What a biggoted Bull SH#@ Law

[FreakinDJ]

The nation's top party school could get a sobering jolt from a change in state law that puts alcohol on a par with date-rape drugs as an aggravating factor in certain sexual assaults.

The change, long sought by rape- victim advocates in Wisconsin, means that victims who are very drunk during a sexual encounter can be judged incapable of giving consent, triggering a possible second-degree sexual assault charge.

Prior to the change, which took effect in June, a victim who had been drinking typically had to be unconscious to be deemed incapable of consenting to sex.

Blanchard also stressed that the somewhat lower bar on consent standards for victims does not extend to perpetrators, who can be charged for crimes whether they have been drinking or not.

"Alcohol is not an excuse," he said. "It's our job to help jurors understand that people who want to commit sexual assault many times are going to take unfair advantage to get what they want."
http://www.madison.com/wsj/mad/top/index.php?ntid=88937&ntpid=2

So let me get this straight - the woman can not be held accountable for giving consent when she is drunk, but the man can be tried for rape for having consentual sex with her when she is drunk.

Who ever wrote this piece of garbage just plain hates men and will stoop very low

[dsc]

1. actually it appears even worse

Both people can be drunk but she is ruled incapable of conscent but he is deemed capable of forming intent. That seems a very unfair situation.

[TomInTib]

3. How will they determine a level of intoxication hours after the fact?

Most alcohol-related sexual assaults are reported long after the act.

This is just crap.

[dsc]

45. You can work backward fairly well

There is a fairly standard formula that only varies a little from person to person. As long as you were certain that no alcohol had been ingested between you should be able to get a fairly accurate level from start to finish.

[The Magistrate]

5. It Does Seem A Bit Off, Sir

Sauce for both goose and gander, and all that....

[jbnow]

161. Don't see that it specifies gender

a woman could take advantage of a drunken man too, so could another man.

I don't know how they weigh it if both parties are under the influence though, you raise a good point.

Still it is not some wild law evidently. The article states Wisconsin had been the only state to exclude alcohol as a potential legal intoxicant in rape cases before the law change.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. My only comment regards alcohol

Some frat boys who were drunk decided it would be fun to try and shoot the old lady who was sitting by her window. They broke the glass, and missed the old lady. The cops at the time shrugged it off as just a boozy prank. The old lady was my grandmother, and I was very upset. If I had been an adult, I would have sued the SOBs for what they did. From this incident, and others, I am opposed to underage people EVER drinking. They just don't have the brains to know how to handle it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. We just got back from a canoe trip that was nearly ruined by drunk

underage kids. I agree with you completely. I was so glad we were only on a river with them and not on a highway.

[tjwash]

74. I got back from a boat trip that was ruined by drunk 40+ year olds.

There are supposed to be legal limits of HOW intoxicated you can be in public, it's just difficult to enforce them.

[proud2BlibKansan]

130. Did they have a beer bong?

Call me a spoil sport but I just don't think beer bongs and boats are a good mix.

We did see one funny sight. My son was in a canoe by himself and he came along a woman in the front of a canoe, paddling furiously and not getting anywhere. He wondered why she was in the front like that, instead of the back of the canoe, like he was doing. As he passed her, she looked at him and asked if she could get in his canoe with him. He looked behind her and there was a man laying in the back of the canoe, passed out. We figured it was going to take her a couple days to get down that river with his dead weight in the back of her canoe. LOL

[tjwash]

195. OUCH! I'm hurting just thinking of the sunburn that guy woke up with.

Not to mention the 6 mile walk back to camp on top of it. :crazy:

It's kind of funny to see drunk twenty-somethings...but seeing forty-somethings acting like that is just plain sad.

They are however, providing a valuable public service. Nothing could possibly deter someone from a life of heavy drinking, then pointing at these people, and being able to say "see that, that's the path you are heading down. Not too pretty is it?"

[deaniac21]

218. That should go double for men...

[Mojambo]

4. This one stinks, bad. n/t

[Mythsaje]

7. So...don't have sex when you're drinking...

Don't pick women up in bars.

Don't serve alcohol to your dates.

In fact, don't allow your dates to drink at all.

It's beginning to sound like Wisconsin has gone around the bend.

[TahitiNut]

9. "don't allow your dates to drink"?

Uhmm... nevermind. :shrug: :eyes:

[Mythsaje]

10. It was sarcasm...

I just didn't think the smiley was really necessary.

[acmejack]

17. Why do you think they felt compelled to create the thing?

The blindingly obvious is not always.

[Mythsaje]

20. Obviously...n/t

[FreakinDJ]

15. Maybe women shouldn't be allow alcohol just like Indians

Remember the old days when it was illegal to sell liquor to an Indian

Maybe that is what the bigotted author of this law was intending

[Mandate My Ass]

8. If somebody is too drunk to scream "get the hell off me, you rapist pig"

then they should just have to suffer the lifetime PTSD of knowing someone engaged in sex with them without their knowledge and explicit consent?

I'd agree that evaluating the determinative threshold might be a problem, but knowing that men deliberately get women drunk to get laid should at least play a part in determining that threshold.

It used to be what she was wearing, now it's what she drank that is the excuse for sexual assault. No means no and not being able to say yes is equivalent to saying no.

Just my .02 cents.

[Mojambo]

11. Unless the guy is secretly spiking her drink, he's not the one getting her

drunk.

People, for the most part, get themselves drunk.

[Lars39]

12. She's not raping herself, though.

[FreakinDJ]

16. No one forced her to drink

[Lars39]

18. And no one is forcing the guy to rape her.

[FreakinDJ]

37. She consented to it

Then changed her mind in the morning

[Mandate My Ass]

38. That's not what the article stated

at all.

Nor does it bolster a rape case when so few are prosecuted already.

[FreakinDJ]

43. Waited 15 months to report it - Doesn't pass the smell test

Dunn waited 15 months to report hers - and alcohol use by victims and perpetrators can be harder to win in court.

Sorry that doesn't quite pass the smell test either

Doesn't give reason for needing a grossly biased law where the woman is not responsible but the man is. That just smells of bigotry

[Telly Savalas]

52. "I don't care how fucking drunk you were last night...

you sold me your car for five dollars last night, now it's mine."

[Mandate My Ass]

19. nobody forces anybody else to drink

But being drunk neither constitutes an implied consent to be assaulted and/or raped nor does it imply that one is not culpable for illegal acts committed under the influence.

It's not legal to steal a car or rob a bank if one is drunk, so why should it be legal for one to rape somebody if either party was drunk?

[smirkymonkey]

72. What is it, something like 70% of all people in prison committed

their illegal act while under the influence of drugs or alcohol?

I don't believe they let you off the hook quite so easily just because you had a few too many.

[Solon]

96. Argument falls apart like this...

Let's say you have two people that are intoxicated, they decide to recreate the OK corral, and shoot at each other, injuring each other seriously, is only one responsible?

Its pretty much the same thing, if the woman can claim she couldn't consent due to drunkeness, so can the man, therefore, if the law is enforced EQUALLY, then BOTH get thrown in jail. Actually, that would be preferable.

[smirkymonkey]

178. That's a ridiculous analogy, it's more like this....

If two people get drunk and one person shoots the other one, and then claims later that the person who was shot consented to being shot, has no crime been committed? The woman who was raped did not committ a CRIME against the rapist. Poor judgement is not grounds for prosecution.

So you'd victimize a rape victim twice by throwing HER in jail on top of the assault?

[Solon]

205. Either both are equally cupable or not...

You can't have it both ways, if BOTH of them are so intoxicated that they CANNOT consent to sex, and yet do it anyways, you have to ask, who is the victim, and who is the perp?

[Solon]

98. No, but if he is equally intoxicated, then she is raping him as well...

the law either applies equally or its a bad law period.

[Mandate My Ass]

13. I agree completely

but consent is what is at question here.

The burden of proof is definitely on the side of the defendant. If someone is passed out, and can demonstrate that to the jury beyhond a reasonable doubt, (very difficult to do), the rapist (whether male or female) should not be able to claim that alcohol impeded their judgment and therefore they are not culpable.

I'd love to hear a DUI defendant make the claim that they were drunk, so they didn't know getting behind the wheel of their car and creating a danger to others was an excuse for the very act of violating the law itself.

[Mythsaje]

24. I understand that in Germany

that giving yourself access to your car while drinking can be considered attempted manslaughter. If people take their car to the bar and subsequently drive home while intoxicated, intent is assumed because the driver arranged access while sober.

Or something like that. I don't know this first-hand. My wife's the one who told me this and it's been confirmed by a few people since.

So, if you draw a correlation, you could say that going to a bar with the hopes of finding someone to take home for sex is intent to rape.

Eeek.

God, I'm glad I'm married.

[Mandate My Ass]

27. I would say giving yourself access to your car after inebriation

might constitute intent to manslaughter. I have driven my car to the bar and subsequently taken a cab home because I drank more than I anticipated. If I drink too much and get into my car I am posing a danger to others, and inebriation is not a mitigating factor. If I drink too much and can't tell somebody not to rape me ,I'm not giving them consent to rape me, and my failure to do so should not be a mitigating factor to the rapist.

The burden of proof is still on the plaintiff and the benefit of the doubt is still granted to the accused here so I don't see what the problem is. I also don't see where the two coincide.

[Mythsaje]

29. All things being equal, I'm glad I'm not single in Wisconsin...

Or anywhere else for that matter, but that's besides the point.

[Mandate My Ass]

30. Ah, but you didn't answer how the two are related

just repeated your opinion that being married is a safeguard against a rape accusation in Wisconsin. Umm, OK. :shrug:

[Mythsaje]

32. That means I'm a long way

from being out partying while trying to meet women...with alcohol being part of the scene...with all its disruption of rational judgment. I'm not sure any single guy who goes out to drink can consider himself safe having sex with any woman he meets out there. At least not until they meet again while NOT drinking.

