June 29, 2006

"Alcohol is the No. 1 date-rape drug."

The Wisconsin State Journal reports:
The nation's top party school could get a sobering jolt from a change in state law that puts alcohol on a par with date-rape drugs as an aggravating factor in certain sexual assaults....

Wisconsin had been the only state to exclude alcohol as a potential legal intoxicant in rape cases before the law change...

And while prosecutors say it is likely to be used only rarely - in cases in which victims don't pass out but are so impaired by alcohol they are "unable to appraise their own conduct," as one advocate put it - the change was heralded by experts who work with assault survivors.

"Alcohol is the No. 1 date-rape drug, and we've felt strongly that our statutes should reflect that reality," said Jill Groblewski, spokeswoman for the Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault....

Under state law, having sexual contact with a person incapable of consent because they are under the influence of an intoxicant is defined as second- degree sexual assault. The offense is a Class C felony punishable by a fine up to $100,000 and a prison sentence of up to 25 years.

Dane County District Attorney Brian Blanchard... stressed that the somewhat lower bar on consent standards for victims does not extend to perpetrators, who can be charged for crimes whether they have been drinking or not.

"Alcohol is not an excuse," he said. "It's our job to help jurors understand that people who want to commit sexual assault many times are going to take unfair advantage to get what they want."...

UW-Madison Police Chief Susan Riseling ... praised the change in the law, calling it "recognition that just because someone has used alcohol doesn't mean they are any less a victim/survivor."
Discuss.

63 comments:

Dave said...

The obvious distinction between alcohol and date rape drugs is that one who consumes alcohol knows that he is consuming it. I suppose it's theoretically possible to mix very little alcohol in something with a strong taste, like say orange or cranberry juice, but there are two problems with this method of intoxication: (1) it would take many more drinks to get a girl drunk to the point of being unable to fend for herself, and (2) the woman would realize she's getting drunk anyway.

This law smacks of feel good politics and the cult of victimization, not any cogent understanding of the notion of personal responsibility.

Seems to me that the relevant issue here is that someone is raped, not how the person was raped, what the "aggravating factors" are, and certainly not what the behaviors of the man or woman were prior to the rape having occurred.

Bruce Hayden said...

For me, as a guy, the whole idea of "date rape" is scary. This opens things up to women changing their minds after the fact. Regretting what they did, and making the guys pay for it.

I look back over my life, and have to say that I cannot remember a situation where my first night with a woman did not involve at least some alcohol. And, I suspect that most guys have similar experiences. Many, if not most, women seem to use it to reduce their own inhibitions, at least about extra-maritial sex.

I am not heartened in the least about the idea that prosecutors will use their discretion here. What that means to me is that if a woman can pull the right strings, she can get a prosecutor to prosecute under this, and the guy most likely doesn't have a good excuse. Unless BAC proof is required, which I doubt, I don't see any protection here against prosecution of what many, if not most, at least singles, would consider to be voluntary behavior on the part of women.

John R Henry said...

Alcohol is not an excuse," he said.

It seems like (another) double standard here. The whole point of the law seems to be to make alchohol an excuse for the woman.

I can see the testimony now:

[Woman]: Your honor, I did not know what I was doing, I was drunk at the time.

[Judge]: Awwwww.... poor girl.

[Man]:Your honor, I was drunk and thought she was consenting.

[Judge]:PERVERT!!!!!
$100,000 and off to the pokey.

John Henry

MadisonMan said...

Yes, drink yourself into oblivion, but worry not! The State Will Protect You! You needn't fear the consequences of your decisions. Sure, you chose to go out and drink and drink and drink, but it's not your fault that you did something that maybe you wouldn't do in the stone cold sober light of day because legally you couldn't give consent. It's not your fault!!

Slocum said...

So women can be considered legally responsible for getting drunk and getting behind the wheel, but not responsible for getting drunk and getting laid?

Did Wisconsin establish a BAC limit beyond which it is illegal for women to have sex?

And what if two drunk lesbians have sex -- which one can claim date rape? The first to experience "morning after regret"?

