Latest Breaking News

jeff47

(26,549 posts)

59. You know, there's these things called "investigations"

Mon Sep 29, 2014, 03:40 PM

Sep 2014

where they try to determine what happened. Person A and Person B have sex. The next day, Person B says they were too drunk to give consent.

How do they figure out what happened? Why, they actually investigate the accusation instead of firmly planting their head up their ass talking about breathalyzers.

If several other people recount that person B was drinking a lot of alcohol, then they can conclude Person B was drunk. Or if it's early enough in the morning, person B's blood will still have the metabolites of alcohol, and measuring those can indicate how drunk they were. If the investigation can't find any evidence of drinking, then they can't conclude person B was drunk.

Are you guys incapable of giving any thought whatsoever to the practical realities of trying to implement and enforce this?

Yes. Considering your objections are moronic, you are not.

Or do you just think laws are implemented in ideal vacuums of concept and principle?

What was the law before this? What practical difference does this change actually make when prosecuting a rape case?

Answer: None. Before this law, non-consensual sex was rape. What's the only way you can ensure consent? Ask. What's the law now say? Ask. One partner drunk off their ass? They couldn't give consent before, and can not give consent now.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

127 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

California adopts 'yes means yes' sex-assault rule [View all] alp227 Sep 2014 OP

Dangerous yeoman6987 Sep 2014 #1

Rape is more dangerous. nt valerief Sep 2014 #3

If the partner changes mind, STOP. Period. End of story. alp227 Sep 2014 #6

The legislation appears to recognize that there IS nuance to be had. Jim Lane Sep 2014 #20

They need to require verbal consent imo. ncjustice80 Sep 2014 #31

Would you apply that at each stage? Jim Lane Sep 2014 #83

LOL!! Sheldon Cooper Sep 2014 #23

How often do you think this scenario actually happens? Ash_F Sep 2014 #43

As an old prosecutor I have questions MosheFeingold Sep 2014 #78

That's ridiculous lunatica Sep 2014 #79

Well intention-ed stupidity... gcomeau Sep 2014 #2

No consent, no sex, period. As Reddit says, "change my view". alp227 Sep 2014 #4

+1000 TeamPooka Sep 2014 #5

What if two drunk people meet and decide to have sex? hack89 Sep 2014 #8

Their consent is not consent. alp227 Sep 2014 #13

So are both guilty of rape? hack89 Sep 2014 #15

Unfortunately, yes. alp227 Sep 2014 #18

So basically, being drunk absolves you of rape. Calista241 Sep 2014 #25

What do you mean by "absolves you of rape"? nt alp227 Sep 2014 #28

No. Ash_F Sep 2014 #50

I think the point is that it would be problimatic to prosecute both partners for kelly1mm Sep 2014 #101

I don't interpret the writing that way. Ash_F Sep 2014 #104

I guess that is the question then. How intoxicated is too intoxicated to be able to consent kelly1mm Sep 2014 #105

From the bill: Ash_F Sep 2014 #106

Again, is it not possible that BOTH people could be incapacitated to the degree kelly1mm Sep 2014 #108

As I have pointed out to others, it really comes down to the individual case, and the relevant facts Ash_F Sep 2014 #113

Ask yourself- ncjustice80 Sep 2014 #33

Ah yes - the patriarchy. nt hack89 Sep 2014 #34

Then there is no problem. Did you read the law? Ash_F Sep 2014 #49

I don't think it was rape hack89 Sep 2014 #71

I see. They may be reading something in the law that is not there. Ash_F Sep 2014 #72

check definitions ty lrellok Sep 2014 #77

The actual text of the bill is most relevant. Ash_F Sep 2014 #84

What if we're both drunk and I want to sell you a truck. JoeyT Sep 2014 #99

Yes, obviously. But the problem is gcomeau Sep 2014 #16

What do you mean by "intentionally"? alp227 Sep 2014 #17

YES. gcomeau Sep 2014 #24

We've gotta face it. That kind of stuff is PREDATORY. alp227 Sep 2014 #26

Uh-huh gcomeau Sep 2014 #30

Yes. jeff47 Sep 2014 #38

Wow... gcomeau Sep 2014 #40

Drunk to the point where they are unable to consent. jeff47 Sep 2014 #41

Sheesh... gcomeau Sep 2014 #46

Perps incriminate themselves with their own comments, most of the time Ash_F Sep 2014 #54

Kind of overlooking the fact... gcomeau Sep 2014 #55

Sigh...see post #49 Ash_F Sep 2014 #56

Sigh... See post 46. -eom gcomeau Sep 2014 #58

You haven't read the law yet. Ash_F Sep 2014 #60

You know, there's these things called "investigations" jeff47 Sep 2014 #59

so they are going to investigate possible rape every time two drunk college Doctor_J Sep 2014 #89

As a female, that went to college, I can't believe this will work.. OLDMADAM Sep 2014 #107

Like every female that has ever hit on me? lrellok Sep 2014 #75

Both parties are often drunk. Are they both sexual predators? Are they both victims? nt kelly1mm Sep 2014 #102

Why not restore prohibition? Or raise the drinking age? JPnoodleman Sep 2014 #109

So? Just because alcohol dominates consent alp227 Sep 2014 #116

Young people aren't responsible or capable... clearly... JPnoodleman Sep 2014 #118

