Booze and Rape

[Disserbia]

We need to make these threads over and over again even though the last one died two days ago because zomg rapecohol.

If you don't like these threads, you don't have to post in them...

Didn't have anything to do with if I liked them or not.

[Distruzio]

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.

... do you just go around looking for the darkest shit to glean from posts? Aside from that, you're absolutely wrong. Mentally challenged individuals operate on a different level than the non-mentally challenged. If, say, you had sex with a mentally challenged individual their consent would, indeed, be circumspect and you'd be guilty of rape. However, sex between two (or more) mentally challenged individuals are completely and utterly acceptable because their ability to offer consent wasn't impaired.

Were they drunk? Yup. It's rape.

[The Parkus Empire]

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.

... do you just go around looking for the darkest shit to glean from posts? Aside from that, you're absolutely wrong. Mentally challenged individuals operate on a different level than the non-mentally challenged. If, say, you had sex with a mentally challenged individual their consent would, indeed, be circumspect and you'd be guilty of rape. However, sex between two (or more) mentally challenged individuals are completely and utterly acceptable because their ability to offer consent wasn't impaired.

Were they drunk? Yup. It's rape.

How do mentally challenged people have more ability to consent than mentally impaired people?

[Distruzio]

... do you just go around looking for the darkest shit to glean from posts? Aside from that, you're absolutely wrong. Mentally challenged individuals operate on a different level than the non-mentally challenged. If, say, you had sex with a mentally challenged individual their consent would, indeed, be circumspect and you'd be guilty of rape. However, sex between two (or more) mentally challenged individuals are completely and utterly acceptable because their ability to offer consent wasn't impaired.

Were they drunk? Yup. It's rape.

How do mentally challenged people have more ability to consent than mentally impaired people?

They don't. Mentally unchallenged people under the influence of mind altering substances find their ability to consent adversely affected. As does the mentally challenged couple who drinks/does drugs.

[The Parkus Empire]

How do mentally challenged people have more ability to consent than mentally impaired people?

They don't. Mentally unchallenged people under the influence of mind altering substances find their ability to consent adversely affected. As does the mentally challenged couple who drinks/does drugs.

How does being mentally challenged not adversely affect ability to consent?

[Distruzio]

They don't. Mentally unchallenged people under the influence of mind altering substances find their ability to consent adversely affected. As does the mentally challenged couple who drinks/does drugs.

How does being mentally challenged not adversely affect ability to consent?

Because their ability to consent is not diminished any further than it was prior to drinking/taking drugs. Upon drinking/taking drugs their ability is diminished. Once the level they operate on is diminished then it becomes rape.

Which is why YOU couldn't have sex with one. You'd be guilty of raping them because their ability reason or give consent is upon a different level than you. Therefore, in relation to you, they are inhibited. It's rape.

[The Parkus Empire]

How does being mentally challenged not adversely affect ability to consent?

Because their ability to consent is not diminished any further than it was prior to drinking/taking drugs. Upon drinking/taking drugs their ability is diminished. Once the level they operate on is diminished then it becomes rape.

Which is why YOU couldn't have sex with one. You'd be guilty of raping them because their ability reason or give consent is upon a different level than you. Therefore, in relation to you, they are inhibited. It's rape.

You get brain damaged in an accident and you become mentally handicapped so now all sex with you becomes rape?

[Distruzio]

Because their ability to consent is not diminished any further than it was prior to drinking/taking drugs. Upon drinking/taking drugs their ability is diminished. Once the level they operate on is diminished then it becomes rape.

Which is why YOU couldn't have sex with one. You'd be guilty of raping them because their ability reason or give consent is upon a different level than you. Therefore, in relation to you, they are inhibited. It's rape.

You get brain damaged in an accident and you become mentally handicapped so now all sex with you becomes rape?

If the person having sex with you isn't mentally handicapped, yes.

[The Parkus Empire]

You get brain damaged in an accident and you become mentally handicapped so now all sex with you becomes rape?

If the person having sex with you isn't mentally handicapped, yes.

So in the case of drunk sex, if both folks are drunk then it isn't rape.

[Tumblr Isles]

If the person having sex with you isn't mentally handicapped, yes.

So in the case of drunk sex, if both folks are drunk then it isn't rape.

Consent is not that clear cut and is a privilege that can be revoked at any time.
If I feel for whatever reason that I was raped, it is RAPE! A fact that is unquestionable and punishable by full force of the law.

[Distruzio]

If the person having sex with you isn't mentally handicapped, yes.

