A question about rape


With the recent Stanford rape story in the headlines, this question came to mind. Any barristers out there please feel free to answer.
A male and female are both so drunk they are not legally capable of giving consent. They engage in sex where no force or violence or coercion is used.
Question: Are they both guilty of rape?

No votes yet

or coercion is used." Our society, long ago, decided that sexual activity between consenting adults is not crime.
Now, in this particular case, there was evidence of violence. The female was unconscious, according to the testimony of the two students who were riding their bikes and saw the couple, uhh coupling. They both stated that the guy was moving and the woman was perfectly motionless. In addition, it seems to be transparently obvious to me, that the convicted sexual predator was not so drunk that he didn't know that what he was doing was wrong. Otherwise, he wouldn't have tried to run from the scene, before completing his sexual activity. And, no one really knows what would have happened if those two heroes had not come along and interrupted the attack. Would he have killed the woman so there would be no one to testify against him if he would be charged with the crime? If he was aware enough to try to leave the scene, why wouldn't he be aware enough to want to eliminate the only witness to his crime, if the two other students had not come along?
Now, I know that in our male-dominated society in the past, many men strove to get a woman so drunk that she could not make a conscious decision about having sex. If she would be passed out, all the better for them! As a society, we have now evolved to a more rational and egalitarian view about sexual activity. While it is now far more acceptable for women to have sex before marriage, and with several different sexual partners, than in previous times, we eschew the idea that it's all on the male to initiate sexual activity, and that the male has, basically, no rules when it comes to getting the sex he desires from any available female. Simply put, today's women want the same rules of sexual activity to apply to them as those that have applied to males for centuries. And they have a right to give consent, and not be part of a sexual act unless they are actually conscious and can give consent!

This guy should get at least 20 years in prison.

The issue stating that someone cannot consent if they have been drinking is b.s. In the Stanford rape case this is not the case.

A person is still responsible for their actions whether drunk or not. Likewise all sexual assaults are not rape. Sexual assault is a generic term that covers any undue action that is sexually motivated but some of these are not illegal. An example they consider catcalling a sexual assault and while it may be uncouth it isn't illegal.


You are correct that being drunk is not, in and of itself, proof that one cannot give consent for intimate sexual relations. This woman was UNCONSCIOUS, however. How can an UNCONSCIOUS person ever give consent?
Here I go again with factual information to enlighten the readers, even though I know that facts often contradict hard-wired opinions. Here's part of an article in which the two heroes were interviewed: "The two men told police they were riding their bikes on Jan. 18, 2015, near the Kappa Alpha fraternity house when they saw Turner, now 20, on top of an unconscious woman behind a dumpster on campus.
'We can see that she isn't moving at all but he is moving a lot. So we stop and think that there is something strange going on,' Arndt told the news outlet Expressen in Swedish, an interview that was first translated by BuzzFeed News.
He added: 'Peter walks over and asks what he is doing and I am following him. When he stand up we see that she still isn't moving, even the slightest, so we approach and ask something like: 'What the hell are you doing?''
Arndt said Turner started to run and Jonsson went after him.
The two men then pinned Turner down and held him until authorities arrived, Arndt said."

If this guy didn't think what he was doing was sexual assault, why didn't he just keep going, and give these two heroes a "thumbs up" sign or something? Your skeptical attitude, Mikey, is exactly why the vast majority of sexual assaults go unreported, including those in the military. And, if a woman is embarrassed to report such an assault, can you imagine how embarrassed a man would be, especially a military man? Which part of UNCONSCIOUS do you not understand?

Now, drinking too much is a huge problem in this country. Here are some statistics, [Here I go with more of those nasty facts again!], of the death toll from alcohol abuse: "Nearly 88,000 people (approximately 62,000 men and 26,000 women) die from alcohol-related causes annually, making it the fourth leading preventable cause of death in the United States.
In 2014, alcohol-impaired driving fatalities accounted for 9,967 deaths (31 percent of overall driving fatalities)."
Alcohol is a drug. It is a sedative. It affects the brain, and puts the brain to sleep. one part at a time, until the person eventually blacks out and/or passes out. Just because it is a legal drug for those over the age of 21 in this country, does not mean it is not harmful. We all pay a stiff price for alcohol abuse, if only in higher premiums on our auto insurance, and health insurance! If anyone still believes that getting a woman so drunk that she passes out is a free ticket to use that woman's body in any type of sexual way one desires, that person is plain sick!
And, yes, I do have a bias here. I am married to a woman; one of our two children is a woman; and one of our four grandchildren is a girl!

Apparently you didn't read my statement. I said that it was not the case with the Stanford situation.

I then went on to address the rest of the original threads points and not the Stanford case.

Most sexual assaults go unreported because they are minor crimes like groping. Now, groping is bad but when someone is groped in a club most, men and women, will not report it because it's minor.

