Letter the Stanford rape survivor read to her attacker

[Anakin McFly]

This is powerful:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/h ... .elDrO7kwo

The most compassion I can muster for the culprit is that perhaps he really was that drunk and was just as unaware of what happened. (I've been defending a similar case here where someone unintentionally killed a stranger while drunk and was sentenced to death, so I don't want to be hypocritical.) But there's no justification for dragging this case through court the way he did and continuing to argue against his victim's claims, her pain and the concrete evidence of his crime. She's too kind to him.

[aels]

Did you read the letters his father and friend wrote to the judge to say that getting a whole six months (for which he will likely serve three) for rape is just too darned much? I'm not blaming anyone else for this guy being an asshole but it seems like he lives in a very pro-asshole social group.

[Anakin McFly]

I haven't seen the friend's letter yet, but the father's one was something special. I'm usually totally open to hearing the other side of the story, but that letter seemed to further condemn him. It wasn't even nasty, even bordering on kind, which is deeply unsettling. His father just seemed completely oblivious to the fact that his son just committed a horrific crime.

[aels]

The friend's letter basically said that not everyone who rapes someone is a rapist and blamed his conviction on political correctness. So.

[CashRules]

The fucking liberals and Obama's communist fascist agenda conspired to make me put my penis in that woman's vagina while she was passed out!

[aels]

CULTURAL MARXISM PROBABLY

Someone I know posted on Facebook that people getting upset about this rapist's dad defending him are 'SJWs' with daddy issues who don't understand how parents can love their children. He's the same guy who stuck up for my racist friend's racism so I am so glad I deleted his friend request when he sent it months back. I'm not saying I'm always right about people but I am never wrong about people

[CashRules]

You're the heroine this world needs but not the one it deserves.

[Anakin McFly]

I can fully understand how a parent can love their child even when said child has done something horrible to another person; it's often worse when the parent couldn't care less, because that doesn't suggest good things for their parenting skills and is probably how their kid got so screwed up. But that does not necessitate excusing their crimes. It's probably one of the few places where 'love the sinner, hate the sin' is apt, and if he truly loved his child he wouldn't try to get him out of the consequences of his actions.

tbh I think it would have been better for everybody if the guy had gotten the full prison sentence of 10 years+ and much less of the Internet publicity. I'm reading about him on the opposite side of the planet, ffs. This isn't going to be something he can live down, because the Internet remembers all. So in the end he's still going to suffer, perhaps worse than if he'd just done the time, and meanwhile he'll be set loose shortly to potentially hurt more people. Nobody wins.

I also feel very bad for all the other people named Brock Allen out there. All their future would-be employers googling their name might figure they don't want to risk hiring someone who might have been a rapist.

I'm still wary of the drunk thing, though. Given that the victim had no memory of the event, it's also not unlikely that the guy likewise had no memory of it, where one moment he was drinking and the next he discovered he had just brutally raped someone. I'm guessing that could be why he keeps saying that his only crime was irresponsible drinking. I've never been drunk so I have no experience to draw on, but I've heard many people say that when they're drunk they do things they would never do sober (but may perhaps have considered, only to not-do because they know it's wrong) so I don't know how much self control and moral agency someone might have in that situation.

Enlighten me, people who have been drunk!

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

Not sure if I ever told this story before, but I have only ever gotten blackout drunk once and it was at a college party. I drank way too much and was on aggressive side of drunk. I apparently said a ton of hurtful shit to people I didn't know. The difference is, I didn't rape anyone. I was verbally abusive & perhaps may have wanted to throw some punches, but I was not in any mindset to enter someone consensually or otherwise.

I don't think it's physiologically possible to get so drunk as to not remember anything about entering another person.

[CashRules]

I got so drunk at a party once I used the host's expensive potted plant as a urinal. Yeah, it was in the living room. Everyone was watching.

[OpiateOfTheMasses]

If you get to point of being "so drunk that you can't remember anything" you're also being at the point of being so drunk that it's basically impossible to get an erection for most men. So that excuse really doesn't cut it - it's difficult to rape someone when you can't get it up.

