If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SFGate)   Rare, and hunted to near extinction, the shy Unanimous Bipartisan Agreement comes out of its burrow to perform one gracious act, and then just as quickly vanishes   (blog.sfgate.com) divider line 44
    More: Misc, loopholes  
•       •       •

2140 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Sep 2013 at 8:44 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



44 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-10 07:38:17 AM  
made it a crime for a non-spouse to trick someone into having sex by pretending to be someone else

I thought that was called dating.
 
2013-09-10 08:39:53 AM  

Sybarite: made it a crime for a non-spouse to trick someone into having sex by pretending to be someone else

I thought that was called dating.


I think they mean a specific someone else.  Not just anyone else.
 
2013-09-10 08:43:45 AM  

EvilEgg: Sybarite: made it a crime for a non-spouse to trick someone into having sex by pretending to be someone else

I thought that was called dating.

I think they mean a specific someone else.  Not just anyone else.


Anyone have a link to the text of the law so we can verify this?
 
2013-09-10 08:47:57 AM  
This doesn't seem to address the problem, since the couple in the court case were not married
 
2013-09-10 08:55:37 AM  

Lost Thought 00: This doesn't seem to address the problem, since the couple in the court case were not married


The couple in the court case were not married to the perpetrators conviction was overturned, as only impersonating a spouse was previously illegal.

Now it doesn't matter if the person they impersonate is the victims spouse or not, it's still rape
 
2013-09-10 09:01:07 AM  
Looks like I'm going to have to bury my Mango costume in the backyard.

remotesynthesis.com
 
2013-09-10 09:01:55 AM  
We've been getting raped by politicians for years and now there is a loophole?
 
2013-09-10 09:04:47 AM  
Barney Stinson is wanted on 1,764 counts of rape by deception.
 
2013-09-10 09:10:42 AM  
If they expanded this to pretending to be wealthy and pretending to be in love, the prisons would be so full they'd have to let out rapists to make room for the rapists.
 
2013-09-10 09:11:37 AM  

Jorn the Younger: Lost Thought 00: This doesn't seem to address the problem, since the couple in the court case were not married

The couple in the court case were not married to the perpetrators conviction was overturned, as only impersonating a spouse was previously illegal.

Now it doesn't matter if the person they impersonate is the victims spouse or not, it's still rape


Ah, that makes more sense
 
2013-09-10 09:14:43 AM  
And Men's Rights Activists everywhere will be heard b*tching like the petulant children they are that tricking women into having sex is a legitimate dating strategy. How dare those feminists try to take away the right of men to lie in order to treat women like a jizz rag! It's unnatural to have to be honest with women in order to get sex; don't these judges read up on evolutionary psychology?
 
2013-09-10 09:15:18 AM  
So, by this law, Lewis raped Betty in the bouncy house during the Greek Games.

\Don't know why I thought of that movie in reference to this, have not seen it in forever.
 
2013-09-10 09:15:57 AM  

Big_Fat_Liar: If they expanded this to pretending to be wealthy and pretending to be in love, the prisons would be so full they'd have to let out rapists to make room for the rapists.


The USSC struck down the Stolen Valor Act making it legal to pretend you're a decorated officer. So pretending you are someone else is somewhat a first amendment issue.
 
2013-09-10 09:19:23 AM  

Big_Fat_Liar: If they expanded this to pretending to be wealthy and pretending to be in love, the prisons would be so full they'd have to let out rapists to make room for the rapists.


You said "rapists" twice.
 
2013-09-10 09:22:00 AM  
dispatchmag.com
 
2013-09-10 09:22:27 AM  

EvilEgg: Big_Fat_Liar: If they expanded this to pretending to be wealthy and pretending to be in love, the prisons would be so full they'd have to let out rapists to make room for the rapists.

The USSC struck down the Stolen Valor Act making it legal to pretend you're a decorated officer. So pretending you are someone else is somewhat a first amendment issue.


