaware of her surroundings and unable to move or stop anything, had jeff gotten that drunk he'd likely not be able to operate a car at all.

But we're supposing that she didn't agree, and just wasn't able to make herself clear, aren't we?
Otherwise the debate would be about frivolous accusation of rape, rather than the influence of alcohol on personal responsibility.

while the scenario that NB posted did seem to describe an incapacitated woman who was incapable of protest, i decided that what he really meant was the situation where a woman drunkenly agrees to something that she would never do when sober.

a woman being the inactive unwilling participant in a sex act is in no way comparable to a man getting behind the wheel of a car. drinking alcohol is not "implied consent"

Well they're both stupid. However, as almost all criminal activity is at least somewhat dependant on the stipidity, or at least naiveity, of the victim(s), I am hard pressed to assign blame specifically to Elizabeth. That is, if we are to agree that what transpired does, in fact, qualify as rape.

Not that we need skimp when it comes to blame. Certainly she's not blame-less, for that matter neither is the driver of that vehical that was hit. After all he/she failed to notice what was likely a fairly obviously reckless driver in an oncoming vehical. I suppose it would even do to blame society, and the rather specific conditions that compelled both parties to drink excessively...

For legal and practical purposes, however, it simply will not do to hold all who behaive foolishly to task. Therefore, we focus on the actor. The male actively drove his vehical into another, the female did not (we are lead to believe) actively engage in sexual congress.


Oh yes, of forgot my mandatory newby display of excess smiles:
:sniper::mp5::gundge::fluffle::headbang:

That's the problem with the hypo. Was she so drunk as to not be able to do anything, or just drunk to the point hwere she was willing to go along with it, even though she wouldn't otherwise? The line that she didn't do it voluntarily, but did it because alchohol lowered her inhibitions is confusing. If the effect of the alchohol was to "lower her inhibitions" then that seems to imply she, however drunkenly, consented. If she was drunk to the point of not being aware of her surroundings or do anything about it, then the "lowering inhibitions' effect of the alchohol seems irrelevant. To further throw a wrench into the story, if she was so drunk as to effectively be unaware of her surroundings and unable to move or stop anything, had jeff gotten that drunk he'd likely not be able to operate a car at all.

Indeed; as written, it's hard to make the situations properly comparable. I think I find the notion of "fault" particularly tricky, since I can't see any reading of the Elizabeth scenario that involves Elizabeth being in any way at fault. Either she didn't consent, and her rapists were at fault, or she consented, and nobody was at fault (or, arguably, the guys were somewhat at fault, since having sex with someone whom you have reason to suspect would not ordinarily consent and will regret it tomorrow is, while not rape, still rather morally dubious behavior).

Indeed; as written, it's hard to make the situations properly comparable. I think I find the notion of "fault" particularly tricky, since I can't see any reading of the Elizabeth scenario that involves Elizabeth being in any way at fault. Either she didn't consent, and her rapists were at fault, or she consented, and nobody was at fault (or, arguably, the guys were somewhat at fault, since having sex with someone whom you have reason to suspect would not ordinarily consent and will regret it tomorrow is, while not rape, still rather morally dubious behavior).

but at "fault" for...what? Engaging in morally dubious behavior? In that situation, can we not assign her some "fault" for willingly getting drunk enough that she (consensually) did something she'd regret later?

but at "fault" for...what? Engaging in morally dubious behavior?

Well, yeah. They certainly wouldn't be "at fault" in any legal sense, but arguably one could consider that it was their fault that they chose to do something that falls in a moral grey area. (I don't want to hijack this thread into a discussion of sexual morality in general - suffice it to say that I personally would not be willing to have sex with someone unless I were very certain that they weren't going to wake up the next morning and say, "Oh my god, what did I do last night? Oh god, I totally just cheated on my significant other/ broke my vow of celibacy/ ruined a good friendship/ whatever! Oh, I'm so miserable now!" and would probably look somewhat askance at someone who had no objection to provoking that reaction in their sexual partners.)

ETA:

In that situation, can we not assign her some "fault" for willingly getting drunk enough that she (consensually) did something she'd regret later?

Hmm. That gets trickier, but I suppose I can see where that could be argued. To me, "fault" wouldn't really be the right word there so much as "responsibility," but that definitely gets into the fuzzy realm of personal definitions.

If Elizabeth does not even ask them to stop then they are not raping, and she is responsible for not telling them to stop if she didn't want it. How else were the men to know that it was unwanted?
Jeff is definately responsible for his actions. Drinking and driving is serious stuff.

Well, I just thought that it's very similar to that way of thinking... Sorry

To the way of thinking of the American New liberals. *Sob* We classic Liberals are so ignored in foreign views of American culture! *Cries some morez*

Hmm. That gets trickier, but I suppose I can see where that could be argued. To me, "fault" wouldn't really be the right word there so much as "responsibility," but that definitely gets into the fuzzy realm of personal definitions.

Well the idea of "fault" is a wrong choice as a result of bad judgement etc etc.

Now her judgment was bad, but was her choice "wrong"?

If Elizabeth does not even ask them to stop then they are not raping, and she is responsible for not telling them to stop if she didn't want it. How else were the men to know that it was unwanted?
Jeff is definately responsible for his actions. Drinking and driving is serious stuff.

I understood that in this thought experiment, we assume her to drunk to be able to tell them to stop?

To the way of thinking of the American Neoliberals. *Sob* We classic Liberals are so ignored in foreign views of American culture! *Cries some morez*

Not to get off topic but

....

I hope you realize that neoliberalism and classical liberalism are pretty much the same thing, right? That "neoliberalism" is a re-emergence of classical economic liberalism that fell into disfavor at the turn of the 20th century and re-emerged in the 70s?

