Wait, that’s actually a real poster? What. The. Fuck.
Yea, both were drunk but fuck Jake and his rights because he has the penis.
I can understand and appreciate the intentions, but there are few things worse than good intentions without intelligence, flexibility and nuance, as the statements below seem accurate and feel utterly screwed up:
He got drunk and had sex with a woman - HE goes to jail.
She got drunk and had sex with a man - HE goes to jail.It’s almost like what Public Enemy said in “Fear Of A Black Planet”:
Black man, black woman - black baby
White man, black woman - black baby
Black man, white woman - black babyI feel like there’s a saying, something about hell and intentions.
ah, yes.
a simpler time when one is EASILY identified either by penis OR vagina ONLY.
unlike today.
^/j
he has the penis.
You don’t know that.
Rape charges don’t materialize from thin air. If she reported it then yes, fuck Jake not because of his penis, but because he did not obtain consent.
For some reason this thread has become chock full of people who seem to think men can do no wrong and “equality” means charging both people for rape even though only one of them felt they were assaulted. It’s understandable considering the demographics of the internet and social media sites like lemmy in general (often young men, teenagers, etc). But this is what the poster is talking about — you continue to make assumptions about what this woman has decided to do and consent to, when you have no right to those assumptions because she is intoxicated. It’s incredibly simple, but this thread is blinded by “woman bad” rhetoric around rape charges.
If you don’t rape, you won’t be in this situation. No ifs ands or buts about it. You can argue with me all you want, you can call me crazy all you want, it doesn’t change the fact I am right. Whining and crying about the unfairness of the courts when it comes to assault charges is a cringey position to take. Do better.
So charge the woman with rape charges as well. It’s either both were raped or neither were. He was drunk and she took advantage of him.
Did he wake up and think, “oh damn, I didn’t want to have sex last night”? If so, then yes, charge her. If not, then once again, he is in the wrong.
Did you ever to stop to think that you are sexist?
lol you’re sooo close to the point
No, not me, but you’re on the right track!
Look. It’s pretty clear that you’ve had some trauma but that’s nobody’s fault here. We have a right to free discourse without having to suffer your issues. Wish you well.
What is the point of this comment? I have never been raped, if that is what you’re implying. I’m capable of empathizing with victims of rape
You’re fucking insane.
Nah, I empathize with victims of rape. I urge them to report it when it happens. If you think that’s insane, well, says more about you than it does me
This isn’t empathy it’s a weird bit you’re trying to pull that’s intentionally misunderstanding or misrepresenting made up scenarios in which drunk people had sex.
Are you really trying to say women can’t be trusted with their actions when drinking? You want men to make all their decisions for them? You can’t be a real person.
That’s not at all what I’m saying. Are you saying that intoxicated consent is valid consent?
Moving goalposts now? I’m tired of arguing with trolls like you. Enjoy the block.
It’s heavily implied she consented while intoxicated, which is impossible according to the poster, and is therefore considered rape, even though both were under the influence
deleted by creator
Legal consent in criminal law and legal consent for contracts are two different things. It’s like you haven’t even read § 1-201 of the UCC…geeez! (/s on that last part if it wasn’t clear)
They both derive from the standard and have been interpreted differently given the different contexts and applications. For the purposes of this conversation about the poster, they’re similar enough to make the point. I’m not bringing suit, I’m trying to explain why legal consent and intoxication bear on one another in a court.
And? If either one of them felt as though they were taken advantage of, they should report the rape, no?
It’s the gross assumption that the man won’t regret his actions. Or that he wouldn’t be shamed and ridiculed just for trying to claim he didn’t want it.
You do better.
lol what? Literally what, a dozen times now? I’ve said if he was raped, he should report it. Stop putting words in my mouth lol
you do better, rape sympathizer.
This thread is full of prepubescent teen boys who seem to think “mens rights” are under attack and that rape is edgy. Y’all are absolutely insane, and I think it’s very telling that you continue to try to make me seem like the bad person here. Make no mistake: it’s y’all lol
I’ve said if he was raped, he should report it. Stop putting words in my mouth lol I think you should stop putting words in your own mouth. Either you’re intentionally trolling or a blatant misandrist.
He was drunk, therefore she didn’t get consent. So she did rape him. Period.
However, you and I both know if he tried to report it, it is a near certainty that it would go nowhere, and he’d be mocked and ridiculed for it not just enjoying how lucky he was to have had the attentions of a woman on him.
It’s a disgusting double standard and you’ve shown that you’re part of the problem.
lol who is spouting the double standards?? “If he tried to report it it wouldn’t go anywhere” ummm not true? Kinda sounds like you’re speaking from experience lol
It’s okay one day your frontal lobe will be fully formed and you’ll understand the basics of how the world works.
Keep labeling me whatever you want, the only one who is in the wrong is you lol
The end all be all here is — don’t rape. Idk why you’ve got such a problem with that, most reasonable people don’t. If you can’t understand that then I don’t think you have any right to say who is a problem at all 😂
I mean, it is more than a bit sexist but… that is probably the demographic who need to understand this in a college environment.
Consent is incredibly important and a LOT of media for the past few decades shat on it. No, I don’t (just) mean how basically every movie in the 80s was about raping people. I mean even “Okay, what if we got you/her drunk?” and so forth. I want to say even Friends and Seinfeld played the idea of one of the guys getting their girlfriend drunk for laughs (well, I think Jerry used turkey?).
Reminding people “that is a crime and you can go to jail” is important… even if people rapidly learn that rich white guys never go to jail.
I know two males who were raped by women when unconscious in college, and neither of them were okay with it.
People always picture a huge unattractive woman when this gets brought up.
But one of my college roommates got raped by a girl who was at least “an 8”.
They had hooked when he was blackout and she was just tipsy. He wanted nothing to do with her tho, and told her that repeatedly. She was just hot, young, and had never been turned down before.
So like a week later we have a party he’s not at. She showed up early, had two beers, then went to “wait” in his bed. Even though everyone was telling her not to do that.
When he shows up, still wants nothing to do with her, so just gets blacked out at the party instead of kicking her out of his bed asap. I guess trying to wait her out and hoping she’d eventually give up.
