Poll: Is it rape if you have consensual sex with a willfully intoxicated person?

[Sjakie]

Of course its rape. A person willfully getting drunk or unwillfully getting drunk isnt able to give willful consent to anything if they are drunk.

Now if you agree to have sex and THEN get drunk well then thats prior consent so you are fine.

What if they're both drunk?
Neither can give consent, but I've yet to hear of a case where a man brought a woman to court because they were both legally unable to give consent,so he considers himself raped.

If neither can give consent, isn't that mutual agreed upon rape? they where just to drunk to decide who was raping who?
And since it was mutual, doesn't that cancel out the rape-part?

that should give 2 people the walk-of-shame-home the day after, where it would normally just be one.
and if one of those starts calling it rape, then they should look in the mirror first.

After a night of partying i once woke up next to a girl i normally would not have slept with...you wont hear me saying it was rape/sexual assault, it was just stupid.

 

[zehydra]

Date rape is what it is called. They are not in a logical state of mind where they can effectively weigh pros and cons of actions. As such the can not legally consent to anything. It's rape. However if you can have people testify that neither of you was anything close to sober and at the time it was "consensual" then charges can be thrown out.

I think you end up with problems regarding responsibility along that line of thinking, you know? Like, if a guy gets drunk, then he isn't able to weight the pros of cons of driving home properly, so he shouldn't get arrested for drunk driving, since he didn't legally choose to drive.

 

[irishda]

If a woman did decide to take this to court, she most certainly would have a case. Regardless of whether or not she said yes, her mental state will be called into question at the time of consent. If she was sober when she agreed then you'd be fine, but if she was drunk, then it'd be seen that she didn't have the mental capacity to know what she was agreeing to.

(snipped to the relevant bit)

But the idea of this hypothetical was "What if he's drunk, too?" If she was not sober when she agreed, that makes her not responsible for giving that consent. If he's drunk, too, perhaps he's not responsible for accidentally believing her impaired consent.

In the hypothetical where both parties were drunk, then it becomes impossible to establish things like who initiated or consent from either party without further evidence. You better believe you can still be charged with rape if there's things like video footage or eyewitness accounts of you initiating sexual contact, but the prosecution is going to have a harder time proving his case.

This is the darker side of drinking and alcohol that people don't really acknowledge. "But I was drunk" has never been a viable defense for any crime, so you better make damn sure of who you're climbing into bed with.

 

[OneCatch]

I think there was a case here (UK) recently where it was ruled that because the woman couldn't remember denying consent (but could remember having sex), it wasn't rape. The level of intoxication wasn't an issue, because she'd consumed the alcohol willingly.
If he'd spiked or drugged her, then it would have been rape. If he'd had sex with her when she was unconscious it would have been rape. But because she willing had sex with him while concious (even though she was plastered) it was considered consensual, albeit a highly unfortunate situation for both parties (the guy ended up turning himself in to the police to clear his name after she accused him of rape the next morning).

Of course, this is just a single case so doesn't necessarily reflect overall policy, but I figured it was relevant.

 

[dyre]

Date rape is what it is called. They are not in a logical state of mind where they can effectively weigh pros and cons of actions. As such the can not legally consent to anything. It's rape. However if you can have people testify that neither of you was anything close to sober and at the time it was "consensual" then charges can be thrown out.

I think you end up with problems regarding responsibility along that line of thinking, you know? Like, if a guy gets drunk, then he isn't able to weight the pros of cons of driving home properly, so he shouldn't get arrested for drunk driving, since he didn't legally choose to drive.

I don't think date rape laws are there to assign responsibility like in drunk driving; they're there because while it may be "morally acceptable" to have sex with a "willfully intoxicated, consensual" partner, making that legal would allow all sorts of abuse of the law. People who slipped date rape drugs into girls' drinks would just go "no, she was drunk and wanted to have sex with me."

When you weigh the benefits of having a law to protect guys who want to fuck drunk girls, against the benefits of a law to protect girls from date rape, I'd say the latter is more important.