[thesalmonofdoubt]

I'm still wary of the drunk thing, though. Given that the victim had no memory of the event, it's also not unlikely that the guy likewise had no memory of it, where one moment he was drinking and the next he discovered he had just brutally raped someone. I'm guessing that could be why he keeps saying that his only crime was irresponsible drinking. I've never been drunk so I have no experience to draw on, but I've heard many people say that when they're drunk they do things they would never do sober (but may perhaps have considered, only to not-do because they know it's wrong) so I don't know how much self control and moral agency someone might have in that situation.

Enlighten me, people who have been drunk!

I have some expertise on this very subject - I've been blind rotten drunk more times than I care to remember, but more importantly, I've been with other people who got blind drunk more times than they care to remember and the one thing that I can safely say about getting blind drunk, is that like being on just about any other drug, its different for different people.
No matter how drunk I've been, I've never forgotten a single thing. I've never acted so far out of character that I didn't recognise my actions... I mean, sure, I've done stuff that I'm not entirely proud of .. but stuff like pee when I really needed to pee rather than when I'm near say - a toilet.

But - everyone is different, I've got mates who swear up and down they have completely forgotten entire nights out, I've got one mate who just completely turns into a different guys when he's drunk .. I've got mates who get ridiculously violent when they are drunk.
I have no idea what goes on internally for these chaps when they aren't drunk - maybe that's all there and it only comes out when their inhibitions are lowered .. For my part tho - Alcohol doesn't change anything meaningful about who I am and what my core values are.

[aels]

tbh I think it would have been better for everybody if the guy had gotten the full prison sentence of 10 years+ and much less of the Internet publicity. I'm reading about him on the opposite side of the planet, ffs. This isn't going to be something he can live down, because the Internet remembers all. So in the end he's still going to suffer, perhaps worse than if he'd just done the time, and meanwhile he'll be set loose shortly to potentially hurt more people. Nobody wins.

See, I feel the complete opposite. I don't think he's going to suffer very much at all in the long run. I'm tired so I don't know how to articulate what I want to say but it boils down to BOO RAPE CULTURE BOO. I think there are plenty of people in this world who are more than happy to say that what he did wasn't rape-rape, that it was just a drunken misunderstanding, that he was young and reckless, that she was a tipsy slut, that we shouldn't ruin his promising future, etc, etc, etc. He has expressed no remorse, the judge gave him a slap on the wrist, his family and friends seem happy to excuse and minimise, and the internet will forget him when the next fuckhead comes along.

I'm still wary of the drunk thing, though. Given that the victim had no memory of the event, it's also not unlikely that the guy likewise had no memory of it, where one moment he was drinking and the next he discovered he had just brutally raped someone. I'm guessing that could be why he keeps saying that his only crime was irresponsible drinking. I've never been drunk so I have no experience to draw on, but I've heard many people say that when they're drunk they do things they would never do sober (but may perhaps have considered, only to not-do because they know it's wrong) so I don't know how much self control and moral agency someone might have in that situation.

Enlighten me, people who have been drunk!

I have never been blackout drunk but I have been drunk enough to go to bed fully-clothed and with my shoes on because zips seemed a lot more complicated than I was able to manage and where the next morning, the night before is kind of a delightful haze (but my memory is terrible anyway). I am considered a 100% certified ball of sunshine when I am drunk. I think I can dance, I talk gibberish, I hug people and tell them that they are beautiful snowflake baby angels. People encourage me to drink because drunk Steph is such a peach. I've never hurt anyone, never committed a crime (I peed in a carpark hedge once but I would have done that sober if I had needed to go as badly as I did), never wrong-touched anyone. I don't turn into someone else when I drink, I just become a lot less shy and awkward. I straight up tell people 'I am not saying I love you because I'm drunnnnnk, I loves you alls time but I don't say. Look at your beautiful face. You are a delight'. My drunk friends have always seemed like themselves but slightly more so.

I don't know anyone who turns into an asshole when they drink but I think if people *do* turn into assholes when they drink, they need to consider whether they should be drinking.

[Anakin McFly]

Thanks for all the enlightenment!

I got so drunk at a party once I used the host's expensive potted plant as a urinal. Yeah, it was in the living room. Everyone was watching.

were there pics

@aels - I've mostly been getting my news of this from feminist places, so my perception is probably skewed. But the world is (hopefully) changing, and things seem harder to live down than before, so idk how this will play out in the long run. I hope he finds enlightenment in jail and one day acts to turn things around.

