Poll: Is it rape if you have consensual sex with a willfully intoxicated person?
- Thread starter awesomeClaw
- Start date
Safaia said:
The thing you are not considering here is the fact that when this happens, it is often the female's idea. It was with me anyway. Also in my experience, some girls when they are drunk and even when they eventually sober up slander you for not doing it with them when they ask you too, and if they are drunk, go off in self esteem attention seeking rants. I think you're presuming that the male here is having sex to take advantage or that it is here, when in this day and age, that's not always the case. Also, many here are assuming that if a woman claims to be too drunk to remember, that it is the man taking advantage of her, implying that the woman is not in control at all and it is the man putting all the effort in and therefore he who is getting the pleasure. This is a myth. They know exactly what is going on. Drunk girls fuck back.
Also a point mentioned here is that it is never the girls fault or that she should never be blamed for it. If cases like the ones described in this topic happen, I think she is to an extent responsible for it and I believe that the punishment for a rapist in this case should be far less severe than the punishment for a man who assaulted a sober respectable woman fully knowing she doesn't want to have sex, or a rapist who used it as brutality.
As for female on male rapes or sexual assaults, I think most women don't understand that just because a man is showing the obvious physical signs of arousal, it doesn't mean they want to have sex. Being turned on and seriously wanting to fornicate with someone can be different things. The man could be in a relationship for example. If a man were to use the same excuse in defence of a rape accusation such as the ones mentioned here, it would harm his case majorly
That is fucked up, under that interpretation a drunk man who is seduced by a drunk woman is always committing a crime by having sex with her. That would mean that any husband would be committing rape if he had sex with his wife after they both drank champagne.pyrate said:
That cannot be the legal connotation here.
EDIT: It also means that if anybody who is drunk gets into an accident and is still conscience that person would not be able to give legal consent to a doctor to receive medical treatment, that doctor would have to call a legal representative of the drunk to perform anything that isn't triage.
I personally say no, it isn't rape. My main reasoning behind this is that it leaves far too large a grey area if it is considered so and many perfectly law abiding and definitely-not-rapist people get snagged in the net.
And to add to that, when both parties are consenting, regardless of alcohol consumption they have given their permission; your nose doesn't just light up when you get drunk so it's just fucking stupid to think your average person would be able to tell when the other party has gone beyond the point where they can't legitimately consent.
Moral of the story: Don't get pissed out of your brains, your judgment is impaired and it's everyone's fault when shit happens.
And to add to that, when both parties are consenting, regardless of alcohol consumption they have given their permission; your nose doesn't just light up when you get drunk so it's just fucking stupid to think your average person would be able to tell when the other party has gone beyond the point where they can't legitimately consent.
Moral of the story: Don't get pissed out of your brains, your judgment is impaired and it's everyone's fault when shit happens.
Yes, but where is the line, nobody is saying that if a woman blacks out or is unconscious it isn't rape, but where is the point at which a person cannot give consent? One drink? Two? Three? Is it based on body weight? At what point do you think you can't give consent, and at what point do other people think they can't give consent? It's not as easily resolved as it would seem. If you were given a line up of random people in different states of being and I asked you to talk to them for 20 minutes each would you be able to tell which one was sober, which one had had a single beer or a single martini and which one had had a number of drinks but still wasn't "Drunk" and which one actually was the bonafide unable to give consent party. I think very few people would be able to make those distinctions while sober, let alone after even ONE beer not to mention after several.Safaia said:
In the eyes of law, either can now be raped by the other - but as far as I know, it varies according to country and may not be enforced. Even if no penis penetration occurs, the other term is sodomy - if I remember right.