Exactly.  The Court has repeatedly found that cases of fraud in the inducement do not constitute rape.  Doesn't make it any less abhorrent, but it's legal.  I don't know that it's historically been decided on First Amendment grounds, but most of the time (except libel, perjury, etc.), lying is still protected speech.  "Movie producer" is not some protected profession, and claiming you are one can't magically become unprotected speech just because you used it to get laid.  I am not advocating this, I think people who do this are vile, but it is likely protected speech under the 1st Amendment.
 
2013-09-10 09:49:01 AM  

Kome: And Men's Rights Activists everywhere will be heard b*tching like the petulant children they are that tricking women into having sex is a legitimate dating strategy. How dare those feminists try to take away the right of men to lie in order to treat women like a jizz rag! It's unnatural to have to be honest with women in order to get sex; don't these judges read up on evolutionary psychology?


www.zuguide.com
You can't even coerce a woman into having sex with you without being brought up on charges.
 
2013-09-10 09:56:38 AM  
And Lewis Skolnick wept.

I guess I can throw away my Darth Vader costume.
 
2013-09-10 10:12:01 AM  
Sorta kinda mildly related CSB.....

Back in college, one of my roommates was a guy I went to high school with.

One weekend, another friend from high school came to visit.

Partying ensued.  Visitor passed out in roommates bed.

The girl next door loved my roommate.  She came over drunk off her ass and crawled into my roommates bed.  Thinking it was my roommate, she had her way with the body that was there, and then left.

Visitor came out a little while later, stated that he loved the school, and was going to apply for the next year

/end CSB
 
2013-09-10 10:33:26 AM  

EvilEgg: Sybarite: made it a crime for a non-spouse to trick someone into having sex by pretending to be someone else

I thought that was called dating.

I think they mean a specific someone else.  Not just anyone else.



Ah, well that would make a difference.
 
2013-09-10 10:37:26 AM  
Uther Pendragon is in trouble now.
 
2013-09-10 10:38:19 AM  

imontheinternet: Barney Stinson is wanted on 1,764 counts of rape by deception.


I'm not sure that would count. The case in question deals with someone pretending to be the person who is in a committed relationship with the other person. Barney may pretend to be an astronaut, but he doesn't pretend to be a woman's current boyfriend.
 
2013-09-10 10:45:57 AM  
I think this might be a different case, but I read about one very similar one in which two couples were sleeping in separate rooms. Both guys were up to use the loo, and one guy was visiting the house and it was dark, and he crawled into the wrong bed (or at least that's what he said, who knows) and initiated sex. She cried rape.

In something like that I think there can be reasonable doubt, but we all know reasonable doubt doesn't matter in a rape case.

http://www.cotwa.info/
 
2013-09-10 10:59:43 AM  

LiberalWeenie: In something like that I think there can be reasonable doubt


A better solution would be to require a clause of "knowingly or with reckless disregard" would should handle the bulk of honest mishaps.
 
2013-09-10 10:59:44 AM  

Jorn the Younger: Now it doesn't matter if the person they impersonate is the victims spouse or not, it's still rape

http://www.businessinsider.com/julio-morales-rape-case-appeal-ruling -2 013-1

If you check that out its a lot more clear, he snuck up while she was sleeping and started having sex with her.  Once she woke up she figured out it wasn't her boyfriend and got rid of him.  If you sneak up and fark someone whose unconscious there shouldn't even really be a question, and I'm surprised the conviction got overturned on the grounds that she wasn't married.

"The woman, identified only as Jane Doe, said she woke up in the middle of the night "to the sensation of having sex," which confused her because she and her boyfriend had agreed not to have sex before he left for the night. When she was able to get a glimpse of the man's face, she says, she saw it wasn't her boyfriend but a man named Julio Morales.
Jane says she screamed and tried to push Morales away, and he eventually left the room.
Morales admitted he had sex with Jane and said "he also thought she believed he was her boyfriend," according to the appeals court ruling.
However, Morales' defense team said he didn't remember Jane trying to push him away, and that he did not try and continue having sex after he initially pulled out of her."

Seems like a preeeeeetty clear case you raped someone if you initiate sex with their limp body.
 