How does consent work with drunk people, though? If one is sober it's usually considered rape if they take advantage of a drunk person, but what if two drunk strangers consent to sex they otherwise wouldn't have consented to?

[thesalmonofdoubt]

How does consent work with drunk people, though? If one is sober it's usually considered rape if they take advantage of a drunk person, but what if two drunk strangers consent to sex they otherwise wouldn't have consented to?

I had this conversation with a lawyer mate of mine a while ago and the answer was .. well, complicated.


In the case of this chap, its substantially less complicated. While he was drunk, the girl was unconscious, the difficulty when you have two people who are drunk consenting to sex is establishing whether its reasonable for both parties to consider the lead up as consent. When one person is unconscious, I think its pretty clear consent wasn't being given or even particularly important to him .. he was being opportunistic pure and simple.
More than this - he ran and left her for dead when the two blokes approached him - which would seem to establish that not only was he aware he was screwing an unconscious non-consenting person, but he was also well aware than what he was doing was wrong.. so ..

In other cases - its seems to be very much open to interpretation .. if I have known a girl for a while and know that she has no interest in me sexually - then I see her drunk and give it a go then, even if she ostensibly consents to sex but thet she later says she wasn't fit to consent to, there would be enuff reason for the courts to consider that I took advantage of her incapacitated state to gain advantage and I'd be guilty of rape.

I don't think there is a bog standard way of establishing consent that holds true for all tho

[BruceSmith78]

I think if both people are able to actively and willingly participate, there's consent. If one person is not both an active and willing participant, it's rape. Not complicated at all.

I've been too drunk to remember the previous night more times than I could count. Walking outside in the morning to make sure my car was there because I didn't remember how I got home was a common occurrence for me. I once peed in a friend's closet because I apparently thought it was the restroom, and my friends watched me do it. I don't remember doing this. I once woke up in a jail cell with piss in my pants and absolutely no recollection of how I got there. It turned out I went to the wrong apartment, and when my key didn't work I made an enraged, belligerent and pathetic attempt to break in. I learned all of this from second hand sources.

[thesalmonofdoubt]

I think if both people are able to actively and willingly participate, there's consent. If one person is not both an active and willing participant, it's rape. Not complicated at all.

I dunno if this is really gonna do it tho. The entire issue centres around establishing not only whether both parties are Willing - but whether there is any indication that one party is taking advantage of the other party being incapacitated. The difficulty comes in because these things never just play out one way.

There's an enormous difference between someone climbing on top of someone who is near passed out and completely taking advantage of them - which is clearly rape no matter how much either has had to drink, to two people who are drunk, who have spontaneous sex which one or the other later realises they were being taken advantage of.

As far as I know, that's why the courts attempt to establish the mindset of the person being accused of rape. Did he/she have any reason to believe that they were taking advantage of a person who is incapacitated? Like I said earlier. If I know someone has no sexual interest in me - then one night I see her out drunk and I try it on again and she "consents" but later feels that I had taken advantage of her, then I'd potentially be in all sorts of trouble given it could be established that my motives weren't to seek consent, but to gain advantage by employed her diminished state.

But - if I go out drinking and I meet some girl out who I have never met before who comes on to me or reacts enthusiastically to me coming onto her, we have sex and later she makes the same claim, that I was taking advantage of her, then this is a different matter if there is no reason to believe that the person being charged was looking to gain advantage as opposed to simply responding to another person they had no reason to doubt their consent.

It really cannot be a simple "Rule" that applies across the board.. the circumstances are too complicated. You could just as happily go with a "all drunk sex is non-consensual" rule - which would be disastrous. Your solution would simply close the doors to women who were seen to give active consent to claim rape in circumstances where it could be established that that consent was given as a result of poor decision making and the person taking advantage of this knowingly did so.

[BruceSmith78]

Castor has repeatedly made the case that consent is not difficult or complicated, and to say otherwise is to engage in rape apologetics, and I agree with him. From the second paragraph down, your post basically says that it's difficult to tell if someone is actively participating in sex.