So in the case of drunk sex, if both folks are drunk then it isn't rape.

Incorrect. Aren't you paying attention? If both parties are drunk, it is mutual rape. Each finds their ability to consent impaired by the alcohol. Therefore both are raped. Two mentally challenged individuals who, inebriated, enjoy 'teh secks' also rape one another.

If it's rape for one person who is not mentally impaired to have sex with another who is, then it is obvious even to the most dense that the same fact holds true if both find their faculties similarly impaired. Since you aren't dense and are, to my knowledge, capable of cognitive reasoning, I must assume that you are stubbornly trying to poke holes in a stone with a toothpick.

The lack of consent or the consent of the, otherwise, impaired for 'teh secks' is rape.

To summarize, this a poem a'la Distruzio:

It's rape on the day following Monday.
It's rape on the day before Sunday.
It's rape if you happen to wear a cape.
It's rape if you happen to be out of shape.
It's rape on the dining room table.
It's rape after hearing a Christmas fable.

Parkus, my friend,
I'm really not sure what's so difficult to comprehend.
For when you drunkenly enjoy sweaty private parts all over your face
you happen to have, unfortunately, been a victim of rape.

There is no exemption to this rule.
Not even for those who are clearly a fool.
However fervently you gnash your teeth and struggle,
mixing booze and sex will, indeed, pop the bubble
of woeful ignorance in which you choose to live your life.
Hell, it's even rape when you inebriate your wife.

So Parkus, my friend,
I'm really not sure what's so difficult to comprehend.
For when you drunkenly enjoy sweaty private parts all over your face
you happen to have, unfortunately, been a victim of rape.

[Blasveck]

So in the case of drunk sex, if both folks are drunk then it isn't rape.

Incorrect. Aren't you paying attention? If both parties are drunk, it is mutual rape. Each finds their ability to consent impaired by the alcohol. Therefore both are raped. Two mentally challenged individuals who, inebriated, enjoy 'teh secks' also rape one another.

If it's rape for one person who is not mentally impaired to have sex with another who is, then it is obvious even to the most dense that the same fact holds true if both find their faculties similarly impaired. Since you aren't dense and are, to my knowledge, capable of cognitive reasoning, I must assume that you are stubbornly trying to poke holes in a stone with a toothpick.

The lack of consent or the consent of the, otherwise, impaired for 'teh secks' is rape.

To summarize, this a poem a'la Distruzio:

It's rape on the day following Monday.
It's rape on the day before Sunday.
It's rape if you happen to wear a cape.
It's rape if you happen to be out of shape.
It's rape on the dining room table.
It's rape after hearing a Christmas fable.

Parkus, my friend,
I'm really not sure what's so difficult to comprehend.
For when you drunkenly enjoy sweaty private parts all over your face
you happen to have, unfortunately, been a victim of rape.

There is no exemption to this rule.
Not even for those who are clearly a fool.
However fervently you gnash your teeth and struggle,
mixing booze and sex will, indeed, pop the bubble
of woeful ignorance in which you choose to live your life.
Hell, it's even rape when you inebriate your wife.

So Parkus, my friend,
I'm really not sure what's so difficult to comprehend.
For when you drunkenly enjoy sweaty private parts all over your face
you happen to have, unfortunately, been a victim of rape.

I can't tell if this is AQ worthy, or if the subject matter makes it non-AQ worthy?

[The Parkus Empire]

So in the case of drunk sex, if both folks are drunk then it isn't rape.

Incorrect. Aren't you paying attention? If both parties are drunk, it is mutual rape. Each finds their ability to consent impaired by the alcohol. Therefore both are raped. Two mentally challenged individuals who, inebriated, enjoy 'teh secks' also rape one another.

If it's rape for one person who is not mentally impaired to have sex with another who is, then it is obvious even to the most dense that the same fact holds true if both find their faculties similarly impaired. Since you aren't dense and are, to my knowledge, capable of cognitive reasoning, I must assume that you are stubbornly trying to poke holes in a stone with a toothpick.

The lack of consent or the consent of the, otherwise, impaired for 'teh secks' is rape.

To summarize, this a poem a'la Distruzio:

It's rape on the day following Monday.
It's rape on the day before Sunday.
It's rape if you happen to wear a cape.
It's rape if you happen to be out of shape.
It's rape on the dining room table.
It's rape after hearing a Christmas fable.

Parkus, my friend,
I'm really not sure what's so difficult to comprehend.
For when you drunkenly enjoy sweaty private parts all over your face
you happen to have, unfortunately, been a victim of rape.

