Is Having Sex While Drunk Rape?

[Skwim]

Skwim's simple solutions

You're welcome.

1) Consent before you get drunk.

2) Make sure that when consent is given both parties are drunk. In effect, it would be a case of mutual consent while drunk and then be mutual rape, and mutual rape would be a wash.

...DRUNKEN LOVERS................DRUNKEN WITH MORAL RECTITUDE


.​

.

 

[HonestJoe]

Seems to me the blanket law in the OP is for a starting position.
Meaning that if someone is drunk and claimed they were raped, they were raped.

With respect, I think you've starting with an assumption of what the law is and are reading something that isn't there.

The legislation quoted only makes one direct reference to intoxication and that relates to the accused. The only relevant element for the complainant is "incapable of consenting". If the accusation is that the complainant was incapable of consenting because they were drunk, prosecutors would have to prove that in court, beyond reasonable doubt for a criminal case, to secure a conviction. As I said, it would be down to judges and juries to determine whether that is proven to be the case.

 

[McBell]

With respect, I think you've starting with an assumption of what the law is and are reading something that isn't there.

The legislation quoted only makes one direct reference to intoxication and that relates to the accused. The only relevant element for the complainant is "incapable of consenting". If the accusation is that the complainant was incapable of consenting because they were drunk, prosecutors would have to prove that in court, beyond reasonable doubt for a criminal case, to secure a conviction. As I said, it would be down to judges and juries to determine whether that is proven to be the case.

Yet it still serves as a starting point....
Which is my point.

Ideally it will be further scrutinized on a case by case basis...

 

[Spiderman]

I guess last girl I was with raped me

 

[suncowiam]

I guess last girl I was with raped me

well, if she was also drunk, then that means you both raped each other. you both should go to jail.

 

[Spiderman]

She was definitely the more sober one and she walked me to my room , laid me on the bed , and got on top of me while I was totally out of my gourd.

Not sure if she was drunk or high, but she was definitely a lot more sober than I was.

I had to ask her questions about what happened that night if you know what I mean.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's kind of disturbing and scary that so many people can so easily dismiss such a subject. I've heard some guys say "candy is dandy but liquor is quicker." That is, simply put, predatory and is rape. Sure people can get drunk, or otherwise intoxicated, together and have sex, but doing it to take advantage is indeed rape.

I expect that if someone signs a contract while drunk, the contract is invalid as well then.

Actually, if they are drunk, they are considered to not be in an appropriate state of mind to sign a contract.

 

[psychoslice]

Alcohol impairs judgment. I don't think anyone's disputing that. But how society treats a man and the decisions he makes while influenced by drunkeness are quite different than how a woman and her decisions are treated.

I think both parties have to take responsibility for themselves, if you are going to hang around people and you are drunk, then except anything to happen, because it will always happen.

 

[Grumpuss]

I think both parties have to take responsibility for themselves, if you are going to hang around people and you are drunk, then except anything to happen, because it will always happen.

Yeah, that doesn't follow. That's like saying that victims are partially to blame for being victimized. To say that a person who has a few drinks or dresses a certain way should "accept" that rape is coming, is like saying that Jews were to blame for the Holocaust because they were so poor or despised.

 

[psychoslice]

Yeah, that doesn't follow. That's like saying that victims are partially to blame for being victimized. To say that a person who has a few drinks or dresses a certain way should "accept" that rape is coming, is like saying that Jews were to blame for the Holocaust because they were so poor or despised.

Its too complicated, there is so many variables and situations, that to discus would take forever, the best thing is if you don't want sex, then don't go to a place where you would get drunk, and I mean drunk.

 

[Grumpuss]

Why is this such an issue? What kind of person would have sex with someone who is in no condition to consent?

What- trick question? Is the answer, "Bill Cosby"?

 

[Grumpuss]

Its too complicated, there is so many variables and situations, that to discus would take forever, the best thing is if you don't want sex, then don't go to a place where you would get drunk, and I mean drunk.

No- qualify your comment, please. Is a drunk woman responsible if someone rapes her or not?

Possible corollary: Is a child who is seized by a child molester, raped and killed, responsible because he was too adorable? Or is it the fault of the child's parents for choosing to live within a 100 mile radius of a child molester?

Just trying to decipher your logic...

 

[Smart_Guy]

This is confusing!

Those who say it is not rape, means if a rapist comes and rapes a drunk for real, it is not rape and the rapist is free to go and at no fault.

Those who say yes it is rape, then who gets drunk and has sex even if it was their plan before getting drunk, then their sex partner is a rapist and the drunk themselves are accomplices in the crime.