I don't trust the system in general as it is. This doesn't make me feel any more comfortable with it. I can easily see how this could be abused. And will be, I'm sure.

[Mandate My Ass]

36. Maybe one in ten rape accusations acutally make it to court

and that's when the accused is stone sober and there's DNA evidence. Because in a rape, the accuser is usually the only witness to the crime, and their testimony is subject to great scrutiny, and their character is on trial moreso than the accused.

So, unless they're about to outlaw the benefit of the doubt being granted to the accused, I don't see the potential for abuse that you see.

[acmejack]

14. You have no chance in this argument.

Cut your losses.
edit: I rest my case

[Mojambo]

28. I'm not looking for a fight.

And I certainly wasn't arguing against anything other than the following statement...

"knowing that men deliberately get women drunk to get laid"

The women are getting themselves drunk. And no, that doesn't mean it's okay for them to be raped.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

97. It's a sacred cow

The age old custom of using liquor to seduce. Honestly, in most cases you are dealing with a consensual situation. A lot of people use alcohol to loosen up and lower their inhibitions. But there are some guys who are incapable of distinguishing true consent. To them, anything that provides a path of least resistance is perfectly acceptable, and alcohol is the preferred means. Unfortunately, they are too often given a free pass in this woman hating and shaming society, as evidenced by comments in this thread.

[Mythsaje]

101. If they're deliberately doing it, sure...

If they are themselves simply using it as a social lubricant, and things go naturally from there, how is it a crime?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

119. But Mythsaje, I'm tellin ya

A lot of guys do it! You wouldn't believe how many times I've heard guys bragging about it. I used to work with a guy who would hang out until closing time at bars and try to lure drunk women away with him. He seriously thought it was okay to do that! I don't think I have to tell you that this particular fellow was an unattractive creepy loser who couldn't get dates on his own merits.

[Dunedain]

159. I know that guy

I call him Billy, guy is one sick puppy.
He looks at me like I'm saying he shouldn't breath when I criticize his using behavior like that.

[fishwax]

181. in that case, it isn't a crime--even according to this law

All the law does is change Wisconsin's definition of 2nd degree sexual assault, which previously specifically excluded alcohol, to include alcohol as a legal intoxicant (just like every other state). It doesn't make it a crime for tipsy people to have sex, nor does it make it a crime to have sex with someone who is drunk.

[Solon]

115. And if women do the same thing, they get a free pass? n/t

[Mythsaje]

122. Do women even NEED to? Honestly? n/t

[dsc]

123. Yes all men are just sex hungry beasts

and all women are frigid. Give me a break. I am trying to imagine the howls that would be set forth by an equally sterotypical post in the other direction. Not to mention you seem to totally forget about any possible lesbian senario.

[Mythsaje]

129. Yeah, actually, I wasn't thinking about that...

But I don't think a lot of women need to ply a guy with liquor to get laid. And, yeah, I do think that a LOT of men are sex-hungry beasts. What of it?

I'm not sure where you get the idea that I think women are frigid though...

[dsc]

131. I am certainly not saying that most men aren't into sex

clearly that would be nuts. But my point is that some men actually aren't and some women are. I can easily see a woman using alcohol to warm up a man.

[Mythsaje]

135. It's probably happened...

It's well known that a lot of people are much more attractive after you've had a six pack than before you've had a six pack.

I just tend to agree it most often happens the other way around.

[Solon]

138. Actually, in many cases yes...

Yeah, I met many guys who are looking to "score" but I have met as many women who are the exact same way. As far as I can tell, both sexes are equally sexually "aggressive" if you will. However, its CULTURAL differences that factor in as well, women are viewed as "sluts" a negative term when they act that way, while men are considered "players" a distinctly positive connotation in THAT word. In this case, guys would be more likely to "act the part" so to speak, 24/7, whereas we could say the opposite happens with women.

The best way to defeat the argument, in many cases, is the case of clubbing, I've gone clubbing many times, usually with a group of women who are my friends, damn near all of them went out for one reason, and one reason only, to "score". Being an enlightened guy, I never really viewed this as anything unusual or negative. Its a difference of perception, not fact.

[Mythsaje]

141. Oh, I believe it...

I've been the lone guy in a group of women more than once. I'm just not sure I've ever seen women plying guys with alcohol in the hopes that they can score with them. Unless I was that guy and never realized it.

Wait a minute...

[Solon]

149. I will say it can be fun...

I remember one St. Patty's day I went out clubbing with 5 women, but the thing was, THAT night was supposed to be a lady's night for them, to go out and party, have a good time, and not worry about guys. So, that night, I was dancing with all of them, many times at the same time, then I drove them home, I had fun, that is all that matters.

Also, I remember quite a few times that women would buy me drinks, occasionally, of course, when I was the designated driver, I declined, I'm somewhat anal about that, I don't think that ANYONE who drinks and drives is responsible enough to even HAVE a license at all. Its one of those things I simply do NOT tolerate. Its just stupid.

[fishwax]

182. the law specifically applies to both men and women

[Solon]

185. So if two drunk people have sex, both get thrown in jail?

Or is it first come, first serve?

[fishwax]

192. Umm, no. Drunk people having sex is not a crime.

Knowingly having sex with someone who is under the influence of an intoxicant to the degree that they cannot appraise the actions of the actor is a crime. Previously, however, the Wisconsin law specifically excluded alcohol alone as an intoxicant.

Prior to this change, knowingly having sex with someone who was so drunk that they could barely function and could neither give consent nor say no was legal, unless that person had taken a hit of weed or ecstasy at some point that night, in which case they would be considered intoxicated under the Wisconsin law.

Here's a link to the ammendment's wording:
http://folio.legis.state.wi.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=25883516&infobase=bills05.nfo&jump=sb526&softpage=Document#JUMPDEST_sb526

(on edit: realized that the link was to the wording of the law, not to the sponsor's web site)

[Solon]

206. So basically everyone is objecting to the stupid wording of an...

ignorant DA. Is that what you are talking about?

[fishwax]

210. I think everyone is misreading a misleading article and then being

quickly led to outrage.

Prior to the law change, alcohol was specifically exempted from the definition of an intoxicating substance in the state's 2nd degree rape statute.

Now that the law has been changed, alcohol is included in the definition of an intoxicating substance in the state's 2nd degree rape statute. But all the other standards of 2nd degree rape remaine the same: the victim has to be intoxicated, has to be so intoxicated as to be unable to appraise the suspect's actions, and the suspect has to be aware of the victim's condition. None of those standards has changed. The article does make it possible to interpret this as a "new" law which means intoxication can negate consent, but that doesn't make it so. :)

And being drunk was never an acceptable excuse--before or after the wording change--for this or any other crime. The DA's comment in the article--that people are still responsible for crimes they commit while intoxicated--was put in the article, not with reference to the specifics of this law change, but rather with reference to his paraphrased comments about the dangers of alcohol.

Then what the OP did is put the DA's comments about how victims (presumed female, though the article doesn't really say that) may get so drunk as to be unable to give consent right next to the DA's comments about how "alcohol is not an excuse" for perpetrators (presumed male, though again the article doesn't really say that).

He quoted these paragraphs, one after another, with no ellipses to indicate that they were addressing different parts of the article. This doesn't strike me as an honest presentation of the article, and gave the impression that the law specifically indicated that men are responsible for what they do while drunk but women aren't.

[Solon]

212. But if the suspect is too intoxicated to knowingly take advantage...

of another person, isn't that a valid defense?

[fishwax]

214. I suppose that's for a lawyer to decide

Okay, I'm getting your point about how the DA's words could be misleading in addition to the article itself. :) It seems like (though I'm not a lawyer), if you could prove that the accused was too drunk to know the other person's condition then no crime actually occurred.

[Solon]

216. It's a fine line...

And this was my only problem with the law, and the DA's words, when you linked to the Amendment, and it mentioned that they have to KNOW the other person is too intoxicated, then I was somewhat mollified. Though, if I remember right, and in some cases it is hazy, but during my party days, well, I was shitfaced, and so was everybody else at the house parties we had, and well, the question is, she knew I was shitfaced, I knew she was shitfaced, so, did we rape each other? Then again, considering we dated for a year after that, I wouldn't think so, but who knows what the law says.

[fishwax]

220. Yes, I can see that concern

When I first read this, I was a little up in arms too, as it seemed like an obvious double standard. But something about the article didn't quite sit right (specifically the fact that it said Wisconsin was the only state where this wasn't the case), so I decided to research it further.

And having had been at a few such parties myself, I know there's a lot of sloppy drunk sex in the world :rofl: But I think there's a difference between being shitfaced and being unable to really know what's going on.

And as far as guys go--I'm not saying a guy can't ever be coerced into sex under any circumstances, but if the equipment works, you're probably still sober enough to give consent. Of course, that doesn't mean you HAVE to give consent, just that you're probably capable :)

[Solon]

222. You forget that we get stiffies while unconscious...

and its hell when you have to take a piss when you wake up too! I should know, that happened to me just this morning, painful, YES!

[Marnieworld]

229. Thanks for sharing!

:hi:

[Fleshdancer]

21. My take on things:

1. As a woman, I am smart enough and capable enough to own my sexuality. I can choose to drink. I can choose to have sex. I can choose to combine the two and go crazy. I'm multi-gifted in that way. :eyes:

2. If you spike my drink with a date rape drug then you're a rapist asshole who should be convicted.

3. I don't care how drunk I am. If I say no you better stop or else face the consequences of being a rapist.

4. When in doubt, ask. Seriously, it really is that simple.

[FreakinDJ]

33. No it is not that simple

She can say yes - have consensual sex - then in the morning change her mind and say "Geez I must have been drinking"

That is Bullshit

You on the other hand sound level headed. No one is talking about spiking drinks with date rape drugs here. No one is talking about "Non Consensual Sex"

What they are talking about is "Withdrawing Consent after the fact"

[Fleshdancer]

47. This ruling undermines a woman's intelligence and a man's ethics

Seriously, how many women have consensual sex and then changes their mind the next day? How many men have sex with a woman who is too drunk to know where or who she is and considers it consensual sex anyway?

