Another Skepchick War! Dr. Marty Klein crossed the line!

[Coito ergo sum]

I can't respond anymore in this thread, or I'm going to wind up calling someone a fucktard.

Someone is a fucktard. Ha. Take that, someone.

I think many someones are fucktards. So there.

It seems to me that by your logic if two people are fooling around in bed, fapping each other, getting hot and heavy, proceeding on the normal course of sexy times, and then the guy, who is drunk, passes out, he would have gotten into the situation by consent, and therefore the woman would be entitled to put on a strap-on and bang him in the ass while he is unconscious? All because he voluntarily got so drunk he passed out during foreplay? Or, if a passed out man gets a pee-hard-on in the middle of the night, the woman he's in bed with is entitled to hop on?

[Seth]

I can't respond anymore in this thread, or I'm going to wind up calling someone a fucktard.

Someone is a fucktard. Ha. Take that, someone.

I think many someones are fucktards. So there.

It seems to me that by your logic if two people are fooling around in bed, fapping each other, getting hot and heavy, proceeding on the normal course of sexy times, and then the guy, who is drunk, passes out, he would have gotten into the situation by consent, and therefore the woman would be entitled to put on a strap-on and bang him in the ass while he is unconscious? All because he voluntarily got so drunk he passed out during foreplay? Or, if a passed out man gets a pee-hard-on in the middle of the night, the woman he's in bed with is entitled to hop on?

It might be a reason to find a new girlfriend, but it ain't rape.

[Pappa]

I can't respond anymore in this thread, or I'm going to wind up calling someone a fucktard.

Someone is a fucktard. Ha. Take that, someone.

I think many someones are fucktards. So there.

It seems to me that by your logic if two people are fooling around in bed, fapping each other, getting hot and heavy, proceeding on the normal course of sexy times, and then the guy, who is drunk, passes out, he would have gotten into the situation by consent, and therefore the woman would be entitled to put on a strap-on and bang him in the ass while he is unconscious? All because he voluntarily got so drunk he passed out during foreplay? Or, if a passed out man gets a pee-hard-on in the middle of the night, the woman he's in bed with is entitled to hop on?

It might be a reason to find a new girlfriend, but it ain't rape.

That all depends on the jurisdiction. In some places it is rape.

[Brian Peacock]

Seth,

Can we still refer to extreme intoxication as a voluntary act even when the intoxicee (!) is addicted? In other words, do you think there is a duty of care to protect those who cannot help themselves?

Just a sidenote really.

I would say there is no such individual "duty," in the sense of if you see some guy on the street with a bottle, seemingly (to you) destitute and drunken, to go out of your way to affirmatively help that person or to "protect" that person from himself.

There is a duty to refrain from affirmatively harming that person. It may be negligence and a breach of said duty to hand that person another bottle, or sell them more alcohol. That, of course, is different than a duty to protect.

The reason I don't see that as a duty is because, opinions being like assholes, whether someone is in need of protection is subject to a wide variety of disparate opinion. Some folks think you're an alcoholic if you've gone binge drinking (meaning had more than 5 drinks in three hours time). Does that person have a duty to protect folks who drink 6 or 7 drinks from themselves?

In the end, people are called upon to take care of their own business. And, that's the best way to have a free society where people are at liberty to pursue their own happiness as they see fit. Some folks are going to fuck up.

I get that, but I wasn't thinking about the casual or social heavy drinker by those clinically addicted to some intoxicant or another. I know we might say that so-and-so is an alcoholic because they 'like a bit of a drink' a bit too often, but for those whose whole lives are governed by an overwhelming bio-chemical dependency can we hold them personally responsible for their actions?

Of course, whether we can and whether we should might be two different questions.

[Coito ergo sum]

I can't respond anymore in this thread, or I'm going to wind up calling someone a fucktard.

Someone is a fucktard. Ha. Take that, someone.

I think many someones are fucktards. So there.

It seems to me that by your logic if two people are fooling around in bed, fapping each other, getting hot and heavy, proceeding on the normal course of sexy times, and then the guy, who is drunk, passes out, he would have gotten into the situation by consent, and therefore the woman would be entitled to put on a strap-on and bang him in the ass while he is unconscious? All because he voluntarily got so drunk he passed out during foreplay? Or, if a passed out man gets a pee-hard-on in the middle of the night, the woman he's in bed with is entitled to hop on?

