Scott Bennett discussion thread

[Emily]

And this past page is why it was moved to the Sandbox.

'cause one person just goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.
in every thread.

nobody should be commenting anyway. none of our blankety-blank business.

not every thread.

[CenturyDeprived]

He's the one that took the action. Had she taken the action, she would be the perpetrator.
And your question about rape within marriage is, of course, off-topic and irrelevant.
Rather funny to continue a discussion and in the throes of that announce that you aren't continuing a discussion.

I have again and again said that I think there is absolutely no point to all of you arguing about this. I'm not trying to discuss this Emily, I'm saying why don't you all stop.

Your law says that when drunk you are not competent to make a decision.  That is essentially the case against him and why he was found guilty - because she was drunk.  I have heard that he was also drunk and yet he is deemed competent to reasonably assess her drunkenness and the situation and make an appropriate decision.  (That sounds like double standards to me and I dislike that.) The rest of the information is biased and unclear so you cannot tell if this was a case of a man forcing himself on a woman, a man seducing a vulnerable woman or of 2 consensual adults in a drunken sex act.  None of my business whatever it was - the court decided, there will or won't be an appeal or a re-trial and it will run on and on as will this thread probably - but without me.  I'm sure that you'll all carry on dissecting it and going over the juicy details for a long time yet.  Whatever happened it was a bad, sorry business.  Scott was obviously morally wrong and stupid.  The woman was stupidly irresponsible of her own safety and they and Scott's wife all got hurt.

Once again, in the process of discussing it, you're telling other people to stop, and saying you're not discussing it.
You seem to be having trouble with the idea that he was the one that acted. He is responsible not to impose on someone else as she is also responsible not to impose on someone else. If I leave my keys in my car and someone steals it, the law won't hold me liable for the theft, even though I may have been foolish to leave the keys in it. Rape is the only crime where people repeatedly say that the perp should let off easy because the victim was foolish. If I walk down a crime-ridden street alone at night and get attacked, I'll have to live with the consequences of my stupid choice, but no one will say, "well, you can't blame the attacker, can you? She was there and she should have known better." They will perhaps have less pity for me, but they won't think my stupidity is an excuse for the attacker.
It's not a double standard. It's applying the law as it's always applied for other crimes. The one who took the action is guilty. Not the one who stupidly made herself vulnerable to the action.
I'd kind of thought that, as a society, educated people had moved beyond mitigating the guilt of rape because of the foolishness or flirtatiousness of the victim, but I guess not.
Incidentally, Mr. Bennett didn't even put forth in his statement that she verbally consented. You seem content to read things that aren't there in that direction.
I'm really astounded people are pretzeling so much to say a convicted rapist, caught on tape, shouldn't be considered a rapist. It's bewildering. Do you usually consider a convicted felon, caught on tape, innocent until they confess? Because maybe there's something you don't know?As I said at the beginning of the thread when people were questioning Brian Wilson continuing to work with him after the arrest, I believe it would have been wrong, legally and morally, to terminate him for an accusation. But now it's a conviction. The police arrested him; the DA thought the evidence was enough to go with the case; the jury thought there was enough to convict, and it sounds to me like they were right.
 
In any case, for all of you who find it mind boggling and offensive that you shouldn't perform sex acts on the body of someone you just met who's passing out drunk, even if you don't get why some people may think that's wrong, it is, in many states and countries, illegal. You might not get why people don't think you should do that, but if you do do it, you may find yourself in Mr. Bennett's shoes.
Sorry if it's going to be a crimp in your weekend activities.

I'm going to make this really simple for you to understand.  

The law found him guilty because she wasn't competent to make a decision.  

She could have been ripping his shirt off yelling 'f*** me'  and he still would still have been guilty.  

You're exactly right. Ironically, that's what I've been trying to explain to you. I'm glad we agree.

I'm truthfully quite ignorant of the law, and trying to understand the intricacies of how that could legally play out. Just a hypothetical scenario, mind you, as we know absolutely none of the intricate facts beyond the article. Hypothetically speaking, if she actually requested a sex act be performed on her and he obliged, he'd be guilty of rape because she was too drunk to be of sound mind when she made the request? I'm trying to understand if, hypothetically, she was also ripping his clothes off and if she was possibly touching his own privates (him being severely drunk too, but apparently less so than her - to what precise degree is unknown absent him being tested for drunkenness at the time... and thus the video - which surely must appear very incriminating - being the sole determining factor), would a person in her shoes not potentially be guilty of some kind of assault against a drunk person herself? Or is the idea that this entire scenario is negated because she is *more* drunk than he is, relatively speaking, and that means that any reciprocated touching that she might have done to him is of no legal consequence?

[KDS]

He's the one that took the action. Had she taken the action, she would be the perpetrator.
And your question about rape within marriage is, of course, off-topic and irrelevant.
Rather funny to continue a discussion and in the throes of that announce that you aren't continuing a discussion.

I have again and again said that I think there is absolutely no point to all of you arguing about this. I'm not trying to discuss this Emily, I'm saying why don't you all stop.

