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

[Char-Nobyl]

Um, that was my point. Why isn't there such a safeguard for gambling when one exists for sex?

Well, there's the fact that it would equate losing money at a casino to being raped. That's one thing.

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.

You say "precedent," but you're just making a slippery slope argument. Besides, casinos have liquor licenses. Are you proposing that people be forbidden from doing anything inside the place that they bought booze from?

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.

Then what's the basis for your claim? I'm guessing you have some sort of evidence to present? Because otherwise, you're just a guy trying to sue a charity because you claim you gave them a minuscule and unverifiable quantity of money.

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?

Yep. Correct.

The outcome doesn't matter.

Sure it does. If you woke up and were told that last night, while you were dead drunk, you lost your life savings, you'd be outraged. But if you were told the same thing save the fact that you actually doubled your life savings, you'd be singing a different tune. How does that coincide to sexual consent?

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.

"Poses a comparable threat"? I thought it was a typo earlier, but wow. You really do consider losing money while gambling to getting raped.

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;

Uh-huh...here's the thing: I don't consider gambling and sex to be the same thing. So why would I be so in favor of making all sex-related laws pertain to gambling, and vise versa?

it's absurd simply because of how arbitrary your allocation of sympathy is.

Yeah. I'm such a monster for having more sympathy for a rape victim than someone who lost money at a casino. I'm so horrible that they're probably making a tenth circle of hell just for that offense.

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?

How is it "regret"? You aren't looking back on it with the same state of mind and changing your decision. You're looking back on it with a clear mind and knowing that had you not been intoxicated, you never would have done that thing. You didn't "regret" it. That's just feeling bad about a choice.

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).

On the contrary: I know perfectly well what you're talking about. But I also know that the alternative is forbidding anyone from ever accusing someone else of rape, and that's a far worse situation.

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.

Erm...soberst? I thought we were dealing with one sober, one drunk. Not one drunk and one more drunk.

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.

So...those are your only ways of telling if someone's been drinking? If you're perfectly sober, you can't tell a friend who's drunk from when they're sober?

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.

*sigh*

Right, here's the thing: this is a rare and highly specific scenario. I don't think this system is anywhere near perfect, but I think it's better than the alternative. I have similar beliefs regarding the death penalty, albeit from the opposite side of the judicial system: even if we get cases where it's really, really obvious that the guy did it, you can't execute him without allowing innocent men to get the same along the way.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

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

To be honest, mate, I never assume sarcasm if a post reaches a certain number of grammatical/spelling errors. It's a pitfall of text-based communication.

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

...wait, what? What "loaning"? This is the first time you've used that word.

2-Yes you can join the military while drunk and regret it.

Got a citation for that?

I believe the army doesn't want that to be their main mean of recruitment, but it can happen.

You do realize that the US military has been turning away applicants, right? Recruitment goes up in wartime.

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.

That sounds kind of impossible. How can you negotiate the terms of a contract and then sign said contract during the same meal? And besides, you said it yourself: lawyers are present. Sober lawyers, I imagine. If you're showing up to sign a contract that you've already agreed to the terms of, the lawyer is just there to confirm that what's in the contract is exactly what you were told would be there.

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.

Oh, certainly. I never said that wasn't the case.

Also, you've earned points in my metaphysical book for use of the phrase 'burden of proof.' I really wish that were required reading for...like, everyone.

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.

But I've never tried to make this about everything. I'm only addressing the rape issue. Someone who's sincerely making that accusation didn't wake up the next morning and think, "Ugh, I can't believe I slept with X. I never would have done that sober," and then realizing halfway through a criminal justice course that she can accuse him of raping her to get back at him. That's isn't a rape victim.

 

[Boom129]

Rule of thumb, if you have to ask then the answer is probably yes

 

[x-machina]

"Is it rape if you have consensual sex..." Dumbest question I have ever seen.

 

[laughingstock2909]

Intoxicated persons cannot grant consent.

But if consent is given prior to getting drunk/high/whatever, then it doesn't matter if one or both (or more, if'n that is your fancy) partners are intoxicated. Because consent was given, you see.

drunkeness is an altered state of judgement, not perception or other forms of logic, and i have seen this before and if there are witnesses, then the witnesses have the most credit to their name; the two that are main focus are having nothing more than a pity squabble and also; intoxicated persons can and will grant consent if they wish it, it is a core concept of free expression of self

 

[DannyBandicoot]

191 people think this is rape.. that is scary.

