baxter: 1. I don't think of it as "rape" unless the aggressor is employing their genitals. Who is pushing for more general definitions for this word?
1. I don't think of it as "rape" unless the aggressor is employing their genitals. Who is pushing for more general definitions for this word?
Good for you. However, the standard definition does not exclude genitalia.
baxter: 2. Apparently the law says touching someone who is "impaired" is rape. What if they have 1 beer? Or what if they have the sniffles? Isn't that "impaired"?
2. Apparently the law says touching someone who is "impaired" is rape. What if they have 1 beer? Or what if they have the sniffles? Isn't that "impaired"?
You full well know that the sniffles does not have anything to do with impairment. I would also like a source that says that touching someone while either of you are impaired is rape. Drunken hookups are common, and clearly people are not being arrested and prosecuted for drunken hookups. So you really need to source that claim.
baxter: 3. If two people are impaired, say drunk, and are touching each other, are they each committing rape on one another? This seems to be absurd.
3. If two people are impaired, say drunk, and are touching each other, are they each committing rape on one another? This seems to be absurd.
That would be absurd. It also seems to be irrelevant to the Steubenville case.
baxter: In short, I'd have an easier time understanding the story if people used a more traditional definition for "rape" and if the law and the reporters focused on conciousness, rather than "impairment".
In short, I'd have an easier time understanding the story if people used a more traditional definition for "rape" and if the law and the reporters focused on conciousness, rather than "impairment".
You would have an easier time understanding the story if you actually read any of the accounts of what happened.
baxter: I also wonder if people refrained from aiding the victim because they were worried about legal problems affecting them, like "minors in possession of alcohol" or something.
I also wonder if people refrained from aiding the victim because they were worried about legal problems affecting them, like "minors in possession of alcohol" or something.
That is quite possible, though I doubt we will ever know.
There is something very wrong with you, ToxicAssets. There were accounts that the victim was unconscious, and not only that, there was video and photo evidence that she had been unconscious. This isn't a situation where a girl consented and then passed out. She passed out, was carried out by the teen boys, and then they raped her.
This is not the Duke lacrosse case.
Perhaps there's something wrong with me, but as I've said, I'm basing my analysis on a single piece of information, which is the following timeline on wikipedia.
In the early morning hours of August 12, 2012, a 16-year-old Steubenville girl, incapacitated by alcohol, was raped by two high-school football players, quarterback Trent Mays andwide receiver Ma'lik Richmond.[1] For a roughly six-hour period the unconscious girl was taken by the teenage boys from party to party, photographed nude and semi-nude, assaulted in a car, and taken to a basement where Mays tried to make her perform oral sex.[2] The boys were convicted of rape after the trial judge found they had used their fingers to penetrate her vagina.[1] The victim testified in court that she had no memory of the six-hour period in which the rapes occurred, except for a brief time in which she was vomiting on the street. She said she woke up the next morning naked in a basement living room with Mays, Richmond and another teenage boy, missing her underwear, shoes, phone and earrings.[1] The evidence presented in court mainly consisted of hundreds of text messages and cellphone pictures that had been taken by more than a dozen people at the parties and afterwards traded with other students and posted to social media sites such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, and which were described by the judge as "profane and ugly."[1] In a photograph posted on Instagram by a Steubenville High football player, the victim was shown looking unresponsive, being carried by two teenage boys by her wrists and ankles. Former Steubenville baseball player Michael Nodianos tweeted "Song of the night is definitely Rape Me by Nirvana" and "Some people deserve to be peed on," which was reshared later by several people, including Mays. In a 12-minute video later posted to YouTube, Nodianos and others talk about the rapes, with Nodianos joking that "they raped her quicker than Mike Tyson raped that one girl" and "They peed on her. That's how you know she's dead, because someone pissed on her."[3] In one text, Mays described the victim as "like a dead body" and in another he told the victim that a photo of her lying naked in a basement with semen on her body had been taken by him, and that the semen was his. In a text message to a friend afterwards, he said "I shoulda raped her now that everybody thinks I did," but "she wasn't awake enough."[2] One classmate testified he videotaped with his phone while Mays exposed the victim's breasts and penetrated her with his fingers in the backseat of a car, and another testifed he saw Richmond digitally penetrate the victim while she lay in the basement.[1][4][5] In the days following the rapes, according to the New York Times, Mays "seemed to try to orchestrate a cover-up, telling a friend, "Just say she came to your house and passed out,"" and pleading with the victim not to press charges.[1] Ohio investigators confiscated and analyzed 15 cellphones and two iPads, collecting hundreds of text messages from dozens of students, and interviewed almost 60 people, including students, coaches, school officials and parents.[4]