It might be a reason to find a new girlfriend, but it ain't rape.

That all depends on the jurisdiction. In some places it is rape.

In any jurisdiction in the US, if a woman fucked a passed out man in the ass with a strap on, that would be rape (absent the two planning it ahead of time, I suppose).

[Coito ergo sum]

Seth,

Can we still refer to extreme intoxication as a voluntary act even when the intoxicee (!) is addicted? In other words, do you think there is a duty of care to protect those who cannot help themselves?

Just a sidenote really.

I would say there is no such individual "duty," in the sense of if you see some guy on the street with a bottle, seemingly (to you) destitute and drunken, to go out of your way to affirmatively help that person or to "protect" that person from himself.

There is a duty to refrain from affirmatively harming that person. It may be negligence and a breach of said duty to hand that person another bottle, or sell them more alcohol. That, of course, is different than a duty to protect.

The reason I don't see that as a duty is because, opinions being like assholes, whether someone is in need of protection is subject to a wide variety of disparate opinion. Some folks think you're an alcoholic if you've gone binge drinking (meaning had more than 5 drinks in three hours time). Does that person have a duty to protect folks who drink 6 or 7 drinks from themselves?

In the end, people are called upon to take care of their own business. And, that's the best way to have a free society where people are at liberty to pursue their own happiness as they see fit. Some folks are going to fuck up.

I get that, but I wasn't thinking about the casual or social heavy drinker by those clinically addicted to some intoxicant or another. I know we might say that so-and-so is an alcoholic because they 'like a bit of a drink' a bit too often, but for those whose whole lives are governed by an overwhelming bio-chemical dependency can we hold them personally responsible for their actions?

Of course, whether we can and whether we should might be two different questions.

I think we can, and should, unless it can be shown that they are of a mind to not be able to distinguish between right and wrong, I think folks need to be called upon to reign in their demons.

[Seth]

I can't respond anymore in this thread, or I'm going to wind up calling someone a fucktard.

Someone is a fucktard. Ha. Take that, someone.

I think many someones are fucktards. So there.

It seems to me that by your logic if two people are fooling around in bed, fapping each other, getting hot and heavy, proceeding on the normal course of sexy times, and then the guy, who is drunk, passes out, he would have gotten into the situation by consent, and therefore the woman would be entitled to put on a strap-on and bang him in the ass while he is unconscious? All because he voluntarily got so drunk he passed out during foreplay? Or, if a passed out man gets a pee-hard-on in the middle of the night, the woman he's in bed with is entitled to hop on?

It might be a reason to find a new girlfriend, but it ain't rape.

That all depends on the jurisdiction. In some places it is rape.

We're not talking about what is, but what should be.

[Seth]

Seth,

Can we still refer to extreme intoxication as a voluntary act even when the intoxicee (!) is addicted? In other words, do you think there is a duty of care to protect those who cannot help themselves?

Just a sidenote really.

I would say there is no such individual "duty," in the sense of if you see some guy on the street with a bottle, seemingly (to you) destitute and drunken, to go out of your way to affirmatively help that person or to "protect" that person from himself.

There is a duty to refrain from affirmatively harming that person. It may be negligence and a breach of said duty to hand that person another bottle, or sell them more alcohol. That, of course, is different than a duty to protect.

The reason I don't see that as a duty is because, opinions being like assholes, whether someone is in need of protection is subject to a wide variety of disparate opinion. Some folks think you're an alcoholic if you've gone binge drinking (meaning had more than 5 drinks in three hours time). Does that person have a duty to protect folks who drink 6 or 7 drinks from themselves?

In the end, people are called upon to take care of their own business. And, that's the best way to have a free society where people are at liberty to pursue their own happiness as they see fit. Some folks are going to fuck up.

I get that, but I wasn't thinking about the casual or social heavy drinker by those clinically addicted to some intoxicant or another. I know we might say that so-and-so is an alcoholic because they 'like a bit of a drink' a bit too often, but for those whose whole lives are governed by an overwhelming bio-chemical dependency can we hold them personally responsible for their actions?

