High-Profile Sexual Abuse Epidemic

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Itse

If it was a drunk guy wanting sex with a soberish woman, no one would be saying the woman is a creep for saying yes.

#### off,

Men are sexaually assaulted too

[81MC]

Originally Posted by blankall

To add to this, many women choose to and enjoy consuming alcohol/drugs and then engaging in sexual activity. Not acknowledging that is pretty sexist.

Totally. It’s deep seeded sexism for a man to think that a woman can enjoy her sexuality, or altered state, but not both. The implication being what? That a woman’s decisions with her own body are bounded by a males perception? That a women’s sexuality is only ever taken advantage of? That women’s body autonomy ends where their social autonomy begins?

It’s 2022. It’s not a mans place to tell a woman what feels good. Cecil is right, there is without doubt a point where consent is impossible and activity unethical. But believing that point is impairment/consumption at all is anti-woman white knight syndrome masquerading as chivalry.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by 81MC

Totally. It’s deep seeded sexism for a man to think that a woman can enjoy her sexuality, or altered state, but not both. The implication being what? That a woman’s decisions with her own body are bounded by a males perception? That a women’s sexuality is only ever taken advantage of? That women’s body autonomy ends where their social autonomy begins?

It’s 2022. It’s not a mans place to tell a woman what feels good. Cecil is right, there is without doubt a point where consent is impossible and activity unethical. But believing that point is impairment/consumption at all is anti-woman white knight syndrome masquerading as chivalry.

It’s not a man vs woman thing. It’s a don’t take advantage of another human thing.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by GGG

#### off,

Men are sexaually assaulted too

That’s not what he said, or implied.


I’m finding it interesting the way these arguments are being framed. As if some people seem to think that only men are creeps for taking advantage of drunk women. A problem no doubt, as we’ve learned from countless sexual assault accusations and stories from survivors, especially at frats and on various university campuses. But overall, there seems to be a lack of respect for the choices women make. It seems both patronizing and condescending to assume that women are so frequently victims simply for wanting to have fun by imbibing and then also engaging in sexual activity. There’s something puritanical and white knightish about the whole thing. As if women are so weak and powerless they need a man’s protection because they couldn’t have agency over their choices. It’s the type of discussion where the nuances and context matter so much. Ultimately each person involved in any encounter needs to respect the choices of their partner and know where to draw the line. It’s never as simple as one party being responsible for the actions of both.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by GGG

#### off,

Men are sexaually assaulted too

Yes. That was sort of my point, that just because it's sex doesn't mean its fun for the guy.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Itse

Yes. That was sort of my point, tjat just because it's sex doesn't mean its fun fot the guy.

Sorry I may have misinterpreted you.

I thought you were saying having sex with inebriated people is acceptable because we don’t consider women as assaulting men when it occurs.

As opposed to

Women shouldn’t be taking advantage of/assaulting men just because it’s assumed that men like sex.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by GGG

Sorry I may have misinterpreted you.

I thought you were saying having sex with inebriated people is acceptable because we don’t consider women as assaulting men when it occurs.

As opposed to

Women shouldn’t be taking advantage of/assaulting men just because it’s assumed that men like sex.

My point was more that just because the other person is drunk doesn't automatically mean the sober person is the problem. Or that anyone is the problem. I get why you read a different implication there, my choice of words was pretty loaded.

[afc wimbledon]

Let's go over this slowly shall we, I am not saying that any and every time a man has sex with a drunk girl he is raping her, what I am saying is that when he has sex with a drunk girl she has not consented legally, that the law by now is clear, you cannot assume consent when a girl is wasted or drunk, you are hoping her mind will be the same sober at 10am as it is at 2am when she's drunk but the girl gets to decide at 10am if she consented 8 hours before.

And, least you think I mean that the girl decides to change her mind, that is not what I'm saying, I'm saying she hasnt given consent until she sobers up and decides if she is cool with what happened the night before, as a guy I am not prepared to put myself in that situation for two reasons, I dont want to risk being accused of about the most heinous crime there is and frankly I dont want to risk actually committing that crime just because she seems really into it but I dont realise how wasted she really is because she did a bump or two in the bathroom and seems to be ok.