Your law says that when drunk you are not competent to make a decision.  That is essentially the case against him and why he was found guilty - because she was drunk.  I have heard that he was also drunk and yet he is deemed competent to reasonably assess her drunkenness and the situation and make an appropriate decision.  (That sounds like double standards to me and I dislike that.) The rest of the information is biased and unclear so you cannot tell if this was a case of a man forcing himself on a woman, a man seducing a vulnerable woman or of 2 consensual adults in a drunken sex act.  None of my business whatever it was - the court decided, there will or won't be an appeal or a re-trial and it will run on and on as will this thread probably - but without me.  I'm sure that you'll all carry on dissecting it and going over the juicy details for a long time yet.  Whatever happened it was a bad, sorry business.  Scott was obviously morally wrong and stupid.  The woman was stupidly irresponsible of her own safety and they and Scott's wife all got hurt.

Once again, in the process of discussing it, you're telling other people to stop, and saying you're not discussing it.
You seem to be having trouble with the idea that he was the one that acted. He is responsible not to impose on someone else as she is also responsible not to impose on someone else. If I leave my keys in my car and someone steals it, the law won't hold me liable for the theft, even though I may have been foolish to leave the keys in it. Rape is the only crime where people repeatedly say that the perp should let off easy because the victim was foolish. If I walk down a crime-ridden street alone at night and get attacked, I'll have to live with the consequences of my stupid choice, but no one will say, "well, you can't blame the attacker, can you? She was there and she should have known better." They will perhaps have less pity for me, but they won't think my stupidity is an excuse for the attacker.
It's not a double standard. It's applying the law as it's always applied for other crimes. The one who took the action is guilty. Not the one who stupidly made herself vulnerable to the action.
I'd kind of thought that, as a society, educated people had moved beyond mitigating the guilt of rape because of the foolishness or flirtatiousness of the victim, but I guess not.
Incidentally, Mr. Bennett didn't even put forth in his statement that she verbally consented. You seem content to read things that aren't there in that direction.
I'm really astounded people are pretzeling so much to say a convicted rapist, caught on tape, shouldn't be considered a rapist. It's bewildering. Do you usually consider a convicted felon, caught on tape, innocent until they confess? Because maybe there's something you don't know?As I said at the beginning of the thread when people were questioning Brian Wilson continuing to work with him after the arrest, I believe it would have been wrong, legally and morally, to terminate him for an accusation. But now it's a conviction. The police arrested him; the DA thought the evidence was enough to go with the case; the jury thought there was enough to convict, and it sounds to me like they were right.
 
In any case, for all of you who find it mind boggling and offensive that you shouldn't perform sex acts on the body of someone you just met who's passing out drunk, even if you don't get why some people may think that's wrong, it is, in many states and countries, illegal. You might not get why people don't think you should do that, but if you do do it, you may find yourself in Mr. Bennett's shoes.
Sorry if it's going to be a crimp in your weekend activities.

I'm going to make this really simple for you to understand.  

The law found him guilty because she wasn't competent to make a decision.  

She could have been ripping his shirt off yelling 'f*** me'  and he still would still have been guilty.  

You're exactly right. Ironically, that's what I've been trying to explain to you. I'm glad we agree.

I'm truthfully quite ignorant of the law, and trying to understand the intricacies of how that could legally play out. Just a hypothetical scenario, mind you, as we know absolutely none of the intricate facts beyond the article. Hypothetically speaking, if she actually requested a sex act be performed on her and he obliged, he'd be guilty of rape because she was too drunk to be of sound mind when she made the request? I'm trying to understand if, hypothetically, she was also ripping his clothes off and if she was possibly touching his own privates (him being severely drunk too, but apparently less so than her - to what precise degree is unknown absent him being tested for drunkenness at the time, the video - which surely must appear very incriminating - being the sole determining factor), would a person in her shoes not potentially be guilty of some kind of assault against a drunk person herself? Or is the idea that this entire scenario is negated because she is *more* drunk than he is, relatively speaking, and that means that any reciprocated touching that she might have done to him is of no legal consequence?  

It's all a very gray area. 

One strong lesson though - drink at home or in the hotel.  If you're going to go out and drink, keep yourself in check.  Know your limits. 

[CenturyDeprived]

He's the one that took the action. Had she taken the action, she would be the perpetrator.
And your question about rape within marriage is, of course, off-topic and irrelevant.
Rather funny to continue a discussion and in the throes of that announce that you aren't continuing a discussion.

I have again and again said that I think there is absolutely no point to all of you arguing about this. I'm not trying to discuss this Emily, I'm saying why don't you all stop.

Your law says that when drunk you are not competent to make a decision.  That is essentially the case against him and why he was found guilty - because she was drunk.  I have heard that he was also drunk and yet he is deemed competent to reasonably assess her drunkenness and the situation and make an appropriate decision.  (That sounds like double standards to me and I dislike that.) The rest of the information is biased and unclear so you cannot tell if this was a case of a man forcing himself on a woman, a man seducing a vulnerable woman or of 2 consensual adults in a drunken sex act.  None of my business whatever it was - the court decided, there will or won't be an appeal or a re-trial and it will run on and on as will this thread probably - but without me.  I'm sure that you'll all carry on dissecting it and going over the juicy details for a long time yet.  Whatever happened it was a bad, sorry business.  Scott was obviously morally wrong and stupid.  The woman was stupidly irresponsible of her own safety and they and Scott's wife all got hurt.