2013-09-10 11:19:43 AM  

LiberalWeenie: In something like that I think there can be reasonable doubt, but we all know reasonable doubt doesn't matter in a rape case.


I agree that reasonable doubt doesn't matter in rape cases. In most cases, even unreasonable doubts are more than sufficient for police to not give a sh*t, prosecutors to not give a sh*t, and juries to let rapists off with a "not guilty" verdict. Hell, most defense attorneys strategies in rape cases are all about perpetuating a lot of unreasonable doubts about what is and is not rape, and too many jurors buy into them hook, line, and sinker. Of course, that's only in the scant percent of rape allegations that actually make it to trial instead of being dismissed outright because police tend to spend more time interrogating the victim and pressuring him or her to recant instead of the accused.
 
2013-09-10 11:34:19 AM  
Interestingly, even though this was a unanimous bipartisan vote, it wouldn't matter if the Republicans opposed it, since the Democrats currently have total control of California's state government.  Now, in California, you need two thirds of each house to pass a budget-but the Democrats passed two thirds in both last election.
 
2013-09-10 11:35:28 AM  

Kome: I agree that reasonable doubt doesn't matter in rape cases. In most cases, even unreasonable doubts are more than sufficient for police to not give a sh*t, prosecutors to not give a sh*t, and juries to let rapists off with a "not guilty" verdict. Hell, most defense attorneys strategies in rape cases are all about perpetuating a lot of unreasonable doubts about what is and is not rape, and too many jurors buy into them hook, line, and sinker. Of course, that's only in the scant percent of rape allegations that actually make it to trial instead of being dismissed outright because police tend to spend more time interrogating the victim and pressuring him or her to recant instead of the accused.


So much hyperbole, jesus.

Its a crime that's hard to prosecute because most of the times its an acquaintance assault that's committed in an intimate setting.  Your friend you got along with really well with for years had sex with you against your will while you were hanging out just the two of you at his apartment.  You decided you didn't want to get hurt and were quiet and didn't get hurt.  Now one of you says the sex wasn't consented to and one says it was.  There are no witnesses but the two of you, who balance out.  There is no evidence of force.  There may not even be compelling evidence there was sex when you decide to report it, and if there was a condom or whatever there may be no solid proof it was him.  There are no recordings or harassment indicating threats.  He may have expressed attraction to you to other people but he never said he was going to fark you whether you wanted him to or not.  All your friends know you two were close, they don't think its impossible that his side of the story is the true one.  They probably have doubts.

This is a recipe for a crime that's just HARD to do law enforcement work on.  As a cop or a DA, once you've established most or all of the above in an acquaintance rape, what are you going to do?  There's just not a lot there to work with unless the rapist did or said something very dumb, so you've got a case where the primary evidence of a CRIME is that someone SAYS it was committed.  If you prosecute you may get them on a plea. If they're really creepy and the victim is convincing they may go down, but there's a pretty good chance they also just walk.  If you have limited resources this might not be a good bet other than keeping an eye on the guy.
 
2013-09-10 12:01:37 PM  

Super_pope: Jorn the Younger: Now it doesn't matter if the person they impersonate is the victims spouse or not, it's still rape
http://www.businessinsider.com/julio-morales-rape-case-appeal-ruling -2 013-1

If you check that out its a lot more clear, he snuck up while she was sleeping and started having sex with her.  Once she woke up she figured out it wasn't her boyfriend and got rid of him.  If you sneak up and fark someone whose unconscious there shouldn't even really be a question, and I'm surprised the conviction got overturned on the grounds that she wasn't married.

"The woman, identified only as Jane Doe, said she woke up in the middle of the night "to the sensation of having sex," which confused her because she and her boyfriend had agreed not to have sex before he left for the night. When she was able to get a glimpse of the man's face, she says, she saw it wasn't her boyfriend but a man named Julio Morales.
Jane says she screamed and tried to push Morales away, and he eventually left the room.
Morales admitted he had sex with Jane and said "he also thought she believed he was her boyfriend," according to the appeals court ruling.
However, Morales' defense team said he didn't remember Jane trying to push him away, and that he did not try and continue having sex after he initially pulled out of her."