If a person has enough of their faculties to say, climb on top of you and grab your crotch, they are into it. If your response is to take off your shirt and suck on their face, then you're also into it. If at any point one of you loses interest or stops reacting in a way that makes it obvious you're consenting, things should come to a halt. It's really pretty basic stuff.

[thesalmonofdoubt]

Castor has repeatedly made the case that consent is not difficult or complicated, and to say otherwise is to engage in rape apologetics, and I agree with him. From the second paragraph down, your post basically says that it's difficult to tell if someone is actively participating in sex.

If a person has enough of their faculties to say, climb on top of you and grab your crotch, they are into it. If your response is to take off your shirt and suck on their face, then you're also into it. If at any point one of you loses interest or stops reacting in a way that makes it obvious you're consenting, things should come to a halt. It's really pretty basic stuff.

I don't think I am engaging in rape apologetics at all, happy to discuss why it may sound that way but given I can describe an example where both parties are enthusiastically engaging in sex while drunk where this criteria :

"If a person has enough of their faculties to say, climb on top of you and grab your crotch, they are into it. If your response is to take off your shirt and suck on their face, then you're also into it"

Could be satisfied and you could still have something that could materially be considered rape because you also need to add in other context -
Which isn't exactly like saying "Consent" is difficult - it's just not quite as simple as you are implying. Someone saying "yes" to sex when I have good reason to believe that they are only agreeing because they are drunk - no matter how enthusiastically, would still mean I am taking advantage of their impairment and I shouldn't consider that consent.

[Derived Absurdity]

I think he's made the case that (I could be wrong) consent basically comes down to common sense. I agree with him. I tend to be suspicious of "common sense" but I think it applies here. If you're trying to analyze consent or parse it out, you're doing it wrong.

But I think that also means there's no general rule that applies in all or most cases. You have to take it on a case-by-case basis.

[thesalmonofdoubt]

I think he's made the case that (I could be wrong) consent basically comes down to common sense. I agree with him. I tend to be suspicious of "common sense" but I think it applies here. If you're trying to analyze consent or parse it out, you're doing it wrong.

But I think that also means there's no general rule that applies in all or most cases. You have to take it on a case-by-case basis.

Alright - there are a few things going on here.

My context, which was already given, is that legally, determining consent isn't as simple as "did she say yes, did he say yes - well then obviously there is no rape" ..It also happens to reflect how I see this morally. Essentially there is more to consent than saying "yes".

Whether you consider this all common sense or simple or complicated - is largely up to the individual. I don't think its complicated in a "geez I'm never gonna understand this" way - Its just not as straight forward as has been implied , you might not think its complicated - I'm not the one who is saying adding this consideration in makes it unfathomable, I am saying, its an important consideration because if we simply stuck with "she said yes" ..we would not capture this situation as rape and I think we should..

You or Bruce may not agree that this should be considered rape, and if that's the case - lets have that discussion rather than the discussion that goes "adding more criteria into consideration than simply agreeing to sex is tantamount to rape apologetics" and if you do agree that this is rape, then you also agree that whatever complexity this introduces, its appropriate.

Given Anakin asked "how does this work out when you have two drunk people" .. I figured it was an interesting way to establish a "reasonable man" premise for a situation that I don't think everyone would see the same way.

Having said this - this statement

But I think that also means there's no general rule that applies in all or most cases. You have to take it on a case-by-case basis.

Would then be a candidate for this response

Castor has repeatedly made the case that consent is not difficult or complicated, and to say otherwise is to engage in rape apologetics, and I agree with him.

[BruceSmith78]

I had this conversation with a lawyer mate of mine a while ago and the answer was .. well, complicated.

I may have misunderstood what you meant by this statement. If you mean it's easy to tell when both parties are consenting, but there are many factors that must be considered other than, "how drunk were each of you?", then I agree, but if you mean that it's difficult to tell when two people are consenting because there's too many variables to consider, I disagree.

[thesalmonofdoubt]

I had this conversation with a lawyer mate of mine a while ago and the answer was .. well, complicated.

I may have misunderstood what you meant by this statement. If you mean it's easy to tell when both parties are consenting, but there are many factors that must be considered other than, "how drunk were each of you?", then I agree, but if you mean that it's difficult to tell when two people are consenting because there's too many variables to consider, I disagree.