Once again, in the process of discussing it, you're telling other people to stop, and saying you're not discussing it.
You seem to be having trouble with the idea that he was the one that acted. He is responsible not to impose on someone else as she is also responsible not to impose on someone else. If I leave my keys in my car and someone steals it, the law won't hold me liable for the theft, even though I may have been foolish to leave the keys in it. Rape is the only crime where people repeatedly say that the perp should let off easy because the victim was foolish. If I walk down a crime-ridden street alone at night and get attacked, I'll have to live with the consequences of my stupid choice, but no one will say, "well, you can't blame the attacker, can you? She was there and she should have known better." They will perhaps have less pity for me, but they won't think my stupidity is an excuse for the attacker.
It's not a double standard. It's applying the law as it's always applied for other crimes. The one who took the action is guilty. Not the one who stupidly made herself vulnerable to the action.
I'd kind of thought that, as a society, educated people had moved beyond mitigating the guilt of rape because of the foolishness or flirtatiousness of the victim, but I guess not.
Incidentally, Mr. Bennett didn't even put forth in his statement that she verbally consented. You seem content to read things that aren't there in that direction.
I'm really astounded people are pretzeling so much to say a convicted rapist, caught on tape, shouldn't be considered a rapist. It's bewildering. Do you usually consider a convicted felon, caught on tape, innocent until they confess? Because maybe there's something you don't know?As I said at the beginning of the thread when people were questioning Brian Wilson continuing to work with him after the arrest, I believe it would have been wrong, legally and morally, to terminate him for an accusation. But now it's a conviction. The police arrested him; the DA thought the evidence was enough to go with the case; the jury thought there was enough to convict, and it sounds to me like they were right.
 
In any case, for all of you who find it mind boggling and offensive that you shouldn't perform sex acts on the body of someone you just met who's passing out drunk, even if you don't get why some people may think that's wrong, it is, in many states and countries, illegal. You might not get why people don't think you should do that, but if you do do it, you may find yourself in Mr. Bennett's shoes.
Sorry if it's going to be a crimp in your weekend activities.

I'm going to make this really simple for you to understand.  

The law found him guilty because she wasn't competent to make a decision.  

She could have been ripping his shirt off yelling 'f*** me'  and he still would still have been guilty.  

You're exactly right. Ironically, that's what I've been trying to explain to you. I'm glad we agree.

I'm truthfully quite ignorant of the law, and trying to understand the intricacies of how that could legally play out. Just a hypothetical scenario, mind you, as we know absolutely none of the intricate facts beyond the article. Hypothetically speaking, if she actually requested a sex act be performed on her and he obliged, he'd be guilty of rape because she was too drunk to be of sound mind when she made the request? I'm trying to understand if, hypothetically, she was also ripping his clothes off and if she was possibly touching his own privates (him being severely drunk too, but apparently less so than her - to what precise degree is unknown absent him being tested for drunkenness at the time, the video - which surely must appear very incriminating - being the sole determining factor), would a person in her shoes not potentially be guilty of some kind of assault against a drunk person herself? Or is the idea that this entire scenario is negated because she is *more* drunk than he is, relatively speaking, and that means that any reciprocated touching that she might have done to him is of no legal consequence?  

It's all a very gray area. 

One strong lesson though - drink at home or in the hotel.  If you're going to go out and drink, keep yourself in check.  Know your limits. 

That much is absolutely certain. So tragic that incredibly poor decisions made under the influence of alcohol have so detrimentally affected members of this group.

[joe_blow]

I'm so amazed that people know what happened so clearly by an article slanted by the prosecutor. If Bennett's appeal fails...?

[KDS]

One strong lesson though - drink at home or in the hotel.  If you're going to go out and drink, keep yourself in check.  Know your limits. 

That much is absolutely certain. So tragic that incredibly poor decisions made under the influence of alcohol have so detrimentally affected members of this group.

I love to unwind with a drink.  But, I've also made some mistakes, namely gotten  behind the wheel of a car once too often when I shouldn't have.  Luckily, I did no harm to anyone else or myself.  

As years went by, I learned my limits with alcohol.  On the rare occasion I go to a bar, I have a ride, I use a cab/Uber, or I walk.  Most of my drinking is done at home these days.  I'm in my mid 30s and married, so I prefer to spend a fraction of the cost on drinks and not have to scream over the (usually) awful music that's played on the jukebox these days.  

I've seen alcohol destroy lives.  It's really all about knowing your limits, so you don't get drunk enough to make such terrible decisions.  

[bachelorofbullets]

Two Three rules to live by.

1.  Don't drink so much so fast that you have a black out.  This is bad.
2.  Don't try to have sex in a public hallway.  This is dumb.
3.  Don't try to have sex with someone 30 years your junior.  Fun, but also dumb.

[Emily]

I'm truthfully quite ignorant of the law, and trying to understand the intricacies of how that could legally play out. Just a hypothetical scenario, mind you, as we know absolutely none of the intricate facts beyond the article. Hypothetically speaking, if she actually requested a sex act be performed on her and he obliged, he'd be guilty of rape because she was too drunk to be of sound mind when she made the request? I'm trying to understand if, hypothetically, she was also ripping his clothes off and if she was possibly touching his own privates (him being severely drunk too, but apparently less so than her - to what precise degree is unknown absent him being tested for drunkenness at the time... and thus the video - which surely must appear very incriminating - being the sole determining factor), would a person in her shoes not potentially be guilty of some kind of assault against a drunk person herself? Or is the idea that this entire scenario is negated because she is *more* drunk than he is, relatively speaking, and that means that any reciprocated touching that she might have done to him is of no legal consequence?