By the time he finally goes to bed, he’s blacked out and she’s been in there line 6-8 hours and completely sober.
Next morning she teased him about how they had sex again but he kept falling asleep during it.
If he was a chick, no one would argue that the second time was rape. Hell, we’d have probably fought a guy if he kept insisting he was going to “wait” in a drunk girls bed who was clear she didn’t want anything to do with him.
Yes, it happens, and it can be very emotionally damaging for men too. One of the guys I was talking about was a virgin, and wanted to wait until he was married to have sex. He passed out in a bedroom at a party, and one of the women there stripped him naked, got him hard, and had sex with him. He was only vaguely conscious when this was happening. He had a very difficult time accepting that his years worth of discipline and sacrifice were stolen from him.
But if he didn’t want to have sex he had no business drinking! He should have known she wanted to bone down, and his drinking is an implicit yes! I’m being sarcastic, yes, but I only think to post this because while reading your comment, I had a bit of a knee jerk “he shouldn’t do that” to him getting drunk again.
This is part of why this rhetoric is damaging. People who CAN reason past those immediate reactions even start to get tripped up. I can’t imagine being a teen and how confusing all of this mess must be.
Yep, the Seinfeld episode, he fed her enough to make her fall asleep so he could play with her collectable toys
Seinfeld raped those toys because she ate turkey
BrandNewSentence
Yeah I don’t get the hate. Drunk people can’t consent. It is pretty simple.
Then why wouldn’t she be charged with rape?
They both went straight to prison. For the crime of being cool people that got laid while they were partying.
What legally constitutes rape varies by jurisdiction. Some places still define rape as “they put their penis inside someone who didn’t want it inside them”. This is a much more narrow definition than what is generally accepted by the public today, but legal definitions are often dated. Those jurisdictions usually have separate, wider definitions for sexual assault or other acts of harm, though, so it’s not a free for all.
Yes, if she was the instigator.
That’s not what the poster sez.
Because rape means penetration of someone without consent. Assuming Josie probably doesn’t have a penis, it’d be incredibly hard to charge her with rape.
Not making someone penetrate you without their consent?
Listening not trying to get all Jordan Peterson “WHATS HAPPENING TO MEN” here, but if it doesn’t cut both ways what are we really doing?
I think for women, it’ll count as sexual assault. I think legally it can be as bad as rape, considering jail time and such. Both are felonies.
Drunk people can’t consent, not just drunk women. That’s the point of contention.
Edit: it’s worth mentioning that there are definitely limits to this statement. If two people at the nightclub have had several drinks and decide to hook up, that’s probably okay. They’re two consenting adults, even though they’re legally drunk. The issue is when one of the people is significantly impaired, to the point where they can’t really think clearly and consent or object. Just having a few beers and fucking isn’t a crime, and anyone who thinks it is is a prude.
It is nuanced for sure. A married couple can get drunk and have sex and it can be consensual, but it also could not be. And I purposefully didn’t mention gender at all.
It is a big problem and each instance has its own facts.
Edit: it’s worth mentioning that there are definitely limits to this statement. If two people at the nightclub have had several drinks and decide to hook up, that’s probably okay. They’re two consenting adults, even though they’re legally drunk. The issue is when one of the people is significantly impaired, to the point where they can’t really think clearly and consent or object. Just having a few beers and fucking isn’t a crime, and anyone who thinks it is, is a fucking prude.
Jesus fucking christ
No. Drunk people cannot consent. Doesn’t matter if both people are drunk. Whether that is a crime or not gets into a grey area. But if the only reason you care about consent is whether you can get in trouble for ignoring it…
No. Drunk people cannot consent. Doesn’t matter if both people are drunk. Whether that is a crime or not gets into a grey area. But if the only reason you care about consent is whether you can get in trouble for ignoring it…
The grey area is literally the whole topic of discussion, though. A blanket statement like “drunk people can’t consent” fails an examination of even its first order implications. What actually has happened when two equally drunk adults have sex? Did they rape each other? What if both of them insist after the fact that they both gave consent? That wouldn’t matter right, since drunk people can’t give consent?
Why does this only apply to sex? If drunk can’t consent to anything then why is drunk driving a crime? Sure it endangers others but the drunk person didn’t consent to getting in the car in the first place because drunk people can’t consent. What else can drunk people do and bear no responsibility for?
You gloss over the grey area as if it doesn’t matter when it’s literally the whole issue. The grey area contains all the hard questions , but instead of even attempting answer any you gloss over it, whine about incels, and hide behind the obviously indefensibly broad statement that “drunk people can’t consent”.
You’ll note I did not dispute your “drunk people, not just drunk women” statement as I do agree with that (I even said as much above).
What I take immense issue with is you deciding that suddenly drunk people CAN consent so long as both parties take a few shots. Which is horrifying. And now you are using drunk driving as a way to further justify what I am increasingly certain are some REALLY fucked up things you have done.
Jesus fucking christ. Get help before you hurt more people.
You haven’t realized that you’re talking to different people, and now you’re accusing all of them of having done horrible things because they recognize that there are degrees of competency when drinking. The law says you’re legally drunk at 0.08 ABL, yet there are millions of people who can function just fine at that level. Sure, their reactions are probably slow for the purpose of driving, yet they can still perform advanced mental functions such as debate, mathematics, artistic creation, or programming. Why is sex the magic thing they absolutely cannot do in your eyes?
You’ll note I did not dispute your “drunk people, not just drunk women” statement as I do agree with that (I even said as much above).
I’m not the same person. Perhaps you’re too drunk to consent to this conversation?
What I take immense issue with is you deciding that suddenly drunk people CAN consent so long as both parties take a few shots.
What you take issue is immaterial. Is it true, or not? Mutual rape doesnt make sense as a concept . Also, what defines “drunk”? A blackout drunk person obviously can’t consent to anything but then two blackout drunk people physically can’t have sex so that’s not really in the grey area at all. And yet surely one sip of beer doesn’t do it. Are you even going to address the very basic conversation of what constitutes drunk in terms of being able to consent to sex? Or is that another question to be glossed over?
Which is horrifying.