If we want to get serious about reducing the number of rapes in this country, then we need to seriously start addressing date rapes and the overall attitude that *some* people have when they think they are entitled to someone else's genitalia. In most situations, rape occurs long before anyone is drunk.

[FreakinDJ]

76. The law has too much potential for false acqusations

Girl gets dumped

Girl has boyfriend, husband, or fiance and realises she did some thing wrong in haste

Girl realises her reputation at school may be tarnished

add infinitium to the list

the case they cited the girl waited 15 months to report the incident. If it was trully rape she would have reported it a lot sooner, any number of motivations could have caused her to "RETHINK" the situation

[fishwax]

183. and the case they cited wasn't prosecuted

most likely because there was no evidence other than a he-said she-said situation. It wouldn't be prosecuted under this law, either, because the law is not about "withdrawing consent," nor does it make having sex with a drunk person tantamount to rape. All it does is slightly ammend Wisconsin's law on 2nd degree sexual assault.

Previously, it was illegal to knowingly have sex with someone who was too intoxicated to give consent, unless the intoxicant in question was alcohol. Now, it's illegal to knowingly have sex with someone who is too intoxicated to give consent, even if the intoxicant in question is alcohol.

That's all. There isn't any more room for abuse in the new law than there was previously.

[dysfunctional press]

22. so if the guy has been drinking as well...

doesn't that mean that his judgement is impaired to the point that he can't be held accountable for his actions too...?

or does alcohol only affect women?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

58. The problem is:

It's a common cultural practice, and believe me I know from many years in male-dominated enviroments, to view intoxicated women as fair game and to sometimes deliberately use alcohol to lower a woman's resistance. It's one thing if two people just happen to get really shitfaced and have an "oops". It's entirely another when one party is clearly way more intoxicated than the other, who is knowingly exploiting the situation. That's what that law is attempting to address, albeit imperfectly.

[FreakinDJ]

64. albeit imperfectly means Biggotry

Any time a women asks for equality then perhaps you should remind them of this law

The woman is not held accountable

The man is held accountable

Now you raised a hypothetical situation where it seems the law is appropriate. You even admitted the law has some imperfections.

My question to you is this - HOW MANY INNOCENT MEN DO WE IMPRISON BEFORE WE REALISE THE LAW IS IMPERFECT .....10....20....100....500

If she willing gives consent, then wakes up in the morning and goes "oopps" this law will place that man in prison for up to 25 years.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

79. You seem to suggest

That the ratio of wrongly convicted men to those justifiably convicted will be very high. What is your basis for this assumption? Most rapes go unreported as it is because victims know they will face a bunch of people like you. People who are inclined to blame them for whatever happened and view them as lying vindictive sluts by default, based on a few anecdotes of "some poor guy who got burned". Do you have any idea how difficult it is to prosecute a rapist?

[FreakinDJ]

84. You still expressing Biggotry

Basically what you saying is it is ok to write laws knowing full well it will result in the wrongful conviction of innocent men

Or did you mean to say "As long as it is only harmful to men then it is OK"

1 man convicted wrongly by this law is too many

Did you ever stop to thing 1 out every 5 men in prison is forcefully raped in prison. Seems like the feminist who wrote this law just really hates men

[mrreowwr_kittty]

89. Well apparently

You're okay with women being raped as long as a few men are being protected from wrongful conviction. As long as it's only harmful to women, right? There's no such thing as too many raped women I guess. Especially if we're drinking/wearing short skirts/out at night/on a date etc...

BTW, women get raped in prison too.

[Mythsaje]

91. Yes, women get raped in prison too...

But how many jokes do you hear on TV about it?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

152. I don't think any rape should be joked about

But at the same time I think there is a perception that it's much, much, more traumatic for a man to be raped (by a man) than it is for a woman. I think that may be why it's joked about more, not that it's okay to do that. It's one of those things that's just so ultimately frightening to ponder that they use gallows humor to ward it off. I knew a guy, another co-worker, who swore that he'd kill himself if it ever happened to him.

Somehow I think this law would be more acceptable to you guys if it were being implemented in the aftermath of a rash of male-on-male drunken rapes. I also suspect you'd want to prosecute a man who took sexual advantage of you while you were intoxicated. You might feel too intimidated to actually go through with pressing the charges due to the treatment you'd get in the legal system, not to mention the social stigma. Which, BTW, is really not much different than what women go through under similar circumstances, the homophobic angle notwithstanding. But we ladies get to contend with living in a culture where it's considered normal, and even encouraged, for men to get us drunk so they can have sex with us.

[Mythsaje]

153. No, I think they just find it funny...because they think or know

it will never happen to them.

Rape isn't ever funny.

I invited my wife to come on and post when she told me HER opinion of this law. Because I told her I sure as hell wasn't going to repeat THAT. I might as well drag a cross and a bag of nails with me.

She doesn't do message boards.

The gist of it was that if it didn't work both ways, it's a stab in the back, and that any woman who supported it was spitting in the face of anyone who truly believed in gender equality. If men are considered responsible for their actions and decisions, women should be held to the same standard. Period.

[Solon]

173. I do hope both of you know that well over half of all women raped in...

prison are raped by other women? Yes, male guards will rape the prisoners sometimes, and I'm not disputing that, but it doesn't negate female on female rape in prison. That could actually be part of the reason why it isn't joked about. Just putting that out there.

[Mythsaje]

175. I'm sure it happens, yes...

But somehow it just doesn't have the sting that being "Bubba's cellmate" seems to have. It's a mainstay in cop shows, for example. Just one more threat they can throw at a suspect.

The point is that very few people think the rape of women is a laughing matter...so why do so many people think prison rape of guys is amusing?

BTW...my wife is a former Corrections Officer.

[Solon]

176. To cover their own insecurities...

Actually, this is a cultural problem, but one that is rooted in misogyny and homophobia rather than feminism and equal rights. Only recently have some states actually changed sexual assault laws to be gender neutral, so, up until recently, most male on male, female on male, and female on female rape was actually perfectly legal, regardless of circumstances. This is for adults, obviously, children, regardless of sex, are usually protected by the law, regardless of what sex the perp or victim is. The fact of the matter is that guys in general don't want to think that THEY can also be victims, period.

[FreakinDJ]

92. No just the Bullshit biggoted law

If a woman says no - yes of course the man should be convicted to the fullest extent of the law.

This law allows for a woman to give consent and then change her mind in the morning. That is just wrong on so many levels.

And yes False Rape Acqusations are very previlent. Some studies as high as 41%.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

102. 41%

I almost hesitate to request this, because I can only imagine what wretched cesspool of misogyny that particular stat came from, but can you provide a link to that number?

[FreakinDJ]

162. Study conducted by the FBI

[mrreowwr_kittty]

163. Which FBI? FreakinDJ's Boyish Intuition? Once again, a link please n/t

[Name removed]

164. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

166. Tried spellcheck yet? It's bigotry - not biggotry.

Oh gee, your link is from the website of an obvious misogynist. Quel surprise :eyes:

How about something from the actual FBI, since Swami Ananda or whoever the fuck your guru of woman hatred is doesn't seem to provide any citations to back up his claim.

Oh, and you can stick your 50 cent psychoanalysis of me where the sun don't shine.

[Name removed]

168. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bridget Burke]

187. Now you misspelled "Aggressive"....

Guys can get therapy too!

[FreakinDJ]

225. I don't give "spell checker" on the first date sweety - sorry

[Bridget Burke]

232. Since you've shown how you treat "dates"....

No, thanks.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

201. Not a man-hater but I am irritated by poor spelling - It's 'aggressive'

Speaking of emotional issues, you seem to be getting quite exercised over this topic. Wonder why that is? Is your preferred "seduction method" being jeopardized by this type of legislation? Hmmmm.....?

[IsIt1984Yet]

133. But don't forget how many go unreported. This site says 58%

http://www.rainn.org/statistics/index.html

[fishwax]

202. how exactly does this law allow a woman to withdraw consent after the fact

[EOTE]

203. I think this explains it:

"The change, long sought by rape- victim advocates in Wisconsin, means that victims who are very drunk during a sexual encounter can be judged incapable of giving consent, triggering a possible second-degree sexual assault charge."

If they're judged incapable of giving consent, that means that they can consent to having sex while intoxicated, and later on, have a legal basis for withdrawing consent. Saying effectively, I was too drunk when I consented, and I didn't mean it.

[fishwax]

208. No, that's not the way the law works

Again, this is not a new law, but rather changes the definition of an intoxicant in the statute which prohibits knowingly having sex with someone too intoxicated to know what's going on (2nd Degree Rape). Previously, the statute specifically excluded alcohol from the definition of intoxicating substances.

Previously, someone who "changed their mind" could claimed they were under the influence of a controlled substance (or perhaps claimed that someone had slipped something in their drink) and gotten the same result--likely a charge that wouldn't be prosecuted. All this change does is treat alcohol like any other intoxicating substance (just as every other state in the union does: "Wisconsin had been the only state to exclude alcohol as a potential legal intoxicant in rape cases before the law change, sponsored by Sen. Cathy Stepp, R-Sturtevant.")

[EOTE]

219. So this offers more chances for people to "change their mind".

So, what is to prevent someone from using this change to the law for nefarious purposes? It seems to me that this changes an already bad law into a worse one. Before, someone could have intoxicated themselves with an illicit substance (say ecstasy), had consensual sex while intoxicated, then accuse the other party of rape because of... well, any reason that appeals to them. They would be allowed to do this because they had intoxicated themselves beforehand and were therefore incapable of making a decision. Now, the law is just broadened to include alcohol as well.