Despite the fact that I'm posting too much, I'm happy to answer regarding the law. Yes, in your first hypothetical, by law, that would be sexual assault. In your second, yes, by law, that would too too would be sexual assault. The actual charges would vary depending on the specific actions.
Keep in mind, in most cases the victim needs to press charges for anything legal to proceed. So if the person you're with is fine with it, no harm, no foul.
"More" drunk is not really relevant (yet). I don't know of any cases in which both parties pressed sexual assault charges against each other, but theoretically it could happen. I don't know of any bodies who have formally laid out processes for how the law would address such an instance.
So, basically, if the person you are with is not very well known to you and you don't know for certain their wants, or you don't trust them, remember that if she or he is plastered, no matter what they say, stop.

* edited for a palinism.

[KDS]

Two Three rules to live by.

1.  Don't drink so much so fast that you have a black out.  This is bad.
2.  Don't try to have sex in a public hallway.  This is dumb.
3.  Don't try to have sex with someone 30 years your junior.  Fun, but also dumb.

Just so we're all sure, you say that having sex with someone 30 years your junior is "fun, but also dumb."  That means you're at least 48, right? 

[Angua]

He's the one that took the action. Had she taken the action, she would be the perpetrator.
And your question about rape within marriage is, of course, off-topic and irrelevant.
Rather funny to continue a discussion and in the throes of that announce that you aren't continuing a discussion.

I have again and again said that I think there is absolutely no point to all of you arguing about this. I'm not trying to discuss this Emily, I'm saying why don't you all stop.

Your law says that when drunk you are not competent to make a decision.  That is essentially the case against him and why he was found guilty - because she was drunk.  I have heard that he was also drunk and yet he is deemed competent to reasonably assess her drunkenness and the situation and make an appropriate decision.  (That sounds like double standards to me and I dislike that.) The rest of the information is biased and unclear so you cannot tell if this was a case of a man forcing himself on a woman, a man seducing a vulnerable woman or of 2 consensual adults in a drunken sex act.  None of my business whatever it was - the court decided, there will or won't be an appeal or a re-trial and it will run on and on as will this thread probably - but without me.  I'm sure that you'll all carry on dissecting it and going over the juicy details for a long time yet.  Whatever happened it was a bad, sorry business.  Scott was obviously morally wrong and stupid.  The woman was stupidly irresponsible of her own safety and they and Scott's wife all got hurt.

Once again, in the process of discussing it, you're telling other people to stop, and saying you're not discussing it.
You seem to be having trouble with the idea that he was the one that acted. He is responsible not to impose on someone else as she is also responsible not to impose on someone else. If I leave my keys in my car and someone steals it, the law won't hold me liable for the theft, even though I may have been foolish to leave the keys in it. Rape is the only crime where people repeatedly say that the perp should let off easy because the victim was foolish. If I walk down a crime-ridden street alone at night and get attacked, I'll have to live with the consequences of my stupid choice, but no one will say, "well, you can't blame the attacker, can you? She was there and she should have known better." They will perhaps have less pity for me, but they won't think my stupidity is an excuse for the attacker.
It's not a double standard. It's applying the law as it's always applied for other crimes. The one who took the action is guilty. Not the one who stupidly made herself vulnerable to the action.
I'd kind of thought that, as a society, educated people had moved beyond mitigating the guilt of rape because of the foolishness or flirtatiousness of the victim, but I guess not.
Incidentally, Mr. Bennett didn't even put forth in his statement that she verbally consented. You seem content to read things that aren't there in that direction.
I'm really astounded people are pretzeling so much to say a convicted rapist, caught on tape, shouldn't be considered a rapist. It's bewildering. Do you usually consider a convicted felon, caught on tape, innocent until they confess? Because maybe there's something you don't know?As I said at the beginning of the thread when people were questioning Brian Wilson continuing to work with him after the arrest, I believe it would have been wrong, legally and morally, to terminate him for an accusation. But now it's a conviction. The police arrested him; the DA thought the evidence was enough to go with the case; the jury thought there was enough to convict, and it sounds to me like they were right.
 
In any case, for all of you who find it mind boggling and offensive that you shouldn't perform sex acts on the body of someone you just met who's passing out drunk, even if you don't get why some people may think that's wrong, it is, in many states and countries, illegal. You might not get why people don't think you should do that, but if you do do it, you may find yourself in Mr. Bennett's shoes.
Sorry if it's going to be a crimp in your weekend activities.

I'm going to make this really simple for you to understand.  

The law found him guilty because she wasn't competent to make a decision.  

She could have been ripping his shirt off yelling 'f*** me'  and he still would still have been guilty.  

You're exactly right. Ironically, that's what I've been trying to explain to you. I'm glad we agree.

I'm truthfully quite ignorant of the law, and trying to understand the intricacies of how that could legally play out. Just a hypothetical scenario, mind you, as we know absolutely none of the intricate facts beyond the article. Hypothetically speaking, if she actually requested a sex act be performed on her and he obliged, he'd be guilty of rape because she was too drunk to be of sound mind when she made the request? I'm trying to understand if, hypothetically, she was also ripping his clothes off and if she was possibly touching his own privates (him being severely drunk too, but apparently less so than her - to what precise degree is unknown absent him being tested for drunkenness at the time... and thus the video - which surely must appear very incriminating - being the sole determining factor), would a person in her shoes not potentially be guilty of some kind of assault against a drunk person herself? Or is the idea that this entire scenario is negated because she is *more* drunk than he is, relatively speaking, and that means that any reciprocated touching that she might have done to him is of no legal consequence?  

