Page 13 of 29

PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 8:50 pm
by Tahar Joblis
The Steel Magnolia wrote:
The Rich Port wrote:Being a college student as I am, booze and sex are constants in your life. At parties, at home, at bars, designated sober drivers shuttle me and many others like me to our beds, where we may sleep it off.

Often, the two combine, sometimes for better, but sometimes for worse. Acquaintance rape is on the rise, and has been for a while. I've been worrying about falling into it, and often just go to bars to drink, not to pick up chicks or even socialize. I would much rather avoid hurting someone and subsequently hurting myself with jail.

One question that has plagued me is this: if I'm drunk, and the girl I have sex with is drunk, is it rape?

The stereotypical acquaintance rape is when a man intoxicates a woman with a narcotic, directly or indirectly, to take advantage of her.

So, I ask: if both parties are drunk, is it double rape? Is rape nullified? Should either party report the other to the police? Should both parties be put in jail?


How about if there's any doubt you just don't have sex.

:eyebrow: How about you actually answer the question asked? Does being merely drunk make it rape? If so, what about mutual drunkenness?

Saying "don't have sex if you're not sure" is dodging the question.

The correct answer is that no, merely being drunk - as opposed to, say, passed out - doesn't mean you can't consent to sex, but I don't think you're willing to say that.

PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 8:54 pm
by The Republic of Lanos
Farnhamia wrote:
The Rich Port wrote:Being a college student as I am, booze and sex are constants in your life. At parties, at home, at bars, designated sober drivers shuttle me and many others like me to our beds, where we may sleep it off.

Often, the two combine, sometimes for better, but sometimes for worse. Acquaintance rape is on the rise, and has been for a while. I've been worrying about falling into it, and often just go to bars to drink, not to pick up chicks or even socialize. I would much rather avoid hurting someone and subsequently hurting myself with jail.

One question that has plagued me is this: if I'm drunk, and the girl I have sex with is drunk, is it rape?

The stereotypical acquaintance rape is when a man intoxicates a woman with a narcotic, directly or indirectly, to take advantage of her.

So, I ask: if both parties are drunk, is it double rape? Is rape nullified? Should either party report the other to the police? Should both parties be put in jail?

It's a sticky question and I daresay you'll be sorry you asked before the thread sinks away to oblivion. Allow me to suggest that you have a law student draw up a no-fault declaration for you covering all those contingencies and that you ask each young woman you meet to sign it. It will be a little embarrassing but may save you a lot of trouble later on.

That may be challenged in court on the basis that she was too intoxicated to even know what the fuck was on the paper.

PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:09 pm
by Quackquackhonk
The Rich Port wrote:So, I ask: if both parties are drunk, is it double rape?


that's an incredibly original question, i've never thought about it before. can two people, in essence, rape each other because neither is able to give consent because of drunken state of being and stumbling and all that...

Is rape nullified?


clearly not. two drunk people cannot consent, we have said nothing on preying on one another.

Should either party report the other to the police?


was someone raped?

Should both parties be put in jail?


i should think so!

PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:29 pm
by The Steel Magnolia
Tahar Joblis wrote:
The Steel Magnolia wrote:
How about if there's any doubt you just don't have sex.

:eyebrow: How about you actually answer the question asked? Does being merely drunk make it rape? If so, what about mutual drunkenness?

Saying "don't have sex if you're not sure" is dodging the question.

The correct answer is that no, merely being drunk - as opposed to, say, passed out - doesn't mean you can't consent to sex, but I don't think you're willing to say that.


No, the correct answer is that it entirely depends on how intoxicated you are, and that your desperation to find out just how drunk a girl can be before it's rape is telling.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:14 am
by Distruzio
Tahar Joblis wrote:The correct answer is that no, merely being drunk - as opposed to, say, passed out - doesn't mean you can't consent to sex, but I don't think you're willing to say that.


Sorry. But impaired consent is not consent. Inebriation is impairment. You don't think as clearly as you otherwise would. Drunk secks is rape.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:54 am
by The Parkus Empire
Distruzio wrote:
Tahar Joblis wrote:The correct answer is that no, merely being drunk - as opposed to, say, passed out - doesn't mean you can't consent to sex, but I don't think you're willing to say that.


Sorry. But impaired consent is not consent. Inebriation is impairment. You don't think as clearly as you otherwise would. Drunk secks is rape.

Impaired consent is definitely not consent when the other person is not impaired. But to say that mentally impaired people are inherently incapable of consent is ridiculous.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 12:47 pm
by Tahar Joblis
Distruzio wrote:
Tahar Joblis wrote:The correct answer is that no, merely being drunk - as opposed to, say, passed out - doesn't mean you can't consent to sex, but I don't think you're willing to say that.


Sorry. But impaired consent is not consent. Inebriation is impairment. You don't think as clearly as you otherwise would. Drunk secks is rape.

A drunk person can jump on top of a sober person and initiate sex with them.

The sober person might decide to let them.

Doesn't make the sober person a rapist. And if the drunk person is particularly insistent, we might conclude that the drunk person is committing rape.

And then we can have both people drunk. Which everybody who claims that having sex with a drunk woman is rape is implicitly fucking up on, because they're assuming that somehow, the drunk man is more responsible for what's going on than the drunk woman, and that the drunk woman (unlike the drunk man) is being victimized.

Simply the fact that one person is drunk is neither necessary nor sufficient to make a sex act rape. Saying that drunk sex is rape is seriously fucked up and seriously inaccurate. Not even most drunk sex is reasonably defined as rape, given the number of raging alcoholics (as with TPE's example) who like having drunk sex. Someone is passed out or near enough to it? Sure, that's rape. Someone roofies someone else and fucks 'em? Sure, that's rape.

Someone gets drunk and decides, while drunk, that they want to have sex? No, that's just a potentially-regrettable bad decision on their part.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 12:55 pm
by The Rich Port
Tahar Joblis wrote:
Distruzio wrote:
Sorry. But impaired consent is not consent. Inebriation is impairment. You don't think as clearly as you otherwise would. Drunk secks is rape.

A drunk person can jump on top of a sober person and initiate sex with them.

The sober person might decide to let them.

Doesn't make the sober person a rapist. And if the drunk person is particularly insistent, we might conclude that the drunk person is committing rape.

And then we can have both people drunk. Which everybody who claims that having sex with a drunk woman is rape is implicitly fucking up on, because they're assuming that somehow, the drunk man is more responsible for what's going on than the drunk woman, and that the drunk woman (unlike the drunk man) is being victimized.

Simply the fact that one person is drunk is neither necessary nor sufficient to make a sex act rape. Saying that drunk sex is rape is seriously fucked up and seriously inaccurate. Not even most drunk sex is reasonably defined as rape, given the number of raging alcoholics (as with TPE's example) who like having drunk sex. Someone is passed out or near enough to it? Sure, that's rape. Someone roofies someone else and fucks 'em? Sure, that's rape.

Someone gets drunk and decides, while drunk, that they want to have sex? No, that's just a potentially-regrettable bad decision on their part.


I'm sure "He/She came onto ME!" will perform magically in court.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:09 pm
by Tahar Joblis
The Rich Port wrote:
Tahar Joblis wrote:A drunk person can jump on top of a sober person and initiate sex with them.

The sober person might decide to let them.

Doesn't make the sober person a rapist. And if the drunk person is particularly insistent, we might conclude that the drunk person is committing rape.

And then we can have both people drunk. Which everybody who claims that having sex with a drunk woman is rape is implicitly fucking up on, because they're assuming that somehow, the drunk man is more responsible for what's going on than the drunk woman, and that the drunk woman (unlike the drunk man) is being victimized.

Simply the fact that one person is drunk is neither necessary nor sufficient to make a sex act rape. Saying that drunk sex is rape is seriously fucked up and seriously inaccurate. Not even most drunk sex is reasonably defined as rape, given the number of raging alcoholics (as with TPE's example) who like having drunk sex. Someone is passed out or near enough to it? Sure, that's rape. Someone roofies someone else and fucks 'em? Sure, that's rape.

Someone gets drunk and decides, while drunk, that they want to have sex? No, that's just a potentially-regrettable bad decision on their part.


I'm sure "He/She came onto ME!" will perform magically in court.

It will. For those whose claim that they merely chose to accede to the insistent drunkard's request in order to avoid trouble. Who will be mainly women. In the mean time, men can expect to be victim-blamed in counter to that claim - "You should have fought her off," "You had an erection, that means you were willing," etc.

A simple "DRUNK THEREFORE RAAAEP!" standard is impractical and advocacy thereof is immoral. And moreover, since it is nearly always only applied to the rape of women by men, sexist as hell.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:14 pm
by Tahar Joblis
The Parkus Empire wrote:
Distruzio wrote:
Sorry. But impaired consent is not consent. Inebriation is impairment. You don't think as clearly as you otherwise would. Drunk secks is rape.

Impaired consent is definitely not consent when the other person is not impaired. But to say that mentally impaired people are inherently incapable of consent is ridiculous.

The Parkus Empire wrote:
The Rich Port wrote:
Wait... She got drunk... Every time before you had sex?

Yup. And not just with me, with everyone I'd ever seen her have sex with (she'd fuck in the middle of a party). When we booked a room, she'd always get at least one bottle of Jack and we'd kill it first.

Let's say, one night, you were on medication that was incompatible with alcohol. Your friend, who you've talked about, wants to bang. And moreover, wants to get drunk first. But you want to still have a liver that works, so you don't want to drink.

Her end of everything is entirely the same. She's drinking as a prelude to sex, because she wants her sex drunk, damnit. The only difference is that you're not actually drinking with her.

Do you think that it would suddenly become rape if you decided to make her happy by saying that yes, she can have her booze and her happy sex, you're just not going to take shots with her?

PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:24 pm
by Imperial Nilfgaard
If the girl is drunk and agrees to have sex with you then no it is definatly not rape.. so long as she is conscious and making an informed decision.

If we made it illegal to have sex with drunk people then that destroys like 62.4% of all college hookups.

However, if the girl is drugged then it is obviously a completely different story and much more serious. A think guys have a responsibility to not have intercourse with girls who are no longer able to make informed decisions and communicate clearly.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:30 pm
by Zottistan
Imperial Nilfgaard wrote:If the girl is drunk and agrees to have sex with you then no it is definatly not rape.. so long as she is conscious and making an informed decision.

If we made it illegal to have sex with drunk people then that destroys like 62.4% of all college hookups.

However, if the girl is drugged then it is obviously a completely different story and much more serious. A think guys have a responsibility to not have intercourse with girls who are no longer able to make informed decisions and communicate clearly.

"Drunk" doesn't count as "drugged"?

PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:26 pm
by Imperial Nilfgaard
Zottistan wrote:
Imperial Nilfgaard wrote:If the girl is drunk and agrees to have sex with you then no it is definatly not rape.. so long as she is conscious and making an informed decision.

If we made it illegal to have sex with drunk people then that destroys like 62.4% of all college hookups.

However, if the girl is drugged then it is obviously a completely different story and much more serious. A think guys have a responsibility to not have intercourse with girls who are no longer able to make informed decisions and communicate clearly.

"Drunk" doesn't count as "drugged"?


No. Drugged implies that the individual did not willingly take the substance.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:28 pm
by Zottistan
Imperial Nilfgaard wrote:
Zottistan wrote:"Drunk" doesn't count as "drugged"?


No. Drugged implies that the individual did not willingly take the substance.

i) No it doesn't.
ii) What difference would that make? A person who is mentally incapacitated beyond a certain degree (which has yet to be determined) can't provide valid consent, any more than a four-year-old can.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:29 pm
by Ostroeuropa
Tahar Joblis wrote:
The Parkus Empire wrote:Impaired consent is definitely not consent when the other person is not impaired. But to say that mentally impaired people are inherently incapable of consent is ridiculous.

The Parkus Empire wrote:Yup. And not just with me, with everyone I'd ever seen her have sex with (she'd fuck in the middle of a party). When we booked a room, she'd always get at least one bottle of Jack and we'd kill it first.

Let's say, one night, you were on medication that was incompatible with alcohol. Your friend, who you've talked about, wants to bang. And moreover, wants to get drunk first. But you want to still have a liver that works, so you don't want to drink.