[fishwax]

223. I can accuse my neighbor of breaking and entering

but that doesn't make laws against breaking and entering bad laws. Personally, I think it should be illegal to have sex with someone who is so fucked up they don't know what's going on.

[dsc]

114. Then it should be written that way

as it stands having sex with any drunk woman at any time is a rapist if she decides he is. Incidently, I find it very interesting that evidently a man having sex with a man isn't covered in this law. I wonder why? Somehow I think I know. On edit After rereading the article I am less sure it doesn't cover man/man situation.

[Solon]

146. Shouldn't you be against this law as well?

You stated this:

It's one thing if two people just happen to get really shitfaced and have an "oops".

OK, see, this is the problem, this law doesn't DISTINGUISH between this situation and the one you mentioned where one party is sober or less intoxicated. So basically you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and you say the law is just "imperfect", color me astonished at the hypocrisy.

[fishwax]

186. the law only affects people who KNOWINGLY have sex with someone

who is too intoxicated to give consent.

Previously, under Wisconsin law, it was illegal to knowingly have sex with someone who was intoxicated to the point that they were unable to give consent. However, the Wisconsin law specifically excluded alcohol alone as an intoxicant. The only change that's being made here is that alcohol is no longer specifically excluded from the definition of intoxicant with respect to 2nd degree sexual assault.

[dysfunctional press]

191. but what if you're too intoxicated to know if someone is too intoxicated..

to give consent?

that lack of judgement thing has to swing both ways.

[fishwax]

193. then are you doing it knowingly

:shrug:

Knowingly having sex with someone who is under the influence of an intoxicant to the degree that they cannot appraise the actions of the actor is a crime. Previously, however, the Wisconsin law specifically excluded alcohol alone as an intoxicant.

Prior to this change, knowingly having sex with someone who was so drunk that they could barely function and could neither give consent nor say no was legal, unless that person had taken a hit of weed or ecstasy at some point that night, in which case they would be considered intoxicated under the Wisconsin law.

Here's a link to the wording:
http://folio.legis.state.wi.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?cli...

(on edit: spelling)

[ismnotwasm]

23. First, I would hope that any man

Wouldn't WANT consent from a woman in this condition. Or even consider it consent. The appropriate thing to do for anyone extremely drunk-- is to call a cab and get them home--not to rape them.

"And while prosecutors say it is likely to be used only rarely - in cases in which victims don't pass out but are so impaired by alcohol they are "unable to appraise their own conduct," as one advocate put it - the change was heralded by experts who work with assault survivors."

Second, rape is a serious issue, not a bigoted one. It happens to both women and men, women far, far more than men. In either case, the rapist nearly always male. I direct those interested to this website:
http://www.mencanstoprape.org/index.htm

[Mythsaje]

25. If the woman is falling all over themselves, drooling, and

at risk of vomiting, yeah, that's a pretty good sign they're not up for sex. Same if they've passed out completely.

But, honestly, if alcohol lowers inhibitions, where's a guy supposed to draw the line regarding how much alcohol it takes for a woman to be no longer legally capable of giving consent? Especially if HE'S drinking as well?

It seems to expect a lot of judgment while consuming something well known for disrupting judgment.



edited to fix bad grammar

[Mandate My Ass]

31. Once again you're using alcohol consumption of being an aggravating

factor for women and a mitigating factor for men accused of rape.

If I rob a bank that neglected to activate its alarm system, would I be any less guilty of bank robbery when caught? Once again, the burden of proof being on the accuser rather than the accused.

[Mythsaje]

34. No...

I'm arguing that a guy might have no idea if he's committing rape or not if the woman SEEMS willing...

I'm not talking about passed out drunk, or obviously incoherent. How much alcohol is necessary for the woman to be considered no longer capable of consent? And how the hell is a guy who's drinking going to have the judgment to make that call?

[Mandate My Ass]

40. The burden of proof rests upon the accuser

whether they are male or female, so rest assured your brothers will not be subject to any witchunts by vindictive females.

It's already difficult to prosecute rape, this doesn't do anything to make it easier, it just doesn't give the accused a get-out-of-jail-free card to somebody who is caught in flagrante dilecto and says "well I was drunk, so what?"

[Mythsaje]

42. I don't really give a crap

if someone who's guilty of rape is prosecuted for it. Don't go assuming I'm protective of guys, because I don't even like the majority of them a hell of a lot. Beer drinking, football watching, loudmouth jerks.

What worries is me is how something like this might be abused. That's the other side of the coin, you realize. How something that SOUNDS perfectly benign might be turned into something else entirely.

[FreakinDJ]

46. Its not rape - why do you call it rape??

How is some one supposed to know "How Intoxicated" is too intoxicated.

Alcoholics can operate in a total blackout for days even weeks. Now you want to prosecute guys for what a woman does in a blackout? she may have consented, even asked / initiated the alleged sexual encounter, but she (the woman) will not be held responsible for her actions.

What utter bigoted BS

[Mythsaje]

49. You sure you're responding to the right person here?

I think the law is bullshit...

[ismnotwasm]

53. I really don't think it all that difficult a decision.

And I'm sure no one needs a lecture from me regarding when someone is too wasted. I did my hard partying time, and I figured a thing or two out all by myself.

How about this? If there is the slighest doubt--don't. Requires a thought or two beforehand perhaps.

[FreakinDJ]

59. They should stop selling alcohol to women altogether

If their not responsible for their actions when their drinking then they shouldn't be allowed to drink - period end of subject.

The law will prosecute men when the women changes her mind in the morning. How do you know "How drunk she was when she gave consent". At the same time it holds the male responsible when he could be even more intoxicated.

Simple man hating Biggotry.

The women who wrote this law must be realy really ugly. At least her form of justice certainly is

[FreakinDJ]

39. How much it too much alcohol

Remember she gave consent then had sex, then in the morning changed her mind

How much is too much, did anyone have a breathaliser when she conseted to having sex

No one forced her to drink the alcohol or spiked her drink, she drank it, she conseted, THEN SHE CHANGED HER MIND

What utter Biggoted man hating bull shit

People who write laws like these arn't sane enough to drive

[seriousstan]

26. Women in Wisconsin are obviously too immature to drink.

They need to either be prohibited from drinking or be accompanied by a nanny. Thank God my wife and I met in Ohio where women are adult enough to control their own actions.

[FreakinDJ]

35. Exactly - you get it

Like the old Indian laws. It needs to be illegal to sell alcohol to a woman there

[Xithras]

41. This will last until the first woman gets convicted.

Many men (myself included) have experienced the horror of waking up the morning after a drinking binge with some psychopathic or ugly as a stump woman who they would have NEVER consented to had they been sober. I guess the men of Wisconsin can now call the police and have those women sent to prison.

This is a stupid, stupid law. In my case, I woke up with a woman who I'd actually met beforehand, and who I knew to have mental issues (she was one of those super posessive women, and had attacked one boyfriend with a knife, and burned the car of another, simply because they'd broken up with her). She stalked me for a good month afterward until I finally scared her into leaving me alone (I didn't actually hurt her, but I caught her peeking in my window one night and chased her off). It never occurred to me that I was a "rape victim" and that I should have called the police when I woke up that morning.

[Mythsaje]

44. Now you know...n/t

[Xithras]

50. Lol! I still don't consider myself a "rape victim"

A stalking victim for sure, but I was the one who kept ordering the tequila shooters that night, so I kind of did it to myself. I believe the term is "putting on your beer goggles".

People get drunk for only one reason...to lower their inhibitions. If you willingly lower your inhibitions and do something you later regret, how is that anyone's fault but your own?

This article it's advocates aren't talking about rapes against unconcious people, but "rapes" against people who were simply too drunk to know better. If it was consensual at the time, and as long as the guy didn't spike the drink, how can anyone realistically call it rape? Apparently Wisconsinites can.

[fishwax]

189. do you think it's stupid to make it illegal to knowingly have sex with

someone who is too intoxicated to give consent?

Previously, under Wisconsin law, it was illegal to knowingly have sex with someone who was intoxicated to the point that they were unable to give consent. However, the Wisconsin law specifically excluded alcohol alone as an intoxicant. Previously, if someone was completely drunk to the point they didn't know what was going on and couldn't legally give consent, it would be legal to have sex with them, provided they had consumed nothing but alcohol. But if they had taken a hit off the bong in addition to all that alcohol, it would be illegal (because then it would be alcohol mixed with a controlled substance).

The only change being made here is that alcohol is no longer specifically excluded from the definition of intoxicant with respect to 2nd degree sexual assault.

I think the article created some confusion about what change is actually being made, and some people have quite willingly converted that confusion into outrage.

[EOTE]

204. Not true...

You say the following:

"Previously, if someone was completely drunk to the point they didn't know what was going on and couldn't legally give consent, it would be legal to have sex with them, provided they had consumed nothing but alcohol."

That is utter bullshit. In no state is it legal to have sex with someone without consent, that is RAPE. In Wisconsin, if a person was intoxicated on alcohol and nothing else, sex with that person is considered legal IF the person consents. The law is trying to change this so that a person can consent while drunk, then withdraw their consent after the fact and accuse the person of rape. This is an extremely dangerous slippery slope, and innocent people are going to suffer for it.

[fishwax]

207. No, you're wrong.

Previously alcohol alone was specifically excluded from the state's definition of an intoxicant in the statute on 2nd Degree Sexual Assault. There is no new law. Rather, the definition of an intoxicant was changed to include alcohol.

The statute says 2nd degree rape is when someone knowingly has sexual intercourse with someone who is too intoxicated to appraise the actions of the perpetrator. But previously, that specifically excluded victims who were intoxicated by alcohol.

http://folio.legis.state.wi.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=42853198&infobase=bills05.nfo&jump=ab953&softpage=Document#JUMPDEST_ab953

[rucky]

48. Being drunk is NEVER a defense for ANY crime.

why should it be in this case?

