Oregon's rape laws

[ccharles000]

Oregon feminists,

Please read this and contact your state senators !

Did you know that under current Oregon law, if a person chooses to get drunk and is raped, their rapist can only be charged with sexual assault or sexual abuse? Legally in Oregon it's not rape if the victim is drunk by her own accord!

House Bill 2343 will change the definition of "mentally incapacitated" so that it won't matter if the victim chose to drink or do drugs. The bill has already passed the Oregon house and is expected to pass the senate with minimal opposition. However, the bill was featured on the public radio program Think Out Loud this morning and had a shocking number of people opposing it.

Please remind your senators that a person's mental state has NOTHING to do with another person's decision to violate their body. Victims should never be blamed for the crimes against them! Society should not be telling rapists that it is their job to "teach a lesson" to anyone.

http://community.feministing.com/2009/06/oregons-rape-laws.html

[lindisfarne]

1. Have the legislators thought through the ramifications of what happens when both parties are drunk

and therefore, mentally capacitated? Is the rapist going to be held responsible for his/her actions? Is this going to accidentally create an "out" for rapists? If we claim that one person cannot be held responsible for their actions, how can the other be?

I'm wondering whether this is the best way to fix the problem in the law.

Read this:
http://www.opb.org/thinkoutloud/shows/new-rape-law/
There is good reason to believe this law has not adequately been thought through. There's surely a better way of fixing the current problem.

"The Attorney General's Sexual Assault Task Force says the bill "removes the question of how a person who is assaulted became incapacitated, and focuses instead on the person's ability to consent to sexual activity and the defendant's knowledge of that state of mental incapacity.""

Except if the alleged rapist is drunk, and therefore incapacitated, how can s/he have knowledge of the other person's "state of mental incapacity"?

[imdjh]

3. Drunk people shouldn't have sex

That's the only thing I could come up with when this took shape on college campuses in the form of the absolute, in essence that drunken females cannot consent to have sex.

I always found it rather paternal as a male who was often the "passive" partner in homosex and who was often drunk at the time.

[lindisfarne]

5. It's a nice sentiment, but realistically, most won't follow it. n/t

[BlancheSplanchnik]

9. and of course, if criminal sex among the drunks happens

it's the woman's fault.

god there are so many things wrong with the thinking that would exonerate violent men who prey on drunk women.... so many holes in a law like that... drunk (how drunk?), of her own accord (how do you prove that?), rape (assault is often a part of rape, is that included or excluded?).....

[imdjh]

13. The construct I was speaking of wasn't limited to violent men who prey on women

The objection to it was that it was so incredibly broad as to mean that no woman who had been drinking COULD consent to sex. On some college campuses it was taken to mean that if a woman had been drinking heavily then she was incapable of consent and therefore any sex which happened after that point (even though she consented) was in fact rape on the part of the male. Naturally, gay people weren't taken into consideration by this law/rule/construct because, well, we screw up the dynamic I guess.

I think most of us would agree that a sober man having sex with a drunk woman, while not necessarily rape is unethical. I know that I have chosen not to have sex (first time with said person) with an intoxicated friend (male) because he was intoxicated and I felt that to do so, even at his invitation was irresponsible. Had I also been intoxicated, I probably would have had sex with him. I would not reason, "Well, since we're BOTH intoxicated, then it's OK." , I would simply be intoxicated and open to the invitation. The alcohol or drugs would not be releasing my inner rapist, it would be releasing my inhibition against having sex with an intoxicated person.

Now it gets more complicated. Who is more intoxicated? And does the sober v drunk apply to kinda-drunk v totally-trashed? Let's say that I am totally trashed, since I have some experience with that. I "come to" or return to awareness in the middle of sex (I have done this). I am freaked out for the moment, because I don't know who I am having sex with. The lights come on, and it's an old friend I had been partying with for hours. I never passed out and because I know myself, I know that I not only consented to sex i initiated it. Had it not been my friend, but someone I didn't recall or didn't recall agreeing to have sex with, then my feelings might be quite different even though I may well have consented and initiated. In neither case do I KNOW that I consented. In neither case do I remember taking my clothes off and jumping into bed. So a rape allegation in this scenario (absent any evidence to suggest violence) would hang on how I felt about having had sex with the person I find myself in bed with, and whether I feel violated. This is quite unlike a robbery.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

14. yep, good illumination of the many difficulties

inherent in the various possible scenarios.

Doesn't mean I'm against punishing predators...believe me, I want to see predatory people (statistically, mostly men) get what they deserve.

just curious, if you're comfortable saying--did you ever have problems with predators/drunkeness?
I rarely get drunk so this was never my problem; however in the past, emotional baggage did make me a good target for predators looking for vulnerable women in need(emotional neeeeeeeed) of a partner.

[MountainLaurel]

2. That's scary

Thank you for letting us know.

[Speck Tater]

4. The law needs to protect people from the consequences of their own bad judgment.

After all, the government bailed out Wall Street for their bad judgment, they should damn well protect a person who voluntarily gets blind drunk from any consequences of that decision. In fact, while we are at it we should decriminalize drunk driving. If a person gets blind drunk they should NOT be held accountable for any deaths they cause on the highway.

:sarcasm:

When in hell did people decide that everyone should be coddled and protected from the natural consequences of their own stupidity. I see absolutely nothing wrong with the law as it stands. Grow up and take responsibility for your own sobriety or lack there of, and any consequences arising therefrom. Uncle Sam is not your rich daddy who should bail you out every time you screw up. And that applies to Wall Street as well as to drunks. Accountability is a bitch. Grow up and get over it.

[hayu_lol]

6. Obviously, it is past time to enact...

legislation making it illegal to have sex (in any form)for the next three generations.

[dalaigh lllama]

8. Uncle Sam is not bailing them out here

I agree about accountability, but on the other hand, here's a parallel scenario: some idiot kid gets drunk and gets beaten up and robbed on the way home (walking). Should the robbers not be prosecuted because the kid got stupidly drunk?

Just because someone sets themselves up as victims should not excuse predators from prosecution.

[Odin2005]

7. How long before the resident date-rape apologists pop up and claim that is OK to...

...have sex with someone who is drunk and barely conscious? :eyes:

[BlueIris]

10. Not long, I bet. The Misogyny Brigade rarely misses an opportunity to spew. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. Oh, I will.

You'll notice, though, if you paid closer attention to the story- it isn't about women who get drunk and then have consensual sex, it's about women who get drunk and then get raped.

[Odin2005]

12. Oh great, the idiot that think screwing a borderline-unconscious woman isn't date rape.

:eyes: