The Escapist users and Rape

Recommended Videos

irishda

New member
Dec 16, 2010
968
0
0
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.
 

irishda

New member
Dec 16, 2010
968
0
0
No, this is what's called "victimizing the irresponsible *****". The problem is not her getting drunk (if she'd got drunk and DIDN'T want to have sex, THEN that would be rape), the problem is whether or not she wanted sex when being drunk. You can't blame one for rape after he jumped at the offer of pussy you made last night, and if you did it while drunk, well, you shouldn't have sucked Tequila like a vacuum cleaner. And no, my dear friend, this is NOTHING like "she shouldn't have dressed that way". Hell, the guy can sue her for rape just as well, if he was drunk.
This stunning bit of wisdom comes from fellow escapist user, RT, and is exactly the kind of attitude that'll land someone on a watch list and 500 feet away from a school.
 

Colour Scientist

Troll the Respawn, Jeremy!
Jul 15, 2009
4,722
0
0
I don't bother entering into these kinds of discussions on this site anymore. My best advice is to steer clear of them.

For the sake of your own mental well-being.

It's like pissing against the wind.
 

Helmholtz Watson

New member
Nov 7, 2011
2,497
0
0
irishda said:
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.
^^this, people should not having sex with another person if their uncertain if the other person is drunk or not.
 

Ordinaryundone

New member
Oct 23, 2010
1,568
0
0
You are always responsible for your actions, drunk or not. If you ARE drunk, you should remove yourself from any scenario where you may make a poor decision in your impaired state. I mean, they warn people about operating heavy machinery, why not going clubbing? If you are inhebriated and in public, odds are good you will do something you may regret. This is common sense. No one got you drunk (well, unless they were physically pouring it down your throat), and if you agree to have sex when drunk then that is just poor decision making, just as if you had agreed to stranger sex while sober. And just because you regretted it when you woke up doesn`t make it rape.

Now, should people know better than to put those kind of decisions on drunk people. Sure? But being a jerk doesn`t equal rape. If you enter into ANY kind of social contract willingly, then that is it. Irresponsibility, as cruel as it is, is not a defense. Should a casino return money because the gambler was drunk?
 

OmniscientOstrich

New member
Jan 6, 2011
2,879
0
0
Well your going by in what most countries would be considered the legal definition of rape in regards to inebreation, but let's face it that definition is hardly pragmatic in many cases. By this definition, I have been both the victim and perpetrator of rape on seperate ocassions. Of course, this is bullshit as both instances occured with a person who was my girlfriend at the time, we knew and trusted each other so we were comfortable being intoxicated in each other's presence. I've also been in a situation wherein me and another girl were both drunk and both regretted are actions the next morning, not for copulating with a random stranger but because we were both good friends at the time and this simply made things awkward. But as many other users had put it in that other thread; when both parties are drunk it simply becomes a case of my word versus yours and as others have also pointed there's no discernable way of identifying or measuring just how drunk someone is, or in some cases if they are drunk in the first instance as the affects of alcohol fluctuate from person to person, any one person can have a wildly different reaction and behavioural pattern to the substance. Both parties being drunk and having sex is something that you see most commonly happen, both parties will be drinking heavily throughout the night and hook up, it's something that happens all the time, people whence given access to booze shall shack up, it's inexorable and generally both parties should be willing to accept the consequences and move on. Sorry, but your incensed all caps raging of 'DON'T HAVE SEX WHILE DRUNK!?@#!' just seems like a purely emotional backlash, that's not a particularly realistic request and doesn't seem as though you're willing to look at things from a case by case basis rather than apply some rigid standard stemming from your personal moral standpoint. You need to have a sense of context for these situations, not just demagogically cry that x is wrong anyone commiting anything that is percieved to be closely related to x is a sick fuck that needs to be locked away.
 

irishda

New member
Dec 16, 2010
968
0
0
OmniscientOstrich said:
Well your going by in what most countries would be considered the legal definition of rape in regards to inebreation, but let's face it that definition is hardly pragmatic in many cases. By this definition, I have been both the victim and perpetrator of rape on seperate ocassions. Of course, this is bullshit as both instances occured with a person who was my girlfriend at the time, we knew and trusted each other so we were comfortable being intoxicated in each other's presence.
Inebriated sex with a girlfriend or spouse is different as consent is implied before alcohol is imbibed. You could still have gotten in trouble according to the law, but you always had the defense of implied consent (which is real) with someone whom you had a history of sexual relations together.

Sorry, but your incensed all caps raging of 'DON'T HAVE SEX WHILE DRUNK!?@#!' just seems like a purely emotional backlash, that's not a particularly realistic request and doesn't seem as though you're willing to look at things from a case by case basis rather than apply some rigid standard stemming from your personal moral standpoint. You need to have a sense of context for these situations, not just demagogically cry that x is wrong anyone commiting anything that is percieved to be closely related to x is a sick fuck that needs to be locked away.
My incensed raging was not a backlash, but was supposed to be a warning to those that go into these situations with a certain ideal of what they are and aren't protected from on a legal standpoint. Outright removal from drunken sex isn't realistic at all, given the nature of inebriation. But it is, nevertheless, a dangerous act that people should understand the very real consequences of. You roll the dice every time you decide you need a good buzz before you go talk to that girl, or a girl needs some "liquid courage" for the guy coming to talk to her. And, while the chance is slim that they will roll up with the extreme of being accused of rape, (as you said, and as is the common experience, most people just feel awkward and regret) it is still a possibility. That's why, for the most part, I usually talk to a girl earlier in the night rather than later. The courts will always judge on a case by case basis, but the grounds on which the charges can be brought against you in the first place do not take a case by case basis. To the police and the prosecution, there is no such thing as context. X is x, and the courts will sort out if your context merits a dismissal.
 

