So, if you get in a fight or rob someone while you're drunk, you're still responsible for your actions; however, you're not responsible if you get wasted and want to fuck everything breathing? You can't have it both ways. Unless the person is coerced, physically restrained, or passed out at the time, you can't, or at least shouldn't, be allowed to call it rape.
Poll: Is it rape if you have consensual sex with a willfully intoxicated person?
- Thread starter awesomeClaw
- Start date
Considering that they are under the infulence yes, mainly if you KNOW they are under influence, but then again you'd have to be drunk yourself to not notice, and if you yourself are drunk probably not.
If they are unconscious, yes.awesomeClaw said:
If they are conscious, and you are also drunk, no.
If they are conscious, but you know they wouldn't fuck you if they were sober, then still no, but its a fucked up thing to do.
If they're drunk and you're sober, but they insist on wanting to, its still morally questionable, but still NOT RAPE
Really, your conditions spell it out. Rape is not regret. If you get shitfaced and fuck someone you shouldn't, that's on YOU. Don't blame others for your inability to not be a dumbshit.
The only time the "I was drunk!" defense is acceptable is if you did not know you were imbibing alcohol, and then only if someone snuck it into your beverage someone
If you choose to drive while drunk, you are fully responsible for any consequences that occur while drunk driving. One is responsible for actions made while intoxicated, both legally and morally, to the degree that getting intoxicated is done by choice. Intoxicated consent is consent.
However, a gentleman should avoid these kinds of situations.
However, a gentleman should avoid these kinds of situations.
Funny how if you rob a store while drunk, or fight someone while drunk, or even kill someone while drunk, you are still charged to the fullest extent of the law. But you get a 'get out of jail free card' with who you choose to have sex with? I am sorry, people should be FULLY accountable for their actions if they are intoxicated from their own doing, regardless of what substance they are on. Ultimately, they made the choice to get that intoxicated, so everything they do afterwards is on their head.irishda said:
You know how to avoid this? Don't get that drunk in public like an idiot
For the record, I know both a guy and a girl this has happened to. The guy was so drunk and out of his mind he 'did things' with another guy (he's straight, btw) and only realized what happened the next day. It turns out this other guy he did things with was also notorious for sleeping around with strangers, so my friend immediately went to go get tested for HVI. It was the scare of his life.
The girl is a repeat offender, and she constantly goes to any party she can attend and gets as drunk as possible (she does it at home to, but she likes to drink social) She's always waking up next to guys she doesn't like, guys who probably took advantage of this obvious retard. She sometimes makes a big deal out of it (almost like it was rape) and then she runs off to do it again the next night. Would you expect me to start feeling sorry for her and start hating all the guys she's obviously setting herself up for each and every night!? As far as I am concerned, they're the victims. She is a drama whore and that's not something you want to be attached to (and she probably has an STD by now, to)
These are called mistakes, and mistakes are different then rape. Every mistake they made after drinking just leads back to that first mistake they made, making it evident that they set these chains of events into motion themselves. I don't have any sympathy for either of them, because as much as some people might want to coddle them, they did something wrong and there are consequences to these actions.
I'd say no, and I have a hard time accepting the "too drunk to give consent" bit - since this is apparantly the only thing you cannot be held responsible for doing while drunk.
The "if one party is less drunk than the other, yes" argument also has it's flaws: What are the degrees of drunkenness? If person A has trouble standing and vomits, and person B cannot form a coherent sentence but can walk fairly well and isn't vomiting, would the still-smashed-but-not-quite-as-smashed person B be guilty of rape if they had sex and person A later did not want to?
How about if they're both at a party, but not there together and don't really hang out much for most of the party, drinking on their own. Person A, again, gets hammered by his/her own free will, without any particular encouragement, no drugs etc. Person B is also drinking, but not as much as A. Later on, A initiates contact. B is fairly drunk (enough to get less concerned about taking advantage of people), while A is very drunk and very randy. Would B be guilty here - not nearly as drunk as A, but without planning to get A drunk or use A's drunkenness as a means of having sex, but not saying no when A started putting the moves on?
