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

[balanovich]

So if I go to Vegas and gamble my lose my house away, I can come back and ask the casino my money back ? I was extremely drunk,and on camera...

And...? Gambling at a casino doesn't require any sort of given consent. If you're of age and in a casino, you can gamble. If your logic was anything resembling true, why would they serve drinks at casinos?

The army owns your ass even if you signed up totally wasted ? ..

Erm...no. No, they don't. Do you honestly think that joining the military is something you can do while heavily intoxicated? Find a recruitment station, sign your name on the dotted line, and you're given a deployment date?

but they are a particular branch of assholes.

Know what? I'm just going to ignore this. It seems fitting that someone making wild assumptions like this would also think that the US Army would actively seek to shanghai someone into service because they showed up to a recruitment center drunk.

What about all the business deals that are signed after a business lunch where there was wine ?

Oh, of course. Those business deals. Humor me for a moment, though: name one from the past decade. Because it sounds like you're imagining a scene from any movie that features a character working for a corporation 'sealing the deal' with another group, but forgot the line that usually comes at the end: "I'll get the paperwork over to you tomorrow."

It's not always in those words, of course, but the message is the same: absolutely nothing has been agreed upon except what the proposed contract will say. That discussion you alluded to? It was discussing the terms of the agreement that would then be put into contract form. Both parties still have to sign it, and neither is under a legal obligation to do so.

Maybe there is a point where your consent is invalid, but there has to be a line. If you want to use alcohol to invalid your consent, I expect you have to prove you were THAT drunk.

...how? Unless you're going to hook a flux capacitor up to a breathalyzer, I don't see how you could retroactively determine how drunk a person was at a past date.

And if you want to go further and accuse someone of abusing you in that state, I hope/think, you have to prove that he knew you were to drunk to think.

You know what? In a perfect world, there would be a way to provide concrete evidence of intent for every alleged crime. But this isn't a perfect world. There are only two pleas I know of that work for defendants who didn't know they were doing anything wrong, they're both mutually exclusive, and they both only work once.

You can plead 'guilty' but without willful intent/knowledge of the law. Despite the famous Roman phrase, ignorance is a defense, but only if you can prove that you had no intention of doing anything illegal and could not have reasonably been expected to know that said act was illegal. This, obviously, is rather difficult to prove.

The other is a bit more straightforward: you didn't know what you were doing was a crime because you are insane in such a way that prevents you from being able to distinguish between right and wrong.

wooh. calm down!
If you had seen the sarcasm you would've realized that I actually pretty much agree with what you said.

The only point I wanted to make was that not any small amount of alcohol is enough to void your consent.

1-With the Vegas example I was more talking about the loaning and not the gambling.

2-Yes you can join the military while drunk and regret it. I believe the army doesn't want that to be their main mean of recruitment, but it can happen.
So I say yes, you no, then I say yes back... there's no arguments here. I don't care enough to look for them, it seems you don't either.

3-The business deals... well not multi-million deals of course. But I can say that my mother's boss's deals often go that way. And it's not just negotiations that go on, contracts are signed, properties are sold and all of that in the presence of lawyers.

4-How can you retroactively determine how drunk a person was at a past date? Well you can't, which is why so many cases of date rape don't even make it to trial because there's just no evidence.

5-All I am saying is that it's not a crime to fuck a drunk chick, but I am ready to agree that if you get a chick drunk for that purpose,it might be a crime. But as always, the burden of proof rests on the accuser.

So again
The only point I wanted to make was that not any small amount of alcohol is enough to void your consent. Think about it, how much might be done with a bit of alcohol in you ? If anyone could agree to something than recant the next for alcohol reasons, without having to prove anything, the world wouldn't as we know it would make sense.

 

[Darkmantle]

If you are going to say that since she was drunk she couldn't give consent, well they were BOTH drunk so I GUESS THEY RAPED EACH OTHER

lawl

 

[Nocola]

If both parties are intoxicated, and hook up (this assumes there was no use of force or coersion) it's not rape. Plain and simple. They can regret it all they want in the morning, but it's not rape.

