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

[Hugga_Bear]

No. It's not. The adult makes the choice to drink, they should be aware of the potential consequences of that decision, it's not even rape if the other person is trying to ply them with alcohol because THEY HAVE THE CHOICE TO SAY NO.

Rape is when you can't get out of it, when you can't say no or stop or whatever, it's not just sex that you regret happening and there's a HUGE difference.

So, I've had sex with people I wish I hadn't, once I was drunk, twice I was depressed (clinically, I suffer from manic depression, not in the colloquial usage) and basically being destructive, I didn't drink a huge amount but my judgement was still skewed and I slept with people I really shouldn't have, deeds I regretted and still regret.

It's not rape though, it was me being an idiot. I didn't NEED to drink, sure she plied me with alcohol in order to get sex, she did, that doesn't change the fact that it was MY choice to drink, I could say no and walk away. I'm not a moron, I knew what was likely to happen.
Again I was being self destructive, arguably with the depression it's no-one's fault since your entire perception of the world can get pretty fucked over but if it's anyone's then it's mine. Again because it's my body and whatever depression is it doesn't make you a puppet.

No it's not rape, it's a VERY stupid thing to do and if you wilfully use alcohol to get them to lower their standards it's disgusting and pathetic but it's not rape.

On a side note, people need to take more responsibility for their drunken actions, I can't count how many times I hear people say they did stupid shit because they were drunk or it wasn't them or whatever. No. First of all you got drunk, unless you were forced to do it was of your own volition. Secondly it's not like when you're drunk another person takes over, you still have some control, at least I do and I doubt I'm unique in that aspect, it's just foggier and harder to understand or resist...that's something else entirely, this is a clear cut example, not rape.

 

[moonlantern]

It is a well known fact that being drunk impairs judgement. If a person is not comfortable with the possibility of having drunk sex with someone then they shouldn't get drunk around other people.

 

[balanovich]

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?

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.

No, definitely not in the US. The "victim" has to prove that he made her drink for that purpose.
Your consent is valid even when intoxicate. Maybe not under the influence of illegal drugs...

 

[spartan231490]

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?

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.

No, definitely not in the US. The "victim" has to prove that he made her drink for that purpose.
Your consent is valid even when intoxicate. Maybe not under the influence of illegal drugs...

It's state-based, and no you don't, at least not in my state. In my state, if you are legally drunk you are legally incapable of giving consent.

 

[rekabdarb]

the way you are describing the situation; no that's not rape. You can't have sex with someone, regret it, and call rape.

And OP if you are the accused in this situation i lol at you. You gotta be convincing to the jury that you did nothing wrong and SHE was the one who initiated the encounter. But other than that it's a he says/she says style legal battle. And a lot of those are mistrials.

 

[zehydra]

Date rape is what it is called. They are not in a logical state of mind where they can effectively weigh pros and cons of actions. As such the can not legally consent to anything. It's rape. However if you can have people testify that neither of you was anything close to sober and at the time it was "consensual" then charges can be thrown out.

I think you end up with problems regarding responsibility along that line of thinking, you know? Like, if a guy gets drunk, then he isn't able to weight the pros of cons of driving home properly, so he shouldn't get arrested for drunk driving, since he didn't legally choose to drive.

I don't think date rape laws are there to assign responsibility like in drunk driving; they're there because while it may be "morally acceptable" to have sex with a "willfully intoxicated, consensual" partner, making that legal would allow all sorts of abuse of the law. People who slipped date rape drugs into girls' drinks would just go "no, she was drunk and wanted to have sex with me."

When you weigh the benefits of having a law to protect guys who want to fuck drunk girls, against the benefits of a law to protect girls from date rape, I'd say the latter is more important.

no, date rape drugs are already illegal. That is, you can make it illegal to purposely get someone drunk/incoherent past the point of their own comprehension for the sake of taking advantage of said person. I don't like the way the law currently is, and there's no reason we can't make it a bit better while still protecting people from date rape and such.