Yeah , well the intention of the example I provided was to establish the nature of the "complexity", by framing an example where both parties ostensibly give "Consent" .. yet the courts could still consider this rape given, even with consent it can be seen as reasonable to assume that one party was mindfully taking advantage of another parties diminished state given they have prior knowledge of that persons feelings for them.

The other point here is to avoid making blanket statements like "saying consent has complexity is the same as enagaging in rape apologetics" .. cos that aint helpful. That was clearly neither my intention nor the effect of my explanation,. nor does that statement have any actual merit.

Whether consent is straight forward or not is a stand-alone issue that is either true or it is not true. I certainly don't think consent is always straight forward which isn't to say that I don't think a reasonable person isn't capable of doing the right thing and being held accountable when they do not.

The other point I was making here is, if consent was as simple as: ""If a person has enough of their faculties to say, climb on top of you and grab your crotch, they are into it. If your response is to take off your shirt and suck on their face, then you're also into it" -Then I can easily describe several scenarios where this is satisfied and you still have a situation where rape has occurred. Ignoring the complexity and reducing Consent to a simple statement where two people say they want to fuck and can fuck then they do fuck - would give cart blanche to a whole lotta rape defended by a whole lotta blokes saying "well she said she wanted it" .. which I don't think is the direction we need to go down with this reasoning

The simple rule to follow here is, if you have any reason to suspect that the consent isn't genuine and clear, then don't fuck the person. This provides both for real world ambiguity as well as a non-harmful way to respond to it.

If I had said anything that lead you to reasonably conclude that the point was "when you feel the consent isn't clear then go ahead and fuck the person cos, how is a reasonable person supposed to negotiate that complexity" Then I'd agree that its reasonable to assume that I'm employing any complexity to justify rape. I honestly do not see how you could get there from what I said tho

[Anakin McFly]

oh burn:

I may have misunderstood what you meant by this statement. If you mean it's easy to tell when both parties are consenting, but there are many factors that must be considered other than, "how drunk were each of you?", then I agree, but if you mean that it's difficult to tell when two people are consenting because there's too many variables to consider, I disagree.

As Salmon said, I think there are times it's not easy to tell when both parties are consenting precisely because of those other factors.

If I ever get drunk it's possible I might flirt with people I previously turned down and would never want to sleep with, and if they're also drunk they might honestly mistake it for a change of mind and genuine sexual interest. If we then end up having sex that both of us seem into at that moment, I'm not sure that could be described as rape, which I'd say requires the intention to ignore or override someone else's lack of consent - hence the scenario of intentionally getting someone drunk for sex would be a clear case of rape.

[Boomer]

The simple rule to follow here is, if you have any reason to suspect that the consent isn't genuine and clear, then don't fuck the person. This provides both for real world ambiguity as well as a non-harmful way to respond to it.

This.

[Cassius Clay]

That rule only works if you're a sincere person. Rapists tend to be duplicitous/insincere and thrive in gray areas created from the over complication of simple matters. This duplicity is part of the reason "no means no" had to be changed to "yes means yes"(to shift the central point to the simplicity of enthusiasm and active participation). Because rapists would say "they didn't really say no".

This sounds strange, but a good rule for discussing the navigation of consent is to ask yourself if a disingenuous rapist could turn your arguments against you to justify a rape to themselves. If it can be done, then you're probably focusing on the wrong things/talking about consent the wrong way. Consent needs to be spoken about in a way where rapists have no room to lie to themselves about what they are doing. If you're talking about consent in a way that leaves room for that, you're doing it wrong. And if you're talking about consent in a way that makes something like "accidental rape" quite possible, you're doing it wrong.

Also, part of the problem with this conversation is that there is a conflation of two very separate questions. 1} How do you navigate consent when you and your partner are drunk/what does consent theoretically mean in that context?...is a very different question from 2) How do courts/outsiders determine if a rape has occurred? These two questions are being treated as if they are the same.