 

[inquisiti0n]

Um, that was my point. Why isn't there such a safeguard for gambling when one exists for sex?

Well, there's the fact that it would equate losing money at a casino to being raped. That's one thing.
...

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.

"Poses a comparable threat"? I thought it was a typo earlier, but wow. You really do consider losing money while gambling to getting raped.

Well first of all, since I don't consider it to be rape (hence why I'm arguing), I'm obviously not equating the two. And gambling at a casino can definitely ruin your life so I don't know why you would trivialize that risk. I said comparable threat because it's possible that sleeping with someone who you normally wouldn't have when sober (which again, I don't consider rape) would have similar consequences.

Don't know why you're so amazed at the notion that I'd be more sympathetic to a guy who lost a devastating amount of money gambling while drunk to a guy who woke up next to someone he would've never touched while sober.

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.

You say "precedent," but you're just making a slippery slope argument. Besides, casinos have liquor licenses. Are you proposing that people be forbidden from doing anything inside the place that they bought booze from?

Gambling can happen in many places outside of casinos, but my point wasn't to focus that intently on gambling; virtually any activity that SHOULD (ie, regardless of whether or not the law currently cares) require the consent of a intoxicated person (whether it should or shouldn't being based on the risks/consequences it poses towards someone under the influence) should be addressed by the law in a similar fashion to it's stance on a drunk person involving sex. And yes, that would be hugely impractical and something I'd never support. Though the alternative to just make a law covering one particular activity that a drunk person engages in, a law that's incredibly vulnerable to abuse and exploitation due to the nature of evidence involved, is unreasonable.

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.

Then what's the basis for your claim? I'm guessing you have some sort of evidence to present? Because otherwise, you're just a guy trying to sue a charity because you claim you gave them a minuscule and unverifiable quantity of money.

So here you're well aware of how hard evidence would be to verify, or how easy it'd be to make false claims. Why would you expect the drunk who gave a twenty to a charity collector on the street to have any more evidence of what happened than a drunk person who woke up next to someone with no recollection of giving consent to them? And please don't start with the "you're comparing rape with _x_," no I'm not.

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;

Uh-huh...here's the thing: I don't consider gambling and sex to be the same thing. So why would I be so in favor of making all sex-related laws pertain to gambling, and vise versa?
...

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?

Yep. Correct.

So you're saying gambling is incomparable because there's a tiny chance of the person winning, whereas a person who did not give valid consent and was "raped" has no equivalent outcome, right? Unless they don't care that they didn't give consent when they sober up (or even enjoyed it - both which are comparable outcomes), in which case you say it wasn't rape afterall... So if I don't care that a crime happened, it's no longer a crime? The "victim" should be able to choose?

Then even you're implicitly admitting to this being different from "traditional"/real rape by saying the victim is able to choose whether they were raped or not. In a case where a girl is raped at gunpoint in a dark alley, or drugged, it's rape (among other things), no matter what she personally decides or feels. She can choose to not press charges, but whether or not a criminal act was committed does not hinge on the her feelings.

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?

How is it "regret"? You aren't looking back on it with the same state of mind and changing your decision. You're looking back on it with a clear mind and knowing that had you not been intoxicated, you never would have done that thing. You didn't "regret" it. That's just feeling bad about a choice.

Don't want to get into semantics but regret doesn't take into account one's clarity of mind during the moment the event in question occurred.

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).

On the contrary: I know perfectly well what you're talking about. But I also know that the alternative is forbidding anyone from ever accusing someone else of rape, and that's a far worse situation.

Don't be dramatic, the alternative of not supporting the unwarranted extension of what "rape" legally covers does not equate to forbidding all rape accusations.

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.

Erm...soberst? I thought we were dealing with one sober, one drunk. Not one drunk and one more drunk.

It's dealing with someone's level of intoxication relative to the point where one can no longer give valid consent. It's possible to be influenced by the effects of alcohol without passing that point. Otherwise, your consent would be invalid the moment you feel a slight buzz.

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.

So...those are your only ways of telling if someone's been drinking? If you're perfectly sober, you can't tell a friend who's drunk from when they're sober?

