CNN Reports on the "Promising Future" of the Steubenville Rapists

[Torch]

If I go for a meal out with a significant other and over the course of the date start we both start with a cocktail, then split a bottle of wine, then finish off with an aperitif and maybe a few more drinks at the bar afterwards then I suspect everyone would say that we couldn't be trusted to drive... that's a fair amount of alcohol.

In the US, the legal standard for DUI (or DWI, driving while impaired) in almost every state is a BAC of .08% or greater. BAC levels will vary depending upon a person's weight and the time of the alcohol consumption, but for the average female, it only takes two drinks (two beers, two glasses of wine, or two cocktails) to reach that threshold.

Other than folks who completely abstain from alcohol, we would be hard pressed to find anyone who has never driven while impaired.

[Oniya]

*raises hand*

I don't abstain.  But if I've had even one drink, I don't drive, because I know I'm a light-weight.  Conversely, if I know I am my only transportation home, I don't drink.

[consortium11]

Whereas I would answer the question that is actually being asked, ie "Do you trust...", not "Do you think that person is capable of..."

Em...

The question that was actually being asked was (emphasis mine)...

The rule of thumb I am familiar with is that if you wouldn't trust someone to drive, then you should not assume they are able to consent.

"To drive". Not "to make a decision about whether to drive or not".

I can understand why you read in what you do. I just disagree. To use my earlier point if someone asked me whether I trusted someone to catch a ball I'd base my decision on whether they could catch a ball or not... not whether they'd make the decision to catch the ball or not (which is a necessity before the matter of their ability to catch the ball comes up).

This one is hard to call, honestly. And I'm fine with that. Because it's a rule of thumb, not an absolute. The fact that there are edge cases in which it may or may not be applicable does nothing to invalidate its general utility. I can say I'd be feeling extremely uncomfortable if I found myself in such a situation, at the very least.

If a rule of thumb means that any couple who ever had sex when tipsy (or even when one partner is tipsy) has committed a moral rape then I'd suggest the rule of thumb isn't that useful. If a rule of thumb means that one partner going out with their friends, having some drinks and then coming home and putting the moves on their significant other has been subject to a moral rape by their sober partner then I suggest it's not really a great rule of thumb to have in the first place. A rule of thumb clearly doesn't apply in all cases... but considering this rule of thumb would condemn quite so many as moral rapists I struggle to support it.

[consortium11]

In the US, the legal standard for DUI (or DWI, driving while impaired) in almost every state is a BAC of .08% or greater. BAC levels will vary depending upon a person's weight and the time of the alcohol consumption, but for the average female, it only takes two drinks (two beers, two glasses of wine, or two cocktails) to reach that threshold.

Other than folks who completely abstain from alcohol, we would be hard pressed to find anyone who has never driven while impaired.

I certainly don't abstain but I've never driven after having even a single drink. I have the advantage that I live in a city with good public transport (well, "good" is a relative term but it's there...) so driving isn't a necessity but I doubt I'd change much if I lived out in the countryside with no public transport. If I'm driving I'm not drinking.

[Healergirl]

I'm going to throw a grenade out among the pigeons.

Legal standard of impairment is just that, a legal standard, not a biological/mental standard.  The BAC limits were chosen to avoid the entire very really brouhaha that would result the law tried to take into account the fact that we are each rather individual in terms of how our  personal biochemical factories process alcohol.  Never mind how our  indicidual minds/brains react to said alcohol levels.  One person may well be no more impaired with a BAC noticeably higher than someone whose BAC who is well  within the legal limit, but... the legal limit is there for a reason  It was chosen because it is usefully applicable to most people.

However, when it comes to consent, there is no legal standard and subjective judgement of intoxication must needs come  into play.

Hilarity ensues.

[Ephiral]

If a rule of thumb means that any couple who ever had sex when tipsy (or even when one partner is tipsy) has committed a moral rape then I'd suggest the rule of thumb isn't that useful. If a rule of thumb means that one partner going out with their friends, having some drinks and then coming home and putting the moves on their significant other has been subject to a moral rape by their sober partner then I suggest it's not really a great rule of thumb to have in the first place. A rule of thumb clearly doesn't apply in all cases... but considering this rule of thumb would condemn quite so many as moral rapists I struggle to support it.

