Is this rape?

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2004-04-08 07:12pm

Sam Or I wrote:But if shes drunk she is not responsible for her own actions?

It is an established fact that men tend to be FAR more sexually aggressive than women. Probably a by-product of our evolution.

If she consents, then decides she was drunk and could not make a choice, calling rape is total BS. She holds as much responsibility in consentual sex as the male partner does, drunk or not.

The number of assholes who will use alcohol to get someone to do something they wouldn't do when sober far out-weighs the number of cases you describe.

FACT: Alcohol lowers your sense of good judgment. That is precisely why a drunk person cannot legally consent.

Learn to say no.

When you're drunk? Yeah, right.

Being legal drunk does not and should not increase your rights, or let you avoid consequences.

So why do so many guys in a bar seem to think that "no thanks" means "give me a few drinks first"?

(I am not talking about this instance stated by the OP, I am talking about the Ohio law that was posted.)

AND the law of MOST states.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-04-08 07:17pm

Darth Servo wrote:FACT: Alcohol lowers your sense of good judgment. That is precisely why a drunk person cannot legally consent.

FACT: the person chooses to become drunk and is responsible for the consequences. That's why we charge drunk drivers instead of saying "oh well, they were drunk, they couldn't make clear-headed decisions".

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2004-04-08 07:22pm

Darth Wong wrote:FACT: the person chooses to become drunk and is responsible for the consequences. That's why we charge drunk drivers instead of saying "oh well, they were drunk, they couldn't make clear-headed decisions".

And I'm not saying take away the consequences. The consequences of sex are all still there. The law was put into place because too many assholes will use the state of inebriation to take advantage of someone.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2004-04-08 07:23pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Darth Servo wrote:FACT: Alcohol lowers your sense of good judgment. That is precisely why a drunk person cannot legally consent.
FACT: the person chooses to become drunk and is responsible for the consequences. That's why we charge drunk drivers instead of saying "oh well, they were drunk, they couldn't make clear-headed decisions".

You start to lose judgement at two drinks, BTW.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-04-08 07:24pm

Frank Hipper wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Darth Servo wrote:FACT: Alcohol lowers your sense of good judgment. That is precisely why a drunk person cannot legally consent.
FACT: the person chooses to become drunk and is responsible for the consequences. That's why we charge drunk drivers instead of saying "oh well, they were drunk, they couldn't make clear-headed decisions".
You start to lose judgement at two drinks, BTW.

depends on the person's bodyweight and the alcohol concentration in the drinks present, doesn't it?

Sam Or I · Post by **Sam Or I** » 2004-04-08 07:31pm

It is an established fact that men tend to be FAR more sexually aggressive than women. Probably a by-product of our evolution.

True but Irrelevant. Just because you are a man does not mean you are more sexually aggressive. It tends to be true, does not mean it is true. If laws were written like this against race, it would be considered racism.

The number of assholes who will use alcohol to get someone to do something they wouldn't do when sober far out-weighs the number of cases you describe.

So what? A girl has never done the same. Most of the time a girl does know what a guys intentions are, and she has some of her own as well.

FACT: Alcohol lowers your sense of good judgment. That is precisely why a drunk person cannot legally consent.

You still choose to drink which you know it will lower your judgement. Being drunk is thats persons choice, and therefore it is thier responsibility for thier own judgements.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2004-04-08 07:43pm

Sam Or I wrote:True but Irrelevant. Just because you are a man does not mean you are more sexually aggressive. It tends to be true, does not mean it is true. If laws were written like this against race, it would be considered racism.

Except that there are no real personality characteristics that are determined by race. There ARE such differences affected by gender.

So what? A girl has never done the same. Most of the time a girl does know what a guys intentions are, and she has some of her own as well.

And WHERE in the law did it say the prepetrator had to be male and the victim had to be famale? The law said "PERSON"

You still choose to drink which you know it will lower your judgement. Being drunk is thats persons choice, and therefore it is thier responsibility for thier own judgements.

Not necessarily. For example a woman may have ONE wine cooler and then pepsi the rest of the evening but in several cases, the cola has been spiked by her date. Don't tell me you've never heard of this happening.