I mentioned "someone you met for the first time." And you're making the mistake of categorizing everyone who drinks as people who can't give consent. How would you know how someone acts when drunk if you barely know them? Everyone behaves differently under the influence of alcohol, and lacking the aptitude to clearly decide who's consent is still valid and who's isn't shouldn't land you in jail. A law that can make someone a rapist due to their inability to discern such a thing, be it their own fault or the other party's composure, is not something I can support.

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.

*sigh*

Right, here's the thing: this is a rare and highly specific scenario. I don't think this system is anywhere near perfect, but I think it's better than the alternative. I have similar beliefs regarding the death penalty, albeit from the opposite side of the judicial system: even if we get cases where it's really, really obvious that the guy did it, you can't execute him without allowing innocent men to get the same along the way.

It isn't rare nor highly specific, since evidence of this nature that would exonerate someone who's accused is far less reliable (especially compared to any sort of evidence related to crimes that would land someone on death row, for example). Let's say it was two drunk people, and one of them wanted to accuse the other of rape in the morning. How does the other prove that they were also wasted? Collect all the empty bottles that he drank and show them to the police? If both are that drunk, no one is going to be documenting evidence, nor should they, and that's assuming the accused even remembers what happened.

It provides the opportunity for women to make false reports that are near impossible to conclusively deny due to the nature of how hard it would be to disprove, or even verify, since the same physical evidence apparent from consensual sex (slight bruising, redness) could easily be claimed as proof of rape. To refute this by stating it's sexist would be childish since it's a valid possibility that has to be addressed. And yes, the same opportunity exists for men but it would be hard for even legitimate cases to be taken seriously, and as mentioned elsewhere ITT, laws in some places state that "women can't rape men", etc.

 

[The Wooster]

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?

Is it rape? No.
Is it skeevy as fuck? Yeah, kind of.

 

[greatcheezer2021]

its hard to draw a line but easy to get mixed up in details. with the use of alcohol your inhibitions will lower but not considerably unless you plan on getting blackout hammered. at that sense where one was "drugged" whether spiked drinks, GHB, or with the help of quaaludes, one party is unable to conscientiously make their own decisions and consent to sex.

why its hard to draw is line is because of the said drunk persons actions. if they know what theyre doing, they cant hold mistakes at the excuse of being drunk at fault. vice versa, being blackout drunk you wont remember, wether you had fun or not.

if the person is in a state they wouldnt be able to stand and defend for their privacy of being intoxicated, that is willfully raping a person and offending their rights.

if you can make a legible thought in your head and get people understand you during before or after the consent it is not rape. if person goes as far to call it rape because they was expecting something they didnt get, it means you shouldnt fuck that crazy person, or people that like to fuck others against their own will.

 

[crazyarms33]

I feel that it is NOT rape in your example as there was no overt pressure to sleep with each other. However, I do know that the Army(America's anyway) says that if you get drunk and have sex you essentially have to get the other person to say "Yes, I want to have sex with you." in order to be clear of the charge of rape under the UCMJ (Uniformed Code of Military Justice). But that's been a bit of an issue at times for the Army so it makes sense.

As for everyday people? I think that your situation doesn't count as rape but if the person is too drunk to know whats going on(if you've been drunk you know how drunk I mean) be a big enough person to draw the line and not hook up with them.

 

[darksakul]

Honestly in depends how the laws for rape are worded in your state and or country.
As the wording or "letter of the law applies: do apply literally.

In most of the states in the US taking advantage of a intoxicated person to have sex with is considered rape.

 

[Zen Toombs]

Intoxicated persons cannot grant consent.

But if consent is given prior to getting drunk/high/whatever, then it doesn't matter if one or both (or more, if'n that is your fancy) partners are intoxicated. Because consent was given, you see.

drunkeness is an altered state of judgement, not perception or other forms of logic, and i have seen this before and if there are witnesses, then the witnesses have the most credit to their name; the two that are main focus are having nothing more than a pity squabble and also; intoxicated persons can and will grant consent if they wish it, it is a core concept of free expression of self

[sup]emphasis added[/sup]

I agree that being able to grant consent is a core concept of freedom and the expression of yourself. I'm a huge supporter of freedom to act as you choose.

HOWEVER, as you say, drunkenness is an altered state of judgement. While you can still say "Hey, I agree to this", the consent you have granted is not valid. You can grant consent for an event that will occur later when you are intoxicated, but you can't grant that consent while in an altered state of judgement.

On a related note, IIRC you are not allowed to make business and other important legal decisions while intoxicated.