In biological psychology, the term intoxication implies impaired judgement so in a nut shell, yes, if the other person wakes up and cries wolf you're pretty much screwed. But the judge may not exactly see eye to eye and it's all very circumstantial. Hope this helps. =)
In biological psychology, the term intoxication implies impaired judgement so in a nut shell, yes, if the other person wakes up and cries wolf you're pretty much screwed. But the judge may not exactly see eye to eye and it's all very circumstantial. Hope this helps. =)
I don't know. I'm inclined to say it isn't rape, but it really depends on the circumstances. Most women wouldn't cry rape after something like that because they acknowledge they just made a mistake, both parties probably regret it and it's better to just move on. So no- provided it is, in fact, CONSENSUAL sex with a willfully intoxicated person. I don't think it's okay for either party to presume consent, even if they do seem to be "giving signals".
OF COURSE IT IS NOT RAPE.
The key word is consent here.
I'm just not going to even go into detail, this question does not deserve a detailed response.
No, it's not.
The key word is consent here.
I'm just not going to even go into detail, this question does not deserve a detailed response.
No, it's not.
As soon as someone starts drinking, then, assume it's not proper to have sex, unless you two know each other well and have a genuine understanding of what you both would want (more likely than not, this would involve being in a steady relationship with someone, at which point you'd hopefully be in sync with your partner sexually. If you can't tell, err on the side of caution.Do4600 said:
If people (in this thread in general; not necessarily you) are going to argue that one can't use the fact that they were intoxicated to claim a lack of consent because people can't tell that one's drunk, then it stands to reason that we can just as legitimately argue that one can't claim innocence just because one didn't bother to ensure his/her partner was in a non-compromised state.
It's always better to be safe than sorry, and frankly, if you give a crap about the person you're about to sex up, it should come naturally to want to wait until your partner's not intoxicated/potentially unable to make smart decisions to do something that can have serious ramifications. The only exceptions to that being if you two have an understanding based on an existing relationship, etc.
Well, insofar as it results in an inability to make rational decisions when you're drunk, this is, unfortunately much the same as the reasoning as to why teenagers can't give consent.
You can't realistically consent to something if you're mentally incapacitated. But... It's not easy to argue this in cases involving drunkenness.
And of course, if both people were drunk you run into the inevitable argument that if you by definition can't give consent when mentally incapacitated, then both people involved raped eachother at the same time.
Now, that sounds fairly non-nonsensical, but it's happened often enough when two people both below the age of consent have had sex with eachother.
This is of course, splitting hairs somewhat.
Rape is non-consensual sex. It doesn't make sense to talk about two people mutually raping eachother, because if both people want it it can't be non-consensual.
It's just that... When non-consent depends on the inability to make informed decisions, that can happen.
It doesn't have to be rape, but it very well can be.
The test for this in terms of drunkenness is more or less if you had been sober, would you still have said yes?
If yes, then it's not rape.
Otherwise it is.
(But that's obviously also why it's so messy, since it's nowhere near as simple as that makes it sound.)
You can't realistically consent to something if you're mentally incapacitated. But... It's not easy to argue this in cases involving drunkenness.
And of course, if both people were drunk you run into the inevitable argument that if you by definition can't give consent when mentally incapacitated, then both people involved raped eachother at the same time.
Now, that sounds fairly non-nonsensical, but it's happened often enough when two people both below the age of consent have had sex with eachother.
This is of course, splitting hairs somewhat.
Rape is non-consensual sex. It doesn't make sense to talk about two people mutually raping eachother, because if both people want it it can't be non-consensual.
It's just that... When non-consent depends on the inability to make informed decisions, that can happen.
It doesn't have to be rape, but it very well can be.
The test for this in terms of drunkenness is more or less if you had been sober, would you still have said yes?
If yes, then it's not rape.
Otherwise it is.
(But that's obviously also why it's so messy, since it's nowhere near as simple as that makes it sound.)
I'm not asking for advice my friend, I'm trying to point out that this is never going to be a simple issue. You assume a previous and extended relationship and a situation in which one can observe that a person has been drinking, this is not always the case, it's also not always the case that people having sex necessarily care about each other or EVEN LIKE EACH OTHER. You can ask them if they're drunk to ensure they're not, well I can give you first hand accounts of me asking people if they're drunk and them lying through their drunken teeth. So how is one to know? And even if you trust that they're telling the truth and you can't tell if their drunk or not, they still might be. So what do you do? Carry a breathalyzer?minuialear said:
Not, unless you got him/her intentionally intoxicated, I guess. I mean, it's a very dodgy issue, but in my opinion, if there is a consensus, then, no matter what the circumstances, it shouldn't really be rape.
