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

[runic knight]

short answer: No, but it is morally reprehensible.


In depth. Much like others have mentioned, if you are to be held responsible for your actions while drunk when they concern your actions affecting others, you damn well better be held accountable when they affect yourself. Being drunk is not a valid excuse for anything, be it crashing your car into a post box or sleeping with someone who is less then par once the beer goggles wear off. Anyone who says otherwise, when the being drunk itself is a choice made, are just wrong, hands down.
The decision to get drunk in the first place is an action actively taken with the known risk of it inhibiting judgement and therefore any result of the inhibited judgement is still your fault. This does include someone drinking because a guy is flattering them and buying them some drinks, as it is still their choice to do something known to weaken judgement.

That said, anyone intentionally trying to get a girl liquored up for the express purpose of sex is a morally reprehensible asshole who should probably have his dick cut off to spare the rest of the human race the effect of his genetic information further contaminating mankind. I still would say it is not rape, as in this example he is only encouraging her drinking rather then forcing it on her, which would be rape. However the behavior is still despicable and while it should not legally be a crime, it can be considered ethically one. But that is not what people here are arguing much. Everyone knows a guy who does that is a douche.

There is of course the ones who actively deny them the choice of getting drunk and instead force it, this being spiking drinks, being dishonest about alcohol content of drinks ("what? no, this is just a mix of juices and stuff, no alcohol in it baby")or outright drugging them. These deny the choice and as such is consenting by nature and is therefore rape.

On a related note, as this could be misunderstood, I am not saying that people are to blame for whatever occurs to them. I don't think if you go to a questionable part of time, you should be blamed if you are mugged. I do however think that if you willingly sacrifice your judgement, by say, getting drunk, you can not blame the repercussions of decisions made in that state on anyone else. If you are robbed in an alley, it is the fault of the mugger. If you consent to sex and some guy happily agrees to your consent, it is still your decision he is respecting, your own judgement weakened by a previous decision irrelevant. At no point is the guy taking anything from you, as your consent, no matter how blurry your previous actions caused it to be, is still given.

 

[Guardian of Nekops]

"She was ok with the idea 3 hours before we got to the bedroom. I assumed that the ok was still valid." No. Hell no. Christ alive. In a relationship you do not start randomly banging the other person because they are there, because consent was given before. Consent needs to be given at the time. Or it was not given.

Well, actually, you do. If someone regularly shares a bed with you, you can initiate without much worry. Randomly grabbing and kissing someone you don't know can be sexual assault. Randomly grabbing and kissing your long-standing girlfriend is called being spontaneous. Her lack of protest/her cooperation, when she is free to do otherwise, is your consent.

Now, if she pushes you away or says "Stop" you absolutely back the hell off, no matter how long you've been together (unless those words/actions are understood between the two of you to have no force, and you have a safe word, but that's different), but the idea that prior consent doesn't allow you the right to get a little fresh is just wrong. At some point, the formal rules of asking for permission each time need to be relaxed. At some point, the fear needs to go away, because honestly having to say, "No, not today, honey," is not that much of an imposition compared to having to ask permission to touch the shoulder of the person you live with.

See, this is the problem with the current law... as it stands, if you and your WIFE get drunk together and have sex, then legally you've both committed rape because neither of you could consent at the time. Even if you've each only had a drink, LEGALLY that's rape. Unreported, mutual rape. A felony. And that is INSANE.

If both people have, as their plan A when they are fully sober, the intention of getting drunk and having sex, and then happily follow through with their plan and have a great time, then there is no way that should be illegal, let alone a felony that lands them both in jail. And yet, currently, it is.

And yeah, sure. We don't enforce it that way. Could there be any better proof that the law is broken, though, than the fact that we have to NOT enforce it so that justice can be done?

Until that's no longer the case, this will remain an important topic for debate.

 

[Hagi]

You're responsible for everything you do while drunk.

Getting into a car whilst drunk and driving over a kid? Guess who's going to jail?
Destroying property whilst drunk? Guess who's paying for that?
Sleeping in a place you're not allowed whilst drunk? Guess who's spending the night at the police station?
Urinating in public whilst drunk? Guess who's getting fined.

Having sex whilst drunk? Guess whose responsibility that is?

Everything you do whilst drunk is your own fault. Alcohol is not an excuse for any action.

 

[ms_sunlight]

If her drink was spiked, toxscreen will show that.

