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

[RaNDM G]

Depends on intent. If you were pumping her full of booze so you could get in her pants, then yeah, that's date rape. It's not rape if both parties are drunk and consent.

Even in the latter case, according to U.S. law, a woman can still claim she was raped. At this point, it turns into a grey zone like alan described earlier.

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.

 

[irishda]

There is of course a fine line here. If the intoxicated (wo)man invites you back to her house for sex, then you are fine. Although you are up the river if you use subterfuge and just generally take advantage of him/her. No wait, just her. You are fine if you take advantage of a guy.

If a woman did decide to take this to court, she most certainly would have a case. Regardless of whether or not she said yes, her mental state will be called into question at the time of consent. If she was sober when she agreed then you'd be fine, but if she was drunk, then it'd be seen that she didn't have the mental capacity to know what she was agreeing to.

So what you are saying is people aren't responsible for their actions while intoxicated? Sweet all of my DUIs can go away now! Not to mention those assault and vehicular manslaughter charges. Why? Because apparently people are not accountable for their actions while intoxicated. Fucking awesome. Or is it just woman who aren't accountable for their decisions?

I'm reminded of my old roommate. He too was a closet misogynist. Although I'm unsure if it's because you feel the world is against men, or if it's because women don't like you, as it was in his case. Read some of the other posts on here and you'll find the answers to your questions.

 

[irishda]

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?

That's true, there's no way to concretely tell at what point someone is truly unfit because of alcohol, so the government has two options. Either a) refuse to use it as an excuse or b) set a standard that applies for a what can scientifically be called a reasonable amount for being sufficiently intoxicated. If you go with option a, that means that every rape ever committed while one of the parties was drunk is now dismissible, including ones where the party even said no. After all, all the defendant would have to do is say, "They said yes, they just can't remember because they were drunk." Option b is really the only viable route with today's technology. It sucks for the cases where the people are innocent but it means a lot more guilty parties also get prosecuted.

 

[Hawkeye16]

Only if you are both equally drunk.

 

[idarkphoenixi]

It's not rape. For one thing theres no telling just how drunk this person is or how well they can hold their own. I, for example am able to keep a fairly steady head even after prolonged drinking. Others can get smashed over a few cans of beer and theres no real way of knowing this.

We're not mind readers nor can we predict the future, if we both agree to something then that's that.
Now I'm sure I'll get some flack for this but if your a woman who cannot stand against much drinking then you have a responsibility to consume a sensible level of alchohol. That man who "raped" you may not have known it was rape since you were drunk and agreed to it at the time.

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.

Just wanted to add that is IS possible to a woman to rape a man. Giving someone viagra will give erections against that mans will, even if he didn't want to do it. Let's just assume he's binded to a chair and is unable to use superior strength against her as self defence.

Also, dildos are capable of penetration too, not just a penis.

 

[estoria-etnia]

It's one thing to claim rape when someone spikes your drink, be it with drugs or more potent alcohol, but entirely another to expect someone to read your mind and know you wouldn't go along with this if you were not in your, entirely willing, drunk state.

Wow, that's great victim-blaming you've got going there. Just because someone is drunk doesn't mean that you can just have sex with them. Being drunk affects your judgement and impairs it. Saying "it's your fault, you got drunk" is VICTIM-BLAMING, you are saying that it is the victim's fault that they got drunk and then let someone rape them. It is not their fault. It is the fault of the person who decided to take advantage of their being drunk.

If both parties are drunk, it might be a little different, but taking advantage of someone who is drunk is still rape.

 

[Zorg Machine]

It's rape if you have sex with a drunk girl? That's like saying that you are a date rapist when someone takes a roofie from his/her pocket, eats it and then says "I am perfectly alright with you having sex with me in that alley". If you know that you lose your ability to think clearly when drunk (if you don't know this you have probably never had a drink before) all you have to do is not drink so much. You can't blame it on the fact that you made a misstake.

If you don't want to make stupid decisions, don't willingly ingest mind-altering drugs. It isn't rocket science.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

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.

I can see where the courts were coming from.

I imagine they wanted rape to carry a very heavy meaning.

Think of the facehugger and xenomorphs from the Alien franchise, the amount of rape imagery it carries and that feeling of helplessness knowing that you can't do anything about it.

I guess that's why they focused so much on the whole 'penis only' thing.

I agree to some extent, but I also feel that it shouldn't mean that a woman is incapable of being charged with rape.

 

[OriginalLadders]

If one or more of the people involved are willfully intoxicated and are capable of consent (as in tipsy, rather than catatonic/incomprehensible) then it's not rape. Regardless of gender.