[Iris]

51. right. And just because someone is drunk doesn't mean he deserves to be

the victim of a crime. You can't take his bank card and his car simply because he's drunk.

(Well, you CAN take it but . . .)

[FreakinDJ]

55. Interesting concept

What would the police say if you reported a robbery.

"I gave them my ATM card and PIN code because I was drunk. When i woke up in the morning they had taken all the money out of my bank".

[mrreowwr_kittty]

62. What if

There were people deliberately targetting people in bars and plying them with alcohol in order to do just that? Despite whatever you may think of the poor judgement of the victims, don't you think it should be treated as a crime? Does drinking mean you don't deserve to have your property or bodily integrity respected?

[FreakinDJ]

66. If you willingly give it to them - its your problem

That is what is so wrong with this law

Some where, some one needs to take responsibility for their actions.

If you CHOOSE to drink, then you CHOOSE to give them you ATM card and PIN number, then it is YOUR problem. That is what any cop will tell you.

What this laws says is you can wake up in the morning and change your mind. Thats Bull Shit.

and no I have never taken advantage of a women who regretted it in the morning

[Mythsaje]

69. I'VE regretted it in the morning a time or two, come to think of it...

And the one time I can remember a woman expressing some regrets after sex, she'd been sober. And then, oddly enough, she repeated the whole thing about three nights later.

Now THAT was weird.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

83. How do you know she didn't regret it?

Maybe she was just too nice to tell you :shrug:

As to your analogy, if someone is deliberately plying people with alcohol in order to get their ATM cards and PINs out of them, that's okay with you? They are LESS to blame than the victim?

What kind of world are you advocating?

[Mythsaje]

86. But is that the issue at hand?

Is it someone deliberately giving someone alcohol, or simply taking advantage of someone who's plied themselves with alcohol? Or simply acting based upon the measure of the moment, where someone seems receptive for whatever reason?

If a woman truly doesn't consent, it's one thing. If the woman is totally incapable of consent because of unconsciousness, or "I don't know where I live" drunkenness, it's pretty much the same thing. Whether the guy gave it to her, or if she gave it to herself.

If it's "I'm drunk and I'm horny and he's damn good looking and why not?" and then, after time to reflect while not intoxicated, it's "boy, do I feel stupid for doing that," then maybe it's a different thing entirely.

I'm just wondering where the line is. That's all I've been asking throughout the whole thread. How much is TOO much.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

94. No you weren't

You were making a general statement that drunk = deserving of whatever happens to you. You didn't make the distinctions you are now making in your post. Your 'drunk and horny' straw victim is what stands for any rape victim who has had something to drink prior to the crime. Believe me, it is a common defense strategy to portray rape victims as just that.

[Mythsaje]

95. Wow...talk about reading what you want into a post...

The whole goddam thread, I've been saying it. Do you want me to go and paste pieces of every single time I said it?

What--you don't think women ever cruise for sex? While drinking alcohol? Are you really that fucking naive?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

116. Now you're changing the subject

Sure women, and men, cruise for sex and alcohol is often a part of that. But the issue is about ability to consent.

Let me try to reframe this a bit. I'm going to give you a hypothetical situation, one that is drawn from the real experience of some people I know. Let's say that you had a female acquaintance that you found very attractive. She is generally pretty friendly to you but has never demonstrated any romantic interest in return. One night you are out socializing with a group of people, of whom she is one. Now remember, you are VERY attracted to her. She has waaaay too much to drink. She is so drunk that she is staggering, slurring her speech badly, and doesn't seem to be fully aware of her surroundings. You, on the other hand, have had very little to drink. So little in fact, that you are completely aware of what's going on and sober enough to drive by the end of the evening. Your intoxicated love object starts hanging all over you. She kisses you on the dance floor. She asks you to drive her home. You drive her home. At her house she is once again all over you. She is obviously still highly intoxicated. You are sober. What do you do? I'm not going to make any assumptions about you, nor will I tell you what the guy I know in that situation did. I just want you to put yourself in his place and ask yourself what would guide your actions. Would you take advantage? Why or why not?

[Mythsaje]

125. If I'm sober, there's nothing attractive about someone in that

condition. It's as simple as that. And I think that most likely should be considered rape.

But we're not just talking about a sober guy with the ability to evaluate the situation clearly. We're also talking about the guy who is also intoxicated who may or may not realize how messed up SHE is.

And we're also talking about where the line of consent is. How drunk is TOO drunk? Legally drunk in terms of DUI statutes? Or something a bit more?

[Solon]

126. If the law only addressed situations similar to that, then there...

wouldn't be a debate at all. But, let's say the guy is as intoxicated as well, if the LETTER of the law was followed, BOTH would have to be charged with rape. That's what makes it a stupid law.

[dsc]

127. This wasn't directed to me but since I somewhat agree with

the poster you did address I will answer as well. First, lets replace she with he since I am into guys. No, I wouldn't. I am sober myself and want sober partners. I also think that this person would regret the sex and that I would ruin any relationship I might have with him if I did have the sex. But that is very different than saying I should go to jail if I decide to have the sex. Moral, wise, and legal are all different things. It would be both immoral and unwise to have sex in your senario. I don't think it should be illegal provided that the person is conscious the whole time. On edit I reread your post and realize you put in the idea that the person wasn't aware of surroundings. That does tip it to being illegal in my mind.

[Solon]

134. Actually, I disagree with you...

While being immoral versus illegal is somewhat ambigious when it comes to the law, there ARE problems with such a scenario. There is a line that should be drawn between being ABLE to consent even when conscious. Someone who is OBVIOUSLY intoxicated that was "taken advantage of" by a SOBER person IS raped due to INTENT of the rapist. That is something I don't dispute, I dispute the double standard that while one person is incapable of CONSENT, and therefore intent, and the other person is EQUALLY intoxicated to the point of not doing either that they are the ONLY ones capable of rape.

[dsc]

137. I editted upon rereading

I had assumed the person was aware but drunk. Sorry, but presuming adulthood if you are aware then you are responsible drunk or not. Unaware is a different story. Incidently I had the opportunity to do this with a guy I had a huge crush on and did nothing. I carried him to his bed, covered him up, and then went to mine and went to sleep. I don't know how a person is supposed to know exactly where the line is between a person who has inhibitions loosened but is conscenting and a person who is too drunk to conscent. People often do things drunk that they wouldn't do sober but that doesn't necessarily mean they don't wish to do what they did.

[Solon]

140. Hey, being a designated driver, specially after I quit drinking...

I've been in the situation the poster postulates as a hypothetical too many times to count. To be honest, it never really occured to me, the reason is I'm a "relationship" type of guy, not a "one night stand" type of guy. To me, the important thing is to CONNECT with the woman on a personal, intimate level, not just stick my dick in where it wasn't invited in the first place. To put it bluntly.

[Mythsaje]

142. Yeah, me too...

On edit... I've been told by a lot of people that I probably would've gotten laid a lot more often if I hadn't been such a relationship type of guy.

:shrug:

[dsc]

143. I am also a relationship type of guy

I can't phathom wanting to have sex with someone and not wanting to see the person again. I know that it happens. Heck I did it a time or two, but still. The guy I referred to above was crazy handsome but also a heck of a friend. I wouldn't have risked that for one night of fun. On edit over 6 years sober here. I wonder if our take on this comes from that record. One real problem I have with this law and other like it is that I believe it infantalizes adults. It allows us to not take responsibility for what we do when we drink which is a really bad idea. I also have done my share of driving for others.

[Solon]

148. I hope I didn't give you the wrong idea...

Sorry if I did, but I never had an addiction problem with alcohol, I'm not trying to minimize OTHER people's problems with it, I knew people who had that problem, and I sympathize. I was a "party drinker" I guess you could say, my co-workers and I would go out clubbing or partying at houses, etc. and I would get shitfaced. However, my problem was one of budget, it took a LOT of alcohol to get me drunk, and I simply couldn't afford it anymore, so I just quit, or I should say cut down drastically. Basically now its champagne at New Year's, occassionally some wine or mixed drinks with dinners, that's about it. The last time I got drunk was when my buddy Dave came over with some of his dad's wine about 2 years ago, it was stronger than I expected, and he, me, and my roommate got "slap happy", I remember we kept on laughing uncontrollably, and trying to play scrabble in the living room. Actually, if I remember right, I won that game. :) The thing is I don't NEED to have alcohol, so going to bars or clubs with friends is usually for the socialization and dancing than anything else. Its fun, even sober.

To give another example of my type of relationships with women, last summer I sort of reunited with a woman I only met briefly at a previous job. It was accidental, and so we went out. The catch was this, she was scheduled to, at the end of summer, to move to Hawaii for college, let's just say that I cooled off considerably after hearing that. However, I STILL went out with her every week for the rest of the summer, we had dinners, played pool, did whatever was available, and let me just say that though it sounds corny, even though I didn't get intimate with her, I STILL don't regret it.

[dsc]

150. Sorry didn't mean to read into your post

BTW a great woman and Hawaii what is not to like. In any case we sound kind of simliar though on different teams so to speak. I find it hard to meet men given that I don't really do the bar scene anymore. Being gay is kind of frustrating in that way when one lives in a smaller locale. In any case best of the night as I am hitting the sack.

[Solon]

151. That's cool, Goodnight...

I'm going to hit the sack too. By the way, I sympathize with that entirely, my best friend is a Lesbian, and I have been to plenty of gay bars myself with her. She recently moved to a much smaller city, unfortunately away from me, because of her job, and she said finding a girlfriend has been, to put it bluntly, hell, and she still does the bar/club scene. Though I told her the best bet is to try to find someone outside bars period, its been my experience that RELATIONSHIPS that last a while are much more likely to happen outside the bar scene. I've struck out too many times at bars myself, finding the right person isn't easy, and TIMING matters, as I just illustrated. I mean, if the woman I went out with didn't move halfway around the world, we would probably be together now, OK, maybe I do have a yearning, if you will, rather than a regret.

