The new "I was drunk when I had sex so I was raped"

[damnbiker]

http://www.madison.com/wsj/mad/top/index.php?ntid=88937&ntpid=2

So does this mean that any drunken frat boy who experiences "coyote arm" the next morning can cry rape too?

Rape law expands to include alcohol
KAREN RIVEDAL [email protected]
The nation's top party school could get a sobering jolt from a change in state law that puts alcohol on a par with date-rape drugs as an aggravating factor in certain sexual assaults.

The change, long sought by rape- victim advocates in Wisconsin, means that victims who are very drunk during a sexual encounter can be judged incapable of giving consent, triggering a possible second-degree sexual assault charge.

Prior to the change, which took effect in June, a victim who had been drinking typically had to be unconscious to be deemed incapable of consenting to sex.

The law applies to alcohol-related sexual assaults committed by anyone anywhere in the state. But it may have particular resonance on hard-drinking college campuses such as UW- Madison, which was named the country's No. 1 party school by the Princeton Review last year.

"It's a great change," said Carmen Hotvedt, a violence prevention specialist at UW-Madison's University Health Services. "In our educational efforts with students, we define consent as freely given. The (new) law really enforces the educational messages we've been sending for a long time."

Wisconsin had been the only state to exclude alcohol as a potential legal intoxicant in rape cases before the law change, sponsored by Sen. Cathy Stepp, R-Sturtevant.

And while prosecutors say it is likely to be used only rarely - in cases in which victims don't pass out but are so impaired by alcohol they are "unable to appraise their own conduct," as one advocate put it - the change was heralded by experts who work with assault survivors.

"Alcohol is the No. 1 date-rape drug, and we've felt strongly that our statutes should reflect that reality," said Jill Groblewski, spokeswoman for the Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault.

The coalition started lobbying for the change in the mid-1990s, when language on intoxicants was added to the rape statutes in response to a surge in assaults aided by drugs.

"The change in legislation allows prosecutors to hold offenders accountable who use alcohol to facilitate a sexual assault," Groblewski said. "It gives prosecutors additional charging options."


Just as dangerous

Under state law, having sexual contact with a person incapable of consent because they are under the influence of an intoxicant is defined as second- degree sexual assault. The offense is a Class C felony punishable by a fine up to $100,000 and a prison sentence of up to 25 years.

Dane County District Attorney Brian Blanchard said the change was "long overdue" and is a good thing primarily for the message about alcohol that it sends - namely, that it can be just as dangerous as other drugs.

Blanchard also stressed that the somewhat lower bar on consent standards for victims does not extend to perpetrators, who can be charged for crimes whether they have been drinking or not.

"Alcohol is not an excuse," he said. "It's our job to help jurors understand that people who want to commit sexual assault many times are going to take unfair advantage to get what they want."

The change comes too late for a UW-Madison junior who recently asked Blanchard to press charges against two male students she said raped her after a drunken party when she was a freshman. Laura Dunn said Blanchard told her earlier this month that the case might have been eligible for prosecution if the law had been in effect at the time of the incident in April 2004.

Without it, Dunn's ability to consent could have become an issue, she said Blanchard told her, in part because she cannot remember all of the details of the alleged attack and no one else witnessed it. She said she told the men to stop, but acknowledged she had been drinking heavily that night and repeatedly lost and regained consciousness during the incident.

"I can't remember 90 percent of it," Dunn said. "I just know I didn't want it, and I know I made it clear."


Delay a factor

Blanchard last week confirmed that his office declined to prosecute the case, which was investigated by campus police and forwarded to his office in May. He said it wouldn't be ethical for him to discuss his specific reasons for rejecting it.

In general, though, Blanchard said sexual assault cases involving long delays - Dunn waited 15 months to report hers - and alcohol use by victims and perpetrators can be harder to win in court.

"If jurors believe that inhibitions were down and everybody was drinking, it may be regarded as regretted but essentially consented sex," Blanchard said.

Blanchard stressed that declining to take a case doesn't necessarily mean prosecutors think it doesn't have merit.

"We certainly see cases in which we completely believe the account given by the alleged victim," Blanchard said, "but we have proof problems and we don't feel it's fair to anybody, including the victim, to charge and take to trial a case that we're pretty certain we're going to lose."

UW-Madison's Dean of Students office, which also investigated the incident, declined to levy any academic sanctions against the men. One of them had already graduated and moved away by the time Dunn reported the incident and the other also has graduated.

UW-Madison Police Chief Susan Riseling declined to discuss the case in detail. But she praised the change in the law, calling it "recognition that just because someone has used alcohol doesn't mean they are any less a victim/survivor."

[BRIAN]

Right.

So guys at the U of WI better have abreathalyzer in their nightstand just to check that yes really means yes.

[fratstar]

Men can have a few drinks at lunch and sign a mulit-million dollar deal in the afternoon.  Its legally binding  Men can also get wasted and pick up a chick & he can consent to sex.

Women have a few drinks and lose the ability to consent to sex.   Other groups that legally can't consent to sex include children, the mentally impared, & animals.

[Assault]

Men can have a few drinks at lunch and sign a mulit-million dollar deal in the afternoon.  Its legally binding  Men can also get wasted and pick up a chick & he can consent to sex.

Women have a few drinks and lose the ability to consent to sex.   Other groups that legally can't consent to sex include children, the mentally impared, & animals.

Great point. This is just another nail in the coffin of the idea that women are equal to men in every aspect. Apparently, as femininsm, gender norming, affirmative action, etc show.....they clearly aren't.

I don't think that's the intended message, but it's the one I and every guy I know hears. I've had discussions at work about this type of thing, and all the men immediately agreed. :lol:

[K9]

Is it defined at what level of intoxication this law kicks in? In my mind, this means the girls are no longer welcome at frat parties, which will exclude them from seeking rich sperm donors at the more affluent ones.