There is no exemption to this rule.
Not even for those who are clearly a fool.
However fervently you gnash your teeth and struggle,
mixing booze and sex will, indeed, pop the bubble
of woeful ignorance in which you choose to live your life.
Hell, it's even rape when you inebriate your wife.

So Parkus, my friend,
I'm really not sure what's so difficult to comprehend.
For when you drunkenly enjoy sweaty private parts all over your face
you happen to have, unfortunately, been a victim of rape.

It appears which we have reached an impasse, and I dare not try to transgress it in face of such an impressive post.

[Gravlen]

So in the case of drunk sex, if both folks are drunk then it isn't rape.

Incorrect. Aren't you paying attention? If both parties are drunk, it is mutual rape. Each finds their ability to consent impaired by the alcohol. Therefore both are raped. Two mentally challenged individuals who, inebriated, enjoy 'teh secks' also rape one another.

This is... Well, the concept of "mutual rape" is at best a theoretical construct and nothing you'd see in the Real World.

"Drunk sex" does not equal "rape." The question is whether or not a person was sufficiently intoxicated as to be unaware of their actions or surroundings, and if he or she was unable to form informed consent. Sex with someone who is incapable of consent (for example someone who is unconscious) is rape. This means that it's very unlikely that someone who's sufficiently drunk to meet this threshold will, at the same time, be aware enough to go attempt to rape someone else. And having both people involved meet that threshold while attempting to rape someone else will simply not ever happen.

[Distruzio]

Incorrect. Aren't you paying attention? If both parties are drunk, it is mutual rape. Each finds their ability to consent impaired by the alcohol. Therefore both are raped. Two mentally challenged individuals who, inebriated, enjoy 'teh secks' also rape one another.

This is... Well, the concept of "mutual rape" is at best a theoretical construct and nothing you'd see in the Real World.

"Drunk sex" does not equal "rape." The question is whether or not a person was sufficiently intoxicated as to be unaware of their actions or surroundings, and if he or she was unable to form informed consent. Sex with someone who is incapable of consent (for example someone who is unconscious) is rape. This means that it's very unlikely that someone who's sufficiently drunk to meet this threshold will, at the same time, be aware enough to go attempt to rape someone else. And having both people involved meet that threshold while attempting to rape someone else will simply not ever happen.

Nonsense. Drunk sex is rape. Inebriated sex is rape. Any degree of inhibited capacity for reason - any degree whatsoever - during sexual acts is, in point of fact, rape.

[Tsiryli]

I think that this conversation has officially reached rigamarole status.

[Gravlen]

This is... Well, the concept of "mutual rape" is at best a theoretical construct and nothing you'd see in the Real World.

"Drunk sex" does not equal "rape." The question is whether or not a person was sufficiently intoxicated as to be unaware of their actions or surroundings, and if he or she was unable to form informed consent. Sex with someone who is incapable of consent (for example someone who is unconscious) is rape. This means that it's very unlikely that someone who's sufficiently drunk to meet this threshold will, at the same time, be aware enough to go attempt to rape someone else. And having both people involved meet that threshold while attempting to rape someone else will simply not ever happen.

Nonsense. Drunk sex is rape. Inebriated sex is rape. Any degree of inhibited capacity for reason - any degree whatsoever - during sexual acts is, in point of fact, rape.

Absolutely untrue, at least when it comes to the US, Canada, Europe, and Australia.

[Distruzio]

Nonsense. Drunk sex is rape. Inebriated sex is rape. Any degree of inhibited capacity for reason - any degree whatsoever - during sexual acts is, in point of fact, rape.

Absolutely untrue, at least when it comes to the US, Canada, Europe, and Australia.

It's quite true, especially here in the US.

It held true when I was a juror on a case involving this very subject. A young man was accused of rape. The accuser claimed that her ability to consent was adversely inhibited by alcohol and drug use. When pressed she revealed that he, too, was both drunk and high. Thus her claim of rape was rendered invalid. This was the decision of the jury and the judge concurred. The legal defense, likewise, affirmed this truth.

She had raped him as much as he had raped her. Both their abilities to consent were adversely inhibited due to the mind altering substances they consumed.

If our decision was incorrect then wouldn't the judge have corrected us? Wouldn't the legal counsel have corrected us? Wouldn't that young man now sit in prison - a rapist?

[George Kaplan]

Er, offering to get a chick a drink, her wanting to drink more, going back to her place and she doing most of the work, albeit incredibly hammered, is hardly rape. Especially if she is the one who starts. As long as she is conscious and consenting, where drugs weren't involuntarily given, it's not rape.

