Just wanted to give '71 another reason to complain about the Honor Code

[Solon]

I like that Funk is passionate about this issue and I think there is room for him here in our plurality of opinions. I think Funk's stance on this is perfectly in line with his other advocacy work for women and children- it might be opportunistic for him to get to condemn the BYU at the same time, but he's been consistent on these issues for years, whether it involves BYU or not.

New story on CNN.com that's really the same story the NYT had last week.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/29/health...ape/index.html

I expect a new creepy video to come out of Provo soon.

IMO, the shizstorm is still growing.

[smokymountainrain]

The fact that you didn't(couldn't?) read that as a joke is just plain sad.

To answer your question, yes, a drunk person can give consent. Drunk people make rash decisions, decisions that they wouldn't make if sober, and decisions that they regret later. They also have progressive decrease in fine motor skills, gross motor skills, and reaction time.

Medicolegally, it is similar to a person with dementia. A person with dementia can: 1. determine their own code status 2. Consent to or decline medical procedures or tests. All that has to be ascertained is that the physician and the witness agree that the person is aware and understands the pros/cons of their decision. The demented person may not be capable of managing complex situations such as their finances, wills, trusts, etc, but they are still capable of self determination.

I have been intoxicated well beyond legal limits of driving in my life, and I was capable of making decisions. They may have been foolish decisions, rash decisions, even regrettable decisions, but I knew I was making them.

If an intoxicated person says "Yes", they have offered consent. If they wish they hadn't said yes the next day(or if they think that they wouldn't have said yes if they were sober), that is not the same as rape. If an intoxicated person does not give consent, then it isn't any different that a person who is not intoxicated, that is rape.

that's a smart post.

[Lost Student]

It's simple, don't start nuthin', won't be nuthin'.

[MartyFunkhouser]

-----------------------

[New Mexican Disaster]

IMO, the shizstorm is still growing.

I agree!

[falafel]

For someone who has accused me of lacking nuance, you are way over simplifying this.

Not that I think this needs to be spelled out, but I'm not talking about a few drinks or over the legal limit, I'm talking about severely intoxicated.


A few scenarios to throw out:

1) A person knows a woman won't consent to sex with him. If he gets her drunk for the purpose of lowering her inhibitions and getting her to say yes to sex is that rape? I say yes, it appears that you think no.

2) What if rather than alcohol, he provides an illegal substance for the purpose of getting her to have sex with him. Rape or not?

3) A woman is intoxicated to the point of nearly passing out at a bar. Man sees her gets her to go home with him and has sex. Rape or not?

4) Drunk woman says yes to sex. Passes out during foreplay. Man still has sex with her. Rape or not?

At best in the scenarios above the man has used alcohol to manipulate the situation to take advantage. At worst they are rape.

I'm proposing we more tightly define consent in these situations and ere on the side of criminalizing the behavior. If we do, it will lead to less people engaging in behavior that I think we all agree is at best morally wrong.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

What makes you think the current system isn't set up to handle your scenarios? I also think there are some flaws in your conclusions.

1. How did this guy "get" the girl drink? Buy her drinks at the bar? Use a funnel and force them down her throat like a goose is fattened for foie gras? IV? Unless a woman was unknowingly given alcohol to the point she was so drunk she didn't know what she was doing, I don't see how this could possibly be rape. I mean, isn't that the point of alcohol and bars in the first place? Under your interpretation were adopted, practically every interaction in a bar that lead to sex could be categorized as rape. That's ridiculous.

2. Illegal substance like what? Pot? Cocaine? Anesthesia? GHB? Obviously this is not a one-size-fits-all category either. Did the substance, whether illegal or not, remove the woman's ability to consent? Certainly the type of drug and the amount will create a sliding scale with no rape on one end and certain rape on the other, and many degrees in between.

3. Woman practically intoxicated at the bar - Do you think it is impossible for a person to consent at this point? Again, the answer to this one is going to come down to the specific facts. Did the guy ask? Did she say no? Did she say anything? We can't possibly create a bright line rule for this situation.

4. Drunk woman agrees to sex then passes out - does passing out negate the prior consent? What does the alcohol have to do with it? This is more a question of whether prior consent can be negated than it does with alcohol.

You seem to be trying to infuse alcohol consumption into a system that is already set up to consider the issues adequately. In each of your examples above, I am certain the use of alcohol can be used to inform the prosecutors, judges and juries as to whether consent existed, where it was defective, or whether it never existed in the first place. Why attempt to create some bright line rule or template just for cases involving alcohol? It seems like you've just picked up a new pet issue and are arguing it just to "take a stand," as if this were debate club or something.

[MartyFunkhouser]

-----------------------

[MartyFunkhouser]

-----------------------

[falafel]

I can see the other side of the debate on some scenarios, but this one is easy. Consent can always be negated at any point during a sexual encounter.

Someone who is unconscious cannot consent. This shouldnt be up for debate. This scenario is a clear instance of rape. She passes out after saying yes, she has now said no.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

Okay, let's keep going on this one, just for fun. Why has she now said no?

[MartyFunkhouser]

-----------------------

[Donuthole]

1. How did this guy "get" the girl drink? Buy her drinks at the bar? Use a funnel and force them down her throat like a goose is fattened for foie gras? IV? Unless a woman was unknowingly given alcohol to the point she was so drunk she didn't know what she was doing, I don't see how this could possibly be rape. I mean, isn't that the point of alcohol and bars in the first place? Under your interpretation were adopted, practically every interaction in a bar that lead to sex could be categorized as rape. That's ridiculous.

What if he got her drunk through a butt funnel (to which she consented) however, after a while, she became too intoxicated to consent to removal of the butt funnel. Guy removes butt funnel without her consent and is guilty of sodomy. So many difficult scenarios.

[falafel]

Can we agree that consent to a sexual encounter is ongoing and can be revoked at any point? If no, I'd be interested to see how you justify it.

So a conscious person can change her mind, but a person by passing out has now consented without the ability to revoke it unless she wakes up? It doesn't make sense.

Let's say she wanted vaginal sex when she said yes to sex. Then passed out. Can the guy go ahead and have anal sex with her? I mean she said yes to sex. She is now unconscious so why not.

Also, under Utah law this is clearly a rape. Utah has codified that an unconscious person cannot consent.
Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

Of course consent is ongoing. I have no problem with a bright line rule that says once a person has lost consciousness, they cannot consent. I'm just not yet sold that the rule needs to be that passing out = revocation of consent. What if someone passes out in the middle of sex? So if the guy thrusts once or twice more after she's out, is he now a rapist? What if its a minute or two before he notices she's out? What if its 5 minutes of conscious sex and 5 minutes of unconscious sex?

Too many nuances for a set rule.

[falafel]

What if he got her drunk through a butt funnel (to which she consented) however, after a while, she became too intoxicated to consent to removal of the butt funnel. Guy removes butt funnel without her consent and is guilty of sodomy. So many difficult scenarios.

What if he goes A2M with the funnel? I wouldn't consent to that, under any circumstances.

[Nakoma]

How do you determine whether or not the woman was intoxicated to the point she couldn't consent at the time of the sexual encounter?

The next morning the woman wakes up and says she didn't consent because she was drunk. How do you determine what her BA was at the time of sex?

[MartyFunkhouser]

-----------------------