Stay classy, Mens Rights Edmonton

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by Makarov

In fact, the element of "sexual nature" is the seldom the triable issue. The most contentious issues are almost always whether there was any touching (i.e., did the complained of behaviour take place at all), was there consent, and did the accused take all reasonable steps.

So almost all cases turn on their facts? Get out of town.

In seriousness, that should go without saying. My point was that the definition is hazier than most, and still really does seem to come down to "you know it when you see it".

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Makarov

What was his name? Canada has had relatively few cases of wrongful conviction. It is an issue that I am quite passionate about (I volunteer my time with the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted) and I would like to learn more about his story. Did it receive media attention?

Though he was a Canadian, this occurred in the US.

As far as media attention...I didnt live down there at that point so I really dont know.

In fact I didnt find out about the entirety of the story until well after everything had played out, only knew he had been convicted of felony sexual assault...or that he was a "rapist".

[kn]

As someone who grew up in an abusive household where the woman was the perpetrator, I know it has screwed up my relationship with women. I remember as a child asking my father why he didn't fight back and he replied, "Because I'd kill her." I don't want to get into too many details but being accused of rape is always in the back of my mind when trying to date.

I don't know what resources are available for men in abusive relationships but I'm sure the stigma is there for any of them who actually claim they need help.

[Traditional_Ale]

I answered yes, but only because I banged a ######ed girl. At the time I didn't know she was ######ed. I just thought she was drunk and showing off in a wheel-chair.

[Mr.Coffee]

^ Based on my years of frequenting this forum, I just can't see that post going over that well.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

^ Based on my years of frequenting this forum, I just can't see that post going over that well.

It won't, but I have to admit, I laughed.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

So almost all cases turn on their facts? Get out of town.

In seriousness, that should go without saying. My point was that the definition is hazier than most, and still really does seem to come down to "you know it when you see it".

I still don't really understand. What makes it hazier than other offences?

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I still don't really understand. What makes it hazier than other offences?

Taking advantage of somebody who has had too much to drink is wrong. So where is the line for too much to drink? .05? .08? We use those for driving. Or is it higher? How does the man who may have also had a few drinks judge?

That's where I think you could say it's sometimes hazy; but like was said you know wrong when you see it.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Taking advantage of somebody who has had too much to drink is wrong. So where is the line for too much to drink? .05? .08? We use those for driving. Or is it higher? How does the man who may have also had a few drinks judge?

That's where I think you could say it's sometimes hazy; but like was said you know wrong when you see it.

I think it also somehow suggests that being drunk absolves you of your poor decisions. So is drunk driving okay because you were drunk?

[ken0042]

I know where you are going with this, and I agree that being drunk doesn't excuse poor decision making.

That also needs to be a 2 way street. Let me give you a scenario. Both parties are quite drunk, but active. For example they are dancing together. The guy grabs the girl by the hand and leads her upstairs; where they have sex. Both parties participating. I would say that the girl the next day cannot claim she was taken advantage of for being drunk. That to me is what the ad in the OP is saying, regretting a one night stand isn't rape.

That's when it can get murky. What if instead of leading her upstairs he carried her? Then once upstairs she removed his pants? (actively participating.) I just don't think you can say that after a set line it becomes rape; it isn't that cut and dry.

I'm sure at least some of us on CP have been drunk and had sex with somebody uglier than our usual standards. Would you consider that rape? Or would you just be given a name like "whale hunter?"

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I think it also somehow suggests that being drunk absolves you of your poor decisions. So is drunk driving okay because you were drunk?

It's not that being drunk absolves you of your poor decisions, but a sober man having sex with a woman with a BAC of 0.2 seems a lot more like rape than a man with a BAC of 0.2 having sex with that same woman. In the first instance, the sober man is taking advantage of the drunk woman due to her lowered inhibitions, but in the second instance, the man isn't any more guilty of taking advantage of the woman than the woman is of taking advantage of the man.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Taking advantage of somebody who has had too much to drink is wrong. So where is the line for too much to drink? .05? .08? We use those for driving. Or is it higher? How does the man who may have also had a few drinks judge?

That's where I think you could say it's sometimes hazy; but like was said you know wrong when you see it.

Well, in order to be so drunk so as to lack capacity to consent, one must be very, very drunk. However, when knowingly engaging in sexual touching with an intoxicated person, there will likely be a higher burden to establish that all reasonable steps were taken to confirm that the intoxicated person was in fact consenting (ie, more steps will be required in order to relh on the defence of honest but mistake belief in consent.)

In terms of the accused's level of intoxication, it is basically irrelevant (in law). Intoxication only provides a defense if the accused person is so intoxicated that they have become an automaton (basically, so drunk that his or her actions were not intentional.)

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I still don't really understand. What makes it hazier than other offences?

Is it your view that the meaning of most criminal offences is that broad? It seems to me that the meaning of manslaughter, for example, is pretty clear - it's simply a matter of applying a reasonably straightforward definition to a particular set of facts. I can't claim criminal code expertise but it seems to me that assault "of a sexual nature" is hazier than "falsifying a document with intent to defraud", or "killing someone while intending to cause death or severe bodily harm likely to result in death".

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Well, in order to be so drunk so as to lack capacity to consent, one must be very, very drunk. However, when knowingly engaging in sexual touching with an intoxicated person, there will likely be a higher burden to establish that all reasonable steps were taken to confirm that the intoxicated person was in fact consenting (ie, more steps will be required in order to relh on the defence of honest but mistake belief in consent.)

