From: chuckies@cs.mcgill.ca (Charles J Savoie)
Newsgroups: soc.men,talk.rape
Subject: Re: Drunk Sex = Rape?
Date: 25 Jan 93 04:38:03 GMT
Organization: SOCS - McGill University, Montreal, Canada


Attributions:
-------------
Charles

> Amy

>> Charles

>>> ALI00BAW@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU (on UNIX?  Try setenv NAME 'Mr./Ms. X' sometime)
								     :-)

>>I would.  If she drank willingly, and gave clear consent, I would.  Just like
>>she would be responsible for choosing to get into a car and drive.
>
>What if the woman is UNCONSCIOUS.  I believe that the above
>"semiconscious or falling down drunk" is way too lose to even THINK of
>in a legal sense.  Chuckies, what if the woman was *unconscious*.
>Then what? 

As I've said before, I agree totally with your position on this; if she
is unconscious, she can't consent.  If she is semi-conscious, but gives
clear consent, then she can't yell rape later, IMO.  This is what I meant
by the above.  Just as someone who is unconscious can't get into a car
and drive, but if he/she is semi-conscious and does so, he/she is
responsible.

>>>In the
>>>abovedescribed state she goes to bed with someone.  The next morning she
>>>wakes up, hung over, looks over to the other side of the bed, and says:
>>>"WHAT was I thinking of last night?"
>
>You were probably thinking you were horny and the guy was hot, but
>anyway... 

Hehheh.... This made me laugh.

>>Tough.  As someone else mentioned, one is still responsible for their
>>actions while intoxicated, if the intoxication was willing.

>Most certainly.

>>>The man MAY be morally culpable for taking advantage of her state;

>>Perhaps he was drunk.  Does this still apply to women?

>If a man is drunk, and this intoxication is willing, he is STILL
>responsible for acting within the law.  "But I was drunk" is no more a
>defense for him than "I was drunk" should be the prosecution for the
>woman.  If she did not give consent, or was in no condition to give
>legal consent (unconscious), and he was too drunk to pay attention to
>her, or didn't really stop to think what she meant, then that's HIS
>problem, for HE'S the one that's allowed himself to get into a state
>where he cannot act responsibly.  It works both ways. 

Agreed 100%.  But by "taking advantage of her state" I took it to mean
that she was still conscious, but drunk, and had given consent.  I'm
sure this is what the other poster meant.  See below.

>
>>>is he,
>>>however LEGALLY guilty of rape?  That would put him in the same catagory as
>>>someone who jumped the woman as she walked home, dragged her into the bushes,
>>>and. . . .To put the two in the same class would, I think, be

>I think the former should be rape, and the latter should be rape PLUS
>violent personal assult charges.  Given that there are so many "types"
>and situations where rape occurs, I think we need to be a bit more
>clear in taking the crimes apart. 

"The former" we were talking about wasn't about someone being unconscious!
READ THIS AGAIN: :-)

>>>I am uncomfortable with letting the first man totally off the hook, because,

>>>after all, he probably was on some level aware that when the woman said
   ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>>'yes'
   ^^^^^
   ^^^^^
 
>>>it was at least partly the gin talking.  Is there some lesser charge, perhaps
>>           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
		Amy, read this carefully...
		The woman in question is not
		unconscious, she is *talking*
		and *giving consent*...
		This person says the man should
		be *charged with a crime* just
		because it "partly the gin talking".
		This is the reason for my outrage,
		as well as my (attempt at) analogy below.

>>>even a misdemenour (sp?), he could be had up on?

>>Do you think he should be LEGALLY guilty of anything?  Why should he be
>>punished, what did he do wrong?  If he was drunk himself, why is he more
>>guilty than she?

>I'm not sure just what we're talking about now, but if two people get
>drunk, end up sleeping together, and then wake up the next morning and
>go, "oh god, what did I do..." I think they should be held to their
>irresponsible behavior.  A woman should not be able to use "I
>consented but I was drunk" as grounds for a rape charge, but nor
>should a man be able to say, "Hey, I was drunk, I'm not guilty because
>I was drunk."  

Again, agreed...  But this is not at all the situation that was described.


>>If a woman has a bad day, and consents to sex as a result (perhaps to relieve
>>tension), would you be uncomfortable with "letting the man off the hook"
>>given that it was at least partly her frustration talking?

>Huh?  This analogy sucks. 

:-)  Well, perhaps it's not perfect, but I (humbly) think it makes some
sense.  Try it again in light of what I wrote above...   Your kilometerage
may vary.

>>Amy, here is my example of someone who believes sleeping with a drunk
>>woman is grounds for being thrown in jail and getting a criminal record
>>(a misdemeanor is sufficient for this, is it not?).

>I think you're going a bit overboard here in characterizing what this
>person said.  

*sigh*  No.  This time, no.  Again, read what was written carefully.  If
you have an alternate interpretation of the paragraph beginning with:
"I am uncomfortable with letting...", please post it *including* the
original statement...

Also, perhaps my "How about if the man was drunk" line makes more sense
now, too; i.e. would this person still think the man was taking advantage
of the woman while she was drunk, if he himself were drunk...  (I'm sure
you wouldn't, but I was asking ALI00BAW@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU.)

>amy

Charles

-- 

,.. .  . .  . ,.. . . ... ,.. ,..   =====================================
|   |--| |  | |   |<   |  |-  `-.   Charles Savoie  chuckies@cs.mcgill.ca
`'' '  ' `''' `'' ' ` ''' `'' '''   =====================================
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism,soc.singles