And men are sexually assaulted more than women. Most of these come from other men. Men are raped at a higher rate than women. Most of these rapes occur in prison. These rapes do not go reported in most cases.

These are just facts. Again, not attributed to any one specific case. Just facts. Sorry you don't like facts and get so emotional that you cannot read.


For that, I apologize.
As far as the reporting of sexual assaults is concerned, you post as though you have some statistical evidence, yet you cite none. Instead you just assume that because so many more men are incarcerated than women, and a lot of rapes occur in prison, more men than women are victims of sexual assaults. That simply cannot be verified. Here's one source which states that 91% of rape and sexual assault victims are female: http://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/publications_nsvrc_factsheet_me...

While a majority of robbery and assault and battery crimes are reported, only 344 out of every 1000 rapes are reported! This article also discloses that 944 out of every 1000 people who commit rape and/or sexual assault will go free. BTW -- in the military, 43% of females, and only 10% of males reported a rape and/or sexual assault! Here's a link to that article: https://rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system

I think you're in Egypt on this one. I do have my own anecdotes on this. An adult couple I know well, sent their daughters to college many years ago. Both of them were victims of rape on a college campus! That's a 100% rate for that generation of females in that family! Oh, BTW, their son was not such a victim when he attended college.

You might know MikeyA. Have you ever had sex with someone who was conscious?

HaHa Good one. LOL

Hope I didn't offend anyone!

Was it?


Too bad we can't get Bill Clinton(the Slickmeister)or Bill Cosby to chime in on this one!

own daughter? Even Lyin' Don the Michelin Man who never met a burger he didn't like, knew how sleazy he sounded when he said this: "I’ve said that if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps, I would be dating her,” because he followed it up by asking, “Is that terrible?” I'll answer his question. Yes it is "terrible!"
At least Bill Clinton lusted after women to whom he was NOT a blood relative!

As far as Cosby is concerned, if he got away with sexual assault, does this mean anyone accused of sexual assault should get off? What part of unconscious, do you not understand, G-MAN? Brock Turner was not so drunk as was the woman he assaulted. She was UNCONSCIOUS! Brock Turner was not so drunk that he did not know what he was doing was terribly wrong. That's why he tried to run away from the scene -- duh! Brock Turner was not so drunk that he should not be held fully responsible for his actions that night, but he fooled the judge, and that's all that counts.

Why Clinton? Monica had to be awake to be giving him head. Maybe someday you'll be lucky enough to have that experience! LOL

Hope I didn't offend anyone!

Here are a few links to the story that are somewhat informative, once you read past the screed.

Stanford sex assault: Brock Turner gets 6 months in jail By Jacqueline Lee, Daily News Staff Writer

With good behavior, Turner, 20, is expected to serve three months in county jail. He will have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life and complete a sex offender management program.

The case is being appealed, and if it goes to trial Turner has a chance to win this one. The real effect of a not guilty verdict will be the sex offender registration, which I personally believe comes under the heading of cruel and unusual punishment.

Then there's the lack of sobriety on the part of almost everyone involved, except the Swedes who busted Turner.

Expert witness falters in sex assault trial of former Stanford swimmer By Tracey Kaplan

Prosecutor Aleleh Kiancerci, on the other hand, contends that the woman was clearly extremely drunk -- and Turner knew it. She was found unconscious... when two bicylists rode by and saw Turner atop her making a thrusting motion. She did not wake up for at least three hours. The woman's blood-alcohol was more than .24, or three times the legal limit. Turner's blood-alcohol content was .17, or more than twice the legal limit of .08.

If Turner's BAC was .17, it's a wonder he actually could run at all. Being arrested by the two bicyclists, it's a sure bet that they had to restrain him, which given his physique would be hard work. One thing I noted is that Turner wasn't injured at all by the restraint, meaning that those two had to be pretty good at wrestling, and were careful not to bust Turner up.

As for the victim, her BAC (when it was tested) was over .24. In order to get a BAC that high, you really have to work at it. It's a wonder she didn't die of alcohol poisoning.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

have sex with her/him, even if (s)he was never sober enough to give consent, and even if (s)he passes out at any time during your encounter with her/him? And the fact that Turner knew enough about what he was doing to run away, is no evidence that he consciously knew that what he was doing was wrong. Interesting, MJ.
AND, in any future trial, Brock Turner's lies in the statement he gave to the judge about his lack of experience with alcohol and other drugs and partying, would most certainly be introduced by the prosecutors. Here is a link to an article detailing Brock Turner's lack of innocence when it comes to using alcohol and other drugs, both when he was still a high school student in Ohio, and after he arrived at Stanford: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-stanford-attack-20160610-sna...

