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

[everythingbeeps]

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.

That might be the most wrong thing anyone's ever posted on Escapist. You should be proud.

Legally speaking, it's correct.

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.

.


I don't owe you an apology. Your backwards country owes you an apology.

 

[Dastardly]

This to me seems like a strawman because I really don't think it happens as often as people seem to believe. If both parties are drunk and they both consent then sure, it's not rape. But if one isn't drunk, or one is filling the other with alcohol with the express intent to bang him or her, etc. then it is, and the latter is almost always the truth of the situation when you have these "She was totally fine with it last night, fuckin' ladies" stories that bros like to throw around.

(Emphasis added for reference)

I think a major problem is exactly this above. People assume that represents "almost always" That assumption is based on a lot of other assumptions, and those assumptions are often being made by witness who were also intoxicated at the party.

Some of these assumptions include things like:

1. "He didn't seem drunk to me." They're not staggering or falling over, but their judgment may still be severely impaired. Just like with women, they don't have to look drunk to be drunk.

2. "He wasn't as drunk as she was." Judgment and inhibitions are among the first things to go, well before physical coordination. This fact makes drunkenness a lot less obvious. Couple that with the fact that many people are experienced at masking the physical effects of drunkenness (ie, they can keep their balance while drunk), but that doesn't mean they're immune to the mental effects.

3. "Anyone who questions an alleged rape victim's story is taking the rapist's side." This is the biggie. For one, it assumes the accused is guilty -- conviction by sympathy, rather than evidence. Beyond that, it scares people out of any sort of defense, including bullying witnesses out of bringing important facts. "Frat boy accused of raping young nursing student" might make front page news, but "Frat boy acquitted of rape charges" barely ever makes print at all, because no one wants to be the one that picked on that poor rape victim even when the law has decided she wasn't raped.

I'm certainly not saying it doesn't happen, because it definitely does. A completely sober person preying upon drunk girls, that's clearly predatory behavior. Anyone taking advantage of a passed-out drunk girl, whether they themselves are sober or drunk? Clearly the same.

But we don't want our hatred of those people to be shoveled upon the next guy to get accused. Justice isn't about "odds" or "almost always." It's about evidence and finding the truth. And people lie. All of them. They lie for money, they lie for power, they lie to get out of trouble, and they lie for sympathy or attention. But we shouldn't assume either side is lying, but rather point to the evidence.

Sometimes, what we do is more like punishing one alleged murderer triple because we're pissed that a different alleged murderer "got away." We're using these people for catharsis, and it's not right.

As you set it up, no, it would be hard to prove it as rape. But then, you have put up a highly controlled straw man here that is very easy for you to take down.

It's more common than you might think. You can't measure drunkenness by appearance. Someone could be upright and speaking, but so drunk they're pissing whiskey. I think what the OP is pointing out is the possible double standard that applies to the public view of these cases:

Alcohol impairs our ability to judge, so a woman can be so drunk that her "Yes" doesn't mean "Yes," but a man can never be so drunk that he is unable to distinguish between a "real Yes" and a "false Yes." If both parties are drunk, it will probably end up as a "wash" in court -- neither was thinking right, so it's just two stupid people that did something one (or both) of them regrets. But to the public, that guy is "the one that was accused of rape."

 

[Guffe]

If you are drunk, and he/she is drunk then no it isn't.
If you're completely sober I don't know what to answer.
If he/she got drunk on her own and he/she asked you to some along, no it isn't.
I don't know were you live but in Finland at least like a couple thousand youths have drunk sex every weekend that they will regret, no one is talking about rape here.
I REALLY hope this is hypotethical and that you are NOT in this situation.

 

[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.

That might be the most wrong thing anyone's ever posted on Escapist. You should be proud.

Legally speaking, it's correct.

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.

.


I don't owe you an apology. Your backwards country owes you an apology.

You were wrong about me being wrong.

How is that not a fault on your part?

 

[sovietkitty101]

If your both drunk then no it's not rape, it's just drunken sex.

 

[Dastardly]

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.

 

[everythingbeeps]

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.

That might be the most wrong thing anyone's ever posted on Escapist. You should be proud.