But, hey, I think we should stop treating women like some mentally-handicapped five-year-olds. And by that I mean, if she's old enough to make her own decisions, and if she wilfully intoxicated herself, to the point where she's 'unable to give a "level-headed" consent,' then that's her own fault. Why sue the poor, pathetic bastard for it? And I know this is mainly targeted towards women, because if it's a guy, and he's drunk and gets 'raped', then I don't think he'll complain about it.
And women should really stop pretending that they do not enjoy sexual intercourse, and that every time they do have sex, it's out of some immense pity, or kindness, or some bollocks like that. Because that's where the problem stems from: this idea that sex is a very, very big deal, and something holy, and uncommon, or whatever it is they think it is. No it is not bloody not! It's just a simple exchange of bodily fluids, and a process for procreation. But, you know what? (Let's leave that argument aside, because it's just not for this thread, and plus, there are other better arguments I can give from my position).
And, think about how stupid this intoxication argument really is. Try applying it to any other situation, and you'll see my point of view. For instance a guy gets drunk and rams over a bunch of people. So, by these standards, he shouldn't be sued, because he wasn't 'thinking straight', and didn't 'mean it', for 'it wasn't intentional', and therefore it can be classified as a mere accident, while at the same time it might not have been; or, some bloke gets drunk and shoots 5 people, and the same scenario follows. Are we supposed to let these people of the hook, just because they were drunk? No! Then why the hell does that have to apply to sex?? And yes, my arguments are very extreme, but hey, I am sick of hearing about cases where some stupid b%^&# sues some poor idiot for all his money, just because she had a glass of wine before she let him f#$% her senseless! It's simply not just.
Unless she's underaged, and there are clear signs that she's been molested/raped (like bruises, and such), she doesn't have the right to claim anything. She's the one who got drunk, and she probably knew how she gets, when she drinks too much, so it's her own fault, and no-one should be sued for taking advantage of that! She made her decision, drunk or otherwise - end of f@#$%^& story! 'Oh, you monster!' I hear you say 'He took advantage, and shouldn't be burned at the stakes for it?! Explain yourself right this moment!' - Don't mind if I bloody do: I'll give you another example: You get drunk and you go to McDonalds or some other restaurant, or retailers, or whatever. And, once there, you purchase something, and in the morning you find out that you don't remember purchasing that 'something', or you decide that you wouldn't normally purchase it if you weren't drunk. Ok, so, is McDonalds/Or whatever at fault here, because they 'took advantage' of your drunken state and made you purchase something, while intoxicated? No! That's prepostorous! And if you think it's not, then - well - I think we have very different view-points on the stupidity of man!
But, hey, I think we should stop treating women like some mentally-handicapped five-year-olds. And by that I mean, if she's old enough to make her own decisions, and if she wilfully intoxicated herself, to the point where she's 'unable to give a "level-headed" consent,' then that's her own fault. Why sue the poor, pathetic bastard for it? And I know this is mainly targeted towards women, because if it's a guy, and he's drunk and gets 'raped', then I don't think he'll complain about it.
And, think about how stupid this intoxication argument really is. Try applying it to any other situation, and you'll see my point of view. For instance a guy gets drunk and rams over a bunch of people. So, by these standards, he shouldn't be sued, because he wasn't 'thinking straight', and didn't 'mean it', for 'it wasn't intentional', and therefore it can be classified as a mere accident, while at the same time it might not have been; or, some bloke gets drunk and shoots 5 people, and the same scenario follows. Are we supposed to let these people of the hook, just because they were drunk? No! Then why the hell does that have to apply to sex?? And yes, my arguments are very extreme, but hey, I am sick of hearing about cases where some stupid b%^&# sues some poor idiot for all his money, just because she had a glass of wine before she let him f#$% her senseless! It's simply not just.
