PZ accuses Shermer of rape.

[Jason]

What does "coerced me into a position where I could not consent" mean?

"Got me drunk", maybe?

The girl later decided she hadn't been able to give consent because she'd had three banana daiquiris. Classic post-coital rape realization. The question is did she consent to have drinks with him with the foreknowledge it may lead to sex, did he force them down her throat with a funnel, or is she simply retarded. Sex with a retard is always rape as they're never able to consent.

Girl was drinking some place and some guy socially maneuvers her, slowly and insidiously, to be alone with her as the night goes on and she gets drunker, eventually he alone with her and...

I've seen that sort of thing happen. The story seems plausible.

Assuming these are two adults who are not mentally deficient in such a way as to not be aware that alcohol influences judgment and also assuming when they were alone he did not force himself on her, then that could be, at the very worst, a sort of predatory behaviour but not rape. Or is 'drunk sex' rape automatically?

[lordpasternack]

I wasn't begging the question - I meant unambiguous cases of rape, such as you mentioned: plying someone with drink and then raping them while they are incapacitated.

And as for "taking responsibility" for impaired judgement - well, that's a difficult ethical issue. If you have sex with someone whose judgement is currently impaired to whatever degree, isn't that potentially exploitative and irresponsible, on your part?

On the other hand, if a slightly drunk person is all for having sex, and you make a judgement call that they are sincere, and still capable of making that decision - I feel it would be disingenuous to vilify another person because of what they deem to be their poor judgement.

There are grey areas - and I think there's a sliding scale of onus on either party, where intoxication and consent are concerned.

[Robert_S]

What does "coerced me into a position where I could not consent" mean?

"Got me drunk", maybe?

The girl later decided she hadn't been able to give consent because she'd had three banana daiquiris. Classic post-coital rape realization. The question is did she consent to have drinks with him with the foreknowledge it may lead to sex, did he force them down her throat with a funnel, or is she simply retarded. Sex with a retard is always rape as they're never able to consent.

Girl was drinking some place and some guy socially maneuvers her, slowly and insidiously, to be alone with her as the night goes on and she gets drunker, eventually he alone with her and...

I've seen that sort of thing happen. The story seems plausible.

Assuming these are two adults who are not mentally deficient in such a way as to not be aware that alcohol influences judgment and also assuming when they were alone he did not force himself on her, then that could be, at the very worst, a sort of predatory behaviour but not rape. Or is 'drunk sex' rape automatically?

If she's blackout slobbering incoherent drunk and he's just kinda tipsy, I'd say that's probably rape.

BTW, I've never seen that kind of thing happen in its entirety where I, or someone else, did not intervene. But I've seen pieces and heard the rest later, kicking myself for being so oblivious.

[lordpasternack]

Drunken Sex - A Moral Dilemma

In April of this year, Welsh international soccer star, Ched Evans, was sentenced to five years in jail after being convicted of the rape of a young woman, who, in the words of the judge, was "extremely intoxicated" and in "no condition to have sexual intercourse." The legal principle that resulted in his conviction is now well-established: consent requires that a person is capable of consenting, and if you're very drunk, you're not capable of consenting. The UK's Sexual Offences Act (2003), for example, states that consent exists if a person agrees by choice to engage in sexual activity and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice. A person who is "extremely intoxicated" lacks that capacity, which is why Evans, who admitted having sex with his victim, is now in jail...

http://www.huffpost.com/us/entry/2206356

[Robert_S]

Drunken Sex - A Moral Dilemma

In April of this year, Welsh international soccer star, Ched Evans, was sentenced to five years in jail after being convicted of the rape of a young woman, who, in the words of the judge, was "extremely intoxicated" and in "no condition to have sexual intercourse." The legal principle that resulted in his conviction is now well-established: consent requires that a person is capable of consenting, and if you're very drunk, you're not capable of consenting. The UK's Sexual Offences Act (2003), for example, states that consent exists if a person agrees by choice to engage in sexual activity and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice. A person who is "extremely intoxicated" lacks that capacity, which is why Evans, who admitted having sex with his victim, is now in jail...

http://www.huffpost.com/us/entry/2206356

I got a 404 error.
Edit:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-st ... 06356.html seems to work.

[orpheus]

I wasn't begging the question - I meant unambiguous cases of rape, such as you mentioned: plying someone with drink and then raping them while they are incapacitated.

And as for "taking responsibility" for impaired judgement - well, that's a difficult ethical issue. If you have sex with someone whose judgement is currently impaired to whatever degree, isn't that potentially exploitative and irresponsible, on your part?

On the other hand, if a slightly drunk person is all for having sex, and you make a judgement call that they are sincere, and still capable of making that decision - I feel it would be disingenuous to vilify another person because of what they deem to be their poor judgement.

There are grey areas - and I think there's a sliding scale of onus on either party, where intoxication and consent are concerned.

What I don't understand is "plying someone with drink". This sounds like what PZ claimed this woman said: "coerced me into a position where I could not consent" - which evidently meant she got drunk.

