Sweet jesus, fellow escapists. I thought your views on kids were bad enough, but good god, if any sort of legal counsel or law enforcement official saw any of the two popular threads on what's considered rape or not, they'd probably vomit in rage.
[link]http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.334217-Poll-Is-it-rape-if-you-have-consensual-sex-with-a-willfully-intoxicated-person[/link]
[link]http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.334108-So-according-to-some-feminists-this-anti-rape-ad-campaign-is-sexist[/link]
To sum up the majority's feelings:
-Drunk people are accountable for their actions
-If someone consented while intoxicated that means they are willful, and, if they didn't mean it, then they shouldn't have gotten drunk
-If both parties are drunk then it can't be rape because neither had a sound mental state, so no one can be blamed
First point, this one is true. Intoxication has never been a defense ever. That goes for both parties, however, and one party will usually be seen as just "the one who got drunk" while the other would be "the one who took advantage of the other". It doesn't matter if the predator was drunk, then they just drunkenly took advantage of someone.
Second, the key word here is "willful". Legally, consent is seen as a contract between two people. Consent doesn't even have to be verbally expressed. It can be implied if one of the party's actions can be construed as willful agreement. But there's that word willful again. Willful implies a mental ability to weigh the consequences of an agreement. YOU CANNOT ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS (legally) WITH PEOPLE OF AN IMPAIRED MENTAL STATE BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT SEEN BY THE LAW AS BEING "WILLFUL". I really can't stress that enough. If you go to the judge and say, "It's ok, she said yes." He's gonna reply with "Did she know that? And did she know what she said yes to? Since she's charging you with rape, I'm gonna assume the answer to both of those is no."
Finally, if both parties are drunk, rape still has occurred. We've already established that drunk people are still responsible for their actions, but it's now much harder to tell which is the perpetrator. Generally, the rapist in situations of unlawful consent would be whoever initiated sexual contact, and it's now impossible to tell who is who without further evidence. One of the parties could technically bring charges against the other, but the defense will always be, "I couldn't have consented either."
The lesson here is DON'T HAVE SEX WITH DRUNK PEOPLE UNLESS THEY CONSENT BEFORE THEY'RE DRUNK! If you find yourself constantly waking up in strange beds after getting drunk, STOP DRINKING! No one is saying that people should be running around blitzed all the time telling people they'll have sex with them without realizing there are consequences for those actions. Let's face it Escapist, drunk sex isn't even that awesome anyways.
[link]http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.334217-Poll-Is-it-rape-if-you-have-consensual-sex-with-a-willfully-intoxicated-person[/link]
[link]http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.334108-So-according-to-some-feminists-this-anti-rape-ad-campaign-is-sexist[/link]
To sum up the majority's feelings:
-Drunk people are accountable for their actions
-If someone consented while intoxicated that means they are willful, and, if they didn't mean it, then they shouldn't have gotten drunk
-If both parties are drunk then it can't be rape because neither had a sound mental state, so no one can be blamed
First point, this one is true. Intoxication has never been a defense ever. That goes for both parties, however, and one party will usually be seen as just "the one who got drunk" while the other would be "the one who took advantage of the other". It doesn't matter if the predator was drunk, then they just drunkenly took advantage of someone.
Second, the key word here is "willful". Legally, consent is seen as a contract between two people. Consent doesn't even have to be verbally expressed. It can be implied if one of the party's actions can be construed as willful agreement. But there's that word willful again. Willful implies a mental ability to weigh the consequences of an agreement. YOU CANNOT ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS (legally) WITH PEOPLE OF AN IMPAIRED MENTAL STATE BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT SEEN BY THE LAW AS BEING "WILLFUL". I really can't stress that enough. If you go to the judge and say, "It's ok, she said yes." He's gonna reply with "Did she know that? And did she know what she said yes to? Since she's charging you with rape, I'm gonna assume the answer to both of those is no."
Finally, if both parties are drunk, rape still has occurred. We've already established that drunk people are still responsible for their actions, but it's now much harder to tell which is the perpetrator. Generally, the rapist in situations of unlawful consent would be whoever initiated sexual contact, and it's now impossible to tell who is who without further evidence. One of the parties could technically bring charges against the other, but the defense will always be, "I couldn't have consented either."
The lesson here is DON'T HAVE SEX WITH DRUNK PEOPLE UNLESS THEY CONSENT BEFORE THEY'RE DRUNK! If you find yourself constantly waking up in strange beds after getting drunk, STOP DRINKING! No one is saying that people should be running around blitzed all the time telling people they'll have sex with them without realizing there are consequences for those actions. Let's face it Escapist, drunk sex isn't even that awesome anyways.