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2004-04-08 07:50pm

I fully agree that alcohol in a woman's blood stream should not let her act with reckless abandon around men, knowing that whatever happened she could simply claim rape if she regretted it later. But I don't know, living in a college town as I do it simply is too easy to just pick up some drunk chick and have my way with her. It's an established fact that if inhibitions are lowered on both ends men will be more aggresively seeking more women and women will be more open to men seeking them. To counteract this we can either a) ban alcohol - now thats just boring or b) single out one of the sexes to be the intelligent one and be able to hold back their urges with the knowledge that if they fuck a drunk they are dancing with the possibility of going to prison. Since b is the current choice of the law then it is a man's responsibility to keep it in his pants. I would love to see the day when both sides are held accountable for thier actions but in the current day of faux political correctness with the woman forever being the victim I don't think it can happen.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2004-04-08 07:53pm

KrauserKrauser wrote:I would love to see the day when both sides are held accountable for thier actions but in the current day of faux political correctness with the woman forever being the victim I don't think it can happen.

I've worked in a rape crisis center. Its a hell of a lot more than "faux political correctness".

Thats how I found out about those laws in the first place.

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2004-04-08 07:56pm

Darth Servo wrote:
KrauserKrauser wrote:I would love to see the day when both sides are held accountable for thier actions but in the current day of faux political correctness with the woman forever being the victim I don't think it can happen.
I've worked in a rape crisis center. Its a hell of a lot more than "faux political correctness". Thats how I found out about those laws in the first place.

True, you don't often see stories of a woman raping a man under the influence, though no doubt it happens. But in the case where the woman actively chose to drink, got drunk and then had sex one can argue that her actions led to her having sex. She is not completely innocent by placing herself in such a situation.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2004-04-08 08:03pm

Darth_Zod wrote:
Frank Hipper wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: FACT: the person chooses to become drunk and is responsible for the consequences. That's why we charge drunk drivers instead of saying "oh well, they were drunk, they couldn't make clear-headed decisions".
You start to lose judgement at two drinks, BTW.
depends on the person's bodyweight and the alcohol concentration in the drinks present, doesn't it?

Sure does, that's the baseline that legal limits are based on; .04 percent blood alchohol per drink. Certain drinks are stronger, larger, etc, but that's the broad avergage to go by.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2004-04-08 08:14pm

KrauserKrauser wrote:True, you don't often see stories of a woman raping a man under the influence, though no doubt it happens. But in the case where the woman actively chose to drink, got drunk and then had sex one can argue that her actions led to her having sex. She is not completely innocent by placing herself in such a situation.

Not completely innocent != fair game for anyone around with a hard-on. I'm willing to hear possible middle ground solutions to avoid any black/white fallacies.

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2004-04-08 08:17pm

Hmmm let's see... Middle Ground....Kicking him in the nuts and giving her a solid smack to the back of the head for being dumb?

Bob the Gunslinger · Post by **Bob the Gunslinger** » 2004-04-08 08:44pm

KrauserKrauser wrote:, you don't often see stories of a woman raping a man under the influence, though no doubt it happens. But in the case where the woman actively chose to drink, got drunk and then had sex one can argue that her actions led to her having sex. She is not completely innocent by placing herself in such a situation.

So you're saying that because she chooses to trust her friend not to rape her when she's drunk, she deserves to get raped by him when she's drunk?

Does every girl who drinks deserve to be raped by the closest man to her, in your estimation?

Suppose she had a drink that was more alcoholic than it tasted. She thinks she is going to stay sober enough to fight off any attacker, but instead succumbs to the liquor and passes out. She clearly wanted to be nailed balls-to-the-wall, right?

This is turning into a rant, but FUCK! This blame-the-victim attitude pisses me off!

Her decision to enjoy socially-required/acceptable drinks at a social occasion means that she was clearly giving consent to every horndog in the room to gang-bang her the second she overestimates her resistance to alcohol, by that logic.

To say that she is partly responsible because she drank is to equate, morally, a girl's lack of paranoia with the rapist who takes advantage of her trust.

Yes, alcohol can blurr the line of legal consent in a situation where both people are becoming more and more physical with each other and she says yes, but maybe only because her judgement is impaired. That's a tricky situation and the woman hardly ever screams "rape" afterward, usually calling it a mistake instead. But that's not what we're talking about.

We're talking about situations like the OP which occur far, far more often than some exotic "disclosure" femal rapist scenario. It's extremely common for a situation like this--the woman has not said yes or she has implied no ("sleep in the other room") or even said no, believes that she has made herself clear, then is raped/has sex while unconscious if that's what you want to call it. Technically she has made her choice and given a "no" or not given consent and is in no position to give it.

That's why the laws are the way they are.

