What country do you live in? Because up here in Sweden, that´s not at all how it works. Because what you just said is bullshit(not bullshit as in "not true", but in bullshit as...well, bullshit)Daystar Clarion said:
EDIT: 1000th post! Yay!
Poll: Is it rape if you have consensual sex with a willfully intoxicated person?
- Thread starter awesomeClaw
- Start date
EDIT: 1000th post! Yay!
I suppose if they are both drunk then neither has full control of their mental facilities so you can't really accuse them of willfully having sex with someone against their will. There is no such thing as "accidental rape" in the legal code. I suppose there may be some crime there but I find it hard to imagine any judge or jury charging only one of the two parties with a crime when they were both drunk.Stublore said:
Wow, a lot of people would have some problems with the law if they go into every situation with "if she consents, then no matter what it's not rape." There should be a line up there that says "No, if she agreed to it before she willingly got drunk."
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. In the eyes of the law, you would be seen as a predator who took advantage of a woman who couldn't know what she said yes to. A comparison would be like having consensual sex with a mentally handicapped person. Sure they said yes, but did they actually know what that implied? Regardless of whether or not she did know, the prosecution would say her mental state made that impossible, and you'd have the impossible task of proving someone's mindset in the past to a court of law.
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. In the eyes of the law, you would be seen as a predator who took advantage of a woman who couldn't know what she said yes to. A comparison would be like having consensual sex with a mentally handicapped person. Sure they said yes, but did they actually know what that implied? Regardless of whether or not she did know, the prosecution would say her mental state made that impossible, and you'd have the impossible task of proving someone's mindset in the past to a court of law.
The UK.awesomeClaw said:
Don't get me wrong, it's the judge's descretion in regards to the conviction and woman 'rapist' can get as much jail time as a male rapist, it's just not labeled as rape.
My twin brother is a detective of sex crimes. I assure you it happens all the damn time. A lot of people lose 'inhibitions' when they're intoxicated some of those inhibitions include the ability to realize when someone is saying no or is not in sound mind to offer consent.peruvianskys said:
In a few states (and most of canada) if someone doesn't actually say "Yes" then it can be considered rape.
Ummm.. no.Daystar Clarion said:
An erection is often an INVOLUNTARY reaction if the penis is stimulated enough for many men, weather or not they are 'mentally aroused,' it will go erect that is all a woman needs, yes it's VERY RARE, for an adult woman to rape an adult man.
But it DOES happen interestingly, at least in america and according to the UCR, when it does it's usually a group of women to one man such as two women hold the man down while another gets the involuntary reaction out of him and climbs on top or put stuff in orifices he'd rather not have stuff in. Think about this, the most common occupation for a man to get raped in the US? Stripper. That's likely why the cases have groups of women. (not always though)
The most common cause of female on male is a rape by deception, which is kind of what the OP is talking about, that is one party are unable to say "no!" by the circumstances involved. (Such as one party being so intoxicated that they are barely conscious)
You know who else doesn't object and say 'no' when they're being raped? People that are unconscious. Just because someone doesn't say NO doesn't mean they are willing. Most date rapes and/or event rapes (at a party/etc) never have the word 'no' uttered. Most of these occur when BOTH parties are intoxicated not just one, though most likely one might be a lot further along than the other.awesomeClaw said:
They still can get prosecuted as 'rape by deception' don't let the term fool you, it doesn't necessarily mean you lied or put a roofie in their drink it's a blanket term meaning anything that isn't force.
Rape is actually a very grey area when it comes to the law. a lot of 'did you FEEL raped?' kind of questions.
That all being said, no OP, it sounds like the two 'hypothetical' people just got sloppy and stupid. Car crashes aren't the only reason drinking to intoxication can lead to problems.
That might be the most wrong thing anyone's ever posted on Escapist. You should be proud.Daystar Clarion said:
Legally speaking, it's correct.everythingbeeps said:
Realistically speaking, both genders can commit rape.
As written in legislation (in the UK anyway), only a man can be guilty of rape.