The victim testified in court that she had no memory of the six-hour period in which the rapes occurred, except for a brief time in which she was vomiting on the street. She said she woke up the next morning naked in a basement living room with Mays, Richmond and another teenage boy, missing her underwear, shoes, phone and earrings.[1]
The evidence presented in court mainly consisted of hundreds of text messages and cellphone pictures that had been taken by more than a dozen people at the parties and afterwards traded with other students and posted to social media sites such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, and which were described by the judge as "profane and ugly."[1]
In a photograph posted on Instagram by a Steubenville High football player, the victim was shown looking unresponsive, being carried by two teenage boys by her wrists and ankles. Former Steubenville baseball player Michael Nodianos tweeted "Song of the night is definitely Rape Me by Nirvana" and "Some people deserve to be peed on," which was reshared later by several people, including Mays. In a 12-minute video later posted to YouTube, Nodianos and others talk about the rapes, with Nodianos joking that "they raped her quicker than Mike Tyson raped that one girl" and "They peed on her. That's how you know she's dead, because someone pissed on her."[3] In one text, Mays described the victim as "like a dead body" and in another he told the victim that a photo of her lying naked in a basement with semen on her body had been taken by him, and that the semen was his. In a text message to a friend afterwards, he said "I shoulda raped her now that everybody thinks I did," but "she wasn't awake enough."[2] One classmate testified he videotaped with his phone while Mays exposed the victim's breasts and penetrated her with his fingers in the backseat of a car, and another testifed he saw Richmond digitally penetrate the victim while she lay in the basement.[1][4][5]
In the days following the rapes, according to the New York Times, Mays "seemed to try to orchestrate a cover-up, telling a friend, "Just say she came to your house and passed out,"" and pleading with the victim not to press charges.[1]
Ohio investigators confiscated and analyzed 15 cellphones and two iPads, collecting hundreds of text messages from dozens of students, and interviewed almost 60 people, including students, coaches, school officials and parents.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steubenville_rape_case
Of course the piece above already depicts it as a so-called "rape", but the factual information contained seems to tell otherwise.
Now you're adding that there were witnesses that the girl was unconscious, and that should be taken in consideration in the investigation. But even that needs to be evaluated more rationally.
If there were a real rape situation, it would hardly be because of tweets about pissing in a semi-awake girl. Nobody is that stupid. It would be because of something much graver.
These teenagers (including the girl) clearly seem to have let a party situation get out of hand, and some of the kids obviously crossed the line, and moronically bragged about raping the girl, but still, there was no rape.
Of course, you can always call such things "rape", but that's removes the perspective of things, because a bunch of drunken kids acting stupid become linguistically equivalent to criminally insane aggressors.
Like when a 30 y.o. dude, without knowing her age, bangs a consenting 17 y.o. girl, and in some states that's a crime called "statutory rape". This is completely ridiculous.
Well, that's something I didn't know.
Anyway, I'm not saying that no lines were crossed and nobody should be punished. I'm just saying that a bunch of drunken kids acting stupid and criminally insane aggressors are two different things.
The facts that the girl was hurt nor dumped somewhere, but woke up next to the supposed aggressors, and even that these kids were moronically bragging about the whole thing on tweets and txts, all seems to point in the direction that there was no substantial crime being perpetrated.
Of course some investigation is necessary and facts should be collected.
But, so far as the facts seem to go, to classify this thing as rape seems more like an instance of the usual tactic of deploying hyperbolical language by the media in order to create scandals and blow things out of proportion.
Everybody knows that wild parties in high schools and colleges sometimes can get too crazy, but it is important to keep things in perspective, specially considering that nobody was found dead or severely hurt.
Again, I'm operating on little information, all I know is the timeline as it is described in wikipedia today.
I think the wider point that ToxicAssets is making is generally sound - pointing at the behavior of a specific group of kids and then drawing conclusions about culture is... just completely retarded. Culture is precisely what kids don't have. They (rightly) have the smallest voice in shaping the wider culture and are primarily shaped by it, rather than the other way around. The narrative that Steubenville is some kind of indication that "we have a rape culture" - coming out of the radical, postmodern feminist camp - presupposes that these kids are culture-shapers. As I said, it's just completely retarded.
