354
Do they still make these posters? (lemmy.today)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/facepalm@lemmy.world
250 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 31 points 2 years ago (2 children)

It's a good poster, and statistically men are probably in the wrong more often, but it's core fundamental flaw is that NEITHER party could consent and technically Josie committed rape by the same logic that Jake did.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    Statistics get murky due to (suspected?) under reporting by victims who identify as male because society still makes people feel "weak" or "like it is their fault" if they are raped. I am not entirely convinced as to how much that evens things out (mostly because victims who identify as female ALSO drastically under report due to an understanding that the legal system will just call them a slut and move on...), but it is a good thing to keep in mind and victims who identify as male SHOULD seek help.

    In a perfect world? I would want an extra line about "but Josie was too drunk to say no" and maybe do a gender flipped one too. But there are reasons I don't write short and concise flyers.

    But the issue with explaining that neither party can consent is... what we see in this thread. Lots of people who insist that because neither side could consent then it isn't rape and nobody is in the wrong. Because that CAN be true. But the reality is that "Well, we both had a few shots of whiskey and both wanted it at the same time" that ignores differences in body weight and tolerance to alcohol and whatever meds a person might be on and so forth. Which mostly gets back to the age old "Get her drunk and fuck her" mentality that involves "hey, let's both do shots" and so forth.

    Its one of those cases where less nuance is actually PROBABLY better. Because you either understand the law at play and don't feel the need to go into a great discussion and debate of it... or you are the kind of monster who is carrying around a printout of the law so you know what you can get away with.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Idk man, I'd rather just have a poster that says:

    REGARDLESS OF AGE, WEIGHT, OR GENDER

    A PERSON CANNOT CONSENT WHILE INTOXICATED

    YOU WILL BE CHARGED WITH RAPE,

    YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM HIGHER EDUCATION,

    YOU MAY SERVE PRISON TIME,

    AND YOU MIGHT EVEN BE FORCED TO LIVE IN A

    SEPERATE NEIGHBORHOOD AMONGST

    OTHER SEX OFFENDERS FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE.

    In big bold red letters on a white background. If the people seeing it don't understand after that, then they're a lost cause.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Nah. 18 year old me would read this and think... everyone I know is getting drunk and having sex all the time, but I don't know anyone that's been charged with rape and never heard of people forced to live on whatever rapist neighbourhood.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    If the people seeing it don’t understand after that, then they’re a lost cause.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Sorry that's just not how communication works.

    If you're trying to tell someone something, making dramatic claims just undermines your credibility.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    The logic you're using could be used to defend any number of stupid illegal activities, it's got a real hardcore SovCit vibe.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    These nuances are why this poster is absolute shit, though. Sex, rape, and consent are such incredibly deep, complicated topics that you really can't boil them down to a poster and have it touch on a fraction of what it needs to.

    Right now, this poster very much makes it out to always be the guy's fault. That's an issue, even if it's not the case. I can see this poster having an inverse effect. The people who need to understand it have a knee jerk counter reaction, and the people who have enough understanding to deduce the nuance already aren't raping people.

    The poster is at best worthless, a tree gives its life for that, or it's actively harmful.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Yes, but did Josie unreasonably believe that Jake would consent to sex with her while sober?

    Police don't charge Josie because they don't think a conviction is likely, because they don't think they'll be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the question I suggested juries are likely to be (actually) considering.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Yeah but isn't the whole crux of the thing that people aren't responsible enough to give consent while drunk?

    But if you're not responsible for your actions while drunk, then why is the man responsible for his actions while drunk? Is a drunk man considered responsible enough to determine the sobriety of the people he's with?

    I mean sure don't have sex with a lady if she's way too drunk, but that can be difficult to determine. I've been in situations where I was out with a woman who was so drunk she could barely walk and yeah, obviously that was a no go (though the next morning it all worked out). But what is the limit on how many drinks a lady can have before she's no longer able to consent? Is this a scenario where there needs to be a breathalyzer involved?

    And yeah, I've woken up with women I wouldn't have been with had I been sober. Was I raped? Nah, I was just being a drunken idiot.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yeah but isn't the whole crux of the thing that people aren't responsible enough to give consent while drunk?

    Not exactly how I'd frame it but go on...

    But if you're not responsible for your actions while drunk

    Wait what, who who said that? That's not a conclusion based on your premise. All we said is that intoxicated people can't consent.

    I mean sure don't have sex with a lady if she's way too drunk, but that can be difficult to determine.

    Would it be reasonable to believe they would consent to sex with you while sober?

    And yeah, I've woken up with women I wouldn't have been with had I been sober. Was I raped?

    Was it reasonable for them to think that you would have consented to sex with you while you were sober?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Wait what, who who said that? That's not a conclusion based on your premise. All we said is that intoxicated people can't consent.

    The poster did. If your actions as a prosecutor are to punish one party who is at the same level of drunkenness as the other, who you're letting go, for the same actions (sex with a drunk person), then yeah, you're saying at least sometimes, you're not responsible for your actions while drunk.

    Being drunk leads to poor reasoning and poor decision making whether you're male or female. Either apply the same standard or don't. If she wants to pursue action against him, or the state does, then they both face the same penalty, considering the same crime.