Internet Ronin said...

As MadisonMan says, It's not your fault! Personal responsibility is a thing of the past, I guess. Chalk yet another one up for the professional victimhood movement.

Were I on a jury considering such a case (highly unlikely given my views), I would hold out for nullificaiton.

WisJoe said...

I think that if my wife hadn't taken advantage of me while I was intoxicated, we might not be married with two lovely children.

Internet Ronin said...

I expect the next law on the books will classify chocolate as a controlled substance given it's reputation as a mood enhancer, and some say, aphrodesiac.

"Oh no, your honor, it wasn't me! It was the Mars bar that said yes."

Danny said...

So the State will protect you if you make bad decisions when drunk, unless that bad decision involves getting into a car? Equally bewildered over here...

Sean E said...

If I get drunk and have a woman's name tattooed across my chest, do I sue the woman, the tattoo parlour, or both?

Marghlar said...

This seems to give rise to the peculiar result that two drunk people can fornicate, both so intoxicated that they legally cannot consent. Thus, they have both raped eachother, and neither can use their own intoxication as a defense. Bizarre-ness.

Or is it a "first-to-complain" rule -- whoever decides first that they were taken advantage of gets to be the victim, while the other party, regardless of an equality of fault, is not the perpetrator.

The rule should be the same in both directions: voluntarily choosing to become intoxicated does not impair either consent or fault. You choose to lose control of yourself, you live with the consequences.

Smilin' Jack said...

Under state law, having sexual contact with a person incapable of consent because they are under the influence of an intoxicant is defined as second- degree sexual assault. The offense is a Class C felony punishable by a fine up to $100,000 and a prison sentence of up to 25 years.

OK, supose I get drunk, and the woman doesn't look as good in the morning as she did in the bar. Obviously she took sexual advantage of me when I wasn't capable of informed consent. Should I call 911?

michael said...

I feel a Dr. Seuss comment is appropriate here:

"This one, I think, is called a Yink.

She likes to wink.

And she likes to drink.

She likes to drink and drink and drink!

The thing she likes to drink is Ladies of Pink.

She likes to wink and drink lots of Ladies of Pink.

SO ...

If you see a Yink wink and drink many Ladies of Pink,
you should run I would think
or you might end up in the clink!

LarryK said...

What am I missing here - doesn't rape mean being forced to have sex against a woman's will, i.e. sex that is involuntary? So if someone voluntarily chooses to drink to intoxication, then voluntarily chooses to have sex, where and when did any "involuntary" action take place?

michael said...

And what if two drunk lesbians have sex -- which one can claim date rape?

Only with verifiable video evidence, preferably with good lighting and audio ... possibly a soundtrack. This would, of course, have to be viewed numerous times in order to discern who was raping whom.

Incidentally, I would think there would not be much problem assembling a jury.

CB said...

Marghlar-
A similar situation exists in my state (Indiana); the child molestation statute makes no mention of the age of the offender (except as an aggravating factor). So if two 13 year olds have sex--which is not unthinkable--they could both be charged, presumably. THis aspect has been upheld, in a case where a 13 year old molested a younger child.

chuck b. said...

This is terrible for the institution of bad drunk sex, an important element in any young person's personal development.

But it's good for chocolate makers and florists. Just send the woman send something nice the morning after, and everyone's happy.


confirmation word: hvacvuwl, the horrible evacuation of Univ of Wis lovers.

chuck b. said...

Also a plus, I predict this law will make it easier for Wisconsin guys to try out some hot man-man action.

Doolesfan said...

"This much will get her drunk, this much will kill her. So you got some play there." - David Spade

Susan Reisling is still Madison Police Cheif? I thought she was on her way out when I finished school there 9 years ago.

Pogo said...

Message to young men:

Charge date rape first.

PatCA said...

"Just send the woman send something nice the morning after, and everyone's happy."

Be careful what you say on the card! It could be used against you in a court of law...

You have all pointed out quite well why this is a bad law--it assumes that MEN ARE BAD and women are helpless children. Maybe if, as is usually the case, both parties are stinking drunk, they could check in at the jail and spend the night together there. The man can then be found guilty on his way out next morning and get credit for time served.

