350
Do they still make these posters?
(lemmy.today)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024
350 points (88.2% liked)
Facepalm
2325 readers
2 users here now
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I'm not a law talking guy, this isn't the law, and it isn't ethical best practice but it might help people understand the reasonableness of the poster.
I believe it's true that drunk people can't consent. I think that what juries are likely to actually care about is the question:
If you're in a police interview or a trial and are asked:
And all you can say without perjuring yourself is:
You're going to have a bad time. ESPECIALLY if you've been drinking, because it will be easier to question the reasonableness of your belief in their consent.
This poster is clearly meant for a place similar to a university dormitory.
This poster is bad because: it makes the law seem lopsided, and perpetuates sexist ideas about gender and sex.
The poster is good because: unfortunately, too many men think that if a girl is drunk at a place where he thinks the girls are looking for drunk hookups, that she consents to whatever she doesn't fight (and maybe more). Too many men misunderstand consent and have dangerous ideas about what women really want. It's much better they be scared into over thinking whether they're risking arrest than that they rape somebody.
Obviously more nuance is good, but if you're trying to stop drunk 18 year olds from raping/being raped, taping up a poster like this in the stairwell is more effective than taping up an essay.
Let me slide in here and say absolutely not to one key point here. If you are in a law office or a trial and you are asked anything, especially regarding something as serious as a rape accusation, you say absolutely nothing, you shut the fuck up and let your attorney do the talking.
Don’t talk to the police
Good to see more people linking to this. Hey, if you're an American reading this comment and that link is still blue, turn it purple. lt's arguably the most important video on the internet for every American to watch.
Yeah fair, I mean I think I implied you shouldn't say the quote.
Don't talk to police.
Unless you're a rapist, in which case please tell them all about how she has to be held responsible for her decision to get blackout drunk and seduce you. And how she definitely wanted it because she didn't say no. It will really help you get them on your side. The police are all good ol' boys, they'll totally get it. "Women ☕️", "boys will be boys".
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sorry that's just not how communication works.
If you're trying to tell someone something, making dramatic claims just undermines your credibility.
The logic you're using could be used to defend any number of stupid illegal activities, it's got a real hardcore SovCit vibe.
This is a very generic retort. Are you... a bot ?
Maybe you're the bot and you don't even know it.
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.
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.
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.
Not exactly how I'd frame it but go on...
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.
Would it be reasonable to believe they would consent to sex with you while sober?
Was it reasonable for them to think that you would have consented to sex with you while you were sober?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Right, so if it's not reasonable to believe that a person would consent to sex with you while sober do not have sex with them.
I think the issue with this poster is that it's SO lopsided that it doesn't make any sense. They're outlining a very specific scenario that implies that only males can rape, and that males are more capable of decision making when drunk than females. It's simultaneously misogynist and misandrist.
A much better take on a college campus night be to illustrate different levels of drunkenness. Alice was sloshed and Bob was tipsy. Or illustrate that the same quantity of alcohol can lead to vastly different levels of intoxication. Alice and Bob both had 3 drinks. Alice is sloshed, bob is tipsy.
As is, if I had seen this poster during any developmental years I'd have written it off as bs propaganda and done what I was gonna do anyway. Fortunately, that's not-raping in my case, but for some people, it may be a bit blurrier. And, at worst, some people may see this, see how horribly lopsided it is, and decide it MUST be full of shit and do the opposite.
I'll grant that the poster is lopsided and misogynist. Maybe it's also misandrist.
I think people are getting confused because they think the poster is saying "this is how you should treat women". It's actually more like "You should know that this is how police will treat you".
I wish I had enough confidence in humanity to disagree.
If the poster reframes it as "this is how the police treat you" then I see it being a lot more favorable. If it also took a slightly less hard-line stance, insisting on affirmative consent for instance, it'd also fly better. Overall the message and intent of the poster is clearly a good one, but it's touching an area where every single person is so vastly different on, that nuance MUST be taken into consideration, or it's just going to hit wrong.
Yeah affirmative consent is good, but remember that a drunk person can't actually give affirmative consent.
Again I think that's too narrow of advice to give. What is suitably drunk to prevent consent from being given? Where is the determining factor, and do you actually expect potentially inebriation, horny adolescents to be able to ascertain it?
Affirmative consent is a LOT harder to unintentionally give. It's easy to just mumble out an "mhm" to get the situations over with, but it takes thought and consideration to actually say words, "yes, I want you to -specific act-. Advising someone to always seek affirmative consent if they're unclear is MUCH more actionable.
No, which is why they shouldn't have sex with people that are drunk.
That is one of those things that is just going to happen. People WILL engage in boundary pushing behavior. Be it sex while inebriated or something else. These things are normal, and saying broadly, "just don't do it" doesn't reduce any harm. More effective harm reduction comes with a degree of understanding and measure, saying at least obey these much more easily achievable guidelines.
Yeah it's simplistic but that's the nature of a poster. I think giving someone an idea of the stakes is a good place to start.
So does this mean I can get out of a bad used car deal by drinking before signing the contracts?
You can't fire me for being late to work, I was drunk!
Let me know.
How not to rape someone 101:
"can I _____?"
"Would you like to ___?"
That it. That's all there is too it.
I probably err too much on the side of caution with stuff but when I'm on a date with someone if it's going well I I always just ask point blank if can kiss them like I'm proposing an update to their insurance policy.
By and large women... Appreciate and hate it. They want you to just know what to do and when without the unsexy as hell approach I take, but they understand why and are glad that you're doing that over the alternative pushy stuff they tend to run into.
one time it turned what I thought was a surefire yes into a no but I'll take it over the horrific consequences of not reading the room correctly.
The exception is group sex. If I think some wild shit is going to down I'm doing the naked man. Ik 2 for 2 there.
There are times I absoultely would not have sex with someone sober.
That's pretty much the reason I drink, to be more fun, to let loose and be less socially awkward.
I bet the majority of women I slept with I wouldn't have done it sober. Hell some of then I had sex with twice haha. I really don't understand this argument.
There's been several women in my past that I only slept with because they spent the night pouring drinks in me because I was too shy/socially awkward to make a move. By the logic of this poster (if it was consistent between genders) they raped me, and I don't feel that way at all. There's such a huge gray area around the whole "sex while drunk" thing that makes it really hard to resolve sometimes. Obviously someone getting someone who's previously said "No" drunk in order take advantage of them is wrong but that's hardly the only scenario.