Yes, absolutely. In fact more so than under other circumstances because their choice (and it's ALWAYS a choice) to remain chemically dependent imposes upon them a GREATER duty to audit their behavior so that they do not harm others. They can harm themselves as much as they like, even unto death, and I won't give a damn. But if they harm ANYONE else, it's the slammer for them.

[fretmeister]

Now, now, don't talk about yourself that way, I'm sure you're a perfectly nice person in the real world.

I'm a nice guy in the real world where my personal biases have been formed by the observation of and interactions with some of the behavior and attitudes of my fellow males. You know... having to explain that falling asleep after overdrinking is not actually consent.

Isn't it? If one voluntarily and knowingly becomes intoxicated, thus voluntarily placing one's person in the care of others, is it not a form of consent to whatever those other persons may choose to do with your unconscious body? Is it not your responsibility to care for your own self if you have concerns about what others might do to you while voluntarily unconscious? If you have such concerns, is it not your responsibility to make sure that you do not become voluntarily incapacitated when placing yourself in the care of those who are untrustworthy?

And then there's the matter of consent that IS given while intoxicated that one does not remember, or more likely regrets, the morning after. Is it not your responsibility to accept the consequences of giving such consent?

I do not accept as a given that intoxication is an absolute bar to consent or that anyone else is responsible for caring for you if you become voluntarily intoxicated and/or incapacitated. To me, any negative consequences that occur as a result of that voluntary decision fall into the "well, that was a stupid thing to do, I won't do THAT again" and the blame and responsibility lie with you, not others who may have taken advantage of the situation. There's a sucker born every minute, and a fool and her virginity are soon parted, so stay sober and keep your knees together and your knickers on. If you get drunk and get screwed, just accept the fact that YOU screwed up and don't blame other people for what's your fault.

Jesus.

All I can say is I hope they keep you away from the coma patients at the hospital.

What? They didn't say no, did they?

Fucking hell Seth!

That bullshit is exactly why the law had to be changed to include "careless as to whether there is valid consent" within the offence of rape.

If a person does not have the capacity to make a proper decision then even if the decision to become incapacitated was valid that validity does not extend to any subsequent decisions. If someone drinks 10 beers and then gives you a blow job before the full effect of the booze hits that consent to the BJ does not mean you get to fuck them when the full boozy effect kicks in.

Basically - if you think a potential mate / victim would, when sober, say they only fucked you because they were drunk then you have been careless as to whether genuine and informed consent was given: rape has been committed.

Just to be clear - that is different from someone having a bit of dutch courage because they want to hax sex but are a bit nervous.

[Seth]

Now, now, don't talk about yourself that way, I'm sure you're a perfectly nice person in the real world.

I'm a nice guy in the real world where my personal biases have been formed by the observation of and interactions with some of the behavior and attitudes of my fellow males. You know... having to explain that falling asleep after overdrinking is not actually consent.

Isn't it? If one voluntarily and knowingly becomes intoxicated, thus voluntarily placing one's person in the care of others, is it not a form of consent to whatever those other persons may choose to do with your unconscious body? Is it not your responsibility to care for your own self if you have concerns about what others might do to you while voluntarily unconscious? If you have such concerns, is it not your responsibility to make sure that you do not become voluntarily incapacitated when placing yourself in the care of those who are untrustworthy?

And then there's the matter of consent that IS given while intoxicated that one does not remember, or more likely regrets, the morning after. Is it not your responsibility to accept the consequences of giving such consent?

I do not accept as a given that intoxication is an absolute bar to consent or that anyone else is responsible for caring for you if you become voluntarily intoxicated and/or incapacitated. To me, any negative consequences that occur as a result of that voluntary decision fall into the "well, that was a stupid thing to do, I won't do THAT again" and the blame and responsibility lie with you, not others who may have taken advantage of the situation. There's a sucker born every minute, and a fool and her virginity are soon parted, so stay sober and keep your knees together and your knickers on. If you get drunk and get screwed, just accept the fact that YOU screwed up and don't blame other people for what's your fault.

Jesus.

All I can say is I hope they keep you away from the coma patients at the hospital.

What? They didn't say no, did they?

Fucking hell Seth!

That bullshit is exactly why the law had to be changed to include "careless as to whether there is valid consent" within the offence of rape.

Which was a stupid thing to do, and something that both interferes with human social interaction and violates the principle that every individual is responsible for his or her own safety.