Clayton -
They (rightly) have the smallest voice in shaping the wider culture and are primarily shaped by it, rather than the other way around. The narrative that Steubenville is some kind of indication that "we have a rape culture" - coming out of the radical, postmodern feminist camp - presupposes that these kids are culture-shapers. As I said, it's just completely retarded.
If they are shaped by culture and percieve the world in this way and express these views, don't you think the culture that is shaping them is the reason why they think this way?
lololol, because teenagers never rebel. They all act exactly like their parents, or their rapist antiwomen fathers.
Are you saying teenagers do not take influence from their peers and pop culture? If teenagers are becoming influenced by, for example, music, film, television, and other related pop culture - that is generally orchestrated by adults - then wouldn't they be influenced by their culture?
What are the stats on high-school rape? Is this really becoming prevalent?
Which singer, songwriter, actor, playwright, director, producer, etc., incited these two particular teenagers to rape another teenager? It was Will Smith, wasn't it? I knew rappers were bad news.
Rape culture is when a group of athletes rape a young girl, and then joke about it on video – saying, ““She is so raped,” “They raped her quicker than Mike Tyson!”, “They raped her more than the Duke lacrosse team!”, and she was “deader than Trayvon Martin.” – while everyone else laughs.
gotlucky: baxter:2. Apparently the law says touching someone who is "impaired" is rape. What if they have 1 beer? Or what if they have the sniffles? Isn't that "impaired"? You full well know that the sniffles does not have anything to do with impairment.
baxter:2. Apparently the law says touching someone who is "impaired" is rape. What if they have 1 beer? Or what if they have the sniffles? Isn't that "impaired"?
You full well know that the sniffles does not have anything to do with impairment.
First of all, what? A cold or a fever can be just as impairing as being drunk, not to mention the drugs you might take to relieve their symptoms. Second of all, whether you think the sniffles has anything to do with being impaired has nothing to do with what the legal system will accept, and both that and being drunk share the convenience that by the time legal proceeedings begin, they'll be long gone. So it boils down to a guessing game.
gotlucky:Drunken hookups are common, and clearly people are not being arrested and prosecuted for drunken hookups. So you really need to source that claim.
You have Google, look it up for yourself. You will find instances where men were charged and/or convicted of rape when both parties were drunk, and you will certainly find that most interested parties believe that situation to be rape if the woman says it was. The rape crisis lines will tell any woman that calls that the only standard to justify a rape claim is that the woman says she was impaired.
gotlucky: baxter:3. If two people are impaired, say drunk, and are touching each other, are they each committing rape on one another? This seems to be absurd. That would be absurd. It also seems to be irrelevant to the Steubenville case.
baxter:3. If two people are impaired, say drunk, and are touching each other, are they each committing rape on one another? This seems to be absurd.
Is it? Do we have some source that proves unequivocally that the boys were not themselves drunk?
Also we don't have much of a culture just in general. To my mind there isn't anything like a positive rape culture out there. What there is a deep-seated crisis of values in general and the corresponding lack of culture as such. The distinction between a rape of a drunk girl and a drunken orgy is important in the sense that the former is punishable under the natural rights theory where the latter is not. However, from the point of view of culture they are both degrading and are made possible by the same lack of values.
The distinction between a rape of a drunk girl and a drunken orgy is important in the sense that the former is punishable under the natural rights theory where the latter is not. However, from the point of view of culture they are both degrading and are made possible by the same lack of values.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++1
troll: First of all, what? A cold or a fever can be just as impairing as being drunk, not to mention the drugs you might take to relieve their symptoms. Second of all, whether you think the sniffles has anything to do with being impaired has nothing to do with what the legal system will accept, and both that and being drunk share the convenience that by the time legal proceeedings begin, they'll be long gone. So it boils down to a guessing game.
The sniffles are not a fever, for which you could possibly have had a point about cognitive impairment. Alas, seeing as the sniffles have nothing to do with cognitive impairment, you just wasting all of our time.
troll: You have Google, look it up for yourself. You will find instances where men were charged and/or convicted of rape when both parties were drunk, and you will certainly find that most interested parties believe that situation to be rape if the woman says it was. The rape crisis lines will tell any woman that calls that the only standard to justify a rape claim is that the woman says she was impaired.
Again with the trolling. My actually statement was this:
gotlucky: You full well know that the sniffles does not have anything to do with impairment. I would also like a source that says that touching someone while either of you are impaired is rape. Drunken hookups are common, and clearly people are not being arrested and prosecuted for drunken hookups. So you really need to source that claim.