 

[Aeonknight]

I find it funny that people think that a person can be held legally responsible for any and every bad decision they make while drunk (drinking/driving, bar fights, etc.).... except for sex.

Ignorance isn't an excuse anymore. You know exactly what getting intoxicated involves: a whole long string of bad decisions, up to and including screwing someone you may not normally be interested in. If you aren't prepared to accept that possibility, you shouldn't be drinking.

 

[RomanceIsDead]

Rape is a clearly defined action. So yes, intoxication + sex = rape. Now you do not have to agree with that definition but that's what rape is.

 

[Balvale]

Rape: the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.

Painting drunk sex as rape is a slap in the face to actual rape victims. If a person slips someone alcohol to have sex with them, yes, that's rape. They were coerced without knowledge of what was being done to them. The same goes for sleeping with someone unable to give consent.

You're responsible for your actions when drunk. Sex requires consent, but it's not a contract or a medical procedure. What you do when you get drunk is your responsibility. No one is forcing you to have sex, i.e. actual rape.

 

[Balvale]

Rape: the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.

Painting drunk sex as rape is a slap in the face to actual rape victims. If a person slips someone alcohol to have sex with them, yes, that's rape. They were coerced without knowledge of what was being done to them. The same goes for sleeping with someone unable to give consent.

You're responsible for your actions when drunk. Sex requires consent, but it's not a contract or a medical procedure. What you do when you get drunk is your responsibility. No one is forcing you to have sex, i.e. actual rape.

 

[inquisiti0n]

If the former, please tell me why the law doesn't protect drunk people who gamble.

Because gambling doesn't require any expression of consent other than showing up and gambling. There's no contract to be signed, nor is there an implicit need for consent as the case would be for sex.

Um, that was my point. Why isn't there such a safeguard for gambling when one exists for sex? Saying that a certain level of intoxication removes your right to consent for a certain thing sets a precedent, one that you would expect to be applied to other areas in which drunk people are also at risk. But my point wasn't really about focusing on the gambling example; I'm pretty much talking about a drunk person's consent in just about anything.

Or instead, let's say I get drunk and during that time, decide to give all my life savings away to a charity. Can I get that money back once I sober up under the pretext of "a drunk person isn't able to give consent?"

If you signed some sort of contract, then yes, you're out of it. But that being said, you probably wouldn't be in the contract in the first place because companies (charities included) know that drunk people can't make legally binding agreements.

That's a rather big 'if.' Afterall, the amount of money donated is irrelevant since the principle (in order to be consistent w/ the drunk/rape law) should be that any money donated under the influence of alcohol should be reclaimable by the donator once he sobers up, even if all he did was dropped a quarter into the Unicef box. No contracts there.

The law has to be consistent, so if they cover for drunk people engaging in sexual activities, why stop there? Plenty of people gamble when drunk and end up making bad decisions they wouldn't have made if they were sober.

I've seen the gambling analogy a couple of times, and here's one of the biggest flaws I see in making it a parallel to this situation: every time it's used, you always "lost your life savings" or something like that.

You didn't wake up in the executive suite noticeably richer than when you showed up. If you woke up with a hangover and had a briefcase with, say a quarter million dollars in it, with a complimentary letter from the casino you won it from, would you take it back, outraged that they let you gamble while drunk?

See, you're not upset about the gambling part. You're upset about losing. That's the byproduct, not the action itself. If someone 'gives' their consent while drunk and then has problems with it when sober, do you really think it's because they were dissatisfied with the quality of their drunken sex? Because that's the parallel you're presenting.

If a drunk person doesn't care that they didn't give valid consent the night before when they wake up in the morning, would you say it's no longer rape? The outcome doesn't matter. It's the fact that gambling (or a myriad of other risky activities) poses a comparable threat to a drunk person who cannot legally consent. Saying "it's not comparable cuz of this or that legal loophole that makes it different in the eyes of the law" is missing the point entirely. If you support setting this precedent involving sex, then you shouldn't be against establishing the same laws regarding gambling; it's absurd simply because of how arbitrary your allocation of sympathy is. More importantly, if someone gives their consent while drunk and then has regret after they wake up, do you think the other person should go to jail for it? Or at the very least, have their reputation tarnished?