To whit, from wiki:

Neoliberalism refers to a historically-specific reemergence of economic liberalism's influence among economic scholars and policy-makers during the 1970s and through at least the late-1990s, and possibly into the present (its continuity is a matter of dispute).

In many respects, the term is used to denote a group of neoclassical-influenced economic theories and libertarian political philosophies which believe that government control over the economy is inefficient, corrupt or otherwise undesirable. Neoliberalism is not a unified economic theory or political philosophy — it is a label denoting an apparent shift in social-scientific and political sentiments that manifested themselves in theories and political platforms supporting a reform of largely centralized postwar economic institutions in favor of decentralized ones.


In fact, the main difference between libertarianism and neo liberalism is that neo liberalism tends to actually be less liberal on social issues, not more.

You are probably confusing it with "new liberalism", which, despite "new" and "neo" looking kind of the same, they're not.

Well the idea of "fault" is a wrong choice as a result of bad judgement etc etc.

Now her judgment was bad, but was her choice "wrong"?

Well, here's how I see it. Assuming the guys are all perfectly happy with the sexual encounter, the only person Elizabeth would have harmed through her bad judgment would be herself, and I am not comfortable passing moral judgments on one's actions towards oneself. Thus, words like "fault" and "wrong" just don't seem to fit, for me. Obviously, others' mileage may vary, especially if their morality is unlike mine and doesn't basically just boil down to "hurting other people is bad."

I understood that in this thought experiment, we assume her to drunk to be able to tell them to stop?

I have no experience being drunk. But can you really get to the point where you can't even speak? I find that unlikely. I believe the girl is at fault.

I have no experience being drunk. But can you really get to the point where you can't even speak? I find that unlikely.

Then you'd be wrong.

I have no experience being drunk. But can you really get to the point where you can't even speak? I find that unlikely. I believe the girl is at fault.

I haven't been to that point myself, but living in Ireland, I can assure you it is possible to get drunk enough to no longer be able to speak, walk or be aware of anything in your surroundings.

I have no experience being drunk. But can you really get to the point where you can't even speak? I find that unlikely. I believe the girl is at fault.

Yes you can be so drunk you can't speak but you also wouldn't be able to walk or do much of anything but flop around on the floor. If she was in that state it's rape. If she can walk, and from the example given she 'went' upstairs with them, so could walk, she was able to deny consent and didn't do it so it's not rape.

He was lucid enough to drive so he was lucid enough to know he was driving drunk.

Both knew they were drinking beyond their limits and so both willingly compromised themselves, not caring about consequences.

Being drunk doesn't take away someone's ability to know what they are doing or to be able to tell right from wrong, it just stops them from caring about the consequences. They both knew they were being stupid and wreckless and both simply didn't care at the time.

Jeff is completely clear cut case. He's guilty as hell, and hopefully pays the price.

Elizabeth, on the other hand, is not so clear, mainly due the description.

..not voluntarily but she doesn't fight either (alcohol having lowered her inhibitions enough that she doesn't fight)

This part is really the root of the issue: Is she so intoxicated that she is unable or unwilling to fight? I - as someone whose native language isn't english - read this as her being so drunk she can't put up a fight or know what the heck is happening for that matter, and as such it would be labeled rape.

If it mearly means that she is just so drunk that gangbang sounds like a good fun to her, no wrong has been done. However, the "not voluntarily" part kinda speaks againts this to me.

As such, Jeff is to blame, Eliz not.

My mistake I reread the original post and it didn't say 'went' it said 'taken'. This would seem to indicate she was carried so would be incapable of denying consent. If this is the case she was basically unconscious and therefore raped.

The example needs to be made more clear.

I understood that in this thought experiment, we assume her to drunk to be able to tell them to stop?

Correct.

Jeff is completely clear cut case. He's guilty as hell, and hopefully pays the price.

Elizabeth, on the other hand, is not so clear, mainly due the description.



This part is really the root of the issue: Is she so intoxicated that she is unable or unwilling to fight? I - as someone whose native language isn't english - read this as her being so drunk she can't put up a fight or know what the heck is happening for that matter, and as such it would be labeled rape.

If it mearly means that she is just so drunk that gangbang sounds like a good fun to her, no wrong has been done. However, the "not voluntarily" part kinda speaks againts this to me.

As such, Jeff is to blame, Eliz not.

In my opinion, with enough alcohol unable = unwilling in that one's inhibitions are being artificially lowered to one's own detriment.

She can't consent to a ganbang if she's plastered, so if it happens we call it rape. Alright fine... but if Jeff's reason is similarly compromised, how can one truly judge him?

Um. The issue of consent is in no way comparable to being a victim in a car accident. You're trying to make like Jeff is as much a victim simply because he got drunk, as did she. That's a flimsy connection and it doesn't hold water. Elizabeth got fucked by guys who are every bit as culpable as her (if not more, depending on your ambiguous wording and whether she can 'consent' in a situation like that). The people Jeff crashed into are not in any way comparable to to the people who fucked Elizabeth. Jeff is not a victim. Elizabeth is. The fact that they both drank alcohol is irrelevant as far as that goes.

It seems to me that both made a stupid decision by getting drunk in the first place

Yeah yeah yeah. 'She was askin' for it.' Whatever.

In my opinion, with enough alcohol unable = unwilling in that one's inhibitions are being artificially lowered to one's own detriment.

There's an easy way to answer this but it depends on her state NB, so let me ask one question. Is she drunk or is she incapacitated? Because drinking to the point of intoxication, and drinking to the point of incapacity are two very different things that the law does (and should) consider as very different things.