I don't know the answer to that for sure but I think that you are right and it makes no sense to me which is what I've been trying to get across but you have expressed it more clearly and succinctly than me.  But also, you either are or are not in sound mind - or is there some sliding scale I don't know about :-)?  As a woman I resent the idea that a man can be of sound mind when drunk and a woman can't.  Also, I think it it very important for everyone to take responsibility for their own personal safety - after all prevention is better than the cure and would have save a whole lot of upset.

I'd be interested to know if, hypothetically, a drunken woman had fondled a man and he had not reciprocated or taken it further, if he would have been able to pursue a claim of sexual assault or would she deemed to be not of sound mind?  If a woman had been fondled by a drunken man would the same be true? Seems like a whole lot of double standards going on here and just because they are in favour of females doesn't make it right.  Positive discrimination is still discrimination. A woman ought to be able to go out without getting raped and a man ought to be able to go out without getting assaulted.

Finally, I shan't be going out on a Viking raid this weekend whatever Emily suggests.  

[Emily]

I don't know the answer to that for sure but I think that you are right and it makes no sense to me which is what I've been trying to get across but you have expressed it more clearly and succinctly than me.  But also, you either are or are not in sound mind - or is there some sliding scale I don't know about :-)?  As a woman I resent the idea that a man can be of sound mind when drunk and a woman can't.  Also, I think it it very important for everyone to take responsibility for their own personal safety - after all prevention is better than the cure and would have save a whole lot of upset.

I'd be interested to know if, hypothetically, a drunken woman had fondled a man and he had not reciprocated or taken it further, if he would have been able to pursue a claim of sexual assault or would she deemed to be not of sound mind?  If a woman had been fondled by a drunken man would the same be true? Seems like a whole lot of double standards going on here and just because they are in favour of females doesn't make it right.  Positive discrimination is still discrimination. A woman ought to be able to go out without getting raped and a man ought to be able to go out without getting assaulted.

Finally, I shan't be going out on a Viking raid this weekend whatever Emily suggests.  

The law is the same without regard to the sex of the perpetrator or victim. Of course men get raped and the law is meant to be applied equally.

[bachelorofbullets]

Two Three rules to live by.

1.  Don't drink so much so fast that you have a black out.  This is bad.
2.  Don't try to have sex in a public hallway.  This is dumb.
3.  Don't try to have sex with someone 30 years your junior.  Fun, but also dumb.

Just so we're all sure, you say that having sex with someone 30 years your junior is "fun, but also dumb."  That means you're at least 48, right? 

Rather then answer your question directly, lets just say I don't believe it's socially (and possibly morally) acceptable for a 50 year old man to pursue a 20 year old girl for sex.

[CenturyDeprived]

I'm truthfully quite ignorant of the law, and trying to understand the intricacies of how that could legally play out. Just a hypothetical scenario, mind you, as we know absolutely none of the intricate facts beyond the article. Hypothetically speaking, if she actually requested a sex act be performed on her and he obliged, he'd be guilty of rape because she was too drunk to be of sound mind when she made the request? I'm trying to understand if, hypothetically, she was also ripping his clothes off and if she was possibly touching his own privates (him being severely drunk too, but apparently less so than her - to what precise degree is unknown absent him being tested for drunkenness at the time... and thus the video - which surely must appear very incriminating - being the sole determining factor), would a person in her shoes not potentially be guilty of some kind of assault against a drunk person herself? Or is the idea that this entire scenario is negated because she is *more* drunk than he is, relatively speaking, and that means that any reciprocated touching that she might have done to him is of no legal consequence?

Despite the fact that I'm posting too much, I'm happy to answer regarding the law. Yes, in your first hypothetical, by law, that would be sexual assault. In your second, yes, by law, that would too too would be sexual assault. The actual charges would vary depending on the specific actions.
Keep in mind, in most cases the victim needs to press charges for anything legal to proceed. So if the person you're with is fine with it, no harm, no foul.
"More" drunk is not really relevant (yet). I don't know of any cases in which both parties pressed sexual assault charges against each other, but theoretically it could happen. I don't know of any bodies who have formally laid out processes for how the law would address such an instance.
So, basically, if the person you are with is not very well known to you and you don't know for certain their wants, or you don't trust them, remember that if she or he is plastered, no matter what they say, stop.

* edited for a palinism.

I recall reading that apps have apparently been created (especially for college students to use) where one person has to consent to having sex with another person, and agree that it's something they've consented to in what amounts to a legal record of this agreement. If the person is plastered and still goes the additional step of consenting via this method (which itself was surely invented to prevent anybody from backing away from their decision after the fact, and to cut down on the unfortunately very common issue of this happening among college kids)... is the consent still negated if that person is drunk, even if it's basically on a legal form? I just don't have any idea of how the grey area of drunkenness is calculated, and I'm also very ignorant of how any grey area of how drunk one person is vs. how drunk the other drunk person factors in... and how this all can be fairly measured by a court after the fact, absent one person having a memory of the event. Basically, can two drunk people ever do it without fear that an accusation against either of them could happen later? Obviously a video is going to help people draw a conclusion in this case. I'm guessing that a conviction would be a lot harder in this case absent video footage.

