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

[DEAD34345]

If you made the choice to get drunk, then you are responsible for any choices you make while drunk. Being intoxicated doesn't make you immune from the results of your choices (unless your drink was spiked or something). That's how I see it, anyway.

If a guy/girl takes advantage of the fact that you are drunk, I'd say they were a major douchebag, but at the end of the day if you consent to getting drunk and you also consent to sleeping with the person, then it just doesn't make sense to suddenly turn around and claim you were forced into it.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Stand aside people.

Law graduate coming through.

Rape is very much a difficult topic in regards to the law, the vast majority of the time, it's one person's word against another's.

You can not give consent while drunk, but the other party has to reasonably know that you're in no fit state to give consent. Some people are very blatantly drunk, while other people can show very little symptoms of drunkeness. Most of the time, the two parties have the common decency to understand that when you're drunk and in the right kind of environment, you may end up shagging a complete stranger. One night stands are not uncommon and very few woman use the rape card. But there's always going to be the one woman with no common sense who will cry rape, despite putting themselves in a situation where they will drink too much booze and end up shagging someone.

Cases like these very rarely show up in court, and when they do show up in court, they very rarely result in a conviction. Judges hate these kinds of cases because it's just a clusterfuck of:

'well she said it was okay'

'I was drunk.'

'I didn't know she was drunk.'

'You raped me.'

'She said it was okay.'

'I was drunk.'

'I didn't know she was drunk.'

Clusterfuck.

 

[TheHecatomb]

I like how threads like these always seem to neglect personal responsibility of the so-called 'victim'. Don't want to do anything you'll regret? Don't get drunk. Sure, if a guy purposely gets a girl drunk because he knows she won't bed him otherwise I'd call that guy a douchebag, probably even punch him in the face. But I don't think I could call him a rapist if she agreed to have sex with him. Ever. Just because you regret something afterwards doesn't make it forced sex.

We all do dumb shit when we're fucked up. Take responsibility.

 

[Phisi]

Under Australian law? yes as they are inhibited from making decisions but if you were both drunk and you both consented at the time, well they would have to press the same charge against the other person as well as you so in that case they would probably call the other person an idiot and go do some other police work. It's kinda like if two minors have sex (consensual and within two years of age under Australian law once more), you can't charge one and not the other because the have both committed the exact same crime, so they charge neither and it becomes a parenting issue.

 

[Batou667]

No, it's not a rape if two adults consent to have sex. Intoxication is irrelevant as long as we understand "consent" to mean an adult giving permission with their own free will.

Regret for drunken choices is not rape. Adults are responsible for themselves and the decisions they make at all times, intentionally poisoning themselves doesn't change that responsibility.

This.

This this thisthisthisthisthisthisthisthis.

The idea that a woman who has sex while drunk is by default a victim is a heinous and dishonest one. If we take that to its logical extreme, that means men should be discouraged from ever making advances on (or responding to advances from) a woman who has had even just one drink, as she could later quite effortlessly claim that it was rape (She had alcohol in her bloodstream! No further questions, your honour"). Your average nightclub or bar would become the most chaste and virginal place in town.

 

[Oly J]

you mentioned that both parties were drunk, in that case it's not rape, if one was drunk and the other wasn't I wouldn't call it rape but it's still not right

 

[Seekster]

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.

 

[Palademon]

I don't think it's rape. Just because you regret something in hindsight that you had no problem actually doing, doesn't mean you can suddenly blame the other person to the extent you try to get the law involved.

 

[OmniscientOstrich]

Let me put it this way, if you break a law while you're drunk, you're still fully responsible, and you will be treated as if you were sober the entire time. So if the law deems your judgement while intoxicated to be your genuine choice and your responsibility in most situations, why would it be any different in this situation?

It's your problem that you got drunk and then decided to go drive your car, and it's your problem when you get drunk and decide to let some random guy nail you.

Plus it's really hard to pursue, because by the point it's brought to attention, it's essentially all heresy.

Basically this, I would say a sober person taking advantage of someone who is intoxicated would be underhanded, yes, but rape? No.

 

[babinro]

Simply by the fact that it's entirely consensual by both parties I'd say it's not rape.