Why? Explain why. Why are you horrified that two consenting adults can go to a bar, have a few shots, then have sex? This happens millions of times every day - are you just always horrified? Who are you to tell those consenting adults that they actually didn’t give consent and were raped?
And now you are using drunk driving as a way to further justify what I am increasingly certain are some REALLY fucked up things you have done.
You’re certain of nothing. You’re an unserious person who craves moral highground even if it’s imagined.
Jesus fucking christ. Get help before you hurt more people.
Lol
You’re avoiding the question.
Unintentionally I hope.
replies to two separate people thinking they’re the same person > makes an unhinged claim that both these people (that you still think is one person) must be evil people > tells them to get help
don’t change lemmy
Drunk people absolutely can consent. It depends on how drunk they are. That was the person who you replied to’s point
You’re right, drunk people can’t consent.
That is not what the poster says.
The poster states, in no unclear terms, that drunk WOMEN cannot consent. This is clearly evident by the scenario being laid out as the same for both parties, but one, the male, was accused of rape.
I mean, the “#NotAllMen” incels tend to come out of the woodwork any time they see something like this.
Don’t agree with somebody? Automatic incel I guess. (Or ist, phobe, bigot etc)
Typical thought process on this platform.
Narrator note: “this platform” refers to “the entire internet”
No it’s just Lemmy lol
Go back to reddit then?
What, you’re a man who doesn’t want to be raped? Fucking incel
Yep. The irony is the average Lemmy user would think Reddit is horrible for it yet it’s seems to be common on Lemmy to.
The good news is that it is really nice to get a blocklist out of all the people who need to talk about how it is totally not rape if you document that you were drunk too.
Yes this actually was a thing for many years. They actually made women into children and men the only responsible party.
To be fair there aren’t many restrictions on what can be on a poster
On my new poster “RagingRobot. Pedophile or Saint you choose. Detach below.”
I’m not a law talking guy, this isn’t the law, and it isn’t ethical best practice but it might help people understand the reasonableness of the poster.
I believe it’s true that drunk people can’t consent. I think that what juries are likely to actually care about is the question:
Did the accused have the reasonable belief that the plaintiff would consent to sex while sober?
If you’re in a police interview or a trial and are asked:
What made you think the plaintiff consented to your actions?
And all you can say without perjuring yourself is:
I vaguely recall that they seemed kinda into it, and they didn’t say no, oh! and they didn’t fight back.
You’re going to have a bad time. ESPECIALLY if you’ve been drinking, because it will be easier to question the reasonableness of your belief in their consent.
This poster is clearly meant for a place similar to a university dormitory.
This poster is bad because: it makes the law seem lopsided, and perpetuates sexist ideas about gender and sex.
The poster is good because: unfortunately, too many men think that if a girl is drunk at a place where he thinks the girls are looking for drunk hookups, that she consents to whatever she doesn’t fight (and maybe more). Too many men misunderstand consent and have dangerous ideas about what women really want. It’s much better they be scared into over thinking whether they’re risking arrest than that they rape somebody.
Obviously more nuance is good, but if you’re trying to stop drunk 18 year olds from raping/being raped, taping up a poster like this in the stairwell is more effective than taping up an essay.
Let me slide in here and say absolutely not to one key point here. If you are in a law office or a trial and you are asked anything, especially regarding something as serious as a rape accusation, you say absolutely nothing, you shut the fuck up and let your attorney do the talking.
Good to see more people linking to this. Hey, if you’re an American reading this comment and that link is still blue, turn it purple. lt’s arguably the most important video on the internet for every American to watch.
Yeah fair, I mean I think I implied you shouldn’t say the quote.
Don’t talk to police.
Unless you’re a rapist, in which case please tell them all about how she has to be held responsible for her decision to get blackout drunk and seduce you. And how she definitely wanted it because she didn’t say no. It will really help you get them on your side. The police are all good ol’ boys, they’ll totally get it. “Women ☕️”, “boys will be boys”.
It’s a good poster, and statistically men are probably in the wrong more often, but it’s core fundamental flaw is that NEITHER party could consent and technically Josie committed rape by the same logic that Jake did.
Statistics get murky due to (suspected?) under reporting by victims who identify as male because society still makes people feel “weak” or “like it is their fault” if they are raped. I am not entirely convinced as to how much that evens things out (mostly because victims who identify as female ALSO drastically under report due to an understanding that the legal system will just call them a slut and move on…), but it is a good thing to keep in mind and victims who identify as male SHOULD seek help.
In a perfect world? I would want an extra line about “but Josie was too drunk to say no” and maybe do a gender flipped one too. But there are reasons I don’t write short and concise flyers.
But the issue with explaining that neither party can consent is… what we see in this thread. Lots of people who insist that because neither side could consent then it isn’t rape and nobody is in the wrong. Because that CAN be true. But the reality is that “Well, we both had a few shots of whiskey and both wanted it at the same time” that ignores differences in body weight and tolerance to alcohol and whatever meds a person might be on and so forth. Which mostly gets back to the age old “Get her drunk and fuck her” mentality that involves “hey, let’s both do shots” and so forth.
Its one of those cases where less nuance is actually PROBABLY better. Because you either understand the law at play and don’t feel the need to go into a great discussion and debate of it… or you are the kind of monster who is carrying around a printout of the law so you know what you can get away with.
Idk man, I’d rather just have a poster that says:
REGARDLESS OF AGE, WEIGHT, OR GENDER
A PERSON CANNOT CONSENT WHILE INTOXICATED
YOU WILL BE CHARGED WITH RAPE,
YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM HIGHER EDUCATION,
YOU MAY SERVE PRISON TIME,
AND YOU MIGHT EVEN BE FORCED TO LIVE IN A
SEPERATE NEIGHBORHOOD AMONGST
OTHER SEX OFFENDERS FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE.
In big bold red letters on a white background. If the people seeing it don’t understand after that, then they’re a lost cause.
Nah. 18 year old me would read this and think… everyone I know is getting drunk and having sex all the time, but I don’t know anyone that’s been charged with rape and never heard of people forced to live on whatever rapist neighbourhood.
If the people seeing it don’t understand after that, then they’re a lost cause.
Sorry that’s just not how communication works.
If you’re trying to tell someone something, making dramatic claims just undermines your credibility.
The logic you’re using could be used to defend any number of stupid illegal activities, it’s got a real hardcore SovCit vibe.
These nuances are why this poster is absolute shit, though. Sex, rape, and consent are such incredibly deep, complicated topics that you really can’t boil them down to a poster and have it touch on a fraction of what it needs to.
Right now, this poster very much makes it out to always be the guy’s fault. That’s an issue, even if it’s not the case. I can see this poster having an inverse effect. The people who need to understand it have a knee jerk counter reaction, and the people who have enough understanding to deduce the nuance already aren’t raping people.
The poster is at best worthless, a tree gives its life for that, or it’s actively harmful.
Yes, but did Josie unreasonably believe that Jake would consent to sex with her while sober?
Police don’t charge Josie because they don’t think a conviction is likely, because they don’t think they’ll be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the question I suggested juries are likely to be (actually) considering.
Yeah but isn’t the whole crux of the thing that people aren’t responsible enough to give consent while drunk?
But if you’re not responsible for your actions while drunk, then why is the man responsible for his actions while drunk? Is a drunk man considered responsible enough to determine the sobriety of the people he’s with?
I mean sure don’t have sex with a lady if she’s way too drunk, but that can be difficult to determine. I’ve been in situations where I was out with a woman who was so drunk she could barely walk and yeah, obviously that was a no go (though the next morning it all worked out). But what is the limit on how many drinks a lady can have before she’s no longer able to consent? Is this a scenario where there needs to be a breathalyzer involved?
And yeah, I’ve woken up with women I wouldn’t have been with had I been sober. Was I raped? Nah, I was just being a drunken idiot.
Yeah but isn’t the whole crux of the thing that people aren’t responsible enough to give consent while drunk?
Not exactly how I’d frame it but go on…
But if you’re not responsible for your actions while drunk
Wait what, who who said that? That’s not a conclusion based on your premise. All we said is that intoxicated people can’t consent.
I mean sure don’t have sex with a lady if she’s way too drunk, but that can be difficult to determine.
Would it be reasonable to believe they would consent to sex with you while sober?
And yeah, I’ve woken up with women I wouldn’t have been with had I been sober. Was I raped?
Was it reasonable for them to think that you would have consented to sex with you while you were sober?
Wait what, who who said that? That’s not a conclusion based on your premise. All we said is that intoxicated people can’t consent.
The poster did. If your actions as a prosecutor are to punish one party who is at the same level of drunkenness as the other, who you’re letting go, for the same actions (sex with a drunk person), then yeah, you’re saying at least sometimes, you’re not responsible for your actions while drunk.
Being drunk leads to poor reasoning and poor decision making whether you’re male or female. Either apply the same standard or don’t. If she wants to pursue action against him, or the state does, then they both face the same penalty, considering the same crime.
You also seem to default to making judgements about what another person’s theoretical state of mind would be if they weren’t drunk in this situation. That might work for prosecution, but it’s a shit heuristic for actually preventing anything. I don’t know most people’s states of mind when we’re both sober, and now you’re expecting a drunk person to figure out another drunk person’s sober mindset?
People are responsible for their actions, and the foreseeable consequences of their actions.
If it was not reasonable for her to believe he would consent to sex while sober, she should not have had sex with him.
It’s my hypothesis that prosecutors will only bring charges if they think they can convince a jury that a person was not reasonable to believe the other party would consent to sex while sober.
That might work for prosecution, but it’s a shit heuristic for actually preventing anything
Yeah which is why posters like this are good. Don’t have sex with drunk strangers. Don’t have sex with drunk platonic friends. Don’t have new types of sex with existing serial sexual partners unless it’s reasonable for you to believe they would consent while sober.
I don’t know most people’s states of mind when we’re both sober, and now you’re expecting a drunk person to figure out another drunk person’s sober mindset?
No I’m asking them not to try. If your judgement is impaired by alcohol, don’t try to assess if someone has consented to sex with you.
In the event of a court trial? That likely would come into play. The argument that the defendant was also too inebriated to make an informed decision. I don’t know what the legal equivalent of “mulligan?” is but… yeah
But… how do you prove that you were drunk enough? Were their witnesses? Why the fuck would there be witnesses in your bedroom while you are hooking up? It very much becomes “he said, she said” with the path being character assassination. And if that comes across as “massively fucked up and unfair” then… I strongly suggest researching how the average rape trial goes.
As for “how drunk is drunk enough?” That is very much a question. And is why it is good to have “the talk” with a potential partner. If they are at all slurring their voice or seem “drunk” then you take a raincheck. And if this is some rando who drank half a bottle of whiskey but still seems good to drive? Maybe be a bit more selective on who you stick it in?
And yeah, I’ve woken up with women I wouldn’t have been with had I been sober. Was I raped? Nah, I was just being a drunken idiot.
Honestly? You know you. But understand that we have decades (probably closer to a century or two?) of indoctrination to make people blame themselves for “being taken advantage of”. How many sitcoms have “the walk of shame” where one of the main characters drank too much, “slept with” someone they didn’t want to, and is now shamed as a slut or a fool because they woke up the morning after with them in their bed? And how often is the abhorrent admirer portrayed Urkel-style with “I’m gonna wear you down”? And that applies to men, women, and everyone in between.
Because yes, it is very much a question. And… because of the legal system and society, it is almost never in a victim’s interests to actually press charges. But people need to learn: “I drank too much at a party and someone I didn’t want to have sex with convinced me to have sex” is not “I was stupid”. It is “I was coerced into sex”. And whether an individual considers that rape is very much a personal thing. Legally? it is. But I am not going to blame anyone for wanting to avoid that word for the purposes of their own sanity.
It’s just a messy situation no two ways around it. Lots of judgment calls when people are too intoxicated to have good judgement.
Generally as a society we do consider people somewhat responsible for their actions when they’re drunk. Like you can’t say “I was too drunk to know that I shouldn’t drive home.” If I’m too drunk to be able to say no to someone, that’s my responsibility. Other people are drinking too, and it’s not their responsibility to make absolutely certain that when I’m saying “yes” to someone I might not normally go with.
