Poll: Is it rape if you have consensual sex with a willfully intoxicated person?
- Thread starter awesomeClaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If somebody willingly gets themselves drunk to the point where they will express consent for sex, that is their fault.
People who intentionally get themselves hammered, fuck people while hammered, then claimed it was rape just because they had drunk themselves hammered first, need to either learn some personal fucking responsibility or maybe just off themselves before they can shit up the world with more false claims of one of the most heinous crimes that can be committed.
Seriously fuck those people. They do not deserve to draw the same breath we do.
People who intentionally get themselves hammered, fuck people while hammered, then claimed it was rape just because they had drunk themselves hammered first, need to either learn some personal fucking responsibility or maybe just off themselves before they can shit up the world with more false claims of one of the most heinous crimes that can be committed.
Seriously fuck those people. They do not deserve to draw the same breath we do.
Every situation is different. Every single damn one. Key word is always agree. If everyone involved at the time agreed then gtg. Live and learn for next time. This is a forestfire of a topic anyway. Nothing correct can really be said bc to many people have their own up close and personal "views" on the topic.
My advice? Stay home on the weekends. Get a cat. Take up a hobby. Like teaching your cat how to knit. That way you won't get raped or be accused of rape. Crazy cat lady life ftw
My advice? Stay home on the weekends. Get a cat. Take up a hobby. Like teaching your cat how to knit. That way you won't get raped or be accused of rape. Crazy cat lady life ftw
If I got wasted and had sex with a fat chick, I would not call out rape to the authorities. Don't see why it shouldn't work the other way.
Depends on what the courts say.
Now, SHOULD it be rape?
That's another story.
Morally, perhaps. But not on the same level as normally.
Legally, however, it's more complex.
If you are still legally accountable when driving intoxicated, then logically, one should still be able to consent to sex while intoxicated.
Personally, though, in either case, I don't think you should be able to consent or legally be accountable while intoxicated.
Ideally, there would be a lesser charge for things for both.
Now, SHOULD it be rape?
That's another story.
Morally, perhaps. But not on the same level as normally.
Legally, however, it's more complex.
If you are still legally accountable when driving intoxicated, then logically, one should still be able to consent to sex while intoxicated.
Personally, though, in either case, I don't think you should be able to consent or legally be accountable while intoxicated.
Ideally, there would be a lesser charge for things for both.
This. Checking back on this thread days later I see the percentage of people who believe it *IS* rape has stayed around 17%.DannyBandicoot said:
I FERVENTLY hope that some of those people are simply deluded and haven't thought about or really read the situation that the OP posted.
The worse part is his situation has been deluded into a woman being attacked by a man by a lot of posts, automatically falling into the perceived common rape scenario.Ashendarei said:
He/she is right mind enough to take me back to their place and shag me. In this picture perfect scenario, I would not call it rape. Adults drink together, and adults have sex together.awesomeClaw said:
I'm inclined to think you're not reading what I wrote carefully enough to get what I'm actually saying, so let me stop here and re-post relevant quotes from myself, with a line-by-line explanation for your benefit. The fact that you've glossed over what I've said and made baseless conclusions because of it before (with me, no less) makes me think that this is necessary.Jarimir said:
If for one person, this is after one drink, then it's after one drink. If it's only when the person is black-out drunk, then it's when the person is black-out drunk. Yes, the amount it takes to mess up one's ability to reason varies from person to person; this is, however, irrelevant to my point. My point is, when a person isn't capable of making informed consent, then they have grounds to say they didn't give willful, informed consent for something like sex. Whether it took them 1 or 10 shots to get there is irrelevant.minuialear said:
The reason I suggested that people shouldn't sleep with those who may have just had one, even if they can handle the 10 before getting tipsy, is due to the complaint people keep bringing up that it's impossible to tell how much another person can really handle before it starts to affect them (which people are using as an excuse to assume someone's capable of consent unless they are sloppy drunk). Considering I (hopefully, by now, obviously) am not just referring to people who are sloppy, black-out drunk, I posited the problem can be rectified if one plays it safe. If you can't tell, is it really that big of a deal to be expected to play it safe and wait until you can ensure you're getting informed consent before doing anything? If you're at an intersection and a car next to you is blocking your view of oncoming traffic into a lane you want to turn into, would you consider it a violation of your rights not to be expected to wait until you can be sure no cars are coming, before you make your turn (even if that means sitting in the lane until the car next to you is no longer blocking your view)? If someone tells you not to pick up a gun because they don't know if the safety's on or not, are you going to get angry with them for telling you "better safe than sorry"?
In case you didn't notice this the first time: this was meant to be an example of the worst-case. Just because I don't specifically point out every single possible scenario ("After drink 1 x; after drink 2, y; after drink 3..."), doesn't mean that I'm harping on the worst-case scenario because it's the only scenario relevant to what I'm saying. Especially when I just saidminuialear said:
which also includes people who are drunk/tipsy to the point where their thought processes are compromised, but not "My liver is about to die"-drunk.minuialear said:
Again, "handicaps" aren't always of the incredibly extreme variety; being buzzed to the point where you can't think as well as you did prior to drinking counts as a handicap, as well as being drunk to the point where you can barely move or speak.minuialear said:
As a general remark on your interpretation of this post so far, you need to stop imposing your own assumptions on my words, and start actually reading generic statements as generic statements. Or at least asking "By this, do you mean...?" Because I'm noticing a trend of you assuming people mean what you want them to mean, and then going off on tirades about it, and it's getting a bit annoying.
I'm assuming no issue has been taken with this. Moving on:minuialear said:
You didn't really address this, so I'm going to assume you either both understood and agreed with it, or you didn't really read it at all.minuialear said:
And to post something that I feel I've had to repeat over and over and over again, and which you clearly didn't catch:
As I've said multiple times, the point is accepting that both parties have a responsibility to act like mature adults. Any argument one makes about how it's the more drunk person's fault that the situation happened can be turned on its head.minuialear said:
- If (s)he didn't want sex, (s)he shouldn't have gotten drunk. (If (s)he didn't want to be accused of having sex with him/her without getting proper consent, (s)he should have either waited to get proper consent, or, if this was impossible at the time, shouldn't have had sex in the first place.)
- (S)he willfully got drunk, and therefore deserved to end up having sex with person 2. (Person 2 willfully chose to not get proper consent before having sex with a drunk/more drunk person, and therefore deserved being charged with having sex with the person without getting proper consent.)
etc.
The point isn't to say people shouldn't have sex ever or should never have sex while drunk (I even said such, though I'm not feeling generous enough to post my entire reply history here for your befefit--feel free to go through and do it yourself if you feel so inclined). The point is, if one party (the more drunk one) is expected to shoulder any responsibility for the event, it only makes sense that the other party has some of the responsibility as well. Especially considering the solution is "if you can't get consent, don't have sex."
And as I stated previously,
Which addresses the scenario where both people are equally drunk. Further clarification and expansion of the scenario can be provided.minuialear said:
HOWEVER, in practice, it's rarely the case where both people are actually equally drunk. Which should come as no surprise, because the chances of finding someone exactly as drunk as you at a party are clearly slimmer than finding someone who is more or less drunk than you, if only because different bodies metabolize alcohol differently (much less because one has just had more than other, etc). Therefore while I addressed the unlikely scenario where both are equally drunk, the reason why most of my posts do not focus on the equally-drunk scenario is because it rarely ever actually happens.
If you need further clarification I will give it.
I agree with the swedish law's definition. It says.
"Berusade personer B.B 1:2§
När ett brott begås under frivillig berusning ska man bortse från berusningen vid uppsåtsbedömningen"
This translates to something like
"Intoxicated persons
When a is committed during voluntary intoxication, one will ignore this intoxication during reasoning judgement"
So what they're saying is if you got drunk, it can sure as hell not be used as an excuse for pretty much anything.
Of course you do things you regret when you're drunk. But it's not a legit excuse for anything. If you do things you regret whilst intoxicated, maybe you shouldn't be drinking at all.
"Berusade personer B.B 1:2§
När ett brott begås under frivillig berusning ska man bortse från berusningen vid uppsåtsbedömningen"
This translates to something like
"Intoxicated persons
When a is committed during voluntary intoxication, one will ignore this intoxication during reasoning judgement"
So what they're saying is if you got drunk, it can sure as hell not be used as an excuse for pretty much anything.
Of course you do things you regret when you're drunk. But it's not a legit excuse for anything. If you do things you regret whilst intoxicated, maybe you shouldn't be drinking at all.
Depends how drunk the other is and how much the sober person is pushing for it.
I think it becomes rape not when we regret it (Because lord knows, I've regreted some of the dumb shit I've done while wasted), but when its clear that one party is against it and refuses and the other party continues on anyway.
That said, I wouldn't do someone wasted, but then as a man I've got to see it not only from a personal preference point (Woo! sex with a girl who just upchucked on my shirt), but also from a legal point, where a girl can, at any point, decide I 'raped' her because she was drunk-ish and now regrets her actions.
I think it becomes rape not when we regret it (Because lord knows, I've regreted some of the dumb shit I've done while wasted), but when its clear that one party is against it and refuses and the other party continues on anyway.
That said, I wouldn't do someone wasted, but then as a man I've got to see it not only from a personal preference point (Woo! sex with a girl who just upchucked on my shirt), but also from a legal point, where a girl can, at any point, decide I 'raped' her because she was drunk-ish and now regrets her actions.
I've been absolutely shitfaced drunk & had sex tens, possibly hundreds of times in that state over the years. Sometimes it's been truly great, mind-blowing sex.
