The Daterape Line

[Matthewmagic]

Okay so I have a question here for your consideration? Where is the date rape line. The line between "Is date rape" and "is not date rape". Don't just put the word "Yes" because I have a few situations for you too look at first. Think of this as a question as a mental exercise in critical thinking.

Say for example there were quick dissolving tablets you could put in food or drinks that did not cause a buzz, or any altered state of mind. With the exception of extreme hornyness. All it does is make the girl so darn horny she is leaking through her panties (ew). Works on guys too. Now they still have too agree too the whole sex thing, but you(creep) have given them a mighty big push in the yes direction. On the other hand, they are not forced too say yes, and there is no reason they can not go home and take care of themselves. Maybe call up that ex they have with the mustache they like so much.

Situation two.

Say there was some kind of Jedi Mind trick you could use. The catch is they would have too bite. Some conversational ecxersize that would, almost guarantee they would leave thinking you are the single most irresistible person alive. Like a road map of the human mind that takes you right too the path of fornication almost everytime. The only thing that could go wrong is that you fuck it up some how. Well you are using a strategy guide, which is pretty lame. At the same time who is too say sucsessful men aren't just the ones who find this path on their own.

discuss.

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

I find it highly suspicious you're attempting to see just how far you can push the envelope. I'm going to treat this as a legitimate question for the moment...

On the first; you drugged the person... let me say that again; you *DRUGGED* the person. You really think that is acceptable?

On the second; you're talking about Game Theory. I don't see a problem with Game Theory; but seduction and suggestion is a far cry from mind control.

Regardless, your suggestions preclude the notion of "sound body and mind" which are required by law for consent.

Your efforts in tip toeing that issue are... well... I'm not going to speculate.

 

[bluepilot]

I think that giving anyone a drug to cause extreme horniness is an example of altering someone's state of mind.

 

[Darken12]

Drugging someone without their consent is a bad thing, even if it's harmless or for their own good. Slipping someone anti-cholesterol pills in their meals is pretty much a good thing (assuming no side effects), but you are still violating a person's Right of Autonomy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomy#Medicine] (also known as Respect For Persons [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_persons]). A person has a right to determine the kind of drugs they want to ingest (and if they want to ingest them at all), and you are violating that right by making that decision for them.

I would argue the exact same thing for the second case, even if it doesn't involve drugs. You are violating a person's autonomy. This is a bad thing. If they consent to you using their mind trick on them (fully aware of what it does, obviously), then you have their consent and you have respected their autonomy. If you do it without their consent, you are violating their autonomy.

Autonomy is one of the most (if not THE most) important rights a person has, and should be respected at all costs.

 

[DoPo]

I think that giving anyone a drug to cause extreme horniness is an example of altering someone's state of mind.

Can't really add more here about the first scenario.

The second one sounds like coercion.

There, /thread yet?

 

[ClockworkPenguin]

I find it highly suspicious you're attempting to see just how far you can push the envelope. I'm going to treat this as a legitimate question for the moment...

On the first; you drugged the person... let me say that again; you *DRUGGED* the person. You really think that is acceptable?

On the second; you're talking about Game Theory. I don't see a problem with Game Theory; but seduction and suggestion is a far cry from mind control.

Regardless, your suggestions preclude the notion of "sound body and mind" which are required by law for consent.

Your efforts in tip toeing that issue are... well... I'm not going to speculate.

The second is most certainly not 'game theory' which is a serious branch of mathematics looking at optimising decisions made in systems containing multiple decision makers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory#cite_note-1

On topic, regarding the first scenario; this is rape. A much more interesting scenario would be if they had administered the drug themselves could they could be considered capable of still giving consent?

Regarding the second, that translates in my mind as 'tricking people to have sex with you'. I'm certain that this is a shitty way to treat people, I'm not certain that it is rape. However, it does raise a question, does it count as consent if they agreed under false pretences? In the realm of medicine we believe it doesn't, so there is an argument that this too could be rape depending on the circumstances.

 

[Jayemsal]

Both of these scenarios are rape, end of story.

There is no justification for manipulating others in order to use them for your own sexual pleasure.

If you believe in a god, may they have mercy on your soul.

 

[lechat]

The second is most certainly not 'game theory' which is a serious branch of mathematics looking at optimising decisions made in systems containing multiple decision makers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory#cite_note-1

game theory refers to the act of manipulating certain physical and mental traits of women to get them into bed. at its best it has some pretty solid psychology behind it and does come off as a little rapey

 

[DoPo]

A much more interesting scenario would be if they had administered the drug themselves could they could be considered capable of still giving consent?