 

[Kathinka]

by the logic of the it-is-rape party i should also not go to prison when i kill a man while drunk, no? i'm in an altered state of mind after all!

it's bullshit. being drunk doesn't excuse you from the consequences of stupid decisions you make. that includes waking up next to a stranger. can't live with that? don't get drunk.

of course if you get intoxicated against your will or knowledge, it's something else. but if you go to a club and get drunk enough to fuck some random asshat, you have NO one to blame but yourself.

 

[Shycte]

As always, The Escapist is full of people who is sure that every women out there is out to accuse them of rape. They should know that just a small small fraction of all rape cases leads to someone being convicted.

Anyway, if both parties are drunk and no one really knows why or how they are doing it, and if the would-be rapist didn't have to intention of sleeping with anyone, but he was drunik and it sorta happend, I wouldn't call it rape.

However, what's really happening it what I would guess is most cases is that someone (and let's face it, in the absolute majority of times it's a man) abbuses someone who the rapist know wouldn't have sex with him (or her if you really care that much), but for the moment doesn't know any better. It's even quite possible that this someone gave the victim alcohol just so that the victim would become even more drunk. It was the rapist intetion all along to have sex with the victim. It's rape, no doubt about it.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

You're probably better off asking a lawyer.

Here's my interpretation: if the person is willingly intoxicated, they are responsible for whatever decisions they make while intoxicated; whether it be having sex with someone that they normally wouldn't, driving and getting in an accident, spewing forth their opinions on minorities, or pissing on a police car. That's the risk you run when you get willingly intoxicated. That's why I don't.

If a person is unwillingly or unknowingly drugged by a person who intentionally meant to take advantage of them, then that's rape.

However, I will say that even if a person is willingly intoxicated, and an individual who knows that they wouldn't have sex with them under normal circumstances takes advantage of that situation (but didn't orchestrate it for that purpose), the sober individual may not be a rapist, but is certainly a very dishonorable opportunist.

If both are drunk, they are equally responsible.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Well first of all, since I don't consider it to be rape (hence why I'm arguing), I'm obviously not equating the two. And gambling at a casino can definitely ruin your life so I don't know why you would trivialize that risk.

Except that when you gamble, you can win or lose different amounts of money. If you've lost your life savings, that's the absolute worst case scenario. But the parallel falls apart when you consider that you can't be various degrees of 'raped,' and your objection to having been raped depends on whether it was a good rape or a bad rape.

I said comparable threat because it's possible that sleeping with someone who you normally wouldn't have when sober (which again, I don't consider rape) would have similar consequences.

But that's implying all sorts of thing about the alleged victim, and none of them are flattering. It isn't about sleeping with "someone...you normally wouldn't have." That's not the train of logic running through a person's head if they genuinely believed they were taken advantage of.

Don't know why you're so amazed at the notion that I'd be more sympathetic to a guy who lost a devastating amount of money gambling while drunk to a guy who woke up next to someone he would've never touched while sober.

So we're switching from the sober male/drunk female setup? That's rather abrupt...and self-serving. You substituted "intoxicated girl" with "guy who got drunk and banged an ugly chick." You're not even talking about rape anymore, but arguing as though your points still address it.

Gambling can happen in many places outside of casinos,

And at how many of those places is it legal to do so?

but my point wasn't to focus that intently on gambling; virtually any activity that SHOULD (ie, regardless of whether or not the law currently cares) require the consent of a intoxicated person (whether it should or shouldn't being based on the risks/consequences it poses towards someone under the influence) should be addressed by the law in a similar fashion to it's stance on a drunk person involving sex.

That sounds horrendously arbitrary and impractical.

And yes, that would be hugely impractical and something I'd never support. Though the alternative to just make a law covering one particular activity that a drunk person engages in, a law that's incredibly vulnerable to abuse and exploitation due to the nature of evidence involved, is unreasonable.

...you know, I might've understood the first part. But to add that you would never support it even if it were on the table just confuses me.

So here you're well aware of how hard evidence would be to verify, or how easy it'd be to make false claims. Why would you expect the drunk who gave a twenty to a charity collector on the street to have any more evidence of what happened than a drunk person who woke up next to someone with no recollection of giving consent to them?

Goddamnit. I'm trying to fight back to /b/-induced urge to question if you've ever even had sex before, but Jesus, man. You're not making this very easy for me.