As to the argument that women have a right to have drunken sex with dudes, it's what their grandmothers fought for along with the vote god dammit!!
of course women can do what ever the hell they want, as a man though I have to decide if what I am about to enter into is a bit of drunken fun that we will both enjoy or if I am unwittingly about to do her massive emotional damage that will haunt her for the rest of her life, personally I dont want to take that risk

[Itse]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Let's go over this slowly shall we, I am not saying that any and every time a man has sex with a drunk girl he is raping her, what I am saying is that when he has sex with a drunk girl she has not consented legally, that the law by now is clear, you cannot assume consent when a girl is wasted or drunk, you are hoping her mind will be the same sober at 10am as it is at 2am when she's drunk but the girl gets to decide at 10am if she consented 8 hours before.

And, least you think I mean that the girl decides to change her mind, that is not what I'm saying, I'm saying she hasnt given consent until she sobers up and decides if she is cool with what happened the night before, as a guy I am not prepared to put myself in that situation for two reasons, I dont want to risk being accused of about the most heinous crime there is and frankly I dont want to risk actually committing that crime just because she seems really into it but I dont realise how wasted she really is because she did a bump or two in the bathroom and seems to be ok.

As to the argument that women have a right to have drunken sex with dudes, it's what their grandmothers fought for along with the vote god dammit!!
of course women can do what ever the hell they want, as a man though I have to decide if what I am about to enter into is a bit of drunken fun that we will both enjoy or if I am unwittingly about to do her massive emotional damage that will haunt her for the rest of her life, personally I dont want to take that risk

I fully respect that as a personal position, as long as you don't see it as "the only truly moral position" or something like that. You know yourself and what's fair to ask from you in your life.

It's just good to remember that a lot of people trying to have sex lives are sad and lonely and miserable and filled with weird kinks and hangups and bad communication skills, and a lot of people hang in social circles with a different relationship to alcohol and sex than you.

Some people just choose to live less risk-averse lives than you, for good reasons or terrible reasons, but in any case their own reasons. I don't think one is better than the other. There's a lot of choices I've made about sex which I would never recommend as rules to live by to others, but which were the right choice in that situation.

I feel like there should be a more honest and nuanced public conversation about this whole topic. To me it seems that all too often the positions around sex and drugs, and just bad sex and weird motivations to have sex, is way too black and white. Too often this discussion happens only in the context of rape, and then the popular opinions seem to be "she was asking for it, she made those choices, what did she expect" or "he's obviously a monster".

In these discussions you always have to boil things down to "do you think this specific person abused that specific person", and that's extremely limiting.

There's just so much that people do that's messy and problematic that isn't bad or assault, or anyone's fault even when things go bad, but we never talk about.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Itse

I fully respect that as a personal position, as long as you don't see it as "the only truly moral position" or something like that. You know yourself and what's fair to ask from you in your life.

It's just good to remember that a lot of people trying to have sex lives are sad and lonely and miserable and filled with weird kinks and hangups and bad communication skills, and a lot of people hang in social circles with a different relationship to alcohol and sex than you.

Some people just choose to live less risk-averse lives than you, for good reasons or terrible reasons, but in any case their own reasons. I don't think one is better than the other. There's a lot of choices I've made about sex which I would never recommend as rules to live by to others, but which were the right choice in that situation.

I feel like there should be a more honest and nuanced public conversation about this whole topic. To me it seems that all too often the positions around sex and drugs, and just bad sex and weird motivations to have sex, is way too black and white. Too often this discussion happens only in the context of rape, and then the popular opinions seem to be "she was asking for it, she made those choices, what did she expect" or "he's obviously a monster".

In these discussions you always have to boil things down to "do you think this specific person abused that specific person", and that's extremely limiting.

There's just so much that people do that's messy and problematic that isn't bad or assault, or anyone's fault even when things go bad, but we never talk about.

No my morality is my morality, I dont require anyone else to follow it, I also recognise that my attitudes to sexuality have been strongly influenced by growing up in a battered wives shelter my mum ran and then spending 40 odd years working with many hundreds of kids and women who have been victims of sexual violence, I am possibly more painfully aware of the damage we men do than most.

