The Escapist users and Rape

[seraphy]

What's sickest about this discussion is actually how personal responsibility of someone who drinks is talked about over and over and over again. Yet personal resposibility of someone who takes advantage of someone who can't think straight is ignored in same sentence.

Which one of those is an actual crime after all?

 

[Ickorus]

EDIT: And stop changing our fucking words, we haven't been saying "If you get drunk it's your own fault you got raped" no, we're saying "If you get drunk, and whilst drunk consent to sex with a stranger, it's your own damned fault and you should take responsibility for your actions and the actions of drunk you" Rape in my eyes it when someone FORCES themselves upon you, not when you willingly go to bed with them. (Drunk or otherwise)

Don't be stupid. You can't give consent when your judgement is impaired.

I'll give you other example that isn't about rape but is similar, someone would try getting signature for a will for example, from a drunk person. Do you think that will would hold in court if it was challenged, clearly the one who wrote it wasn't in right mind to do that agreement. As such it is null and void.

This is exactly same thing.

It isn't exactly the same thing.

The big difference is that if someones trying to get a signature for something whilst the person is drunk they definitely have a malicious intent but with sex there's a fair chance the person has no malicious intent and just thinks they got lucky.

Im not saying when you're drunk you suddenly can't be raped and I agree that there are some seriously disgusting people who do take advantage of drunk people but generally when people are in a pub they're not there prowling for a victim and when they hook up with someone they likely aren't even considering the fact that the other person is perhaps a trifle too drunk to make a sensible decision, they aren't rapists, they're idiots.

The grey area is too big.

You see, in my books if just one innocent person gets convicted then it makes the whole affair not worth it; you'll have ruined that persons entire life and that's just as bad as if you'd raped them.

 

[seraphy]

It isn't exactly the same thing.

The big difference is that if someones trying to get a signature for something whilst the person is drunk they definitely have a malicious intent but with sex there's a fair chance the person has no malicious intent and just thinks they got lucky.

Im not saying when you're drunk you suddenly can't be raped and I agree that there are some seriously disgusting people who do take advantage of drunk people but generally when people are in a pub they're not there prowling for a victim and when they hook up with someone they likely aren't even considering the fact that the other person is perhaps a trifle too drunk to make a sensible decision, they aren't rapists, they're idiots.

The grey area is too big.

You see, in my books if just one innocent person gets convicted then it makes the whole affair not worth it; you'll have ruined that persons entire life and that's just as bad as if you'd raped them.

It is true, there might not be malicious intent. But point still stands, you can't give consent to something if your judgement is impaired, and no one should take advantage of it. It is also still a crime, even if there is no malicious intent, most likely it will lighten the sentence however.

And how about if someone is raped, and her rapist is not convicted. Doesn't that also ruin that rape victims life, at least to a point. Perhaps not to a same point as innocent going to prison but still.

 

[Ickorus]

It isn't exactly the same thing.

The big difference is that if someones trying to get a signature for something whilst the person is drunk they definitely have a malicious intent but with sex there's a fair chance the person has no malicious intent and just thinks they got lucky.

Im not saying when you're drunk you suddenly can't be raped and I agree that there are some seriously disgusting people who do take advantage of drunk people but generally when people are in a pub they're not there prowling for a victim and when they hook up with someone they likely aren't even considering the fact that the other person is perhaps a trifle too drunk to make a sensible decision, they aren't rapists, they're idiots.

The grey area is too big.

You see, in my books if just one innocent person gets convicted then it makes the whole affair not worth it; you'll have ruined that persons entire life and that's just as bad as if you'd raped them.

It is true, there might not be malicious intent. But point still stands, you can't give consent to something if your judgement is impaired, and no one should take advantage of it. It is also still a crime, even if there is no malicious intent, most likely it will lighten the sentence however.

And how about if someone is raped, and her rapist is not convicted. Doesn't that also ruin that rape victims life, at least to a point. Perhaps not to a same point as innocent going to prison but still.

I agree to an extent, that's why I think the law needs to be changed to be more clear on the subject and not leave such a wide (and sorry to use this again) grey area that allows for innocents to go to prison.

 

[zehydra]

I totally agree with OP's post. In general, I'm pretty much against drinking in all cases.

 

[ph0b0s123]

Sweet jesus, fellow escapists.

Wow, not all the peoples of the internet have the same opinion on issues as you do.....

Also the thought process of 'I am fed up of all these threads, so I am going to create another one'. Price-less.

 

[Radelaide]

No means no; no matter if you're sober, drunk, high, whatever.

True. The issue here however, is whether yes means yes when you're drunk. Personally, I feel that if you're going to do something that impairs your judgement willfully, then you are responsible for whatever you do while your judgement is impaired. If I get high and decide to rob a bank, I'm still going to be charged with bank robbery as if I was sober, likewise, I believe that if you get drunk of your owwn free will, any actions you take will drunk should be seen as just as valid as when you were sober.

You are *never* responsible for your own rape. To suggest such a thing is grotesque. If you say "yes" and then an hour later say "no", you can't be held to your original statement.

 

[Dramerc]

Rape is Rape an a true punishment must be enforced hopefully torture until the end of days
Drunk or not it is rape so punishment is due

 

[I-Protest-I]

The lesson here is DON'T HAVE SEX WITH DRUNK PEOPLE UNLESS THEY CONSENT BEFORE THEY'RE DRUNK! If you find yourself constantly waking up in strange beds after getting drunk, STOP DRINKING! No one is saying that people should be running around blitzed all the time telling people they'll have sex with them without realizing there are consequences for those actions. Let's face it Escapist, drunk sex isn't even that awesome anyways.