Choosing to get drunk does not excuse your actions when drunk, it does not absolve you of responsibility. Get drunk and punch someone? That's still assault. Drive drunk and kill someone? That's still manslaughter. Get drunk and get a tattoo (or piercing) you regret when sober? Too bad!

If you get drunk and do something you later regret then it's your own stupid fault.

 

[Justanewguy]

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.

In terms of US Law, you're completely incorrect. As you're talking about UK Law, I don't know enough to confirm or deny your comment, but personally that type of thinking is somewhat dangerous. The UN defines rape as "sexual intercourse without valid consent." On top of that, some jurisdictions are removing the term "rape" completely in favor of the term Sexual Assault (implying that the two are synonymous).

As to the OP: It doesn't matter what you or others think, legally what you're describing is rape. Do I fully agree with the definition? Not really, but I think it's better to be careful than sorry, so if your "date" is drunk, I'd suggest refraining. Under the eyes of the law, if your partner is at all intoxicated, they are unable to give consent, and therefore by having sex with them, you are indeed raping them. This, of course, only comes into a legal light when the partner decides after the fact that they were not ok with what happened. If you and your drunken partner have sex and the partner has no problem with it after the fact, while technically it was still rape, there won't be any legal repercussions.

My point being that it's better to be safe than sorry. If your partner is drunk, tipsy, or even just a little intoxicated, just refrain from having sex then and there. If they're truly ok with having sex with you, there will certainly be another opportunity, where you're both perfectly sober. Frankly, the sex will be better, and there's no chance of a grey area popping up. Be safe, don't be sorry.

 

[seraphy]

This can certainly be a date rape. If other person here is sober s/he really should know better, than accept that someone whose judgement is impaired actually means what s/he is saying.

Underage teens can also consent to having sex with adults. But it is still considered rape by law, as it should be.

 

[rutger5000]

Normally I say if consent is given it is not rape, but when someone is drunk that consent doesn't fully count. If you take misadvantage of this by being sober and getting your partner? drunk then I would call it rape, but when your both drunk it's just a drunken mistake.

 

[Angry_squirrel]

No, it's not. It's morally questionable is one you're sober and they're drunk, and more so if you know you're trying to take advantage, but it most definitely isn't rape

 

[BlackWidower]

No, it's not rape. If we did start considering that rape, then it would make courtship a lot more difficult. You would have to ensure both you and your partner are sober before doing the deed.

It's probably morally questionable if you think they wouldn't sleep with you if they weren't drunk, but that's a different argument, and it's still not rape.

It all comes down to this:Carol: 'No' means 'No.'
Titus: Yeah, 'No' does means 'No.' But you know what, you actually have to say 'No.'--Titus, "Tommy's Girlfriend"

Of course it's different if they can't give consent, but being wasted is not the same as being unconscious. Oh, she regrets it, trust me, I know that story, that's not rape.

Regret =/= retroactive rape

 

[Canadamus Prime]

No it isn't. Both parties willingly got intoxicated and both parties willingly engaged in sexual activities. The fact that one or both parties regrets it after the fact does not make it rape. To often these days people will do anything to escape taking responsibility for their actions and as a society we're all to willing to let them and it sickens me.

 

[ghostrider9876]

I'd have to agree that it isn't rape. Intoxication merely removes inhibitions; it doesn't actually change the way you feel about things. You do things drunk that you WOULD do sober if you cared nothing at all about possible consequences, others' feelings, the law, etc. So if Person A gets drunk and has sex with Person B, that means that, beneath any surface objections, A was willing to do it in the first place. It ain't rape.

That said, there is one caveat: if B was intentionally remaining sober while filling A as full of strong drinks as possible in an attempt to take advantage of their lowered inhibitions, that I would call rape. That's essentially the same thing as giving them a roofie.

 

[Fronken]

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.

There was actually a case here in sweden that is in regards to this (well kinda), a man got raped by his ex-girlfriend and her friends, using strapons, and the entire case was looked upon more as a funny story instead of a serious crime, because it was a women who committed it.

And to the best of my knowledge, women cant commit rape in Sweden, they can hardly commit sexual harrassment as people seem to think its funny when a women does something that is usually something a man does.

 

[winginson]

Morally I find this simple:
Both of you are drunk = fine
One drunk/One sober = asshole

As getting drunk is your choice, I feel that the choices you make while drunk should be binding. So what you are both mentally impaired due to alchohol? At that point in time you both felt horny, made the decision to shag and felt bad later. Thats regret not rape. Hell, I've slept with a girl I met while drunk, and she was just trying to win a bet. I don't consider it rape because I was 17, fucking horny and drinking something that removes your inhibitions.

The law however states that consent is unable to be given whilst intoxicated, and doesn't seem to give how much you must have before being unable.

 

[Vegosiux]

If that was rape, then I think most people in the 15-25 age group would be serious felons.