StarDestroyer.Net BBS

well i make it a point not to get drunk unless im only around people i know. but i wouldnt class it as rape, its just a morning after 'ohshit' fest.
however the guy is kinda wierd like that, i doubt id be turned on if the guy i was having sex with kept slipping in and out of conciousness

Darth Wong wrote:Why not just give up drinking entirely? I don't drink because I see no reason to deliberately impair my own judgement.

Because I enjoy it.
Also, because I have a wide group of friends, all of which I trust not to have sex with me while I lie in a drugged stupor in my own bed.

I guess they're just kooky that way.

Did he have have sex with her? yes.
Did she give consent? no.

Therefore - it's rape. It's not that difficult to understand.

What about her claim that she enjoyed it?

Enjoyment of the fact is not consent before the fact.
If you have sex with a thirteen year old girl and she enjoys it, is it rape?
If a woman stimulates your penis while you lie drugged in your own bed, rides you and gives you an orgasm, is that rape?

Ravenwing wrote:well i make it a point not to get drunk unless im only around people i know.

Stravo's friend was with someone she knew. Clearly not well enough.

I am still unclear about what SHE said after he invited himself into the bed room. Was she passed out? Does she not remember? She did not give consent but she did not say no. If she was capable of saying no at the time, and did not, I would not consider it rape. There is still the question was she doing anything after he entered the bed room. After he started kissing here, was she kissing back? Ect....ect...... You have to define conssent to see if she gave it. (I mean when I have sex with my girl friend she does not say "Yes, we can have sex.")

You know what sort of bugs me (besides that little shit's actions) is that she did not relay this to me until a few weeks later almost as an afterthought. Rape to me is a singularly disgusting act and you would think that if you even suspected that you were raped you would be up in arms about it.

Part of me wonders whether this is just one of those "I should never have done that" moments and then her mind spins out these possibilites. She's my friend, so I know her well enough to guess her thought processes. She likes to be in control always and this one instance may have made her feel out of sorts.

I also understand that many rape cases take time because sometimes the victim really has to think about it, in most instances of things like date rape not your stereotypical brutal forced rape scenario.

I don't think the law can ever get rape right. It is so nastily mixed in with other situations like drinking and partial consent and the woman changing her mind later plus all the other gender role stuff that tends to create smokescreens about the facts.

I've always been told, the law is not a surgical instrument, it is a blunt tool and rape cases cannot all fit into a neat little box.

Sam Or I wrote:I am still unclear about what SHE said after he invited himself into the bed room. Was she passed out? Does she not remember? She did not give consent but she did not say no. If she was capable of saying no at the time, and did not, I would not consider it rape. There is still the question was she doing anything after he entered the bed room. After he started kissing here, was she kissing back? Ect....ect...... You have to define conssent to see if she gave it. (I mean when I have sex with my girl friend she does not say "Yes, we can have sex.")

These are the key phrases from the OP:

When pressed he only said that she never said no.

I'm assuming that by 'pressed' Stravo means that she repeatedly asked her what affirmations she gave, and he only gave a lack of refusal.

She knew she was in no condition to ascent to anything because she was passing in and out due to her drunken state.

PS please note, I think the guy is a total ass hole for what he did and deserves an ass kicking either way.

InnerBrat wrote:

Sam Or I wrote:I am still unclear about what SHE said after he invited himself into the bed room. Was she passed out? Does she not remember? She did not give consent but she did not say no. If she was capable of saying no at the time, and did not, I would not consider it rape. There is still the question was she doing anything after he entered the bed room. After he started kissing here, was she kissing back? Ect....ect...... You have to define conssent to see if she gave it. (I mean when I have sex with my girl friend she does not say "Yes, we can have sex.")

These are the key phrases from the OP:

When pressed he only said that she never said no.

I'm assuming that by 'pressed' Stravo means that she repeatedly asked her what affirmations she gave, and he only gave a lack of refusal.

She knew she was in no condition to ascent to anything because she was passing in and out due to her drunken state.

OK, I did not read over it well enough, I can see that.

Stravo wrote:You know what sort of bugs me (besides that little shit's actions) is that she did not relay this to me until a few weeks later almost as an afterthought. Rape to me is a singularly disgusting act and you would think that if you even suspected that you were raped you would be up in arms about it.

Part of me wonders whether this is just one of those "I should never have done that" moments and then her mind spins out these possibilites. She's my friend, so I know her well enough to guess her thought processes. She likes to be in control always and this one instance may have made her feel out of sorts.

I also understand that many rape cases take time because sometimes the victim really has to think about it, in most instances of things like date rape not your stereotypical brutal forced rape scenario.

I don't think the law can ever get rape right. It is so nastily mixed in with other situations like drinking and partial consent and the woman changing her mind later plus all the other gender role stuff that tends to create smokescreens about the facts.