I am waiting for the source that says, "[T]he law says touching someone who is "impaired" is rape." My response is directly relevant to that claim. Quit wasting our time with cut and paste hack jobs.
troll: Is it? Do we have some source that proves unequivocally that the boys were not themselves drunk?
Is that what I said? Would not a more accurate reading be that the girl herself has not been accused of raping the two boys?
I guess the troll got what it wanted...I responded to a troll post.
Also we don't have much of a culture just in general. To my mind there isn't anything like a positive rape culture out there. What there is a deep-seated crisis of values in general and the corresponding lack of culture as such.
thread over.
Malachi: Also we don't have much of a culture just in general. To my mind there isn't anything like a positive rape culture out there. What there is a deep-seated crisis of values in general and the corresponding lack of culture as such. thread over.
This really sounds good at first, but then I fail to distill anything concrete or useful from such an abstract complaint about a "lacking culture".
I don't see how a situation like the one depicted here can warrant such grandiose claims about culture or the lack thereof.
I just see an isolate case of drunken kids acting really stupid, with the difference that now we have powerful internet channels that broadcast their actions and blow these things out of any reasonable proportion.
so all of that means the thread isnt over? I daresay, what are we talking about then? would you prefer your own words that say the same thing without referencing the op's argument?
lol thread beyond ovar!1!1!!1!1!1
"crisis of values" = "acting really stupid"
Wow you went from rational argumentation to overreactive ad hominem in the blink of an eye. Good showing, gotlucky. Seriously, do you take medication of some kind? Every one of your responses today in this thread have been almost completely off your norm.
gotlucky:The sniffles are not a fever, for which you could possibly have had a point about cognitive impairment. Alas, seeing as the sniffles have nothing to do with cognitive impairment, you just wasting all of our time.
You're in no better position to define "the sniffles" than I am, which is the point. It's also why your haphazard dismissal of it is not only mystifying, it's wrong.
gotlucky:Again with the trolling. My actually statement was this...
And my point to you did nothing to take away from what you said, so how you define that as "trolling" is beyond me. And who says there needs to be a specific law that says "touching someone while either of you are impaired is rape"? Legal justification under the rape statutes is all that's required, that does not require any such specific definition, which is part of why rape laws are so dangerous.
gotlucky:Is that what I said?
Well, Baxter said, "If two people are impaired...are they each committing rape on one another? This seems to be absurd." to which you replied, "That would be absurd. It also seems to be irrelevant to the Steubenville case." Given the facts of the case, we know that the girl was extremely inebriated, so in order for Baxter's statement to be irrelevant, you would have to be claiming that her rapists were not drunk, no? As far as I know, those facts have not been spoken about. And if they were drunk (and on this I'm sure you agree) then how to do we justify excusing one's behavior due to alcohol and not the other's?
Your entire post was uncharitable to everything I had said. In fact, it appears like it was actually a delibrate misrepresentation. You off your meds?
I can't understand what you just said. Please define the following:
You're, in, no, better, position, to, define, the, sniffles, than, I, am, which, is, point, it's, also, why, your [sic], haphazard, dismissal, of, it, not, only, mystifying, wrong.
And my point to you did nothing to take away from what you said, so how you define that as "trolling" is beyond me. And who says there needs to be a specific law that says "touching someone while either of you are impaired is rape"? Legal justification under the rape statutes is all that's required, that does not require any such specific definition, which is why rape laws are so dangerous.
"Who says there needs to be a specific law that says..."
"Legal justification under the rape statutes is all that's required..."
Dude, quit trolling.
Well, Baxter said, "If two people are impaired...are they each committing rape on one another? This seems to be absurd." to which you replied, "That would be absurd. It also seems to be irrelevant to the Steubenville case." Given the facts of the case, we know that the girl was extremely inebriated, so in order for Baxter's statement to be irrelevant, you would have to be claiming that her rapists were not drunk. As far as I know, those facts have not been spoken about. And if they were drunk (and on this I'm sure you agree) then how to do we justify excusing one's behavior due to alcohol and not the other's? Ah, someone trying to save face after a dumbass post. Look, I agreed with him that it would be absurd, but it is irrelevant to the Steubenville case. I would say reread my response to you, but evidently I can't expect you to try and represent my posts accurately. You see, the girl was never accused of raping the two boys. Whether the boys were drunk or sober is irrelevant. The girl was never accused of raping them, so his comment was irrelevant to the Steubenville case. LibertyHQ and its awesome forum. | Post Points: 20
Well, Baxter said, "If two people are impaired...are they each committing rape on one another? This seems to be absurd." to which you replied, "That would be absurd. It also seems to be irrelevant to the Steubenville case." Given the facts of the case, we know that the girl was extremely inebriated, so in order for Baxter's statement to be irrelevant, you would have to be claiming that her rapists were not drunk. As far as I know, those facts have not been spoken about. And if they were drunk (and on this I'm sure you agree) then how to do we justify excusing one's behavior due to alcohol and not the other's?
