Seasons

I am sorry to everyonne, ,my keybboard is really jaacked up so bear with me.

The moment there is no consent, it is rape. Humans are more than the sum of our cerebral cortex vs the limbic system. A used car salesman may sell us a lemon, buyer beware, but he didn't steal our money. A cad that we succumb to, may be a lying jerk, but he is not a rapist. It's a case of buyer beware. That's why granny had all the old advice about not going to a man's apartment and getting drunk, about getting to know someone etc. It may have been old fashioned but it kept you safe.

Bev:

Be sure to sit down before reading further.

I think I agree with with just about everything you say!

(Does this have to do with with that powder you sprinkled on my tofu?)

I never meant that someone with diminished capacity isn't raped! They are not consenting. You have to be mentally capable of consent even to enter a contract. Age, mental abilities and sobriety would all effect the ability to consent.

So: Someone under the influence of X has diminished capacity. In what does this consist? Presumably in the failure of the critical ability, the ability to restrain one's desires on the basis of ethical or prudential considerations.

But I'm still not sure what to do about lesser doses of X. Let's say that 1 milliliter is the smallest dose at which it is absolutely inevitable that the sexual attraction will win out over all inhibiting considerations. So suppose the perpetrator P wears .99 milliliters, and let us assume that the strength of desire goes down continuously and gradually with the strength of the dose. The victim V will feel a terribly strong desire to have sex with P, but will be able, by a huge effort of will, to overcome this desire. Does this mean that V now has free will, undiminished capacity, and that therefore P is not taking advantage of V in any way?

It reminds me of a passage in the "Saint Louis Blues":

Saint Louis woman, with her diamond rings
Leads that man around, by her apron strings.
If it wasn't for powder, and for store-bought hair,
That man of mine, he wouldn't've gone nowhere, nowhere.

Human "will" can always overcome the "desire". There is no pheromone or make up that can "make" someone do any thing.

Well, there may never be anything like X, but it's an interesting thought experiment.

Actually, what about chloroform? It makes you feel sleepy, and no matter how much will power you exert, if you get enough chloroform, you will go to sleep. No free will there!

We do recognize a difference between great and little temptations, and we admire people who overcome great temptations more. Is a person who succumbs to a great temptation less immoral than someone who succumbs to a lesser one?

And why couldn't *anyone* use the diminished capacity excuse? "Look, I knew that it was wrong, and I struggled with the temptation, but I gave in anyway, which shows that I didn't have the strength of will to resist."

Prob, sorry I mis-read you.

Irina, I don't think you can make a bright line rule for capacity. Certainly there is a point where reasonable people can agree someone lacks capacity, and for gray areas you need to look at the person and circumstances on a case by case basis to say if a person had capacity at a given time. That's why we have witnesses, experts and evidence at trials. At the end of the day, there is the jury (or judge if it is a bench trial) sifting all the evidence in a given case to determine the truth. From an ethical standpoint I would say if there is any reason to doubt, wait for another night.

So it would take something more than mere failure to demonstrate diminished capacity.