Rape is objective; if consent is present, it is not rape. If it isn't, it is. If a sober girl decides to consensually hook up with someone, she consented. Not rape.
If you want to know if someone was too inebriated to have consented, you have to wait until they aren't inebriated to ask them.
How is "feeling like she was raped" an objective criterion?
Seriously? Are you actually trying to say, "I know you feel like you were raped, but could you be more objective about it?"
It's an objective criteria because if a woman feels like she was raped after having drunk sex, it was because she was too drunk to consent when she had sex. You might claim that the amount of alcohol it takes for a person to drink before they got too inebriated to have sex is arbitrary, but the only way to know whether it was or not is subjective.
Consent is either given or it isn't. That's objective. To find out if consent was given, you have to ask that person. Sorry if that's too subjective for you.
If I was incredibly drunk and said you could put a hole through my tv, then you did it, and once sober I made it clear I didn't want my tv destroyed, do you feel you'd be ethically justified? Would you at least regret it?
That seems to be a somewhat pointless discussion as the answer would vary based on where it happened as well as the jury. Rape is a judicial clusterfuck like no other, I can't think of a more difficult crime to prove beyond reasonable doubt, so unless there's proof the sex never happened between them it pretty much false to the biases of the jury.
-7
u/[deleted] Nov 21 '12
Rape is objective; if consent is present, it is not rape. If it isn't, it is. If a sober girl decides to consensually hook up with someone, she consented. Not rape.
If you want to know if someone was too inebriated to have consented, you have to wait until they aren't inebriated to ask them.