![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Rape case thrown out because woman admitted she was too drunk to remember if she consented
Summary: A college student gets drunk, a security guard is asked to escort her home, and she later charges him with raping her; his defense is that she consented to have sex with him. The case is thrown out because she admits on the stand that she was so drunk she can't remember if she consented or not.
It's been stated that this case isn't going to set any precedent, and certainly the actions of the man in question were immoral even if he wasn't found guilty of rape (in other words, he betrayed his position as a security guard).
In many places, there's a law that states that a woman can't consent to sex if she's legally intoxicated. Due to the publicity given this case, I've seen a very good argument against such laws, as follows:
Legally, if you are drunk, you are still responsible for whatever you might do behind the wheel of a car. You are responsible for whatever you might do with a loaded weapon. If you are male, you are still responsible for whoever you sleep with, any adultery or child support or so on, and you are responsible for getting consent from them.
However, if you are female and drunk, you are unable to consent. Period. It is just the same as if you are a CHILD below the age of consent-- no matter how willing, naked, and covered in pudding you are, you can't consent.
I don't know about y'all but I don't like being a legal child, especially where sex is involved, ESPECIALLY if a man in an equivalent situation isn't. I thought feminism was supposed to be agin' this sort of thing.
So, that's the first point to ponder. The second is this weird little thought experiment.
Is sex valuable? If so, what is it comparable to?
1. Compare the situations:
a) I was drunk last night and I gave someone $50. I am poorer by $50.
b) I was drunk and gave someone my coat. I don't have a coat anymore.
c) I was drunk and got married to someone. I can't marry anyone else right now.
d) I was drunk and had sex last night. (Assuming I didn't get pregnant or catch anything...) What have I given away that makes me poorer right now, after the fact?
2. One argument that could be brought up is "If you're having sex with Al, you aren't having sex with Bob." Well, sure, but if Bob is at home in his apartment, it doesn't matter to him whether you are out doing Al or out testing the viscosity of chocolate syrup, you're not home boinking him either way. By this logic, every time you have sex, you get to count the other 3 billion guys in the world and point out that you're NOT having sex with any of them. And yes, that makes no sense.
3. It's also mentionable that sex can be sold. Most notably, you can demand money for sex, but you can also demand other goods, services, or contracts. However, these only really work after the fact in the case of child support. A comparable example would be a professional who gets paid by the hour for consultation-- if you wake up after a drunken party and are horrified to remember that you gave someone an hour and a half of your best business advice, you have no real recourse; you can't bill after the fact when the person never consented beforehand to be billed and had no expectation of it.
So, other than the MORAL failure of having sex and not remembering a thing, what exactly do you lose by doing so, that can be codified into law? What has been taken from you that ought to be remanded, or that the thief ought to be punished for taking?
Corrvin
*pondering*
Summary: A college student gets drunk, a security guard is asked to escort her home, and she later charges him with raping her; his defense is that she consented to have sex with him. The case is thrown out because she admits on the stand that she was so drunk she can't remember if she consented or not.
It's been stated that this case isn't going to set any precedent, and certainly the actions of the man in question were immoral even if he wasn't found guilty of rape (in other words, he betrayed his position as a security guard).
In many places, there's a law that states that a woman can't consent to sex if she's legally intoxicated. Due to the publicity given this case, I've seen a very good argument against such laws, as follows:
Legally, if you are drunk, you are still responsible for whatever you might do behind the wheel of a car. You are responsible for whatever you might do with a loaded weapon. If you are male, you are still responsible for whoever you sleep with, any adultery or child support or so on, and you are responsible for getting consent from them.
However, if you are female and drunk, you are unable to consent. Period. It is just the same as if you are a CHILD below the age of consent-- no matter how willing, naked, and covered in pudding you are, you can't consent.
I don't know about y'all but I don't like being a legal child, especially where sex is involved, ESPECIALLY if a man in an equivalent situation isn't. I thought feminism was supposed to be agin' this sort of thing.
So, that's the first point to ponder. The second is this weird little thought experiment.
Is sex valuable? If so, what is it comparable to?
1. Compare the situations:
a) I was drunk last night and I gave someone $50. I am poorer by $50.
b) I was drunk and gave someone my coat. I don't have a coat anymore.
c) I was drunk and got married to someone. I can't marry anyone else right now.
d) I was drunk and had sex last night. (Assuming I didn't get pregnant or catch anything...) What have I given away that makes me poorer right now, after the fact?
2. One argument that could be brought up is "If you're having sex with Al, you aren't having sex with Bob." Well, sure, but if Bob is at home in his apartment, it doesn't matter to him whether you are out doing Al or out testing the viscosity of chocolate syrup, you're not home boinking him either way. By this logic, every time you have sex, you get to count the other 3 billion guys in the world and point out that you're NOT having sex with any of them. And yes, that makes no sense.
3. It's also mentionable that sex can be sold. Most notably, you can demand money for sex, but you can also demand other goods, services, or contracts. However, these only really work after the fact in the case of child support. A comparable example would be a professional who gets paid by the hour for consultation-- if you wake up after a drunken party and are horrified to remember that you gave someone an hour and a half of your best business advice, you have no real recourse; you can't bill after the fact when the person never consented beforehand to be billed and had no expectation of it.
So, other than the MORAL failure of having sex and not remembering a thing, what exactly do you lose by doing so, that can be codified into law? What has been taken from you that ought to be remanded, or that the thief ought to be punished for taking?
Corrvin
*pondering*