I've always been told, the law is not a surgical instrument, it is a blunt tool and rape cases cannot all fit into a neat little box.

She's probably acting like this because she wasn't physically hurt and probably feels a helluvalot guilty about it all, in that yes, she was an idiot to get stupidly drunk. I felt the same after my little 'encounter' mentioned above. It's scary when you realise you're not in control of a situaition, even if you're lack of control is partialy your fault. No one intends to get bladdered - but often it's difficult to know when to stop drinking.

You ever leave your wallet unattended and have it stolen? Still theft, even if you were being careless. I'm not comparing them in scale, but sometimes recognising that you've been irresponsible can allieviate feelings of victimisation.

I agree with you on the difficulties with fitting rape into the law. While rape is easy to define, there's arguably still degrees of rape: drunk in charge of a penis can be viewed as quite a different offence then hunting students down and threatening them with a knife.

In most states, if a person is legally intoxicated, he/she CANNOT legally consent to sex. PERIOD

http://www.helpandhealing.org/Consent.htm

InnerBrat wrote: I agree with you on the difficulties with fitting rape into the law. While rape is easy to define, there's arguably still degrees of rape: drunk in charge of a penis can be viewed as quite a different offence then hunting students down and threatening them with a knife.

Nitram and I both got a good laugh out of the bolded description, Thanks IB!

On Topic: Personally, I'd call this date-rape, enjoyment or not. She showed him the daybed and went to her room to recover from her drunkeness. He followed her and initiated the sex. In my opinion, showing him the daybed was where she said "no sex". By getting out of the daybed and following her, he willfully ignored her lack of consent.
Was she aware when he climbed in the bed? Or did she wake up with him attempting to seduce her? Since she was passing in and out, he could have been fonding her while she was out, leaving her vulernable to coaxing when she was more awake. Either way, he's a jerk, and deserves many kicks to the balls because whether you consider it Rape or not, it was Taking Advantage of her, which is Rape's close cousin in my book.

Alan Bolte wrote:

Bob the Gunslinger wrote:Technically, by California law, it was rape.

In CA, even if a drunk girl says "yes," it is still rape because she cannot legally give consent, although I doubt this particular case would ever go to court.

I'm not entirely clear on one thing here: how drunk was he? Now, if they were both quite drunk, and the event wasn't forced by either party, than by law, is it still rape, as you say, Bob? Is this a sexist law, or did they rape each other, by law?

You know, I never thought to ask about that possibility.

I would assume that if the guy's still able to get it up then he's not so drunk as to be unable to control himself or say no. I think the law pertains to a certain degree of intoxication, like driving.

Macross wrote:It sounds like she made a bad decision and is now trying to avoid responsability for her actions by rationalizing that it could have been rape.
She should have known better then to "drink-herself-stupid" with a male co-worker, especially one that she liked. Since she was infatuated with him, she may not have wanted him to stop.

Or maybe she trusted him not to be a fucking scumbag. She did tell him to sleep in the other room.

I've been asked to sleep in a different room before and had no trouble doing that, or understanding that she was not asking me to fuck her after she passes out. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that if she asks someone to sleep in a different fucking room then she's made her decision and it is not to have sex.

Or do you mean her bad decision was trusting him not to drunk rape her in her own home?

Darth Servo wrote:In most states, if a person is legally intoxicated, he/she CANNOT legally consent to sex. PERIOD

http://www.helpandhealing.org/Consent.htm

I disagree with this. If the guy was drunk, he and did "rape" a girl which was also drunk. How can he be legally held accountable for his actions since he was legally intoxicated. If that is the case, the girl should be able to be prosicuted as well. I just think it is very hypocritical of the law to favor one sex over the other.

so, no matter what you do, if you have sex with a drunk girl in california you´re per defenition a rapist?
let´s say, i´d go out to a bar with my girlfriend and we both get drunk. we go home and have sex. would that make me a rapist? or would that make us both rapists?

For one thing, I doubt she would press charges. For another, if you're going out together, ahve a relationship and it is understood that you'll be having sex later in the evening, I think that qualifies as consent.

This law is to prevent the kind of serious date raping that happens all the time at parties and in dorms, etc. It may not be perfect but it's better than "Objection: she was asking for it, your honor. After all, she was drunk."

As far as I know, the law is hardly ever used, not widely known, and often ignored if it is known, even by the victims. I'd say the risk of getting arrested for consensual drunken sex is small.

Bob the Gunslinger wrote:

so, no matter what you do, if you have sex with a drunk girl in california you´re per defenition a rapist?
let´s say, i´d go out to a bar with my girlfriend and we both get drunk. we go home and have sex. would that make me a rapist? or would that make us both rapists?