 

[emeraldrafael]

legally yes. This seemed to be the major crutch of the accusation (but not conviction) of Ben Roethlisberger when some little Georgian Peach slut felt she would break several laws and get her name known tot he world for being a fucking whore, but I digress.

Now my personal opinion... Id ont know. I wanna say being drunk is different to each individual,a nd you can claim you are competent at levels that others would not be. but then you hit that "well, we need some kinda overarching law thing" deal for the general amount of these kinda cases. And of course then you wind up with the buzzed driving is drunk driving type situation where if you're not "drunk" you're still considered to be past the normal alcohol level where you can function without your thoughts being inhibited.

...

This is why i dont sleep with drunk girls, and why a friend of mine actually carries around a little contract in his pocket that he makes people sober up and sign before getting drunk and sleeping with him.

 

[zehydra]

Date rape is what it is called. They are not in a logical state of mind where they can effectively weigh pros and cons of actions. As such the can not legally consent to anything. It's rape. However if you can have people testify that neither of you was anything close to sober and at the time it was "consensual" then charges can be thrown out.

I think you end up with problems regarding responsibility along that line of thinking, you know? Like, if a guy gets drunk, then he isn't able to weight the pros of cons of driving home properly, so he shouldn't get arrested for drunk driving, since he didn't legally choose to drive.

The law is expected to be followed regardless of mental state, albeit punishment differentiates when mental health is concerned. But contracts, agreements with other people, are considered null and void when one or both parties are mentally unsound, that includes when someone is drunk.

Was it irresponsible for someone to get so drunk you don't know who you're with or what you're agreeing to? Absolutely. Is it irresponsible for someone to pretend like someone who's drunk can even remotely have the presence of mind to understand what's happening? That's so irresponsible they'll throw you in prison for it.

Agreed, but the problem lies in the fact that it's often hard to determine where a person begins to be so intoxicated that they can't understand what they're agreeing to. Everyone has their own limits when it comes to alcohol, and while it's often clear that a person on the verge of passing out would be unable to properly consent, how do we determine where that level of (unconsentability?) begins?

 

[Wintermoot]

if she controlled herself a bit better the evening before she would have made a better decision.

 

[El Danny]

My Rule: If you're as drunk as them, it's fine, if not then back off.

Don't go many parties do you?
Most of the parties I go too there's always drunk people hooking up, the difference is whether there's any advantage being taken.
Most of the people I know (including girls) are mature enough to realise that when you drunk there's a good chance you'll end up doing something you'll regret including sex, and unless you're being taken advantage of then it's just as much your fault.

I know. A lot of people say, hey, maybe I shouldn't get drunk, then I won't end up like this. But that still doesn't erase the fact that they can make a legal case saying "I was raped". You have it right there in your own words.

"unless you're being taken advantage of"

According to the law, if a person is drunk, then any contract presented to them is considered taking advantage of them. It doesn't matter if the person OFFERING this contract is drunk or not. The law will still say, you asked for consent from someone who couldn't legally give it. Therefore, in the eyes of the state, country, whatever, it's like she never gave her consent at all, and you did take advantage of her. Drunk people having sex is just a reality of college and adult life. But it can go very, very wrong at the drop of a hat if you're not careful about this shit.

Not sure if it's like that in the UK, but even if it is that doesn't change the fact that way of tackling this issue is just down right stupid, and is just more proof of how out of touch the law makers and government of our countries are.

 

[applesandoranges]

edit

 

[regalphantom]

The 3 choices try to over-simplify the problem. It's all dependent on the context.

 

[RedDeadFred]

Holy fuck, this is apparently not getting through to you people. It's not a question of REGRET vs. NON-CONSENT. If someone accuses you of rape the morning after, clearly they never would've consented to it IF THEY HAD THE PRESENCE OF MIND TO KNOW WHAT THE FUCK WAS GOING ON IN THE FIRST PLACE! Not being able to understand what you're consenting to is the SAME THING AS NOT CONSENTING! This is why they don't let kids get legally married. This is why mentally handicapped people can't sign a mortgage. YOU CANNOT HAVE A CONTRACT WITH SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON!