    You also seem to default to making judgements about what another person's theoretical state of mind would be if they weren't drunk in this situation. That might work for prosecution, but it's a shit heuristic for actually preventing anything. I don't know most people's states of mind when we're both sober, and now you're expecting a drunk person to figure out another drunk person's sober mindset?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    People are responsible for their actions, and the foreseeable consequences of their actions.

    If it was not reasonable for her to believe he would consent to sex while sober, she should not have had sex with him.

    It's my hypothesis that prosecutors will only bring charges if they think they can convince a jury that a person was not reasonable to believe the other party would consent to sex while sober.

    That might work for prosecution, but it's a shit heuristic for actually preventing anything

    Yeah which is why posters like this are good. Don't have sex with drunk strangers. Don't have sex with drunk platonic friends. Don't have new types of sex with existing serial sexual partners unless it's reasonable for you to believe they would consent while sober.

    I don't know most people's states of mind when we're both sober, and now you're expecting a drunk person to figure out another drunk person's sober mindset?

    No I'm asking them not to try. If your judgement is impaired by alcohol, don't try to assess if someone has consented to sex with you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    In the event of a court trial? That likely would come into play. The argument that the defendant was also too inebriated to make an informed decision. I don't know what the legal equivalent of "mulligan?" is but.. yeah

    But... how do you prove that you were drunk enough? Were their witnesses? Why the fuck would there be witnesses in your bedroom while you are hooking up? It very much becomes "he said, she said" with the path being character assassination. And if that comes across as "massively fucked up and unfair" then... I strongly suggest researching how the average rape trial goes.

    As for "how drunk is drunk enough?" That is very much a question. And is why it is good to have "the talk" with a potential partner. If they are at all slurring their voice or seem "drunk" then you take a raincheck. And if this is some rando who drank half a bottle of whiskey but still seems good to drive? Maybe be a bit more selective on who you stick it in?

    And yeah, I’ve woken up with women I wouldn’t have been with had I been sober. Was I raped? Nah, I was just being a drunken idiot.

    Honestly? You know you. But understand that we have decades (probably closer to a century or two?) of indoctrination to make people blame themselves for "being taken advantage of". How many sitcoms have "the walk of shame" where one of the main characters drank too much, "slept with" someone they didn't want to, and is now shamed as a slut or a fool because they woke up the morning after with them in their bed? And how often is the abhorrent admirer portrayed Urkel-style with "I'm gonna wear you down"? And that applies to men, women, and everyone in between.

    Because yes, it is very much a question. And... because of the legal system and society, it is almost never in a victim's interests to actually press charges. But people need to learn: "I drank too much at a party and someone I didn't want to have sex with convinced me to have sex" is not "I was stupid". It is "I was coerced into sex". And whether an individual considers that rape is very much a personal thing. Legally? it is. But I am not going to blame anyone for wanting to avoid that word for the purposes of their own sanity.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago

    It's just a messy situation no two ways around it. Lots of judgment calls when people are too intoxicated to have good judgement.

    Generally as a society we do consider people somewhat responsible for their actions when they're drunk. Like you can't say "I was too drunk to know that I shouldn't drive home." If I'm too drunk to be able to say no to someone, that's my responsibility. Other people are drinking too, and it's not their responsibility to make absolutely certain that when I'm saying "yes" to someone I might not normally go with.

    Sure there can be ugly situations where someone is coercing someone, but there can also be innocent situations where someone is just flirting and things go a little further than normal because alcohol is involved. And there's everything in between.

    And the shame of being considered a slut comes into it. I don't really feel all that ashamed of waking up with someone I wouldn't have normally been with if I was sober. We had sex, nothing to be ashamed of there. I had sex with someone I wouldn't have normally been with. If there's no shame in it, why would I be angry with that person?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yes, but did Josie unreasonably believe that Jake would consent to sex with her while sober?

    What if Jake wouldn't have consented if sober, because although he thought Josie was a smoking hot sex goddess and would probably consent to some hanky panky next week, he had only broken up with Janie a few days prior and wouldn't want to hurt her by moving on too soon, does that still make it rapey?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    does that still make it rapey?

    Was it reasonable for Josie to believe he would consent to sex while sober?

    If Jake had explained to Josie that he was really hurting about breaking up with Janie, and didn't want to do anything that would jeopardize his chances of fixing that relationship, then it would not be reasonable for Josie to believe he would consent to sex while sober and therfore she shouldn't have had sex with him.

    Unfortunately our society's sexist gender conditioning have ingrained lopsided expectations that people have to navigate.

    Is it unfair that it's more reasonable to believe a drunk man would soberly consent to sex? Yes. But that doesn't change what's reasonable for Josie to believe. We don't know what information was available because it's a hypothetical, we can imagine all sorts of scenarios.

    If you're not able to assess if a person would soberly consent (because you're drunk, or because they're drunk) do not have sex with them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Your answer is great, but it really addresses whether Josie ought to hook up with Jake, not whether doing so would be rape.

    As a young man in my 20s, there were plenty of times I ought not have had that 6th beer, ought not have ate some more cake, ought not have driven quite so fast.

    To me, if someone cheats on their partner while drunk, even if they would not have done that while sober, that does not make them a rape victim. It may well make both participants repugnant scum, but the term "rape" is a serious one and I don't think it really applies in my this specific example.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Yes, but did Josie unreasonably believe that Jake would consent to sex with her while sober?

    In 1998 that might be a reasonable concern, but I think nowadays it definitely begs the question. Young men are pickier than they used to be, less prolific in general.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •