NationStates Jolt Archive

The thread on the prostitute rape case has got me thinking: what's your position on the situation where a person is drunk enough to lower their inhibitions, but not passed out or drunk enough to be incapable of refusing? Is having sex with such a person rape? I mean, while I think it's a pretty low thing to do, as the law currently stands for other matters, we hold people accountable for what they do while drunk-- why do they suddenly give up decision making ability when it comes to sex.

Furthermore, why the double standard where if a guy wakes up with a woman he normally wouldn't sleep with, it's just "damn beer goggles," but when the situation is reversed, it's considered rape(admittedly, I don't know if the law upholds this double standard, or it this is just a societal viewpoint)?

I would hazard a guess and say that it has to do with society's perceptions about how each gender is "supposed" to view sex. In the situation where the man is drunk, it's "no big deal," because guys are supposed to want sex anyway, but for the woman, sex is supposed to be "bad," so the man who has had sex with her while drunk has done something "bad" to her by making her less "pure" or whatever. Also, I think it's a part of society's way of insinuating that while men can maintain some control over themselves while drunk, those "poor, weak women" just don't have the willpower, so we have to protect them.

What do you think?

It's a clear social double standard. Unfortunately, these sorts of things are self fulfilling. Culturally, men don't give women the respect they deserve, so stronger legal measures become necessary, which unfortunately also perpetuates the idea of feminine inferiority.

If you consent while you're drunk, you're still consenting. Obviously anything like GHB used to drug people unknowningly is a different case altogether. But if you get yourself drunk, and consent while drunk, I count that as valid consent.

I personally wouldn't do it myself, but I certainly don't think people who have sex with someone who has willfully impaired their own judgment should be considered rapists.

no it is not rape to have sex with a drunk person.

its pretty rare for a man to be charged with rape for having sex with a woman when the only evidence is that she had been drinking.

not that being drunk automatically grants any permission for sex.

i have to commend you on your point of view i agree with you, but where do you draw the line? who's to say that when that person was drunk they didn't come onto the sober person wanting to have sex with the sober person. in order for this to hold up you would have to make it illegal to have sex with some one that is drunk, would you not?

Depends on just how drunk she was. If she's still capable of understanding what she's consenting to, it's fair game.

If not, it's rape.

Depends on just how drunk she was. If she's still capable of understanding what she's consenting to, it's fair game.

If not, it's rape.

and if you have 2 extremely drunk people who both consent (as far as is possible) to sex? does she also rape him?

It doesn't matter how drunk the person was. The exception is if the other person was pushing alcohol on the other person with no intention of getting drunk themselves.

Depends on just how drunk she was. If she's still capable of understanding what she's consenting to, it's fair game.

If not, it's rape.

The problem there is that you'd be putting the onus of making that judgment call on the guy, who is probably not sober enough to drive, either. Combine that with being horny and there's just no way you're going to get an informed, clear headed and objective decision.

i don't know, but if it is i've been raped every time i had sex. i was so drunk i barely remember each occassion.

As I understand, in some states it's rape if you ply someone with alcohol, but not rape if you meet a drunk person in a bar and take them home. The idea seems to be that if you're meeting a stranger, you have no idea if they're too drunk to consent, but you can give someone alcohol until they are too drunk to consent.

As I understand, in some states it's rape if you ply someone with alcohol, but not rape if you meet a drunk person in a bar and take them home. The idea seems to be that if you're meeting a stranger, you have no idea if they're too drunk to consent, but you can give someone alcohol until they are too drunk to consent.

See, my view is that even if you supply the with alcohol, it shouldn't be rape-- as long as they know that it's alcohol you're giving them. Of course, if you spike somebody's drink with alcohol or a date-rape drug without their knowledge, then it's rape. But if they knowingly lower their inhibitions, that's different.

No means no, and if they're plastered, yes means no.

If you consent while you're drunk, you're still consenting. Obviously anything like GHB used to drug people unknowningly is a different case altogether. But if you get yourself drunk, and consent while drunk, I count that as valid consent.

I personally wouldn't do it myself, but I certainly don't think people who have sex with someone who has willfully impaired their own judgment should be considered rapists.
I agree completely.

That is my view on many drug related issues. For example you can't excuse drunk driving with that you where too drunk to realize what you where doing. I don't mind what others pour into their own bodies but they must take responsibility for their own recreational drug use.

since when does getting intoxicated imply that one consents to sex?

and if you have 2 extremely drunk people who both consent (as far as is possible) to sex? does she also rape him?

In a sense, yes. They rape each other. But neither were fully aware of their actions or able to consent and thus have an equal lack of responsibility in them, which means it ends up just being a really sucky situation.

I think the only time you could really prosecute someone for rape because of drunkeness is when one person is signficantly more sober than the other, recognizes the inability of the other to consent, and uses that to their advantage.

I believe it's rape if the person saying rape can show his/her judgement was hampered, either my drugs or alcohol, reguardless of who provided the substance.

The Definition of Rape is unwanted penetration of the body. so the only way a male could cry rape would be if he was penetrated. Some places have allowed non-penetration to fall within the Rape Catagory.

The Definition of Rape is unwanted penetration of the body. so the only way a male could cry rape would be if he was penetrated. Some places have allowed non-penetration to fall within the Rape Catagory.

Yeah, the places with even a little sense.

The idea that rape must involve penetration is an idiotic and sexist viewpoint.

I think the only time you could really prosecute someone for rape because of drunkeness is when one person is signficantly more sober than the other, recognizes the inability of the other to consent, and uses that to their advantage.

i agree.

Yeah, the places with even a little sense.

The idea that rape must involve penetration is an idiotic and sexist viewpoint.

Oh I agree, however that is the definition the law uses.

anything short of penetration will probably be counted as sexual assault.

Oh I agree, however that is the definition the law uses.

anything short of penetration will probably be counted as sexual assault.

In GA, it used to specifically be penis-in-vagina penetration. Penis-in-anus was sodomy and anything else was just sexual assault. We got that changed over 5 years ago. Can there really be that many places behind Georgia?

No means no, and if they're plastered, yes means no.
But why do we remove responsibility for one's actions when drunk only in the case of sex? Somebody can't say "Well, I was too drunk to know better than to drink and drive!" and get away with DUI, can they?

In GA, it used to specifically be penis-in-vagina penetration. Penis-in-anus was sodomy and anything else was just sexual assault. We got that changed over 5 years ago. Can there really be that many places behind Georgia?

Oh, they changed that? When I was in high school I learned that definition of rape, and I hadn't heard they changed the definition. What is it now?

But why do we remove responsibility for one's actions when drunk only in the case of sex? Somebody can't say "Well, I was too drunk to know better than to drink and drive!" and get away with DUI, can they?


being raped isn't a crime.

Oh, they changed that? When I was in high school I learned that definition of rape, and I hadn't heard they changed the definition. What is it now?

I'd have to look it up to be entirely accurate, but I believe forced sex - whether a penis is used or not - is rape.

being raped isn't a crime.

If you say "Yes," why should it be rape?

If you say "Yes," why should it be rape?

Because you are not in control enough to say "Yes." You can't sign a legally binding contract when drunk either.

Why can't doctors give out meds while drunk?

I'd have to look it up to be entirely accurate, but I believe forced sex - whether a penis is used or not - is rape.

It depends on the state. some states say Penetration has to be with a body part (Penis, Tongue, finger, toes etc), others say as long as it's penetration, it's rape. so straping on a dildo and forcing it into another person is rape. I remember reading one woman used a foreign object and it counted as rape decades ago.

Because you are not in control enough to say "Yes." You can't sign a legally binding contract when drunk either.

Why can't doctors give out meds while drunk?

But you can also compare it to, say, a guy at a casino. Now, many casinos offer free drinks to guests. If a guy at your poker table has a few too many, and you win a lot of his money, are you guilty of theft, because he's not in control enough to wager his money?

Doctors can't give out meds while drunk because if their judgment is impaired, they may give somebody meds that will seriously harm them.

Because you are not in control enough to say "Yes." You can't sign a legally binding contract when drunk either.

Why can't doctors give out meds while drunk?
now that's an idea... a signed contract... before one person takes another home for sex, both have to sign a contract, witnessed by the bartender and both have to undergo a breath test and their results noted and signed. :p

that way their blood alcohol level is recorded. proof of consent, and (by handwriting analysis) effects of alchol inebriation.

If you say "Yes," why should it be rape?

how often does anyone make a formal request for sex?

its more common to assume consent because the other person actively participates.

there is also the case where the person might "go along with it" but not be an enthusiastic participant. is that consent when the drunk person isnt able to fully process what is going on?

more aggressive sorts assume consent unless a formal and emphatic "NO!" is issued. some need to have a "NO!" and the person struggling to get away. those things are quite hard to do when you are very drunk. if you dont call for help, are you consenting? some assume that if you went to someplace private with them you are consenting to sex even if they have to lock the door and put their hands around your throat.

it is up to society to decide just what constitutes consent. we cant leave it up to the lowest common denominator of humanity.

now that's an idea... a signed contract... before one person takes another home for sex, both have to sign a contract, witnessed by the bartender and both have to undergo a breath test and their results noted and signed. :p

that way their blood alcohol level is recorded. proof of consent, and (by handwriting analysis) effects of alchol inebriation.


There was a video i saw somewhere with something to that effect, a teenage girl and boy laying on a bed with lawyers standing behind them discussing/bargaining the exact terms and conditions as it were. Can't remember where i saw it though, or i would link it.

.. the person might "go along with it" but not be an enthusiastic participant... thats not rape.. thats marriage.

My uncle does it once a month.. He loves her wife (God bless her).. he just wishes she could lose some 100 pounds.

no it is not rape to have sex with a drunk person.

I suppose that depends on what jurisdiction you are in. Most of the US classifies it as second degree rape. If the victim claims that they were incapable of making a competent decision, due to inebriation or any other factor affecting their mental state, their consent is void.

how often does anyone make a formal request for sex?

its more common to assume consent because the other person actively participates.

there is also the case where the person might "go along with it" but not be an enthusiastic participant. is that consent when the drunk person isnt able to fully process what is going on?

more aggressive sorts assume consent unless a formal and emphatic "NO!" is issued. some need to have a "NO!" and the person struggling to get away. those things are quite hard to do when you are very drunk. if you dont call for help, are you consenting? some assume that if you went to someplace private with them you are consenting to sex even if they have to lock the door and put their hands around your throat.

it is up to society to decide just what constitutes consent. we cant leave it up to the lowest common denominator of humanity.

You'd have to be careful, otherwise you could have sexual intercourse with an unconscious person = consensual (as there would be no lack of consent). I'm pretty sure that isn't what you're saying, but it's a thought.

On the subject of definitions, in Scotland, "carnal knowledge" (the phrase used in rape) is taken to mean physical contact between the external genitalia. No penetration is required.

I suppose that depends on what jurisdiction you are in. Most of the US classifies it as second degree rape. If the victim claims that they were incapable of making a competent decision, due to inebriation or any other factor affecting their mental state, their consent is void.

it depends on how drunk the person is. there have been a few cases of men being charged with rape for mutual drunken sex but they are exceedingly rare. its hard enough to get charges brought for raping an unconscious drunk.

There was a video i saw somewhere with something to that effect, a teenage girl and boy laying on a bed with lawyers standing behind them discussing/bargaining the exact terms and conditions as it were. Can't remember where i saw it though, or i would link it.

in bed with lawyers standing around... man, that would be a screwing that both parties won't soon forget. :p

...there have been a few cases of men being charged with rape for mutual drunken sex...the Law/Justice in that country (wherever that is) is fucked up.

in bed with lawyers standing around... man, that would be a screwing that both parties won't soon forget. :pthere is such a clusterfuck of contradicting laws around sex -in some countries- lately, so many definition of rape.. that soon enough I will have to bring my Lawyer along. :D

there is such a clusterfuck of contradicting laws around sex -in some countries- lately, so many definition of rape.. that soon enough I will have to bring my Lawyer along. :D

I remember reading this...

A John approached an undercover cop and after soliciting sex, he was promptly arrested. he looked at the cop and said.
"Wow... you're a cop? I wish I knew that before..."
"Why?" the female officer asked.
"I would've offered more money, Never had sex with a cop before."
"Well, you've just been screwed by one. Hope you enjoyed it."

I remember reading this...

A John approached an undercover cop and after soliciting sex, he was promptly arrested. he looked at the cop and said.
"Wow... you're a cop? I wish I knew that before..."
"Why?" the female officer asked.
"I would've offered more money, Never had sex with a cop before."
"Well, you've just been screwed by one. Hope you enjoyed it."Muahahahahaha

nice.

Hehe, found the link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f--u_puzhGs) i mentioned. Starts a little slowly, but gets better.

Enjoy.

See, my view is that even if you supply the with alcohol, it shouldn't be rape-- as long as they know that it's alcohol you're giving them. Of course, if you spike somebody's drink with alcohol or a date-rape drug without their knowledge, then it's rape. But if they knowingly lower their inhibitions, that's different.With sex, consent has to be informed. If someone is too drunk, they are unable to give informed consent.

With sex, consent has to be informed. If someone is too drunk, they are unable to give informed consent.I think I am going to ask my lawyer to redact a legal letter, then I am going to tatoo that letter on my chest.. informing them.. explaining the definition of sex.. the bees and the flowers.. the implications of having sex with me.. prenuptial arrangements. the whole enchilada :D

But you can also compare it to, say, a guy at a casino. Now, many casinos offer free drinks to guests. If a guy at your poker table has a few too many, and you win a lot of his money, are you guilty of theft, because he's not in control enough to wager his money?

Actually, casinos and the like - even just bars - are supposed to cut drinkers off after a certain point. But it isn't really a valid comparison. There's a difference between "I spent some money" and "My body was used/altered against my will."

Doctors can't give out meds while drunk because if their judgment is impaired, they may give somebody meds that will seriously harm them.

And that impairment of judgment is precisely why one cannot legally give consent while drunk.

Actually, casinos and the like - even just bars - are supposed to cut drinkers off after a certain point. But it isn't really a valid comparison. There's a difference between "I spent some money" and "My body was used/altered against my will."
Yes, they are, after a certain point. But that point is rather after the point where somebody will be drunk enough to have such poor judgment that they're liable to wager away more money than they can afford to lose. Between "Oh God, I just lost my entire paycheck, how will I pay rent?" and "I
really regret sleeping with that woman," I'd easily go with the latter. Of course, your mileage may vary.


And that impairment of judgment is precisely why one cannot legally give consent while drunk.

I see your point, certainly, and I would almost agree with it, but if impaired judgment is, by itself, enough to make it so one cannot legally give consent, then should it not be rape if, for example, somebody's judgment is impaired by a strong emotion-- or getting caught up in the moment? If somebody has sex under that condition and later regrets it, should the fact that their emotions impaired their judgment also be enough to make it rape? What if somebody finds out that they apparently have cancer and have a few months to live, and they think "I might as well enjoy it" and somebody has sex with them, and then they find out that the diagnosis was wrong. Is that other person guilty of rape because they had sex with somebody whose judgment was impaired by a belief that they were dying? I would consider both of those cases of impaired judgment-- just because it's not from an outside substance doesn't make any difference. Indeed, at least a drunk person chooses to get drunk.

Also, where exactly do you draw the line between too drunk and legal? Do you say anybody who has had any alcohol? Enough to be tipsy? After all, if you're even tipsy, then your judgment is slightly impaired. It's much more sensible to draw it at the point where you are not physically capable of giving or refusing consent, and put the responsibility on everybody to know their limits on alcohol-- just like we do with (almost) everything else.

Yes, they are, after a certain point. But that point is rather after the point where somebody will be drunk enough to have such poor judgment that they're liable to wager away more money than they can afford to lose. Between "Oh God, I just lost my entire paycheck, how will I pay rent?" and "I
really regret sleeping with that woman," I'd easily go with the latter. Of course, your mileage may vary.

Yes, and the point at which charges would be pressed in a case of drunkeness are well beyond, "My inhibitions are a little bit lowered. I might flash the crowd."

We aren't talking about, "I had a couple of drinks and then had sex." It's more like, "What they hell happened last night? I don't remember. WHAT DO YOU MEAN WE HAD SEX????"

I see your point, certainly, and I would almost agree with it, but if impaired judgment is, by itself, enough to make it so one cannot legally give consent, then should it not be rape if, for example, somebody's judgment is impaired by a strong emotion-- or getting caught up in the moment?

No. Getting caught up in the moment doesn't impair your judgment any more than "it's a pretty day outside," does. We're talking about a mind altering drug, here, not, "Ooh! I'm so happy!"

Meanwhile, even if emotions did impair your judgment in the same was as alcohol or other substances, there really wouldn't be any way for the other person to know that they were doing so. If you are staggering and slurring your speech, they know that you're drunk.

Also, where exactly do you draw the line between too drunk and legal? Do you say anybody who has had any alcohol? Enough to be tipsy?

Enough to be so impaired that the other person cannot claim they didn't know you were incapable of consent.

I think I am going to ask my lawyer to redact a legal letter, then I am going to tatoo that letter on my chest.. informing them.. explaining the definition of sex.. the bees and the flowers.. the implications of having sex with me.. prenuptial arrangements. the whole enchilada :D

*Imagines that being tattooed on a well endowed woman*
Her: "What the hell are you looking at?"
Me: "reading..."
*Goes in close and fondles breast.*
Her: "Hey! What the hell!"
Me: "Sorry... trying to read the fine print..." :p


or better yet... tattoed across the thighs and buttcheeks...
"Opening/seperating of these indicates acceptance of the Terms of Agreement and EULA!"
"Subject of Insertion is not responsible for any damage done to inserter during installation."

If she wouldn't have sex with you sober, it's probably rape to take advantage of her diminished capacities. At the very least, it's highly unethical and you should be ashamed so quickly to defend it.

If you can think to yourself, "Man, she's going to regret this in the morning," but you go ahead anyway... you're taking advantage.

The problem here is that men don't want to admit that "I don't want to" actually means "I don't want to."

Men rather enjoy the fantasy that "I don't want to" means, in fact, "I'm an inhibited bitch, why don't you try again after a few more shots?"

If it's rape to have sex with a drunk person then I've been raped and raped someone else plenty of times.

If someone's passed out or really too drunk to really know what's going on then yeah, this would be rape. Otherwise, no.

In a sense, yes. They rape each other. But neither were fully aware of their actions or able to consent and thus have an equal lack of responsibility in them, which means it ends up just being a really sucky situation.

I think the only time you could really prosecute someone for rape because of drunkeness is when one person is signficantly more sober than the other, recognizes the inability of the other to consent, and uses that to their advantage.

I only just had a thought about this. If sex with a drunk person is rape, then two people, drunk, having sex, should both be prosecuted, because they're both having sex with a drunk person, and can't be excused because they're drunk: it's a definite precedent that inebriation does not excuse you from crimes you commit.
If she wouldn't have sex with you sober, it's probably rape to take advantage of her diminished capacities. At the very least, it's highly unethical and you should be ashamed so quickly to defend it.
I specifically even said that I would think it was low to do so, and therefore by implication that I'd never do so. I only posed a question wondering why, only in the special case of sex (though I was corrected, in a very few other special cases, too), we don't hold people accountable for their actions while drunk. I was hoping for some good discussion on the issue(and there has been some), not accusations against my character.


If you can think to yourself, "Man, she's going to regret this in the morning," but you go ahead anyway... you're taking advantage.

The problem here is that men don't want to admit that "I don't want to" actually means "I don't want to."

Men rather enjoy the fantasy that "I don't want to" means, in fact, "I'm an inhibited bitch, why don't you try again after a few more shots?"

What about a situation, where, say, two people meet at a party. They've both had a few drinks, and they go off on their own and have sex. One of them (either the man or the woman) regrets it the next day. I don't think that case should be rape-- but in many places it would be. The line gets more blurry the more alcohol involved, but a few drinks should not a rape make.

I do think it's telling about society in general, though, that you assume that it must be the woman who is drunk. In my post the only place where I specifically meant for the gender to be specifically assigned to each person was the second part, where I mused that the fact that people (if not the law, I admit that I do not know) only consider it rape if the woman is drunk (even if the guy also is drunk!). I was actually rather hoping to get a few comments on my musings on that, too, but apparently they were to unintelligent/ uninsightful. (Not surprising, really, considering that they were my thoughts :D)

If you put the alcohol in your body at your own will, and are still awake to have sex, and consent in your drunken idiocy, no you have not been raped.

Like I said, date rape is an altogether different thing like when a guy drugs a girl by putting something in her drink. I count that as rape.

But to say that someone who willfully impairs their judgment shouldn't be held responsible for it is ridiculous. You were sober when you started drinking, you should have questioned whether your drunk alterself may fuck someone you may not want to sober.

If she wouldn't have sex with you sober, it's probably rape to take advantage of her diminished capacities. At the very least, it's highly unethical and you should be ashamed so quickly to defend it.

If you can think to yourself, "Man, she's going to regret this in the morning," but you go ahead anyway... you're taking advantage.

The problem here is that men don't want to admit that "I don't want to" actually means "I don't want to."

Men rather enjoy the fantasy that "I don't want to" means, in fact, "I'm an inhibited bitch, why don't you try again after a few more shots?"

But she had full capacities when she consented to diminish her own capacities. Like I said, it's your own responsibility to find out what you will do drunk before you start drinking.

If you think you'll want to drive drunk, give your keys to a friend before you start drinking. If you think you'll get fucked drunk, don't hang out with other horny drunks.

Hehe, found the link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f--u_puzhGs) i mentioned. Starts a little slowly, but gets better.

Enjoy.

finally got to watch it. LOL!!! :D

In most places a drunk person cannot legally consent.

But she had full capacities when she consented to diminish her own capacities. Like I said, it's your own responsibility to find out what you will do drunk before you start drinking.

If you think you'll want to drive drunk, give your keys to a friend before you start drinking. If you think you'll get fucked drunk, don't hang out with other horny drunks.This is the very definition of blaming the victim. And it's disgusting. (It's very telling that your phrasing is, "get fucked.")

Meanwhile, how about this?

If you think that when you get drunk you will fuck someone without considering how she's going to feel about it later... without considering whether she would be willing sober... then you're responsible for raping her. Get yourself a babysitter, or otherwise arrange to avoid such situations.

It's one thing if my girlfriend and I drink and wind up having sex... provided, of course, we have a sexual relationship and I expect that we might have had sex anyway.

I'll even admit to considerable gray area in the range of casual dating. If I go out with a woman a few times, maybe even one time, and we get drunk and have sex... it's possible she would have been willing anyway. I should have at least some ability to read the signs she's been giving all night, or in recent dates. The key is to think, if she were sober would she be interested? when she wakes up will she be regretful/angry/upset? My (honest) answers to those questions will tell me whether it is okay to proceed sexually.

If there is any significant doubt, the moral thing to do is to play it safe. Don't have sex. Don't risk becoming a rapist--whether the law would convict you or not.

I only just had a thought about this. If sex with a drunk person is rape, then two people, drunk, having sex, should both be prosecuted, because they're both having sex with a drunk person, and can't be excused because they're drunk: it's a definite precedent that inebriation does not excuse you from crimes you commit. Being drunk in and of itself does not imply rape. If you've had sex with someone before, a reasonable assumption is that they would consent to having sex again - drunk or not.

What about a situation, where, say, two people meet at a party. They've both had a few drinks, and they go off on their own and have sex. One of them (either the man or the woman) regrets it the next day. I don't think that case should be rape-- but in many places it would be. The line gets more blurry the more alcohol involved, but a few drinks should not a rape make. This typically would not be rape either, as they wouldn't know how drunk or not the other person is; therefore, it is reasonable to believe that consent is implied.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent

"A person may move from friendship to sexual contact on the basis of body language and apparent receptivity, but very few people on a date which results in sexual contact, have explicitly asked the other if their consent is informed, if they do in fact fully understand what is implied and all potential conditions or results. Informed consent is implied (or assumed unless disproved) but not stated explicitly."

I do think it's telling about society in general, though, that you assume that it must be the woman who is drunk. In my post the only place where I specifically meant for the gender to be specifically assigned to each person was the second part, where I mused that the fact that people (if not the law, I admit that I do not know) only consider it rape if the woman is drunk (even if the guy also is drunk!). I was actually rather hoping to get a few comments on my musings on that, too, but apparently they were to unintelligent/ uninsightful. (Not surprising, really, considering that they were my thoughts :D)I didn't say that only the woman was drunk - I suppose the reason other people might think so is that a man who is totally plastered might not be able to get it up at all.