Seems like a preeeeeetty clear case you raped someone if you initiate sex with their limp body.


Now I'm even more confused.  If she was unconscious when he initiated sexual activity, she could not have consented at all, so why was his conviction overturned on the grounds that he wasn't pretending to be her husband?  Heck, even her actual boyfriend would have been guilty of rape if he began the same way (especially in this case where the boyfriend knew she didn't want to)
 
2013-09-10 12:06:27 PM  
So you're telling me if I blind fold my girlfriend, I can't then trick her into blowing other guys while claiming it's me?

Man, freaking over reaching communist fascist government.
 
2013-09-10 01:16:28 PM  
This law is about impersonating someone they are already in a relationship with.
 
2013-09-10 01:22:53 PM  

Super_pope: So much hyperbole, jesus.


Or, you know, it stems from an awareness of the statistics, police investigative procedure, and defense lawyer strategies. I'm not saying it's an easy crime to prosecute, it isn't. But damn is it one of the easiest to defend because of the prevalence of myths about what is and is not rape, of which many are endorsed by law enforcement officials, as well as the general public who tend to make up juries. How was the victim dressed? Had the victim ingested any alcohol or illegal narcotics prior to the attack? Had the victim on prior occasions consented to sex with the accused? Did the victim try to escape or fight back what would have otherwise "just" been a milder form of violence like an assault? Did the victim not try to escape or fight back? Is the victim married to/going out with the accused? Are you sure you don't just regret having sex with that person (a favorite of mine in terms of absurdity - how horrible do you have to be at sex that your partner would want to put you in jail for it?)? Do you work as a stripper? Have you ever been in trouble for prostitution? Are there any witnesses that can testify that you have ever had a pleasant interaction with the accused before?

so you've got a case where the primary evidence of a CRIME is that someone SAYS it was committed

Yes and no. Evidence that penetration occurred is really easy to get, and if a male attacker ejaculated and wasn't wearing protection, that's also easy to acquire. But how many police precincts and district attorney's offices in the country have actually bothered to, you know, examine rape kits and so on versus just let a horrifyingly large back log of them just pile up and be ignored?

So "yes" in the sense that the only evidence that police can't ignore is someone saying a crime happened - which is often the case in a lot of crimes. That's kind of, you know, how police start to investigate crimes. But for other crimes, what police don't do is put the person reporting the crime under intense scrutiny. Can you right now prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that all the things you said were stolen from your house during the robbery were things you actually had? Can you prove right now that at least some of the dents and scratches on your car weren't there before that hit and run, and the accident wasn't really as bad as it looks now? In either case, there's a large financial incentive to lie. You'd only be bilking an insurance company by doing so, and the damage of your lies isn't sufficient enough for them to really care enough unless you were so stupid about it that it was obvious you were lying. On the other hand, as soon as the crime to be investigated is molestation or sexual assault or rape suddenly the victim is the one who has to prove beyond the slightest of doubts that he or she is absolutely innocent of any wrongdoing or perceived wrongdoing before anything gets taken seriously.

And "no" in the sense that there is lots of evidence that could be gained, and it doesn't require a lot of logical leaps of faith to draw the connection from, for example, "accusation" plus "evidence of penetration" to "rape" unless one were so psychotically delusional as to subscribe to the idea that someone can be such a bad lay that their partner would risk his or her entire reputation on trying to put you in jail. It's just that our law enforcement in this country for the most part just doesn't care about rape victims to actually do proper investigations. So there really isn't much hyperbole in what I said. We have a problem in this country regarding our views on rape, rape victims, and rapists. Your downplaying it by saying it's a crime that only boils down to "he said, she said" is simply false.
 
2013-09-10 01:32:56 PM  

Super_pope: So much hyperbole, jesus.


Hyperbole Jesus would be a good name for a parody/troll alt.
 
2013-09-10 02:18:25 PM  

Kome: But how many police precincts and district attorney's offices in the country have actually bothered to, you know, examine rape kits and so on versus just let a horrifyingly large back log of them just pile up and be ignored?