More to the point: do you really think that sex, especially involving at least one drunk party, is an affair that leaves no trace after it's finished?

And please don't start with the "you're comparing rape with _x_," no I'm not.

Yes, you are. You equated took "Man gives twenty dollars to charity worker on street" and said that it has both the same caliber of physical evidence and ease of detection by the alleged victim as "girl wakes up next to guy she didn't remember screwing."

So you're saying gambling is incomparable because there's a tiny chance of the person winning,

A tiny chance? Hardly. In any given round of roulette, you can give yourself a 50/50 shot of winning per spin.

Gambling is incomparable to rape because the logic doesn't work, and they're two dramatically different activities. Hypothetical scenarios:

A. X enters a casino, remains sober the whole night, and loses his life savings by his own free will.
-Nothing happens, X's own fault. Clear-cut issue there.

B. X enters a casino, gets drunk, and loses his life savings while drunk.
-If you were arguing for X, he would sue the casino or something.

C. X enters a casino, gets drunk, and doubles his life savings while drunk.
-X says nothing, and leaves significantly richer.

What's the difference between B and C? It's the same casino. And for the sake of argument, it's the same games, too. The only difference is that when X sobered up, he liked the outcome of C and didn't like the outcome of B. Suddenly, I bet he's a lot less eager to whine about how he didn't give the casino permission to let him gamble when he got so much money out of it.

And for bonus points, tell me how sexual consent is somehow the same thing as this, because I'm just not seeing it.

whereas a person who did not give valid consent and was "raped" has no equivalent outcome, right?

Correct...because the two situations aren't comparable.

Unless they don't care that they didn't give consent when they sober up (or even enjoyed it - both which are comparable outcomes), in which case you say it wasn't rape afterall... So if I don't care that a crime happened, it's no longer a crime?

Alright, imagine for a moment that there are two identical couples. One male and one female, photocopied and placed somewhere separate from the originals.

Now, if both couples are having sex, in identical physical settings, and both are sober, then the actions are the same, correct? In theory, yes...unless for the sake of argument, one of the two women said 'no,' and the guy went ahead anyway. Identical people, identical surroundings, yet one is a couple engaging in consensual sex, and the other is a rape.

See how valuable that 'consent' part is? It literally determines whether or not the actions that follow are legal or illegal. Because there are plenty of 'legal' things that become illegal when the person you're doing them to doesn't want you to.

The "victim" should be able to choose?

You act as if it's an actual dilemma. Is the alleged victim now conducting an internal debate over whether or not she was raped? Weighing both sides of the argument?

Then even you're implicitly admitting to this being different from "traditional"/real rape by saying the victim is able to choose whether they were raped or not. In a case where a girl is raped at gunpoint in a dark alley, or drugged, it's rape (among other things), no matter what she personally decides or feels. She can choose to not press charges, but whether or not a criminal act was committed does not hinge on the her feelings.

No shit, Sherlock. It shouldn't be news that there are different classifications of rape. Forcible, statutory, etc.

Interesting that you don't consider statutory rape to be "real rape," though, or at least you didn't include it among your list of "real rape" scenarios.

Don't want to get into semantics but regret doesn't take into account one's clarity of mind during the moment the event in question occurred.

Hold up now. You're telling me that you "don't want to get into semantics," but in the same sentence propose that rape victims should keep quiet because they might not know what they're talking about?

Don't be dramatic, the alternative of not supporting the unwarranted extension of what "rape" legally covers does not equate to forbidding all rape accusations.

I'm hardly dramatizing it. You talk about how awful the stigma is for even alleged rapists (which is true), and used that as reason for people who think they've been raped to keep quiet.

It's dealing with someone's level of intoxication relative to the point where one can no longer give valid consent. It's possible to be influenced by the effects of alcohol without passing that point.

Erm...no, not really. How many laws allow you to do things if you're "only slightly drunk" and forbid you if you're beyond that?

Otherwise, your consent would be invalid the moment you feel a slight buzz.

That's the letter of the law, yes. You're "under the influence" by that point. That's where we get DUI from, though DWI is usually assigned to just alcohol.

I mentioned "someone you met for the first time."

And you can't tell if someone's been drinking? Thousands of secret drinkers scarfing mints and other smelly things to cover up their breath beg to differ. Again, among other things.

And you're making the mistake of categorizing everyone who drinks as people who can't give consent.