Sure there can be ugly situations where someone is coercing someone, but there can also be innocent situations where someone is just flirting and things go a little further than normal because alcohol is involved. And there’s everything in between.
And the shame of being considered a slut comes into it. I don’t really feel all that ashamed of waking up with someone I wouldn’t have normally been with if I was sober. We had sex, nothing to be ashamed of there. I had sex with someone I wouldn’t have normally been with. If there’s no shame in it, why would I be angry with that person?
Yes, but did Josie unreasonably believe that Jake would consent to sex with her while sober?
What if Jake wouldn’t have consented if sober, because although he thought Josie was a smoking hot sex goddess and would probably consent to some hanky panky next week, he had only broken up with Janie a few days prior and wouldn’t want to hurt her by moving on too soon, does that still make it rapey?
does that still make it rapey?
Was it reasonable for Josie to believe he would consent to sex while sober?
If Jake had explained to Josie that he was really hurting about breaking up with Janie, and didn’t want to do anything that would jeopardize his chances of fixing that relationship, then it would not be reasonable for Josie to believe he would consent to sex while sober and therfore she shouldn’t have had sex with him.
Unfortunately our society’s sexist gender conditioning have ingrained lopsided expectations that people have to navigate.
Is it unfair that it’s more reasonable to believe a drunk man would soberly consent to sex? Yes. But that doesn’t change what’s reasonable for Josie to believe. We don’t know what information was available because it’s a hypothetical, we can imagine all sorts of scenarios.
If you’re not able to assess if a person would soberly consent (because you’re drunk, or because they’re drunk) do not have sex with them.
Your answer is great, but it really addresses whether Josie ought to hook up with Jake, not whether doing so would be rape.
As a young man in my 20s, there were plenty of times I ought not have had that 6th beer, ought not have ate some more cake, ought not have driven quite so fast.
To me, if someone cheats on their partner while drunk, even if they would not have done that while sober, that does not make them a rape victim. It may well make both participants repugnant scum, but the term “rape” is a serious one and I don’t think it really applies in my this specific example.
Yes, but did Josie unreasonably believe that Jake would consent to sex with her while sober?
In 1998 that might be a reasonable concern, but I think nowadays it definitely begs the question. Young men are pickier than they used to be, less prolific in general.
Right, so if it’s not reasonable to believe that a person would consent to sex with you while sober do not have sex with them.
I think the issue with this poster is that it’s SO lopsided that it doesn’t make any sense. They’re outlining a very specific scenario that implies that only males can rape, and that males are more capable of decision making when drunk than females. It’s simultaneously misogynist and misandrist.
A much better take on a college campus night be to illustrate different levels of drunkenness. Alice was sloshed and Bob was tipsy. Or illustrate that the same quantity of alcohol can lead to vastly different levels of intoxication. Alice and Bob both had 3 drinks. Alice is sloshed, bob is tipsy.
As is, if I had seen this poster during any developmental years I’d have written it off as bs propaganda and done what I was gonna do anyway. Fortunately, that’s not-raping in my case, but for some people, it may be a bit blurrier. And, at worst, some people may see this, see how horribly lopsided it is, and decide it MUST be full of shit and do the opposite.
I’ll grant that the poster is lopsided and misogynist. Maybe it’s also misandrist.
I think people are getting confused because they think the poster is saying “this is how you should treat women”. It’s actually more like “You should know that this is how police will treat you”.
And, at worst, some people may see this, see how horribly lopsided it is, and decide it MUST be full of shit and do the opposite.
I wish I had enough confidence in humanity to disagree.
If the poster reframes it as “this is how the police treat you” then I see it being a lot more favorable. If it also took a slightly less hard-line stance, insisting on affirmative consent for instance, it’d also fly better. Overall the message and intent of the poster is clearly a good one, but it’s touching an area where every single person is so vastly different on, that nuance MUST be taken into consideration, or it’s just going to hit wrong.
Yeah affirmative consent is good, but remember that a drunk person can’t actually give affirmative consent.
Again I think that’s too narrow of advice to give. What is suitably drunk to prevent consent from being given? Where is the determining factor, and do you actually expect potentially inebriation, horny adolescents to be able to ascertain it?
Affirmative consent is a LOT harder to unintentionally give. It’s easy to just mumble out an “mhm” to get the situations over with, but it takes thought and consideration to actually say words, "yes, I want you to -specific act-. Advising someone to always seek affirmative consent if they’re unclear is MUCH more actionable.
do you actually expect potentially inebriation, horny adolescents to be able to ascertain it?
No, which is why they shouldn’t have sex with people that are drunk.
That is one of those things that is just going to happen. People WILL engage in boundary pushing behavior. Be it sex while inebriated or something else. These things are normal, and saying broadly, “just don’t do it” doesn’t reduce any harm. More effective harm reduction comes with a degree of understanding and measure, saying at least obey these much more easily achievable guidelines.
So does this mean I can get out of a bad used car deal by drinking before signing the contracts?
You can’t fire me for being late to work, I was drunk!
Let me know.
How not to rape someone 101:
“can I _____?”
“Would you like to ___?”
That it. That’s all there is too it.
I probably err too much on the side of caution with stuff but when I’m on a date with someone if it’s going well I I always just ask point blank if can kiss them like I’m proposing an update to their insurance policy.
By and large women… Appreciate and hate it. They want you to just know what to do and when without the unsexy as hell approach I take, but they understand why and are glad that you’re doing that over the alternative pushy stuff they tend to run into.
one time it turned what I thought was a surefire yes into a no but I’ll take it over the horrific consequences of not reading the room correctly.
The exception is group sex. If I think some wild shit is going to down I’m doing the naked man. Ik 2 for 2 there.
There are times I absoultely would not have sex with someone sober.
That’s pretty much the reason I drink, to be more fun, to let loose and be less socially awkward.
I bet the majority of women I slept with I wouldn’t have done it sober. Hell some of then I had sex with twice haha. I really don’t understand this argument.