Yeah except drunk consent isn't consent.

So, uh, yeah.

Sorry. You're actually a rapist and you legitimately deserve to be in jail.

Um. When did it become rape to have voluntary sex with a drunk person you meet at a bar? Is there going to be a .08 limit where anything before is considered "consensual" while anything after is considered rape? How about if I meet a person, date her, she consents to having sex while not drunk on alcohol but some other drug I don't know she's taking? Will I be a rapist then?

For science's sake.

[Distruzio]

Yeah except drunk consent isn't consent.

So, uh, yeah.

Sorry. You're actually a rapist and you legitimately deserve to be in jail.

Um. When did it become rape to have voluntary sex with a drunk person you meet at a bar?

The moment you decide to have sex with a drunk person.

Is there going to be a .08 limit where anything before is considered "consensual" while anything after is considered rape?

When their ability to reason is diminished by the consumption of alcohol in any capacity.

How about if I meet a person, date her, she consents to having sex while not drunk on alcohol but some other drug I don't know she's taking? Will I be a rapist then?

Yes.

For science's sake.

For morality's sake. You should think about this stuff.

[George Kaplan]

For science's sake.

For morality's sake. You should think about this stuff.

I have. The problem is that makes a good percentage of the population "rapists." As people are having sex while drunk and while high. Making anybody who has had sex while smoking a joint, while drinking a beer, while doing coke a rapist or a victim or possibly both. The fact that you would define a person who has sex with another person, who may be on prescription drugs but fails to disclose that, a rapist is absurd. It really is. How are you to know if anybody -anybody- is truly consenting when they can withhold information like that?

[Czechanada]

You know, I am a university student, and booze and sex is not a part of my life.

[Pacifornia]

It's part of mine but there's obviously more important things going for me *cough* studying, friends, commuting *cough*

[The Rich Port]

Being a college student as I am, booze and sex are constants in your life.

Contrary to popular assumption, being a college student does not mean you have to throw your life away on being a drunk and a womaniser.

Believe me, about ten years from today your body will already be regretting it.

I just dropped in to say that this is absolutely not true.

you have my condolances

IKR?

What's with all these squares complaining about how much sex and alcohol I have in college?

[Gravlen]

Absolutely untrue, at least when it comes to the US, Canada, Europe, and Australia.

It's quite true, especially here in the US.

You have been proven wrong repeatedly, in this thread as well as others. The issue regarding rape and alchohol is, and has always been, if they are sufficiently inebriated as to be unaware of their actions or surroundings. Take as an example New York Penal Code article 130, which offers these definitions:

5. "Mentally disabled" means that a person suffers from a mental
disease or defect which renders him or her incapable of appraising the
nature of his or her conduct.

6. "Mentally incapacitated" means that a person is rendered
temporarily incapable of appraising or controlling his conduct owing to
the influence of a narcotic or intoxicating substance administered to
him without his consent, or to any other act committed upon him without
his consent.

7. "Physically helpless" means that a person is unconscious or for any
other reason is physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an
act.

As we see, incapacity to consent stems from something more than merely being drunk. Being slightly intoxicated doesn't mean you can't legally consent.

It held true when I was a juror on a case involving this very subject. A young man was accused of rape. The accuser claimed that her ability to consent was adversely inhibited by alcohol and drug use. When pressed she revealed that he, too, was both drunk and high. Thus her claim of rape was rendered invalid. This was the decision of the jury and the judge concurred. The legal defense, likewise, affirmed this truth.

She had raped him as much as he had raped her. Both their abilities to consent were adversely inhibited due to the mind altering substances they consumed.

If our decision was incorrect then wouldn't the judge have corrected us? Wouldn't the legal counsel have corrected us? Wouldn't that young man now sit in prison - a rapist?

Your anecdote doesn't contain the relevant information to say what did or did not happen at that trial. However, I will say this: If one person is so intoxicated as to be unable to form or convey informed consent, then that individual is likely too intoxicated to be able to fully appreciate his or her surroundings and is likely not capable of ascertaining the fact that his or her actions are performed absent consent.

Or, in short, if you were too drunk to consent, you were likely too drunk to recognize the other person wasn't consenting. It's incorrect to say that a claim of rape was rendered invalid. It's also inaccurate to say that "she had raped him as much as he had raped her" since, if they both were incapacitated, neither would have demonstrated the necessary mens rea. Being merely drunk would make you a rapist though, if you decided to have sex with someone who was incapacitated due to alcohol or drug use.