Her end of everything is entirely the same. She's drinking as a prelude to sex, because she wants her sex drunk, damnit. The only difference is that you're not actually drinking with her.

Do you think that it would suddenly become rape if you decided to make her happy by saying that yes, she can have her booze and her happy sex, you're just not going to take shots with her?


I'd stand by my comparison to statutory rape.
It is fine for a 14 year old to fuck a 14 year old.
It is not fine for a 50 year old to fuck a 14 year old.

Drinking lowers your mental age slowly over time until you are so drunk that you cross the threshhold and become a "Minor."
If the other person is similarly smashed, there is no issue.

So while two 30 year olds in your situation, and one may be drinking, provided she stops before she crosses the threshhold and becomes a "minor" (Or akin to it) it is fine. Even if sobre, your drunk friend were fine with having drunk sex, if she becomes so drunk as to be incapable of thinking as an adult, it's a problem.
The difficulty is ofcourse, that life lacks clear data in that regard. But it's useful analogy in my opinion for wrapping your head around the argument.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:30 pm
by The Rich Port
The Steel Magnolia wrote:
Tahar Joblis wrote: :eyebrow: How about you actually answer the question asked? Does being merely drunk make it rape? If so, what about mutual drunkenness?

Saying "don't have sex if you're not sure" is dodging the question.

The correct answer is that no, merely being drunk - as opposed to, say, passed out - doesn't mean you can't consent to sex, but I don't think you're willing to say that.


No, the correct answer is that it entirely depends on how intoxicated you are, and that your desperation to find out just how drunk a girl can be before it's rape is telling.


You know what?

Steel's right.

It's not worth the moral or legal risk.

Plus, how can I fully appreciate a woman if I am buzzed or drunk?

No booze for me when I'm on a date.

... *looks longingly at rum bottle next to my bed*

PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:31 pm
by Czechovelkov
Booze and Rape, sounds good

PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:32 pm
by Desperauex
I'm on the weird side of NationStates again.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:34 pm
by The Rich Port
Czechovelkov wrote:Booze and Rape, sounds good


You made that not-joke already.

It wasn't funny or amusing the first time either.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:35 pm
by The Rich Port
Desperauex wrote:I'm on the weird side of NationStates again.


... The General Front Page?

... Actually, that sounds about right.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:39 pm
by Fartsniffage
The Rich Port wrote:
The Steel Magnolia wrote:
No, the correct answer is that it entirely depends on how intoxicated you are, and that your desperation to find out just how drunk a girl can be before it's rape is telling.


You know what?

Steel's right.

It's not worth the moral or legal risk.

Plus, how can I fully appreciate a woman if I am buzzed or drunk?

No booze for me when I'm on a date.

... *looks longingly at rum bottle next to my bed*


Surely you mean no booze for your partner when you're on a date?

PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:41 pm
by Imperial Nilfgaard
Desperauex wrote:I'm on the weird side of NationStates again.


Welcome to the back of my van, we have beer and weed.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:46 pm
by Dumb Ideologies
This is a tricky one. It's things like this that make the "rape is rape" sloganeering seem pretty disconnected from reality. I mean, yeah, rape is rape, of course it is, buttermilk is buttermilk and mousemats are mousemats. But that doesn't mean there aren't different kinds and levels of severity or that the boundaries can't be a little fuzzy. It's complicated and when people claim it isn't they make me feel like there's some deeper comprehensive definition that's in their bonus edition.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 3:10 pm
by Free Tristania
I am not sure (this is actually a rather interesting question, from a legal point of view) but I would say that there is no possibility to consent when you're drunk but since both parties involved would be drunk it might actually cancel each other out but I am not sure. Is there a legal precedence ?

PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 3:12 pm
by Pacifornia
There have been times when I was drunk off of shots of Smirnoff and cups of Bud Light and tried to flirt with some girls. Have been shot down time and again. If anything, it's much better to be both drunk than taking advantage of someone's inebriation while you're buzzed. That is essentially rape. But then again, she could not be into you when she's sober, have sex with you and then take advantage of that and accuse you of rape. Very tricky subject and it varies from case to case.