Legally speaking, it's correct.

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.

.


I don't owe you an apology. Your backwards country owes you an apology.

You were wrong about me being wrong.

How is that not a fault on your part?

You're wrong because your country is wrong. That's not my problem. You can raise your kid to believe in Santa Claus, but that doesn't mean they're not wrong about his existence. It's not their fault, but they're still wrong.

 

[Amgeo]

In Massachusetts at least, you are legally unable to give consent if you're intoxicated.

 

[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.

That might be the most wrong thing anyone's ever posted on Escapist. You should be proud.

Legally speaking, it's correct.

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.

.


I don't owe you an apology. Your backwards country owes you an apology.

You were wrong about me being wrong.

How is that not a fault on your part?

You're wrong because your country is wrong. That's not my problem. You can raise your kid to believe in Santa Claus, but that doesn't mean they're not wrong about his existence. It's not their fault, but they're still wrong.

In America, it is illegal to have multiple wives.

Isn't that wrong?

Let's not get into country bashing, if you please.

Those who throw rocks in glass houses...

 

[everythingbeeps]

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.

That might be the most wrong thing anyone's ever posted on Escapist. You should be proud.

Legally speaking, it's correct.

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.

.


I don't owe you an apology. Your backwards country owes you an apology.

You were wrong about me being wrong.

How is that not a fault on your part?

You're wrong because your country is wrong. That's not my problem. You can raise your kid to believe in Santa Claus, but that doesn't mean they're not wrong about his existence. It's not their fault, but they're still wrong.

In America, it is illegal to have multiple wives.

Isn't that wrong?

Let's not get into country bashing, if you please.

Those who throw rocks in glass houses...

I'm not "bashing" your country (but I am), I'm just saying they're wrong. And yeah, I'd say it's wrong to have multiple wives, so I don't see what America did wrong there. Which isn't to say we don't do a ton of other shit wrong, we do. In fact, we're wrong in more ways than your country. Anyone who supports the Iraq war? Wrong. Anyone against gay marriage? Wrong. The appalling number of racists in our country and our government? Wrong. The rich fucks who think they shouldn't have to pay taxes out their ass? Wrong.

 

[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.

That might be the most wrong thing anyone's ever posted on Escapist. You should be proud.

Legally speaking, it's correct.

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.

.


I don't owe you an apology. Your backwards country owes you an apology.

You were wrong about me being wrong.

How is that not a fault on your part?

You're wrong because your country is wrong. That's not my problem. You can raise your kid to believe in Santa Claus, but that doesn't mean they're not wrong about his existence. It's not their fault, but they're still wrong.

In America, it is illegal to have multiple wives.

Isn't that wrong?

Let's not get into country bashing, if you please.

Those who throw rocks in glass houses...

I'm not "bashing" your country (but I am), I'm just saying they're wrong. And yeah, it's wrong to have multiple wives, so I don't see what America did wrong there. Which isn't to say we don't do a ton of other shit wrong, we do. In fact, we're wrong in more ways than your country. Anyone who supports the Iraq war? Wrong. Anyone against gay marriage? Wrong. The appalling number of racists in our country and our government? Wrong. The rich fucks who think they shouldn't have to pay taxes out their ass? Wrong.

I agree that it's a stupid premise that only men can be guilty of rape.

You were still wrong about me being wrong and tried to flaunt it over me as the 'most wrong post on the escapist. good job'

 

[everythingbeeps]

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.

That might be the most wrong thing anyone's ever posted on Escapist. You should be proud.

Legally speaking, it's correct.

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.

.


I don't owe you an apology. Your backwards country owes you an apology.

You were wrong about me being wrong.

How is that not a fault on your part?

You're wrong because your country is wrong. That's not my problem. You can raise your kid to believe in Santa Claus, but that doesn't mean they're not wrong about his existence. It's not their fault, but they're still wrong.

In America, it is illegal to have multiple wives.

Isn't that wrong?

Let's not get into country bashing, if you please.

Those who throw rocks in glass houses...