I would say that I think having sex with drunk or stoned women is insane practically and I think any guy that does it is nuts these days but that isnt a moral issue

[CliffFletcher]

Both of these can be true:

Men and women should be able to choose to get inebriated and pursue sex (including casual sex on short acquaintance) without shame or double-standards.

Engaging in casual sex while inebriated increases the likelihood of a bad outcome for both parties, including sexual assault, accusations of sexual assault, or simply regret, along with an increased likelihood of the two parties disagreeing on the nature of what happened.

Squaring these two truths in a tidy and legalistic way is extremely difficult.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

One of my lifes hero's is Giles Corey

The man who beat his indentured farmhand to death? The man who had no issue of blaming others of witchcraft, gleefully attending hearings and actually testifying against his wife that she was a witch? If he wasn't accused himself after he would have happily watched his wife hang like he had with others.

He had just attended the hearings but was accused before any sentencing. Still he had no issue with the trials until it affected him, and I mean him explicitly as he had no issue with his wife being accused. Still could probably find a better life hero than a murderous brute who only cared for himself.

You wouldn't have to look much further than his wife to find a real role model. She spoke up against the witch trials for no personal gain, in fact it cost her her life in doing so.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

The man who beat his indentured farmhand to death? The man who had no issue of blaming others of witchcraft, gleefully attending hearings and actually testifying against his wife that she was a witch? If he wasn't accused himself after he would have happily watched his wife hang like he had with others.

He had just attended the hearings but was accused before any sentencing. Still he had no issue with the trials until it affected him, and I mean him explicitly as he had no issue with his wife being accused. Still could probably find a better life hero than a murderous brute who only cared for himself.

You wouldn't have to look much further than his wife to find a real role model. She spoke up against the witch trials for no personal gain, in fact it cost her her life in doing so.

come on man, dont rain on my parade, I love his last words leave me that

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

come on man, dont rain on my parade, I love his last words leave me that

Which ones, More weight? More Rocks? Or Damn you, I curse you

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Which ones, More weight? More Rocks? Or Damn you, I curse you

'more weight' was what I was always taught, in my minds eye he says it with a broad west country accent

[OptimalTates]

According to his own killers, Emmet Till was just as defiant when the racists hicks executed him for allegedly flirting with a white girl. Beaten, naked, and a gun to his head:

Milam: "You still as good as I am?"

Till: "Yeah."

Milam: "You still 'had' white women?"

Till: "Yeah."

Given that it was a witch hunt in itself and Till was an adolescent standing up to racists, I'd say his "yeah" has more weight than Giles' "more weight".

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Let's go over this slowly shall we, I am not saying that any and every time a man has sex with a drunk girl he is raping her, what I am saying is that when he has sex with a drunk girl she has not consented legally, that the law by now is clear, you cannot assume consent when a girl is wasted or drunk

The law is absolutely not clear on this. At least not in Canada. The threshold is unconscious before it becomes abundantly clear. Otherwise the crown is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person was so incapacitated that they could not consent.

Accused’s belief as to consent

(4) Where an accused alleges that he believed that the complainant consented to the conduct that is the subject-matter of the charge, a judge, if satisfied that there is sufficient evidence and that, if believed by the jury, the evidence would constitute a defence, shall instruct the jury, when reviewing all the evidence relating to the determination of the honesty of the accused’s belief, to consider the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for that belief.

Where belief in consent not a defence

273.2 It is not a defence to a charge under section 271, 272 or 273 that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge, where

(a) the accused’s belief arose from

(i) the accused’s self-induced intoxication,

(ii) the accused’s recklessness or wilful blindness, or

(iii) any circumstance referred to in subsection 265(3) or 273.1(2) or (3) in which no consent is obtained;

(b) the accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain that the complainant was consenting; or

(c) there is no evidence that the complainant’s voluntary agreement to the activity was affirmatively expressed by words or actively expressed by conduct.

Most recently we had a case with a couple camping with a drunk 16 year old who was originally found guilty of sexual assault. In an appeal it was overruled because the trial judge didn't explain sufficiently enough how he decided she was incapacitated. And then overruled again by the Supreme Court (with a dissent).

