Does drunken sex = rape?

The debate in this thread has me wondering what most DU'ers position actually is on the issue: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2952019&mesg_id=2952019

If a woman gets drunk, either by coercion or by her own will, and then a man takes advantage of her inebration to have sex with her, does that qualify as rape to you? Is it possible for a woman to get drunk and lose the ability to consent, in your opinion?

Keep in mind that the laws in all 50 states define alcohol as a date rape drug, and in most states a man can be charged with rape if he has sex with a drunk woman who later regrets the encounter.

I do believe that it's rape to have sex with a drunk woman, as long as she's drunk. I was just suprised to see people disagreeing in the other thread.

However, it is pretty easy to understand: if someone has sex with an unconscious person, it is rape. If someone is inebriated but fully awake, and they consent to sex, it does not matter that they are inebriated. They are still able to consent, and they have, therefore it is not rape.

Next question?

I'm pretty surprised at some of the comments here.

for the sole purpose of nonconsensual sex is no different than having your drink spiked with rohypnol or GHB, IMO.

A woman who is too drunk to say yes or no is too drunk, period. Leave her the hell alone.

Even if it is not rape in the legal sense, humanistic decorum suggests that an individual that is clearly impaired to the point of not being able to give a straight answer on anything should not be viewed as a suitable sexual partner at that time.

If both people are a muddled mess of drunkenness - well that's a sticky one. Then it's probably accountability on both sides for the sheer reason that it might be hard to tease out any actual, non inebriated response.

This argument is confusing the hell out of me. I'm the first one to believe a woman's claim of being raped, but to my understanding, nobody was claiming to be raped in the instance in question. Maybe I've missed something.

still rape, just the other way. (And yes it does happen).

Is it rape having sex (read taking sexual advantage of) with a sober but obviously mentally handicapped girl/woman/boy/man?

I don't think there is any question that it is rape.

The difficulty comes in verifying the facts at the time of the alleged incident.

Does that mean if I'm drunk and a homosexual (insert heterosexual if you're gay) has sex with me its my fault?

I mean, c'mon, this is absolute misogyny here.

let me know when you come back from neanderthal village.

1. She says no.
2. She is unable to "say" yes either verbally or by participating in the sexual act.

If she is so drunk that she's passed out or unable to move/protect herself, then it is rape.

How much liquor or drugs the guy consumed does not matter at all.

men were responsible for their own actions as seem to believe that women are. :eyes: BTW, raping a drunk woman is the MAN'S action...not the woman's.

it's the old "boys will be boys" f***ing bullshit

..."all men are pigs" bullshit.

:-)

At some point, a person can be so intoxicated that it is materially no different than a "roofie" type of drug.


So I'd say that it's a matter of degree. It's probably something that can't be adjudicated very well either, like so many things sexual. I do think it's a travesty if a man can be charged with rape simply because the woman "later regrets the encounter".

Best advice, stay in control.

U.S. Marine convicted in Philippines rape case

MANILA, Philippines - A U.S. Marine was convicted Monday of raping a Filipino woman and sentenced to 40 years in prison, ending an emotional trial that has strained U.S.-Philippine ties and tested a joint military pact.

...Smith, who was in the country for joint training, did not deny having sex with the 23-year-old woman but testified that it was consensual.

The court said the woman, known publicly by her pseudonym “Nicole,” was so intoxicated that she could not have consented to sex, pointing to testimony that Smith carried her to a van where the incident occurred on Nov. 1, 2005.

“He was the one who was on top of the complainant, who resisted his kisses, pushed him and fought him back until she lost consciousness because of alcoholic drinks she had taken,” said the decision by Judge Benjamin Pozon of the Makati Regional Trial Court. A court employee read the decision live on national television.

Penalty intended to make a statement
Pozon said in English that the severe penalty was aimed “to protect women against the unbridled bestiality of persons who cannot control their libidinous proclivity.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16031750/

It's not so much a question of being drunk and not agreeing to sex = rape, it's that oftentimes "no" is ignored. And that is clearly rape, imo.

If someone is too drunk to give consent, that is a very grey area that I lean towards perhaps not pre-meditated rape, but is still being taken advantage of. I don't know how to legal classify this, because I think ignoring "no" VS not giving a clear consent is different, but still very wrong.

This is difficult because I have been drunk and hooked up a few times, but I gave clear consent. I would probably feel very violated without my actual agreeing to sex...

Either the person is unconcious, in which case its clearly rape, or the person is concious and can say "yes" or "no."
If they say "no" (at any time), its rape.
If they say "Yes" (and never repeal it), its not rape - ever - period.

Or would that start with "Suck dick and die!"

Intoxicated people, once they reach a point of intoxication, cannot make rational decisions based on reason. It's why we don't give drunks their keys, no matter how hard they try to convince us they're ok to drive. They're not.

The age of consent in Georgia is 16. The girl was 15.

read the thread cited in the OP.

and the man isn't. Should it be a law? Thats debatable. Laws should be enforceable, and something like how drunk someone was is completely subjective and almost always going to boil down to a he said/she said, and the line of when someone passes the point they can realistically consent is way to blurry to jail someone over. Yes if there is evidence of someone deceiving a girl into getting overly drunk, then the case could be a bit more clear cut..

Every state has its own definition of being legally intoxicated, for the purpose of determining whether or not one is statutorily too drunk to drive a car. The federal government has a much stricter one for people who fly airplanes.

Hospitals will not allow patients who have been given any amount of certain medications, to sign contracts, consent forms, etc. for 24 hours.

An objective standard would be needed in order to say categorically that a woman who is extremely drunk is not able to give consent for sex.

then she cannot consent so that would be rape. I don't think having sex with a drunk girl is rape. I don't think being drunk makes you do things you don't want to do. I think it gives people an excuse when they do something stupid. But I've been unable to walk upright drunk on more than one occasion and I have managed not to have sex with someone I didn't want to.

It is rape if there is no consent, or if one of the people involved is in no fit mental or emotional state to provide consent.

Merely being intoxicated does not make it rape. If the person is intoxicated, but is still capable (in a legal sense) of giving informed consent and does so, it is not rape.

If, however, a person is too intoxicated to give consent, or if a person does not give consent regardless of intoxication, then it is rape.

At least, that is how I was taught in college as part of rape prevention presentations.

Don't have sex with someone when you've been drinking.

Don't have sex with someone when they've been drinking.

These rules particularly apply if it's someone you do not know well or someone you don't have a solid relationship with already. (For instance, this doesn't really apply if you and your sig other go out drinking with the intent of having drunk sex later.)

But I have to say, if you only way you can get laid is to get someone drunk...not only are you a rapist...you're a pathetic loser.

your question was:

If a woman gets drunk, either by coercion or by her own will, and then a man takes advantage of her inebration to have sex with her, does that qualify as rape to you?

-----------

How could she have made such a decision under the influence? Of course it is rape.

Now if you're talking about two college kids who gets tipsy and fool around, that's different. But then it's unlikely that she woulf file rape charges. And this brings us to another issue, which is the male fascination with "false rape" reports. Rape is the most UNDERREPORTED crime. Typically, women are humiliated and filled with shame and go home, take a shower and don't report the crime. But a few high-profile cases of false rape claims and men think that's common. It's not.

If she reports it as rape, it very likely is.

This is flamebait and there is already
another thread dealing with this topic.