Nice strawman you've got there. Has the standard being presented all along been "tipsy" or "impaired"? Also worth noting: Specific cases override general. If you know someone, and know (for instance) that they deliberately and knowingly choose to have a few drinks to work up the nerve to have sex? Then no, you're not taking advantage of them. But in general, barring specific and exceptional knowledge? I still fail to see why this rule is a bad idea. I'd love to see what standard you propose as having better general utility. And frankly, I really don't see what difference it makes, except that you may know the circumstances better, if it's your partner. Didn't we kinda abandon the "It's not rape if you're married!" standard 60 years ago?

[consortium11]

Nice strawman you've got there. Has the standard being presented all along been "tipsy" or "impaired"?

Em, I believe the standard has been "not trustworthy to drive" (or "not trustworthy to make a decision about driving" depending on the reading of the question), hence the fact we've been discussing it. While "tipsy" is one of those somewhat vague terms that everyone defines in their own way, how many people would trust people who were tipsy to drive (or trust people to make a decision about driving depending on the reading of the question) who they considered "tipsy"?

Also worth noting: Specific cases override general. If you know someone, and know (for instance) that they deliberately and knowingly choose to have a few drinks to work up the nerve to have sex? Then no, you're not taking advantage of them. But in general, barring specific and exceptional knowledge? I still fail to see why this rule is a bad idea. I'd love to see what standard you propose as having better general utility.

Are they at the time able to comprehend what they're doing (as in consenting to sex)? If they are, do they consent?

And frankly, I really don't see what difference it makes, except that you may know the circumstances better, if it's your partner. Didn't we kinda abandon the "It's not rape if you're married!" standard 60 years ago?

That's sort of my point (although on a technical note in the UK we shamefully only formally got rid of "no rape in marriage" about 20 years ago).

The basis of the "trust to drive" rule of thumb is that because of alcohol one (or both) people aren't really able to consent or, at the very least, their consent isn't "true" as their judgement/mindset has been distorted by the alcohol. Therefore having sex in such circumstances, despite the parties consenting as the time, is morally rape (as the consent wasn't "true").

My entire point is how bizarre that is when applied to the idea of a relationship. Because we've thankfully got rid of this idea that a partner automatically consents it means that there would be no difference between someone's partner and a complete stranger they saw across a packed dancefloor. So we have the circumstance where using this rule of thumb if a couple go out and, over the course of the night, one or both consume enough alcohol that they'd fail the "would you trust them to drive" test (however you read it) then if they later have what would appear to be consensual sex one or both of them has actually committed a moral rape as the consent wasn't "true".

[Caehlim]

Other than folks who completely abstain from alcohol, we would be hard pressed to find anyone who has never driven while impaired.

I drink exceedingly rarely but I don't completely abstain and I still have never driven while impaired.

... Of course that's because I've never driven at all

[Ephiral]

Em, I believe the standard has been "not trustworthy to drive" (or "not trustworthy to make a decision about driving" depending on the reading of the question), hence the fact we've been discussing it. While "tipsy" is one of those somewhat vague terms that everyone defines in their own way, how many people would trust people who were tipsy to drive (or trust people to make a decision about driving depending on the reading of the question) who they considered "tipsy"?

The entire point of the rule - the point I have been advancing all along - is impaired judgement.

Are they at the time able to comprehend what they're doing (as in consenting to sex)? If they are, do they consent?

And an easy generally-applicable means to gauge whether or not they are able to comprehend what they're doing...?

That's sort of my point (although on a technical note in the UK we shamefully only formally got rid of "no rape in marriage" about 20 years ago).

The basis of the "trust to drive" rule of thumb is that because of alcohol one (or both) people aren't really able to consent or, at the very least, their consent isn't "true" as their judgement/mindset has been distorted by the alcohol. Therefore having sex in such circumstances, despite the parties consenting as the time, is morally rape (as the consent wasn't "true").

My entire point is how bizarre that is when applied to the idea of a relationship. Because we've thankfully got rid of this idea that a partner automatically consents it means that there would be no difference between someone's partner and a complete stranger they saw across a packed dancefloor. So we have the circumstance where using this rule of thumb if a couple go out and, over the course of the night, one or both consume enough alcohol that they'd fail the "would you trust them to drive" test (however you read it) then if they later have what would appear to be consensual sex one or both of them has actually committed a moral rape as the consent wasn't "true".

Yet again: It is generally, not universally, applicable. It is not absolute. This is why it is a rule of thumb and not a good basis for law, as has been stated repeatedly. I really, really don't know how to make this clearer.

In the US, the legal standard for DUI (or DWI, driving while impaired) in almost every state is a BAC of .08% or greater. BAC levels will vary depending upon a person's weight and the time of the alcohol consumption, but for the average female, it only takes two drinks (two beers, two glasses of wine, or two cocktails) to reach that threshold.