Actually, it won't, because the most common thing that drinks are spiked with is alcohol [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_rape_drug]. If you think you've only had 2 beers, but you've in fact had 2 beers and 2 double vodkas, you're going to be far more impaired than you have any reason to expect you'll be.

Besides, a tox screen won't pick anything up if the crime is never reported (as many rapes are not) or if the victim does not receive medical attention soon after the event and any drugs have passed through their system.

I am getting sick of this thread. Listen people: morning after regret is not the same thing as being assaulted when you are too out of it to protest or fight back. Is it stupid to get into that situation? Yes, it is. Is it still a crime if someone takes advantage of your inability to protest? Yes it is. Some of the people on this thread seem to almost be taking a disgusting, moralising glee that people get raped. Saying that it's their just deserts, like it's the moral of some twisted Aesop's fable, is just sick.

 

[veloper]

I wonder where this irrational fear of alcohol is coming from.

Voluntarily inbibing alcohol does NOT absolve any responsibility for your actions.
That why cops can still arrest you when you drink and drive. Alcohol's effect on the psyche can only be considered minor.

Consent then is consent, even when drunk. Full responsibility for all voluntary choices, for all adults is the only correct approach.
So unless the drink was spiked or some such scenario, then drunken sex may only be bad form at worst. Bad form when the other party is alot more drunk, in which case you should've inbibed more yourself.
I know there's weak laws in certain places that state otherwise, but that's more for practical and legal consideration and has nothing to do with good ethics.

 

[UnderCoverGuest]

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.

End of story.

...and beginning of legal proceedings, hurr hurr.

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

Let me put it this way, if you break a law while you're drunk, you're still fully responsible, and you will be treated as if you were sober the entire time. So if the law deems your judgement while intoxicated to be your genuine choice and your responsibility in most situations, why would it be any different in this situation?

It's your problem that you got drunk and then decided to go drive your car, and it's your problem when you get drunk and decide to let some random guy nail you.

Plus it's really hard to pursue, because by the point it's brought to attention, it's essentially all heresy.

Basically this. There's actually nothing to add really, so I'm basically just filling this post with pointless content to stop mod-wrath. Okay, that should be fine.

 

[Piorn]

If I agree to drink and then, when drunk, agree to have sex, it's not rape.
Voluntarily getting drunk also means voluntarily doing anything you decide to do when drunk.

Mathmaticians call that Transitivity (A implies B, and B implies C, that means A implies C)

 

[StereoMike]

In Canada, it meets the legal definition of rape.

Fun fact! This is also the reason you see all those posters around colleges that say "Over 60% of rapes go unreported." Most people don't actually know how broad the legal definition of rape is.

 

[Guardian of Nekops]

Fun fact! This is also the reason you see all those posters around colleges that say "Over 60% of rapes go unreported." Most people don't actually know how broad the legal definition of rape is.

Also, and not to diminish the nature of the tragedy, because that's by definition an unknowable statistic. It's impossible for anyone to prove it wrong, but it probably is because it's a flat-out guess based on... nothing. What could it be based on?

Has exactly the same weight as saying, "99% of the species in the rain forest have yet to be discovered and catalogued." Which is none, because I just made it up.

Still, I dare ya to prove me wrong.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

It's not rape either way but it is a bad idea to have sex with a drunk person because your fucked if they decide they want your money and cry rape.
If you don't want to have sex then say no. If you think you won't be able to say no when you are drunk then don't get drunk.

 

[Beryl77]

This doesn't seem right, the outcome is the same in both cases, but the mere thought at the beginning changes it's moral implications?

Yep, exactly. For me, it matters what your intetnions are when you make someone drunk.

Like the difference between manslaughter and first degree murder. Except in this case you consider the first A-okay but in the second it's morally repugnant even though the reactions of the victim were the same? In both instances advances were made and advances were accepted, so why is it morally okay to plan those advances two minutes in advance and not morally accepted to plan them eight hours in advance?

Sorry but your analogy is flawed. I don't really see the relation. What I'm talking about and what you're talking about are two completely different things.

 

[balanovich]

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.

Viagara does NOT give you an erection. I wish people would stop saying silly things like that. It and drugs like it, just allow those with certain problems (such as diabetes) to get an erection when they normally would but can't because of that medical condiion. You don't "pop a pill and get a boner".

On the other hand if you know anything about physiology (or remember being a teen boy) you now that men can be made to have erections against their will. Both men and women can orgasmn against their will as well.

Actually,you do "pop a pill and get a boner" ... maybe not so instantly, but it is a side effect. I know 2 people who fooled around with viagra and got uncontrollable erection.