If a drunk person is an enthusiastic participant who is able to act(rather than being passive) and reciprocate, they are consenting. If not, they aren't consenting. It really is that simple(if your question is the first one). That is the central, "common sense" point that people seem to lose sight of in these conversations. This central point is lost when there is too much focus on meaningful but superficial variables that are detached from the central point. Superficial variables like: can someone consent after one beer? can no mean yes? would that person have consented if they weren't drunk? was he/she trying to take advantage of a drunk person?

These can be good questions to ask only if they are in the service of determining the central point: is/was the person an active participant? And these questions are useful when a court is trying to paint a picture to determine what happened. But too much focus on these superficial questions, while losing sight of the simplicity of what consent really means is the type of "over complication" that I've spoken against. And it is one that serves rapists and rape apologists.

[Cassius Clay]

As Salmon said, I think there are times it's not easy to tell when both parties are consenting precisely because of those other factors.

No, it's not at all difficult to tell when people are consenting. This is a problematic viewpoint(unless you're saying something like it's difficult for courts to determine consent after the fact).

If you are sincere and focus on active/enthusiastic participation, there is no difficulty in determining consent. When you shift the central focus to "other factors", even if it's well-intentioned, everyone suddenly starts playing dumb. It's dangerous to lose sight of the simplicity of what consent looks like in the moment, 'cause people start playing whack-a-mole with circumstantial variables...which is what rapists take advantage of. And depending on these circumstantial variables while telling people to "err on the side of caution" is unrealistic and naïve. Rapists will never err on the side of caution. And consent should be an objective action that anyone can easily navigate. The idea that there are these ambiguous situations where different people can have different opinions about it is deeply wrong, even if well-intentioned. And that's what happens when you shift focus to "other factors" and lose sight of enthusiastic participation in the moment.

If I ever get drunk it's possible I might flirt with people I previously turned down and would never want to sleep with, and if they're also drunk they might honestly mistake it for a change of mind and genuine sexual interest. If we then end up having sex that both of us seem into at that moment, I'm not sure that could be described as rape, which I'd say requires the intention to ignore or override someone else's lack of consent - hence the scenario of intentionally getting someone drunk for sex would be a clear case of rape.

Intentionally getting someone drunk because you want to have sex with them is creepy, but not a "clear case of rape"(unless we're talking about drugging someone without their knowledge). This is an example of losing sight of the simple things that really matter when discussing/navigating consent, and centering other factors - though well-intentioned. That's a factor that may be important when trying to determine if there was consent, but it does not define consent/lack of consent. Losing sight of what really matters...of the things that define consent is exactly what rapists want.

[Cassius Clay]

One final thing:

If you think it's possible for someone to actively/enthusiastically participate in sex - from start to finish - and somehow not be consenting(without being threatened in some way), you have a problematic understanding of autonomy and consent. You may not be a rape apologist, but your viewpoint serves rape apologetics indirectly. Because, if you do think that way, common sense has gone out the window and you don't have a down-to-earth, reliable anchor for comprehending/navigating consent. That is when you have to rely on other variables that could never really define consent/lack of consent. And it's good to err on the side of caution If you are confused, but there's something deeply wrong with being overly dependent on that as a guide - basing it on the notion that "it's just so complicated sometimes." It's like if I said it was difficult to not be a dick, so I err on the side of caution and decide not to say anything to anyone. The intention of "not saying anything" might be good/noble, but there's something wrong with the fact that I don't even know how to not be a dick...and the low standards I place on myself.

[BruceSmith78]

A lot of what I wanted to say before I left for work this morning but didn't have time to post has now been covered in Castor's post. I thought we were discussing whether or not it's rape when two drunk people have sex, and approaching this discussion assuming we had all the facts, as a participant in the act would. Participants in a sexual act know whether or not they have consent. It's not difficult to know, and to imply otherwise is rape apologetics, even if you're not intentionally trying to excuse rape.

That's what I've been arguing, but I might have been arguing against a strawman, because as the conversation went on I started to get the impression that Salmon was discussing how an outside party would gauge whether or not there was consent when both participants are drunk, which is not as easy to do.

Also, Salmon changed my argument from, "Sayng that consent is complicated is rape apologetics," to, "saying that consent has complexity is engaging in rape apologetics," which is making a strawman of my argument, because what I meant by "complicated" is "difficult to understand," not "complex".