Unless she's underaged, and there are clear signs that she's been molested/raped (like bruises, and such), she doesn't have the right to claim anything. She's the one who got drunk, and she probably knew how she gets, when she drinks too much, so it's her own fault, and no-one should be sued for taking advantage of that! She made her decision, drunk or otherwise - end of f@#$%^& story! 'Oh, you monster!' I hear you say 'He took advantage, and shouldn't be burned at the stakes for it?! Explain yourself right this moment!' - Don't mind if I bloody do: I'll give you another example: You get drunk and you go to McDonalds or some other restaurant, or retailers, or whatever. And, once there, you purchase something, and in the morning you find out that you don't remember purchasing that 'something', or you decide that you wouldn't normally purchase it if you weren't drunk. Ok, so, is McDonalds/Or whatever at fault here, because they 'took advantage' of your drunken state and made you purchase something, while intoxicated? No! That's prepostorous! And if you think it's not, then - well - I think we have very different view-points on the stupidity of man!
It's rape, for one simple reason: it's not just consent that matters, it's INFORMED consent. This falls into the same category as a seventeen year old having sex with a fifteen year old--it might be consensual, and it certainly isn't nearly as evil as violent rape, but the victim is incapable of informed consent and it's therefore rape.
Whether or not you would win in court is irrelevant--rape cases are notoriously hard to prosecute, but just because the prosecutor can't prove that the woman was drunk when she consented doesn't mean that the rape didn't occur. If you punch me in the face and I file assault charges but can't prove anything (or even if I decide not to press charges) it's still assault. The act occurred, and the act is rape. It's not the same type of rape as people usually think of when they hear the word (we typically think of violent rapes as opposed to rapes where one partner isn't legally capable of consent), but that doesn't change what it is.
Whether or not you would win in court is irrelevant--rape cases are notoriously hard to prosecute, but just because the prosecutor can't prove that the woman was drunk when she consented doesn't mean that the rape didn't occur. If you punch me in the face and I file assault charges but can't prove anything (or even if I decide not to press charges) it's still assault. The act occurred, and the act is rape. It's not the same type of rape as people usually think of when they hear the word (we typically think of violent rapes as opposed to rapes where one partner isn't legally capable of consent), but that doesn't change what it is.
Then don't have sex with people unless you can verify they're not under any influence of any drug. Can't tell if a person is under the influence? Don't know how many drinks that chick's had? Don't sleep with her. Don't know if that guy's sober enough to give informed consent? Don't have sex with him. Lacking proof that someone is legitimately able to give consent? Then don't have sex with that person.Do4600 said:
This isn't exactly rocket science.
Edit: Also I assumed nothing, because "a previous and extended relationship" was only mentioned in order to provide an exception to this idea that you shouldn't sleep with people unless you know for a fact they aren't intoxicated and can give consent (the only reason that's an exception being because if you've been with someone that long, one would hope you're past the point of being unable to tell whether you partner would want sex, alcohol involved or not). You're making this more complicated than it needs to be, more likely than not to justify this kind of irresponsible behavior. My point being, if there is any burden on the more drunk party to try and watch their drinking such that they don't get into this kind of consent issue, then there is also a burden on the less-drunk party to determine if the other person's intoxicated, and to choose not to have sex with that person should there be any reason to assume they could be (such reasons including a lack of proof that they haven't been drinking). There is a lot of shoving the burden on the first (more drunk) party rather than on both in this thread, and it's problematic.
Drunk enough to consent is a bit of a wide gap, you basically have to be passed out and not be able to say anything.awesomeClaw said:
Still it's a dodgy scenario really and it's more like "Don't put your dick in the crazy" than "don't fuck when drunk".
All it takes is for someone to say they didn't consent and that they were to drunk to stop you and that's it, you're off for a wonderful trip to prison for rape.
If you don't you're at least going to suffer the bad name and reputation of being a suspected rapist, it's a shitty law.