If a person does not have the capacity to make a proper decision then even if the decision to become incapacitated was valid that validity does not extend to any subsequent decisions. If someone drinks 10 beers and then gives you a blow job before the full effect of the booze hits that consent to the BJ does not mean you get to fuck them when the full boozy effect kicks in.

I disagree. Voluntary intoxication combined with prior consent and surrender of personal safety and autonomy to others through knowing choice to become voluntarily intoxicated should be an absolute bar to any claim of rape whatsoever. In other words, if you don't want to chance ending up getting fucked by someone you've been leading on all evening, then don't lead them on and most certainly don't get drunk and surrender your body and your personal care to them by becoming voluntarily intoxicated. And if you do so, then don't whine about the results because it's ALL YOUR FAULT for getting drunk in the first place.

Basically - if you think a potential mate / victim would, when sober, say they only fucked you because they were drunk then you have been careless as to whether genuine and informed consent was given: rape has been committed.

Why? So long as they volunteered to become drunk and they gave any sort of consent, that consent should survive that voluntary act of intoxication. How is the accused supposed to know that you only consented because you were drunk? He (or she) has a right to rely upon your statements of consent regardless of your state of voluntary intoxication and should not be criminally charged for relying on that consent. If it takes some liquor to get you loosened up enough to consent to sex, and you volunteer to drink that liquor, then your partner has a reasonable reliance on your consent, irrespective of your state of intoxication, in following through with the invitation. If you don't want to have sex, then for fuck's sake DON"T GET DRUNK! What's so hard about that? What's wrong with placing personal responsibility where it belongs; with the indivdual? Why should society protect persons who in essence are having "buyer's remorse" the morning after and are choosing to use voluntary intoxication as an excuse to accuse someone of a criminal act that can put them away for life?

The law should not support this sort of abandonment of personal responsibility and accountability and certainly should not place criminal sanctions on others for assuming that the individual they are with is an adult who is responsible for their own actions and safety. That's a gross miscarriage of justice.

No means no, but yes means yes, even if the consent is implied by one's physical actions and is unspoken. If you don't want the sexual contact, then for fuck's sake SAY NO!

Just to be clear - that is different from someone having a bit of dutch courage because they want to hax sex but are a bit nervous.

How is it different? I say you've just stated the very reason that it's not different and exactly why no criminal charges should be brought. If you say yes, then your partner has a right to proceed unless and until you SAY NO. If you place yourself in a condition that you can't say no, then your last consent still applies and it's your own fault if things happen that you wouldn't agree to if you weren't voluntarily intoxicated.

[Robert_S]

So Seth, am I legally entitled to roll drunks? Am I morally entitled to do so?

If I am a frat boy and we are at a frat party and one of my bros falls asleep on the couch, can I sodomize him?

If someone voluntarily leaves their house unlocked, am I entitled to steal all their stuff? I have a key to a house i share with another person. He never said I couldn't pawn all his stuff and wank on his towel and poop on his sheets. Is it legal and/or right for me to do either of those?

I'll grant you that a woman bears some responsibility for her own safety, but her not meeting some standard of cautious behavior does not excuse anyone else's taking advantage of her vulnerable state. I also said "overdrinking". By which I meant what most young people and a somewhat lower proportion of adult drinkers do on occasion. They get more intoxicated than they intended due to carelessness and/or inexperience. That does not mean it's a free piece of ass.

con·sent
   [kuhn-sent] Show IPA
verb (used without object)
1. to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield (often followed by to or an infinitive): He consented to the proposal. We asked her permission, and she consented.
2. Archaic . to agree in sentiment, opinion, etc.; be in harmony.
noun
3. permission, approval, or agreement; compliance; acquiescence: He gave his consent to the marriage.

4. agreement in sentiment, opinion, a course of action, etc.: By common consent he was appointed official delegate.

5. Archaic . accord; concord; harmony.

I still don't see voluntary or accidental vulnerability as consent.

[fretmeister]

I disagree. Voluntary intoxication combined with prior consent and surrender of personal safety and autonomy to others through knowing choice to become voluntarily intoxicated should be an absolute bar to any claim of rape whatsoever. In other words, if you don't want to chance ending up getting fucked by someone you've been leading on all evening, then don't lead them on and most certainly don't get drunk and surrender your body and your personal care to them by becoming voluntarily intoxicated. And if you do so, then don't whine about the results because it's ALL YOUR FAULT for getting drunk in the first place.
.