[Bridget Burke]

188. Most women (& probably men) who regret having sex....

Don't say a thing. They just avoid repeating the mistake. (I'm talking about sober regrets here.)

[Dunedain]

160. bunco

[ismnotwasm]

54. I think certain people are upset

Because in Wisconsin, there is now a law if you pick up a woman, say at a bar, who is so intoxicated she's not capable of making decisions, take her somewhere and rape her, you get prosecuted.

Evidently that was okey dokey before this law.

[FreakinDJ]

56. Bull Shit - why does it take 15 months to report it

In the case cited as the reason for the law she waited 15 months to report it.

If some one stole your car how long would it take you to report it????

[ismnotwasm]

139. I'm not sure I understand

Is, or is the law not about rape? Not getting drunk and screwing. Not waking up with that "oh shit" not him/her feeling.
But about rape?

Rape is a serious crime on the person of a human being. More often women, but MEN get raped too.

Say it was a man? Say a man went out to a bar, got shit faced and woke up and realized he'd been forcibly, brutally anally raped? People make jokes about that but it isn't funny.

What if the shame and degradation of being raped caused him to put off reporting the crime? Does it make it less of a crime? Or MORE of a crime because he's male? What if because he was a man, the police laughed at him? Or decided he was "gay" and "wanted" it? What if the man went to court, and had to subject himself to scrutiny involving his sexuality, his drinking and personal habits, and involved everybody--his family, his friends. What if most people opinions were "he was asking for it" "It's his fault he shouldn't have been so drunk?"

Reverse the situation. Rape is rape. No means no. Too drunk is too drunk.

[stepnw1f]

199. Thank You

a sane response.

[Fleshdancer]

179. fear. n/t

[Mythsaje]

57. Yeah, that's obviously it...

As if you're somehow magically able to judge how intoxicated someone is in the eyes of the law before having sex with her.

I mean, how drunk is too drunk to consent? I think that's the question.

[bleedingheart]

61. well you know there are fellows out there who seem to be dependent

upon this type of "dating" since they apparently can't convince a sober woman to perhaps find them acceptable enough to sleep with....

The fact that anyone would defend having sex with a woman too intoxicated to really consent to sex is amazing to me. My sincere wish for the men who feel this way is that they have only daughters...

[mrreowwr_kittty]

63. Thank you!!

Except I disagree with you on one point. I hope men who think that way have NO children because gawd knows what kind of f-d up ideas they'd be giving their daughters.

[bleedingheart]

65. My uncle is a first rate pig and his reward for his disgusting behavior

was that he got only daugthers from his sainted wife.... He spent their entire teenage years in a state of fright that they would run into pigs just like him. What a lesson that taught him...it was truly delightful to watch him change his tune.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

121. Oh, well that's cool.

Unfortunately for me, my dad was a chauvinistic ass to the very end. In his honest opinion, rape should not have been considered a unique crime. He felt it should be classified as simple assualt. Seriously.

[Mythsaje]

67. And how in the hell is a guy who's himself intoxicated

supposed to be able to JUDGE whether she's sober enough to consent? Where's the line anyway? One drink? Five drinks? If she's able to walk, but definitely shouldn't drive? If she's slurring her words? If she's getting frisky with HIM?

I've been jumped a time or two by a woman who was definitely feeling the effects of the alcohol she'd been drinking. Most guys in that situation aren't thinking--god, I hope this isn't rape.

[bleedingheart]

71. you know what...from my experience men that are too intoxicated

aren't much use anyways...and typically the really drunk men are just going to pass out.

How about having the sense not to have sex while drunk or with someone who is drunk unless you are already in a relationship with them?

[Mythsaje]

77. Yeah, and god knows that alcohol is known for promoting good judgment...

Single people who go out partying with the intention of getting drunk, both male and female, often do so with the intention of getting laid as well. That's why so many nightclubs are "meat markets."

[Solon]

80. Actually what is really amazing is the double standard...

No one here is arguing that when SOBER men are preying on drunk women that it isn't anything BUT rape. The problem is that apparently men, even when too intoxicated to CONSENT to sex are STILL responsible for their behavior, whereas women are not. If the man AND woman are too drunk to consent, but both have sex anyways with each other, do both go to jail for raping each other?

[Mythsaje]

88. If a sober guy is using alcohol to take advantage of a woman,

it's no different than giving her a Roofie. Especially if he's supplying the alcohol. But I'm not sure how anyone expects a guy who's been drinking to be able to judge whether or not a woman is capable of consent. Based upon WHAT measurement?

[Solon]

104. My problem is the lack of equal protection and APPLICATION of the laws...

first, I have no problem with laws that say that after such and such alcohol level, someone can't consent to sex. That isn't the issue, the issue is that this ONLY applies to women, not men, in other words, women can only be victims, never perpetrators.

[Mythsaje]

106. That bugs me too...

but it also bothers me not to know where the line is drawn, and how the other party is supposed to know if that person is OVER that line.

[Runcible Spoon]

158. for everyone asking for a clearly defined LINE:

everyone is different, everyone's line is variable, but it's your responsibility to know your partner's line. If there is even REMOTELY a SINGLE inkling in your mind that what you are doing is wrong, or that you don't have consent, then for Pete's sake DON'T DO IT! Christ, if people are so oblivious as to the wants and desires of their sexual partners, then they really have no business having sex. Rape is a horrible violent crime, and from a lesser evil perspective, there is no chance of sexual enjoyment for the partner who is shitfaced drunk. I mean, why have sex unless you can guarantee enjoyment for both parties? Some of the protestations here don't even consider what sex should really be about, mutual enjoyment. If you're the kind of person who would stick their dick or vagina into/on/near a person without attempting to pleasure your partner then your're a selfish fuck. You don't deserve sex. And before I get jumped on I'm not saying we need to outlaw bad sex. On the flip side, if you're a person who engages in sex knowing you won't receive pleasure then you shouldn't be having sex either. I have problems with this law, it should equally apply to all kinds of rape, but Christ the point is that we shouldn't NEED this kind of law.

[Llewlladdwr]

109. But how in the world do you know...

if someone is "too intoxicated to really consent to sex"? If you ask and they say yes what are you supposed to do? Demand they take a breathalyzer test first? Ask 'em to recite the alphabet backwards? Give us a clear, easily defined line please.

[Mythsaje]

112. That's what I'VE been saying...

:banghead:

[dsc]

128. No it wasn't

even the article says that. It does remove conscent as a defense if the woman is drunk.

[Solon]

93. Actually its quite simple...

Let's say you have a guy and girl that hook up at a party, they both are hammered, and then have sex, which committed a crime?

[rucky]

167. I think the law was designed to protect real victims...

Who aren't sufficiently protected under the existing law - which doesn't really draw a clear line between consent and rape.

I know what you're afraid of (false accusations), and I don't see it happening any more often than it already does because of this clarification of the law.

If a date-rape victim comes forward, she's probably aware of the scrutiny she'll be facing - especially if she had been drinking as well. The slam-dunk defense usually includes putting the alleged victim on trial - asking questions that are humiliating and out of line compared to questioning victims of other crimes.

Most women know this, and carefully consider the reprucussions if they choose to come forward with rape allegations. In other words, they truly feel they've been the victim of a crime. Yes, there are a few attention-getters, but that is very rare. You just hear about them more often because - well - they're attention-getters.

What DOES happen all the time is this: If I wanted to rape someone, I could get away with it pretty easily using the M.O. I described above - I just have to be sure my subject was drunk enough at the time for the whole thing to ring like one of those bar-hookups, but with a psycho-stalker ending.


So how do you prevent that kind of predatory action?

[Solon]

169. Actually, that is a LESSER problem...

According to this law, if BOTH parties are DRUNK then BOTH committed rape, to me, if the law was enforced equally, then if either she or he came forward, then both would serve jailtime, or, more likely, jury nullification occures. That's the biggest problem with the law, it goes against standards for common sense, if you are too drunk to CONSENT to sex, you are also too drunk to have INTENT to rape. In cases such as this, either both parties are innocent, or both are guilty, any other way is a double standard.

[bleedingheart]

60. How about this...Get to know someone and then have sex after

you have discovered a mutual attraction and you are both sober....imagine that...

How about those apples...

The sorry kind of fellow who relies on drunken women to get laid is playing a roulette game...because some women handle alcohol differently.

When I was in college a very good friend of mine (male) had to rescue a girl he did not know from a group of men who were going to take turns with her since she was so drunk she wasn't even responding. He carried her to his girlfriends dorm room...where she slept it off. She was very embarrassed the next morning but happy she wasn't raped. I told his girlfriend he was truly a sweet and good person.

[FreakinDJ]

81. In a perfect world

I've turned down offers of sex because I simply wasn't attracted in that way or want that type of relationship.

and that is the norm

In you story you relate a supposed intentions not acts, and it a friend of a friend said. Do you think that kind of evidence is suffiencent to propose a law that can jail 100s of innocent men

[bleedingheart]

87. it doesn't have to be a perfect world to actually Respect yourself

as well as others...

[Mythsaje]

90. My wife and I had sex the night we met...

We were sober. We've been together six years, married for five. I guess she was pretty promiscuous when she was young... She thinks my total number of sex partners is amusingly quaint.

And if you'd suggest either of us don't respect ourselves, you'd be quite mistaken.

[Llewlladdwr]

117. How well should you "get to know them" first?

Is one date sufficient? Should you have met their parents? How 'bout if you've known each other for several weeks but haven't actually gone out? Would a group date count? Do you have to know their favorite color or song?

This isn't much better than the "ya shoulda known she was drunk" standard.

[ecstatic]

68. When will some women realize that its dangerous to get drunk at parties

It's the same as drinking and driving--it can lead to death (i.e., Natalie Holloway??). I think there should be more public awareness campaigns, specifically geared towards helping young women understand that they should never allow themselves to be at the mercy of complete strangers.