There are two issues of responsibility here, not one: we've been talking about only one - the sex after drinking. But there is the prior issue of drinking itself. "Plying someone with drink" and "coerced me into a position" sound like the woman (or, if you like, women in general) has no choice about how much she drinks, or even if she drinks at all. Are women that helpless? Are they not to be held responsible for their decisions about what and how much they drink? Why not?

[Robert_S]

I wasn't begging the question - I meant unambiguous cases of rape, such as you mentioned: plying someone with drink and then raping them while they are incapacitated.

And as for "taking responsibility" for impaired judgement - well, that's a difficult ethical issue. If you have sex with someone whose judgement is currently impaired to whatever degree, isn't that potentially exploitative and irresponsible, on your part?

On the other hand, if a slightly drunk person is all for having sex, and you make a judgement call that they are sincere, and still capable of making that decision - I feel it would be disingenuous to vilify another person because of what they deem to be their poor judgement.

There are grey areas - and I think there's a sliding scale of onus on either party, where intoxication and consent are concerned.

What I don't understand is "plying someone with drink". This sounds like what PZ claimed this woman said: "coerced me into a position where I could not consent" - which evidently meant she got drunk.

There are two issues of responsibility here, not one: we've been talking about only one - the sex after drinking. But there is the prior issue of drinking itself. "Plying someone with drink" and "coerced me into a position" sound like the woman (or, if you like, women in general) has no choice about how much she drinks, or even if she drinks at all. Are women that helpless? Are they not to be held responsible for their decisions about what and how much they drink? Why not?

Unwanted sex as punishment for getting drunk? That sounds a hell of a lot like rape to me.

There are times when responsibility does not diffuse, but multiplies. You can argue that a woman has a responsibility to herself to not get drunk alone in the presence of someone who is known to rape drunk women. But that does not reduce -not a single slightest bit- the responsibility of anyone to refrain from raping a woman just because she is vulnerable from having drank too much. Just like I have a responsibility to myself and my flatmate to lock the doors. That does not make a thief any less of a criminal just because they found the doors unlocked.

[orpheus]

I wasn't begging the question - I meant unambiguous cases of rape, such as you mentioned: plying someone with drink and then raping them while they are incapacitated.

And as for "taking responsibility" for impaired judgement - well, that's a difficult ethical issue. If you have sex with someone whose judgement is currently impaired to whatever degree, isn't that potentially exploitative and irresponsible, on your part?

On the other hand, if a slightly drunk person is all for having sex, and you make a judgement call that they are sincere, and still capable of making that decision - I feel it would be disingenuous to vilify another person because of what they deem to be their poor judgement.

There are grey areas - and I think there's a sliding scale of onus on either party, where intoxication and consent are concerned.

What I don't understand is "plying someone with drink". This sounds like what PZ claimed this woman said: "coerced me into a position where I could not consent" - which evidently meant she got drunk.

There are two issues of responsibility here, not one: we've been talking about only one - the sex after drinking. But there is the prior issue of drinking itself. "Plying someone with drink" and "coerced me into a position" sound like the woman (or, if you like, women in general) has no choice about how much she drinks, or even if she drinks at all. Are women that helpless? Are they not to be held responsible for their decisions about what and how much they drink? Why not?

Unwanted sex as punishment for getting drunk? That sounds a hell of a lot like rape to me.

There are times when responsibility does not diffuse, but multiplies. You can argue that a woman has a responsibility to herself to not get drunk alone in the presence of someone who is known to rape drunk women. But that does not reduce -not a single slightest bit- the responsibility of anyone to refrain from raping a woman just because she is vulnerable from having drank too much. Just like I have a responsibility to myself and my flatmate to lock the doors. That does not make a thief any less of a criminal just because they found the doors unlocked.

No, you misunderstand me. Of course she's not responsible for the unwanted sex. And yes, that does sound like rape to me. And I don't mean it as a "punishment for getting drunk". A woman can drink all she wants, and it does not make her at all responsible for someone taking advantage of her while she's drunk.

All I'm saying is that "plying someone with drink" and "coerced me into a position where I could not consent" is saying that not only did the woman not have a choice about the sex - it's saying she didn't have a choice about drinking. And that's what I don't understand.

[Robert_S]

No, you misunderstand me. Of course she's not responsible for the unwanted sex. And yes, that does sound like rape to me. And I don't mean it as a "punishment for getting drunk". A woman can drink all she wants, and it does not make her at all responsible for someone taking advantage of her while she's drunk.

All I'm saying is that "plying someone with drink" and "coerced me into a position where I could not consent" is saying that not only did the woman not have a choice about the sex - it's saying she didn't have a choice about drinking. And that's what I don't understand.

Ah, OK. That is sortof a puzzler to be honest.

Such a lack of detail makes for too much speculation meethinks. I would guess alcohol, or perhaps a spiked drink was involved, but who fucking knows?