[Cassius Clay]

Yeah... I think Anakin's original question was moreso about what consent would look like with two drunk people (having all the information), and the confusion started with Salmon talking about trying to determine it from outsider's perspective (though there are parts where he seems to be doing both).

I don't think it's all misunderstanding though. I think there are still some fundamental issues even if some misunderstandings were to be cleared up.

[Anakin McFly]

Participants in a sexual act know whether or not they have consent

My issue is with this point, because when people are drunk they may not be in a mental state to know such things, since they may be unaware of what they are doing and unable to think straight. But I admit that's affected by my lack of knowledge of what it's like being drunk.

I'm also not able to believe that it's not rape when someone intentionally gets another person drunk in order to lower their inhibitions and get them to agree to sex when they had previously said no (and would likely say no if they were sober). Something isn't right there and goes beyond just creepiness. They are knowingly taking advantage of someone else's drunk state; I thought that's the whole reason drunk people are thought incapable of proper consent when the other party is sober? (One might then argue that the other person shouldn't have consented to drinking so much around a person they might have reason to suspect wanted to get them into bed against their wishes, but that seems to be rape apologetics.)

[BruceSmith78]

I don't think alcohol works the way you think it works. I don't think people suddenly have sex with someone they despise because they're drunk. They might consent to sex with someone they like but haven't hooked up with because they have reservations about certain things, and alcohol destroys those reservations, but drunk people can and do consent to sex, and when they do, it's obvious.

[BruceSmith78]

Alcohol can also make a person lose control of their faculties so that you can take advantage of their lack of defenses and rape them, while lying to yourself and others about their ability to consent when clearly, there was none. Blurred lines are a myth.

[Anakin McFly]

They might consent to sex with someone they like but haven't hooked up with because they have reservations about certain things, and alcohol destroys those reservations

Yeah, those are the cases I'm worried about. Where it's a matter of: "This person is really hot, but they're married / my teacher / a serial killer so no", and that person knowingly seeking to overcome my reservations by getting me drunk, whereupon those reservations don't seem as important any more. There seems there should be some culpability on that person's part.

[BruceSmith78]

Well, if you voluntarily consume alcohol and then voluntarily and enthusiastically engage in sexual activity, without being threatened or under duress, you've consented to sex. There are ethical questions about whether or not you should encourage a potential partner to drink before seeking intimate relations with them, but whether or not they consent is still clear.

If you force them to drink or you spike their drinks or slip them a roofie, then it's safe to say you don't give a fuck about consent and you are a rapist.

[BruceSmith78]

I just realized I never addressed your question about whether or not a drunk person knows they're raping someone. I think if someone is intoxicated to the point of mistaking the closet for a toilet, you might be able to make the case that said person could mistake an unconscious person for a conscious and active sex partner, but even if they did make such an error, I'd find it extremely unlikely they'd have the sense, coordination, or faculties to act on it.

[Cassius Clay]

^ Everything Bruce said. Alcohol isn't some magic potion that forces people to do things they don't want to do. It doesn't put a spell on you or make you engage in sexual activities you don't want to, and it doesn't make you commit crimes. You can't stab someone to death and say alcohol made you do it. And you can't say alcohol made you rape because you didn't know the other person was unconscious. Sex is an intimate act that requires a certain awareness and coordination that would be incongruous with the notion that you didn't really know what was going on when you committed rape.

[thesalmonofdoubt]

I don't think alcohol works the way you think it works. I don't think people suddenly have sex with someone they despise because they're drunk. They might consent to sex with someone they like but haven't hooked up with because they have reservations about certain things, and alcohol destroys those reservations, but drunk people can and do consent to sex, and when they do, it's obvious.

There's a lot of ground between having sex with someone you despise and having sex with someone you would ordinarily have no intentions of having sex with ..
Saying the \person who knows that the person wouldn't ordinarily consent to sex with you but is taking advantage of your drunken state to get to the point where consent is given, should be mindful of the sincerity of that consent and take this into account, doesn't obfuscate the notion of "consent" to my mind at all.