Point of order: I think this is more of a funding issue than a "bothering to" issue.  We somehow long ago decided we want to get our policing on the cheap, many areas, while pushing them towards more and more seizures and tickets to cover a funding gap we don't want to address.  Then the departments that perform get more of the money they bring in for obvious reasons, and those simply grow to unexpected proportions while funding never makes it to the things like rape kits.
 
2013-09-10 02:25:32 PM  

Kome: so psychotically delusional as to subscribe to the idea that someone can be such a bad lay that their partner would risk his or her entire reputation on trying to put you in jail. It's just that our law enforcement in this country for the most part just doesn't care about rape victims to actually do proper investigations. So there really isn't much hyperbole in what I said.


That's a load of hyperbole TOO.

Cops have about the same amount of empathy for everyone, and that level is, "Alright I'm going to do what I have to do to get paid.  Sit down and don't get mouthy or I'll have to kill you and then say I felt threatened and thought the soda you were drinking from was a howitzer."

The idea that police are especially insensitive to rape is just laughable.  These are the people who routinely kick in the doors to the wrong houses because they couldn't be assed to check their warrant, shoot the family dog in the head, and then put out a press statement saying that the brave officers "did everything by the book, and the inhabitants should really just be happy to have to replace the door and get their fingers splinted."

You have a pet cause you feel strongly about so it looks in some way disproportionate, but just as a blanket our justice system does a poor poor job (See the drug lab in Mass where we had a forensic chemist testifying at like a thousand criminal trials who had never graduated college).  People who have just BEEN raped are of course hyper-sensitive and alert so I'm sure cops APPEAR needlessly callous, but the fact is they're always that way, the nature of your specific victimization doesn't change shiat

.

Kome: beyond a shadow of a doubt that all the things you said were stolen from your house during the robbery were things you actually had? Can you prove right now that at least some of the dents and scratches on your car weren't there before that hit and run, and the accident wasn't really as bad as it looks now? In either case, there's a large financial incentive to lie.


That's a job for my insurance company to check out, and they'll rake my shiat over the coals to keep from paying.  Unless I got beat up in a crime or something the police are not gonna do much to find my missing crap.  Taking my report on face value and

Kome: On the other hand, as soon as the crime to be investigated is molestation or sexual assault or rape suddenly the victim is the one who has to prove beyond the slightest of doubts that he or she is absolutely innocent of any wrongdoing or perceived wrongdoing before anything gets taken seriously.


Its a crime that can be defined almost entirely by the state of mind of the victim.  If I feel okay about being burglarized that doesn't mean I wasn't burglarized.  If I feel okay about sex I had with a stranger under circumstances we both might not have been in the right state of mind to fully consider, no crime occurred.  If I don't, I was raped.  That's a big gulf, and something cops take into account if you're going to stir them up and make them go do some arresting.
 
2013-09-10 02:27:46 PM  

Super_pope: Taking my report on face value


Doesn't cost them anything, because they're not really gonna look that hard.  They'll send the report to the local pawn shops and that'll probably be that.  Easy.

/ftfm
 
2013-09-10 02:45:42 PM  

Super_pope: Its a crime that can be defined almost entirely by the state of mind of the victim. If I feel okay about being burglarized that doesn't mean I wasn't burglarized. If I feel okay about sex I had with a stranger under circumstances we both might not have been in the right state of mind to fully consider, no crime occurred. If I don't, I was raped. That's a big gulf, and something cops take into account if you're going to stir them up and make them go do some arresting.


Actually, you are not burglerized if you invite someone to come over because you're giving them your stuff. If they take it without an invitation, that's the point it becomes burglary. Even if your house is unlocked, if someone comes in without an invitation and takes your stuff, it's still burglary. Even if you invite them in and they take something without your express permission, it's theft. So, yeah, it's a lot like rape on just about every level.

It doesn't matter if the person jumped you, it doesn't matter what you wear, it doesn't matter if they're on a date with you, if they have sex without your consent, it's rape.
 