It's ironic, because the weekend that the news broke, I happened to watch two films on Netflix: The Money Pit (w/Tom Hanks and Shelley Long), and Sixteen Candles. In both of those films, there are characters who get drunk, have sex, and don't remember what happened the night before. Of course in both cases, the scenes are played for laughs (one film has with a woman, Shelley Long, with no memory... the other film has a guy, Anthony Michael Hall, with no memory), and the scenes have absolutely no commentary about anything being construed as assault. It's amazing how pervasive that line of thinking was back in media from the '80s.

[Emily]

I'm truthfully quite ignorant of the law, and trying to understand the intricacies of how that could legally play out. Just a hypothetical scenario, mind you, as we know absolutely none of the intricate facts beyond the article. Hypothetically speaking, if she actually requested a sex act be performed on her and he obliged, he'd be guilty of rape because she was too drunk to be of sound mind when she made the request? I'm trying to understand if, hypothetically, she was also ripping his clothes off and if she was possibly touching his own privates (him being severely drunk too, but apparently less so than her - to what precise degree is unknown absent him being tested for drunkenness at the time... and thus the video - which surely must appear very incriminating - being the sole determining factor), would a person in her shoes not potentially be guilty of some kind of assault against a drunk person herself? Or is the idea that this entire scenario is negated because she is *more* drunk than he is, relatively speaking, and that means that any reciprocated touching that she might have done to him is of no legal consequence?

Despite the fact that I'm posting too much, I'm happy to answer regarding the law. Yes, in your first hypothetical, by law, that would be sexual assault. In your second, yes, by law, that would too too would be sexual assault. The actual charges would vary depending on the specific actions.
Keep in mind, in most cases the victim needs to press charges for anything legal to proceed. So if the person you're with is fine with it, no harm, no foul.
"More" drunk is not really relevant (yet). I don't know of any cases in which both parties pressed sexual assault charges against each other, but theoretically it could happen. I don't know of any bodies who have formally laid out processes for how the law would address such an instance.
So, basically, if the person you are with is not very well known to you and you don't know for certain their wants, or you don't trust them, remember that if she or he is plastered, no matter what they say, stop.

* edited for a palinism.

I recall reading that apps have apparently been created (especially for college students to use) where one person has to consent to having sex with another person, and agree that it's something they've consented to in what amounts to a legal record of this agreement. If the person is plastered and still goes the additional step of consenting via this method (which itself was surely invented to prevent anybody from backing away from their decision after the fact, and to cut down on the unfortunately very common issue of this happening among college kids)... is the consent still negated if that person is drunk, even if it's basically on a legal form? I just don't have any idea of how the grey area of drunkenness is calculated, and I'm also very ignorant of how any grey area of how drunk one person is vs. how drunk the other drunk person factors in... and how this all can be fairly measured by a court after the fact, absent one person having a memory of the event. Basically, can two drunk people ever do it without fear that an accusation against either of them could happen later? Obviously a video is going to help people draw a conclusion in this case. I'm guessing that a conviction would be a lot harder in this case absent video footage.

It's ironic, because the weekend that the news broke, I happened to watch two films on Netflix: The Money Pit (w/Tom Hanks and Shelley Long), and Sixteen Candles. In both of those films, there are characters who get drunk, have sex, and don't remember what happened the night before. Of course in both cases, the scenes are played for laughs (one film has with a woman, Shelley Long, with no memory... the other film has a guy, Anthony Michael Hall, with no memory), and the scenes have absolutely no commentary about anything being construed as assault. It's amazing how pervasive that line of thinking was back in media from the '80s.

Drunken sex was the thing in the '80s for sure! And there's nothing wrong with drunken sex.  
Umm, Good2Go, the app. It's problematic because, of course, if you click yes, are you contractually obliged, even if for whatever reason you change your mind? That's a little off. The app, after you click 'yes' asks you if you're drunk and if you say you are, it will nullify the 'yes'. But it's relying solely on your word, and lots of drunk people don't know they're drunk.
But, most jurisdictions will nullify any contract if you can prove you signed while drunk, including a Good2Go contract. The 'sound mind' standard doesn't only apply to sex. It's long-standing contract law that's only recently been applied to sex.
Regarding how to measure drunkenness, it's the same as in any area where drunkenness is a factor - witnesses, a breathalyzer... And the difficulty of measurement and evidence is one of the reasons, along with the fact that usually there are no witnesses other than the two involved, that rape cases rarely get convictions, or even go to trial in the first place. Which is rightly so - no proof, no case.

>>Basically, can two drunk people ever do it without fear that an accusation against either of them could happen later?<< Sure. Someone upthread mentioned that one's wife could falsely accuse them of rape. She can anyway. She doesn't need to be drunk or for you to be drunk for her to make a false accusation. Assuming you live together, she could also pretty easily kill you and make it look like an accident, or set you up so it looks like you were trying to kill her. If you handle your finances like most marrieds, she can steal everything you have really easily, and legally, so I guess it's not 'stealing'. If you have kids and she turns out to be satan, well, hopefully your kids are the most precious things to you and you've trusted her with them. So, yeah, we make ourselves vulnerable to people we love and trust. But hopefully they've given us good reason to do so and we will be rewarded by having a sound, loving relationship.

[KDS]

And in case you thought being a little drunk and quickly fumbling for a condom was difficult, now there's a Good2Go app to get your partner for the evening to sign. 

