Is this rape?

[General Zod]

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.

an earlier post stated that she was passing in and out of consciousness. she could remember some parts of it and clearly enjoyed it but couldn't remember giving consent.

[InnerBrat]

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.

Shall we start again?

Rape is sex without consent, It has fuck all to do with enjoyment or violence.

If she didn't give consent, it is rape.

[Darth Wong]

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 think you're reading things into the OP. For one thing, all of our information is second-hand; she has not recounted her story for us directly. For another, she never said that she passed out and woke up with him already molesting her; she said that her recollection of the night was foggy (not unusual for a drunk person) and that she was "passing in and out" which could mean anything. When I'm very tired, I can be drifting in and out of sleep; it doesn't mean I have no judgement. But the critical sentence is this:

"In fact when he would start to do something she didn't like when she said no he would stop."

She was more than capable of saying no, and in fact told him to stop doing certain things she didn't like. But she never told him to stop having sex with her entirely. You can appeal to some legalistic definition all you like, and I know you're imprinting your own past onto this woman's experience, but it simply does not apply. She was capable of saying no, and she even did say no to certain specific acts, and he obeyed. It was not rape. It was not honourable either, but it was not rape.

[consequences]

She was more than capable of saying no, and in fact told him to stop doing certain things she didn't like. But she never told him to stop having sex with her entirely. You can appeal to some legalistic definition all you like, and I know you're imprinting your own past onto this woman's experience, but it simply does not apply. She was capable of saying no, and she even did say no to certain specific acts, and he obeyed. It was not rape. It was not honourable either, but it was not rape.

Actually, I'm imprinting my own experience on the guy. If I can get seriously fucked-up, and restrain myself from bitching out a woman who pissed me off, then he sure as hell should have been able to not have sex with a woman. My personal read, from having too much experience of scum-fucks, is that he wasn't nearly as drunk as he may have been making himself out to be, and made a calculated decision to take advantage of her.

[Darth Wong]

Actually, I'm imprinting my own experience on the guy. If I can get seriously fucked-up, and restrain myself from bitching out a woman who pissed me off, then he sure as hell should have been able to not have sex with a woman. My personal read, from having too much experience of scum-fucks, is that he wasn't nearly as drunk as he may have been making himself out to be, and made a calculated decision to take advantage of her.

Of course. As I said in my very first post, he was obviously an asshole, and behaved dishonourably. But it takes more than that to accuse someone of rape.

[KrauserKrauser]

Actually, I'm imprinting my own experience on the guy. If I can get seriously fucked-up, and restrain myself from bitching out a woman who pissed me off, then he sure as hell should have been able to not have sex with a woman. My personal read, from having too much experience of scum-fucks, is that he wasn't nearly as drunk as he may have been making himself out to be, and made a calculated decision to take advantage of her.

Of course. As I said in my very first post, he was obviously an asshole, and behaved dishonourably. But it takes more than that to accuse someone of rape.

Gotta agree with the Wong on this one. She never said no to the entire act. She in fact was lucid enough to tell him not to do certain things therefore giving ascent to the act itself.

As to the fellow that brought up the brutal ass-raping comparison. I believe that the situation you proposed and the OP of this topic are two different situations. Were she comatose on the bed once she got home and he simply had his way with her then most certainly it was an unwarranted sexual act and therefore classifiable as rape. As it stands she admitted to be lucid to some degree during the event and at no point said for him to stop without him stopping. Sorry the girl made a bad judgement call in this situation and is regretting it now, maybe she'll learn to ease it down a bit on the alcohol next time. The guy, well he's a douche.

[Knife]

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.

After reading the thread, I'll have to go with you and Wong on this one. Yes, Stravo, the guy is a totall ass and perhaps requires you to kick his ass, but rape? No.

She was used. She may have let her self be used. But in the end, she was used. She seemed to have the ability and the chances to say no, hell she did say no to specific acts, and did not. Social and political realities in the morning do not change the decision last night.