Re: the underlined bits. You are a failure as a human being. Your reasoning is as vile as those who claim short skirts means a woman is asking for it.

No means No.

Yes can also mean No if the person does not have the capacity to fully understand the implications of saying Yes.

Fortunately it doesn't matter that you disagree. The law in the UK is clear on the subject, not just in precedent but in statute too. So disagree all you want but you'll need a change in the law for your position to have any validity.

If anything, if a person trusts you enough to get drunk in your company then the duty of care upon you has increased as you have accepted a position of responsibility.

Still, I've only been a lawyer for 15 years so what the fuck do I know.

[Coito ergo sum]

That all depends on the jurisdiction. In some places it is rape.

We're not talking about what is, but what should be.

. Your words were "it aint rape". Not, "it shouldnt be" rape. So you were not clear. I think it should be rape, because consent to X is not consent to Y, generally speaking.

[Seth]

That all depends on the jurisdiction. In some places it is rape.

We're not talking about what is, but what should be.

. Your words were "it aint rape". Not, "it shouldnt be" rape. So you were not clear. I think it should be rape, because consent to X is not consent to Y, generally speaking.

"I consent to having sex. Now I'm going to get hammered." That's consent to "sex" in whatever form the person you've just entrusted with your person decides it is...because you've abdicated your decision-making to him/her. If you don't like what happens when you find out about it in the morning, that's a good reason not to entrust your person to that person again in the future, but it ain't rape.

[Seth]

I disagree. Voluntary intoxication combined with prior consent and surrender of personal safety and autonomy to others through knowing choice to become voluntarily intoxicated should be an absolute bar to any claim of rape whatsoever. In other words, if you don't want to chance ending up getting fucked by someone you've been leading on all evening, then don't lead them on and most certainly don't get drunk and surrender your body and your personal care to them by becoming voluntarily intoxicated. And if you do so, then don't whine about the results because it's ALL YOUR FAULT for getting drunk in the first place.
.

Re: the underlined bits. You are a failure as a human being. Your reasoning is as vile as those who claim short skirts means a woman is asking for it.

Personal attack noted and reported.

And women wearing short skirts ARE "asking for it." They are flaunting their sexuality deliberately as an exercise of sexual power. They desire to be viewed as sex objects, otherwise they wouldn't wear short skirts. Now, whether one can legally "give it to them" without further express consent is another matter.

No means No.

Yes can also mean No if the person does not have the capacity to fully understand the implications of saying Yes.

No it doesn't, it means yes when the person has voluntarily impaired their cognitive abilities. It may not mean yes if the person is, in his or her ordinary unintoxicated state, incapable of understanding the implications of saying yes, but when a person who is otherwise competent to make such decision becomes voluntarily intoxicated, any decision made by that person is valid and they may be held FULLY responsible for the consequences.

That's exactly what happens if you get drunk and drive, now isn't it? Intoxication USED TO BE a defense to having an accident in a car, but now it's not a defense, it's an aggravating factor that will enhance the penalty. So why should it be any different when it comes to intoxication and consent to sexual activity?

What's different?

The drunk driver is held responsible for her decision making while voluntarily intoxicated, but the same person, in the exact same state of voluntary intoxication, is to be relieved of responsibility entirely when it comes to making bad decisions about sexual activity, and worse yet, the other person in the sexual activity is now to be burdened with a duty of care and charged with a felony crime if he simply does what he was invited to do by the intoxicated person? Really?

That's barbaric, irrational, illogical and stupid.

Fortunately it doesn't matter that you disagree. The law in the UK is clear on the subject, not just in precedent but in statute too. So disagree all you want but you'll need a change in the law for your position to have any validity.

Ah, the old "that's the way it is so I don't have to engage in any rational thought or debate about the subject" dodge.

If anything, if a person trusts you enough to get drunk in your company then the duty of care upon you has increased as you have accepted a position of responsibility.

Really? Since when can you impose a duty of care upon another without their express consent to undertake that duty?

Still, I've only been a lawyer for 15 years so what the fuck do I know.

Good question, based on your reasoning here.