What if you do the deed, then you and your partner lie in the afterglow and have another cocktail or two.  If you get back in the mood, do you have to bring the app up again? 

Life sure is funny in this 2016.  Thank goodness I'm married. 

[Michael Edward Osbourne]

I met Scott in Woonsocket Rhode Island during a Dean Torrence concert at the city's annual Autumnfest. He seemed like a real nice guy. Damn. Goes to show how wrong a person can be....

[HeyJude]

Yes, the discussion eventually did fall off the rails into "Sandbox" territory, but I'd like to point out to those who felt there was no value in leaving this in the main discussion forum that it only took a few days for someone to stumble into the 2016 tour thread asking why Scott Bennett was missing some gigs, apparently completely unfamiliar with what has occured. In other words, a ton of regulars on this board probably never venture into the "Sandbox" section. Granted, they were quickly steered here. Just something to keep in mind in the future when something happens that is, at least as its core, a real Brian/BB-related story.

[37!ws]

Look, here's how I see it. We have possible scenarios:

- He may have made an unwanted advance. If the article is true about the video footage and he was indeed forcing himself on her, it's rape. Period. That would make him a douche.

- She was about eighty-five sheets to the wind. She may or may not have been the one who did the kissing and fondling. And as a previous poster said, in a theoretical situation, she could have stripped down in front of him and said "DO ME!" As said earlier, in many locales this is still considered rape because the person who was on the receiving end was in no condition to make a rational decision. (Can't say I disagree with that logic.) But regardless of the locale, Scott is still a douche because it's just plain wrong to take advantage, consent or no consent, of a person when said person isn't thinking clearly.

- Yes, being under the influence of alcohol or any other drug can certainly ***explain*** why somebody did something wrong and possibly something that person would never have dreamed of doing under a clear head (but from what I'm hearing from a *lot* of people who know more than I know, sadly this isn't the case), it's certainly no excuse. You still need to be responsible for your actions and know your limits. That said, whether Scott was under the influence or not, if it's true that he told investigators/police what the article said he told, then he knew exactly what he was doing. He was clear-headed enough to want to feel up [victim], he was clear-headed enough to take [victim] to the place to feel her up, and he was clear-headed enough to feel her up. He knew what he was doing, and...that makes him a douche.

- And lest we forget...he's married and yet still something happened with the woman. Why? Does Scott have an open marriage and therefore he and Mrs. Bennett are cool with each other fooling around?? Were they about to get divorced anyway??? Judging from his Facebook posts, I'm ruling out the possibility that they were about to get divorced. So unless it's the "open marriage" situation, Scott is a douche, Period. Cheating makes you a douche.

[CenturyDeprived]

Look, here's how I see it. We have possible scenarios:

- He may have made an unwanted advance. If the article is true about the video footage and he was indeed forcing himself on her, it's rape. Period. That would make him a douche.

- She was about eighty-five sheets to the wind. She may or may not have been the one who did the kissing and fondling. And as a previous poster said, in a theoretical situation, she could have stripped down in front of him and said "DO ME!" As said earlier, in many locales this is still considered rape because the person who was on the receiving end was in no condition to make a rational decision. (Can't say I disagree with that logic.) But regardless of the locale, Scott is still a douche because it's just plain wrong to take advantage, consent or no consent, of a person when said person isn't thinking clearly.

- Yes, being under the influence of alcohol or any other drug can certainly ***explain*** why somebody did something wrong and possibly something that person would never have dreamed of doing under a clear head (but from what I'm hearing from a *lot* of people who know more than I know, sadly this isn't the case), it's certainly no excuse. You still need to be responsible for your actions and know your limits. That said, whether Scott was under the influence or not, if it's true that he told investigators/police what the article said he told, then he knew exactly what he was doing. He was clear-headed enough to want to feel up Ellen, he was clear-headed enough to take Ellen to the place to feel her up, he was clear-headed enough to take Ellen to the place to feel her up, and he was clear-headed enough to feel her up. He knew what he was doing, and...that makes him a douche.

- And lest we forget...he's married and yet still something happened with the woman. Why? Does Scott have an open marriage and therefore he and Mrs. Bennett are cool with each other fooling around?? Were they about to get divorced anyway??? Judging from his Facebook posts, I'm ruling out the possibility that they were about to get divorced. So unless it's the "open marriage" situation, Scott is a douche, Period. Cheating makes you a douche.

Regarding the last point - I'm not saying you are wrong... and I certainly don't in any way condone cheating, yet I certainly know nothing about their marriage, nor is it any of our business whatsoever... so I don't think it's right to get too presumptive about the intricacies regarding this subject by using derogatory names, because to be consistent, you'd have to lump in more than one band member from The BBs into this category of name calling, if one wants to be that judgmental about it without knowing details (that again, are none of our business). And I for one don't want to do that.

[HeyJude]

To get a bit back onto Brian's band, another extraneous problem these things create is a tense and accusatory atmosphere "on the road", which I hope Brian's band, friends and family, and crew are able to avoid.

Read Jeff Foskett's much-appreciated frank mid-late 90s interview about his 1990 exit from the touring BBs. He points out that when one person is having an affair or cheats out on the road, it (arguably justifiably) creates paranoia among other spouses/significant others in the big touring family.

Courtesy of the "Internet Wayback Machine":

http://web.archive.org/web/19990221115314/http://www.new-surf.com/interv.html

The pertinent part about leaving in 1990:

AMP: One last Beach Boys question…why did you leave in 1990?