Heh, maybe it's a deep false flag operation designed to discredit PZ along with some women who have legitimate grievances. If one were to do such a thing, PZ would seem like the one most likely to bite.

[hadespussercats]

I don't understand why PZ published a claim with so little actual... anything to it. Not only are the accusers anonymous-- we don't even know exactly what it is Shermer supposedly did, except that it was bad. Really bad. PZ admits no evidence, but is willing to seriously smear one man on the witness of a two women he takes on faith. What the hell kind of scientist is that?

I don't get this at all. But my opinion of PZ, already low, has dropped even lower on this account.

I mean, why not investigate? Why not discuss the situation with the conference organizers? Why not do something substantial to try to help this woman he thinks was raped, without simply tossing her story to the gods of blogdom and reveling in the hits and the drama?

[Robert_S]

I don't understand why PZ published a claim with so little actual... anything to it. Not only are the accusers anonymous-- we don't even know exactly what it is Shermer supposedly did, except that it was bad. Really bad. PZ admits no evidence, but is willing to seriously smear one man on the witness of a two women he takes on faith. What the hell kind of scientist is that?

I don't get this at all. But my opinion of PZ, already low, has dropped even lower on this account.

I mean, why not investigate? Why not discuss the situation with the conference organizers? Why not do something substantial to try to help this woman he thinks was raped, without simply tossing her story to the gods of blogdom and reveling in the hits and the drama?

"the hits and the drama"

How else for an assistant professor to make a name as a blogger?

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

I don't understand why PZ published a claim with so little actual... anything to it. Not only are the accusers anonymous-- we don't even know exactly what it is Shermer supposedly did, except that it was bad. Really bad. PZ admits no evidence, but is willing to seriously smear one man on the witness of a two women he takes on faith. What the hell kind of scientist is that?

I don't get this at all. But my opinion of PZ, already low, has dropped even lower on this account.

I mean, why not investigate? Why not discuss the situation with the conference organizers? Why not do something substantial to try to help this woman he thinks was raped, without simply tossing her story to the gods of blogdom and reveling in the hits and the drama?

Let's just hope that Shermer sues his ass.
Glee!!

[Jason]

Drunken Sex - A Moral Dilemma

In April of this year, Welsh international soccer star, Ched Evans, was sentenced to five years in jail after being convicted of the rape of a young woman, who, in the words of the judge, was "extremely intoxicated" and in "no condition to have sexual intercourse." The legal principle that resulted in his conviction is now well-established: consent requires that a person is capable of consenting, and if you're very drunk, you're not capable of consenting. The UK's Sexual Offences Act (2003), for example, states that consent exists if a person agrees by choice to engage in sexual activity and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice. A person who is "extremely intoxicated" lacks that capacity, which is why Evans, who admitted having sex with his victim, is now in jail...

http://www.huffpost.com/us/entry/2206356

Falling down, slobbering, incapable of coherent conversation - type of drunk is certainly a condition where anyone would be unable to give consent, and probably an entire spectrum of states before that. But the bar must be set somewhere solid for it to be law and surely they must require some kind of evidence to come to that conclusion. Relying on what one person's idea of "extremely intoxicated" to set the standard for crimes of rape seems very arbitrary to me.

[Jason]

I don't understand why PZ published a claim with so little actual... anything to it. Not only are the accusers anonymous-- we don't even know exactly what it is Shermer supposedly did, except that it was bad. Really bad. PZ admits no evidence, but is willing to seriously smear one man on the witness of a two women he takes on faith. What the hell kind of scientist is that?

I don't get this at all. But my opinion of PZ, already low, has dropped even lower on this account.

I mean, why not investigate? Why not discuss the situation with the conference organizers? Why not do something substantial to try to help this woman he thinks was raped, without simply tossing her story to the gods of blogdom and reveling in the hits and the drama?

Let's just hope that Shermer sues his ass.
Glee!!

He pretty much has to doesn't he? If he doesn't a lot of those people will assume his guilt. If he just makes a response or statement it will still be a black mark on his record.

Shermer with his own magazine, published works, etc, could see serious financial losses as well as professional damage from this accusation.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

I don't understand why PZ published a claim with so little actual... anything to it. Not only are the accusers anonymous-- we don't even know exactly what it is Shermer supposedly did, except that it was bad. Really bad. PZ admits no evidence, but is willing to seriously smear one man on the witness of a two women he takes on faith. What the hell kind of scientist is that?

I don't get this at all. But my opinion of PZ, already low, has dropped even lower on this account.

I mean, why not investigate? Why not discuss the situation with the conference organizers? Why not do something substantial to try to help this woman he thinks was raped, without simply tossing her story to the gods of blogdom and reveling in the hits and the drama?

Let's just hope that Shermer sues his ass.
Glee!!

He pretty much has to doesn't he? If he doesn't a lot of those people will assume his guilt. If he just makes a response or statement it will still be a black mark on his record.

Shermer with his own magazine, published works, etc, could see serious financial losses as well as professional damage from this accusation.

Indeed.