As for your second point, how would a man who's being charged of rape prove that the girl involved agreed to have sex prior to getting drunk?

Witness testimony, physical evidence taken from the location, physical evidence on the people involved...the list goes on. Plenty of routes to take.

You can't be serious. None of these are reliable considering the typical setting of the location, and even if they were, you'd have to be deliberately obtuse to ignore the unique stigma an accused rapist faces as opposed to virtually any other crime (unless it's a female).

Furthermore, you're burdening the soberest of the two to figure out whether or not the other is capable of consenting, which is ridiculous since everyone responds to alcohol different. Some people might be able to do high level calculus while hammered, whereas others are total lightweights. How are you suppose to figure out if someone you just met for the first time is past the legal limit to be able to give consent? A breathalyzer test? Asking obviously wouldn't help cuz if they are too drunk to consent, they wouldn't give reliable answers anyways.

I just can't see how any sane person can rationalize imprisoning people who make the mistake of sleeping with a drunk chick - in the same prisons as actual rapists and murderers, not to mention how overcrowded the prison system is already.

 

[Inglorious891]

It doesn't matter if s/he says it's rape afterwords, if both parties are drunk it's not. If one person isn't drunk and the other is (and depending on the level of drunkiness), and if the person who isn't drunk is the person who edges the drunk person to have sex, then I would call it rape. At very least, it's taking advantage of someone who really can't make really good decisions at that point in time.

 

[minuialear]

Minuialear now that we've cleared that up

...You mean now that I bolded my text for you because you couldn't bother yourself to read it the first time?

SKIP

Rape-

Rape is rape. I actually find it disgusting that someone can compare beating somone to within an inch of their life, holding them down and penetrating them, to 2 drunk people gleefully skipping (maybe staggering) off to a private room to engage in an activity they both are anticipating.

If either person is drunk and unable to make rational decisions, how is it something they are anticipating? You also seem to be forgetting the fact that consent is not a one-time deal; a girl or guy telling someone that (s)he'd be willing to have sex with him/her in half an hour, is not consent for sex that is performed half an hour from then. Consent must be given at the time of intercourse. Again, consenting before the act itself is not giving consent for anything that happens later in the night, because saying, "Yeah, sure, I'll sleep with you" is not equivalent to signing a binding contract requiring either party to actually have sex. People's minds change, and they are entitled to change their minds. However, if they're ability to give willful, informed consent is impaired, it's hard for this to occur. In fact, it's impossible. Therefore someone sleeping with you when you're under the influence and unable to give willful, informed consent can still be considered a form of rape.

I find it a little disgusting how people don't understand what it means to give consent, and why drunkenly agreeing to sex (or agreeing to sex prior to the time of the sex itself) doesn't count as consent. And that people seem to be downplaying the importance of a person's ability to make rational decisions in instances of alcohol use in determining whether they were able to give consent.

Having sex with an unconcious person is rape. Having sex with a person who is profoundly handicapped (even if just temporarily) is rape. Having sex with someone who is only mildly drunk is not. Your definition of rape is far too hard to prove and far too easy to abuse.

The point at which someone is not in full control of their faculties, is the point at which they cannot give willful, informed consent. To the fullest extreme, even if a guy is close to blackout drunk and is BEGGING people to sleep with him, this doesn't count as willful, informed consent. Because people who don't have control over themselves (e.g., unconscious people, people handicapped physically, mentally, or as a result of drugs/etc) aren't capable of making informed decisions. And no (pre-emptive argument), the argument that "you wouldn't do anything drunk that you wouldn't wanna do sober" doesn't hold much water, so arguing that it's still consent on that basis would be bordering on ridiculous.

 

[sovietkitty101]

If your both drunk then no it's not rape, it's just drunken sex.

Unless you are in a country where the laws say otherwise.

I'm in England so I should be ok.

If your both drunk then no it's not rape, it's just drunken sex.

Unless you are in a country where the laws say otherwise.