FOSKETT: I was asked to leave by Michael and Carl. I know that during the past several months there has been some discussion over the internet on my departure, and I will set the record straight now. I was having an affair outside my marriage that was causing a great deal of turmoil in the closely-knit BB organization. All the wives traveled on the road at one time or another, and seeing me with someone other than my wife made them suspicious of their husbands. Not a good scene. My ego was way out of control. I think Michael thought that I was holding back money from the side gigs that he and I did with the Endless Summer Beach Band, and so he was unhappy about that, and Carl was unhappy with my ego and my affair. They did the right thing by letting me go; right for them and definitely right for me. I needed to straighten up and get back into "the real world." I did, and my wife and I will soon be celebrating our 11th anniversary.

AMP: Jeff, I appreciate your honesty…

FOSKETT: John, there have been so many contrived stories regarding me using Platinum American Express cards and other false statements that I am happy to tell the truth. There are so many "authorities" on the internet that really know absolutely nothing!

[The Shift]

Look, here's how I see it. We have possible scenarios:

- He may have made an unwanted advance. If the article is true about the video footage and he was indeed forcing himself on her, it's rape. Period. That would make him a douche.

- She was about eighty-five sheets to the wind. She may or may not have been the one who did the kissing and fondling. And as a previous poster said, in a theoretical situation, she could have stripped down in front of him and said "DO ME!" As said earlier, in many locales this is still considered rape because the person who was on the receiving end was in no condition to make a rational decision. (Can't say I disagree with that logic.) But regardless of the locale, Scott is still a douche because it's just plain wrong to take advantage, consent or no consent, of a person when said person isn't thinking clearly.

- Yes, being under the influence of alcohol or any other drug can certainly ***explain*** why somebody did something wrong and possibly something that person would never have dreamed of doing under a clear head (but from what I'm hearing from a *lot* of people who know more than I know, sadly this isn't the case), it's certainly no excuse. You still need to be responsible for your actions and know your limits. That said, whether Scott was under the influence or not, if it's true that he told investigators/police what the article said he told, then he knew exactly what he was doing. He was clear-headed enough to want to feel up Ellen, he was clear-headed enough to take Ellen to the place to feel her up, he was clear-headed enough to take Ellen to the place to feel her up, and he was clear-headed enough to feel her up. He knew what he was doing, and...that makes him a douche.

- And lest we forget...he's married and yet still something happened with the woman. Why? Does Scott have an open marriage and therefore he and Mrs. Bennett are cool with each other fooling around?? Were they about to get divorced anyway??? Judging from his Facebook posts, I'm ruling out the possibility that they were about to get divorced. So unless it's the "open marriage" situation, Scott is a douche, Period. Cheating makes you a douche.

"Victim"?

[37!ws]

Read Jeff Foskett's much-appreciated frank mid-late 90s interview about his 1990 exit from the touring BBs. He points out that when one person is having an affair or cheats out on the road, it (arguably justifiably) creates paranoia among other spouses/significant others in the big touring family.

FOSKETT: I was asked to leave by Michael and Carl. I know that during the past several months there has been some discussion over the internet on my departure, and I will set the record straight now. I was having an affair outside my marriage that was causing a great deal of turmoil in the closely-knit BB organization. All the wives traveled on the road at one time or another, and seeing me with someone other than my wife made them suspicious of their husbands. Not a good scene. My ego was way out of control. I think Michael thought that I was holding back money from the side gigs that he and I did with the Endless Summer Beach Band, and so he was unhappy about that, and Carl was unhappy with my ego and my affair. They did the right thing by letting me go; right for them and definitely right for me. I needed to straighten up and get back into "the real world." I did, and my wife and I will soon be celebrating our 11th anniversary.

Lotta good that did, huh? 

[that is...that marriage fell apart. Jeff got re-married in 2003.]

[37!ws]

...clear-headed enough to want to feel up Ellen, he was clear-headed enough to take Ellen to the place to feel her up, he was clear-headed enough to take Ellen to the place to feel her up, and he was clear-headed enough to feel her up. He knew what he was doing, and...that makes him a douche.

"Ellen"?

Ah. George Carlin reference. Not necessarily the victim's name; no idea what her name is. (Doubtful that a 22-year-old these days would be named Ellen anyway.) Anyway, edited my comment and replaced name with "[victim]" just to be safe.

[Susan]

... He was clear-headed enough to want to feel up [victim], he was clear-headed enough to take [victim] to the place to feel her up, and he was clear-headed enough to feel her up. He knew what he was doing, and...that makes him a douche.

Nice Carlin reference.

[Lonely Summer]

Two Three rules to live by.

1.  Don't drink so much so fast that you have a black out.  This is bad.
2.  Don't try to have sex in a public hallway.  This is dumb.
3.  Don't try to have sex with someone 30 years your junior.  Fun, but also dumb.

Just so we're all sure, you say that having sex with someone 30 years your junior is "fun, but also dumb."  That means you're at least 48, right? 

Rather then answer your question directly, lets just say I don't believe it's socially (and possibly morally) acceptable for a 50 year old man to pursue a 20 year old girl for sex.

Actually, it's in the Rock Star Etiquette book that if you are an aging rock star (particularly if you are an UGLY, aging rock star), you are supposed to date or marry someone young enough to be your daughter - preferably a supermodel.