Ann Althouse said...

LarryK (and everyone): Note what this statutory change actually did. It removed an exclusion of alcohol as a disabling substance. The prosecution still has to prove the elements of rape. The question is whether the alleged victim gave consent. Read about the young woman in the article. Do you think it shouldn’t be a crime to take advantage of an incapacitated person (as she described hereself)? Picture a person that that the accused could clearly see didn’t know what was going on, not just the usual situation where someone gets drunk and consents to something she later regrets. Before the statutory change, people who did something quite despicable couldn’t be prosecuted unless the victim was completely unconscious.

Bruce Hayden said...

LarryK

Part of the problem here is that it appears that this is heading in the direction of statutory rape - for example, here in CO, consent is irrelevant if the victim is under 15 and the other party at least 4 years older.

Thus, it seems like the point of this is that apparent consent when the "victim" is drunk is not considered to be consent, because that party is legally considered incapable of giving consent.

So, you are left with the situation where the one party has regrets the next day, complains to the cops, etc. And the fact that this party appeared to give consent is considered irrelevant because of a legal inability to give consent when drunk.

This would be fine, except that, as has been pointed out, a lot of sex, esp. for the first time with a given partner, is done under the influence of alcohol. The result then, is the apparent potential criminalization of a large percentage of at least initial sex between (typically) two adults.

Pogo said...

I agree that the case is disgusting. The remedy is worse, however, as it will be used by an aggressive prosecutor out to make her name such that the statutory change will be dumbed down when actually applied in successive cases over time. Eventually, it makes women able to cite 0.08% intoxication (one beer) as negating the possibility of consent. Just imagine the additional charges available to the case at Duke.

Let's just Dworkinize the whole copulation thing and flat out declare all sex as rape, and make the patriarchy repsonsible.

This will infantilize women more than it helps. Funny how feminism eschewed the male patriarch only to replace him with the State as Protector.

altoids1306 said...

Once again, the government will try to save us from ourselves. The nanny state expands again.

Could this have implications for the Duke rape case?

Bruce Hayden said...

Ann,

It was too bad about the girl, but then, again, she waited 15 months to complain, and that alone is probably sufficient to keep them from prosecuting. There are very good reasons that, even absent alcohol here, they were unlikely to get a rape conviction.

I think that they gave the game away with the quote "Alcohol is the No. 1 date-rape drug". This law is all about criminalizing "date rape".

So, you have two people drinking together. They go off and have what appears to be consensual sex. Happens all the time at your school. A lot. The next day, she has regrets, and goes to the police. He says that she consented. She says she was too drunk. What is his defense there? She didn't seem that drunk? That most likely won't work, because, at least until someone is falling down drunk, many don't appear nearly as drunk as they are. Besides, alcohol affects different people differently. Some can drink a lot without losing that much control. Others can't.

LarryK said...

Ann

I just read the story instead of the excerpt on this post and have to agree with Bruce and (the first paragraph of) Pogo. Yes, it's a question of consent, but if you are under the influence because of your own choices and then consent, while under the influence, you haven't been raped. That seems very different from the young woman in question, who was at least partially incapacitated at the time - can't really give consent in that situation. I'm not a lawyer, but I can't understand why a statutory change is necessary to prosecute someone who pounces on a drunk, partially incapacitated girl who is lying upstairs at a party - of course that's rape. But this law seems to open the door to rape charges for (Ann's words) "the usual situation of someone who gets drunk and consents to something she later regrets."

Jacques Cuze said...

Wisconsin had been the only state to exclude alcohol as a potential legal intoxicant in rape cases before the law change, sponsored by Sen. Cathy Stepp, R-Sturtevant.

Typical Republofascism, never willing to take responsibility for their own crapulent behavior, always seeking to put the blame on a minority and have their will enforced at gunpoint by the DA and conservo-activism judges.