One could make the point that they've already made a decision. I'm not entirely sure how it would go legally, though but it does seem to me that if they willingly took the drug then they had the intention of giving consent.

Regarding the second, that translates in my mind as 'tricking people to have sex with you'.

In...a way - yes. But that's a bit simplified.

I'm certain that this is a shitty way to treat people, I'm not certain that it is rape. However, it does raise a question, does it count as consent if they agreed under false pretences?

Admittedly, I'm not an expert but it's similar to social engineering and basing my judgement on that - it should.

 

[Lucem712]

I'm not sure the drugging is rape in the convention sense, but probably isn't the best thing to do.

People can't give real consent while under the influence of a drug. Even then, physical indications of attraction are reflexive and may not be completely in-line with what the mind is thinking. (Which can cause victims a-lot of guilt, thinking they 'enjoyed' it physically, therefor they must of wanted it or were asking for it)

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

The second is most certainly not 'game theory' which is a serious branch of mathematics looking at optimising decisions made in systems containing multiple decision makers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory#cite_note-1

game theory refers to the act of manipulating certain physical and mental traits of women to get them into bed. at its best it has some pretty solid psychology behind it and does come off as a little rapey

Honest mix up, I should have specified the game theory I was talking about. Bloody things have too many meanings now adays!

 

[Lionsfan]

snip

snip

Isn't that how cases are treated where a lot of alcohol is involved? Even if a person willingly imbibes that much booze, they still can't give their consent, so it's still rape.

[sub]Not 100% sure on that though, so don't flame me if I'm wrong[/sub]

 

[DoPo]

snip

snip

Isn't that how cases are treated where a lot of alcohol is involved? Even if a person willingly imbibes that much booze, they still can't give their consent, so it's still rape.

[sub]Not 100% sure on that though, so don't flame me if I'm wrong[/sub]

Erm, I'd think you'd have a different intention when taking something that would enhance your sexual desire than when consuming alcohol. I mean, the two things work fundamentally different to each other and the expected outcome is also different.

However, as I said, I don't know how it goes legally, I'm just saying that alcohol isn't a good enough analogy. Would a male taking Viagra be unable to consent? It's probably not the same again, but it's closer than booze.

 

[Lionsfan]

snip

snip

Isn't that how cases are treated where a lot of alcohol is involved? Even if a person willingly imbibes that much booze, they still can't give their consent, so it's still rape.

[sub]Not 100% sure on that though, so don't flame me if I'm wrong[/sub]

Erm, I'd think you'd have a different intention when taking something that would enhance your sexual desire than when consuming alcohol. I mean, the two things work fundamentally different to each other and the expected outcome is also different.

However, as I said, I don't know how it goes legally, I'm just saying that alcohol isn't a good enough analogy. Would a male taking Viagra be unable to consent? It's probably not the same again, but it's closer than booze.

Well I was just playing off of your comment that if they willingly took the drug, they're giving consent.

And Viagra is an interesting example, but does Viagra really make you horny? Or just give your body the extra stuff to maintain an erection?

 

[Vegosiux]

The word "rape" is not a dead cat, please do not swing it around so liberally. I'm not sure what the deal here is, but let me just say that "not rape" is not synonymous with "totally OK, go for it bro".

In that light, I will say I neither know nor care whether those scenarios would constitute "rape", but even if they do not I'd still bring the hammer down on you and send you to your room to think about what you've done. Unrelated, I always love a good understatement.

Captcha: thank you, come again.
Yes, sure, captcha, gotta dispel misconceptions all over the place...

 

[DoPo]

snip

snip

Isn't that how cases are treated where a lot of alcohol is involved? Even if a person willingly imbibes that much booze, they still can't give their consent, so it's still rape.

[sub]Not 100% sure on that though, so don't flame me if I'm wrong[/sub]

Erm, I'd think you'd have a different intention when taking something that would enhance your sexual desire than when consuming alcohol. I mean, the two things work fundamentally different to each other and the expected outcome is also different.

However, as I said, I don't know how it goes legally, I'm just saying that alcohol isn't a good enough analogy. Would a male taking Viagra be unable to consent? It's probably not the same again, but it's closer than booze.

Well I was just playing off of your comment that if they willingly took the drug, they're giving consent.

Not exactly what I said - I did mention the intention there. I thought that's key. Then again, they could have not intended to have sex at all but just took the drug for kicks - sort of unlikely but it wouldn't be the first time anybody did something...I can't really call it "stupid" but it is "not smart", dunno, maybe "impulsive" fits more.