Does this mean that those women have raped me? I don't feel like I've had sex against my will, I'm certain I'd have remembered if it had been, & that is the definition of rape (OED 2011 "the crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will"). This quote suggests that I'm a serial rape victim:
Does this mean that those women have raped me? I don't feel like I've had sex against my will, I'm certain I'd have remembered if it had been, & that is the definition of rape (OED 2011 "the crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will"). This quote suggests that I'm a serial rape victim:
minuialear, now that I think about it I woke up to some unrequested, & yet not unwelcome sexual activity just a couple of days ago. I certainly hadn't consented to any sexual advances whilst asleep, but apparently I was being raped. Is it wrong that I enjoyed it?minuialear said:
I don't think it's rape, I just think it's sleazy. It's your fault for drinking, and if you kill someone when you're drunk it's still you're responsibility. However, if someone spiked your drink then its basically rape. It's morally corrupt to take advantage of someone when there drunk. If you suggest it your a dick, but no, not rape.
I think you've once again missed the point of what I said and have chosen to focus on a narrow premise that, as seems to be the usual, ignores the general point of why I said those three or so words you decided to focus your energy on. And I'm at a point where I no longer feel like re-quoting myself in order to point this out...Jarimir said:
You had to add "categorically," though, I noticed. I imagine you have to add the qualifier because there was at least one time where you acted in a manner contrary to how you'd normally act in civil society, but not fundamentally contrary to your personal beliefs or something *serious.* But the thing is, people aren't typically categorically opposed to having sex with people they don't know well. It's human nature to want sex with people (for most people, anyway), and so few people are actually wired to not accept sexual advances of any sort until some non-biological requirement is met. However, alcohol (and other drugs) impair people's reasoning skills, which are part of what structure's a person's moral and social code and cause them to decide whether they do wanna be the guy/gal who'll always take someone up on a casual one-night stand, or who refuses to have sex until some qualification has been fulfilled. It also impairs their ability to decide whether the guy/girl who wants it is the type of person (s)he wants to go for, etc. So while alcohol doesn't cause a Jekyll-Hyde transformation, it does enough to cause one to do things one wouldn't normally do if one had the ability to think through everything.
Not to mention that you != the majority (which is who we are referring to when we talk about how things ought to get done). I personally could down ten shots and still do my homework in college, but it'd be strange to base the population as a whole on my one experience.
I didn't say twisting, I said assuming. As in, you took what I wrote, assumed a meaning based on the small amount of text you did actually process, and then went off on a tirade based on that assumption. These tirades (on your own admission) being directed not necessarily even to the text itself, but just to a general argument you have about the thread as a whole, said argument only being related to what you had replied to if you looked at the material a certain (contrived) way, which indicates a large possibility that you were looking for a springboard for your position when you responded to me, probably more than you were actually trying to respond to what I stated.
For example, there was the post where you quoted something I said and then went off on a tirade on double-standards when it comes to rape because you didn't read my post closely enough to realize I was speaking about both sexes (the fact that all I had to do was repost my response and bold some text to make this apparent, is more or less proof enough that the words themselves weren't ambiguous and that there was no other basis for interpreting them in the way you did the first time), and here, where you went off on a tirade on how I must hate casual sex and drunkenness, also because you glossed over the parts that explicitly or implicitly contradicted your assumptions. If you're not making assumptions, then at best you're only choosing choice words or short phrases to focus your responses on, rather than actually paying attention to arguments as a whole, and using those choice words to go off on tangents about things you wanted to address elsewhere anyway. Which is just as unproductive and annoying.
Putting that aside, as a general rule, if you're going to quote someone's post and then say something largely irrelevant to what they said, you should probably point out the fact that you are cognicent of the fact that there's no specific reason why you quoted the post in the first place, if not simply make your own response without quoting anyone. Many (maybe most) of your arguments read similar to a conversation where I'm saying, "The sky is blue," with your response to me either being, "I don't get why you hate the color red so much," or "Blue is an over-rated color; red is really the way to go."
Passionate is again laying your interpretation on a bit thick. But putting that aside: first, just because AZ defines consent as that, doesn't mean most people do. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_rape#New_Zealand
(There's a link straight to the actual law text which shows that the Wiki cites the law pretty much word-for-word.)
Second, even if we were to assume that everyone did things the way Arizona does (thankfully, for many reasons outside of rape/sexual assault law, they don't), people having laws saying X isn't rape doesn't necessarily legitimize the logic behind the sentiment (segregation used to be legal in the U.S., and discrimination based on sexual orientation still is), doesn't necessarily mean that it's proof that the law describes how things should be (again, segregation used to be legal in the U.S., and it's still legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation in the U.S.), AND, by even bringing up AZ's laws, you're still ignoring that thing I keep posting over and over about why I'm at all motivated to make the arguments I'm making in the first place.