And no, alcohol isn't magic, it doesn't make you do anything.. what it does do is cloud your ability to make sound decisions and that is all that is being questioned here... If this never happened it wouldn't be accommodated in law. That we do have case law around this and that we do (here at least ) consider this to be rape is because it has happened in the past and people who have found themselves consenting to sex under these circumstances have late considered themselves raped and the courts have agreed that one party knowingly took advantage of the other to the point where they are criminally liable.

Now, you can either agree with these rulings or, and it would seem that you fall on the side of "this is not rape because both people, in the moment, enthusiastically consented to sex. I do agree with the law in this case and I do consider this to be rape -

Note that this isn't the same as two drunk people meeting up, enthusiastically consenting to and engaging in sex simply because its reasonable for both parties to consider that the consent is freely given.

So - this " Because, if you do think that way, common sense has gone out the window and you don't have a down-to-earth, reliable anchor for comprehending/navigating consent:" doesn't characterise what I am sayting at all.

I don't think anything I have said conflicts with common sense at all

I think its common sense to be cautious of someone consenting to having sex with you when they are drunk when you have reason to believe being drunk is a deciding factor for the other party. Sure it adds a additional layer of responsibility when assessing what "consent is" but its hardly rockety science and its harly unreasonable to be asked to take into account your previous knowledge of that persons intentions when they aren't drunk

so to this:

These can be good questions to ask only if they are in the service of determining the central point: is/was the person an active participant? And these questions are useful when a court is trying to paint a picture to determine what happened

The courts don't do this to determine what has happened per se, they do this to establish the mindset of each respective party and factor that into what happened. The question becomes "Do you have reason to believe that consent was as a result of their disadvantage" as opposed to simply "was consent given"

Is essentially the entire point of bringing it up. Essentially I am saying that if you have previous reasons to suspect that person isn't all that into you sexually and now that they are drunk, they are, you are held to a higher level of responsibility when acting on their consent. Its not just a legal issue, its a personal internal consideration that people need to consider when they assess the robustness of someone elses consent.

As I explained before, I think there is far more scope for abuse when we do not consider that an individual has an obligation to measure "consent" against what they already know of the sober version of that persons intentions.

So.. to make this real world and garden variety

If I have known someone for a while and lets say I've tried to have sex with her before and was soundly rebuked. Later in that relationship, we go out, get pissed, and all of a sudden she's all over me, I'd probably not have sex simply because I'd pretty much be aware that we are only having sex because she is pissed.

Which is essentially what I mean by saying, if I am not clear that the consent is absolutely genuine and not simply a product of drinking too much gioven the existing context of our relationship .. then I would not engage in sex because that way I am unabigiously avoiding doing something that could lead to harm... which I would still classify as common as bums sense.

[Anakin McFly]

I think if someone is intoxicated to the point of mistaking the closet for a toilet, you might be able to make the case that said person could mistake an unconscious person for a conscious and active sex partner, but even if they did make such an error, I'd find it extremely unlikely they'd have the sense, coordination, or faculties to act on it.

Good point, thanks. That settles that part for me.

I'm with Salmon on the other issue. Intent seems important here. If you know that someone would never agree to have sex with you while sober despite there being clear attraction (perhaps they're married), and then encourage them to get drunk in the hopes that intoxication will remove their reservations, and it works, and you have sex with good reason to believe that that person is going to heavily regret it upon waking, you would have done something wrong.

Although I agree that perhaps it would not be strictly be considered rape in that sense. 'Take advantage of' is more apt there.

[Islandmur]

What is the difference between giving someone alcohol to lower their inhibitions in order to get them to consent to sex and giving them drugs for the same purpose? except that drugs are illegal?

[BruceSmith78]

What is the difference between giving someone alcohol to lower their inhibitions in order to get them to consent to sex and giving them drugs for the same purpose? except that drugs are illegal?

Drugs have different effects on people, so it definitely depends on the drugs, but that aside, as long as a person knows what they're taking and takes it voluntarily, and the person still has agency throughout any sexual activity, then there can still be consent.

[Cassius Clay]

The other scenario where enthusiastic/active consent would be invalid(other than through threat) is impersonation of an intimate partner. I remember hearing a story where a guy impersonated his twin brother and snuck into his sister-in-law's bed and she had sex with him thinking it was her husband. That's rape.