 

[Susan Arendt]

Ok, let´s say you´re at a party. At the party, you meet a cute young man(or woman, or transgender or whoever you want to fuck) and you two get along nicely. You both get a little tipsy and the man/woman asks you if you want to go home with him/her. You go home with him/her and have a night of awkward drunk sex WHICH NONE OF YOU OBJECT TO DURING THE ACTUAL SEX.

HOWEVER, the morning after, the man/woman says that S/he regrets sleeping with you, and now claims that you raped him/her. Is she/he in the right?

Personally, if you *can* consent, your consent is almost always valid. You should know where your limits are. Note: I am talking about being drunk enough that you *can* actually talk and orally(heh) consent. I don´t need to tell you having sex with someone unconcious is rape. I´m also not talking about the cases where someone put something in your drink. Putting something in the other persons drink, is rape, since you actively tricked the person into going over his/her limits.

But what do you think? Am I just a sick victimblamer(although I believe there is not a victim in thise case?), am I thinking completely straight? Something inbetween?

If you're inebriated, you're not in a fit state to make decisions. Ergo, you cannot consent. Doesn't matter if you don't object at the time or not - you still can't consent, because you don't have all your faculties.

That said, I've known women who have cried rape (not to authorities, just to their social circle) simply to cover the embarrassment of drunkenly shagging someone they'd rather not have anything to do with.

 

[irishda]

Date rape is what it is called. They are not in a logical state of mind where they can effectively weigh pros and cons of actions. As such the can not legally consent to anything. It's rape. However if you can have people testify that neither of you was anything close to sober and at the time it was "consensual" then charges can be thrown out.

I think you end up with problems regarding responsibility along that line of thinking, you know? Like, if a guy gets drunk, then he isn't able to weight the pros of cons of driving home properly, so he shouldn't get arrested for drunk driving, since he didn't legally choose to drive.

The law is expected to be followed regardless of mental state, albeit punishment differentiates when mental health is concerned. But contracts, agreements with other people, are considered null and void when one or both parties are mentally unsound, that includes when someone is drunk.

Was it irresponsible for someone to get so drunk you don't know who you're with or what you're agreeing to? Absolutely. Is it irresponsible for someone to pretend like someone who's drunk can even remotely have the presence of mind to understand what's happening? That's so irresponsible they'll throw you in prison for it.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Of course its rape. A person willfully getting drunk or unwillfully getting drunk isnt able to give willful consent to anything if they are drunk.

Now if you agree to have sex and THEN get drunk well then thats prior consent so you are fine.

What if they're both drunk?
Neither can give consent, but I've yet to hear of a case where a man brought a woman to court because they were both legally unable to give consent,so he considers himself raped.

A man can't be raped by a woman.

A man can rape a man and a man can rape a woman but a woman can't rape a man.

Penetration with a penis must me involved, and the penis has to belong to the person committing the rape.

Women can still be charge for sexual assualt, but not for rape.

Wrong actually. Rape is the act of unlawful and forced intercourse; having a dick or a vagina does not matter. If one person is unconsenting and the other person forces themselves on them, it is rape. Male erectile responses can be involuntary just like female ones; its like the old creepy line says: "Your eyes say no, but your body says yes." The reason women are not charged for rape is that it is very rarely admitted due to social and legal double standards.

On topic now, and its a bit of a grey area. If two people get hammered and screw, then its fine. Because both were on the same level. If one person, however, gives the other alcohol with the intention of having sex with her, its rape. Because you are deliberately and knowingly inhibiting their judgement and clarity of thought.

Like I said earlier, in the UK, someone has to have a penis in order to be charged with rape.

It must be penetration, with the penis.

I've noticed how quickly people jump on the opportunity to try and prove somebody wrong, before they even read the rest of the thread.

 

[Zac Smith]

There are far to many variables in a situation like to good give a solid black and white answer, each individual case must be looked at under in its own light.