Because if she was incapacitated she was unable to give consent, and what happened to her was rape. As to your question "why do we treat jeff as a criminal and her a sa victim" the difference is in capacity. She was so drunk as to have no capacity to prevent what was happening, that makes it rape. Jeff on the other hand had not reached the point of incapacity, for the simple reason that if he was incapacitated, he wouldn't have been able to turn on the car.

Because that's how we draw the line, that's how we should draw the line. If she were drunk, but had capacity, she was not raped, she conciously (albeit drunkenly) chose to have sex. Likewise Jeff conciously (albeit drunkenly) chose to drive a car.

If she were incapacitated she could not choose to have sex and thus was raped. Similarly, if Jeff was "driving while incapacitated" theoretically he'd be without fault to, except for the logical problem therein, in that if he were incapacitated, he wouldn't have been able to drive at all.

I suppose to extend the hypothetical, we ask, what if jeff were thrown unconcious into the car by three guys, who took a brick, weighed down the gas pedal, then turned the car on, all while jeff was passed out in the drivers seat, sending the car speeding forward into traffic, killing people. Is jeff responsible for that? No. He was incapacitated, unable to make the choice.

Thus we draw the line, at the ability to choose.

Um. The issue of consent is in no way comparable to being a victim in a car accident. You're trying to make like Jeff is as much a victim simply because he got drunk, as did she. That's a flimsy connection and it doesn't hold water. Elizabeth got fucked by guys who are every bit as culpable as her (if not more, depending on your ambiguous wording and whether she can 'consent' in a situation like that). The people Jeff crashed into are not in any way comparable to to the people who fucked Elizabeth. Jeff is not a victim. Elizabeth is. The fact that they both drank alcohol is irrelevant as far as that goes.

Yeah yeah yeah. 'She was askin' for it.' Whatever.

Who shit in your cornflakes?

There's an easy way to answer this but it depends on her state NB, so let me ask one question. Is she drunk or is she incapacitated? Because drinking to the point of intoxication, and drinking to the point of incapacity are two very different things that the law does (and should) consider as very different things.

Because if she was incapacitated she was unable to give consent, and what happened to her was rape. As to your question "why do we treat jeff as a criminal and her a sa victim" the difference is in capacity. She was so drunk as to have no capacity to prevent what was happening, that makes it rape. Jeff on the other hand had not reached the point of incapacity, for the simple reason that if he was incapacitated, he wouldn't have been able to turn on the car.

Because that's how we draw the line, that's how we should draw the line. If she were drunk, but had capacity, she was not raped, she conciously (albeit drunkenly) chose to have sex. Likewise Jeff conciously (albeit drunkenly) chose to drive a car.

If she were incapacitated she could not choose to have sex and thus was raped. Similarly, if Jeff was "driving while incapacitated" theoretically he'd be without fault to, except for the logical problem therein, in that if he were incapacitated, he wouldn't have been able to drive at all.

I suppose to extend the hypothetical, we ask, what if jeff were thrown unconcious into the car by three guys, who took a brick, weighed down the gas pedal, then turned the car on, all while jeff was passed out in the drivers seat, sending the car speeding forward into traffic, killing people. Is jeff responsible for that? No. He was incapacitated, unable to make the choice.

Thus we draw the line, at the ability to choose.

Good point.

And I have no problem with that from a legal perspective. But this is why I don't drink (Well that and my religion, but I've never been drunk, but I haven't always been a Mormon.)

The idea of having my clarity of thought or my decision making ability compromised scares the hell out of me, frankly.

Good point.

And I have no problem with that from a legal perspective. But this is why I don't drink (Well that and my religion, but I've never been drunk, but I haven't always been a Mormon.)

The idea of having my clarity of thought or my decision making ability compromised scares the hell out of me, frankly.

Your decision.
However, you shouldn't make the assumption that enjoying a pint equals compromises your decision making ability any more than, say, staying up till the early hours. Both are in a way mind altering, albeit in a small way. Just about enough not to drive a car any more.

Elizabeth is as guilty as someone who is raped during their sleep. Or while they're under heavy medication. Or someone with a mental deficiency who is unable to comprehend what is going on.

Being unconscious, whatever the cause may be, does not make you responsible for being raped. Nor does it make you guilty of suicide if you get murdered during your unconsciousness.

The fact that she drunk herself is irrelevant. All she has done is behave lawfully and take actions that only affected herself. She is not to be considered responsible for other people's disgusting, unlawful and immoral behaviour during her moment of vulnerability.

Your decision.
However, you shouldn't make the assumption that enjoying a pint equals compromises your decision making ability any more than, say, staying up till the early hours. Both are in a way mind altering, albeit in a small way. Just about enough not to drive a car any more.

Yeah, see my thinking is that by staying away from it altogether, I never have to worry about accidentally going too far.

Elizabeth is as guilty as someone who is raped during their sleep. Or while they're under heavy medication. Or someone with a mental deficiency who is unable to comprehend what is going on.

Being unconscious, whatever the cause may be, does not make you responsible for being raped. Nor does it make you guilty of suicide if you get murdered during your unconsciousness.

The fact that she drunk herself is irrelevant. All she has done is behave lawfully and take actions that only affected herself. She is not to be considered responsible for other people's disgusting, unlawful and immoral behaviour during her moment of vulnerability.

Where did he say she was unconscious?

Who shit in your cornflakes?
Uh, I think that was you.

what exactly does this mean? If alchohol has resulted in lower inhibitions, and those lower inhibitions cause her not to protest, then isn't she going voluntarily? She might be volunteering to do something that she might not otherwise volunteer to sober, but if she goes along as a result of her "lowered inhibitions" she's still going of her own free will

Depends on what country you're in. There's a recent case in Australia where they held that if you've had anything to drink, you can't really give consent.