[bleedingheart]

73. and the message is that you can't trust anyone...

you may think it is a nice college party and that you are having a good time with friends but be wary that the sharks are sniffing for blood in the water and the moment they see prey available they will pounce..

[Mythsaje]

75. This is a very good point...

Alcohol is very dangerous in this regard, and I don't think it's stressed enough in our culture. We work to prevent underage drinking, but what about the young women over 21 who don't know enough to watch their own back?

Nothing excuses the guys who take advantage of it--I've bailed a girl out once or twice myself--but what about when there isn't anyone around to watch their backs for them? Or if there's a bunch of them who aren't using good judgment in the first place?

[stepnw1f]

103. So Women Have to Curb Their their Drinking for Uncontrollable Men?

It's great being a guy... cuz we get to get as shit faced as we want and never get raped... well. What an inconvenience for some.... take away freedoms for the assholes who can't say no nor do they understand no.

[Mythsaje]

107. Depends on who you're partying with, I suppose...

I don't recommend ANYONE gets shitfaced around people they don't know without having someone around to watch one's back.

That's just smart.

[ecstatic]

132. Drink to get a buzz, not to get pissy drunk...

If you can handle 5 drinks without getting drunk then more power to you. Besides, rape is not the only consequence of drinking to excess. Some young people actually die from drinking too much liquor in one sitting. Also, a drunk wo/man might do something really stupid--like jump off a roof, rape, drive drunk, get in a fight, murder, or end up being murdered. The possibilities are endless!

[Mythsaje]

136. I think that requires experience for some people...

You have to actually learn how to handle liquor, I believe. It doesn't come natural.

[stepnw1f]

177. Rape is the Subject Matter

Rape is never in the right regardless of what the victim does. Sorry...

[FreakinDJ]

224. Wrongful convictions is the subject matter

Any time you offer a “free pass” to change consent you seriously open the door to false allegations. The law makes no distinction for the alcohol level of the supposed perpetrator but give the alleged victim a free pass.

Look at the case cited, she did not report the incident for 15 months. How can she say she remembers what her intentions at the time was.

Sounds motivated by revenge more then any thing else.

[fishwax]

228. The case cited wasn't prosecuted, and there's no indication it would be

under the "new" law, either. Which, incidentally, isn't a new law, but rather a change in the definition of a law that is already established.

There is no "free pass" here to change consent. I don't know where you're getting that from, but you seem quite devoted to the notion.

If you look at the case cited, she actually says she made it clear that she didn't want to proceed. Which, if her account is true, would make it rape, whether she was drunk or not. As often occurs in a case of "her word against hers," the case did not go to trial.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

124. And....

Good men need to step up and get in the faces of the assholes when they try to pull that crap.

[TimeChaser]

70. I heard that in Ohio that you can't legally consent while intoxicated

:shrug:

[Mythsaje]

78. And would that apply to anyone? n/t

[FreakinDJ]

82. Is it gender specific like this law

Only the woman can't consent while intoxicated but the man can be held liable while he is even more intoxicated

Dosen't sound like equality to me

[TimeChaser]

85. I don't think that it discriminates in writing

However, in practice, probably.

[UncleSepp]

100. This law isn't gender specific, it's role specific.

Again, you are seeing something that isn't there.

[fishwax]

194. this law isn't gender specific

http://folio.legis.state.wi.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=25883516&infobase=bills05.nfo&jump=sb526&softpage=Document#JUMPDEST_sb526

[alittlelark]

155. NM had that law as well - not sure if it's enforced.

[UncleSepp]

99. I don't see "woman" or "man" spelled out anywhere

A rape victim is a rape victim, and a rapist is a rapist. The majority of reported rapes involve a male rapist and a female victim, but rape does occur male on male, female on female, and even female on male.

You're seeing bigotry where it doesn't exist, friend.

[Mythsaje]

105. How many guys are going to go out, get drunk, and then tell

ANYONE that they were raped?

Just wondering.

[UncleSepp]

110. Not many. The rape of men is seriously underreported.

Getting services as a male rape victim can also be very difficult - the literature, the how-to's, everything is seriously slanted toward this concept of men as the only perpetrators and women as the only victims. It's similar to the problem of male victims of domestic violence - it's hard for a male who has been a target of domestic abuse to find a shelter, or even a counselor, as most of the resources are set up for women and children.

[Mythsaje]

111. I believe it...

Thus it occurs to me that a law like this could conceivably work either way, but it probably won't.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

118. But that's not a reason not to have a law. n/t

[Solon]

120. See the problem is this...

Using this law as a standard means that there is NO way to distinguish who is victim and who is perpetrator UNLESS one party or the other was sober. Basically saying that alcohol both prevents people, both male and female from consenting, but at the same time is also not an excuse for rape means that both parties are equally guilty. For some reason, I doubt the law will be applied EQUALLY.

[UncleSepp]

157. A partial solution lies in who was penetrated

The person who was penetrated is usually the victim, and the person who does the penetrating is usually the perpetrator. This isn't perfect: rape can occur without penetration (example, oral sex performed on an unwilling recipient) or the person doing the penetrating can be the victim (example, male with a fear-arousal erection penetrating a threatening female).

Looking at other crimes, if one drunk person robs another drunk person, the drunk robber has still committed robbery and the drunk rob-ee (my new word for the night!) has still been robbed. If the drunk who is robbed said "Yeah, you can have my wallet" and later regrets this, he hasn't got much of a case. If the drunk who is robbed was unconscious and therefore unable to consent to giving his wallet to the robber, he's still clearly been robbed, regardless of the state of mind of the robber. A person who is unable to either give his wallet to another or to refuse to give his wallet to another, when relieved of his wallet by another, has been robbed.

A fair interpretation of the law would therefore be, I think, that a person who is unable to either consent to or refuse sexual contact may not be considered to have consented to sexual contact, and that any sexual contact with a person who can neither consent nor refuse may be considered rape.

(The "both male and female" is unneccessary for the argument. Rape does not always involve a male and a female, and introducing gender into the argument only serves to confuse it.)

[Solon]

171. OK, using that as a partial solution unfairly applies to men but not women

Look at this study by University of Washington, apparently both men and women are coerced into sex at about the same rates.

http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/1999archive/07-99archive/k072699.html

[Solon]

108. Yeah, but how do you distinguish between the two?

They said that being too intoxicated to consent isn't an excuse for being the rapist, but only applies for the victim, it seems that whoever accuses who first gets a free pass on committing a crime.

[Mythsaje]

113. Eeek...

That sure brings up some disturbing considerations.

[UncleSepp]

156. Good question!

That's a tough one - it's hard to rely on witnesses in that case to see if one person was pushing the other. Lack of evidence of one person having struggled won't work as evidence that the contact was consensual, either.

[Warren DeMontague]

144. .

:popcorn:

[Mythsaje]

145. Boy, did you show up late...

Most of the fireworks are over.

[spacelady]

147. Well, alcohol seems to be a gateway drug to rape in both genders

So let's make drinking alcohol illegal! After all, no one under the influence can make rational decisions....Sheesh.

[Lindacooks]

154. Alcohol IS the most common date rape drug. It's fact.

And I simply cannot believe your statement:

"So let me get this straight - the woman can not be held accountable for giving consent when she is drunk, but the man can be tried for rape for having consentual sex with her when she is drunk."

That's the most twisted thing I think I've ever heard. Listen - in both cases the woman is drunk. She is impaired and cannot give consent.

Consent is the basis for consensual sex. If a woman is drunk she can't give consent. ALL of the responsibility is on the man. ALL OF IT. That's the way it is, legally in most, if not all states, and certainly morally. Because it's the man's actions that create sex.

So if you're in a situation with a woman who is impaired, BE A MAN and back off. It's not only the legally correct thing to do, it's morally correct as well. Anybody who takes advantage of someone who is drunk is a coward and a creep.

[Solon]

170. Even if he is as equally impaired by intoxication?

He can't give consent either, so, according to this law, since being drunk is no longer an excuse, why would the man be the only one responsible?

[fishwax]

196. being drunk was never an excuse

so, according to this law, since being drunk is no longer an excuse

Being drunk was never an excuse. And this law has nothing to do with whether being drunk is an excuse. That's just a quote from a local DA about the general legality of the "i was drunk" excuse. It's nothing specific to this law (which, as said elsewhere, isn't a new law, just an altered definition).

[Solon]

211. OK, so if being drunk isn't an excuse, how do you distinguish who is the..

victim and who is the perp. If both people aren't legally capable to consenting to sex, how can one be responsible, but the other not responsible for the act?

[fishwax]

213. the only one legally responsible is the one who KNOWINGLY

has sexual intercourse with another person who is too drunk to know what's going on.

If both people aren't legally capable to consenting to sex, how can one be responsible, but the other not responsible for the act?

Who said either of them was?

[FreakinDJ]

226. If she gives consent how do you know

Alcoholics have blackouts that can last for days. They walk, they talk, they drink, party, they even have sex with no recolection of what transpired when they awake from the blackout.

An alcoholic can appear in control of the facilities, even drive a car while in a blackout, (has happened too many times to even count) and they can even consent to having sex.

Now if this person awakes from an alcoholic blackout with some one other then their boyfriend in bed with them you want to put them in prison for 25 years.

Shit and I though Freepers were fucked up

[fishwax]

227. It appears you struggle to discuss rationally

Now if this person awakes from an alcoholic blackout with some one other then their boyfriend in bed with them you want to put them in prison for 25 years.

Not only do you put words in my mouth ...

Shit and I though Freepers were fucked up

but you also compare me to a freeper. Wow. Clever.