Finally, MJ, do you accept that OJ was innocent of killing his ex-wife and her boyfriend because a jury found him to be "Not guilty?" Personally, I think that OJ was guilty. So is Brock Turner, no matter what any future jury or judge may conclude! Judges are human. Juries are made up of human beings. The last time I checked, all humans err.

So since judges and juries error, it would be best if we dissolved our current legal system and instituted some sort of, I don't know, a different system. Something that doesn't require facts, logic, or a trial by a jury of our peers. Maybe you and an elite cadre of your SJWs would be kind and compassionate enough to provide the great unwashed with the perfect solution.

Right, Pertcheck? You lying, Christ killing money lender.

You're no better than Turner, and if anyone belongs in prison that someone is you, Pertcheck. You're no damned good, and that's the truth about you.

But don't let the truth deter you, Pertcheck, you walking abomination. Keep practicing and you may make the Olympic team yet - for the 'leaping to conclusions' event.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

bigoted person you are! I always tell people that I did away with hate a long time ago. I figured out that my hating others hurt me more than it hurt them. I do feel something for you though, MJ...it's called pity.

When you disparage me for "leaping to conclusions," MJ, I find it laughable. You are the champion of "leaping to conclusions!"
For the record, I never stated that we should do away with our justice system! I merely pointed out that all systems run by human beings are imperfect,
For the record, I did not kill Christ or anybody else! I was born about 1900 years after Christ's death.
For the record, I have never worked for a bank or any other lending institution, so I have never been a "money lender."
For the record, I have never been convicted of a crime greater than a minor traffic violation, so I have never been on trial to be considered for incarceration.

Finally, it is so sad when someone is losing an argument based upon facts, and stoops to personal attacks. That would make you a great supporter of Lyin' Don the Michelin Man who never met a burger he didn't like. You two react the same way!

Lol too funny.

MJ apparently having an opinion that someone else doesn't like makes you a bigot. I guess dictionaries no longer matter.

That is why Trump is doing so well.


I have always respected your right to have a differing opinion from mine. In the distant past, you did get quite personal with a close friend of mine, and I was cautious. But, for years now, you have been civil, even when we disagreed strongly. If, however, you really think that MJ's use of the hackneyed, pejorative, anti-Semitic term "Christ killing money lender" is OK, you lose my respect, Mikey.

The fact that you reacted with an "Lol" to this, disturbs me, Mikey. Do you really think that I am a "Christ killing money lender?" Are all Jews, "Christ killing money lenders," Mikey? Or just the ones with whom you and MJ disagree? Are you and MJ so void of factual arguments against my positions on this issue that anti-Semitic statements are acceptable in lieu of substantive refutations?!

Just for your edification, Mikey, here's the Merriam-Webster definition of a bigot (what I called MJ): "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance."

Dale, you must remember that intelligence is an unknown concept to some people. Those people should understand by now that the diversity in the USA is not going to tolerate beliefs that imprison the majority of its citizens. Some people need to get on board with the concept that America is for the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for everyone, not just MikeyA and Donald Trump.

Actually Dale, I read his comment above that one. I fell into the mistake of clicking the side links so I didn't see his Christ killing money lender comment. So I am man enough to admit when I am wrong and make a mistake and I did just that here and my apologies.

I do have one question for you. Did you train ZC to be your parrot or is it a part of his natural instinct?

As for your friend. He brought a fight from another venue into here and began attacking another poster. He posted no facts. Just attacks. I did what I did for the integrity of the people of this site. I would do it for even Paul or ZC.

Since your friend has changed his conduct I've been welcoming of his comments and discussion. I expect others to follow the general rules of decency and I will as well. When they cross them they deserve none in return.


comments you made, I only post here. I do not participate nor read elsewhere. I simply do not want to spend all my time reading and posting. I like the way Chris runs this site! He and I have a mutual respect despite having political views which are close to 180 degrees apart.

And, for the record, I have no idea who ZC really is. If I do actually know him, I would be shocked. He, as all who read here, obviously knows my name! And while ZC and I do not always agree, I can say with some confidence that, generally, we both view this world as a "We world," rather than as a "Me world."

With regard to "We world" "Me world". As long as the "We world" is voluntary and not at the point of a gun, I'm all for it. (i.e.) church food pantries vs food stamps

world. No one has yet come to my door with a gun to demand that I pay taxes to support the Food Stamp Program. I am proud that we have a Food Stamp Program! It is a LOT better than giving people direct payments, which were so often not used for food! In fact, many of those who receive Food Stamps are working! This is from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: "Most SNAP [Food Stamp] recipients who can work do so. Among SNAP households with at least one working-age, non-disabled adult, more than half work while receiving SNAP — and more than 80 percent work in the year before or after receiving SNAP. The rates are even higher for families with children.Mar 24, 2016" Personally, I have no problem with my tax money going to Americans who need food and health care as long as there are giant corporations who refuse to pay their workers living wages with reasonable benefits, such as health care. To me, eating and having health care are basic rights for all human beings, and, they are provided in every other industrialized nation in the world!