There was a hue and cry, saying that men basically can't count on the answer of a woman unless they are quite, quite sure she's never had anything to drink, or risk facing rape charges.

Who is to blame?

The people who rape her, obviously. She has every right to get drunk if she so pleases.

Who is to blame?

The drunk driver, who does not have the right to endanger others, and whose victims did nothing wrong.

Judgments of who is to blame are not simple matters of causal responsibility.

Where did he say she was unconscious?

It doesn't matter if she's unconscious or half conscious. If she's so far off she can't even stand up or talk, then it's like taking advantage of a person with a mental deficit who can't understand what's going on.

If she was conscious enough to know what was going on and talk, and yet didn't object, then she is not to blame and neither are the guys, since it's not rape because she consents. But that's not how I read the scenario at all.

Basically, if she cannot consent because she's too far gone, then the wrong lies with the filthy pigs who take advantage of her(and this is how I understand it happened). If she still has the capacity to consent but chooses not to, yet wakes up and is all "What the hell was I thinking"? then it's not rape and nobody is to blame. She just has regrets about behaving stupidly while drunk.

And you know what's funny with that? If you're one of the guys, you have no way of knowing whether the girl is unable to consent, or she does because her inhibitions are lowered.

If you're smart, what do you do when a girl/boy is drunk? You keep your damn sausage in your pants, that's what.

Yeah, see my thinking is that by staying away from it altogether, I never have to worry about accidentally going too far.

As I said, your decision.
But humanity (and a good few other intelligent animals) love altering their mind, be it by alcohol, mushrooms, tree bark, inhaling burning leave smoke, breathing funnily, depriving themselves of sleep... it's a long, long list. And I daresay you indulge in one or two of the things on it.

As I said, your decision.
But humanity (and a good few other intelligent animals) love altering their mind, be it by alcohol, mushrooms, tree bark, inhaling burning leave smoke, breathing funnily, depriving themselves of sleep... it's a long, long list. And I daresay you indulge in one or two of the things on it.

Indeed, humans do love that.

Personally, the only things I can think of that have an effect like that on me are my erratic sleep schedule and my frequent use of caffeinated soda. Fortunately, as a result of my adherence to Mormon doctrine, my list of available vices is shorter, like with alcohol, tobacco, etc.

But like I mentioned earlier even before I converted I have always had a problem with alcohol consumption. I had an experience when I was younger where a very well loved and trusted cousin of mine turned into an utterly different human being one 4th of July weekend when he'd had too much to drink and our relationship never really recovered. That was when I decided it wasn't worth it.

Personally, the only things I can think of that have an effect like that on me are my adherence to Mormon doctrine.
Fixed.

Indeed, humans do love that.

Personally, the only things I can think of that have an effect like that on me are my erratic sleep schedule and my frequent use of caffeinated soda. Fortunately, as a result of my adherence to Mormon doctrine, my list of available vices is shorter, like with alcohol, tobacco, etc.

But like I mentioned earlier even before I converted I have always had a problem with alcohol consumption. I had an experience when I was younger where a very well loved and trusted cousin of mine turned into an utterly different human being one 4th of July weekend when he'd had too much to drink and our relationship never really recovered. That was when I decided it wasn't worth it.

As with most things, it's ok if you do it responsibly.
See, I refused to drive until, well, actually I only started my first lessons 2 weeks ago. My reason was that it was altogether too dangerous, that I might not be able to control it, that it kills people in numbers only comparable to wartime situations. I still know that when I drive, I can only control things so far, but I can control them to a larger extend than I thought.

Same with drink, sugar, caffeine, and so on and so forth. Most of those things are actually good for you, in small dosis. It's only when you get irresponsible with them that they become dangerous.

Who shit in your cornflakes?



Few things annoy me more than people who attempt - as you are - to blame the victims of rape. You're doing it subtly, of course - The Fox News style: "Is a rape victim as much to blame as a drunk driver?"

"Is Neo Bretonnia so anti-alcohol that he will blame rape victims for the rape, if they were drunk?"

"Is Neo Bretonnia playing innocent and acting like he can't imagine why anyone would take offense at his offensiveness?"

Fixed.

Do try and grow up, hm?

As with most things, it's ok if you do it responsibly.
See, I refused to drive until, well, actually I only started my first lessons 2 weeks ago. My reason was that it was altogether too dangerous, that I might not be able to control it, that it kills people in numbers only comparable to wartime situations. I still know that when I drive, I can only control things so far, but I can control them to a larger extend than I thought.

Same with drink, sugar, caffeine, and so on and so forth. Most of those things are actually good for you, in small dosis. It's only when you get irresponsible with them that they become dangerous.

I think that's true, but the problem is that the risks outweigh the benefits overall, if not for individuals.

Few things annoy me more than people who attempt - as you are - to blame the victims of rape. You're doing it subtly, of course - The Fox News style: "Is a rape victim as much to blame as a drunk driver?"

"Is Neo Bretonnia so anti-alcohol that he will blame rape victims for the rape, if they were drunk?"

"Is Neo Bretonnia playing innocent and acting like he can't imagine why anyone would take offense at his offensiveness?"

Quit bitching and try to actually read the posts. I'm not advancing the idea that the victim is to blame. You show me where I've expressed that as my actual personal opinion or STFU.

In fact, I've stated the opposite as my actual position. Whatever personal issues you might have with me I don't care about, but don't waste my time throwing out strawmen just because you can't stand to be objective.

I regard all those who drink as idiots and those who drink to excess as being total idiots.... course my judgment is biased since I don't like the taste of the stuff myself so I've avoided any and all possibilies of things even remotly like this.... anyway:

They are both at least partially fault - Jeff inarguably because it was his direct actions that caused the problem - he had the choice of driving his car - he did so; no excuses he took actions in a dangerous state which put others in danger

The army doesnt let people who're drunk handle weapon (I hope) A car counts as a potentially lethal weapon - there should be a minimun standard of actions applied to him for drink driving as well as others depending on the full effects of what he did (if people were killed etc.) The law is to bring people to justice for his actions - drink cannot and in my opinion must not be allowed to mitigate the results of a persons actions

With the girl things arent so clear cut... what do you mean by "not voluntarily but she doesnt fight either"? - Anyway for now I'll assume that without the boys there would have been no similiar interactions of this sort...

To the point: they deliberatly caused the situation - and depending on what kind of involvment she had (i.e. activly participating or just being used) then the boys are certainly at fault tp a greater or lessor degree and need some kind of punishment if they were aware that she wouldn't normally want this kind of thing and if she wasn't drunk wouldn't allow it.

And she, if nothing else deserves a sharp talking to for drinking enough to allow herself to be put into this kind situation

I'm going to take "too drunk" as meaning, drunk to the point of doing something they would not think of doing while sober in both cases. ie, Jeff wouldn't think of driving drunk in a normal state and Elizabeth would never think to have a 3-4 guy orgy were she sober.

So, becoming "too drunk" to pay attention to their own morals, they both do something stupid. Jeff's stupidity gets 3-4 people hurt, and possibly himself. He is absolutey at fault.

Elizabeth's stupidity lands her some pretty heavy embarassment the next morning. Discounting the possibility of pregnancy or disease which would only complicate this further, if she decides that, yes, perhaps drinking that much and going with those guys was a bad idea that shouldn't be repeated again and leaves it at that, then no one is at fault. However, if she decides that even though she was capable of following them to the room and was capable of concent tht she'd like to cry rape (without the he said she said since we know the facts) then it is her fault.

Sounds kinda cold, but Jeff's drunken stupidity hurt other people. Elizabeth's drunken stupidity hurt herself. I see it in the same way I'd see it if Elizabeth, in her drunk state put her hand on a hot stove element to to prove that she could. I wouldn't fault the people who turned the stove on to to see if she actually would do it. They didn't force her hand onto the stove.

I think that's true, but the problem is that the risks outweigh the benefits overall, if not for individuals.


They most certainly do. I wouldn't have started driving if I hadn't found myself in a situation without decent public transport by moving to a more or less rural area here. I'm still campaigning for better public transport, and I know we're going to move within the next two years again, hopefully somwhere where there is a better public transport system, so I can stop driving again.

Do try and grow up, hm?
Never!

It doesn't matter if she's unconscious or half conscious. If she's so far off she can't even stand up or talk, then it's like taking advantage of a person with a mental deficit who can't understand what's going on.
...

I would agree with you if she were at that stage of drunkeness. But the OP said not voluntarily but she doesn't fight either (alcohol having lowered her inhibitions enough that she doesn't fight)
So I don't know what exactly that means.

She should have said 'No' but if she was so drunk that her lips couldn't form the words, then the men were taking advantage of her.

If she did say 'No' but was too drunk to kick them in the balls and run away. Then that is definately rape.

And if she were too drunk to fight her way out of the situation, but couldn't be bothered to ask them to 'stop'. She is responsible.

Yes, it's a false dichotomy. The question is not about sobriety or inebriation, it's about action versus inaction. Elizabeth is a passive party who does not illegal. She is a victim. Jeff is an active party who violates the law. He is the perpetrator.

If I (a female) get too drunk at a party and don't have the wherewithal to stop someone from having sex with me, I have been the victim of rape. I have also been pretty stupid, but being stupid, or drunk, does not give someone free reign to take advantage of me.

If, however, I get too drunk at a party and don't have the wherewithal to stop myself from punching some girl I have always found very annoying, though I'd never have done it sober, I am the perpetrator. Being drunk does not give me free reign to punch anyone.

I would say that all parties are at fault. Jeff is most definitely responsible, but so Elizabeth, as both knew their drinking limits and surpassed them, on purpose, hence assuming responsibility for their actions once drunk. However, the men who banged Elizabeth are also at fault, because they didn't realise that she was completely drunk. No rape was committed, just lots of good, old fashion stupidity. Now, if the guys were also drunk, then no one is at fault.

It's tricky, as it places the burden of proof on the wrong party. Basically, the guys in question are required to be able to guess the amount of drink she's had, and gauge if she's still sober enough to actually be able to legally agree...

I know that's not easy, and I know a good few guys, probably with some drink in them at the time, wouldn't think twice.
Safest bet would be for the guys to decline unless they are 100% sure she's absolutely and totally ok with it....

This is indeed where the line becomes murky, and murkier still if they're just as drunk. Even if they were sober, it's not necessarily rape, but I do think there's some stomach-turning about three sober guys having sex with a girl who's drunk to the point of incoherence.

Personally, I wouldn't be interested in having sex with anyone that drunk, no matter how much I'd had. It's just creepy. If I'm having sex with someone, I know they're cool with it because they're, you know, ACTIVE and participating. When someone's so drunk they're beyond even really responding, you have to question what the hell you're doing.

Personally, the only things I can think of that have an effect like that on me are my erratic sleep schedule and my frequent use of caffeinated soda. Fortunately, as a result of my adherence to Mormon doctrine, my list of available vices is shorter, like with alcohol, tobacco, etc.

My Mormon friends aren't allowed to drink caffeinated beverages because caffeine is a mind-altering substance. Is there some debate within the religion about this?

Rolling squid;13801915']I would say that all parties are at fault. Jeff is most definitely responsible, but so Elizabeth, as both knew their drinking limits and surpassed them, on purpose, hence assuming responsibility for their actions once drunk. However, the men who banged Elizabeth are also at fault, because they didn't realise that she was completely drunk. No rape was committed, just lots of good, old fashion stupidity. Now, if the guys were also drunk, then no one is at fault.

If someone gets so drunk they're near passing out, it is indeed stupid, but does that mean that they assume responsibility for everything that happens to them at that point? If Jeff, instead of getting behind the wheel, decides to walk home and gets hit by a car in the crosswalk, is that is fault? While sober he would have been alert enough to get out of harm's way, he has a reasonable expectation to not be run over in a crosswalk.

My Mormon friends aren't allowed to drink caffeinated beverages because caffeine is a mind-altering substance. Is there some debate within the religion about this?


Kinda. There are two schools of thought on it. One is that Since coffee and most kinds of tea are prohibited, then it must be over the caffeine and thus they avoid soda as well.

On the other hand, there are those (like me) who believe that if it had to do with Caffeine then
1)We'd be advised to stay away from chocolate too (which we aren't) and
2)There would specifically be some word from the Prophet on soda and thus far there has not been.

Quit bitching and try to actually read the posts.

I don't think your innocent, MTAE-style "Is slavery such a bad thing" style of 'posing questions' is much of a cover. That you're asking this question is evidence enough that, on some level, you do blame the victim.

I've read your shite.

I'm not advancing the idea that the victim is to blame.

That is exactly what you are doing. If it wasn't, this thread wouldn't exist.

You show me where I've expressed that as my actual personal opinion or STFU.

Gosh, you never come right out and say it. Hey you know, racists never say "LOL I'm being racist!" so I guess they aren't, eh?

In fact, I've stated the opposite as my actual position.

You said it was your 'gut' and of course 'legally.' Yet you keep asking anyway. Apparently you're uncomfortable with not blaming the victim so you're fishing in an attempt to find some reasoning, something to grab onto so you can self-righteously condemn a rape victim along with evil alcohol.

Whatever personal issues you might have with me I don't care about, but don't waste my time throwing out strawmen just because you can't stand to be objective.

I can't take you seriously if you condemn 'strawmen' while giving one out yourself in the exact same fucking sentence.

If I'm "wasting your time," then by all means ignore me. I'd hate for you to be late for your meeting, Mr President.

If someone gets so drunk they're near passing out, it is indeed stupid, but does that mean that they assume responsibility for everything that happens to them at that point? If Jeff, instead of getting behind the wheel, decides to walk home and gets hit by a car in the crosswalk, is that is fault? While sober he would have been alert enough to get out of harm's way, he has a reasonable expectation to not be run over in a crosswalk.

Was she nearly passed out? I read the OP as her being slurred speech and trouble standing drunk, not passed out drunk. And they are responsible as if they were sober, in my book. If Jeff did get hit by a car, then normal traffic laws apply. If he was walking at a cross walk, he's faultless, but if he just staggered out into traffic, then he's at fault.

I don't think your innocent, MTAE-style "Is slavery such a bad thing" style of 'posing questions' is much of a cover. That you're asking this question is evidence enough that, on some level, you do blame the victim.


That's completely irrational and wrong.


I've read your shite.


And sadly, I'm being subjected to yours.


That is exactly what you are doing. If it wasn't, this thread wouldn't exist.


Wrong.


Gosh, you never come right out and say it. Hey you know, racists never say "LOL I'm being racist!" so I guess they aren't, eh?


Um... yeah that must be it.


You said it was your 'gut' and of course 'legally.' Yet you keep asking anyway. Apparently you're uncomfortable with not blaming the victim so you're fishing in an attempt to find some reasoning, something to grab onto so you can self-righteously condemn a rape victim along with evil alcohol.


Of course I keep asking. I came out and said I was playing the devil's advocate for the sake of stimulating the discussion.


I can't take you seriously if you condemn 'strawmen' while giving one out yourself in the exact same fucking sentence.

If I'm "wasting your time," then by all means ignore me. I'd hate for you to be late for your meeting, Mr President.

Actually, you seem to be late taking your medication. This is possibly the most irrational post I've ever seen on this forum... At least in as long as I can remember.

Kinda. There are two schools of thought on it. One is that Since coffee and most kinds of tea are prohibited, then it must be over the caffeine and thus they avoid soda as well.

On the other hand, there are those (like me) who believe that if it had to do with Caffeine then
1)We'd be advised to stay away from chocolate too (which we aren't) and
2)There would specifically be some word from the Prophet on soda and thus far there has not been.

Umm, but didn't your prophet come like 200 years ago? Did they know chocolate had caffeine then? Did they have soda? I mean, I suppose God could always shout down an addition or something, but it seems like a small thing to bring down another prophet for.

Actually, that's kind of a fun thought--a new prophet every time God has some revisions. Or maybe just once a generation with a long list. "Next item: pixie stix. What are you people thinking? No one needs that much sugar. I've received a lot of prayers from teachers' unions to get rid of these things."

(I'm not trying to disrespect your religion, btw, this is not sarcasm, just idle thought)

That's completely irrational and wrong.

Irrational, but you can't say how. Wrong, cuz you just - well shit, cuz you say so.
Too pressed for time I suppose?

And sadly, I'm being subjected to yours.

Oh, poor baby. Next time you spit out a bunch of filth I'll try to spare you the horrors of having it pointed out.

Wrong.

...


Um... yeah that must be it.


Racists aren't racist if they don't say it? You believe this?

Of course I keep asking. I came out and said I was playing the devil's advocate for the sake of stimulating the discussion.


Playing the 'devil's advocate for stimulating the discussion' can also be interpreted as 'trolling.' I fail to see the distinction in this case.

Actually, you seem to be late taking your medication. This is possibly the most irrational post I've ever seen on this forum... At least in as long as I can remember.

Pointing out your strawman is irrational?

Suggesting that if your time is SO valuable I am WASTING it, you should quit ALLOWING me to waste it - that's irrational?

Well you know, I never said I was irrational. Therefore I'm not.

Umm, but didn't your prophet come like 200 years ago? Did they know chocolate had caffeine then? Did they have soda? I mean, I suppose God could always shout down an addition or something, but it seems like a small thing to bring down another prophet for.

Actually, that's kind of a fun thought--a new prophet every time God has some revisions. Or maybe just once a generation with a long list. "Next item: pixie stix. What are you people thinking? No one needs that much sugar. I've received a lot of prayers from teachers' unions to get rid of these things."

(I'm not trying to disrespect your religion, btw, this is not sarcasm, just idle thought)

(Don't worry I can tell :) )

Actually we have a prophet currently. There's been one almost continuously since Joseph Smith.

Every once in a while a clarification is needed precisely because of what you said-that there wasn't any soda back then and caffeine wasn't as well understood as it is now. Times change, and there needs to be dynamic guidance to keep up.

I dunno how I'd answer this thread myself, so while I will put up a poll I won't respond to it right away.

Consider the following scenario:

Elizabeth is at a frat party with a few of her friends and has quite a lot to drink. She knows her own limits but goes over them anyway, as it's the end of the semester and all finals have been passed and she just feels like celebrating. At some point in the party she's taken upstairs, not voluntarily but she doesn't fight either (alcohol having lowered her inhibitions enough that she doesn't fight) and is stripped down and taken advantage of by 3 or 4 guys. Who is to blame?

She did not go up the stair voluntarily. that says it is rape. A woman should not have to be kicking and screaming for the situation to be considered rape. the situation is on a fine line. But when you say involuntarily you end the likely hood of it being something she has allowed. now if in a drunken honrney moment she lead three guys up stairs it would be a different matter.


Jeff is at a frat party with a few of his friends and has quite a lot to drink. He knows his own limits but goes over them anyway, as it's the end of the semester and all finals have been passed and he just feels like celebrating. At some point in the party he gets into his car, not bothering to wait for this designated driver. (alcohol having lowered his inhibitions enough that he doesn't worry about it) On his way home he flies through a red light and broadsides a minivan, severely injuring the passengers. Who is to blame?

He is to blame. He choose to drive. If he was the drunk guy that gets trashed and goes for a drive he should have made sure his keys were with his designated driver. in fact he should have left his keys with a designated driver.

I'm not advancing an agenda or opinion. It just occurred to me that if we apply the exact same standards to both Jeff and Elizabeth, one way or the other we come to a conclusion that may be uncomfortable. (Either the drunk driver isn't to blame, or the rape victim is.) Is this a false dichotomy?

Very false dichotomy. the girl did not consent to the sex even if she was too drunk to resist.
The driver choose to drive regardless.

It depends on your Ethics...But,for me personally id say this:

for Elizabeth, i blame them all, the Rapists are deplorable, but, Elizabeth left herself open to the attack for choosing to go beyond her limits...

Jeff and the people in the Minivan are to blame for their actions, for the same...

It seems fairly clear to me.

I believe they're both at fault. Lets take a look at both situations.

Elizabeth went over her drinking limits. Therefore, she becomes intoxicated and loses a lot of her judgment. The guys that took advantage of her are at a much greater fault than she, because they instigated the action, aware of the fact that she was intoxicated. However, Elizabeth still has her own sins to reconcile with, because this situation probably never would've occurred if she hadn't decided to go over her limits.

Jeff is clearly at fault. He drank too much, got in the car (illegal), and hit someone. He holds sole responsibility for the whole issue.

Those are my thoughts.

However, Elizabeth still has her own sins to reconcile with, because this situation probably never would've occurred if she hadn't decided to go over her limits.

"The bitch deserved to be raped because she was wearing miniskirt!" amirite?

There is no case where she is guilty of anything in my books. Only case where the men are not guilty of rape in my books would've been if she in drunken hornyness would've dragged them to fuck her. This clearly wasn't the case.

No one has obligation nor right to take advantage of you just because you drank too much.

However, Elizabeth still has her own sins to reconcile with, because this situation probably never would've occurred if she hadn't decided to go over her limits.

Nonsense. Drinking is not a sin--not just because it exposes you to the aggressions of others, anyway.

If I leave my door unlocked, the thief is no less guilty.

OBVIOUSLY. The 3 or 4 guys who take advantage are to blame. The 3 or 4 people Jeff hit are not. Next?

agreed

I'm not advancing an agenda or opinion. It just occurred to me that if we apply the exact same standards to both Jeff and Elizabeth, one way or the other we come to a conclusion that may be uncomfortable. (Either the drunk driver isn't to blame, or the rape victim is.) Is this a false dichotomy?

Yes, it is. If the case of Elizabeth, other people take advantage of her drunkeness to harm her. They, therefore, are the ones doing wrong.

In the case of Jeff, he harms other people by irresponsibly putting them in danger. He is, therefore, the one doing wrong.

I would also place some blame on others at the party who were aware of either action.

I would also place some blame on others at the party who were aware of either action.
Yeah, that's an extremely important point.

Anyone who'd let their friend drink-drive, let alone take advantage of a drunken friend, is a douche.

1) She's been gang raped, regardless of whether she "consented" or not. No means no, and if she's drunk yes means no.
2) He's an idiot and the world is better off without him.

What if we assume that they're just as drunk as she is?

Well, I just thought that it's very similar to that way of thinking... Sorry

I demand 6/5 of an apology and a plentiful helping of cake!

SNIP

Down, Kujo.