Note to Bruce and Pogo: Tonight, you pukes will sleep with your guns. Your days of finger-banging ol' Mary Jane Rottencrotch through her pretty pink panties are over! You're married to this piece. You will be faithful!

Sean E said...

"Be careful what you say on the card! It could be used against you in a court of law..."

You may not remember me ...

Pogo said...

Re: "...and have to agree with Bruce and (the first paragraph of) Pogo."

Awww. No one ever agrees with my second paragraph!

lawdog said...

Lest we all forget, this is still Wisconsin and under chapter 939.42 intoxication is a defense to any crime requiring proof of intent. I am sure there is case law on whether the sexual assult statute has a mens rea requirement. Thus, if the guy is drunk he can use being drunk as a defense to taking advantage of a drunk girl.

Bruce Hayden said...

LawDog,

I can see it right now, at a typical rape case:

She: I was drunk.
He: I was really drunk.
She: I was really really drunk.
He: I was falling down drunk.
She: I was falling down and couldn't get back up drunk.
He: I threw up three times.
She: I threw up four times.

Yes, theoretically, they should not be able to get a conviction here, since the guy's drunkedness should be sufficient. But is is realistic to believe that the standard will be applied evenly between a claimant and a defendant here?

Bruce Hayden said...

I like the Colorado law a lot better. There, if the claimant voluntarily gets drunk, then tough - apparent consent is consent. But if the "actor" gets the other party drunk w/o their knowledge, consent doesn't count. Also, being drunk doesn't negate the "knowingly" element for the actor either.

jeff said...

I guess this simply means that women should not be allowed to drink. Obviously the state believes that they are incapable of controlling their actions after they do.

MadTown said...

"For me, as a guy, the whole idea of 'date rape' is scary."

The sure antidote to 'scary' is consent. Talk. Ask. Consent. Repeat.

Most women and men have integrity and won't deny something to which they freely consented.

Pogo said...

Re: "Most women and men have integrity and won't deny something to which they freely consented."

Unless, of course, consent occurred after a beer or two, invalidating the agreement. Maybe instead of condoms, student dorms can hand out breathalyzers and consent contract forms.

I wonder if there's a student notary service available at 3 a.m.

Bruce Hayden said...

MadTown

I think you are being a bit optimistic. Most of the initial sex between two people that I know about occurs with at least some alcohol in both the parties. It is just the way it happens.

You maybe would like everyone to sit around like adults, discuss it, and then come to a sober agreement. But that just isn't the way it happens in the real world.

Maybe, it is that for some women, it is being caught up in the moment. And maybe it is just more romantic to just get swepted off their feet into bed. But it sure seems like there are a lot of women who use alcohol in just this way - to reduce inhibitions in order to do what they subconsciously want to do.

So, are you suggesting that a guy should stop what he is doing, when he is so turned on he can't see straight, and the woman is going, come on, and he should say, sorry, but you might not be sober? That maybe, another time, after a signed agreement?

Bruce Hayden said...

Pogo,

A studen notary service wouldn't do any good, unless it was coupled with a breathalyzer. The whole premise here is that consent while under the influence of alcohol is not consent, so notorized written consent under the influence would not be any more compelling than mere verbal consent.

Pastor_Jeff said...

Pogo,

This might be what you're thinking of (moderately NSFW).

Thorley Winston said...

The sure antidote to 'scary' is consent. Talk. Ask. Consent. Repeat.

Most women and men have integrity and won't deny something to which they freely consented.


Agreed if you are so stupid and lacking in integrity that you would try to have sex with someone who’s drunk, then you deserve to suffer whatever legal consequences come your way.

Pogo said...

Bruce,
You're right. The Student Union should have a 24 hr Breathalyzer-Notary service. On call, maybe.

Let's call it the 'Drink, Depose and Disrobe' service. I think only the consent form and alcohol content results need be witnessed, though, because, well, 'nuff said.

Pogo said...

Re: "if you are so stupid and lacking in integrity that you would try to have sex with someone who’s drunk, then you deserve to suffer whatever legal consequences come your way"

But only men can be prosecuted for this, of course, because women are victims.