A slim majority of those who receive Medicaid are children. Add to this the elderly, many of whom get both Medicare and Medicaid. And, add to this, those who work full or part-time for places like Walmart. [Remember, every penny you think you save at Walmart is being subsidized by tax money Walmart employees use to survive on their mediocre earnings form Walmart. And, FYI, Sam's Club is also owned by Walmart. And, the beginning employee at COSTCO earns the same hourly rate as does the AVERAGE worker at Walmart! COSTCO uses a different business model, and it seems to be working quite well!]

Try to stop paying federal taxes. Eventually men with gun will show up.

Try to stop paying state taxes and see what happens.
Try to stop living in a complex world.
In your eyes, is any tax worth paying, BN? As POTUS, George Washington headed an army to enforce the whiskey tax in 1794!
Here's a link to an article about The Whiskey Rebellion: http://www.mountvernon.org/digital-encyclopedia/article/whiskey-rebellion/
In ancient Rome, many citizens did not like paying taxes either! How far back in time do you want to go, BN?

In a democracy, all voters have a right to choose legislators at the local, state, and federal levels who reflect their views on taxes and spending. If too many people keep doing the work of the giant multi-national corporations, who are the least patriotic institutions in America, and keep voting for their Republican sycophants, we will continue getting our taxes spent in the most wasteful, least productive ways, We will continue to line the pockets of those in the military-industrial complex, just as Ike warned us over half a century ago. And, the Republican corporate puppets will continue to use our tax dollars to line the pockets of the real money-changers in our modern times, those most nauseating corporate welfare recipients, the giant financial institutions which are "too big to fail."

food drive. In addition, my wife and I contribute to other food and basic necessity charities throughout the year. We even contribute to (horror of horrors) overseas charitable drives! Believe it or not, there is starvation and deprivation in other parts of the world, and those people are human beings, too!
It's a "we" world!!

Hitler said: "Humanitarianism is the expression of stupidity and cowardice."

" Did you train ZC to be your parrot or is it a part of his natural instinct?"

If anyone would recognize someone else as a being a parrot it would be you Mikey.
When fat Fred was posting his BS on here a few years ago trying to up his ratings, (which didn't work and CC finally told him to shut the F up}, you agreed with everything he said no matter how racist or stupid. Just saying.

Hope I didn't offend anyone!

I also want to emphasize that I am no one but myself. I am not Dale or anyone else except ZC. I respect everyone's right to have an opinion. I don't necessarily respect the content of what they say. My closest friends refer to me as Mr.. Spock because I am very logical with my approach to just about everything. When I worked in Corporate America, I was the employee the CEO would come to in order to resolve difficult personnel/social issues. Dealing with MikyA is dealing with a social issue. Fortunately it does not take a lot of time to determine who is, or is not, a Buffoon.

Donna, I did not agree with everything Fred said. Fred is a Libertarian whereas I am solidly Republican. Fred hated Carty, I liked Carty(for the most part). This community has always been way too small to increase ratings. I think Fred realized that most of his online discussions were with obsessed people who listened to his show intently and thus the debate was not bringing him anything positive for his show.

What racist thing did Fred say that I agreed with?

I never responded to the bulk of Fred's posts in agreement as ZC does.


MikeyA, the only thing I agreed with Fred was his choice of sandwich shops.



the surface in the hearts and minds of many who claim to be Christians. MJ's charges against me are repetitious of those that have been used against Jews for many hundreds of years after the crucifixion of Jesus.
Would Jesus have used these words? Of course not! As a matter of fact, while dying at the hands of others on the Cross, Jesus spoke out, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they are doing." Luke 23:34. It does fascinate me that so many who claim to be followers of the Prince of Peace and someone I admire so much, use such hate filled words and commit such hateful deeds!

to a quote from a letter sent to the judge by one of the jurors in the Stanford rape trial. The juror stated that (s)he was, "absolutely shocked and appalled” by the judge's sentence. Here is an excerpt of what the juror wrote: "During the sentencing, you said, 'The trial is a search for the truth. It’s an imperfect process. But after the trial all sides should accept the jury’s findings.' It seems to me that you really did not accept the jury’s findings. …
Justice has not been served in this case. The jury’s verdict of guilt on all three felony counts of sexual assault was completely disregarded in an effort to spare the perpetrator a ‘hardship’. What message does this send to [the victim], and indeed all victims of sexual assault and rape, especially those on college campuses? Your concern was for the impact on the assailant. I vehemently disagree, our concern should be for the victim."

No wonder so many rapes and sexual assaults go unreported!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.