[barmar]

We prosecute people for driving while intoxicated, and this can turn into vehicular manslaughter if someone is killed as a result. And if someone gets into a barfight, they don't get exonerated if they were drunk. So we clearly don't give people a pass on anything requiring good judgement just because they're drunk.

In the case of rape, one of the reasons for the double standard is that women are generally at a physical disadvantage compared to men. If the woman is also drunk, she's also less able to make the appropriate decision. That double disadvantage probably justifies this law.

From what I can tell, this new law is simply turning something that's already policy on many college campuses into a more general law. So there's already plenty of experience applying the rule in the domain where it comes up most.

[Cyberyeti]

 kenberg, on 2014-September-30, 07:43, said:

At the risk of sounding prudish, maybe the take-away lesson here is that it is a good idea, for both the man and the woman, to get to know each other before they take their clothes off. This would reduce the number of mis-understandings, whether they are real or contrived. In this particular case I find the idea that the woman had sex so that she could end the guy's political career by charging rape to be at least a little far-fetched. This doesn't mean it is impossible, but certainly far-fetched. A rather extreme form of ideological devotion. Maybe if he got to know her first he could have judged for himself whether this was likely to happen.

As mentioned earlier, I have known of a number of stupid, consensual bur stupid, liasons.

They knew each other pretty well before the encounter. My complaint is that there is no comeback on this sort of completely unsubstantiated allegation as while it's impossible to prove either way, the mud only sticks to one party.

[barmar]

Rape allegations frequently turn into he-said-she-said cases. This new law doesn't change most of these, only when the complainant was impaired when supposedly consenting.

[kenberg]

 Cyberyeti, on 2014-September-30, 10:53, said:

They knew each other pretty well before the encounter. My complaint is that there is no comeback on this sort of completely unsubstantiated allegation as while it's impossible to prove either way, the mud only sticks to one party.

As so often happens, an outsider can really have no confident opinion. On one side, it's really hard to see why a woman who knew a guy reasonably well, and liked him well enough to spend time with him, would falsely accuse him of rape. But then it is also hard to see why a guy who has come to know someone reasonably well, and presumably had been treating her well, would rape her. Or at least if he was so inclined, you would think such a personality trait would be evident to others. Bottom line, I would have to know a lot more before I would venture an opinion.

I can imagine that this did not work out all that well for either of them. No one went to jail, but still.

Over and over again I seem to be finding that life for a young person today is more complicated, often much more complicated, than it was for me in the middle of the last century. So far, the grandkids seem to be coping but I am not sure I would. I find myself appreciating Merle Haggard "Turn me loose, set me free, somewhere in the middle of Montana..."

[Cyberyeti]

 kenberg, on 2014-September-30, 12:19, said:

As so often happens, an outsider can really have no confident opinion. On one side, it's really hard to see why a woman who knew a guy reasonably well, and liked him well enough to spend time with him, would falsely accuse him of rape. But then it is also hard to see why a guy who has come to know someone reasonably well, and presumably had been treating her well, would rape her. Or at least if he was so inclined, you would think such a personality trait would be evident to others. Bottom line, I would have to know a lot more before I would venture an opinion.

I can imagine that this did not work out all that well for either of them. No one went to jail, but still.

Over and over again I seem to be finding that life for a young person today is more complicated, often much more complicated, than it was for me in the middle of the last century. So far, the grandkids seem to be coping but I am not sure I would. I find myself appreciating Merle Haggard "Turn me loose, set me free, somewhere in the middle of Montana..."

Agreed (although this was nearly 30 years ago and I don't know what has become of either of them), but the problem still manifests itself. The man's name is released by the police when a rape allegation is made but the woman remains anonymous (and this has plus points in that other women may then come forward). Hence it's quite a cheap way to get at somebody as false allegations are rarely prosecuted as they're almost impossible to prove for the same reason the rape charge is difficult to prove.

[billw55]

 barmar, on 2014-September-30, 11:55, said:

Rape allegations frequently turn into he-said-she-said cases. This new law doesn't change most of these, only when the complainant was impaired when supposedly consenting.

Yes, they do. I suspect that in the large majority of such cases (80%+?), the allegation is true. I don't see most women wanting to put themselves through that just for spite, or revenge or whatever. Unfortunately, the relatively small minority of false allegations are incredibly damaging, both to the men accused and also to all real rape victims.