Originally Posted by Majority

As capacity is a precondition to subjective consent, the requirements for capacity are tied to the requirements for subjective consent. Capacity to consent requires that the complainant have an operating mind capable of understanding the physical act, its sexual nature, and the specific identity of their partner, and that they have a choice of whether or not to engage in the sexual activity in question.

Originally Posted by Brown and Rowe (agreeing with majority's outcome but disagree for reason)

There is agreement with the majority that capacity to consent should be understood as a precondition to consent under s. 273.1 of the Criminal Code, and that it is possible to find that a complainant lacked capacity to consent while being capable of withholding consent. There is also agreement with much of the majority’s recounting of the law regarding appellate review for sufficiency of reasons, but disagreement as to the sufficiency of the trial judge’s reasons in this case with respect to the complainant’s capacity to consent. However, the evidence that the complainant did not consent is overwhelming and the curative proviso should apply.

...
In this case, the trial judge’s reasons make clear that he convicted on the basis of incapacity alone, but they do not disclose what standard he applied in deciding that the complainant was incapable of consenting. While a finding of incapacity was available on the evidence, the evidence could also support the conclusion that the complainant had the cognitive capacity to consent throughout the interaction, and it was crucial that the trial judge satisfy himself that the complainant was intoxicated to the point that she could not provide consent in order to convict F and B on that basis. However, in light of the overwhelming evidence that the complainant did not consent, no other verdict was possible.

Two Supreme Court Judges looked at the evidence on record and the capacity of the victim could go either way. To me that shows there's no hard rule and it is not clear. They instead found that she had not actually consented regardless of capacity (she testified she said "no"). (Another judge dissented based on legal stuff).

In another decision released just a week before that one regarding a 15 year old sleeping with a 14 year old there was a dissent:

A reconstruction of the timeline indicates that the intercourse may have occurred at any time during a window of roughly two hours. As a result, the evidence did not permit the time of the intercourse to be determined beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial judge could not reasonably conclude that D’s being incapable of consenting at the time of the intercourse was the only reasonable finding available on the evidence. Without the finding of incapacity, there was no case against P, because neither D nor any other witness had testified that D had not consented as a matter of fact. Consequently, the evidence is not capable of supporting the verdict that P is guilty of sexual assault, and an acquittal should be entered in its place.

I think one of the issues may be with the definition of "drunk". With your examples of waking up next to someone you don't remember, yeah that's beyond capacity. But what about 0.08, the legal limit to drive? At that level I certainly don't have the reflexes to drive, clear changes in judgement (it's the only time karaoke feels like a smart idea) but I certainly have the capacity to consent as defined by the Supreme Court despite being what I think many would classify as "drunk".

And then we get into weirder stuff when people are drugged unknowingly. Despite having the same capacity, the courts have become more lenient on finding the inability to consent due to lack of capacity when a person was drugged against their will. Which I obviously don't have an issue with morally, but legally if I were to knowingly have 6 drinks and then slept with someone, I'm able to consent. If I were to have 6 spiked drinks and then slept with the person who spiked it, despite having the same capacity, the same judge and court may find that I no longer am. It's a weird a hiccup.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Let's go over this slowly shall we, I am not saying that any and every time a man has sex with a drunk girl he is raping her, what I am saying is that when he has sex with a drunk girl she has not consented legally, that the law by now is clear, you cannot assume consent when a girl is wasted or drunk, you are hoping her mind will be the same sober at 10am as it is at 2am when she's drunk but the girl gets to decide at 10am if she consented 8 hours before.

Legally this is also absolutely false. She (or he) either had the capacity at the time to consent or did not. She doesn't get to decide anything at 10 a.m. She may realize she did not have capacity when she sobers up. And I know it's not your intention, far from it, but this is teetering on the "girl's can accuse you of rape if they regret the sex afterwards" trope when you use the word "decide".

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Legally this is also absolutely false. She (or he) either had the capacity at the time to consent or did not. She doesn't get to decide anything at 10 a.m. She may realize she did not have capacity when she sobers up. And I know it's not your intention, far from it, but this is teetering on the "girl's can accuse you of rape if they regret the sex afterwards" trope when you use the word "decide".