There was a case in Sweden or Norway where a woman was convicted of rape on a drunk male. Is this law gender neutral? Will men have the same claim?

Again, we must revisit the question, is a woman that is too drunk to consent to sex too intoxicated to drive? On one hand, at alcohol level 0.xx she can claim she was too drunk to consent to sex, yet the law will hold her responsible for driving a vehicle. I don't get that. You are responsible enough to say no to driving, but not to consent.

Again, feminists have proven that women ARE the weaker sex and in need of rescue not only from men, but from themselves.

Chivalry, and the Pedestal triumph again. Time to break out the consent contracts. Here's an idea for the Frats: Have the consent contracts available at the door. Any female visitor that doesn't sign one must get a large X stamped to her forehead.

[realman]

I think the most ridiculous aspect is that it places the responsibility for determining if one is coferent enough to consent on somebody else... without any means of backing up the claim.

You go girl, personal responsibility all the way!

I agree, it is amazing how many "strong women" seem to need more proetction and coddling and are deemed less capab;e of fending for themselves than are pets and children....

[dr e]

How many legal diapers are we willing to put on women to keep them from having to take adult responsibility?  ***** pampers?

[Virtue]

Blanchard also stressed that the somewhat lower bar on consent standards for victims does not extend to perpetrators, who can be charged for crimes whether they have been drinking or not.

Any further questions?

[johnnyp]

How many legal diapers are we willing to put on women to keep them from having to take adult responsibility?  ***** pampers?

Maybe we should go back to the traditional way - a woman must have a chaperone when out in public.

It is odd that feminists only see one way to solve a problem - put the burden on others.

[Mr. Bad]

What really pisses me off about these cases is that usually both the man and woman are drunk, yet it's never considered that he was too drunk to be fully responsible for his actions, e.g., knowing that the woman is too drunk to give consent, etc.  The only people who are held responsible on a clear and consistent basis are men, therefore I think that unless and until women are held to the same standard then they should be allowed to participate in activities that only responsible adults are, e.g., signing contracts, voting, smoking, drinking alcohol, etc.  

This "always blame the man" stuff is getting really old.

[LSBeene]

You just KNOW I have to chime in on this one:

to quote:

And while prosecutors say it is likely to be used only rarely - in cases in which victims don't pass out but are so impaired by alcohol they are "unable to appraise their own conduct," as one advocate put it - the change was heralded by experts who work with assault survivors.

Riiiiiiight .... use only rarely.  Like when the woman signs the complaint?  What prosecutor is going to say to the woman (and her advocate) ...

"Sorry, we don't think she was really drunk.  She's just promiscuous and regrets sex."

Yea, and he'll be branded a supporter of rapists.

"Alcohol is the No. 1 date-rape drug, and we've felt strongly that our statutes should reflect that reality," said Jill Groblewski, spokeswoman for the Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault.

Ok, I'm going to stereotype, about men : we don't even CONSIDER charging a woman with rape if she gets us drunk and wants to give us a blowjob ... even if she's ugly.  Why?   Men, in general don't feel the need to "go and tell" if we have interpersonal problems with a woman.  But this gives the woman power of proxy by the state to punish any man who beds her and then doesn't call .. or if she just regrets it.

The coalition started lobbying for the change in the mid-1990s, when language on intoxicants was added to the rape statutes in response to a surge in assaults aided by drugs.

Didn't Angry Harry do a piece on how the date rape drugs (Roofies) was a MYTH?

"The change in legislation allows prosecutors to hold offenders accountable who use alcohol to facilitate a sexual assault," Groblewski said. "It gives prosecutors additional charging options."

And it gives vindictive people, in this case mostly women, a way of hurting someone who had sex with them, but chooses not to have a relationship.

====================================

Did anyone else read Daphne Patai's book : "Heterophobia"?

In it a professor initiates a discussion about rape and false allegations.  Two of the classes feminists become quite upset when people acknowledge false allegations.  They deny that women EVER lie (or so rare as to be not worth mentioning)

Later, they charge the professor with sexual harrasment for even HAVING the discussion.

Well, common sense breaks out and the charges get dropped.  But, then of the feminists, who said women don't lie about it, charged the professor with RAPE.

It was provably false.  But the school gave her a payday anyways, and of course never punished her.

And this was the same woman who said women don't lie about rape.  

Steven

[Mr. Bad]

And it gives vindictive people, in this case mostly women, a way of hurting someone who had sex with them, but chooses not to have a relationship.

Steven, there's a name for women who do such things:  Whore.

Such women are simply pissed-off that the man didn't pay the going wage for the sex that he got from her.

[Malakas]

A certain man was about to be stabbed by an assailant who carried a vicious looking knife.

He was obviously very apprehensive about his impending doom.

But what he really wanted to know was;
'where did the knife come from?'
'exactly how many centimetres long is it?'
'what metal is it made from?'
'do the manufacturers know how their product is being used?'

He naturally tried to pose these important questions to his assailant but this proved to be impossible since he was already choking on his own blood.

[powder-monkey]

Quote: Blanchard also stressed that the somewhat lower bar on consent standards for victims does not extend to perpetrators, who can be charged for crimes whether
they have been drinking or not.

From the sound of this, the "perpetrator" could be more intoxicated than the "victim."  ...and I believe we all know how they'll sort one from the other (xy v. xx).  

In addition, alcohol differs from the traditional concept of "rape drugs" in that it is usually self-administered.

[the sad geek]

The Prime Directive of feminism: No Woman shall ever be hurt, especially sexually, no matter the cost. Neither shall She ever be held responsible for anything or anyone.

Children? A return to the womb, more likely...