Well, Baxter said, "If two people are impaired...are they each committing rape on one another? This seems to be absurd." to which you replied, "That would be absurd. It also seems to be irrelevant to the Steubenville case." Given the facts of the case, we know that the girl was extremely inebriated, so in order for Baxter's statement to be irrelevant, you would have to be claiming that her rapists were not drunk. As far as I know, those facts have not been spoken about.
And if they were drunk (and on this I'm sure you agree) then how to do we justify excusing one's behavior due to alcohol and not the other's?
gotlucky:Your entire post was uncharitable to everything I had said. In fact, it appears like it was actually a deliberate [sic] misrepresentation.
Actually it was a pretty accurate representation of what you said, you just said some things that were plain dumb to say.
gotlucky:I can't understand what you just said. Please define the following: You're, in, no, better, position, to, define, the, sniffles, than, I, am, which, is, point, it's, also, why, your [sic], haphazard, dismissal, of, it, not, only, mystifying, wrong
Good to see you're not letting maturity get in the way of discourse.
gotlucky:"Who says there needs to be a specific law that says..." "Legal justification under the rape statutes is all that's required..." Dude, quit trolling.
I'm actually beginning to think you're the only troll here. Are you really so dense that you don't know that crimes are prosecuted that are not specifically defined as criminal acts to the letter of the law all the time? That so long as they can be justified under the blanket of some type of crime is all that's relevant? So, again, contrary to your insistence, there need be no such specific definition under the rape statutes in order for it to be prosecuted as rape, so your request is superfluous. Do you understand that now? Are you even going to make an attempt?
gotlucky:Ah, someone trying to save face after a dumbass post.
I know you're trying to save face after a dumbass post. Quit making it so hard on yourself.
gotlucky:Whether the boys were drunk or sober is irrelevant. The girl was never accused of raping them, so his comment was irrelevant to the Steubenville case.
So because the boys (or someone else) didn't file a counter-complaint for rape it's irrelevant? I'd say you need to re-read Baxter's post, because clearly you don't understand the point he was trying to make. But given your continued (and unjustified) belligerence, I'm guessing that won't be forthcoming.
No, you clearly misrepresented my post, even cutting and pasting in order to misrepresent. Dishonest through and through.
Did you want to debate whether the meanings of words are objective or intersubjective? People use the phrase "the sniffles" to refer to a specific thing. I have never heard "the sniffles" refer to a fever. At least I backed up my claim of what "the sniffles" referred to.
You did no such thing.
Again with the trolling. Baxter said: "Apparently the law says touching someone who is "impaired" is rape." I responded: "I would also like a source that says that touching someone while either of you are impaired is rape." What the law says is absolutely relevant to the conversation. Furthermore, you have yet to point to which statutes are being used to justify "touching someone who is 'impaired' is rape". It doesn't have to be word for word, and I doubt it is. But seriously, if Baxter or you are going to claim that this is what the law says or if prosecutors are "interpretting" the law in this manner, then please cite either examples of such a case or the actual law being used.
Otherwise, quit trolling. You wrote a bad post, and now you are trying to weasel out of it.
lol k bud.
For a crime to exist, there has to be both a malefactor and a victim. If these boys, or even anyone on their behalf (rightly or wrongly), do not claim that there was a crime against them, then there was no crime. Of course, perhaps you are not a libertarian and you believe in victimless crimes, or in this case, perhaps you believe that someone can consent to rape.
To me, the "sniffles" means a runny nose. It might be accompanied by a fever or virus. But a runny nose in itself will be a distraction that will impair cognitive functioning.
Also, rape traditionally means an aggressor employing their genitals:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape?s=t
"the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexual+intercourse?s=t
"genital contact, especially the insertion of the (censored)..."
I think the word "rape" is inflammatory and a red herring here. It sounds like most of the alleged assaults do not carry an STD or pregnancy risk like a rape would.