Legally, yes. But there are policies in place at institutions that can impose extra-legal sanctions on the basis of allegations. Policies in place at U.S. colleges, for instance.

https://www.theatlantic.com/educatio...policy/538974/

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Legally, yes. But there are policies in place at institutions that can impose extra-legal sanctions on the basis of allegations. Policies in place at U.S. colleges, for instance.

https://www.theatlantic.com/educatio...policy/538974/

Sure, and there's places like Liberty University that may expel for premarital sex even with consent or even sexual assault that never occurred. But I was intending to talk strictly legal, and probably should have highlighted this as well:

what I am saying is that when he has sex with a drunk girl she has not consented legally, that the law by now is clear

It's not clear. Or if it is clear, it's in the opposite of what is being stated.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nsca/do...ocompletePos=1

This was the appeal by the Crown regarding the disgusting cab driver and the judge who made international headlines for saying "Clearly, a drunk can consent."

The trial judge took the approach that incapacity requires unconsciousness. So even though this woman was found by the police unconscious with a BAC of over .200 and had urinated her pants, because she was conscious entering the cab and the Crown was unable to point out when she lost consciousness (during or after the rape), he used that rationale as to why he acquitted the cab driver.

The appeal goes over just how messy incapacity to consent is and then really reams into the judge for a bunch of mistakes, including his assertion that incapacity requires unconscious but, ironically, his statement of "a drunk can consent" was really only thing the appeal court agreed with him:

[112] The trial judge’s comment “Clearly, a drunk can consent” received sharp criticism from some quarters. The Crown concedes that the impugned expression is not wrong, but says the judge’s choice of words amounted to an unfortunate personalization of the complainant.

[113] The Crown's concession is appropriate. As detailed earlier, it is well established in our jurisprudence that an intoxicated person may still have the capacity to voluntarily agree to engage in sexual activity despite the expectation that if sober or less impaired they would not have done so.

Concurring was Saunders who specifically wanted to note:

[131] When Judge Lenehan said “Clearly, a drunk can consent” he was simply stating the law (see for example: R. v. Jensen, 1996 CanLII 1237 (ONCA); appeal to SCC quashed 1997 CanLII 368 (SCC), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 304; R. v. Esau, 1997 CanLII 312 (SCC), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 777; R. v. Ewanchuk, 1999 CanLII 711 (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 330; R. v. A.Q.D., 2002 NSSC 222; R. v. M.A.P., 2004 NSCA 27; R. v. Siddiqui, [2004] B.C.J. No. 2609; R. v. Cedeno (2005), 2005 ONCJ 91 (CanLII), 195 C.C.C. (3d) 468 (O.C.J.); R. v. J.R., 2006 CanLII 22658 (ON SC), [2006] O.J. No. 2698; R. v. J.A., 2011 SCC 28; R. v. Haraldson, 2012 ABCA 147; and R. v. Barton, 2017 ABCA 216). Had he said “a drunken consent is a valid consent” or “intoxicated persons, can nonetheless consent” his words would still have been a proper statement of the law, while, arguably, sounding less personal or harsh. But that is not the reason for reversal in this case, and it is important to say so, just as the Crown has acknowledged in its submissions to this Court.

In terms of moral reasoning and just plain old good fashioned advice, I'm not intending to disagree with afc wimbledon, just saying that the law is not clear.

But I do think when afc wimbeldon says drunk he probably means to a point of being incapacitated, but this is where our definition of drunk matters. Also I even found that not being able to remember the incident isn't even a legal bar, you can still consent and blackout which is crazy to me.

[TheoFleury]

As a middle aged male, I've found it's just easier to stay away all together. If you're not a slave to your base instincts, you won't find yourself in situations where you can get screwed over. Even just having a girlfriend isn't worth it, for me anyway. Too much financial and emotional risk when the system is rigged against you. Juice just isn't worth the squeeze. Most people need another person to define them or make them happy though. Whether that be by being tethered to them in a relationship or by being a slave to the flesh. They can't stand the thought of being alone and need that codependency