In terms of the accused's level of intoxication, it is basically irrelevant (in law). Intoxication only provides a defense if the accused person is so intoxicated that they have become an automaton (basically, so drunk that his or her actions were not intentional.)

It's stuff like this that makes me wonder why intoxication is a perfectly fine defense, but not an excuse. You say that when someone is drunk, there is a higher burden of reasonable steps to confirm consent...I don't know about you, but I've yet to meet any really drunk people who were capable of dealing with basic steps, much less higher steps. And, sadly, I deal with really drunk people on a far-too-frequent basis.

The whole "victim was too drunk to consent, but the accused who was just as drunk should have known better" thing really rankles at me, I guess. Really drunk people act and do really dumb things. I'd go so far as to say that NEITHER is capable of consenting...but there doesn't seem to be much luck in preventing drunk people from having sex.

On the light hearted side, maybe we need automatic chastity belts that engage after 2-3 beers...

[PsYcNeT]

So this came up on Kijiji's friendship networking (which is a creepy/funny/sad read):

http://calgary.kijiji.ca/c-community...AdIdZ501749245

Welcome. For those who are against new wave of feminism and its cultural debauchery that consists of abortion, promiscuity, annihilation of men's rights, etc. If you oppose movement that spits at the biology of both women and men, then you looking at the right group! This group is open for discussions relating to the topic. All are welcome!

[Wormius]

I agree that it's a very slippery slope to work with. I think most people can agree that if a person is passed-out after drinking that engaging in sex with them is definitely wrong, and is not different really than those cases of doctors or dentists molesting patients while they were under general anaesthetic, or somebody administering the date-rape drug. But yeah, at what stage up until that pass-out point does whatever you say or do not mean anything? You would almost need a 3rd party to verify that consent was not given 100% out of drunken stupor.

Regardless, there seems to be the disconnect between the two poster campaigns in that they're not really comparing the same scenario. One shows the women clearly passed-out, vulnerable, and incapable of indicating or giving consent at all, while the men's campaign is countering with the "she's tipsy and regretted having sex with some ugly dude" sentiment.

Back to the drunk driving comparison, say I met a tipsy person on the street and gave them keys to my car and told them it was okay to drive, wouldn't they still be responsible for the DUI if caught? So are they now the victim in this situation? If not, why this different standard if it happens to be a tipsy person and a sexual encounter? This might not be so different from the bar being responsible for not preventing somebody from drunk driving, but the drunk driver is still responsible as well.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

It's stuff like this that makes me wonder why intoxication is a perfectly fine defense, but not an excuse. You say that when someone is drunk, there is a higher burden of reasonable steps to confirm consent...I don't know about you, but I've yet to meet any really drunk people who were capable of dealing with basic steps, much less higher steps. And, sadly, I deal with really drunk people on a far-too-frequent basis.

The whole "victim was too drunk to consent, but the accused who was just as drunk should have known better" thing really rankles at me, I guess. Really drunk people act and do really dumb things. I'd go so far as to say that NEITHER is capable of consenting...but there doesn't seem to be much luck in preventing drunk people from having sex.

On the light hearted side, maybe we need automatic chastity belts that engage after 2-3 beers...

The Cooch Controller and the C**K Blocker.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

Is it your view that the meaning of most criminal offences is that broad? It seems to me that the meaning of manslaughter, for example, is pretty clear - it's simply a matter of applying a reasonably straightforward definition to a particular set of facts. I can't claim criminal code expertise but it seems to me that assault "of a sexual nature" is hazier than "falsifying a document with intent to defraud", or "killing someone while intending to cause death or severe bodily harm likely to result in death".

"Sexual touching without consent" seems clear to me (in terms of a definition.) Even the element of consent is pretty straightforward. Consent is a purely subjective state. That said, I admit that the Criminal Code provisions which limit the defence of "honest but mistaken belief in consent" (which, not surprisingly, is a very common defence to sexual assault charges) is more problematic: "all reasonable steps in the circumstances" is often very difficult to define, both in the moment and post ex facto. However, keep in mind that the accused only needs to raise a reasonable doubt.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

The whole "victim was too drunk to consent, but the accused who was just as drunk should have known better" thing really rankles at me, I guess. Really drunk people act and do really dumb things. I'd go so far as to say that NEITHER is capable of consenting...but there doesn't seem to be much luck in preventing drunk people from having sex.

On the light hearted side, maybe we need automatic chastity belts that engage after 2-3 beers...

Keep in mind that the issue incapacity to consent generally arises only when the complainant is drunk to the point of unconsciousness. A person does not lose the capacity to consent after a few bottles of beer. The more common issue is whether the accused mistakenly believed that the complainant was consenting because the accused person misinterpreted the drunken behaviour of the intoxicated complainant as consent (when in fact it was not consent.) To put it crudely: the complainant was too drunk to say "no", not too drunk to consent.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Back to the drunk driving comparison, say I met a tipsy person on the street and gave them keys to my car and told them it was okay to drive, wouldn't they still be responsible for the DUI if caught? So are they now the victim in this situation? If not, why this different standard if it happens to be a tipsy person and a sexual encounter? This might not be so different from the bar being responsible for not preventing somebody from drunk driving, but the drunk driver is still responsible as well.

I'm not sure I understand your hypothetical scenarios. For instance, in the first scenario, the intoxicated person commits a crime. In the second scenario, the intoxicated person is (I presume) the victim of a crime. I'm not sure I see the point you are drawing from this.