For one thing, I doubt she would press charges. For another, if you're going out together, ahve a relationship and it is understood that you'll be having sex later in the evening, I think that qualifies as consent.

This law is to prevent the kind of serious date raping that happens all the time at parties and in dorms, etc. It may not be perfect but it's better than "Objection: she was asking for it, your honor. After all, she was drunk."

As far as I know, the law is hardly ever used, not widely known, and often ignored if it is known, even by the victims. I'd say the risk of getting arrested for consensual drunken sex is small.

Hmmm, this brings up an intresting loophole. A guy gets drunk, sleeps with a girl. Can he claim it was rape. If so, and she is pregnant, can he weasle out of paternal responsibility? (Sorry about the high jack)

while men can technically claim rape, it happens on very rare occasions, the police usually don't take such instances very seriously.

Sam Or I wrote:If the guy was drunk, he and did "rape" a girl which was also drunk. How can he be legally held accountable for his actions since he was legally intoxicated.

The same way we hold some drunk who gets behind the wheel of a car legally responsible. It doesn't take a genius to see this.

Sam Or I wrote:

Darth Servo wrote:In most states, if a person is legally intoxicated, he/she CANNOT legally consent to sex. PERIOD

http://www.helpandhealing.org/Consent.htm

I disagree with this. If the guy was drunk, he and did "rape" a girl which was also drunk. How can he be legally held accountable for his actions since he was legally intoxicated. If that is the case, the girl should be able to be prosicuted as well. I just think it is very hypocritical of the law to favor one sex over the other.

He was sober enough to make it to her room, get her clothes off, maintain an erection, and have intercourse. Therefore, he was the less drunk of the two parties. Since he ignored her implied lack of consent, I say castrate the fucker(But I almost always say that about rapists).

The reason these cases become murky is that the precedent for a person being unable to judge his own decisions (not just lacking the ability to physically resist, but lacking the judgement to even try) has been successfully used as a defense by the rapist. If a person cannot be held responsible for his or her own decisions when under the influence of alcohol, then could a drunk rapist arguably be not guilty by reason of temporary insanity? Laugh if you want, but a rapist was acquited on precisely that basis a few years ago here in Ontario.

Darth Wong wrote:The reason these cases become murky is that the precedent for a person being unable to judge his own decisions (not just lacking the ability to physically resist, but lacking the judgement to even try) has been successfully used as a defense by the rapist. If a person cannot be held responsible for his or her own decisions when under the influence of alcohol, then could a drunk rapist arguably be not guilty by reason of temporary insanity? Laugh if you want, but a rapist was acquited on precisely that basis a few years ago here in Ontario.

I say you get drunk to about the same level so you can't be held responsible for bludgeoning his crotch into a jello salad.

Sounds like it sucks to be a rape victim in Ontario (more than other places, I mean).

Bob the Gunslinger wrote:Sounds like it sucks to be a rape victim in Ontario (more than other places, I mean).

Sounds like a smart lawyer took advantage of the "alcohol = no responsibility for personal decisions" precedent for his own ends. As I said, that is the danger of such precedent.

Darth Servo wrote:

Sam Or I wrote:If the guy was drunk, he and did "rape" a girl which was also drunk. How can he be legally held accountable for his actions since he was legally intoxicated.

The same way we hold some drunk who gets behind the wheel of a car legally responsible. It doesn't take a genius to see this.

But if shes drunk she is not responsible for her own actions? 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. Learn to say no. Being legal drunk does not and should not increase your rights, or let you avoid consequences.

No shit it takes less than a genius to see that. THATS THE POINT.

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

Personally, I would qualify it as rape. I can't stand the idea of a female being taken advantage of and as such when a girl is drunk even if the guys id drunk, she is considered off limits in my eyes. Now when i get drunk sadly this barrier does lower a bit but I still try to remind myself at all times to lay off the drunk chicks. And that guy should get his nuts kicked in, he seriously took advantage of her.

KrauserKrauser wrote:Personally, I would qualify it as rape. I can't stand the idea of a female being taken advantage of and as such when a girl is drunk even if the guys id drunk, she is considered off limits in my eyes. Now when i get drunk sadly this barrier does lower a bit but I still try to remind myself at all times to lay off the drunk chicks. And that guy should get his nuts kicked in, he seriously took advantage of her.

I could not agree more. I mean the guy in this case is scum, he did take advantage of her and the situtation.

It is very questionable rape though. I am still undecided. If she was passing in and out I think it can be considered rape.

He's obviously an asshole, but the problem is that the intellectual exercise of classifying it as "rape" requires that alcohol be declared a mitigating factor in personal responsibility for one's own decisions. I already showed one example where this precedent led to a ridiculous outcome, and that could very well be the tip of the iceberg.