Anyway, if we're applying all of the other circumstances the same, then they're both "guilty". Since we know Jeff can drive, we could probably assume then that Elizabeth is not at the point of incapacitation herself. If that's the case, then if she consents she consents regardless of lowered inhibitions or not.

If she is drunk to the point of incapacitation or did not give consent, then the men who gangbanged her are the guilty ones.

Jeff is pretty fucked no matter how you look at it. If he's not incapacitated then he's guilty. If he is, then he probably died in the collision. Sucks to be you, Jeff.

what exactly does this mean? If alchohol has resulted in lower inhibitions, and those lower inhibitions cause her not to protest, then isn't she going voluntarily? She might be volunteering to do something that she might not otherwise volunteer to sober, but if she goes along as a result of her "lowered inhibitions" she's still going of her own free will

According to the scenario outlined above, she consented or volunteered to nothing. Just because you're not in a position to deny something doesn't mean you consent to it. If someone had drugged her or knocked her out before proceeding to have his way with her, it'd still be rape.

Someone passed out on the street or lawn isn't an open invitation to take his/her valuables or harvest his/her organs. It's the same case here.

You disappoint me Neo Art. I thought you wouldn't stoop to sleazy arguments like that.

She got drunk, she agreed, she got laid! End of story!

And you clearly can't read the conditions properly either. She consented to nothing. It was rape. End of story.


I can't see how it can be anyone else's fault. She should have thought of the consequences. Besides, she could have enjoyed it if she hadn't been drunk.

This is the sort of mentality that encourages and excuses rape.

According to the scenario outlined above, she consented or volunteered to nothing. Just because you're not in a position to deny something doesn't mean you consent to it. If someone had drugged her or knocked her out before proceeding to have his way with her, it'd still be rape.

Someone passed out on the street or lawn isn't an open invitation to take his/her valuables or harvest his/her organs. It's the same case here.

You disappoint me Neo Art. I thought you wouldn't stoop to sleazy arguments like that.

That's totally not what he's saying.

Not really. To rise to that point of being rape by virtue of intoxication, she has to be so intoxicated as to not be able to render any real consent. Effectively passed out or essentially incoherent. In your example she was drunk, certainly, but still lucid, and still capable of making a choice. A drunk choice yes, a choice she would not have made sober, yes, but still a choice. To be rape, she would have effectively had to be so drunk as to not be aware of her surroundings, and have no ability to consent to them.

According to NB's scenario, Elizabeth made no choice, and we are not provided specifics as to her exact state of mind in regards to situational awareness. In either case, no choice was made, unless otherwise stipulated by NB, thereby, no consent, drunken or otherwise, was given.

According to NB's scenario, Elizabeth made no choice, and we are not provided specifics as to her exact state of mind in regards to situational awareness. In either case, no choice was made, unless otherwise stipulated by NB, thereby, no consent, drunken or otherwise, was given.

This was not solidly established at the time Neo Art made that post. In his argument it assumes that Elizabeth was not incapacitated and that she drunkenly consented. That it turned out to not be entirely applicable to the situation as revealed later is irrelevant.

Not really. To rise to that point of being rape by virtue of intoxication, she has to be so intoxicated as to not be able to render any real consent. Effectively passed out or essentially incoherent.

I don't know about anyone else, but this is how I read the OP. It said she was too drunk to protest and that all action - stripping her, etc. - was taken by the men in the scenario.

If she, in fact, drunkenly consented, I would say that fault (if it was to be determined at all) would be largely determined by the level of drunkenness of everyone involved. If the three guys were relatively sober and more aware of their actions - still using her drunkenness to take advantage of her - I would place blame on them. If they were all really drunk and it seemed like they were all into it, it's an unfortunate circumstance if someone regrets it, but any blame would have to be placed on all participants equally.

This is a clear case of gender discrimination. anyone who thinks it isn't should think about the following: if elizabeth had been elliot instead, and the 3-4 guys had been girls, would we call it rape?

Under the exact same circumstances that we would call it rape otherwise? Yes.


I have no experience being drunk. But can you really get to the point where you can't even speak? I find that unlikely. I believe the girl is at fault.

Yes, it is possible, just as it is possible to be so drunk that you are unaware of your surroundings and what is going on.

It's not a good place to be, but it is something that can happen if you drink too much.

This was not solidly established at the time Neo Art made that post. In his argument it assumes that Elizabeth was not incapacitated and that she drunkenly consented. That it turned out to not be entirely applicable to the situation as revealed later is irrelevant.

Neo Art, unless I am much mistaken, is not capable of time travel. The conditions were made in the op. Any argument of consent given is strictly Neo Art's assumption. No such condition was made in the op. Assuming so alters the parameters set by the op.

Neo Art, unless I am much mistaken, is not capable of time travel.

True. But the majority of posters hadn't yet figured out what the wording meant.

The conditions were made in the op.

But were not clearly understood at the time.

Any argument of consent given is strictly Neo Art's assumption. No such condition was made in the op.

No shit. Did I not mention in my last post that his argument assumes that as a premise?

(Don't worry I can tell :) )

Actually we have a prophet currently. There's been one almost continuously since Joseph Smith.

Every once in a while a clarification is needed precisely because of what you said-that there wasn't any soda back then and caffeine wasn't as well understood as it is now. Times change, and there needs to be dynamic guidance to keep up.

Really? That's very interesting. Man, talk about a job I would never want.

OBVIOUSLY. The 3 or 4 guys who take advantage are to blame. The 3 or 4 people Jeff hit are not. Next?

Indeed. The 3 or 4 dudes who took advantage of Liz chose to do so, knowing that she was drunk out of her wits. The passengers of the car Jeff it did not choose to get hit by a drunk driver.

It is my opinion that Tmutarakhan has won this thread.