PZ Myers accuses Michael Shermer of rape.

[Snarky]

Snarky, I just think that none of the advice is particularly valuable, since all of them can be gamed or bypassed by the perp, often by gaining the trust of the victim so they think it isn't necessary.

Just because some piece of advice will not prevent every rape doesn't mean it can't prevent some.

All security measures can be overcome by a sufficiently motivated attacker. That doesn't mean we should make it easy for them. Not all potential rapists are going to be "sufficiently motivated", and if nothing else, the more effort it takes the fewer rapes they'll be able to commit in a given period of time.

To hazard another analogy, it's as if I suggested that it would be risky to post your credit card details here on the forum, and you responded "Because no one has ever had their credit card details stolen while shopping at a perfectly respectable online store!"

So women are supposed to take their drinks with them to the toilet?

Obviously this depends on how cautious you want to get, but if you don't want to run the risk, the simplest thing would seem to be to ask a trusted (girl?)friend to watch over your drink for you. If that's not an option, you could always go to the toilet between drinks.

Additionally, a drunken or otherwise inebriated yes means no, too.

Eh, if every drunken shag is rape, then we'd better arrest 90% of the population (and offer them victim's counseling, too).

We can make conscious choices even while intoxicated (sometimes bad ones, to be sure). The legal standard is therefore rather tighter, often something to the effect of "functionally unconscious" (which doesn't necessarily mean unresponsive).

[dactylopus]

Additionally, a drunken or otherwise inebriated yes means no, too.

Eh, if every drunken shag is rape, then we'd better arrest 90% of the population (and offer them victim's counseling, too).

We can make conscious choices even while intoxicated (sometimes bad ones, to be sure). The legal standard is therefore rather tighter, often something to the effect of "functionally unconscious" (which doesn't necessarily mean unresponsive).

Not all of them are rape, that's for sure.  I'm not trying to imply that every sexual act committed with a slight buzz is a rape.

But, it often happens that a victim will give consent while intoxicated and later realize that their inebriation prevented them from making a sound judgement.  This isn't just a bad choice on their part.  This is a physical inability to properly consent.  I'm not sure how far your definition of "functionally unconscious" would go, maybe it covers this, but it sounds like someone who is awake enough to answer, but not conscious enough to understand.  Maybe that's where the law draws the line, but I would suggest that unless consent was given (or understood) prior to intoxication, it is probably better to err on the side of caution.  Even a fully conscious person can have their judgement sufficiently clouded by intoxicants.

Getting away from the intoxication debate, another thing to consider is that coerced consent is not really consent.  There are of course examples of coercion under threat or duress, but I'm talking about a more subtle variety.  A good example is the Family Guy's version of the James Bond character saying "50 no's and a yes means yes."  Obviously, this is a joke meant to parody that mentality, but some people out there might actually believe this to be true.  50 no's and a yes means coerced consent, or rape.

I think that these are the more complicated but important parts of the issue, because it can be difficult to understand where that line is drawn.  More education on these points would probably go a long way towards the prevention of sexual assault.

[Calin Leafshade]

But, it often happens that a victim will give consent while intoxicated and later realize that their inebriation prevented them from making a sound judgement.  This isn't just a bad choice on their part.  This is a physical inability to properly consent.

I think this exemplifies the problem with modern feminism's approach to rape. Are we to assume that women are children who aren't responsible for their actions? It's insulting to both sexes and a totally skewed perspective of reality.

If I drive drunk can I say "Well I wouldn't have driven drunk if I were of sound mind."? No, of course not. Just because you are drunk does not mean you are absolved of your responsibilities to yourself and to others.
Also, what if the "rapist" is drunk? Can he consent? What if the man is slightly more drunk than the woman. Has he just been raped?

Of course, it goes without saying that if a woman is unconscious and/or so drunk they are actually physically unable to consent then that's different.

Let's not always relegate the woman to the passive role in sex. Let's assume perhaps that she is an equal participant.

Let's also assume that 98% of men will not fuck a girl who is half conscious, vomiting and possibly covered in her own urine.
Exactly how terrible are men supposed to be in this fiction?

[Snarky]

Not all of them are rape, that's for sure.  I'm not trying to imply that every sexual act committed with a slight buzz is a rape.

But, it often happens that a victim will give consent while intoxicated and later realize that their inebriation prevented them from making a sound judgement.  This isn't just a bad choice on their part.  This is a physical inability to properly consent.  I'm not sure how far your definition of "functionally unconscious" would go, maybe it covers this, but it sounds like someone who is awake enough to answer, but not conscious enough to understand.  Maybe that's where the law draws the line, but I would suggest that unless consent was given (or understood) prior to intoxication, it is probably better to err on the side of caution.  Even a fully conscious person can have their judgement sufficiently clouded by intoxicants.

I don't find myself agreeing much with Calin in this debate, but on this point we're in line. Even when your judgment is impaired because you're intoxicated, you can still make decisions and be responsible for them. (If someone drugs you without your knowledge or consent in order to get you to do something you wouldn't otherwise do, I would say that that's a crime in itself, not to mention hella creepy, but not necessarily "rape" if you remained conscious and did consent. However, it would shift the burden of proof as to whether the intoxicated person was in fact conscious.)

I definitely agree that it's better to avoid having sex with someone you think is drunk enough that they might be doing something they'll regret, but as a matter of "when can a person not consent", I would say it's if they're so out of it that they don't know what's going on, if they're incapable of forming coherent thoughts, incapable of expressing what they wish, or incapable of acting on it.