^^this, people should not having sex with another person if their uncertain if the other person is drunk or not.

Spoken like someone who can get laid without alcohol influencing the other party.

O.T. I'm just glad the U.K. don't cry on and on like you yanks about this shit.

 

[DazBurger]

No means no; no matter if you're sober, drunk, high, whatever.

True. The issue here however, is whether yes means yes when you're drunk. Personally, I feel that if you're going to do something that impairs your judgement willfully, then you are responsible for whatever you do while your judgement is impaired. If I get high and decide to rob a bank, I'm still going to be charged with bank robbery as if I was sober, likewise, I believe that if you get drunk of your owwn free will, any actions you take will drunk should be seen as just as valid as when you were sober.

You are *never* responsible for your own rape. To suggest such a thing is grotesque. If you say "yes" and then an hour later say "no", you can't be held to your original statement.

But what if that hour later is AFTER sex?

Is it then rape?

 

[LiquidSolstice]

The most irritating goddamn thing about this is femenists see "you can reduce the risk of ____ by doing the following ____" and instead see "OMG WHAT A DICK HE'S BLAMING WOMEN FOR ______ SEXIST PIG!!!!111one".

 

[LiquidSolstice]

No means no; no matter if you're sober, drunk, high, whatever.

True. The issue here however, is whether yes means yes when you're drunk. Personally, I feel that if you're going to do something that impairs your judgement willfully, then you are responsible for whatever you do while your judgement is impaired. If I get high and decide to rob a bank, I'm still going to be charged with bank robbery as if I was sober, likewise, I believe that if you get drunk of your owwn free will, any actions you take will drunk should be seen as just as valid as when you were sober.

You are *never* responsible for your own rape. To suggest such a thing is grotesque. If you say "yes" and then an hour later say "no", you can't be held to your original statement.

Erm, yes you can be held to your original statement. "yes" gives consent for sex. "no" an hour later after the sex has occurred, that's called not fucking taking responsibility for your actions.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

If a person is drunk then he is unable to gauge the drunkenness of another one therefore it COULD provide justification, being too drunk to be able to tell your partner is too drunk to legally consent to sex isn't impossible or anything.


Also, if two people are drunk why is it always the guy who is raping the girl? Why not the other way around or at least both of them?


That's what's sexist and unfair. If a guy gets an STD or something and tries to get a girl he had sex with while drunk and now regrets charged for raping him he'll get laughed out of the courts...so women should be equally as much laughed out of the courts when these other factors are the same.




As for the "lawmaker" who would read this thread, I'm sure he must have been taught in the 7+ years of studying that laymen do not bother with strict legal definitions of their actions.

My problem is is that if I get drunk on wine I tend to jump on the nearest male thing in the vicinity, I can hardly blame them for that in the morning can I. xD

I do try not to drink wine...but it's so tasty. :<

I have a barrel of home-brewed red wine at my place in Greece...and I can attest to both it's flavor and jump-causing characteristics. One time my dog chewed the tap and the whole barrel spilled in the balcony, there were about 4 inches of wine on the floor and she got so drunk that she was jumping around and barking at the floor for no reason .

 

[sindremaster]

Rape is Rape an a true punishment must be enforced hopefully torture until the end of days
Drunk or not it is rape so punishment is due

I think you misunderstood the point of this thread, unless you're saying it's rape to sleep with sober women who says yes.

 

[Jonluw]

Yeah, never have sex with drunk people ever unless they explicitly consent to it before they start drinking.
Lol, okay. All bars and nightclubs will be closing now, if you don't mind.

If you enjoyed it while it was going on, but regret it afterwards, it's not rape. End of story.

 

[anthony87]

To quote another Escapist whose name escapes me:
"There's enough high horses here to make a small cavalry charge"

If a girl is able to walk up to me, talk to me and basically initiate having sex then as far as I'm concerned that would be consent given. If she wakes up the next morning regretting what she had done, that doesn't make me a rapist. It makes the girl someone who shouldn't drink if she can't deal with the consequences of what she has done/will do.

 

[Phasmal]

I don't bother entering into these kinds of discussions on this site anymore. My best advice is to steer clear of them.

For the sake of your own mental well-being.

It's like pissing against the wind.

This.

The gaming community is not the best place to have these discussions.

 

[spartan231490]

Legally, you are correct, in many places but not all.

Morally, and logically, you are incorrect. Hell, your agreement with the first point completely invalidates what you have to say about the other two. Drunkenness doesn't remove responsibility for any other decision you make. If you drive, it's your fault. If you get in a fight and hurt/kill someone it's your fault. If you buy something off a stupid infomercial, you don't get your money back. So why do people insist on thinking that you are incapable of agreeing to sex. It's the single most illogical thing I've ever heard people say, and with all the stupid crap that people spout at the world, that's one fuck of an accomplishment.

Also, to claim that this is rape is degrading to all victims of real rape. To equate getting drunk and having sex in any way to having someone grab you in an alley and force you at gunpoint is like telling every single person who has ever been raped that what happened to them is no worse than having sex after a few shots. This is such an inconceivable leap of logic that no rational human being can support it.

To summarize, if you get drunk, have sex, and regret it. You might be able to get the other person charged with rape, but in no moral or logical examination did they rape you, and frankly you are a human being equivalent of pond scum, and I hope you get hit by a bus.