There’s been several women in my past that I only slept with because they spent the night pouring drinks in me because I was too shy/socially awkward to make a move. By the logic of this poster (if it was consistent between genders) they raped me, and I don’t feel that way at all. There’s such a huge gray area around the whole “sex while drunk” thing that makes it really hard to resolve sometimes. Obviously someone getting someone who’s previously said “No” drunk in order take advantage of them is wrong but that’s hardly the only scenario.
Males can consent while drunk, females can’t… bullshit it isn’t equal.
Hear me out here: this is a case for feminism. Real feminism, with equality as its goal, not the mockery that gets created and elevated by the stupid fucking culture wars. It’s not that men can consent while drunk. It’s that men can’t ever not consent, and it comes from the deep-seated misogynist idea that men are dumb animals that would fuck a hole in the wall and aren’t responsible for their actions. In a lot of cases that “boys will be boys” line of reasoning is used to limit men’s exposure to repercussions for sexual misconduct, but the relatively new phenomenon of filing rape charges when the woman is intoxicated has taken that abhorrent stereotype and turned it into the idea that women can’t consent while drunk but men can because, again, men can’t ever not consent.
I believe the term “feminism” have a discrimination connotation, maybe we should invent something like equalism… sounds more accurate at least for me.
Feminism is about equality. As long as we still have frequent female firsts, we’re gonna need feminism. For example, we’ve been in space for 50 years, and just last year we had our first entirely female spacewalk. We are only now planning on sending a woman to the moon. Last year, the number of female CEOs finally outnumbered males… Named John.
We need equality, and in many cases, that means we need to improve the ways we as a society treat women.
You’re absolutely right, I’m not disagreeing with anything you said. It’s just important to note that there are areas where gender stereotyping hurts men too, and those areas are being seized upon by anti-equality movements and used to frame the movement as feminists vs men when we as feminists could be framing them as feminists, including men, vs harmful stereotypes.
That is actually a major concern for feminism atm. The old guard stands by the term but it’s toxic to the people it needs to reach.
You ask an angry young man if he’s a feminist, he’ll say no.
You ask him if he agrees with most feminist points, he’ll usually say yes.
Males are afraid of telling they are not agree with feminism cos they are afraid of what women will say cos they have been indoctrinated to be simps. They just want women validation cos there is a black hole of self-esteem on nowdays males. Let’s see what happens when all the kids of single feminist moms grow up but I believe this will go even crazier.
I’m a feminist and I’m not afraid of anything.
Oh yeah? Well what about ghosts, tough guy?
I’m a ghostinist and I’m not afraid of anything
I hate how this also manages to objectify women.
So what if it’s two men? Or two women?
Typically, the one doing the penetrating is charged. Not always, there are cases of heterosexual rape where the woman is the aggressor. These posters are from a not-too-distant past where only men raped only women. If it was 2 guys, it was just weird gay stuff. Girl was the aggressor…guy should feel lucky. 2 girls; “nice.”
Girl was the aggressor…guy should feel lucky.
And if he didn’t, he must be gay. Yeah, those were harsh words for a 15 year old in 1990…
Index out of bounds exception
Well, clearly with two men they raped each other. Two women, no crime.
But if the men can consent but the women can’t…
It’s not about consent, it’s about penis bad. Really, though, it goes either way.
The universe collapses in on itself, turning into a supermassive ultrablack hole
I believe that’s in the Bible.
Then the manliest one is charged. If no man is found there is no crime
It’s hotter
I don’t think these were legally binding posters. I’m not sure you’d get super far if even one person was drunk in court, unless they were literally blackout drunk and you had video evidence of it (or you were black of course).
If Josie killed someone while being drunk, would that mean she should get a lower sentence because she cannot be held responsible for her actions while intoxicated?
Only if the other person was also drunk.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intoxication
It can be used as a defense to some extent in most places. Most places have multiple levels of “killing a person” crimes. Typically first degree murder is premeditated, second degree murder has some element of mental or emotional disability, and manslaughter is a step above an accident.
Mothers against drunk drivers has been lobbying to increase the penalties for drunken homicides.
Is there one for accidental? I always thought second degree was accidental. Like if you’re cutting a tree down and someone who ignored warnings walked into the falling trees path.
It’s kind of a gray area. If you do something that kills someone and a reasonable person could not have foreseen the possibility of the death, then it’s just an accident. They don’t need a term for it because you won’t be prosecuted. This would be like if you gave someone a banana and they ate it and died and neither of you knew that they had a banana allergy.
Manslaughter is when you could have reasonably foreseen the death before you did the thing that caused the death. This would be like driving too fast on a wet road losing control and killing your passenger.
Third degree homicide is a step beyond that. You are doing something that you know is stupid at this point. This would be like driving with a blindfold on and crashing and killing your passenger.
Second degree is when you know that what you’re doing is very likely to kill someone. This would be like shooting a gun down a crowded street, aiming at a tree, but hitting a person and killing them instead.
First is when you kill somebody and you meant to kill them. Obvious.
All the examples I gave could arguably be in an adjacent category depending on the exact facts. It all has to do with the mental state of the person who is doing the dangerous thing. What did they mean to do? Could they have reasonably foreseen that what they are doing could result in a death? Factors like intoxication, mental illness, and emotional disturbance all affect a person’s mental state. There is nuance to that as well. If you know you become violent when you get drunk then you are less likely to successfully convince a jury that you didn’t know what you were doing. Some people get drunk or high to give themselves the nerve to commit a crime.
This was amazingly descriptive, easy to understand, and nuanced. Thank you for the time you took to write this 🙂
I’ve understood it as:
First degree murder is intended and premeditated.
Second degree murder is intended but not planned ahead.
Third degree murder is when harm was intended but not death.
Manslaughter is an accident but one you should have known better and avoided.
Not that I’m disagreeing that those standards could be applied in accidental cases depending on the stupidity and predictability of the accident.
Sorry you got downvoted, this is valid.
What I’ve described is the law school crash course version. (I was a public defender for 4 years)
What you described is the common lay person version.
I don’t like using the premeditation language because premeditation can be less than a second. The lay understanding is that premeditation needs to be actual planning, like a heist. That is not the case.
So first and second degree are better separated through analyzing how much intentionality there was in the murder. Mens Rea, or mental state, is an important concept in criminal law.