Other than folks who completely abstain from alcohol, we would be hard pressed to find anyone who has never driven while impaired.

*raises hand* I have occasionally driven after a single drink, with a minimum of one hour between consumption and leaving. Never more, and frankly even after one I prefer to have someone else drive.

[consortium11]

The entire point of the rule - the point I have been advancing all along - is impaired judgement.

And the point of the rule of thumb was to help determine what level of impairment would mean that consent wasn't "true". Going by the rule of thumb then someone who is tipsy would be sufficiently impaired for anyone having sex with them to be committing a moral rape.

And an easy generally-applicable means to gauge whether or not they are able to comprehend what they're doing...?

Is the person in question able to comprehend (and agree to) what they're doing?

I think that's easy enough for people to understand.

Yet again: It is generally, not universally, applicable. It is not absolute. This is why it is a rule of thumb and not a good basis for law, as has been stated repeatedly. I really, really don't know how to make this clearer.

I don't have the stats to back this up but I imagine the vast majority of sexual encounters that happen are between people within relationships... and even if that's not correct I think it would be a significant minority. As the absurdities I outlined above mean that the rule of thumb isn't appropriate in those circumstances then that's a vast number of cases... likely the majority... the rule of thumb doesn't apply to. It may be a good rule of thumb for when a person is on a night out and starts the process of hooking up with a stranger; that makes it a good general rule for when a person is on a night out and starts the process of hooking up with a stranger, not a good general rule.

[Ephiral]

In related news...

Meet Rehtaeh Parsons.

She was 17 years old, and by all accounts a delightful young woman with a promising future. I say "was" because a week ago Thursday, she hung herself. She was taken off life support this past Sunday. What brought this on? A year and a half before this, she was raped by four boys, one of whom took and distributed pictures of the event. The stigma, the bullying, followed her from school to school. She was hit up for sex or called a slut nigh unto constantly. Meanwhile, after "investigating" for a year, despite widespread (child pornography) photographic evidence of the incident, the RCMP concluded that it would be a case of he, he, he and he said, she said. No charges were filed, no arrests were made. The burden of this trauma was hers to bear alone. Last week, she finally broke under the weight of it. And now, suddenly, now that this young woman is dead and people are noticing, there's "credible new evidence". Like the goddamned pictures, maybe? The pictures that have been there all along? Perhaps there was some other incentive, hmm?

This happened in my backyard. I am filled with rage and disgust that it takes a goddamned internet vigilante group and a media shitstorm to make the RCMP do their jobs in this case.

Amanda Todd. Steubenville's Jane Doe. Rehteah Parsons. How many dead girls and wrecked lives will it take before we take this shit seriously?

[Healergirl]

Ephiral,

My blood is boiling, this is not at all good for my blood pressure.

I wish I could say this is unusual, but my long experience tells me otherwise.  IF she ahd not died, then yes, I very much fear the case would have just disappeared.

[Shjade]

On March 3, Rehtaeh posted a photo of herself on Facebook next to a quote from Martin Luther King Jr.:

“In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”

I'm not sure why this bit makes the whole event bother me more. Probably the thought of how few teenagers actually pay attention to MLK Jr.

Dammit.

[Caela]

I'm not sure why this bit makes the whole event bother me more. Probably the thought of how few teenagers actually pay attention to MLK Jr.

Dammit.

I can't speak for anyone else, but that part bothered me because (to me) it seems to speak to how truly alone she felt. If her friends had stood up for her, had been vocal in defending her, would she have felt so alone and so lost in despair. If she had had someone to truly stand beside her, would she be dead?

Part of the problem (for the victims) with these events is how quickly their "friends" disappear. It sends a message to the victim that they are somehow the ones in the wrong because the only voices they hear are those of their "enemies". If their friends are all silent then they must have done something wrong, must somehow deserve what happened to them.

[Rhapsody]

One of the many things that bothers me about it is the child pornography thing. "We can't prove who snapped the picture". Um... isn't simple possession of child pornography (defined as explicit images of any minor) punishable by incarceration and placement on the sex offender registry? Start waving that threat around, and see how much information you can get.

I'm raising two boys and a girl. This frightens me on that deep, parental level, because they're nowhere near that age yet. And I know that I instill values and such in them, but I'm sure at least one or two of the parents of those four rapists in this case tried to instill values in their kids as well. The group mind is a powerful animal.