Here's a novel idea, HAVE THE PRESENCE OF MIND TO NOT HAVE SEX WITH THE DRUNK "*****" IN THE FIRST PLACE! DON'T HAVE SEX WITH DRUNK PEOPLE. DON'T HAVE SEX WITH DRUNK PEOPLE. DON'T. HAVE. SEX. WITH. DRUNK. PEOPLE. Yes it was stupid for that person to get smashed and agree to have sex with you. But doesn't seem like it's infinitely more stupid for you to either A) agree to have sex with someone so trashed or B) ask to have sex with someone so trashed.

I honestly hope a lot of you die cold and alone.

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.

Here's the problem with this, the store isn't a sentient being capable of making decisions, and if you kill someone while drunk, chances are they didn't take advantage of you in you drunk state and say: kill me.
My point is, with a sober person knowing full well that a drunk person is incapable of giving consent and then taking them home to have sex, they are committing rape.
If both are drunk, then neither were capable of consent so I wouldn't call that rape. There is no taking advantage of the situation there.

 

[Varanfan9]

No. Rape is forcing yourself onto another when they have no consent. In this case the person was given an illusion of consent. Its like if saying you lied about consenting. The person was told they could and wasn't going against the other person's wishes. This is just a misunderstanding, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Joseph Harrison]

According to US rape laws that is rape.

 

[alandavidson]

What's with all the rape threads lately? Is there something we need to talk about, Escapist?

OT: According to the law, yes it's rape. The phrasing is that if you are not in a "stable state of mind" you cannot consent to ANYTHING, whether it be sex, the administration of medicine, driving, or signing legal forms.

If both parties are drunk, however, it becomes a legal grey zone. Neither party could technically consent, yet they performed the actions anyways. It would fall under the same general category of two mentally handicapped people having sex, and the judge would have to sort out just who was more drunk to make a determination of whether or not it was actually rape.

Good rule of thumb, don't have sex while drunk, and don't have sex with a drunk person. That saves a lot of (potential) trouble.

 

[spartandude]

if the person was willingly and knowingly intoxicated and willing to have sex then theres nothing wrong with it, just have to live with the concequences afterwards

if you dont know that people do stupid things or things the wouldnt normally do when drunk then you shouldnt be drinking

 

[theultimateend]

This to me seems like a strawman because I really don't think it happens as often as people seem to believe. If both parties are drunk and they both consent then sure, it's not rape. But if one isn't drunk, or one is filling the other with alcohol with the express intent to bang him or her, etc. then it is, and the latter is almost always the truth of the situation when you have these "She was totally fine with it last night, fuckin' ladies" stories that bros like to throw around.

I'm curious.

If I were to write a check while completely shit faced and like buy a car or something. Would I be able to say I was taken advantage of?

I'm not trying to justify date rape, mind you, fuck rapists, I'm just curious if the mindset crosses into other drunk activities.

PS. Be sure to backup points with data or else you end up potentially using a straw man to disprove a strawman. Common sense would think your guess is right, but common sense isn't always correct.

 

[awesomeClaw]

Of course its rape. A person willfully getting drunk or unwillfully getting drunk isnt able to give willful consent to anything if they are drunk.

Now if you agree to have sex and THEN get drunk well then thats prior consent so you are fine.

What if they're both drunk?
Neither can give consent, but I've yet to hear of a case where a man brought a woman to court because they were both legally unable to give consent,so he considers himself raped.

A man can't be raped by a woman.

A man can rape a man and a man can rape a woman but a woman can't rape a man.

Penetration with a penis must me involved, and the penis has to belong to the person committing the rape.

Women can still be charge for sexual assualt, but not for rape.

Edit: To prevent anymore misunderstandings, this is in regards to UK law. Only a man can be charged with rape.

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.

Okay, I did some reading.

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.

Question: Do YOU personally agree with this? I´m just asking, because every post you´ve made seems to be qouting the law books. I want to hear your opinion on this, not the laws.