| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I understand it, 4 is the only one where you're likely to get a conviction
I should think that's more indicative of the current cultural attitude towards rape than of actual guilt. ;)
If I leave my house open and you take something from it you have still robbed me. I made it easy but you are still a robber.
Consequently if I get drunk I cannot give consent. If I do not give consent and you do it anyways you are a rapist.
My idiocy does not give you the right to my possessions.
See we're thinking of two things. Your thinking about predators, I'm talking about the alternate possibilities, where in your example would be someone giving out their possessions and then getting the recipients thrown in jail for theft.
I think it is important for us to think of the consequences of the law and how it can be misapplied. A misapplied law does a lot of damage to the original cause one is trying to address. For example, we are currently labeling "sexting" teenagers as sex-offenders for life. They get put on the list with all the other ones, but now all the sex offenders can claim they are just on that list for "sexting" or other similar level crimes that get you put on that list. An entire group of criminals improved their standing in society because we associated potentially normal people with that group.
If we do the same thing with rape, that would trivialize the crime and demonize the victims.
That isn't OK.
The alcohol one is philosophical conundrum. On one hand the person feeding alcohol is doing it for the sole purpose of getting sex, and that strikes me as rather predatory. On the other hand, I think it sets a very bad legal precedent that one sex can get drunk, consent to sex, regret it the next day and ruin some dudes life. Because it would be very difficult to prove whether or not he was preying on the woman in question or just partying when one thing led to another.
Legally speaking, alcohol is not considered a significant mood altering drug to make you not liable for the actions you take, even when poisoned with it. If you can prove poisoning by the alleged rapist, then they are at least guilty of that, which implies predatory motives. But if you can't prove that poisoning, then the act of sex shouldn't be enough to prove that rape happened in that situation from a legal standpoint of not wanting to wrongly convict the innocent.
EDIT: I also think that saying getting buzzed makes women incapable of making decisions is rather degrading to women and edges into trivializing rape.
I would ask why you're assuming it's always a man getting a woman drunk. No reason it couldn't be the other way around, or be a case of same-sex interaction.
You cannot give consent while drunk.
Consent must be obtained or the act is forced.
Drunk has a legal definition. Consent has a legal definition, and you cannot consent while drunk. If you do not have consent then the act is not willing.
This is a basic point everyone needs to get into their heads.
Does this mean that you didn't do something that put you in the situation? No. But that doesn't excuse the other persons behavior either.
If I leave my house open and you take something from it you have still robbed me. I made it easy but you are still a robber.
Consequently if I get drunk I cannot give consent. If I do not give consent and you do it anyways you are a rapist.
My idiocy does not give you the right to my possessions.
Define drunk.
1) Had any alchohol.
2) Past the legal limit for driving.
3) Beyond that, but still walking and talking coherently, but judgement is probably impaired.
4) Incapacitated. Passed out or at least not capable of coherent conversation or control of your body.As I understand it, 4 is the only one where you're likely to get a conviction. 1-3 would criminalize an awful lot of sex. And 3 is basically what we're talking about with charm magic.
1. Is questionable
2. Is drunk -> No Consent ∴ Rape3. Is drunk -> No Consent ∴ Rape
4. Is drunk -> No Consent ∴ Rape
Also we very much are not talking about number 3 with charm magic from the get go:
Charm magic is not by consent -- [b]by very definition it is forcibly changing your opinion[b]. This means your judgement is impaired. You are under the effects of a mind altering substance (in this case a magic spell), which means you cannot (in regards to the person you are charmed towards) give informed consent, because they have already violated you.
I would ask why you're assuming it's always a man getting a woman drunk. No reason it couldn't be the other way around, or be a case of same-sex interaction.The alcohol one is philosophical conundrum. On one hand the person feeding alcohol is doing it for the sole purpose of getting sex, and that strikes me as rather predatory. On the other hand, I think it sets a very bad legal precedent that one sex can get drunk, consent to sex, regret it the next day and ruin some dudes life. Because it would be very difficult to prove whether or not he was preying on the woman in question or just partying when one thing led to another.