Like I said earlier, in the UK, someone has to have a penis in order to be charged with rape.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/16/newsid_2521000/2521053.stm

Like to direct attention to this article from 2001. Women convicted of rape. What you saying is ludicrous

 

[Dastardly]

In the hypothetical where both parties were drunk, then it becomes impossible to establish things like who initiated or consent from either party without further evidence.

Agreed, and that's the whole point. In the court of law, someone is innocent until proven guilty. The double standard mostly exists in the public eye, for which an accusation is enough to "convict."

We could really use more public initiatives that educate young women on the dangers of their own drinking choices. We focus so much on the, "Don't accept drinks from strangers" kind of thing... but rarely are we telling them, "Hey, how about just don't drink that much?" Or have a "designated driver" for the social group -- a friend who won't drink at this party, so they can help steer you away from trouble at the party, rather than only after it's done.

But we don't focus our attention on those solutions, because we're so afraid that by saying, "Hey, sometimes your choices can influence your reality," that we're somehow in the "She was asking for it" camp.

This is the darker side of drinking and alcohol that people don't really acknowledge. "But I was drunk" has never been a viable defense for any crime, so you better make damn sure of who you're climbing into bed with.

Right. I think it's just about equal recognition of this "darker side." "But I was drunk" has never excused someone from the consequences of their choices. In the broader sense, that can also mean it doesn't excuse me from my choice to engage in regrettable sex. If I make the choice to get drunk with someone else (who is also getting drunk) and we do something stupid, I'm not excused from any responsibility simply because I regret it more.

 

[Guardian of Nekops]

Okay, here's the thing.

Legally, it's rape if the person is intoxicated. Legally, you can't consent while intoxicated, just like you can't legally consent when you're 4 or when you have a gun held to your head. This is all well and good as far as it goes, as slipping someone a few pills should ALSO be considered rape... you don't think straight.

So legally, if someone cries foul after the fact you're screwed... even if you were drunk as well. Technically this is the case even if you and your SPOUSE get drunk... and this is where a bit of the fear comes in.

In this case, though, you have a problematic scenario... lots of people (though certainly not all) get drunk for the express purpose of meeting people and having sex. If you go with that intention, in a way you've consented prior to being drunk, and only an explicit "No" from you should override that. Otherwise, you have the very real danger of someone who's just as drunk as you, who went to the bar for the same reason you did, to have some fun, getting put into jail because you had a change of heart when you got sober again.

Incidentally, I'd be interested in seeing how a place with waiver forms at the door to that effect would hold up... certainly with a clause that verbal or physical refusal of sex would void it, but something along the lines of, "This is a hook-up bar. I come here with the intention of getting laid, and I hereby consent to any sexual contact that seems like a good idea to me at the time." People who didn't feel that way could go to different bars, where there would not be that assumption that you're going home with somebody else.

Now personally, I don't drink, nor do I engage in casual sex. Neither is my thing. However, both are perfectly valid choices, and I think that things could be made better for all by just making some things a little bit clearer... perhaps with the segregation of "hook-up, pre-consent" bars and the normal kind... with some sort of supervision in place at the other bars to make sure that hook-ups DIDN'T happen, no matter how consensual they appeared to be.

 

[jboking]

If the person you wanted to have sex with was intoxicated, you were not, and you assumed they could make an informed decision, it is rape. If you were both heavily drunk and you both consented, that may be okay.

my opinion, anyway.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

There are far to many variables in a situation like to good give a solid black and white answer, each individual case must be looked at under in its own light.

Like I said earlier, in the UK, someone has to have a penis in order to be charged with rape.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/16/newsid_2521000/2521053.stm

Like to direct attention to this article from 2001. Women convicted of rape. What you saying is ludicrous

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_2003

I know it's a wikipedia article, but the Act itself is cited.

I have no idea how the woman in the article you posted was convicted of rape (maybe it was because the victim was under 16 and that it was gang related?)

Judges sometimes make decisions that go against the norm. I know it's ridiculous that only men can rape, but I'm just going by what the law says, not what I actually think.

