Bringing Puntification to the Masses

this is a tough situation, because i can understand why they'd want to pass the amendment and it seems totally reasonable to me (there are things we would all probably do when drunk that we wouldn't normally do...plus, it is much easier to convince someone else to do something (like have sex) when they're wasted).

but, i think the situation where both parties are too drunk is interesting....

i don't know, joe buck, i can see both sides. as a woman, i like the idea of being protected against rape if i'm too drunk (but still conscious) to make a "real" decision about sex. however, it would be tough to prove, wouldn't it?

one more thought, what about if you're conscious, have the sex, but don't remember it in the morning (only to find out later that it did, in fact, happen) ? i guess it all comes down to where the responsibility actually lies - with the woman who's choosing to drink that much? with the man who's choosing to have sex with someone that's that drunk? both of them for drinking together? her friends for not being nosy enough? :) (the last one was a little bit of a joke) regardless of where the "responsibility" lies, a woman should be protected if she's raped and i can see the potential for a man to take advantage of some woman who he's convinced to drink enough so that he can easily have sex with her (at the same time, i definitely see the potential for a woman to do the exact same thing)

interesting topic, my friend. thanks for making me think a little today...

I think it comes down to the other person knowing you weren't in a state to make an informed decision and still taking your word (this whole thing is predicated on the notion that the woman did agree to the sex), even though they know it's basically not valid.
I think I have a hard time with the idea that a person can be so drunk as to be absolved from being responsible for their decisions. To take this a step further, could someone be conscious but so drunk that they don't realize that driving drunk is a bad idea? Seems like this could be a slippery slope type of a deal.

I'm leaning towards saying the person chose to drink, knowing what it may do to their decision making skills, and should be responsible for their actions. Unless the intent is to have people pull out a breathalyser, defining "too drunk" is just too ambiguous (especially when it's likely both parties have been drinking).

I'm with Jeremy on this one. You can't define "too drunk", it's just not possible, unless you enforce it like a DWI.

I think there's a problem with saying that someone chose to drink & had an understanding of what that would do to their decision making skills. For example: I might choose to get really sloshed one night (apologies if I'm speaking Australian) but by getting really sloshed I'm not giving my consent for men to take advantage of my drunken state. When it comes to being responsible for their actions, surely a man should take responsibility enough not to have sex with a woman in a completely inebriated state?

The difficulty though, as you guys say, is to judge how drunk is 'completely inebriated' (the article said it would be left up to the juries and that concerned me) ... you should be able to use your judgement in an actual situation (although if you're hammered yourself this could be hard) but what standard will the courts set?

The other question is whether sex with a woman too drunk to give consent or make a reasonable decision constitutes "rape"? I think so ...

I think it is a good definition. the hard part is that it's terribly subjective and the other parties were likely also a bit tanked so it gets even more subjective.
To cross streams for a minute, Jess you posted some statistics on rape in the comments on my facebook feed of this post. You made a statement to the effect that the concern should be in getting women to report rape and not that this potential change could be abused. I respectfully disagree. I think this change would be in a move to, in a sense, give women more power of a situation in which they may have been attacked. Well, maybe not power but broaden the definition in favor of the victim. I don't think it has much to do with actual reporting of the crime. Additionally, anytime the potential for abuse exists I think note should be taken, regardless of the likely hood that abuse would occur. The more gross the abuse or the more likely it is to occur, the most we should be concerned but to say we shouldn't be concerned because the number of abuses will be low, or nil, is a bit of marginalizing. I still think I like the idea of this but I think the enforcement is likely to be flawed and the potential to cast too wide a net seems significant.

joe, i think one thing you may be missing is that (i think) more rapes go un-reported than anything...there is a lot of shame involved for the woman in the whole situation, which would make it much more difficult for a woman to report a rape if she didn't really believe it was one. (was that sentence english?)

i think the issue with this potential law has more to do with the ability to enforce it after the incident in question has occurred, and the fact that thus far, it seem arbitrary to enforce how drunk is "too drunk".

jeremy, i respectfully disagree with the statement that it could be the woman's responsibility for drinking too much (i believe that it's a man's responsibility to not rape a woman regardless of her state of mind...it is also a woman's responsibility to be responsible with her body).

this is a tough one. :)

I think that any change which gives women more power of a situation in which they may have been attacked - or a move that broadens the definition in favour of the victim - is positive, in the case of rape. Women are pressured into sex all the time and we can't call it rape but there needs to be greater recognition of that and this may well be an example of a situation in which we can say, "no, actually, you didn't have a right to have sex with her, it was forced" and prove it (as opposed to the countless rape cases which can't be proved because it's one word against another).

Doesn't this just change the question from "did she say yes" to "was she too drunk to make an informed decision", which seems even more nebulous.
In the end, it is a push towards more rights for the victim (i think).
We never did surmise if the "attackers" level of inebriation factors in.
Do you guys think it should?

joe, i see your last comment as a ploy to make it look like you're sooooooo popular with all your comments and all these people.....commenting....on your post.....

what i'm trying to say is, i vote for a new post! :) (that's all)

I should clarify my comment is not saying that if someone's drunk rape is OK. I'm saying if a person does consent, I don't think "too drunk to make an informed decision" is a valid reason to later come back and say it wasn't consensual.