The Escapist users and Rape

[lacktheknack]

So the Topic Of The Fortnight is going to be wild drunken rape?

...

If you guys need me, I'll be anywhere except the Off-Topic forum.

 

[ace_of_something]

Sweet jesus, fellow escapists. I thought your views on kids were bad enough, but good god, if any sort of legal counsel or law enforcement official saw any of the two popular threads on what's considered rape or not, they'd probably vomit in rage.

I am a law enforcement officer. I didn't vomit in rage but i yelled at the computer closed those threads and vowed never to enter again.

edit: oh look, the post right above me blames the victim.
Awesome.

 

[Michael Hirst]

I've had drunken sex, I didn't consider it predatory at all by either party, definitely stupid but calling it rape is dangerous since that shit can ruin peoples lives, even just the accusation can cause all kinds of shit for either party involved.

I agree some people do take advantage of being intoxicated for means of having sex and that shit does need to be scorned but there's so many grey areas that can't be covered, how do you know if someone was being predatorial and taking advantage of the man/woman in quesiton or if they were both blind fucking drunk and wanted to fuck for the sake of fucking.

As for the arguement about women preventing rape, noone BLAMES them for it, it's never the victims fault but there is such a thing as caution, noones saying you can't go out and have fun or dress in a provocative way but if you have friends you watch out for each other, it's common sense, by having people you can rely on to protect you less nasty stuff can happen, the message is often delivered in a ham handed way and then blown into the "YOURE BLAMING THE VICTIMS" arguement.

The truth is a group will always be less vulnerable than an individual, this applies to men as well, a big group of douchey drunkards will pick a fight with guys on their own for some fun but approaching a group of 6 is a different story altogether. It's also true that when you're increidbly drunk you're a bigger target because you're perceived as less able to defend yourself, again this isn't blaming the victim for the crime, this is just saying how certian circumstances can make you appear as a viable target for a twisted bastard who does rape women.

 

[Griffolion]

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'd like to meet you. To have a conversation about gaming related things, obviously.

OT: Rape is bad. Don't do it. That's my thoughts on the matter. It's not much really.

Oh, also, my dad was once on the jury for a case where a girl had accused a guy of rape after a typical drunken one night stand scenario. He'd basically been a bit of an ungentlemenly douchebag and left early the next morning before she'd woke up so they wouldn't have to talk.

Anyway, as my dad tells it, it was kind of astonishing how the jury panned out in their thoughts. The girl changed her story multiple times and had huge holes in her testimony about how it exactly could be classed as rape based on the circumstance. The jury were 50/50 down the middle guilty/not guilty. All the men looked at her testimony and case, saw the amount of holes in it and said "based on the shakeyness of everything she's given, we honestly can't call this guy for rape". All the women said something along the lines of "HOW DARE YOU EVEN SUGGEST NOT GUILTY, WE KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON, AS MEN YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO GET ANOTHER MAN OFF A CHARGE."

I may wish to say at this point that my dad is a researcher of Tribology. He's very level headed, objective and the last person to ever exaggerate a detail since being concise and level is his job, please do take my word on that.

In response to this inflamed accusation, my dad said to them, "you can hang, draw and quarter this guy for all i care; but based on what we have been given as evidence, you cannot soundly convict this man of rape."

Anyway, as it turns out, the jury voted not guilty and he was acquitted. Due to her changing her testimony a lot and later revelation that she had actually exaggerated or even confuscated many details, she was made to pay a fine and all court costs to the tune of over £1000.

I just thought it was an interesting tale relevant to this discussion.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

Then the most important issue doesn't deal with the issue of rape or consent, but rather: if alcohol is so inhibiting that it prevents people from making wilful decisions, why isn't it policed more stringently?

I like a drink as much as the next man, a pint or two of local ale on my onc in a blue moon trip to the pub. But if alcohol is so inhibiting in the eyes of the law that it causes two intoxicated individuals to unwittingly rape each other, why is it so readily available?

 

[Batou667]

-righteous fury-

Yup, heaven forbid that rape is a complex issue and people have a variety of opinions on it.

There are, like, 3 rape threads on Page 1. What exactly merits yet another one?

 

[Veldt Falsetto]

I think my theory is, there is a difference between right and wrong and what the law says is right and wrong. In many countries it is against the law to wear a hat during certain times (I'm not being stupid, seriously).

If I then wear a hat during that time of the day is it wrong or is it just breaking the law?

In regards to rape and your opening post


You CAN NOT simply take implication as consent. The only way you can prove ANYTHING AT ALL is to have a written contract in order to have sex. Is that what you want? Sure it'll get rid of most rape cases but do you really want to have to write up and read a terms and conditions and get both parties to accept in order to take part in intercourse? It's a ridiculous notion!

You can't say, "but she implied she wanted sex" in a court. The judge would ask how and all you would be able to reply is "she acted promiscuous" I mean what IS THAT as proof?

Hypothetical scenario here. If I was drunk in a bar and was chatting to a drunk female, we got along great, we started getting a bit lustful and began kissing and being overly friendly. I ask "Wanna go somewhere more private? Like to my place?", she replies with a nod. We both stand up and she gropes my bum or the inside of my thigh sensually as she stands, accidentally banging her head and drawing blood before we both stumble off into the night.

Is this implication enough to have sex with her?

Back at my house we chat some more, maybe play a stripping game for a bit of fun, drink some more and kiss a lot more in nothing but our underwear

Is this implication enough to have sex with her?

She procedes to take her underwear off and sits on my lap

Is this implication enough to have sex with her?

She initiates foreplay

Is this implication enough to have sex with her?

We both have sex and then the following morning she remembers none of this, wakes up, naked in a strangers bed with her clothes strewn all over the floor and a head injury with blood all over the pillow next to some weird fat man who is also naked. She screams and shouts and cries rape, she doesn't remember what she was like or what she did, all she feels is though she has been raped. I wake up to screaming and shouting and blood on my pillow, I don't know what's happened but I remember last night. I try and calm her down but she quickly calls the police and has me arrested on accounts of rape.

Who is the victim here? Who raped who? If I was then tried with rape and then convicted due to lack of funds or public favour, am I a rapist or am I falsely accused.

Disclaimer: the scenario is completely hypothetical and false and I have neither had sex drunk or with a drunk female. Also I am not trying to say rape doesn't happen, just that as much as rape does happen, so does the hypothetical situation brought up here. And of course, it isn't just women that can be raped or men falsely accused as is the popular opinion.

 

[michiehoward]

Boy you guys really suck the fun out of drunk sex.

It is possible for women to enjoy sex while intoxicated. Just putting that out there.

 

[Ieyke]

People shouldn't take advantage of people who aren't in control of their mental faculties but, on the flipside, people shouldn't get drunk if they don't want to risk people taking advantage of them.

Is it bad to take advantage? Yes.
Is it their own damn fault that they can be taken advantage of? Also yes.
Is it rape? No. They made the conscious decision to get wasted /story. One way or another it was their own decision making that lead to it.

I'll defend a drunk female friend from people looking to take advantage of her, but if I'm not there to stop it I can't help but be of the mind that "god dammit, don't drink so much" with a generous helping of "I want to cave that guy's face in with my fist"

*shrug*

 

[ThetaNova]

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

Agreed! But then again, yes means yes.

 

[jonnosferatu]

Then the most important issue doesn't deal with the issue of rape or consent, but rather: if alcohol is so inhibiting that it prevents people from making wilful decisions, why isn't it policed more stringently?

I like a drink as much as the next man, a pint or two of local ale on my onc in a blue moon trip to the pub. But if alcohol is so inhibiting in the eyes of the law that it causes two intoxicated individuals to unwittingly rape each other, why is it so readily available?

Because it's heavily ingrained in virtually all of the world's cultures and is an extremely profitable business on an international level?

I'm not quite sure how this is a question...

 

[Azure-Supernova]

Then the most important issue doesn't deal with the issue of rape or consent, but rather: if alcohol is so inhibiting that it prevents people from making wilful decisions, why isn't it policed more stringently?

I like a drink as much as the next man, a pint or two of local ale on my onc in a blue moon trip to the pub. But if alcohol is so inhibiting in the eyes of the law that it causes two intoxicated individuals to unwittingly rape each other, why is it so readily available?

Because it's heavily ingrained in virtually all of the world's cultures and is an extremely profitable business on an international level?

I'm not quite sure how this is a question...

