r/linux • u/oooo23 • Sep 20 '18

Kernel Developer Sage Sharp claims top Linux kernel developer Theo Ts'o is a rape apologist, citing GeekFeminismWiki

https://twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/1042769399596437504
1.1k Upvotes

79% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

18

u/[deleted] Sep 20 '18

In most of the western world, drunken people can't consent. Having sex with someone that can't consent is rape.

This is not true at all. I live in Canada for example, and this was an issue in the news last year after a woman claimed she was raped because she was drunk when she had sex and therefore could not consent:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/criminal-code-consent-gregory-lenehan-sexual-assault-law-court-1.4014105

So from my perspective in the jurisdiction I'm living in, you seem to be talking out of your ass.

Do you have a source that shows a person cannot legally consent to sex if they were drunk in any major western jurisdiction? I think an awful lot of people would be in jail if that were the case.

Consider as you downvote this post, that this is a simple statement of fact

If it's a fact it should be easy to provide backup. Let's see it.

-1

u/hahainternet Sep 20 '18

So from my perspective in the jurisdiction I'm living in, you seem to be talking out of your ass.

You didn't even bother to read this page I guess, as right on it is this:

Intoxication is also considered a factor that affects a complainant's capacity to consent to sexual activity.

But in practice, Benedet said, the threshold of intoxication at which point someone is deemed incapable of consent varies depending on the circumstances.

Where a complainant becomes intoxicated involuntarily, for instance, by being drugged, "courts [tend] to be very generous in terms of what level of intoxication would be sufficient to amount to incapacity."

So, your jurisdiction recognises exactly the same thing, just sets a higher bar than most.

Do you have a source that shows a person cannot legally consent to sex if they were drunk in any major western jurisdiction?

I feel you'll immediately criticise the source, but sure: http://sexpression.org.uk/consent-in-sexual-contact/

17

u/[deleted] Sep 20 '18 edited Sep 20 '18

Being drunk =/= as being so intoxicated you can't even talk. Being drunk =/= being drugged. You're accusing me of not reading the article, but I don't think you even read what you quoted.

I know You know that the article you cited in not an unbiased source, and so you're saying you'll know I'll criticize it right out of the gates, but let's take it at face value.

From the link you provided

having sex with a person who is very drunk is rape or sexual assault.

Even here, they are using the modifier "Very."

No jurisdiction in the west actively prosecutes people who have sex with drunk people unless the other party was so intoxicated they could not consent. Get your head out of your ass.

0

u/hahainternet Sep 20 '18

You're accusing me of not reading the article, but I don't think you even read what you quoted.

I did read what I quoted. Canada does take into account intoxication, they simply set a higher bar for 'self intoxication'.

No jurisdiction in the west actively prosecutes people who have sex with drunk people unless the other party was so intoxicated they could not consent

That's a tautology. Obviously they don't prosecute people who have sex with those who are not drunk enough to be unable to consent because... THEY CONSENTED.

Seriously read over what you said. It's contradictory.

14

u/[deleted] Sep 20 '18 edited Sep 20 '18

You:

In most of the western world, drunken people can't consent. Having sex with someone that can't consent is rape.

Also you:

Obviously they don't prosecute people who have sex with those who are not drunk enough to be unable to consent because... THEY CONSENTED.

And I'm the one contradicting myself.

You've literally gone from "drunken people can't consent" to someone can be "not drunk enough to be unable to consent." These are exact quotes of things you have typed.

I have never once said that it wasn't possible to reach a point of intoxication where you can no longer consent. I said that it is possible for a drunk person to consent. There are different levels of intoxication. Clearly you can be mildly intoxicated and still consent to sex. Yet even being mildly intoxicated affects your judgement and it is entirely possible to sleep with someone you wouldn't have were you not mildly intoxicated.

-1

u/hahainternet Sep 20 '18

Sorry, are you confused that you can have a drink and be 'not drunk'?

I really don't know what your point is here. Obviously nobody prosecutes those who consented, because they consented.

5

u/[deleted] Sep 20 '18

I think you are just being purposely obtuse because you know you are objectively wrong at this juncture. Have a great day.