I'm not "bashing" your country (but I am), I'm just saying they're wrong. And yeah, it's wrong to have multiple wives, so I don't see what America did wrong there. Which isn't to say we don't do a ton of other shit wrong, we do. In fact, we're wrong in more ways than your country. Anyone who supports the Iraq war? Wrong. Anyone against gay marriage? Wrong. The appalling number of racists in our country and our government? Wrong. The rich fucks who think they shouldn't have to pay taxes out their ass? Wrong.

I agree that it's a stupid premise that only men can be guilty of rape.

You were still wrong about me being wrong and tried to flaunt it over me as the 'most wrong post on the escapist. good job'

NO.

You were wrong. End of story. And you certainly didn't mention in your original post that you thought it was a stupid premise. Now cut the shit, this is a stupid argument to drag over multiple posts.

 

[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.

That might be the most wrong thing anyone's ever posted on Escapist. You should be proud.

Legally speaking, it's correct.

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.

.


I don't owe you an apology. Your backwards country owes you an apology.

You were wrong about me being wrong.

How is that not a fault on your part?

You're wrong because your country is wrong. That's not my problem. You can raise your kid to believe in Santa Claus, but that doesn't mean they're not wrong about his existence. It's not their fault, but they're still wrong.

In America, it is illegal to have multiple wives.

Isn't that wrong?

Let's not get into country bashing, if you please.

Those who throw rocks in glass houses...

I'm not "bashing" your country (but I am), I'm just saying they're wrong. And yeah, it's wrong to have multiple wives, so I don't see what America did wrong there. Which isn't to say we don't do a ton of other shit wrong, we do. In fact, we're wrong in more ways than your country. Anyone who supports the Iraq war? Wrong. Anyone against gay marriage? Wrong. The appalling number of racists in our country and our government? Wrong. The rich fucks who think they shouldn't have to pay taxes out their ass? Wrong.

I agree that it's a stupid premise that only men can be guilty of rape.

You were still wrong about me being wrong and tried to flaunt it over me as the 'most wrong post on the escapist. good job'

NO.

You were wrong. End of story. And you certainly didn't mention in your original post that you thought it was a stupid premise. Now cut the shit, this is a stupid argument to drag over multiple posts.

Apology accepted.

It's okay, I can read between the lines. I know you care

 

[Rude as HECK]

I agree that it's a stupid premise that only men can be guilty of rape.

Protip: part of the definition of rape is penetration with a penis. That's the element that makes it rape.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

I agree that it's a stupid premise that only men can be guilty of rape.

Protip: part of the definition of rape is penetration with a penis. That's the element that makes it rape.

I'm fully aware of that.

Try reading the thread before you jump to correct someone. In fact, I stated that in an earlier post.

 

[irishda]

More on topic: it's not rape. If she did it willfully night before, and she claims you raped her next morning, it means that she doesn't want to take responsibility for her actions. Getting raped has nothing to do with getting drunk and not controlling yourself: in second case, it's her fault she drank too much and wanted some fun.

It is not rape. The man/woman decided to get drunk in the first place, and can't hold others guilty for his or her's shenanigans.
Of course, it's a difficult situation that changes entirely depending on the individual case, but if we have person A, a regular man with no troubled history, and person B, a regular woman with no troubled history, I'd say neither can claim rape.

This is what they'd call "blaming the victim." "She was drunk. If she didn't want to agree to have sex, she shouldn't have gotten drunk." I'm worried you guys also say things like, "Well, she shouldn't have dressed that way" or "But she's a slut, she never turns it down".

Did it help that she got drunk? No, of course not, and she would do well to remember the consequences of being drunk. But it doesn't change that fact that you still got a mentally impaired girl to agree to have sex with you. This is where the whole definition of "willfully" gets called into question. Every lawyer in the world is going to tell the jury, "my client couldn't have willfully had sex, because she wasn't mentally sound enough to know what was going on or with who it was going on with." You are just as accountable for your actions as she is for hers, but her actions didn't include preying on someone.

 

[Signa]

I don't want to even care anymore. I've heard stories of chicks calling rape because they were too embarrassed to tell their friends that they had consensual sex with an unflattering dude. In that case, the dude became a registered sex offender because she was able to cry hard enough.