Moonlight Butterfly

Be the Leaf
Mar 16, 2011
6,157
0
0
My problem is is that if I get drunk on wine I tend to jump on the nearest male thing in the vicinity, I can hardly blame them for that in the morning can I. xD

I do try not to drink wine...but it's so tasty. :<
 

Whateveralot

New member
Oct 25, 2010
953
0
0
Colour-Scientist said:
For the sake of your own mental well-being.

It's like pissing against the wind.
How does pissing against the wind affect your mental well-being?

Ok, ok, I'll stop being a wise-ass for a second.
I agree with OP. Sorry for having drunk sex? I guess that's your problem.

That said, drunk random sex never got anyone anywhere (except, maybe at the doctor to get some of your new medicine for that STD you picked up).
 

MasochisticAvenger

New member
Nov 7, 2011
331
0
0
From what I hear, most rape claims of this type get booted out of court pretty quickly since they usually dissolve into a case of "he said, she said". There is really no way to prove if the person was drunk at the time, or whether or not their mental status was in any way affected.

Personally, I think it is disgusting that guys that have sex with a drunk woman who says yes are considered on the same level as guys that force a woman to the ground, force her clothes off, and shove their penises into her while she begs for him to stop.
 

ShindoL Shill

Truely we are the Our Avatars XI
Jul 11, 2011
21,802
0
0
irishda said:
-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
1. Yes, drunk people are accountable. Get pissed and shoot someone in the face. "I was drunk" will not get you off.
2. I will assume that first one is about the anti-rape ad. In which case, we were saying "If you get drunk, you make yourself more vulnerable to having your drink spiked." not "If you get drunk, it's your fault if you have your drink spiked."
3. They gave consent. Unless the other person has been with them all night, they might not know how drunk they are. If someone is staggering about, but her friend says she has an inner ear problem, how do you know whether or not she's drunk out her tits? Or maybe some other girl can maintain control of her body when she's drunk. Again, how do you know? You pick one of these girls and find out she was drunk when she calls you a rapist.
xXxJessicaxXx said:
My problem is is that if I get drunk on wine I tend to jump on the nearest male thing in the vicinity, I can hardly blame them for that in the morning can I. xD

I do try not to drink wine...but it's so tasty. :<
there's this too.
i mean, if i met her and gave her a load of wine i would consider myself taking advantage of her.
if it was her that did it, nope.
 

Layz92

New member
May 4, 2009
1,651
0
0
You realise you are talking to crooked boundary between law and reality? It is in fact true that some of the onus rests on a person for choosing to drink (drink spiking obviously is different) and making stupid decisions while under the unfluence, and even many judges would agree to this. In court this argument does not work but I think most people on some level would agree the person was stupid for getting themselves into that situation. Never will the court and reality see eye to eye.
 

BreakfastMan

Scandinavian Jawbreaker
Jul 22, 2010
4,367
0
0
One Hit Noob said:
Colour-Scientist said:
I don't bother entering into these kinds of discussions on this site anymore. My best advice is to steer clear of them.

For the sake of your own mental well-being.

It's like pissing against the wind.
Yeeeeaaah... Discussions like these always turn nasty in forums like these. But it's so fun to watch!

Is being drunk really an impaired state? How much alcohol do you have to consume to reach the legal standards of "drunk"?
In my state... About 3 12-ounce glasses of beer for male, 2 for female, if I remember correctly. That gets most people to the minimum blood-alchohol content required to qualify for a DUI.

OT: I dunno. I find the idea that if both parties are drunk and consent to having sex with each other, that they are raping each other (by your logic) to be a bit fishy.
 

The Pinray

New member
Jul 21, 2011
775
0
0
I'm sorry I can't see you from that high horse, mate.

Welcome to the internet. These things happen.

Your opinions are your own, friend. As are others. As sad as it is, not every shares your point of view.

Just because you posted your own thread about it doesn't make you the be all end all.

Unless of course you're trying to go for a round three. Then by all means.

I'm getting mean, I need to go to bed...
 

generals3

New member
Mar 25, 2009
1,198
0
0
I'm sorry but no. Just no.
You consent into getting wasted, consent into doing something when you are wasted, well than you consented into that particular action. Don't want to do stupid things when wasted?! DONT GET WASTED. FFS, everyone does stupid things when wasted and if you can't live with them don't drink, PERIOD. Other people shouldn't be held accountable for your OWN stupidity.

PS: there is a difference between sexual intercourse with "consent" while being drunk and being abused against your will even if you're drunk. (eg: going at someone's place while being drunk =/= consenting to have sex)
 

Ciaevil

New member
Feb 16, 2011
1
0
0
So... if i pick up an ugly Chick while im drunk and regret it the next day... that would be rape as well?
Seems to work the same way nobody was forced to have sex but obviously i wouldnt have done it if i was sober... so can anyone of you explain to me whats the difference?

Seriously if i have my hand anywhere inside here clothes its pretty obvious what shes saying yes to wether she regrets it the next day or not
 

TheGauntman

New member
Dec 8, 2011
99
0
0
Frankly, I take exception to your implicit accusation that we're encouraging and approving rape. That is both specious and insulting.

The general theme I took from those threads was the argument that it is never a black and white issue, with no villainous rapist lurking in the shadows stalking the young and innocent maiden. And with a crime as serious as rape I'm glad we're not just willing to throw people on the fire. It is something that needs to be considering carefully and calmly, and the more we discuss and refine the parameters of the debate the better off we will all be.