Legally speaking, alcohol is not considered a significant mood altering drug to make you not liable for the actions you take, even when poisoned with it. If you can prove poisoning by the alleged rapist, then they are at least guilty of that, which implies predatory motives. But if you can't prove that poisoning, then the act of sex shouldn't be enough to prove that rape happened in that situation from a legal standpoint of not wanting to wrongly convict the innocent.
EDIT: I also think that saying getting buzzed makes women incapable of making decisions is rather degrading to women and edges into trivializing rape.
This happened to a master sergeant I know -- woman got him passed out drunk and then raped him.
I would ask why you're assuming it's always a man getting a woman drunk. No reason it couldn't be the other way around, or be a case of same-sex interaction.
In several states women cannot legally rape men.
This is also the majority situation, and I think analyzing a specific keeps the discussion clearer and less prone to tangents.
Think about it this way: Charm Person is temporary. The moment it wears off, the person can go back to hating you. Think they're gonna look back on it as consensual then?
I would ask why you're assuming it's always a man getting a woman drunk. No reason it couldn't be the other way around, or be a case of same-sex interaction.In several states women cannot legally rape men.
Really? I guess that is one of the reasons why the term "rape culture" is widely used right now in the so-called modern age.
You cannot give consent while drunk.
Consent must be obtained or the act is forced.
Drunk has a legal definition. Consent has a legal definition, and you cannot consent while drunk. If you do not have consent then the act is not willing.
This is a basic point everyone needs to get into their heads.
Does this mean that you didn't do something that put you in the situation? No. But that doesn't excuse the other persons behavior either.
If I leave my house open and you take something from it you have still robbed me. I made it easy but you are still a robber.
Consequently if I get drunk I cannot give consent. If I do not give consent and you do it anyways you are a rapist.
My idiocy does not give you the right to my possessions.
I'm with Marcus here. If I walk up and see you on the street, and your 'idiocy' is causing you to give away your material possessions, and I take one in good faith, not realizing you are an idiot, I am definitely not a thief. If I walk up and realize your idiocy and take advantage of that, I'm a predatory scumbag, but it is debatable whether or not I am an actual thief.
It seriously trivializes rape to suggest that two people who meet up at a bar and go home to have enjoyable and consensual (in the actual definition of the word, not simply the legal context) sex have raped each other, or one has raped the other. It certainly seems less dubious than someone who lies about their true attitudes towards the relationship, or someone who lies about their own accomplishments in order to make a relationship seem more attractive, and neither of the latter situations are considered rape.
The problem with the "giving people things" metaphor is that there are very few gifts valuable enough to match what we're comparing to.
The closest thing I can think of is giving people your prosthetic limbs, or handing them the deed to your house.
Would it be rape to polymorph into a woman's husband and have sex with her? The spell isn't be used on her, only it's effects which seems to be OK.
Suppose a woman with a really high bonus to bluff were to use ito convince a male paladin that last night he got drunk, converted to Calistria and married her. If she demanded he fulfill his martial obligation, would this be rape? Would the paladin fall for acting in accordance with his code under false information?
I'm gonna ignore the gratuitous "would paladin fall?" here and say, yeah, pretending to be someone's S.O. is rape. And convincing someone they have to have sex with you to be a good person is so squicky I can't even.
Also, we should probably move this to the OTD. This isn't about magic anymore.
According to the spell descriptors, charms and compulsions are neither ethically nor morally aligned. Based on how the PF alignment system is supposed to work, compulsions really ought to carry the lawful descriptor, because they override the subject's free will. Charms don't directly override the subject's free will, they skew its perceptions, which in turn skews how it exercises its free will. Good and evil, as defined by the PF alignment system, don't enter into it.
As for trying to apply real world moral or ethical judgments to the game world, it's generally a bad idea. In the game world, the "heroes" are constantly killing other intelligent beings, without any semblance of remorse, nor any hint of post traumatic stress afterwards; PCs are psychopaths.