This was a situation where the ass wormed his way into her bed but the girl let it happen every step of the way. I do feel sorry for her, but in the end she let it happen. She had the out every step of the way and decied against it for what ever reason.

[InnerBrat]

I think you're reading things into the OP. For one thing, all of our information is second-hand; she has not recounted her story for us directly.

I was working on the assumption that what Stravo posted what factual, given that we're not a jury, just a discussion board.
In other words, my viewpoint should be read as 'given the OP is absolutely accurate, is this rape..' I also assumed everyone else was working from that assumption.

For another, she never said that she passed out and woke up with him already molesting her; she said that her recollection of the night was foggy (not unusual for a drunk person) and that she was "passing in and out" which could mean anything. When I'm very tired, I can be drifting in and out of sleep; it doesn't mean I have no judgement.

If one is so drunk that one loses memory, and cannot stay conscious, one is very usually also drunk enough to have seriously reduced motor functionality.
When you're very tired, and you're drifting in and out of sleep, can you remain in that semi conscious state no matter what external stimulus is applied? In my experience, it's difficult to drift in and out of sleep while a penis is thrusting in out out of one's vagina unless one is very severely intoxicated. Intoxicated enough to lose significant motor functions.

But the critical sentence is this:

"In fact when he would start to do something she didn't like when she said no he would stop."

She was more than capable of saying no, and in fact told him to stop doing certain things she didn't like. But she never told him to stop having sex with her entirely. You can appeal to some legalistic definition all you like, and I know you're imprinting your own past onto this woman's experience, but it simply does not apply. She was capable of saying no, and she even did say no to certain specific acts, and he obeyed. It was not rape. It was not honourable either, but it was not rape.

I actually did miss that sentence, yes, and have to concede that if she could say no and didn't, then no, it isn't rape.



P.S. It's not just a legalistic definition, it's the common definition. I was sticking to the definition because quite frankly it pisses me off when people claim that rape has to fit certain criteria to be rape.

P.P.S. Of course I'm drawing on experience. I have a lot of varied experience with both alcohol and sex with men, not all bad and certainly not all involving rape. I offered that example because Stravo asked for it, so don't assume I'm only imprinting one incident in my past on to my argument.

[Kamakazie Sith]

But what's troubling her now is the sense that she was not in her right mind and he must have known that too even if he was drunk and he initated sex figuring that she was in no state to say no.

Emphasis mine.

So, hold up. She was in no state to say no because she was drunk, but he was expected to analyze the situation to knowledgably take advantage of her while he was drunk? That doesn't sit right. Sounds like bad judgement calls all-around.

I absolutely agree. Nearly everyone here is ready to hang this guy, but he was drunk. Men aren't immune to the effects of alcohol...

Can it be proved that he actually intended to have sex with her no matter what? If it can then yes it was rape....

[Metrion Cascade]

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.

Shall we start again?

Rape is sex without consent, It has fuck all to do with enjoyment or violence.

If she didn't give consent, it is rape.

You haven't defined consent. Most sex occurs with both parties only indicating their "consent" by enjoying the act. By that standard, she was not raped. If you want to set a more stringent standard (such as requiring both parties to say "I want to have sex with you now"), you'll wind up classifying most sex as rape.

[Metrion Cascade]

The "alcohol impairment" standard of rape is self-contradictory. It means that if two people both get inebriated past whatever you consider too drunk to consent, and then they have sex, both of them are rapists. And no, you may not set different standards for what constitutes consent from a woman vs. what constitutes consent from a man.

EDIT - And IMO, you can't set "lack of consent" as a standard for rape either without some valid qualifiers to exclude the following situation: Most people having sex you and I both consider consensual don't give any concrete verbal or written permission for each act they engage in.

EDIT - basically I'm saying that until someone says "no," offers physical resistance, or is rendered incapable of doing either, they are not being raped. Consent is not what has to be demonstrated. One party making it known that they wish to stop is what has to be demonstrated.

[Medicus]

I think one aspect that is missing from this discussion is that just because the woman doesn't remember doesn't mean that she didn't give consent.