That doesn't make it right though, or even remotely justified. I would assume that while this is legal, it's about as low as someone can get since they are simply trying to take advantage of someone in a weak mental state. (yes, even when they are both drunk)

The odds of both parties feeling no regrets for their actions after the fact seems quite low. If they both consent to sex, they can have it sober where it'll be a better experience for them anyways.

 

[bigsby]

Well I can only speak for german law, but in Germany it is only ever criminal when the victim is so intoxicated that she CANNOT judge the situation. If the victims ability to make a decision is affected but not removed, if he/she could still say no but chooses not to because of her intoxication, then no it is not criminal. Even IF the victim is too drunk to form a decision, as long as the person commiting the crime did not put him/her in that state, it is not considered rape but a lesser offense that from German roughly translates to sexual exploitation of a person unable to resist.

Now if you ask me whether I agree with this legislation or not, I wholeheartly do. Taking advantage of someone who put himself willfully into a position of reduced judgemental abilities, while a grand act of douchebaggery, is not criminal. And taking advantage of someone who cannot pass judgement is still an act of less criminal energy than forcefully removing someones resistance.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

If you're going to get absolutetly bladdered in the first place then ladies and gentlement, prepare to lose your inhibitions! It's a tough subject and there's a lot of different corners to sit it, but at the end of the day you're responsible for your actions. You decide it's a Jägerbomb kind of night and you're pretty much saying you're willing to lose control.

I'm not saying it's okay for a sober person to take advantage of someone who's absolutely blotto, but on the other hand the second party could have easily avoided this by not getting in such a state.

 

[surg3n]

Any court would dismiss a rape case if consent was clearly given. See that's what rape is, when you have sex with someone without consent. In fact, for any rape case to be taken seriously there has to be evidence of force, otherwise it's all just hearsay.

It would be too easy for women to ruin mens lives otherwise - they could just cry rape and that's the end of that guys freedom, whether he did anything wrong or not. Women can be vendictive bitches, we can't afford to believe a rape case on it's surface. Young women make terrible decisions all the time, it's called the stupid cow factor.

People often complain that the law isn't effective enough at dealing with rape cases, but the problem is the sheer amount of false claims, and scams, and silly bitches means that the law has to be 100% convinced. A friend of mine was scammed and spent 3 years in jail because some woman needed money to pay her dealer - go sleep with some random guy, claim rape, claim damages, ruin someones life for a quick buck.

Anyway, I'd say that if you get consent it's all good, if a woman is capable of agreeing to sex, then they are capable of making the decision - I'm not saying that's a wise choice, but I'd say it'd be incredibly rare to be found guilty, hell it's actually pretty rare to be found guilty of rape, even with genuine cases... there always has to be clear evidence.

 

[Stublore]

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.

 

[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.

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

 

[Project Nemesis]

it doesn't matter if any of the 2 people are drunk, if both of them consent to have sex, it obviously isn't a rape. If only one of them wants it and the other rejects the idea and the deed still takes place through violence, threats etc., then yeah, it's a rape. Otherwise it isn't.

 

[jakeblues69]

Are there any hot, bisexual Asian chicks here that want to go drinking? I'll buy.

 

[Khada]

You are responsible for your own actions, if you are not confident that you are in a safe place with people who will look out for you, don't get drunk. That is probably an alien concept to a depressing number of people but it's no other persons fault what you do, drunk or not.

 

[rje5]

Legally, it's probably rape. But if you didn't buy the other person their drinks, and didn't make them their drinks, I'm not sure how this stops being bad self control and starts becoming rape. Personally, if you get trashed on your own accord and then do something regrettable, that's a mistake you should live with. But today's world wants everyone to believe their mistakes are the fault of someone else, instead of owning up to mistakes.

Also, do you ever hear of a guy getting "raped" like this? Not much, if at all. It's typically a woman who feels used and can't swallow that she made a mistake, so she cries rape. And before people line up to yell at me, rape does happen legitimately and in those cases I'm all for them getting justice. But in cases described above, people need to shut up and just live with their mistakes.

 

[Hosker]

No, it isn't. The said drunk person wasn't forced in any way, so it doesn't come under the definition. Whether it is still right morally is up for debate, though. People still have to take responsibility for all their other actions while drunk (eg drink driving) so why should this be any different?