And there actually have been cases of women using viagra to rape men.

About :

On the other hand if you know anything about physiology (or remember being a teen boy) you now that men can be made to have erections against their will.

You can disagree with someone, but if you insult him for no reason you end up looking worst.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

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...

Not as I recall. It makes a twisted sort of sense, too. You can't give any sort of reliable consent while under the influence of alcohol (contracts, legal proceedings, etc), so it would stand to reason that 'consent' given for a sexual encounter would be moot if the giver decides afterward that they wouldn't have given it if not inebriated.

And, in an unexpected drawback to an otherwise excellent legislative move some time ago, you can't cite a person's sexual history as evidence in a rape case. In other words, if the OP's situation happens to you, and you have a veritable conga line of witnesses that show the 'victim' was the community bicycle, it's irrelevant. As far as the court is concerned, if she's accusing you of rape, it doesn't matter if she slept with half the jury. Prior promiscuity is inadmissible.

Don't get me wrong, though. Invalidating such evidence was still a good thing. OP's situation is ridiculously specific and highly unlikely to ever actually happen (and if she genuinely considered it to have been 'rape,' she's statistically not likely to ever report it, much less have enough evidence to start a trial) to someone. Prior uses of that line of evidence was almost exclusively to argue that the victim was promiscuous, and therefore the act was probably consensual. It was a legal move that argued that "She was asking for it," not using physical evidence from the scene or anything, but by establishing that the victim was a floozy.

So...yeah. If I remember consent laws right (which I might not be), then OP's hypothetical scenario kind of blows. But at the same time, it's hypothetical.

 

[mythgraven]

And from 10 months in the past, Claw comes back and necro's a poll from a previous thread.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.267238-Poll-Is-it-rape-if-you-agree-to-sex-while-severly-intoxicated-high?page=1

Look, Claw... We realize you are "bored" every so often, but this should count as thread-necroing. And thats not even touching the fact that youre popping these threads in order to boost your "Threads Viewed" count with polls about rape. Make a poll about something else. The Escapist isnt your personal fetish titilation machine.


Whiskey Echo!!
Mythgraven

(And for the record, your 8+ pages of repliers may want to re-educate themselves on what a "Bait Thread" is, and stop replying to them.)

 

[Haukur Isleifsson]

I'm a bit torn on this issue. But for the time being I have decided to refrain from fucking drunk people. Though it might not be rape I still find it morally objectionable.

 

[awesomeClaw]

And from 10 months in the past, Claw comes back and necro's a poll from a previous thread.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.267238-Poll-Is-it-rape-if-you-agree-to-sex-while-severly-intoxicated-high?page=1

Look, Claw... We realize you are "bored" every so often, but this should count as thread-necroing. And thats not even touching the fact that youre popping these threads in order to boost your "Threads Viewed" count with polls about rape. Make a poll about something else. The Escapist isnt your personal fetish titilation machine.


Whiskey Echo!!
Mythgraven

Okay, first off, I feel kind of proud someone remembers I made the same thread some time ago. I don´t know why I feel proud some random person on the internet remembers my stupid shit from ten months ago. But still, somebody knows me . Anyway:

Yes I made it ten months ago, but did the exact same results crop up this time? No? You know why? Because people´s opinions change over time, plus new people are always joining the Escapist, people might not have seen it the first time etc etc.

Also, I don´t have a rape fetish, mate. Even if I had, that´d probably be the LEAST weird of my fetishes.

 

[balanovich]

Fun fact! This is also the reason you see all those posters around colleges that say "Over 60% of rapes go unreported." Most people don't actually know how broad the legal definition of rape is.

Also, and not to diminish the nature of the tragedy, because that's by definition an unknowable statistic. It's impossible for anyone to prove it wrong, but it probably is because it's a flat-out guess based on... nothing. What could it be based on?

Has exactly the same weight as saying, "99% of the species in the rain forest have yet to be discovered and catalogued." Which is none, because I just made it up.

Still, I dare ya to prove me wrong.

It's not a simple guess based on nothing.
They use information from many different places.

1-Many rapist, once caught,confess in therapy.
2-Many victims seek treatment without reporting the rape.
3-Anonymous surveys. I remember doing some about rape,molestation,homosexuality, drugs and other shit like that.

After that it's a statistician's job. You can do impressive stuff with a lot of math. (Even horribly boring math!)

I know that it not a precise number, it'S an estimation. But it's not total bullshit... maybe a small slippery puddle of diarrhea.
That is if it was well done...