2013-09-10 03:19:30 PM  

DeaH: if they have sex without your consent, it's rape.


Sure, but we treat sex in a really weird way legally.  You can be too drunk to consent to sex, but you can't be too drunk to take on the risk of killing someone with your drunk driving, and so on and so forth.  Once your ability to consent to sex (not the same as your ability to do most other things) you can evaluate the situation and say, "Hey I didn't want to do this with so and so, I was raped!" OR you can look at the situation and say, "Hey I ended up with X who I thought was really cute.  I certainly didn't plan this, but not too shabby!"

Consent can be very hard to gauge and harder to demonstrate in (I would think) the majority of cases, since most of them are acquaintance rapes.  If you tell the cops, "I took some E and REALLY enjoying being touched and touching everything and everybody around me..." that can look one hell of a lot like implied consent under the right circumstance (like to your intoxicated friend who has always liked you).  We lump that kind of thing in with all of that, "Oh don't blame the victim it wasn't her fault for dressing sexy" stuff, but in literally any other situation if you get so farked up you don't know up from down and do something stupid, our justice system will wreck you and tell you you totally had it coming.

Anyway, my point is that they have to do a detailed interview where they ask those sorts of questions if you come in with a serious charge like rape.  The point of the investigation into a criminal charge isn't just to destroy the accused, its to get the facts and determine if there's a reason to charge.  If the victim's say-so is what makes something a crime and there's a fairly good chance that's ALL you're going to have, you can't get your back up because the cops ask you dick questions like, "Were you tripping balls on illegal narcotics?"  If you were, that doesn't mean you deserved to get raped (obviously) but it calls into question things like whether or not you... oh... lets say clearly remember the event.
 
2013-09-10 03:52:39 PM  

Super_pope: Sure, but we treat sex in a really weird way legally. You can be too drunk to consent to sex, but you can't be too drunk to take on the risk of killing someone with your drunk driving, and so on and so forth. Once your ability to consent to sex (not the same as your ability to do most other things) you can evaluate the situation and say, "Hey I didn't want to do this with so and so, I was raped!" OR you can look at the situation and say, "Hey I ended up with X who I thought was really cute. I certainly didn't plan this, but not too shabby!"


A person who gets behind a wheel, put the key in the ignition, turns the key, takes the car out of Park, presses the gas, and pulls out into the road is staking a series of actions. If a person is too drunk to consent and just lays there, they are not really taking actions. The drunk person on top and humping them is. See the difference? By the way, this is a gender-neutral approach, as well. If you're a man who's too drunk to consent, and a woman climbs on top of you and mounts you, that rape, too. Whether or not you decide to press charges is up to you (which is also true for someone you invite into your home who steals your stuff). If you choose to press charges you have a case. You did not give consent.
 
2013-09-10 06:06:18 PM  
DeaH:

A person who gets behind a wheel, put the key in the ignition, turns the key, takes the car out of Park, presses the gas, and pulls out into the road is staking a series of actions. If a person is too drunk to consent and just lays there, they are not really taking actions. The drunk person on top and humping them is. See the difference? By the way, this is a gender-neutral approach, as well. If you're a man who's too drunk to consent, and a woman climbs on top of you and mounts you, that rape, too. Whether or not you decide to press charges is up to you (which is also true for someone you invite into your home who steals your stuff). If you choose to press charges you have a case. You did not give consent.

I think he is talking about victims who say yes or at least appear to consent -- participating in foreplay, moans, whatever -- that are later deemed too drunk to have made a real decision on consent, so it becomes rape.

But no matter how drunk a person is, he or she is always responsible for the decision to get behind the wheel.

In one case we say a person is responsible for his or her drunken decisions, and in the other we do not.
 
2013-09-10 06:41:34 PM  

DeaH: A person who gets behind a wheel, put the key in the ignition, turns the key, takes the car out of Park, presses the gas, and pulls out into the road is staking a series of actions. If a person is too drunk to consent and just lays there, they are not really taking actions. The drunk person on top and humping them is. See the difference?