Odd, too, since you're the one who has distorted this topic from the beginning. I wonder if that was intentional, or if it's just how the thread developed. :shrug:

anywho ... the law (which is not a new law) applies to people who knowingly have sex with someone who is so drunk that they cannot appraise the suspect's actions. So I guess it wouldn't apply in the case you mention, even if the "victim" could somehow convince the authorities that she was unable to appraise the other's actions while she was "blacked out" walking, talking, driving her car, doing her taxes, etc.

[FreakinDJ]

230. It would apply

She could say any thing she wanted once she awoke from her alcoholic blackout.

Just like the case they cited in the article. 15 months after the fact she reports it and states she didn't want it to happen. How do we even know she was drinking. Did anyone test her blood for alcohol 15 months after the fact?

There is also the likelyhood of false memory, she didn't want to be percieved as cheap and slutty to the point she created an alternate reality

So just how do you gage the level of intoxication?

The new law has no means to prevent false allegations, in fact it is an open invitation to any jilted ex lover to get revenge. And yes some people are like that.

[fishwax]

231. what law does have a means to prevent false allegations?

Someone wanting revenge could accuse another person of murder. Or breaking and entering. Or anything else they wanted. But if the facts aren't there, the allegation wouldn't stick. This is not to say, of course, that nobody is ever falsely convicted, just that this law doesn't make it any easier.

Just as the case was in real life, the woman could claim she was too drunk to say no, the man could claim she wasn't really very drunk at all. He said she said. And they usually don't wind up going to court. Just as this case didn't wind up going to court.

How do we even know she was drinking. Did anyone test her blood for alcohol 15 months after the fact?

Exactly. No evidence. Which is probably why the case didn't go to trial in the first place. What further evidence is there now that puts the accused at greater risk?

Look, even without this change in the law, someone could claim that they were drunk and had a hit off a bong or somebody slipped something in their drink and then they had sex. That was already part of the existing law regarding 2nd degree sexual assault.

If you'll permit me to ask you a question ...

This is what the law always used to say: If a person (victim) is intoxicated through a controlled substance or a combination of alcohol and a controlled substance to the point where they cannot appraise the actions of another person (suspect), and the suspect, knowing the victim's condition has sex with that person, that is 2nd degree sexual assault.

The only change that has been made--the only change the article is talking about--is that alcohol is no longer specifically excluded as an intoxicating substance. That's the only change.

Now I ask you: do you think it should be pefrectly legal to penetrate somebody who is so strung out on drugs that they cannot appraise the actions of the other, or do you simply object to the inclusion of alcohol as an intoxicating substance?

[EOTE]

209. So women cannot have sex while drunk?

So you're saying that a woman who is drunk cannot give consent. Lack of consent equals rape, so it should be illegal to have sex with a drunk woman, period. Right? And it's the man's actions that create sex? What the hell does that mean? Yours is perhaps one of the most sexist posts I've ever read on DU.

Two scenarios for you:

1) Two equally inebriated people go home and have consensual sex. They wake up in the morning and have pancakes.

2) Two equally inebriated people go home and have consensual sex. A week later, the woman for some reason or other decides she wants to accuse the man of rape because she was drunk.

Would you outlaw the first scenario? How about the 2nd? You can't outlaw the 2nd scenario without outlawing the first, because they're the same scenario with different outcomes. You're suggesting that no one drunk can have sex, or at least a drunk woman cannot have sex because clearly women have no control over themselves when they're drinking. A woman who goes to a bar and drinks as a social lubricant is engaging in a self defeating act because once they've been socially lubricated to the point where they're less self conscious, they're no longer able to have sex. This logic is maddening.

[Red Right and BLUE]

165. I agree, this is crap. eom

[fishwax]

197. what part of it is crap?

I caution you against believing the outrage of this thread.

Knowingly having sex with someone who is under the influence of an intoxicant to the degree that they cannot appraise the actions of the actor is a crime. Previously, however, the Wisconsin law specifically excluded alcohol alone as an intoxicant.

Prior to this change, knowingly having sex with someone who was so drunk that they could barely function and could neither give consent nor say no was legal, unless that person had taken a hit of weed or ecstasy at some point that night, in which case they would be considered intoxicated under the Wisconsin law.

Here's a link to the ammendment's wording:
http://folio.legis.state.wi.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?cli...

That's all this law is. It's not about withdrawing consent, it isn't about making it illegal to have sex with someone who is tipsy or criminalizing drunk people love.

And welcome to DU! :hi:

[Fox Mulder]

172. What happens when both the male AND the female are drunk?

Who gets in trouble then?

I'm confused.

[Solon]

174. They are raping each other of course. n/t

[fishwax]

180. much ado about nothing

The change in the law simply puts Wisconsin on par in saying that alcohol can be an aggravating factor in date rape situations. Previous, Wisconsin's law excluded alcohol as an intoxicant in date rape situations, unless it was mixed with other drugs. In other words, getting somebody loopy on Rohypnol so that one could then have sex with them while they were intoxicated was illegal, but doing the same thing, with the very same intent, with alcohol was illegal.

The law doesn't say that if you have sex with a drunk person, you're guilty of rape. Nor does the law doesn't say that a woman can "change her mind" and claim that she was drunk and therefore raped. Nor does the law imply that, if two drunk people copulate, either and/or both will be guilty of rape.

It doesn't say any of that.

[Solon]

184. Actually, it does say that if someone is too intoxicated to consent...

and have sex they are raped, but at the same time if the rapist in question is ALSO too intoxicated to consent that they are still responsible for their actions. Remember, Alcohol isn't an EXCUSE, as is mentioned in the article.

[fishwax]

190. That's what the ARTICLE sort of implies, but that's not what the law says

According to Wisconsin law, 2nd Degree Sexual Assault occurs when a person knowingly has sex with someone who is too intoxicated to give consent/appraise the person's actions.

But previously, the law specifically excluded alcohol as an intoxicant. The only change that's being made here is that alcohol alone is no longer specifically excluded from the definition of intoxicant with respect to 2nd degree sexual assault. That doesn't mean that if you have sex with someone who is a bit drunk that you're guilty of rape.

Apparently, Wisconsin was the only state that didn't consider alcohol as an intoxicant with respect to date rape laws.

[SoCalDem]

198. Just more laws to try to do what parents don't seem to be doing anymore

It always amazes me how the same people who want "government OUT" of people's lives, are so ready to insert themselves into the personal parts of everyone's lives...

what you smoke
what you eat
what you drink
who you love
online predation
etc

The dating/drinking/sex/ parts of people's lives are PERSONAL-FAMILY issues that parents need to focus on. It IS pretty apparent that more and more parents don't seem to be managing very well, but to create more laws, seems to be the wrong approach.

I don't think there are many teens out there who don't already know that drinking can "allow" people to do things they would not do when sober.. That's the REASON lots of kids drink.. They have a ready excuse for doinjg dumb things that every teenager does.

I would also guess that there are MILLIONS of people who are "here" because Mom got a bit tipsy and got careless.. (I suspect that one of our sons got here that way.:)..)

When charges get filed, each case should stand on its own, and the circumstances..all of them, should be taken individually...

[fishwax]

200. this isn't a new law, and it isn't regulating what you drink or who/how

you love. It's simply clarifying that alcohol is an intoxicating substance.

Previously in Wisconsin, the law on 2nd degree sexual assault made it illegal to knowingly have intercourse with someone who was so intoxicated that they couldn't consent or say no. But previously, alcohol was specifically exempted from that law, making it perfectly legal to have sex with someone who was so intoxicated they couldn't consent or say no, as long as they hadn't taken any drugs other than alcohol. This thread is full of manufactured outrage, but it the only difference in the law now as to the law one month ago is that alcohol is now considered intoxicating.

It's not about being a bit tipsy :)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

215. I Say Put The Onus On The Woman.

We should all be self accountable. I agree fully with the rule about when the person is unconscious. But this new twist is simply bullshit.

I say that the woman should make clear prior to her getting drunk that no matter how drunk she gets she does not give consent to sexual activity. Do it up front. I know that doesn't cover everything, cause there could be some new guy waltzin in after she's already drunk. Ok, so she should wear a pin on her shirt that says "I Do Not Give Consent".

Either way, it is her responsibility to make sure that the rules are set up front if she knows she is about to get drunk and may have her inhibitions lowered to a degree of doing acts she would never have done if sober.

I just think it's a ridiculous proposal to make it against the law to sleep with drunk women. But I think the law is nullified anyway: I'm rebutting as if it would only apply to women. Wouldn't it have to apply to both? Couldn't the man say the woman raped him as well? Can you have a legitimate case in court where both parties claim rape because both were too drunk to give consent? What then?

[fishwax]

217. It doesn't make it against the law to sleep with drunk women

It is a small change in the law regarding 2nd degree sexual assault, which in Wisconsin makes it illegal for a person to have sex with another if the victim is under the influence of an intoxicating substance and is incapable of appraising the person's actions, if the person is aware of the victim's condition.

So if someone is groggy from Rohypnol or whatever, and another person comes along, knowing that the victim doesn't know what's going on and isn't capable of giving or withholding consent, and has sex with that person, it's not legal. It's 2nd degree rape.

But in Wisconsin, until this change was enacted, alcohol alone was specifically excluded from the definition of an intoxicating substance with respect to 2nd degree rape. Only alcohol mixed with other controlled substances was subject to the law.

Imagine some jerk finds two girls barely conscious on a bed. They are both conscious, but barely, and obviously impaired beyond knowing what's happening. One has stuck to alcohol all night, but the other had a tab of ecstasy a while back. Having sex with the second would be rape by definition, whether she mustered the wherewithal to protest or not. Having sex with the first, though, would not count as rape by the old definition. Until this change (a wording change, not a new law), Wisconsin was apparently the only state that specifically excluded alcohol from the definition of an intoxicating substance.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

221. In That Case I Agree. If It Is Only Used For Those Situations I Have No

problem with it. I thought it was more if they were really drunk but fully conscious, but woke up the next morning regretful. But if it can only be used in these extreme circumstances you mentioned, then it's an ok law.