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

[kouriichi]

As you said, if it involves one person spiking the others drinks or anything like that, then yes it is, no question.

But imo, if someone goes out and gets smashed off their face, then the other person... ok screw Im gonna say man and woman. Of course I know it happens the other way around too but for the sake of this becoming confusing, please assume the roles can be swapped?

If a woman gets wasted by her own choice, and a man (drunk or sober) has sex with her, so long as she can speak and gives him consent, its not rape.

Being drunk can very easily lead to bad decisions - one of which could be giving consent to a stranger to have sex with you. You are responsibile for your own actions, even if you are drunk. Of course I disagree with people who would take advantage like that, but I wouldn't call them rapists.

I have to agree with ^

If you get drunk, your still responsible for your actions. If you willingly get hammered, and give consent to sex, or initiate with the person, its not rape.

Being drunk isnt a get out of jail free card. It never has been. And sex is an issue that being hammered cant cover. If you dont want drunken sex, dont get drunk to begin with. Its not like you HAVE to drink to have a good time.

Skyrim proves that.

 

[The Pinray]

There are no ifs ands or buts about that situation. By law, it's not rape. It's buyer's remorse.

 

[CrystalShadow]

And of course, if both people were drunk you run into the inevitable argument that if you by definition can't give consent when mentally incapacitated, then both people involved raped eachother at the same time.

In that case both can be charged. Just like in a drunken bar fight both can be charged and both can be victims.

Perhaps. But I tend to find that in the vast majority of cases where something like that is possible, charging both people involved with something is worse than charging neither.

A bar fight isn't quite that simple because there's frequently more going on than just the people involved in the fight.

But in a case where the only victims are also the only perpetrators it seems to me to be something of a misapplication of the principles of law and justice to punish them for it.

The consequences of the act itself should generally be punishment enough.

 

[teh lurker]

I seem to remember reading something somewhere about a judge ruling that "drunken consent is still consent, therefore having drunken intercourse does not constitute rape". It's possible that my mind is imagining that though, wouldn't be the first time my memory has lied to me.

 

[JoeThree]

This right here is the result of our coddling culture, and personally, it sickens me. If you willfully injest a foreign subject, then you are responsible for what happens. You drive drunk and kill someone? Jail. You get drunk and fuck someone you otherwise might not? Tough shit. Now, if you black out and someone has sex with your unconscious body?, yeah, that's horrible, and that is rape, but otherwise... no. You want to act like an adult, drink like an adult, fuck like an adult, then live with the consequences like an adult.

The worst part, in my opinion, is that rape, real rape, is terrible and no one should go through that. Calling a drunken one night stand rape demeans the value of the word, and is offensive to anyone who has gone through the trauma of sexual assault.

 

[Muphin_Mann]

In the case you (Mr. OP) described...no. You said both people were drunk and they asked you to go home with them. So you would have to have raped each other (both being drunk) and the initiater would be the other person (they asked you home).

 

[Beryl77]

I don't know what the law says, which is different in each country anyway, but it depends on a lot of things from a moral point of view.
If both just became drunk and then decided to have sex, then no one raped anyone.
If both got drunk but one got drunk and had planned from the beginning to make the other person drunk with the intention to have sex with said person, then it is rape.
If only one person was drunk and the other person was sober but made that person drunk for sex, again rape. Even if the sober person didn't want to make that person drunk and later have sex, but still did it when the drunk person asked for sex.

It's really quite easy to make someone drunk and once a person is heavily drunk it's even easier to have sex with that person. You could argue that it's that person's own fault but I still think that you're morally wrong if you have sex with a drunk person while you're sober. Except of course if it's a regular sex partner.

 

[Muphin_Mann]

I don't know what the law says, which is different in each country anyway, but it depends on a lot of things from a moral point of view.
If both just became drunk and then decided to have sex, then no one raped anyone.
If both got drunk but one got drunk and had planned from the beginning to make the other person drunk with the intention to have sex with said person, then it is rape.
If only one person was drunk and the other person was sober but made that person drunk for sex, again rape. Even if the sober person didn't want to make that person drunk and later have sex, but still did it when the drunk person asked for sex.

It's really quite easy to make someone drunk and once a person is heavily drunk it's even easier to have sex with that person. You could argue that it's that person's own fault but I still think that you're morally wrong if you have sex with a drunk person while you're sober. Except of course if it's a regular sex partner.