I have a friend who tends to get very aggressive in her advances (I've seen her walk up to guys, grab their crotch and lick their face several times) once she gets drunk, and she usually gets drunk very early during a party, more often than not passing out before 11. Could she really make the case that she was raped if a guy takes her up on her advances?
There are of course real rapes that happen in similar situations, but since it's usually word against word between two people who at least claim to have been drunk, it's a tricky situation and I don't envy the people who have to decide whether it was rape or not.
The "if one party is less drunk than the other, yes" argument also has it's flaws: What are the degrees of drunkenness? If person A has trouble standing and vomits, and person B cannot form a coherent sentence but can walk fairly well and isn't vomiting, would the still-smashed-but-not-quite-as-smashed person B be guilty of rape if they had sex and person A later did not want to?
How about if they're both at a party, but not there together and don't really hang out much for most of the party, drinking on their own. Person A, again, gets hammered by his/her own free will, without any particular encouragement, no drugs etc. Person B is also drinking, but not as much as A. Later on, A initiates contact. B is fairly drunk (enough to get less concerned about taking advantage of people), while A is very drunk and very randy. Would B be guilty here - not nearly as drunk as A, but without planning to get A drunk or use A's drunkenness as a means of having sex, but not saying no when A started putting the moves on?
I have a friend who tends to get very aggressive in her advances (I've seen her walk up to guys, grab their crotch and lick their face several times) once she gets drunk, and she usually gets drunk very early during a party, more often than not passing out before 11. Could she really make the case that she was raped if a guy takes her up on her advances?
There are of course real rapes that happen in similar situations, but since it's usually word against word between two people who at least claim to have been drunk, it's a tricky situation and I don't envy the people who have to decide whether it was rape or not.
There is of course a fine line here. If the intoxicated (wo)man invites you back to her house for sex, then you are fine. Although you are up the river if you use subterfuge and just generally take advantage of him/her. No wait, just her. You are fine if you take advantage of a guy.
irishda said:
LastGreatBlasphemer said:
erttheking said:
So what you are saying is people aren't responsible for their actions while intoxicated? Sweet all of my DUIs can go away now! Not to mention those assault and vehicular manslaughter charges. Why? Because apparently people are not accountable for their actions while intoxicated. Fucking awesome. Or is it just woman who aren't accountable for their decisions?irishda said:
I enjoy getting wasted.
Quite often, however even when I can't find my way back home my sense of RIGHT AND FUCKING WRONG still exists.
Believe it or not, this is a question of character and self-control.
I can be shitfaced to nirvana and only slightly remember the last evening, but I still would not chose to do something that I would regret the next morning. F.e. know those Shitheads that loose any sense of respect towards others when drunk, start brawls, touch boobs n shit? Or those skanks that go crazy and get themselves fked by anyone, start fights and spill their fucking drinks everywhere? Or anyone for that matter who looses self-control when drunk.
I mean cmon... its not that hard. If you truly have morals and values by which you naturally abide you won't get into this situation, no matter whether you are male or female.
Even if your speech, motions and reaction time is fked up values and morals are still applied by your brain, since they're automated responses that were taught since childhood... unless your parents are the same type of asshole like you are.
So unless force was used and / or there was no consent its not rape, its just stupidity.
Quite often, however even when I can't find my way back home my sense of RIGHT AND FUCKING WRONG still exists.
Believe it or not, this is a question of character and self-control.
I can be shitfaced to nirvana and only slightly remember the last evening, but I still would not chose to do something that I would regret the next morning. F.e. know those Shitheads that loose any sense of respect towards others when drunk, start brawls, touch boobs n shit? Or those skanks that go crazy and get themselves fked by anyone, start fights and spill their fucking drinks everywhere? Or anyone for that matter who looses self-control when drunk.
I mean cmon... its not that hard. If you truly have morals and values by which you naturally abide you won't get into this situation, no matter whether you are male or female.
Even if your speech, motions and reaction time is fked up values and morals are still applied by your brain, since they're automated responses that were taught since childhood... unless your parents are the same type of asshole like you are.
So unless force was used and / or there was no consent its not rape, its just stupidity.
When was it ever established that the intoxicated person was forcing his/herself on you? If that was the case, THEN there would be legal reprocussions, the thread is about a sober person taking advantage of someone who is intoxicated, and not in their right state of mind. Completly different.crudus said:
Ah, c'mon how can THAT be rape? Morally ambiguous and very manipulative (if you activly helped to get the other party drunk) sure. But in my opinion (not sure about the legal site) as long as you dont force yourselve on the person or set up a scenario where he or she has no choice (blackmail etc.) its not rape.
If the act is consensual than it is not rape simple as that. The girl can, however, the next day change her mind and say that you raped her. It doesn't mean that you did, but at that point it becomes a he said she said sort of thing.
In the UK you legally can't give consent if you are drunk.
A person can be considered drunk after just one drink.
So legally Yes.
Not making any judgement on the above or saying yeah or nae. I think it entirely depends on the circumstance.
Of course in the UK the excuses rapists give (which you'll find a couple of if you read through the posts here) are indistinguishable from the language used in men's magazines.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/the-womens-blog-with-jane-martinson/2011/dec/09/lad-mags-rapists-study
A person can be considered drunk after just one drink.
So legally Yes.
Not making any judgement on the above or saying yeah or nae. I think it entirely depends on the circumstance.
Of course in the UK the excuses rapists give (which you'll find a couple of if you read through the posts here) are indistinguishable from the language used in men's magazines.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/the-womens-blog-with-jane-martinson/2011/dec/09/lad-mags-rapists-study
When was the word "force" established in the thread topic? The topic was about an intoxicated person willingly wanting to have sex with you. Not only willingly, but actively inviting you back to his/her place for the purpose of sex. There is no force on either side, nor is there any taking advantage of. It is an intoxicated person coming on to you(who is also intoxicated). Hell, the OP even says "tipsy". I have aced a calculus final while tipsy; I would define that as "mentally competent".erttheking said:
I only brought it up because people seem to think that is what this thread is talking about. I didn't want responses like "But he forced himself on her"! Yeah I agree that is rape, and it is a bad thing. Although that is apparently what I am getting so that failed miserably.
What if a woman force-feed some viagra? there will be an involuntary erection and and then rape can ensue. It has happen.... It's surprising that the UK laws don't consider a woman raping a man.Daystar Clarion said:
Oh, yes. It's rape, at least as far as the US judicial system is concerned. If someone lets you have sex with them while under the influence, then decides when sober that they wouldn't have done so if sober, it's rape. It's a horrific gap in the legal system, in my opinion, because it doesn't matter if you're drunk, too.awesomeClaw said:
I think if they're in a state in which they wouldn't be considered fit to consent to a medical procedure, their word regarding whether or not they want to have sex should also be invalid. There's a reason they don't take a drunk person's consent on whether or not they should get surgery or some other medical procedure--they aren't making clear judgments based on reason, and can easily be coerced one way or the other.
The only acception I can see is if both parties were intoxicated beyond that point. In that case, I can't see either having the higher ground. But if one can hardly hold themself up and the other is mildly buzzed? That's rape.
The only acception I can see is if both parties were intoxicated beyond that point. In that case, I can't see either having the higher ground. But if one can hardly hold themself up and the other is mildly buzzed? That's rape.
Okay, I did some reading.balanovich said:
The courts wanted rape to be the worst possible thing you could do to a person (besides murder), they deemed that rape with the penis is the most forceful and personal infringement of someone's rights.
They wanted rape to carry with it those connotations.
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 covers many areas, a woman who 'rapes' a man would still receive a sentence comparable to rape.
The courts wanted the term rape to carry a heavier meaning. Woman don't get away with it, but it's just not called rape.