She is simply expecting people not to break the law and violate her.

To say she deserved it because she drank in the first place is like saying she deserves to be raped by a gynecologist because she chose to take her pants off. Or that every woman who wears a short skirt is "totally asking for it."
Or even "She's partly responsible because she put herself in a situation where I could rape her."

Jesus H. Crackwhore, people!

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2004-04-08 08:51pm

At what point did I say she deserves to get raped? I did state that she should recognize the fact that while she is raped she is not in full possession of her faculties and can be taken advantage of.

Should a woman that gets drunk be completely infallible? Should she not be forced to take some responsibility for her actions? Common sense says: If you drink, you might just end up being raped because while drunk you won't be able to stop them. So if you're smart don't drink. Or at least don't drink with men with penises.

Oni Koneko Damien · Post by **Oni Koneko Damien** » 2004-04-08 09:44pm

She was raped, plain and simple. Rape occurs when any party involved in an instance of sexual intercourse does not give consent. Consent in this case does NOT mean 'well she didn't say no', it means that it can be seen by all parties that he or she A) Is level-headed enough to make a reasonably informed decision, and B) indicates that he/she wants to do this. Since this didn't happen here, it was rape.

She was drunk, she made a bad choice. That does NOT make her fair game for any horny, drunken bastard though. These laws are in place to prevent these sorts of things from happening. Wouldn't it be great if we lived in a society where no one had the urge to get drunk? Newsflash, we don't. Thus, these laws are needed. She made a mistake, he made a mistake, rape technically happened. That's my take.

-Damien

Post by **Zaia** » 2004-04-08 09:50pm

There's a fine line between being used and being raped, though, I think. If he was drunk too, I think maybe it was the former instead of the latter. Like I said in my previous post, I don't think it's fair to excuse her from making judgements due to intoxication but not him, unless he had half a beer and she had twelve kegs.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2004-04-09 12:27am

How about this scenario? I go to the local bar and convince some drunk to give me the full contents of his/her bank account in exchange for buying him/her another beer. I even get him/her to sign a contract. Would it hold up in court? Or am I being an asshole? Or both?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-04-09 12:31am

Darth Servo wrote:How about this scenario? I go to the local bar and convince some drunk to give me the full contents of his/her bank account in exchange for buying him/her another beer. I even get him/her to sign a contract. Would it hold up in court? Or am I being an asshole? Or both?

It might not hold up because of the drunk lobby, but frankly, it should. Otherwise, any damned fool could nullify any contract by simply saying he was inebriated at the time he signed it.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2004-04-09 07:48am

There's a whole lot of missing the point here.

It's not a question of being responsible for her actions if she's lying half insensible. There is no action here, just a lack of action - not due to mental descrepencies from being drunk, but from being physically unable to respond on account of the drug.

If she had got drunk, slept with him then regretted it, that's different. But she didn't. She got drunk, passed out and noticed him shagging her while she was unable to stop him.

Bit of a crowbar separation there.

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2004-04-09 10:29am

InnerBrat wrote:There's a whole lot of missing the point here.

It's not a question of being responsible for her actions if she's lying half insensible. There is no action here, just a lack of action - not due to mental descrepencies from being drunk, but from being physically unable to respond on account of the drug.

If she had got drunk, slept with him then regretted it, that's different. But she didn't. She got drunk, passed out and noticed him shagging her while she was unable to stop him.

Bit of a crowbar separation there.

Insofar as I know, date rape in Singapore is defined as the lack of consent given, period. In other words, if the girl doesn't say "Yes, yes, Harder!" and later decides to take you to the court, you're fucked. So, IB argument would have its way in court here. Even if the male in question was drunk, that would not be a factor as migitating circumanstances don't usually apply in rape cases. If this was not the case, any rapist could simply state that the girl was dressed so sexy that he couldn't resist.

Also of note, in a case of its your word against hers, the court usually decides to come down in favour of the girl. While there are rare cases, like the case where a swimming instructor was determined to be innoncent of molesting a girl in the swimming pool, judges here are more likely to err in favour of the girl than the male.

Bob the Gunslinger · Post by **Bob the Gunslinger** » 2004-04-09 05:35pm

KrauserKrauser wrote:At what point did I say she deserves to get raped? I did state that she should recognize the fact that while she is raped she is not in full possession of her faculties and can be taken advantage of.

I take it that you mean while she is drunk.