And so this law troubles me. It seems to enable the false accuser. It sets up a situation where it is not necessary to show any other elements of a crime; only for the accuser to say she was drunk.

[mike777]

I assume drunk or drugged means intoxicated. Keep in mind it only takes one tiny pill or one joint or one or two drinks to be legally intoxicated and unable to give consent. It should be noted this protection applies to married as well as single couples. Rape is an act of violence and people need to be protected from violence. The point here is that people are unable to give consent and that is rape and sexual abuse and I think people at times forget that. The point is not whether your partner likes you, your partner is unable to give consent. Sex without consent, even with a partner who likes you, is against the law. It is an act of violence per the law.

In California that is .08% BAC.

Perhaps this law will lead to more convictions in a court of law but the law has a second purpose, to deter. To deter people from having sex without the consent from a partner who has been taking intoxicants who is legally unable to consent. This applies to married partners, this applies to partners who may like you.

[billw55]

 mike777, on 2014-September-30, 13:50, said:

I assume drunk or drugged means intoxicated. Keep in mind it only takes one tiny pill or one joint or one or two drinks to be legally intoxicated and unable to give consent. It should be noted this protection applies to married as well as single couples. Rape is an act of violence and people need to be protected from violence. The point here is that people are unable to give consent and that is rape and sexual abuse and I think people at times forget that. The point is not whether your partner likes you, your partner is unable to give consent. Sex without consent, even with a partner who likes you, is against the law. It is an act of violence per the law.

In California that is .08% BAC.

It can lead to some odd situations. I have had sex with my wife when both of us were at least mildly impaired. It seemed we both enjoyed it. Would you say that a rape occurred? If not, why not? After all, this does meet the criteria in your post.

[mike777]

 billw55, on 2014-September-30, 14:13, said:

It can lead to some odd situations. I have had sex with my wife when both of us were at least mildly impaired. It seemed we both enjoyed it. Would you say that a rape occurred? If not, why not? After all, this does meet the criteria in your post.

Since you asked:

Yes you would have broken the law. Rape is rape. Impared is impared, sort of like saying a little bit pregnant. Of course rapist enjoy rape I suppose that is the whole point. They often point out how their partner enjoyed it, they often point out how their partner asked for "it".

"Perhaps this law will lead to more convictions in a court of law but the law has a second purpose, to deter. To deter people from having sex without the consent from a partner who has been taking intoxicants who is legally unable to consent. This applies to married partners, this applies to partners who may like you"

[billw55]

 mike777, on 2014-September-30, 14:19, said:

Yes you would have broken the law. Rape is rape. Impared is impared, sort of like saying a little bit pregnant. Of course rapist enjoy rape I suppose that is the whole point. They often point out how their partner enjoyed it, they often point out how their partner asked for "it".

"Perhaps this law will lead to more convictions in a court of law but the law has a second purpose, to deter. To deter people from having sex without the consent from a partner who has been taking intoxicants who is legally unable to consent. This applies to married partners, this applies to partners who may like you"

OK. Interesting. A few questions:

Has my wife also broken the law? Or is this a one way street based on gender? If so, what if the couple is same gender? Now who will you prosecute?

Also, if my wife does not think a crime occurred, does that change anything in your mind? Or should I still be prosecuted? After all, I just confessed.

[barmar]

Has anyone of us actually read the new law, or are we basing this whole discussion on the summaries of the law as we've heard in the news?

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2014-September-30, 09:04, said:

In the case of rape, one of the reasons for the double standard is that women are generally at a physical disadvantage compared to men. If the woman is also drunk, she's also less able to make the appropriate decision. That double disadvantage probably justifies this law.

There is also the fact that the consequences are potentially much greater for the woman; the "double standard" is built in.

[mike777]

 billw55, on 2014-September-30, 14:34, said:

OK. Interesting. A few questions:

Has my wife also broken the law? Or is this a one way street based on gender? If so, what if the couple is same gender? Now who will you prosecute?

Also, if my wife does not think a crime occurred, does that change anything in your mind? Or should I still be prosecuted? After all, I just confessed.

Good questions. I don't know.

Reading the law it seems clear you should be prosecuted. You should be arrested, thrown in jail and put on trial for rape or sexual assault.