Huh? Iamthetruth Sep 2014 #21

Personal responsibility...on whose end? alp227 Sep 2014 #22

No I do not Iamthetruth Oct 2014 #119

Why did you say "no"? alp227 Oct 2014 #120

You're taking it to the extreme Iamthetruth Oct 2014 #121

If a couple gets drunk and has sex without either giving affirmative consent, Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #9

Agreed. Stupidity - lots of us have mixed alcohol and carousing closeupready Sep 2014 #11

Have to reluctantly agree. reflection Sep 2014 #52

rape is anything that happens after no. how can someone roguevalley Sep 2014 #7

It can get confusing but RVN VET Sep 2014 #10

Girl ... or woman? Let's be real here - an 18-year-old female closeupready Sep 2014 #14

You'e correct, because at 18 she's considered an adult RVN VET Oct 2014 #127

this law seems to say that rape can be everything that happens after yes Doctor_J Sep 2014 #90

Gotta get it in writing. Notary recommended. candelista Sep 2014 #12

Don't forget the portable Breathalyzer or other method for testing blood alcohol content. (n/t) Jim Lane Sep 2014 #19

The Camera? MosheFeingold Sep 2014 #80

Just videotape the entire encounter, you know, for everyone's legal protection ...... kelly1mm Sep 2014 #103

Sounds like they're trying to legislate no sex after any consumption of alcohol. Calista241 Sep 2014 #27

No clear, honest consent = rape. Period. alp227 Sep 2014 #29

This is sorta ridiculous Calista241 Sep 2014 #32

I know this is an unpopular opinion, BUT... ncjustice80 Sep 2014 #35

It's not just unpopular, it's stupid. closeupready Sep 2014 #42

+1. candelista Sep 2014 #61

Do you realize the road you're going down? alp227 Sep 2014 #48

I don't think that's what they are saying. delta17 Sep 2014 #86

because the relationship between married folks is close enough they know their signals. alp227 Sep 2014 #92

Then why did you jump on the other poster? delta17 Sep 2014 #93

I admit: this subject is really sensitive. So I get rough when discussing it. alp227 Sep 2014 #94

Ok, sorry if I came across the wrong way also. delta17 Sep 2014 #96

How is "clear, honest consent" shown? candelista Sep 2014 #62

No offense Snow Leopard Sep 2014 #100

We sound like Repubs... Calista241 Sep 2014 #36

Rape is whats wrong with it. nt ncjustice80 Sep 2014 #37

That says nothing. candelista Sep 2014 #63

Feel free to provide your solution. jeff47 Sep 2014 #39

This law was clearly not jamzrockz Sep 2014 #44

Good thing I didn't say "unconscious" then. jeff47 Sep 2014 #45

There are no full proof jamzrockz Sep 2014 #51

Once again, feel free to provide your solution jeff47 Sep 2014 #57

He already did. candelista Sep 2014 #64

No, he recited some platitudes and some fantasy jeff47 Sep 2014 #67

Rapes were under-reported and under investigated by universities because Calista241 Sep 2014 #88

Yes, there is plenty of overlap here with Republicanism. candelista Sep 2014 #65

This may lead to the "authorities" coming back into the bedroom. The Stranger Sep 2014 #47

Jeez...the amount of dumb posts in this thread Ash_F Sep 2014 #53

From your link. candelista Sep 2014 #66

It is in the first sentence. Ash_F Sep 2014 #68

Not a useful definition. It doesn't say how consent is shown. candelista Sep 2014 #69

Laws regularly leave room for interpretation. This is not new or unique. Ash_F Sep 2014 #70

You are dodging the only important question. candelista Sep 2014 #73

Again, it would have to come down to the individual case. Ash_F Sep 2014 #74

In reality MosheFeingold Sep 2014 #81

Yeah...in reality. Ash_F Sep 2014 #82

In reality MosheFeingold Sep 2014 #87

Sure /nt Ash_F Sep 2014 #91

Why isn't rape an issue for the police? tuhaybey Sep 2014 #76

I feel similarly Ash_F Sep 2014 #85

true tuhaybey Sep 2014 #97

I couldn't agree more jamzrockz Sep 2014 #98

It would seem like it would be somewhat difficult to enforce in some cases, hughee99 Sep 2014 #95

Considering "refusing sex," counts as abuse on some campus'... JPnoodleman Sep 2014 #110

I would like a citation for your University of Michigan campus policy. Sheldon Cooper Sep 2014 #111

It appears to be a policy about ongoing relationships, not casual hookups. Jim Lane Oct 2014 #122

Thanks for the information. Sheldon Cooper Oct 2014 #123

I guess I could have been arrested numerous times WhoWoodaKnew Sep 2014 #112

Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal, simply said, �Your guess is as good as mine.�... JPnoodleman Sep 2014 #114

Female asks, "Do you have a condom?" taught_me_patience Sep 2014 #115

I heard someone discuss an interesting problem with the law this morning. Xithras Sep 2014 #117

A rape acquittal would not be binding on the accuser Jim Lane Oct 2014 #124

The problem isn't the differing standard of evidence, but a differing standard of conduct. Xithras Oct 2014 #125

I don't agree. Jim Lane Oct 2014 #126