It's a stupid idea, but that's how the law treats it.
Don't worry, I can wait for an apology.
See above.ace_of_something said:
I'm not claiming that a woman can't commit a rape.
But in the eyes of the law, only a man can commit rape (based on UK law).
And what if the man decides to go to court, because he was drunk as well and the fat ugly chick took advantage of him?
So basically what you're saying is that if the woman was drunk at the time of consent, it counts as a rape because the man took advantage of her, being drunk and all, and she wasn't actually herself. Then how come if the man is drunk, all of a sudden he is "himself" and he was planning it all along. How about his mental state being called into question?
What if she is planning this all along and sue the man for lots of cash because she was "raped"?
It baffles me how people and the law overanalyze situations the wrong way. The chick got drunk at a party and then wanted some action from the dude she got drunk with. She's responsable for her drinking and her decision to bang the drinking-partner.
So basically what you're saying is that if the woman was drunk at the time of consent, it counts as a rape because the man took advantage of her, being drunk and all, and she wasn't actually herself. Then how come if the man is drunk, all of a sudden he is "himself" and he was planning it all along. How about his mental state being called into question?
What if she is planning this all along and sue the man for lots of cash because she was "raped"?
It baffles me how people and the law overanalyze situations the wrong way. The chick got drunk at a party and then wanted some action from the dude she got drunk with. She's responsable for her drinking and her decision to bang the drinking-partner.
Ehh, honestly I don't even think a woman (or man, I guess) has the right to pull the rape card while she was willingly intoxicated. You drink in a social zone, you face the consequences (which is usually a penis).
It's such an ridiculous concept of not owning up to given responsibilities to me.
It's such an ridiculous concept of not owning up to given responsibilities to me.
Someone help me out here: how does the woman prove she was drunk at the time she had sex? Couldn't anyone, who has had sex with someone and regretted it, just claim they were drunk at the time?
This is why cases like these very rarely get to the courts and why they very rarely result in a conviction.MasochisticAvenger said:
Here in the UK, conviction rates for rape are one of the lowest, simply because most of the time, it's next to impossible to know who's telling the truth, and judges are very relucant to give someone a rape conviction based on one person's word.
Some people here have absolutely no freakin clue about how rape cases are actually handled.
Any woman who gets drunk, gets fucked, then cries rape will have her personal history analysed and brought into question. There is such a thing as defense lawyers, and they would tear her a new one. Any woman who gets into bed with a man would have a horrific time trying to proove rape, what is she doing in the bed if she didn't plan on having sex. There are so many angles for defense in that situation that the woman would most likely be convinced to drop the charges by her own lawyer. Why is that? - because the cross examination in rape cases is often so traumatic.
It doesn't really matter what the law dictates, the case would still have to be proven, and how on earth can a case like that be proven - is there ''consent capability'' test that I don't know about!. Courts don't just assume the woman is an innocent victim, defense lawyers have a track record of tearing cases of non-violent rape to pieces these days.
Any woman who gets drunk, gets fucked, then cries rape will have her personal history analysed and brought into question. There is such a thing as defense lawyers, and they would tear her a new one. Any woman who gets into bed with a man would have a horrific time trying to proove rape, what is she doing in the bed if she didn't plan on having sex. There are so many angles for defense in that situation that the woman would most likely be convinced to drop the charges by her own lawyer. Why is that? - because the cross examination in rape cases is often so traumatic.
It doesn't really matter what the law dictates, the case would still have to be proven, and how on earth can a case like that be proven - is there ''consent capability'' test that I don't know about!. Courts don't just assume the woman is an innocent victim, defense lawyers have a track record of tearing cases of non-violent rape to pieces these days.
Huh? You can't rape somebody without a penis? You're sure about that?
As to the OP, no to your question. If it were so, the number of people on Internet discussion forums who were the result of rapes would be astronomical.
As to the OP, no to your question. If it were so, the number of people on Internet discussion forums who were the result of rapes would be astronomical.