Originally Posted by Piobaire
I have to say the rape scenario between two drunk people has been something I've been puzzling over since the 90s. If two people are equally intoxicated, and we deem one party cannot give consent, how can we logically deem the other equally intoxicated person be held responsible for his/her actions? OTOH there's no way you excuse something like what happened in this case.
Got no answers.
Um. The guilty party is the one with the penis. Duh.
Serious reply: I get the feeling the guy in this case is a scumbag who took advantage of a drunk woman in a manner I think is criminal. However, I have trouble with the furor over it because no one really knows what happened. Like Ata said, her whole claim that this had
to be non-consensual seems to rest on her certainty that she's just not that kind of girl. She can't actually refute the male's claims because she has no memory of vast majority of the night. Even after I read her statement, I was left feeling like she was legitimately traumatized, but despite doing my best to view things from her side, I just couldn't rationalize sending the male away for years and years.
There is no good answer here. I don't have any trouble believing that the male was in the wrong, but there is exceedingly little evidence for that assertion. My gut says he got off light, but my mind says you don't send people to prison based upon the defendant probably being a bad person.
And, yeah, none of this is helped by the fact that they were both wasted, and it's a prototypical example of he said/she said rape prosecution.