Which is it? Just don't drink or ban alcohol already

Important note:
I'm not giving opinions or views here. The above are conclusions from the thread. Argue with those conclusions not me. I'm just a little boy

 

[McBell]

This is confusing!

Those who say it is not rape, means if a rapist comes and rapes a drunk for real, it is not rape and the rapist is free to go and at no fault.

Those who say yes it is rape, then who gets drunk and has sex even if it was their plan before getting drunk, then their sex partner is a rapist and the drunk themselves are accomplices in the crime.

Which is it? Just don't drink or ban alcohol already

Important note:
I'm not giving opinions or views here. The above are conclusions from the thread. Argue with those conclusions not me. I'm just a little boy

I am saying there is no black or white umbrella solution.
It needs to be decided on a case by case basis.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I am saying there is no black or white umbrella solution.
It needs to be decided on a case by case basis.

Makes sense. Then again, this means having extremely complicated or no clear law for it which gives supposed rapists and supposed victims to twist things in their favor which makes it a guessing game of pointing fingers.

But then. I'm not even sure if I'm making any sense here!

 

[GodlessHeathen]

So what do YOU call those people who do just that?

I call them people who get drunk at a bar and hook up. It's really not difficult. Try thinking, mate.

Let me guess, you are one who blames the victim because they dressed "provocatively", right?

No, I'm not. How on Earth could you suppose this is a position of mine from anything that I've said? I made a point that anyone who gets drunk of their own accord and makes a decision (whether to sign a contract, max their credit card, or crash their car) is still held legally responsible for their actions while drunk. Then I asked why it is different in this case. What does this have to do with how someone is dressed? Regardless of how someone dresses, if they have not given their consent, it's rape. What they are wearing (or not) is irrelevant.

I fail to understand the whining. If you have sex with someone who is drunk and they later say they did not consent, then by law you raped them. Simple as that.

Wanting the law to be applied consistently = whining? Pardon me, Professor. You seem to have no conception of nuance. If I am drunk and also have sex with someone who is drunk, by your insanity, we've both raped each other and deserve equal prison terms. If I am drunk (of my own accord) and consent to having sex with someone who is sober, that's called "sad day for me" if I regret it in the morning. If I am sober and have sex with someone who is drunk (of their own accord) who has consented, I might be human sleaze but definitely not a rapist. And if I'm going to be held by law to be a rapist because the other person is incapable of making sound judgments while impaired, then neither should drunk drivers be held culpable for their unsound judgments while impaired. What is the difference?

 

[McBell]

Wanting the law to be applied consistently = whining? Pardon me, Professor. You seem to have no conception of nuance. If I am drunk and also have sex with someone who is drunk, by your insanity, we've both raped each other and deserve equal prison terms.

You really should read my other posts in this thread before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
Just a suggestion though.

If I am drunk (of my own accord) and consent to having sex with someone who is sober, that's called "sad day for me" if I regret it in the morning.

On the same track so far....

If I am sober and have sex with someone who is drunk (of their own accord) who has consented, I might be human sleaze but definitely not a rapist.

Agreed.

And if I'm going to be held by law to be a rapist because the other person is incapable of making sound judgments while impaired, then neither should drunk drivers be held culpable for their unsound judgments while impaired. What is the difference?

You seriously can not tell a difference?

How is a rational discussion with you possible if you can not tell the difference between rape and drunk driving?
Hells bells, you seem unable to tell the difference between consensual sex and rape....

 

[GodlessHeathen]

You seriously can not tell a difference? How is a rational discussion with you possible if you can not tell the difference between rape and drunk driving? Hells bells, you seem unable to tell the difference between consensual sex and rape....

I don't know if you're deliberately trying to miss the point or what. Yes, there is an obvious difference between rape and drunk driving. They are two different actions. My objection is in the former you aren't held responsible for any decisions you make while impaired, yet in the latter you are held responsible for decisions you make while impaired. What is the difference that justifies treating decisions while impaired differently in these two cases? That's the point.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Actually, if they are drunk, they are considered to not be in an appropriate state of mind to sign a contract.

A quick search on this found that courts very rarely invalidate contracts based on one person being intoxicated.

 

[Draka]

Have to agree that it is a case by case thing. I know that being drunk does not mean you are incapable of giving consent. You may be more likely to be confused and might not know what's going on to a point of being incapable of making an informed decision, but being drunk does not automatically mean that one is necessarily in that condition. Which is why it is a case by case thing.