[Ephiral]

One of the many things that bothers me about it is the child pornography thing. "We can't prove who snapped the picture". Um... isn't simple possession of child pornography (defined as explicit images of any minor) punishable by incarceration and placement on the sex offender registry? Start waving that threat around, and see how much information you can get.

That, sadly, requires that the RCMP actually be interested in getting answers or stopping this. Which, as this and the Amanda Todd case show, is very much not the case. (Also I think the sex offender registry is a horrible idea, but that's another discussion.)

I'm raising two boys and a girl. This frightens me on that deep, parental level, because they're nowhere near that age yet. And I know that I instill values and such in them, but I'm sure at least one or two of the parents of those four rapists in this case tried to instill values in their kids as well. The group mind is a powerful animal.

It terrifies me, too, for similar reasons. One thing I seriously wonder about, though: It's sad that this bears asking, but how many of those boys even realised in the moment that what they were doing was rape?

[DarklingAlice]

One thing I seriously wonder about, though: It's sad that this bears asking, but how many of those boys even realised in the moment that what they were doing was rape?

I think it's a question that definately needs asking. We like to pretend that rapists are mythical monsters instead of people. When we dehumanize them it provides a convenient excuse to deny any responsibility on our parts for education and prevention.

[Ephiral]

UPDATE: News from someone who's heavily involved in local politics and the local Anon effort: First, the Anon effort is... pretty embarrassing. Second, it wasn't that the media shitstorm/Anon effort shamed the RCMP. It had no effect on them, which I find even more disgusting. What it did do is make the Premier aware of the case, so he could haul high-ranking RCMP personnel into his office and demand an explanation.

The Premier lives 500 feet from where she did, and knew nothing. The grassroots voices on this are almost all male. I... I'm having a hard time finding anybody I'm not disgusted with on this.

[Healergirl]

Ephiral,

I'm at something of a loss for words. The RCMP seems less responsive that any given Rural Virginia County Sheriff would be to such publicity.

[Shjade]

Yeah, I have to admit I was sorta surprised that this wasn't another USA story on my first read-through, considering the trends.

[Ephiral]

Update: Protests and media events have been arranged by local Anons. So today, there was a counter-protest in support of the (still unnamed, still uncharged) attackers. Unsurprisingly, any attempt to engage them in discussion of the matter was met with threats of physical violence. Way to make your case, boys.

[Healergirl]

Ephiral,

Frankly... I think that is a splendid way for them to make their case in public.  Let everybody see them for what they are.

[gaggedLouise]

Update: Protests and media events have been arranged by local Anons. So today, there was a counter-protest in support of the (still unnamed, still uncharged) attackers. Unsurprisingly, any attempt to engage them in discussion of the matter was met with threats of physical violence. Way to make your case, boys.

Disgraceful. 

[Hellis]

In related news...

Meet Rehtaeh Parsons.

She was 17 years old, and by all accounts a delightful young woman with a promising future. I say "was" because a week ago Thursday, she hung herself. She was taken off life support this past Sunday. What brought this on? A year and a half before this, she was raped by four boys, one of whom took and distributed pictures of the event. The stigma, the bullying, followed her from school to school. She was hit up for sex or called a slut nigh unto constantly. Meanwhile, after "investigating" for a year, despite widespread (child pornography) photographic evidence of the incident, the RCMP concluded that it would be a case of he, he, he and he said, she said. No charges were filed, no arrests were made. The burden of this trauma was hers to bear alone. Last week, she finally broke under the weight of it. And now, suddenly, now that this young woman is dead and people are noticing, there's "credible new evidence". Like the goddamned pictures, maybe? The pictures that have been there all along? Perhaps there was some other incentive, hmm?

This happened in my backyard. I am filled with rage and disgust that it takes a goddamned internet vigilante group and a media shitstorm to make the RCMP do their jobs in this case.

Amanda Todd. Steubenville's Jane Doe. Rehteah Parsons. How many dead girls and wrecked lives will it take before we take this shit seriously?

I am disgusted with my own species, my gender and this so called "modern world" of ours. Reading this has legit made me sick, the revulsion I feel is goddamn putrid. This is the reason I many times wonder just if we can ever descend the whole inequality situation we have today. Why aren't these boys behind bars, why are people trying to protect THEM. This wasnt a one woman, one man situation where the woman would atleast have a slight chance (and even then, this is a clear case of rape.) This was 4 boys degrading a girl and then spreading it. And afterwards it was a failure of society as whole to act and support the victim. What the fuck is wrong with this world.