Its easy to make someone drunk? Really? Whens the last time you knew someone who was tackled, held down, tied up, and had alchohol poured in their throat.

Im setting aside the legal aspect to bring up something social, you DO NOT MAKE THE OTHER PERSON DRUNK. Unless your already commiting a kidnapping or assault, the most you can do is offer a drink. The most. More likely they ask for a drink, or where drinking without your involvment.

At a normal bar or whatever, NO ONE but YOURSELF is to blame if you get drunk. Too many responses here act like people go around summoning alchohol into other peoples bloodstreams without their will or knowledge, when that tends not to be the case.

 

[Flight]

Someone who is intoxicated is not in full possession of their faculties. Therefore, yes, it is rape. When people get intoxicated, they're looking to get drunk or what-have-you; they are not consenting to assault of any kind, period.

 

[Do4600]

Yes, but where is the line, nobody is saying that if a woman blacks out or is unconscious it isn't rape, but where is the point at which a person cannot give consent? One drink? Two? Three? Is it based on body weight? At what point do you think you can't give consent, and at what point do other people think they can't give consent? It's not as easily resolved as it would seem. If you were given a line up of random people in different states of being and I asked you to talk to them for 20 minutes each would you be able to tell which one was sober, which one had had a single beer or a single martini and which one had had a number of drinks but still wasn't "Drunk" and which one actually was the bonafide unable to give consent party. I think very few people would be able to make those distinctions while sober, let alone after even ONE beer not to mention after several.

As soon as someone starts drinking, then, assume it's not proper to have sex, unless you two know each other well and have a genuine understanding of what you both would want (more likely than not, this would involve being in a steady relationship with someone, at which point you'd hopefully be in sync with your partner sexually. If you can't tell, err on the side of caution.

If people (in this thread in general; not necessarily you) are going to argue that one can't claim consent in a compromised state because people can't tell that one's drunk, then it stands to reason that we can just as legitimately argue that one can't claim innocence just because one didn't bother to ensure his/her partner was in a non-compromised state.

It's always better to be safe than sorry, and frankly, if you give a crap about the person you're about to sex up, it should come naturally to want to wait until your partner's not intoxicated/potentially unable to make smart decisions to do something that can have serious ramifications. The only exceptions to that being if you two have an understanding based on an existing relationship, etc.

I'm not asking for advice my friend, I'm trying to point out that this is never going to be a simple issue. You assume a previous and extended relationship and a situation in which one can observe that a person has been drinking, this is not always the case, it's also not always the case that people having sex necessarily care about each other or EVEN LIKE EACH OTHER. You can ask them if they're drunk to ensure they're not, well I can give you first hand accounts of me asking people if they're drunk and them lying through their drunken teeth. So how is one to know? And even if you trust that they're telling the truth and you can't tell if their drunk or not, they still might be. So what do you do? Carry a breathalyzer?

Then don't have sex with people unless you can verify they're not under any influence of any drug. Can't tell if a person is under the influence? Don't know how many drinks that chick's had? Don't sleep with her. Don't know if that guy's sober enough to give informed consent? Don't have sex with him. Lacking proof that someone is legitimately able to give consent? Then don't have sex with that person.

This isn't exactly rocket science.

Edit: Also I assumed nothing, because "a previous and extended relationship" was only mentioned in order to provide an exception to this idea that you shouldn't sleep with people unless you know for a fact they aren't intoxicated and can give consent (the only reason that's an exception being because if you've been with someone that long, one would hope you're past the point of being unable to tell whether you partner would want sex, alcohol involved or not). You're making this more complicated than it needs to be, more likely than not to justify this kind of irresponsible behavior. My point being, if there is any burden on the more drunk party to try and watch their drinking such that they don't get into this kind of consent issue, then there is also a burden on the less-drunk party to determine if the other person's intoxicated, and to choose not to have sex with that person should there be any reason to assume they could be (such reasons including a lack of proof that they haven't been drinking). There is a lot of shoving the burden on the first (more drunk) party rather than on both in this thread, and it's problematic.

It is necessarily more complicated than you're making it out to be. Everybody doesn't possess the same quality for reason that you do, and an infallible eye for who is drunk and who isn't you must take that into account when talking about a population at large, especially when dealing with laws that govern that population. I'm trying to spur conversation on the complexities and shadows of the legal guidelines regarding this topic, I'm not here to point the finger at rape victims. I'm here to intellectually challenge and define the limits of these laws and the circumstances surrounding them.