You're not necessarily non-participatory just cause you're too damn high.
 
2013-09-10 07:20:44 PM  

Super_pope: DeaH: A person who gets behind a wheel, put the key in the ignition, turns the key, takes the car out of Park, presses the gas, and pulls out into the road is staking a series of actions. If a person is too drunk to consent and just lays there, they are not really taking actions. The drunk person on top and humping them is. See the difference?

You're not necessarily non-participatory just cause you're too damn high.


That's the rub, isn't it? A girl who's too drunk to say no isn't doing a lot. Usually, it's being done to her. That's the thing about those nasty internet videos people posted. The "sluts" in the videos people call rape are not doing, they're being done. It really is not that fine a line. It's pretty clear that your greatest fear is that some hot girl is going to knowingly and enthusiastically jump your bones and then cry rape. It's just not likely. Women, on the other hand, have really good reason to fear rape. (Here's some good advice: if you know a person would never have sex with you sober, don't have sex with them when that person is wasted. If you can't tell the difference between a little tipsy and farked up, you're lying to yourself.)
 
2013-09-10 07:39:33 PM  

LiberalWeenie: DeaH:

A person who gets behind a wheel, put the key in the ignition, turns the key, takes the car out of Park, presses the gas, and pulls out into the road is staking a series of actions. If a person is too drunk to consent and just lays there, they are not really taking actions. The drunk person on top and humping them is. See the difference? By the way, this is a gender-neutral approach, as well. If you're a man who's too drunk to consent, and a woman climbs on top of you and mounts you, that rape, too. Whether or not you decide to press charges is up to you (which is also true for someone you invite into your home who steals your stuff). If you choose to press charges you have a case. You did not give consent.

I think he is talking about victims who say yes or at least appear to consent -- participating in foreplay, moans, whatever -- that are later deemed too drunk to have made a real decision on consent, so it becomes rape.

But no matter how drunk a person is, he or she is always responsible for the decision to get behind the wheel.

In one case we say a person is responsible for his or her drunken decisions, and in the other we do not.


Yes. There is no reason a drunk person would moan except to consent to sex. Though it was many years ago (I'm in my 50s), I seem to remember that kissing and feeling each other up didn't always mean that either person was going to what we quaintly called "go all the way." I am a little concerned about your "appear to consent."

If a woman says, "I really want you," or something that is clearly yes and she is not falling down drunk or puking (or, as we all saw in the news recently, passed out), it is evil of her to come back later and cry rape. The "appears to consent," though? I remember college, and being up for a make out session did not mean "let's fark." If you're honest with yourself, you know that, too. And when it comes to actual intercourse, who is doing the acting, both of you or just one of you?

If you're really afraid some hot girl is totally going to jump your bones, and you'll end up in jail, here's some advice:

1) Don't have sex with someone until you've dated them for, say, three dates.
2) Don't have sex with someone for the first time when you are wasted.
3) Don't have sex with someone for the if that person is wasted.
4) If you know that a person would never let you touch them with a ten foot pole if they are sober, do not have sex with them if they're wasted.

None of these things are too onerous. If you really fear false accusations of rape, these are your rules for safe sex. That rules two through four are rules for basic human decency (for both sexes) is a plus.
 
2013-09-10 10:29:43 PM  
DeaH:

Yes. There is no reason a drunk person would moan except to consent to sex. Though it was many years ago (I'm in my 50s), I seem to remember that kissing and feeling each other up didn't always mean that either person was going to what we quaintly called "go all the way." I am a little concerned about your "appear to consent."

If a woman says, "I really want you," or something that is clearly yes and she is not falling down drunk or puking (or, as we all saw in the news recently, passed out), it is evil of her to come back later and cry rape. The "appears to consent," though? I remember college, and being up for a make out session did not mean "let's fark."


If she's conscious enough to participate, she's conscious enough to say no or try to push the guy off. Unless she doesn't want to at the time. Whether she formally gives the green light or not, it she could say no but doesn't, the fact of the matter is -- wait for it -- she wanted it.
 
Displayed 44 of 44 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report