 

[Yopaz]

Your poll is really flawed. You need an option that says other or at least not lock us into 3 answers were 2 of them is the same answer.

If you have sex with a person you know is too drunk judge the situation properly you are taking advantage of that person. It's not exactly date rape unless you made the person get that drunk.

Of course its rape. A person willfully getting drunk or unwillfully getting drunk isnt able to give willful consent to anything if they are drunk.

Now if you agree to have sex and THEN get drunk well then thats prior consent so you are fine.

What if they're both drunk?
Neither can give consent, but I've yet to hear of a case where a man brought a woman to court because they were both legally unable to give consent,so he considers himself raped.

A man can't be raped by a woman.

A man can rape a man and a man can rape a woman but a woman can't rape a man.

Penetration with a penis must me involved, and the penis has to belong to the person committing the rape.

Women can still be charge for sexual assualt, but not for rape.

Edit: To prevent anymore misunderstandings, this is in regards to UK law. Only a man can be charged with rape.

By god why would you have to bring up the stupid bloody laws of one bloody country and label that as conclusive evidence?! Yes, by English law only men and hermaphrodites can commit rape. Now moving on from that. Is England the whole world? Hint: the answer is no. Are England's rape laws valid for the entire world?

Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or with a person who is incapable of valid consent.

This is the definition of rape. It does not mention a penis or forced penetration. It is possible for a woman to rape someone by definition even though it's not in the laws of one country. See the difference?

 

[Zac Smith]

There are far to many variables in a situation like to good give a solid black and white answer, each individual case must be looked at under in its own light.

Like I said earlier, in the UK, someone has to have a penis in order to be charged with rape.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/16/newsid_2521000/2521053.stm

Like to direct attention to this article from 2001. Women convicted of rape. What you saying is ludicrous

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_2003

I know it's a wikipedia article, but the Act itself is cited.

I have no idea how the woman in the article you posted was convicted of rape (maybe it was becuase the victim was under 16 and that it was gang related?)

Judges sometimes make decisions that go against the norm. I know it's ridiculous that only men can rape, but I'm just going by what the law says, not what I actually think.

I assume you are refering to

A person (A) commits an offence if?
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

The 3 situations in which a crime could be legally classed as rape, so lets take B and put the whole sentence together

"A person (A) commits an offence if B does not consent to the penetration"

If a man is held down physically by a women to the point where he can not move, and is obviously not consenting to the act, and said women then mounts and proceeds to have sex with the man, are you saying that isn't technically rape? No where in that article does it say "Only men can be guilty of rape"

 

[Soviet Steve]

If you choose to drink you choose to accept the consequences of drinking. Law might be stupid on this matter but we don't let drunk drivers sue the victims of their driving for damaging their car just because they were drunk.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

There are far to many variables in a situation like to good give a solid black and white answer, each individual case must be looked at under in its own light.

Like I said earlier, in the UK, someone has to have a penis in order to be charged with rape.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/16/newsid_2521000/2521053.stm

Like to direct attention to this article from 2001. Women convicted of rape. What you saying is ludicrous

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_2003

I know it's a wikipedia article, but the Act itself is cited.

I have no idea how the woman in the article you posted was convicted of rape (maybe it was becuase the victim was under 16 and that it was gang related?)

Judges sometimes make decisions that go against the norm. I know it's ridiculous that only men can rape, but I'm just going by what the law says, not what I actually think.

I assume you are refering to

A person (A) commits an offence if?
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

The 3 situations in which a crime could be legally classed as rape, so lets take B and put the whole sentence together

"A person (A) commits an offence if B does not consent to the penetration"

If a man is held down physically by a women to the point where he can not move, and is obviously not consenting to the act, and said women then mounts and proceeds to have sex with the man, are you saying that isn't technically rape? No where in that article does it say "Only men can be guilty of rape"

That's always how I've seen it too.

But from the way I taught at university, my lecturers would say that only a man can rape. In fact, this very argument would crop up everytime we got onto the subject of rape.

It appears not even our lawyers are sure what it means.