A quick story to make this point. A couple years ago I hit the bars around my school to celebrate my birthday. I remember being at the first bar, and remember going to the second. The next thing I know, I was waking up on the floor of my bathroom back home. Finding one of my roommates watching TV, I plopped down on the couch wishing I would die so the throbbing in my head would stop.

Since I had never experienced this amount of pain, I was curious as to my state the previous night. I asked my roommate if he had seen me when I returned home. He gave me an incredulous look, and then commented, "Dude, we talked for like 30 minutes when you got home." I couldn't remember a second of that conversation. Conferring with the friends who had gone out with me, I figured out that I had about 1.5 hours where I had been awake, walking, and talking and I couldn't remember any of it.

So from personal experience, there is no doubt in my mind that an intoxicated person could give consent, make a move, whatever, and not remember it at all the next day.

With the incident being discussed, I wouldn't be able to call it rape. She may have consented verbally, and just didn't remember. She may have been awake, verbal, and responsive the entire time, and doesn't remeber. I would view this as rape is if she was asleep when he started, not responsive, or passing in and out of consciousness.

[Stark]

*shrugs* I've regretted drunkenly fucking people too, but feeling bad doesn't mean you should wave accusations around. Call me odd, but I've knocked back (and had knocked back) plently of drunken sexual shenanagans. People who get blind drunk for fun ain't drooping flower-children incapable of looking out for themselves. Couldn't we all argue that since she was fucked out of her mind she may have forgotten she wanted to bang the guy all along, and the whole thing was just a mixup? For all we know she was glad he reminded her. It works both ways, and crashing with people when drunk leads to unhelpful badness.

And I still think it's a dishonourable thing to be doing.

[PainRack]

I absolutely agree. Nearly everyone here is ready to hang this guy, but he was drunk. Men aren't immune to the effects of alcohol...

Can it be proved that he actually intended to have sex with her no matter what? If it can then yes it was rape....

That may not work in a court of law.........

I seem to recall that there have been precedents in the UK where the intent to have sexual relations could not be construed as an intention to rape.

Besides, unless the dude uses date rape drugs or physically force her to down copious amounts of alcohol, i don't think people will take seduction, peer pressure or just plain taking advantage to be rape in most cases.

The "alcohol impairment" standard of rape is self-contradictory. It means that if two people both get inebriated past whatever you consider too drunk to consent, and then they have sex, both of them are rapists. And no, you may not set different standards for what constitutes consent from a woman vs. what constitutes consent from a man.

EDIT - And IMO, you can't set "lack of consent" as a standard for rape either without some valid qualifiers to exclude the following situation: Most people having sex you and I both consider consensual don't give any concrete verbal or written permission for each act they engage in.

EDIT - basically I'm saying that until someone says "no," offers physical resistance, or is rendered incapable of doing either, they are not being raped. Consent is not what has to be demonstrated. One party making it known that they wish to stop is what has to be demonstrated.

Is this the standard in your country/state? Or just your own personal opinion?

[Metrion Cascade]

<snip>

The "alcohol impairment" standard of rape is self-contradictory. It means that if two people both get inebriated past whatever you consider too drunk to consent, and then they have sex, both of them are rapists. And no, you may not set different standards for what constitutes consent from a woman vs. what constitutes consent from a man.

EDIT - And IMO, you can't set "lack of consent" as a standard for rape either without some valid qualifiers to exclude the following situation: Most people having sex you and I both consider consensual don't give any concrete verbal or written permission for each act they engage in.

EDIT - basically I'm saying that until someone says "no," offers physical resistance, or is rendered incapable of doing either, they are not being raped. Consent is not what has to be demonstrated. One party making it known that they wish to stop is what has to be demonstrated.

Is this the standard in your country/state? Or just your own personal opinion?

I'm only describing my ethical definition of rape. I stand by it whether the law agrees or not. I rarely debate whether the law says this or that, because I'm not a lawyer and ethics are more interesting. And if the law says something other than what I find ethical, I say the law's wrong and needs to change to fit what's ethical as closely as it can.