You are correct that third degree can be intent to harm but went too far and actually killed the person. I never saw that version of third degree because it’s nearly impossible to prove that you only meant to batter/assault someone when they are dead because you beat them. Of course you give the jury the option for it, but most people will just think you meant to kill them.
Manslaughter is more than a mere accident. It’s a reasonably foreseeable accident. It sounds like I’m splitting hairs, but it is nuanced. If you slip and fall into a person and they fall in front of a train and get splattered, that’s probably not manslaughter. If you playfully push a person and they slip and fall out a window to their death, that’s pretty likely to be manslaughter, maybe more.
As a disclaimer these things do vary by state and country. I’m just explaining some things that are typical of these categories.
I don’t mind downvotes, I just take them as someone didn’t like what I said but dismiss them without any further engagement, though I appreciate your sentiment as well as the content of the comments.
I’ve found it to be an effective way of learning or gaining a better understanding to state the way I see something when it doesn’t agree with the way someone else explains something. I just learned that mayonnaise can be made from egg yolks in addition to whites after making a similar comment to see if they had mistakenly said “yolk” instead of “white”.
So thanks for the info and the willingness to explore it a bit more in the context I added!
Manslaughter. Literally the slaughter of a man! Yet it’s the most socially acceptable form of murder.
But it has “laughter” in it, so it surely can’t be that bad
So, you think we should change the name?
If she’s in a car, isn’t that exactly how it works?
Yeah, but how can she even consent to driving a car at that point if she is already drunk and not able to make decisions herself?
Why does this only apply to women though?
You and your silly questions
Have you ever heard of a man raped by a woman? I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but people don’t talk about it.
but people don’t talk about it.
Now why on earth would that be?
Google patriarchy and toxic masculinity for more information
In the UK it’s legally impossible for a man to be raped by a women. to rape requires a penis. at least it was last i checked.
And SA in general against men is woefully underreported.
not to say the same isn’t true for women too… before i’m downvoted to obilvion
That’s wild! I set why you need a penis to own property or to vote or lead a company, but to rape??
And I don’t care if people mistake my joke about the patriarchy for a patriarchal joke. I don’t care about downvotes
So according to this, every time a lady and I hook up after a few drinks it’s rape? The fuck?
Get outta here you rapist!
I’ll grape you in the mouth
C’mere kids! I’m gonna tie you to the radiator and grape you in the mouth!
I’ll grape your parents
Only if you’re male.
Technically yes I guess… hmm. I wonder if there was a lady rapist who went around and raped drunk men could she get them sent to jail too?
I mean, many cases where girls straight up lied and ruined a man’s entire life, got them sent to prison, and only YEARS later they admitted to their lies, so really as far as the law is concerned they just want a quick trial (because asking them to do their fucking job is a lot apparently)
Only if you’re a misogynist.
ETA: seems I clicked on the wrong comment to respond to, I did not intend to post here.
I feel like we need some kind of gradient between “rape” and what you’re describing. Some kind of protection in place for inebriated people who later, sober, regret the decision, but doesn’t immediately result in such a heavy charge.
The truth is that both sides happen. Drunk people sometimes can consent, drunkenness is a broad spectrum. And drunk people also sometimes cannot consent. Right now the more morally correct stance, in my opinion, is to go full tilt into the “drunk people can’t consent” camp and charge both parties, but there almost has to be an intermediate we could apply, no?
To be clear, I’m not a lawyer. I don’t exactly know how these cases tend to be tried. I’m basing that on a bit of a layman’s understanding.
There definitely is, it’s called not being a shitty person. If the lady you’re with is clearly hammered, or you know they’ve had more than their normal amount, you don’t try anything. Anyone with a speck of decency or morality will know the difference.
So wait, let me get this straight. Are you saying that it’s the same thing to hold down and force someone, or coerce them with threats etc, as it is to get them drunk (not maliciously, just over the course of a natural evening together)and end up sleeping together? I don’t think you necessarily are, but I just want to make sure.
Assuming we’re on the same page there, then what I’m saying is that these two cases need a -legal- difference, since they’re clearly morally different. Both can end up being damaging to the other party, but one is clearly violating someone’s rights, and the other has a lot of nuance around it.
It is if you guessed wrong. The short answer is, don’t have sex with somebody unless you’re absolutely sure they would want to sober. At the end of the day you’re responsible for your own judgement and if you guess wrong, it doesn’t matter that you intended for there to be consent, you’re still responsible.
I’m impressed you were able to type out so many words without actually saying jack shit.
This poster is so old, it probably from the 1990’s
Yes, it is dumb. Yes it is sexist. But it is not the consensus of society. Not by a long shot.
That doesn’t prevent incels from bringing it up every time some women thinks they are a creep, just so they can hate on how “disadvantaged we males are compared to women” and how “any type of relationship with women are bound to be awful for the man”.
Both sexes have advantages and disadvantages. Whining about this same issue over and over without actually doing something about it isn’t helping anything. And neither is blaming the opposite sex.
It didn’t look to be from the 90s to me so I searched and it’s from 2008
Source is this paper about the poster: Jake and Josie Get Drunk and Hook Up: An Exploration of Mutual Intoxication and Sexual Assault
deleted by creator
My mother was a sexual assault response coordinator (SARC) for the military in the early aughts. This led to some really weird situations for us as a family, like having to pretend we didn’t know why this strange woman who wasn’t here when we went to bed last night is now having breakfast with us. The worst one was probably when it was a friend of mine having breakfast with us. Anyway, my mother really impressed on me that it did not matter if the woman initiated, if I was drunk as well, that I should not, under any circumstances, engage in drunken hookups. I disagree that when two drunk (hetero) people have sex, the man is automatically a rapist. But at the end of the day, my opinion doesn’t matter. The law does. Keep this in mind, fellas, get her number instead. The risk ain’t worth it.
it did not matter if the woman initiated…
At risk of sounding stereotypically queer, the whole gender norms and roles thing between straight people just sounds so insanely outdated each year that passes. Yes, 1 in 4 women are SA at the college I attended. But there was also the statistic that 1 in 10 men are also SA. That’s a hell of a lot of people in a class of 30, for both statistics. And that was info distributed in 2023.