Charm/domination spells aren't inherently good or evil, any more than a fireball spell is. That doesn't fireballing an orphanage isn't an evil act.
Simply put, when a spell has no alignment descriptors, where it fits on the alignment spectrum is all about how you use it. Mind control can be used as a way to avoid stabbing someone in the face, or it can be used to do some really evil things.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
According to the spell descriptors, charms and compulsions are neither ethically nor morally aligned. Based on how the PF alignment system is supposed to work, compulsions really ought to carry the lawful descriptor, because they override the subject's free will. Charms don't directly override the subject's free will, they skew its perceptions, which in turn skews how it exercises its free will. Good and evil, as defined by the PF alignment system, don't enter into it.
This is because there are many scenarios where using them is entirely moral and ethical. Using Charm Person to convince the Evil Overlord's guard to tell you today's password is legitimately not Evil in and of itself. The same would be true if you slipped a drug in his drink. Both are Chaotic...but Evil? Nah. Charming (in the magical sense) or drugging them into having sex with you? Then it's Evil.
And that's why they don't have Alignment descriptors, because it depends on how you use them.
As for trying to apply real world moral or ethical judgments to the game world, it's generally a bad idea. In the game world, the "heroes" are constantly killing other intelligent beings, without any semblance of remorse, nor any hint of post traumatic stress afterwards; PCs are psychopaths.
This is basically b$%+!&%!. PCs are precisely as psychopathic as you play them as. No more and no less, you have complete agency over that kind of thing in regards to your character.
Additionally...not all soldiers get PTSD. Are you calling the ones who don't psychopaths? Because that's a pretty messed up attitude if so. But I don't think you'd actually say that...which makes a group of 4 or 5 people who don't have such issues statistically unusual, but by no means inherently unbelievable or psychopathic.
The PCs in most games are soldiers, warriors, mercenaries, people experienced with violence and killing. This makes them different from most of us in real life, but not inherently morally inferior. They can be very moral by almost any non-pacifist standard you'd care to name, which makes bringing in real world morality eminently appropriate.
|
|
I'm gonna ignore the gratuitous "would paladin fall?" here and say, yeah, pretending to be someone's S.O. is rape. And convincing someone they have to have sex with you to be a good person is so squicky I can't even.Would it be rape to polymorph into a woman's husband and have sex with her? The spell isn't be used on her, only it's effects which seems to be OK.
Suppose a woman with a really high bonus to bluff were to use ito convince a male paladin that last night he got drunk, converted to Calistria and married her. If she demanded he fulfill his martial obligation, would this be rape? Would the paladin fall for acting in accordance with his code under false information?
This. What Kobold Cleaver says here.
For the record, I don't think "convincing someone they have to have sex with you to be a good person" (to quote Kobold Cleaver) is rape per se...it is however incredibly messed up on almost every level and deeply immoral and cruel.
However if I hand you a possession that does not require you to act.
You have passively benefited.
In other words: If I lose something and you find it you did not have to take it from me. You might have stolen it, but it is not a valid argument that because you have it you acted to take it from me.
In order for you to have sex with me you must act.
There is no way for me to simply give you sex -- and if I attempt to give you sex and you are not willing then I am raping you (regardless of if I am drunk or not).
Also:
Not all drinking = drunk
but all drunk = no consent
You are making an argument about the first when I haven't (and won't).
Also:
Yes -- as a matter of fact leavenworth is full of people that thought, "he/she is not drunk enough for him/her to not give consent."
This is a major problem people don't want to admit to because they are uncomfortable at the position they think they might find themselves in. In fact most cases of sexual harassment and rape involve alcohol. In fact in many cases the defendant's whole argument is, "I didn't think she was drunk enough to not give consent" or "but she wasn't that drunk!"
Basically if you want to avoid being charged with rape do not have sex with someone that has been drinking.
Not all drinking is drunk therefore not all sex while drinking is rape, however it is a very thin line and not one that you should put yourself on.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