Should a woman that gets drunk be completely infallible? Should she not be forced to take some responsibility for her actions? Common sense says: If you drink, you might just end up being raped because while drunk you won't be able to stop them. So if you're smart don't drink. Or at least don't drink with men with penises.

My problem with this is that you are shifting part of the blame onto the victim. When you say "take some responsiblity for her actions," you are saying that it makes the rapist a little less guilty.

Let me ask you this: have you been drunk around any of your friends before?
Now imagine that one of your friends, whom you trust, decides to pull your pants down and ass-rape you while you're too drunk to fight back.

You got drunk near him, so part of your brutal butt-raping is your own fault. As you sit on the pot waiting for the blood to stop pooring out of your ass, you have to take some of the responsibility for it because you got drunk and you knew he had a penis. Can you justify calling the police? Sending him to jail? After all, it was your bad judgement call that got you raped in the ass. He just provided a penis.

Come on, we all know that you just had a bad judgement call tryng drunken anal sex, even if you were passed out. You practically gave consent. Now you're just trying to back out because you have the morning after blues.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-04-09 05:42pm

Bob the Gunslinger wrote:
My problem with this is that you are shifting part of the blame onto the victim. When you say "take some responsiblity for her actions," you are saying that it makes the rapist a little less guilty.

Let me ask you this: have you been drunk around any of your friends before?
Now imagine that one of your friends, whom you trust, decides to pull your pants down and ass-rape you while you're too drunk to fight back.

You got drunk near him, so part of your brutal butt-raping is your own fault. As you sit on the pot waiting for the blood to stop pooring out of your ass, you have to take some of the responsibility for it because you got drunk and you knew he had a penis. Can you justify calling the police? Sending him to jail? After all, it was your bad judgement call that got you raped in the ass. He just provided a penis.

Come on, we all know that you just had a bad judgement call tryng drunken anal sex, even if you were passed out. You practically gave consent. Now you're just trying to back out because you have the morning after blues.

the problem with the situation as it is, is the woman involved remembers enjoying what happened. it wasn't violent in any fashion. the only real issue is that she doesn't remember giving consent, so it's not entirely the same type of situation as someone getting reamed up the ass rather painfully. in one case the party enjoyed it, in the other they were clearly offended and violated. this is where the problem is.

Sam Or I · Post by **Sam Or I** » 2004-04-09 05:50pm

Bob the Gunslinger wrote:
KrauserKrauser wrote:At what point did I say she deserves to get raped? I did state that she should recognize the fact that while she is raped she is not in full possession of her faculties and can be taken advantage of.
I take it that you mean while she is drunk.

Should a woman that gets drunk be completely infallible? Should she not be forced to take some responsibility for her actions? Common sense says: If you drink, you might just end up being raped because while drunk you won't be able to stop them. So if you're smart don't drink. Or at least don't drink with men with penises.
My problem with this is that you are shifting part of the blame onto the victim. When you say "take some responsiblity for her actions," you are saying that it makes the rapist a little less guilty.

Let me ask you this: have you been drunk around any of your friends before?
Now imagine that one of your friends, whom you trust, decides to pull your pants down and ass-rape you while you're too drunk to fight back.

You got drunk near him, so part of your brutal butt-raping is your own fault. As you sit on the pot waiting for the blood to stop pooring out of your ass, you have to take some of the responsibility for it because you got drunk and you knew he had a penis. Can you justify calling the police? Sending him to jail? After all, it was your bad judgement call that got you raped in the ass. He just provided a penis.

Come on, we all know that you just had a bad judgement call tryng drunken anal sex, even if you were passed out. You practically gave consent. Now you're just trying to back out because you have the morning after blues.

I don't think anyone is arguing if she was passed out. Then it is rape. If she physically could not say no, it was rape.

If he was making out with his friend before hand, and maybe even kissed him in his bed. Then yes I would question that. If he was to drunk to remember how do we know he did not give consent. When he said, yes I want it up the ass while drunk, it is very questionable if it was rape or not.

Sam Or I · Post by **Sam Or I** » 2004-04-09 05:52pm

InnerBrat wrote:There's a whole lot of missing the point here.

It's not a question of being responsible for her actions if she's lying half insensible. There is no action here, just a lack of action - not due to mental descrepencies from being drunk, but from being physically unable to respond on account of the drug.

If she had got drunk, slept with him then regretted it, that's different. But she didn't. She got drunk, passed out and noticed him shagging her while she was unable to stop him.

Bit of a crowbar separation there.

I agree.