And Viagra is an interesting example, but does Viagra really make you horny? Or just give your body the extra stuff to maintain an erection?

I'm not actually sure - never tried it or even looked much into it. But it is more in line with a sex aid than alcohol is (inb4 jokes about bars and hookups). If a male willingly takes Viagra it's fair to assume that they would consent to sex (if they haven't already), for that's more or less the reason to take some[footnote]Maybe there are actual medical reasons to take Viagra that have little to do with sex but if we're working in ClockworkPenguin's scenario, I'm pretty sure the default assumption is that the person doesn't NEED the drug they are taking.[/footnote]. That's not the case with alcohol, though.

Oh gosh, I can just see the amount of jokes involving alcohol piling up.

 

[lechat]

viagra started as a heart medication. it enlarges blood vessels and increases blood flow and without googleing is probably still used for similar conditions these days. in the case of male arousal it allows for increased blood flow to the penis and longer/stronger/faster erectile function.

as most guys know the act of having an erection goes hand in hand with arousal so even if we didn't chose to have an erection and weren't initially turned on the mere fact that we have an erection means a heightened state of arousal. that doesn't mean just because you can forcefully give a man an erection he instantly turns into your sex slave but the odds of getting a guy to screw you (or at least not fight you as hard) is gonna increase if he has a rock hard member ready to go when you do so.

really hard to argue that you used viagra as a rape drug. the act itself would be illegal if you forcefully or stealthily drugged someone but as far as forceful sex goes it's about on the same level as trying to convince a guy to screw you after he walks out of a strip bar

 

[Lionsfan]

snip

snip

Isn't that how cases are treated where a lot of alcohol is involved? Even if a person willingly imbibes that much booze, they still can't give their consent, so it's still rape.

[sub]Not 100% sure on that though, so don't flame me if I'm wrong[/sub]

Erm, I'd think you'd have a different intention when taking something that would enhance your sexual desire than when consuming alcohol. I mean, the two things work fundamentally different to each other and the expected outcome is also different.

However, as I said, I don't know how it goes legally, I'm just saying that alcohol isn't a good enough analogy. Would a male taking Viagra be unable to consent? It's probably not the same again, but it's closer than booze.

Well I was just playing off of your comment that if they willingly took the drug, they're giving consent.

Not exactly what I said - I did mention the intention there. I thought that's key. Then again, they could have not intended to have sex at all but just took the drug for kicks - sort of unlikely but it wouldn't be the first time anybody did something...I can't really call it "stupid" but it is "not smart", dunno, maybe "impulsive" fits more.

I see what you mean, and it wasn't my intention to try and put words in your mouth, I was just going off the train of thought

And Viagra is an interesting example, but does Viagra really make you horny? Or just give your body the extra stuff to maintain an erection?

I'm not actually sure - never tried it or even looked much into it. But it is more in line with a sex aid than alcohol is (inb4 jokes about bars and hookups). If a male willingly takes Viagra it's fair to assume that they would consent to sex (if they haven't already), for that's more or less the reason to take some[footnote]Maybe there are actual medical reasons to take Viagra that have little to do with sex but if we're working in ClockworkPenguin's scenario, I'm pretty sure the default assumption is that the person doesn't NEED the drug they are taking.[/footnote]. That's not the case with alcohol, though.

Oh gosh, I can just see the amount of jokes involving alcohol piling up.

That's a good point. I went out earlier, and had a drink with lunch, and I definitely wasn't trying to have sex. But if I'm a middle-aged man, the only reason I'm taking Viagra/Cialis is for sex reasons

 

[Souplex]

If you're drugging them without their consent or knowledge, I'm pretty sure it's all sorts of unethical/illegal.

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

If you're drugging someone with the purpose of making them have sex with you, then that is pretty fucked up. I personally wouldn't use the term rape, but it still is and should be illegal and heavily frowned upon. However, that said, I do have an unpopular opinion concerning alcohol. If you sleep with someone and regret it later due to having too much to drink on YOUR accord, then I don't think there should be any legal repercussions from that (and should certainly not be related to rape, by any means). We're all aware of what can happen if you have too much alcohol and we should all be aware of the consequences it can bring. If you can't control yourself, have a sober friend lookout for you. However, slipping a little something into someone's drink is wrong. No way around that.

I think there's a grey area concerning alcohol and "taking advantage" of someone who's had a lot to drink. However, I believe it's pretty black and white to everyone that slipping a drug into a drink, or something else to that extent, is bad.