 

[Wushu Panda]

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?

by law, yes. being intoxicated impairs judgement.

say guy (drunk or not, doesnt matter in the eyes of the law) meets hot girl at a party, shes been drinking and its obvious shes drunk. they wind up having sex. she wakes up the next morning and claims guy raped her. the police would investigate and charges would be filed against guy.

it doesnt matter what a bunch of random people say in a forum poll. the law says its rape and that ***** can fuck your life up. dont have sex with drunk girls unless its been previously agreed (in a sober state of mind) to be consensual.

 

[LetalisK]

Actually, the correct answer here is "Depends". "Maybe" and "Possibly" are also acceptable answers. There is not enough information to provide a thoughtful response on either legal or moral grounds on an issue as involved as non-forceful rape.

 

[Mxrz]

1) Don't fuck drunk people.
2) Don't get so drunk that you can't remember 1).

What you think or believe is right and fair doesn't mean jack shit. What matters is what the DA and a jury think.

 

[viking97]

no "other" option? weak

in most circumstances no, unless he got her drunk by spiking her drink or something. if she got drunk on her own the no not rape.

 

[Do4600]

If both just became drunk and then decided to have sex, then no one raped anyone.
If both got drunk but one got drunk and had planned from the beginning to make the other person drunk with the intention to have sex with said person, then it is rape.

This doesn't seem right, the outcome is the same in both cases, but the mere thought at the beginning changes it's moral implications?

Like the difference between manslaughter and first degree murder. Except in this case you consider the first A-okay but in the second it's morally repugnant even though the reactions of the victim were the same? In both instances advances were made and advances were accepted, so why is it morally okay to plan those advances two minutes in advance and not morally accepted to plan them eight hours in advance?

 

[Beryl77]

-snip-

Just because YOU don't let yourself get drunk easily doesn't mean the same goes for others. Many just drink you have fun at clubs and parties. They don't expect that someone else will fill them up and try to have sex with them later. Some like to get drunk and it goes easier if someone helps. Each drink goes down easier and easier just like the judgement goes down after each glass.
Should every women not have fun out of fear of getting raped?
Apparently you haven't seen the guys that I've seen at parties and clubs. There are ways to make women drunk and I'm not saying that it isn't their fault at all but IMO, it is rape.

 

[Do4600]

Someone who is intoxicated is not in full possession of their faculties. Therefore, yes, it is rape. When people get intoxicated, they're looking to get drunk or what-have-you; they are not consenting to assault of any kind, period.

Nobody ever consents to assault. That's why it's assault and not a welcome comment reflecting your sexual prowess.

 

[kurupt87]

This falls into the same category as a seventeen year old having sex with a fifteen year old--it might be consensual, and it certainly isn't nearly as evil as violent rape, but the victim is incapable of informed consent and it's therefore rape.

No. The law against underage sex, namely those who are sexually educated and aware, is to protect them from grooming. That is the systematic manipulation by those significantly older and more experienced in order to get what they want at the unknowing expense of that young person.

It is not there to stop 17 year olds having sex with 15 year olds, having to police and stop that is merely a byproduct of the law to prevent the other.

It's rape, for one simple reason: it's not just consent that matters, it's INFORMED consent.

Whether or not you would win in court is irrelevant--rape cases are notoriously hard to prosecute, but just because the prosecutor can't prove that the woman was drunk when she consented doesn't mean that the rape didn't occur. If you punch me in the face and I file assault charges but can't prove anything (or even if I decide not to press charges) it's still assault. The act occurred, and the act is rape. It's not the same type of rape as people usually think of when they hear the word (we typically think of violent rapes as opposed to rapes where one partner isn't legally capable of consent), but that doesn't change what it is.

My problem with the law is that it basically defines everyone as a rapist. At some point in your life you will almost certainly have sex with someone who is legally drunk. I have, many times. Both where I've been more drunk than her and she more drunk than me. So have all the friends I have whose exploits I am even peripherally aware of.

My point, it's a useless law that demeans what it is to be raped and pedestrianises rape.

 

[Jegsimmons]

somebody drove home so somebody is getting DUI charges. (HA!)


if both are drunk at the time, its all good till the next mourning......oh wait, leftist American society, ITS THE MANS FAULT! HE RAPED HER!!!! NO ARGUMENT!!!