P. Froward said...

Pogo,

"Man proposes, woman deposes."

Bruce Hayden said...

Thorley said: "Agreed if you are so stupid and lacking in integrity that you would try to have sex with someone who’s drunk, then you deserve to suffer whatever legal consequences come your way."

And how, pray tell, do you really know when someone is drunk enough that they should not be held accountable here? Obviously, Pogo's notoriziation and breathalyzer testing service would work - but short of that?

I am reminded of a girl who died a year or so ago here at a college here in CO from alchohol poining. Guys at a fraternity gave her some booze, but it turns out she had been drinking all afternoon before even getting there.

The problem is that in many cases, you just don't know how much someone has been drinking before you meet them that night. W/o a BAC test, you don't know if they are sober, mostly sober, or drunk. This is esp. true if you don't know them that well in the first place (and sometimes, even then, you don't know).

Palladian said...

I think people should sign a preschtupptual agreement.

Daryl Herbert said...

Note what this statutory change actually did. It removed an exclusion of alcohol as a disabling substance. The prosecution still has to prove the elements of rape. The question is whether the alleged victim gave consent.

But isn't the bar being lowered on consent standards? Isn't that exactly what the change does to the law? That's how it's reported in article you're blogging:

Blanchard also stressed that the somewhat lower bar on consent standards for victims does not extend to perpetrators, who can be charged for crimes whether they have been drinking or not. (emphasis mine)

Bruce Hayden said...

Actually, since consent is a defense, the consent standard is being raised, by, IMHO, a great extent. The statute is making this defense significantly harder to assert.

The way it typically works is that the claimant says they had sex. The actor (term under CO law for the perp) claims that the sex was consensual. Now, this can be negated by a showing that the claimant was drunk and so couldn't legally give consent.

I will admit that this does make some sense in reality. One young woman I know passed out at a party and woke up to a guy having sex with her. She went directly to the police, they did the rape stuff, etc. But his defense was consent, and, thus, it turned into a he says/she says thing. Our complaint, besides that she was passed out when it started, was that she was underage and the DA had a prima facie case of statutory rape, which they didn't persue.

That said, the article made clear that one of the purposes of this new law was to prosecute date rape cases, where apparent consent had been given (which was not the case above). But the problem is that this negates the very real defense that the actor (usually the guy) was under the very real impression that there had been consent. The other party may have been begging for him to go on, but that doesn't matter now in Wisc. if they were also drunk at the time. And this opens up a lot of morning after regret "date rape" charges.

So, no more good wine with that nice dinner that has been the traditional way to woo a woman.

Marcella Chester said...

Most of the commenters seem to be grasping at myths about "date rape" that deny that a real rape could have happened. The fact is that real rapists - who know they didn't get consent - are going to reinforce those myths, not admit that they exploited a girl's or woman's inability to stop them from committing rape.

The dismissal of this serious crime is not only appalling, it is encouraging to those who believe exploiting the incapacitated is normal male behavior. These rapists believe you and they are no different.

The example of fraternity members who gave a girl alcohol before she died of alcohol poisoning was especially disturbing. They contributed to her death, but rather than holding them responsible for their actions, the commenter let them off the hook because the girl arrived under the influence.

The consensus among the men commenting on this post seems to be that women are to be held accountable for their actions after consuming alcohol, but men are to be excused because they couldn't know any better.

As a survivor of date rape, I have a low tolerance for those who attempt to deny that what happened to me and others like me wasn't really rape and that we are just vindictive women playing the victim if we contact law enforcement.

LizrdGizrd said...

Marcella,

I think you're missing the point. We're not denying that rapes occur when women are drunk. I think the point is that this makes it even easier for women to claim rape when there was mutual consent at the time but the woman later regrets the actions. This new law would allow her to negate her consent by claiming to have been unable to consent.

The real concern is that women can now withdraw consent after the fact if they choose to. Basically men are at the mercy of the woman's whim as to whether she wants to press charges or not after every consensual encounter.

Marcella Chester said...

