Feminism is kind of complicated.

[trog.livejournal.com]

Comments

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

My point is that the story can be spun however you want, it's just a hypothetical. If you find the concept of a 'revenge fuck' too distracting then let's drop that element and focus on the topic.

Part of the standard of legal consent is being off sound mind. This is already built into law in many places (such as in the UK, where having sex with someone too drunk to consent is illegal).

[drblasphlemy.livejournal.com]

It can also be spun however you want. You are spinning it now adding and then dropping elements to fit your narrative. I use you own words and I am spinning somehow.

Adults are presumed competent to consent. This presumption can be rebutted, for instance in circumstances of mental illness or other incompetence (i.e. intoxication or drugged).

People have drunk sex all the time. Some regret this decision. It doesn't mean that it is rape.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

"It can also be spun however you want. You are spinning it now adding and then dropping elements to fit your narrative. I use you own words and I am spinning somehow."

As I just explained, it's a hypothetical scenario. We can alter it it to fit whatever point we are attempting to illustrate.

Trying to put a spin on real life situations, but hiding some facts and drawing attention to others, is deceptive because they really happened. Hypothetical scenarios are not real; there is no foul play in changing the 'facts' of a hypothetical scenario around.

The ethics of a 'revenge fuck' are not relevant to the ethics of having sex with the severely intoxicated. If the former was becoming a distraction, it's best to drop it so we can turn our focus on the actual topic.

"Adults are presumed competent to consent. "

Unless drunk.

As I previously mentioned, it is illegal to have sex with a severely intoxicated person in the UK. They are not legally able to consent, and it is considered (by law) to be rape.

"People have drunk sex all the time. Some regret this decision. It doesn't mean that it is rape."

If I was trying to argue 'all drunk sex is rape' then I wouldn't have taken the time to craft an example about someone who was severely intoxicated.

[drblasphlemy.livejournal.com]

As I just explained, it's a hypothetical scenario. We can alter it it to fit whatever point we are attempting to illustrate.

Some would call this "spinning"

Unless drunk.

The problem with that is that having your judgment impaired does not count in any other situation. If you hit and kill someone with a car you cant argue it wasn't your fault because you were drunk, you weren't "thinking clearly". If you get drunk and blow all your money at the casino the casino wasn't "taking advantage of you because you couldn't give consent". Drinking is the decision to have impaired judgment, no one is FORCING you to get drunk and make a bad decision. I would love to see the court case where a girl has sex with her drunk boyfriend and got pregnant but the guy isn't a father because his decision to make a kid was "impaired". Absurd? Yep its the same thing.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

"Some would call this "spinning""

Yes, I did earlier. Rather wishing that I choose another word now because it seems to have rather distracted you from the conversation.

"The problem with that is that having your judgment impaired does not count in any other situation."

I think the issue here is that you are conflating the ability to give consent and criminal accountability.

That a person can't consent to having a tattoo when drunk means that a tattooist is not legally allowed to tattoo drunk persons. That doesn't imply that a drunk tattooist can forcibly tattoo people and expect no legal repercussions.

Similarly, you cannot consent to sex when severely intoxicated under UK law, which means that sleeping with a severely intoxicated person is legally rape. However, UK law doesn't grant any legal exemption for drunk rapists. Those are to separate issues.

Although there may well be laws on how sober you need to be to gamble. Makes as much sense as laws governing pubs wherein pub stewards have to stop serving drinks if someone has become too drunk.

"no one is FORCING you to get drunk and make a bad decision."

No one is forcing anyone to take advantage of drunk people either.

There are two sets of choices involved here. There are the choices that the drunk person may make (which they are criminally accountable for). There are also the choices that the sober person makes (which they are also criminally accountable for)

The choice that consent laws are concerned with is the choice of the sober person to take advantage of the drunk person.

[drblasphlemy.livejournal.com]

I think the issue here is that you are conflating the ability to give consent and criminal accountability.

I could say the same thing about you

That doesn't imply that a drunk tattooist can forcibly tattoo people and expect no legal repercussions.

I think your example is pretty ridiculous. I don't hear of too many forced tattooings or too many artists charged for giving tattoos to drunk individuals.

you cannot consent to sex when severely intoxicated under UK law

I can't speak for UK law. I am an american and I can only speak to the laws here in the U.S.

No one is forcing anyone to take advantage of drunk people either.

This is assuming that the drunk person is indeed being taken advantage of. Even if that is the case that is a moral/ ethical issue and not a legal one.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

"I could say the same thing about you"

You could, but it would be pointless if you didn't explain or justify it.

As it stands, I can't see how I could be conflating consent and criminal responsibility given that my position relies on them being two different things.

"I think your example is pretty ridiculous. I don't hear of too many forced tattooings or too many artists charged for giving tattoos to drunk individuals. "

Why does it matter how often it happens? It wouldn't matter if it never happened (although it does). Do you understand the role of hypothetical examples in clarifying matters of legal principle? It's frustrating that we're tripping over the same point again.

"I can't speak for UK law. I am an american and I can only speak to the laws here in the U.S."

Laws regarding rape seem to vary state-by-state, but a little google searching leads me to believe that similar notions are present in USA law. this link (http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=12517) discusses it and also comments on what I mentioned earlier; alcohol may remove the ability to consent, but it doesn't remove criminal responsibility.

"This is assuming that the drunk person is indeed being taken advantage of. Even if that is the case that is a moral/ ethical issue and not a legal one."

You're going to need to justify that claim. The issue of taking advantage of other people is a place where laws (both in the UK and the USA) are often applied. This whole issue boils down to misuse of power over other people who are in a state of vulnerability, which I think is definitely an area of legal interest.