With that said it is common for rapists and people who sexually assault to get away with the crime if the partner will not testify. The victim still has been assaulted and must live with the crime.

To be clear I fully expect men to argue that just because my wife or date is intoxicated to the point she cannot and should not drive does not mean she should be incapable of consenting to having sex with you. Just because my wife or date fell asleep or is intoxicated next to me in bed does not mean I should not try and touch her. I expect men will still offer that intoxicant or two.

to quote the vampyr:
There is also the fact that the consequences are potentially much greater for the woman; the "double standard" is built in.

[kenberg]

 Vampyr, on 2014-September-30, 14:55, said:

There is also the fact that the consequences are potentially much greater for the woman; the "double standard" is built in.

I agree with this.

As a male, I want to add on a bit though. The consequences for the man can be substantial. If there is a pregnanacy the woman has by far the most to deal with, financially and psychologically. It is life changing, no doubt about that. . But both legally and emotionally the male is not apt to be home free. . Fully embracing this fact should have a salutary effect on males, at least on those who think about their future. It would be a very good idea for young men to be made fully aware of how this could change their lives, even if no rape charges are filed. Paternity responsibilities should be adequate reason for at least some thought on their part.

[PassedOut]

 billw55, on 2014-September-30, 14:13, said:

It can lead to some odd situations. I have had sex with my wife when both of us were at least mildly impaired. It seemed we both enjoyed it. Would you say that a rape occurred? If not, why not? After all, this does meet the criteria in your post.

I would be surprised if this weren't a very common situation (or things have changed an awful lot over the decades). I wonder: Can a couple can agree in advance to get drunk and have sex and have that agreement override the lack of drunken consent? I would think so.

[kenberg]

 PassedOut, on 2014-September-30, 16:01, said:

I would be surprised if this weren't a very common situation (or things have changed an awful lot over the decades). I wonder: Can a couple can agree in advance to get drunk and have sex and have that agreement override the lack of drunken consent? I would think so.

I would hope they can so agree. Actually, it seems most couples have an agreement, although probably never explicitly spoken, something like "I'll let you know if you are over the line, until you hear that, relax and enjoy it"

Part of the problem with discussing this is
a. As barmar suggests, I have not read the law
b. I have never had issues that are along the lines the law addresses.

So I don't know what I am talking about. What else is new, I hear you say.

[mike777]

 kenberg, on 2014-September-30, 15:51, said:

I agree with this.

As a male, I want to add on a bit though. The consequences for the man can be substantial. If there is a pregnanacy the woman has by far the most to deal with, financially and psychologically. It is life changing, no doubt about that. . But both legally and emotionally the male is not apt to be home free. . Fully embracing this fact should have a salutary effect on males, at least on those who think about their future. It would be a very good idea for young men to be made fully aware of how this could change their lives, even if no rape charges are filed. Paternity responsibilities should be adequate reason for at least some thought on their part.

Ken raises a complicated point. Rapists have parental rights to visits and to be part of the child's life.

[mike777]

 kenberg, on 2014-September-30, 16:34, said:

I would hope they can so agree. Actually, it seems most couples have an agreement, although probably never explicitly spoken, something like "I'll let you know if you are over the line, until you hear that, relax and enjoy it"

Part of the problem with discussing this is
a. As barmar suggests, I have not read the law
b. I have never had issues that are along the lines the law addresses.

So I don't know what I am talking about. What else is new, I hear you say.

Yes, I am old enough that when one heard of rape or sexual assault one thought it was done by a stranger on the street or by a stranger as part of war. Russia raped over a million boys, girls and women as it attacked Berlin. The world did nothing. In Chicago it was told by the police what happens to young boys when sent to Cook County Jail if you mess up.

This law seems to be part of the whole date rape or spousal rape discussion. When the sexual assault is by a man you know. When roughly 20% of women while attending college are sexually assaulted that is an epidemic. When someone as famous as OPrah was raped and sexually assaulted that became news.

[kenberg]

 mike777, on 2014-September-30, 17:23, said:

Ken raises a complicated point. Rapists have parental rights to visits and to be part of the child's life.

Not in my world.

[kenberg]

Like everyone else on this thread I am opposed to rape and I am opposed to people being unjustly accused of rape. I doubt that I have anything that is actually useful to say since I know very little about any details so I think that I will now shut up.