Lizrd Gizrd,

Just because you and other men have a fear of false accusations doesn't mean it matches what happens in most criminal cases that are called incidences of "date rape."

If we were to believe everything accused rapists say, we'd have to believe real date rape is as mythical as the unicorn.

If a man isn't absolutely 100% sure he has true consent, that will be remembered the next day, he should stop.

tcd said...

Marcella,
Are you saying that false accusations never happen? Or that if false accusations do happen, then too bad, too sad for the poor schmuck who gets accused?

backbackheyhey said...

The woman in the newspaper article "repeatedly lost and regained consciousness during the incident". That sounds like a pretty clear example of someone who's incapable of giving consent. I have no objection to it being illegal to have sexual contact with someone in that condition, and I was frankly surprised that it wasn't already illegal.

But I wonder exactly where you draw the line. You don't go directly from being stone cold sober to being passed out drunk. There are degrees in between those two ends of the spectrum, and it's not clear to me at what point the law will determine that someone is too drunk to give consent.

Let's say that a man takes his girlfriend out for the evening. She has a few drinks, and they go back to her place. Her physical condition seems more or less normal, and her behavior isn't outrageous on its face, so a casual observer who doesn't know her well might not immediately pick up on the fact that she's been drinking. But he knows her well enough to tell that she's much less inhibited and more receptive to his advances than usual. The two have sex after she says and/or does something that would otherwise be considered a clear indication of affirmative consent.

Is he a rapist? I think that the concern a lot of posters have is that the answer might be "yes" under the new statute, at least if the woman changes her mind after the fact. The newspaper article doesn't make it clear one way or the other, and I frankly don't think the situation I described is rape at all.

I don't know that the "she changed her mind" scenario actually happens all that often. Maybe it's actually pretty rare. But I think it would be a good thing on general principal if the statute: a)was as clear as possible about where the line was drawn; and b)struck a balance to protect people like the woman in the newspaper article while still making it hard for someone to retroactively withdraw consent because they had regrets about what they had done. In practice, that might be very difficult to pull off, but I hope the people who wrote the statute at least tried.

Wade_Garrett said...

One of the inciting incidents of Tom Wolfe's novel "A Man In Full" is when a white co-ed at the University of Georgia gets drunk and sleeps with the football team's star running back. Her father, a prominent local businessman, presses charges against the running back, to save face in Atlanta's high society, which looks down upon miscegenation. Can you see something like this happening at the University of Wisconsin, a big football school in a very white (though seemingly racially tolerant) state? I'm sad to say it, but I can.

mrp said...

It might change the dating scene a bit; like insisting that the lady buy her own drinks.

Wade_Garrett said...

Also, I believe this state legislator mischaracterizes date rape. She says that alcohol is the #1 date rape drug, but she must be using a non-plain-english definition of the word "rape." I think what she meant to say was "alcohol causes more people to have sex they regret than any other drug," and that is probably the case, but its also something entirely different.

Some scumbag frat guys probably find drunken girls lying around their frat house at 3am and take all sorts of disgusting liberties with them. That's not "date rape," though, that's just plain old rape. Perhaps changing this statute is the only way to prosecute somebody like this. But, I agree with the other commenters that this is going to have all sorts of potentially dangerous consequences.

One might draw an analogy to the sodomy laws. Sodomy laws were passed in many states to provide prosecutors with a means to incarcerate sexual predators whose actions didn't rise to the level of rape, which at common law was VERY difficult to prove. Back then, it required an uninterested eyewitness, who would testify that the woman did everything in her power to resist for the entire duration of the intercourse. Sodomy gave prosecutors another cause of action, sure, but it lead to decades of discrimination against gays, blackmail, selective prosecution, you name it.

The concept of date rape is stupid. Either something is a rape or it isn't. Date rape, in everyday usage, means one of two things: 1) a rape where the woman knew her attacker, or 2) an event where a man misinterprets a woman's signals and goes too far. In both of those examples, either its rape, or its not rape. In murder, it doesn't matter whether the victim knew the attacker or not, or whether the attacker bought the victim dinner beforehand. Why should it matter for rape?