Oh I get that, don't worry. My point was that the substance is so readily available and is policed rather lightly, yet at the same time delcares that people under the influence of alcohol can't make wilfull decisions. It was rhetorical because the answers are blatantly obvious as you pointed out.

 

[MassiveGeek]

Rape is having sex with a person against their will, sometimes using means like force to do it as well. Correct?

Then I'd have to say that if you made the concious decision to get so pissed that you'd give consent to a stranger, that is not rape, because frankly, you've given consent.

That doesn't make any sense. You consented to get drunk (and that's stupid) but you did not consent to anything else. Once you are drunk I can take all your money too then right, since you consented? Beat you up? Slash your throat? What, you consented!

Read the post properly before throwing around accusations.

I said that if you're so pissed that you would give consent to a stranger that's on you, because it is. I didn't say being drunk automatically gave consent, or at least, that's not what I fucking meant and most people with half a brain would understand that no one would agree that being drunk automatically means you can use the person as much as you want.

Fucking hell.

 

[veloper]

Then the most important issue doesn't deal with the issue of rape or consent, but rather: if alcohol is so inhibiting that it prevents people from making wilful decisions, why isn't it policed more stringently?

I like a drink as much as the next man, a pint or two of local ale on my onc in a blue moon trip to the pub. But if alcohol is so inhibiting in the eyes of the law that it causes two intoxicated individuals to unwittingly rape each other, why is it so readily available?

Because it's heavily ingrained in virtually all of the world's cultures and is an extremely profitable business on an international level?

I'm not quite sure how this is a question...

Oh I get that, don't worry. My point was that the substance is so readily available and is policed rather lightly, yet at the same time delcares that people under the influence of alcohol can't make wilfull decisions. It was rhetorical because the answers are blatantly obvious as you pointed out.

Getting drunk is fine.
It's not the mind altering experience some of the church-goers here make it out to be. If you can talk properly, you can think properly.

You shouldn't drink and drive, but partying and drinking belong together.
For insiders, if you didn't get drunk at night, you never left the house.

 

[Montezuma's Lawyer]

So basically what you're saying is intoxicated people are immune from all responsibility because their mental state is impaired.

OH OK.

Sure lets just give them the freedom to drive and operate heavy machinery and kill a few dozen people in the process, because they can't make sound judgements.

Same with sex. Drunk person agrees to consensual sex, but WOOPSIES THEY'RE DRUNK, lets make everyone else responsible and give the alcoholics a free ride to do whatever they want, maybe convict a few innocent people of rape.


SOUNDS GREAT CHIEF LET ME LIVE IN YOUR WORLD.

Do us a favor, read the fucking post next time, that is 100% the opposite of what he said.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

Getting drunk is fine.
It's not the mind altering experience some of the church-goers here make it out to be. If you can talk properly, you can think properly.

You shouldn't drink and drive, but partying and drinking belong together.
For insiders, if you didn't get drunk at night, you never left the house.

That's kind of my point. Unless you set out on an empty stomach with the intent of losing yourself, chances are you're quite capable of making a decision, you just might be a bit more broad with your options. However for law to stipulate that intoxication removes the right to make wilfull decisions, well surely that's something conceded before you're even drunk right?

 

[Olrod]

If the guy is drunk at the time, does that mean he can accuse her of rape too?

 

[veloper]

Getting drunk is fine.
It's not the mind altering experience some of the church-goers here make it out to be. If you can talk properly, you can think properly.

You shouldn't drink and drive, but partying and drinking belong together.
For insiders, if you didn't get drunk at night, you never left the house.

That's kind of my point. Unless you set out on an empty stomach with the intent of losing yourself, chances are you're quite capable of making a decision, you just might be a bit more broad with your options. However for law to stipulate that intoxication removes the right to make wilfull decisions, well surely that's something conceded before you're even drunk right?

Exactly. Now if only the self-righteous judges here would pick up on this and get some life experience themselves.

 

[Rhaff]

Okay, have I missed some high profile news story about drinking and rape, since all these threads about rape and drinking are abundant on the forum lately?

 

[demonfridge]

So according to the OP, if a drunk woman consents to sex with a drunken man, and in the morning she regrets it. Then the man is a rapist?

Sounds like classic "all straight men are rapists" crap.

Of course nobody sees it as as rape if a man were to regret drunken sex in the morning. Because all men are evil amoral rapists and they would never regret sex. Fucking bigots.