Getting away from the intoxication debate, another thing to consider is that coerced consent is not really consent.  There are of course examples of coercion under threat or duress, but I'm talking about a more subtle variety.  A good example is the Family Guy's version of the James Bond character saying "50 no's and a yes means yes."  Obviously, this is a joke meant to parody that mentality, but some people out there might actually believe this to be true.  50 no's and a yes means coerced consent, or rape.

I hope that's obvious. If we're quoting sitcoms, I'd go with this classic bit from It's Always Sunny. (!Warning: potentially upsetting to some viewers)

[Khris]

If two people are really drunk, and they go home together, have sex, and in the morning, one of them regrets it, then no, they don't get to call it rape IMO.
But if one of them is sober enough to realize that the other person is too drunk to properly consent, they should've backed off, unless maybe they're convinced that the other person isn't going to regret it because there have been clear(!) signs all evening or something. (I'm only adding this so nobody will accuse of wanting to make it impossible to date or something).

I read an article by a woman who was raped multiple times by different men in different situations, and she put it like this: is the other person enthusiastic about having sex with you? If no, don't try to have sex with them. It's as simple as that, isn't it?

Calin:
Let's also assume that 98% of modern feminists are not screeching hyenas who want to chop off all penises. Exactly how terrible are feminists supposed to be in this fiction?

[bicilotti]

If two people are really drunk, and they go home together, have sex, and in the morning, one of them regrets it, then no, they don't get to call it rape IMO.
But if one of them is sober enough to realize that the other person is too drunk to properly consent, they should've backed off, unless maybe they're convinced that the other person isn't going to regret it because there have been clear(!) signs all evening or something. (I'm only adding this so nobody will accuse of wanting to make it impossible to date or something).

Wouldn't the perpetrator be better off by getting drunk rather than stying sober with these rules?

[Khris]

If somebody knows they'll try to rape others when they're drunk beyond being able to consent and deliberately causes that situation, then they're still guilty of rape of course.
But I was only talking about people who might end up being labeled as rapists unwillingly, and how to prevent that situation.

What you're saying only applies to a situation where there's already a rapist involved.

[bicilotti]

But I was only talking about people who might end up being labeled as rapists unwillingly, and how to prevent that situation.
What you're saying only applies to a situation where there's already a rapist involved.

Yeah. I find it strange that the fact that avg. Joe is intoxicated or not should change something regarding his responsibility in front of the law. If I get your example correctly:

• person A is drunk, A and B have sex, A regrets it -> rape
  
• person A and B are both drunk, they have sex, A regrets it -> no rape
  
  

[Khris]

I assume we agree that if A is so drunk that they can no longer consent, and average Joe takes advantage of that, it's clearly rape, right?

Now if Joe is really drunk himself, and happens to have sex with another really drunk person, and that person decides they were raped, Joe is in a pretty bad situation.
Since we also agree that getting really drunk isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card, they have at least some responsibility. The fact remains that they had sex with someone who didn't give full consent. They aren't necessarily a full rapist though, because the same thing happened to them, assuming that the sex wasn't one of them violating the other.
But they should've avoided either a) getting that drunk with potential sex partners around or b) having sex with someone really drunk.
So it's not necessarily "no rape", IMO.
I guess it comes to the question of how much of what happened was premeditated.

I mean, care to elaborate what your take is? What exactly are you objecting to?
And purely hypothetically, if my assessment were correct, and that also meant that rapists can avoid prosecution by getting really drunk, does that make my assessment false? I don't think so.

[Trapezoid]

This isn't about responsibility, it's about ability to consent. So quit with the oversimplified "if A and B are drunk" equations. Examine the realities of culture instead of shrugging hypotheticals.
A huge part of drinking culture is the power dynamics. Much of it is designed around guys helping girls get drunker than they intended. "Girly drinks" are designed to be more alcoholic than they taste. Guys top off girls' drinks so they lose count of their intake. Nobody is thinking "Mwuhahah yesss I'm gonna rape her," while they're doing this, they just think it's normal party behavior. Which it is. And that's the problem.

[bicilotti]

I mean, care to elaborate what your take is? What exactly are you objecting to?
And purely hypothetically, if my assessment were correct, and that also meant that rapists can avoid prosecution by getting really drunk, does that make my assessment false? I don't think so.

Yeah, basically what I find that, following your assessments (apart from probably increasing Type I errors in criminal prosecutions) leads to paradoxical situations: being intoxicated as disculpatory for the perpetrator (in some cases) is one of them. The whole "not full rapist though, because the same thing happened to them" is, pardon me, laughable (half rape? quarter o' rape? geiger counter for rape? both people being incriminated for rape?).

This isn't about responsibility, it's about ability to consent. So quit with the oversimplified "if A and B are drunk" equations. Examine the realities of culture instead of shrugging hypotheticals.

I derailed the thread, that's what happened! I want to stress I was talking about criminal law. As much as I hate the word "culture", I agree with what you said.

[Galen]

Well since you're presenting the idea, I say we call it the Bicilotti Scale.

In any case, verbal consent in a situtation where consent isn't meaningful is always going to be a gray area without introducing laws that pretty much ban drunken one night stands. If the 'perpetrator' is completely sober and intentionally going after incredibly drunk girls then that's predatory as all hell but good luck legislating against it effectively.

I can't really see people getting super-drunk to bypass any accusations either. Since at that stage of forethought I'd imagine they're far more on board with the more direct kinds of rape. Plus there's every chance they'll just pass out drunk instead (which I suppose would be preferable).