I'm in England so I should be ok.

Someone from England earlier in this thread said you weren't, but I don't know which if you is right. Looking at the first few google results, maybe you should check your facts before you have sex with a drunk woman again.

"Myth The women was drunk / took drugs / had a bad reputation / was hitch hiking / wore tight clothes / seduced him / probably got what she was asking for.

Fact If a person is unconscious or their judgement is impaired by alcohol or drugs, legally they are unable to give consent. Having non-consensual sex with a person who is intoxicated is sexual assault"

http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/commonmyths2.php
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/596319-too-drunk-woman-accuses-man-of-rape
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-12265638

She was deffo up for it so im not worried, cheers anyway.

 

[Balvale]

What level of intoxication are we talking here? Because someone who has had a few drinks is perfectly capable of giving informed consent. Do they understand what sex is and its repercussions? Yes. Have they agreed to it? Yes. They've given informed consent. Someone who has had a few drinks is capable of understanding the consequences of their actions. I only take issue when someone is wasted or manipulated into drinking.

I'll echo your ability to withdraw consent. I've heard too many stories about men forcing themselves on someone after they've started intercourse and she wants to stop. Doesn't matter what the circumstances are, whether she's a "tease" or just had a change of mind, "no" means no. Be a gentlemen, take your blue balls and get out.

 

[idodo35]

in the case you described i dont think you did anything wrong... so its not rape but the line is very very thin so... personaly i try to not have first time sex with someone who is drunk... just to be safe...

 

[anian]

Aren't there certain procedures that determine the guilt...like in court, I mean even if you get seen killing a person, you can still defend your case, right? I mean, that's what the judicial system is about.

Even though law says something, there's clearly a lot more factors in it than two lines of, mind you one sided, description of what happened and that might make a difference, if you got caught killing a person and if that person was attacking you it's different than just shooting someone.
Stuff like have these people been in a relationship which ended badly, do they even know each other, were they're really both drunk (you manage to get to your apartment and invite somebody...that doesn't really help your case I'd think), was there drugs in the victims system, determine if it was forcefull, maybe the victim didn't invite them to have sex and the story is a lie and sooo many other things.
That's what judicial system is for - two or more parties disagreeing (or claiming diffrent things) and those of you who are obviously practicing or studying law should feel silly for stating something from the law book and sticking to that and even mentioning any defense.

Still, it's a pretty stupid move from both parties, don't have sex with reaaaaally drunk people and don't get so freaking drunk that you actually ask someone to have sex with you and you don't want it.

And let us not forget there's a poll with 3 choices, which really don't have much to do with real life practicing of law or conditions of the event.

 

[Zuljeet]

Here are some qualifiers to make this easier:
- was s/he conscious/coherent? Then probably not rape, it's just stupid.
- was s/he passed out/incoherent? Then yes, it is rape.
- If s/he said *anything* even resembling "I don't want to" then yes, it's rape
- If s/he did everything but bite it off while being a willing participant, then no, it's not rape, it's just fun.

Most countries have some pretty clear-cut laws regarding this kind of crap, but the long and the short of it is, YOU WILL KNOW without a shadow of a doubt whether or not you did something wrong (barring some kind of mental deficiency), I don't care how drunk you were.
Also, if the person you chose to rut with wakes up the next morning and pulls the rape card even though s/he was a willing, albeit intoxicated, participant, then that person is a complete asshole who deserved a night of crappy sex and wretched hangover. the aforementioned asshole is just trying to make themselves feel better about wasting a night with *another* asshole who just wanted to get some idiot drunk enough to overlook his/her shortcomings long enough to get off.

 

[HotFezz8]

?

if i fuck a seemingly willing 10 year old, is it still rape?

if i fuck a seemingly willing downs syndrome person, is it still rape?

if i fuck a seemingly willing high person, is it still rape?

if i get drunk with someone, and they get really depressed, and i kill a seemingly willing drunk person, should i still be charged with murder?

yes, if they are drunk and they didn't want sex, and then they get drunk and you have sex, you have raped them. they were unable to make a lucid decision.