...actually, no. I made the non-mistake of believing a better worded version of that sentence. If someone is drunk, no matter how well they hold their liquor, the law doesn't give a shit: any 'consent' they give is technically invalid. But you seem to think that this means the Rape Police will break down your door if you slept with someone who had a few drinks and has a strong alcohol tolerance.

Protip: if you genuinely believe she was capable of giving consent, and you're not a galactically-poor judge of character even when sober, she's not going to accuse you of rape. Half of this thread is just paranoid fantasies that can't grasp that.

How would you know how someone acts when drunk if you barely know them? Everyone behaves differently under the influence of alcohol, and lacking the aptitude to clearly decide who's consent is still valid and who's isn't shouldn't land you in jail. A law that can make someone a rapist due to their inability to discern such a thing, be it their own fault or the other party's composure, is not something I can support.

Well, that's a shame, then, because the term 'jailbait' exists for a reason. Plenty of girls I knew in highschool could pass easily for 18 when they were 17 or even 16.

It isn't rare nor highly specific, since evidence of this nature that would exonerate someone who's accused is far less reliable (especially compared to any sort of evidence related to crimes that would land someone on death row, for example). Let's say it was two drunk people, and one of them wanted to accuse the other of rape in the morning.

*facepalm*

Just stop and consider for a moment how many factors need to be assumed simply for that detail alone.

How does the other prove that they were also wasted? Collect all the empty bottles that he drank and show them to the police? If both are that drunk, no one is going to be documenting evidence, nor should they, and that's assuming the accused even remembers what happened.

Right, do you know how police reports are filed? Because if it was this easy to get someone arrested, 4chan would have started doing it as a prank long before now. You need to present enough evidence for the police to even consider looking into it, and even then the other person gets a word before anything resembling charges are raised.

And that other stuff I mentioned (possibly in a different reply) factors in, too. Were the two seen together? Were they drinking with others? The list goes on.

It provides the opportunity for women to make false reports that are near impossible to conclusively deny due to the nature of how hard it would be to disprove, or even verify, since the same physical evidence apparent from consensual sex (slight bruising, redness) could easily be claimed as proof of rape.

Jesus Christ. You're not even bothering with covering it up, are you?

This was already a bit weird, but now it's just chauvinistic. And as someone who thought this video was hilarious [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCkp8CWboNE&feature=related], I don't exactly throw the term 'chauvinism' around unless I mean it. You're genuinely worried enough by your paranoid rape-accusation scenario render null and void any law regarding alcohol and sexual consent?

Unlike your scenario, spiked drinks are an actual, statistically-verifiable thing. Ever tasted a Jaegerbomb? They taste like candy, and they can get you drunk fast. Even if the victim actually says 'no' to the advances, what's she going to do? She's trashed by that point. And if she gave her normally-in-no-way-valid consent after being drugged, who cares? You can give consent when wasted, and how are you going to prove that you weren't just willingly drinking a popular mix?

To refute this by stating it's sexist would be childish since it's a valid possibility that has to be addressed.

There's a difference between 'valid' and 'physically possible.' This falls under the latter, and is just as invalid an argument as the idea that if we legalized gay marriage, we'd run out of men for women to marry. [http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-06-23/news/29710731_1_gay-marriage-traditional-marriage-gay-advocates]

 

[infinity^infinity]

When I first starting going to college they actually covered this during the orientation. Yes, it is considered rape since the person is not in a logical frame of mind and the other person was taking advantage of that fact. Whether or not you agree with that is subjective opinion. They were of course talking about if only one person was drunk; and, I suppose, she may be able to get a hearing on that issue, but if both of you were drunk then it would probably get thrown out in any court of law. I am thinking of the argument that if an intoxicated person is impaired enough to not legally give consent, then an equally intoxicated person is not in the right frame of mind to take advantage of that given consent. Of course, as I learned the hard way, inebriation is not an excuse for violating the law. I would just counter-argue that she raped you.

 

[oppp7]

I'd say that it's rape if A. It was obvious they were drunk and you talked them into it (despite them originally not wanting to) or B. If you got them drunk on purpose to have sex with them.

If you went out to a bar with a girl and she got drunk on her own and asked you to have sex then it's probably ok.

I think that having sex with a drunk girl/guy when they couldn't have been thinking clearly is a douche move either way, since you can never be too sure.