I’ve heard of friends of friends (men) getting held down and raped by other people in a hotel hallway and being too afraid to get tested, call the police, or even come forward because they are so fearful of being accused of being gay and then being ostracized by society. Being victims of SA is an equal opportunity event. It feels so odd that in the straight world, things still seem so…one dimensional. It can (and does) happen to anyone. It feels like everyone is just holding their breath while crazy, horrible stuff happens.
I’m largely straight (hetero flexible tends to be what I’d say if you asked) and I agree that the straights are not ok 😂
This is the best advice in this whole thread:
I should not, under any circumstances, engage in drunken hookups. I disagree that when two drunk (hetero) people have sex, the man is automatically a rapist. But at the end of the day, my opinion doesn’t matter. The law does. Keep this in mind, fellas, get her number instead. The risk ain’t worth it.
Like the debate about consent while intoxicated is a complex one, but none of it really matters because drunken hookups are a huge risk regardless. Even if there’s no “rape” there’s an enormous potential for regret.
Perception is reality
What does that mean in this context?
Any consequences are going to be mostly based upon how the situation appears. If the facts tell a different story, it will be an uphill battle to change the perception.
This is such bullshit. What happens if she is the one raping? She’s excused and guy is still guilty? Moronic.
What happens if she is the one raping?
Your friends make fun of you and tell you to shut up. Ask me how I know.
Or, you bottle it up inside and let it slowly destroy you.
I assume we both know for the same reasons. I’m sorry my dude.
No wonder suicide rates among men are so much higher.
Successful suicide rates are higher, as men tend to use more lethal means (firearms most commonly). Unsuccessful suicide rates among women are higher, as they tend to prefer pills or cutting.
Its the Gender Paradox of Suicide
CDC data demonstrates that men account for over 76% of suicide deaths in the United States each year. The CDC also found that there are 3.3 male suicide deaths for every female suicide death. In contrast, in research studies, women are two to three times more likely to discuss thoughts of suicide than men, and there are approximately three female suicide attempts per every one male suicide attempt.
From what I remember I think globally that’s it is/was closer to (just under) 2:1 on the male v female successful suicides. I also believe that women think about it more and attempt it more often but with less success overall. One giant caveat is that there are many places where “she killed herself” is accepted and never investigated so it’s possible a (large) number of murders are improperly counted as female suicide. (Looking especially at you, “cultures” with “honour” killings)
One giant caveat is that there are many places where “she killed herself” is accepted and never investigated so it’s possible a (large) number of murders are improperly counted as female suicide. (Looking especially at you, “cultures” with “honour” killings)
Jordan, Morocco, Houston PD jail
This is probably beside the point, but is the larger number of attempts by women a result of those attempts usually being unsuccessful? Like is the same woman being counted for 3 different unsuccessful attempts, while a man generally being successful on the first attempt means he’s only counted once?
Women have a higher rate of suicidal tendency - depression, malaise, extreme anxiety. This is even outside explicit suicide attempts.
It’s a warning not legal advice
If that were the case, different wording would go much further in relaying a message. Something like “Guys, legal system doesn’t like you. On average sentences to men are longer to that of a woman. Women don’t really need an evidence of rape for you to be sentenced for it and spend decades in jail for crime you didn’t do. Child custody is far more frequently awarded to women even if they are the worse choice. Even if you are not the father you might get forced to pay
alimonychild support until proven otherwise, after which no money will be returned. Masturbate, it’s easier and safer.” I’d say that’s far better warning.Though replace “alimony” with “child support”. Alimony is ex-spouse support and generally involves a longer relationship with the man as the breadwinner.
Which makes it good advice for men, and therefore a useful poster, does it not?
No, because it reinforces the idea that women arent capable of rape like men are. Women rape too, and while it may not be as common it is still just as horrific.
You’re looking back to when society wasn’t “woke” and complaining that you’re not being included?
You dumb incels need to pick a proper lane.
If you think problem doesn’t exist if you pretend it doesn’t exist then you have developmental issues or are 2 years old.
Do you apply this same logic to slavery and child marriages? “No, you have to look at the context! Owning slaves was legal back then!”
Get the fuck outta here with your bullshit.
Drunk people can consent. Being drunk doesn’t make you do things you don’t want to do. It’s not a magic potion for fuck sake
Drunk people can consent.
They can consent, but they can also not consent. And that’s part of the problem.
Being drunk doesn’t make you do things you don’t want to do.
If you and a sexy person enter a room together, drunk, and that person puts a $1000 charge on your credit card, do we assume that the charge was consensual simply because you were too inebriated to coherently object?
Assuming the answer is “No”, why would the standard be different for sex?
Given this poster is over 15 years old and only a handful were printed, I’m gonna guess no.
https://www.dailydot.com/irl/anti-rape-poster-reddit-conversations/
As a 53 yo male, this poster makes me angry.
It was one of twenty posted in a small college in 2008 and discontinued shortly after.
https://www.dailydot.com/irl/anti-rape-poster-reddit-conversations/
You’re angry because you’re easy to manipulate, at least on this topic.
They know their audience.
No I’m not easy to manipulate. I’m angry because men usually get labeled the aggressor and that is not always the case. I was mentally abused by a previous wife for many years. Men of my gen were taught very early on that WE are the strong ones and that women are frail and not capable of this behavior. If we’re abused it’s because we are weak.
In this poster the women COULD the aggressor but it was perfectly acceptable to just ASSUME it was the man. Women are just as capable of being evil.
You’re angry because you’re easy to manipulate, at least on this topic.
There are so many people that need to hear and understand this, but a person who’s easily manipulated is a person who’s not easily convinced that they’re being manipulated.
On the other hand, it’s far too easy to dismiss someone’s concerns over them being easily manipulated rather than finding out that maybe they’re coming from somewhere more well thought out, that just happens to come to the same conclusion…
The poster is funny, but apart of the outrage that is causes by some, I think that it could trigger a good discussion.
For instance about how toxic masculinity also hurts men. Under that men are considered weak if they cry and should consider themselves be ‘lucky’ when they are raped.
And how feminism can help against this as well.
