Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama Shines Light On College Rape (136 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not you, clearly. (10+ / 0-)

    For anyone else reading along:

    If anyone attempts to influence someone else's "voluntary consent" through artificial means, it's because they don't care how real that consent is.  The other person doesn't have to really want to go to bed with them; they just have to agree to it.

    If you think of consent as something to be gained by any means available, you're not actually interested in consent except insofar as it leaves you legally in the clear, or at least with a plausible defense.

    And (I shouldn't have to add this, but I'm going to) that is a huge fucking problem.

    •  bingo (8+ / 0-)
      If anyone attempts to influence someone else's "voluntary consent" through artificial means, it's because they don't care how real that consent is.

      Giving birth (giving life) should be a gift not an obligation or women and poor people are 2nd class by definition

      by julifolo on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 11:30:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It certainly becomes (5+ / 0-)

      sexual coercion. A prime example of that is threats by an employer. It can rise to the level of criminal offence.

      •  Here's the relevant question (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cville townie, Richard Lyon

        from the study I quoted above:

        (2) Have you ever had sexual intercourse with someone, even though they did not want to, because they were too intoxicated (on alcohol or drugs) to resist your sexual advances (e.g., removing their clothes)?
        Again, that's based on self-report by the perpetrators, so the numbers are likely to be an undercount.  And they didn't seem to have any trouble distinguishing between "a glass of wine" and "too intoxicated to resist."

        I shall die, but that is all that I shall do for Death; I am not on his payroll. - Edna St. Vincent Millay

        by Tara the Antisocial Social Worker on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 06:16:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  OTOH (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sparhawk

      Setting any kind of legal standard at "really wanted to" as opposed to "agreed to" is ridiculous.
      Even proving one person was trying to get the other one drunk to sleep with them is going to be even harder than the average rape case.
      And taking away a woman's ability to consent if she has been drinking (short of serious incapacity) is a bad idea. Especially if men are supposed to retain their full responsibility regardless of alcohol consumption.

      The Empire never ended.

      by thejeff on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 01:34:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think it is unlikely that the issue (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Batya the Toon

        would arise when a woman made a verbal expression of consent. The problem usually arises where there was neither and affirmation of consent or an explicit denial of it. No definitely means no. What does silence mean? It can mean that she was too incapacitated to know what was going on.

      •  Setting a legal standard, true. (6+ / 0-)

        However: there is something deeply wrong with a cultural standard wherein not caring how real another person's consent is can be seen as perfectly acceptable behavior.  And it absolutely, undeniably contributes to people trying to skate by on the thinnest margin of technical consent, or reasonable doubt as to the absence of technical consent.

        Which is to say: people committing acts of rape with full confidence that they can't be convicted of rape.

        I think it's long past time we stopped telling people that they can take advantage of gray areas, and started telling people "When in doubt, DON'T."

      •  (For the record, I also agree with you (4+ / 0-)

        that it is definitely problematic to suggest that a woman who has been drinking is not responsible for her own actions, while a man who has been drinking remains responsible for his.)

        •  Pattern of abuse (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Batya the Toon, cville townie

          Someone who games the system, who -- before drinking -- had decided to look for likely targets. Someone who is less drunk than the target. Which is a cultural thing more than something that can be successfully legislated in our current legal environment.

          To speak of another kind of gaming the system, politicians & "stand your ground" supports -- something supposedly "colorblind" but the pragmatic outcome usually means minorities are disadvantaged. A big reason why Zimmerman couldn't/wasn't convicted after he killed Martin was because the way the self defense laws were written. Zimmerman's choice to follow Martin was unfortunately not legally pertinent.

          The current rape culture, the way case law has been developed by lawyers of powerful people who were on trial for rape in the past, there's a lot of opportunity to make the odds better for raping and a court result of "not guilty", which should be understood as "not proven guilty" by a biased system.

          Giving birth (giving life) should be a gift not an obligation or women and poor people are 2nd class by definition

          by julifolo on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 02:22:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site