Marcella Chester said...

On the second meaning of the definition of date rape (where a man misinterprets signals), I disagree. If a woman is only giving "signals" that can be misinterpreted, there is no consent. And if there is no consent, there can be no false allegation by the non-consenter.

What many men seem to be claiming is that their guesses about a woman's consent when she is under the influence of alcohol should be good enough. If they guess wrong, then the woman who presses charges should be considered a liar.

When a decision makes the difference between whether an action is legal or a crime (maybe even a felony), I wouldn't want to make that decision based on a guess.

The only problem with the phrase "date rape" is the way some people use it to imply that it is an oxymoron. To eliminate it from all discussion, or to only allow those who mock the term to use it, is to eliminate the emphasis about how many girls and women are raped by their dates.

Wade_Garrett said...

Allow me to clarify: When men misinterpret a woman's signals and go too far, that is rape. The point I was trying to get across is that, even in that scenario, that, to me, is just regular rape.

What I was trying to get at was that the regular crimes can be very difficult to prove in court, so the legislature as added additional causes of action to allow the state to prosecute where they would otehrwise not have a very strong case. That's fine, but in so doing they run an enormous risk of generating unintended consequences, as with the sodomy laws.

Marcella Chester said...

TCD: "Are you saying that false accusations never happen?"

The best way I can answer this is to say that the odds of a drunken college student being falsely accused when he got full consent from a drunken partner are lower than the odds that he'll stumble drunk into the nearest body of water and drown.

That is a real and proven problem, not speculation fueled by the defenders of accused rapists.

Why we are 99.9% sure it is NOT a serial killer

TCD: "Or that if false accusations do happen, then too bad, too sad for the poor schmuck who gets accused?"

Nope, but if a man proceeds based only on the lack of a "No," or the woman's inability to say anything at all, that man is no poor schmuck. He created the situation, but wants to be seen as the victim.

Slac said...

I see a market for pocket breathalyzers. Next time you want to have sex with someone, make them breathe into the tube. A green light flashes, "yes indeed chances are good that you have 100% full consent almost certainly."

Then have all parties sign sexual agreement contracts.

Punctuater said...

Where does this bizarre, unquestioned assmuption come from that a woman having second thoughts and regrets on the morning after will find satisfaction in pressing rape charges? And, again, there is an unfounded assumption that the state will rush to the victim's aid, w a sympathetic ear and quick justice for the perpetrator. Even when the facts are clear and a conviction likely, there's much unpleasantness along the way for the survivor. And I'd bet my penis that there are more women who are raped who DON'T file charges than women who aren't raped who do.

The other relevant fact here: Wisconsin is the LAST state in the union to pass such a law.

bcubed said...

First: I'm a lush who enjoys getting loaded and seeking out other lushes for drunk sex. To paraphrase Bukowski, you might not think that's particularly noble or honorable of me, but it is my life.

That said, I'm offended by the implication that, as a lush, I ought to be deemed incapable of consenting to sex. In your infinite wisdom, should I be allowed to own property? Should I be counted as 100 or 60% of a person for census purposes? The right to engage in consensual sex with whomever I choose is my right as an adult and I'll be [darned] if I'm giving it up!

Also two thoughts: 1. with equal protecion under the law, you can't pass a law that applies to only men, blacks, or Methodists. Thus, any inebriate should fall under this law, and as more men drink to excess than women (if you doubt me, hit a bar at 10AM or so), this new law should logically be more used by men. 2. If I should happen to live my life in such a manner as to never draw a sober breath (not that I need the encouragement!), does this mean that I can never be called into account for my sexual behavior?

marzycielka z wielkiego miasta said...

So what if the girl is drunk and the guy isn't? And she, thinking he is her friend, gets into the car with him and his friends so that they can drive her home from the party... And his friends, who are also sober, are watching them have sex but do not stop the girl? Even though they have known her for some time and know that she is a virgin and doesn't want to have sex yet? Well now she's not a virgin.... Is that fair to the girl?

mastablend said...
This comment has been removed by the author.