Finally, here is the Ohio law:
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907 "Rape... The other person’s ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age, and the offender knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the other person’s ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age."
What is substantially impaired? 1 beer? 10? 20? In my opinion, an otherwise competent person who drinks alcohol can give consent provided they are concious. I didn't see all the evidence like the judge did (and apparently there was no jury?), but if the girl was unconcious at the times she was molested then I agree a crime has been committed. Also, I have never seen a drunk person be continuously unresponsive for 6 hours; I would assume there would be an extreme risk of coma or death at that point.
baxter: To me, the "sniffles" means a runny nose. It might be accompanied by a fever or virus. But a runny nose in itself will be a distraction that will impair cognitive functioning.
Distractions are not the same as cognitive impairment. Regardless, the sniffles are not a fever. If you want to talk about a fever causing delirium or whatever that might lead to cognitive impairment, that is fine by me. But a runny nose in and of itself does not effect the brain.
baxter: Also, rape traditionally means an aggressor employing their genitals: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape?s=t "the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexual+intercourse?s=t "genital contact, especially the insertion of the (censored)..."
Note the word "especially". Unless "especially" is dictionary-speak for "only", then you are incorrect.
baxter: So maybe this entire thread should be about "sexual assault culture". The word "rape" is inflammatory and a red herring here. It sounds like most of the alleged assaults do not carry an STD or pregnancy risk like a rape would.
So maybe this entire thread should be about "sexual assault culture". The word "rape" is inflammatory and a red herring here. It sounds like most of the alleged assaults do not carry an STD or pregnancy risk like a rape would.
Perhaps it would be better. Perhaps not. Rape refers to a category of actions, though it is a smaller category than sexual assault.
baxter: Finally, here is the Ohio law which is easily found http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907 "Rape... The other person’s ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age, and the offender knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the other person’s ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age."
Finally, here is the Ohio law which is easily found
Thank you for sourcing your claim. Unfortunately, your original claim was this:
baxter: Apparently the law says touching someone who is "impaired" is rape.
Apparently the law says touching someone who is "impaired" is rape.
This particular law says "substantially impaired", which is considered different from your original claim under the law. I highly doubt you will find a law that is as broad as "impaired", but perhaps you will find one.
baxter: What is substantially impaired? 1 beer? 10? 20? In my opinion, an otherwise competent person who drinks alcohol can give consent provided they are concious. I didn't see all the evidence like the judge did (and apparently there was no jury?), but if the girl was unconcious at the times she was molested then I agree a crime has been committed. Also, I have never seen a drunk person be continuously unconcious for 6 hours; I would assume there would be an extreme risk of coma or death at that point.
What is substantially impaired? 1 beer? 10? 20? In my opinion, an otherwise competent person who drinks alcohol can give consent provided they are concious. I didn't see all the evidence like the judge did (and apparently there was no jury?), but if the girl was unconcious at the times she was molested then I agree a crime has been committed. Also, I have never seen a drunk person be continuously unconcious for 6 hours; I would assume there would be an extreme risk of coma or death at that point.
Well you have pointed out a major flaw in centrally planned law. Obviously, under current law, you can be impaired to a great degree and still consent to various transactions, ranging from buying burgers to buying more beer to having sex. Apparently in Ohio, the state draws the line at substantially impaired as far as consenting to sex goes. I would not be surprised if this were standard throughout the USA.
We don't know for sure what a free market in law would look like. In the case of a woman regretting having sex and accusing a man of raping her, she would be the one to take him to court, not the state. Obviously both parties know what happened (she has to know, because otherwise how could she regret it if she didn't remember consenting?), so the matter could quite possibly just end there. If she wants to convince others that it was actually rape, then she needs to provide proof. Obviously there would be people who will believe her even without evidence, but there will also most likely be people supporting the man as well. So the matter would most likely end unless she can provide evidence that she was forced. Claiming that she was impaired would probably not fly in a free market in law, but we don't know for sure.
Regarding the case, the girl appears to have been unconscious for the assault, at least according to witnesses.
Wikipedia on Rape, Sexual Assault, and Sexual Intercourse.
Four women wanted in alleged sex assault of 19-year-old man in downtown Toronto
Rape culture alive and well in Canada.
I like how he is referred to as the complaintant. He's complaining about being sexually assaulted.
Three Teen Girls Begin Trial for Human Trafficking Charges
Are these self-hating women who promote rape culture, or are they just criminals?