Drunken Sex=Rape?

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

Well if they are, in fact, equally responsible then couldn't the guy also claim rape?
_______________________________

I think, too often, men are looked upon as the aggressor. I think, his chances would be slim and none. Then too, if, the woman slipped him some ex or Viagra...


Chuck

When it happens to a guy they just sneak off in the morning and then get laughed at by their friends for several months. Like the time my roommate hooked up with an older woman. Like waaaaaaay older.

___________________________________

The old story... 'Took home a number 10... woke-up with a number1! Classic!


Chuck

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Sorry. Never did the "moped" thing.

Riiiiight. And you never beat off either, do you?

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[millertime24 8]

Quote

Quote

Sorry. Never did the "moped" thing.

Riiiiight. And you never beat off either, do you?

I would have guessed probably never been really, for real, drunk before.

Muff #5048

[Shotgun 1]

There is nowhere near enough information in that article to have an opinion about the case.

Women (or men) shouldn't get drunk to the point of not being in control of what happens to their bodies. And it's not too cool to have sex with someone who is so shitfaced that they probably won't remember what happened (or if they agreed to having sex).

But those things will likely continue to happen, and we'll continue to have cases such as this, but each of those cases is unique.

I'm guessing that a jury is likely to have less sympathy for a woman who (willingly) got drunk to the point of being taken advantage of, compared to a woman who is claiming rape under circumstances where she was sober and can give more reliable information. (It's pretty hard to sound confident in the facts of your testimony while telling the jury that you were extremely drunk.)

I don't know.... It's a crappy situation. Sounds like a good situation for both men and women to try and avoid.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

This is a huge double standard, isn't it?

Not necessarily. Let's assume the gal was passed out drunk. She didn't say no, but most would agree it was not consensual. What about those who say yes after being slipped a Mickey? The capacity just might not be there.

Quote

What happens if the guy and girl are BOTH wasted,

I don't know. But I'd think that if the guy is tanked he might have a defense of being incapable of forming intent to commit rape.

Quote

or only the guy is drunk?

There was a thread couple of years ago about a woman in Norway who was convicted of rape for nonconsensual acts performed on a man. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1615459#1615459

Quote

how can you really be sure you are not about to become a rapist and then a registered sex offender for life?

There's no way of guaranteeing it. Just second thoughts the next day can do it. Look at those guys from Duke...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

What happens if the guy and girl are BOTH wasted,

I don't know. But I'd think that if the guy is tanked he might have a defense of being incapable of forming intent to commit rape.

might be physically incapable of performing it too. If I'm so drunk I've lost my ability to think, there's a lot of physical acts I can't do.

Getting screwed while drunk is a predictable side effect, just as getting pregnant after screwing without protection happens often too.

[Low-Mao 0]

We'll these things are left up to judges and juries, it's how it has to be....All I want to know is what happened to the days when rape was cosidered jumping out of the bushes with a knife?

[Lindsey 0]

The way I see it is that sometimes horrible things happen when ya' get too fucked up. Life's lessons can be hard, but sometimes (if ya' got half a brain) tough lessons lead to better decisions next time. It's life.

But if you're a dick-enough to fuck a really drunk chick (assuming that you're not equally impaired), then maybe there's some lesson in there waiting for you too....

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Richards 0]

Not enough facts in the case. I am of mixed opinion on this.

Since voluntary intoxication does not mitigate a persons responsibility for their actions I think a person should use their brain and not let themselves be inebriated to the point of not being aware of their actions. That said there is an ethical line that must be drawn in the sand. If a girl has had a few drinks which have obviously loosened her inhibitions somewhat then I feel she is still capable of making an informed decion. On the other side of this argument the girl shouldn't have to be so drunk that she is passed out unconcscious before it can be called rape either.

A girl who is brainfucked on alcohol can still be standing and even coming on to you but if you are of reasonably clear mind and it is evident that she is clearly gooned then even if she is making the advances you have an obligation to not take advantage of the situation. Her own stupidity is not an excuse on the guys part and her consent (or advances) do not qualify as informed consent.

If both parties were two braindead to even remember having sex and happen to wake up together then you have a different situation.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

There is nowhere near enough information in that article to have an opinion about the case.

Best response in the thread!

Regarding the judge banning the use of "rape" Sexual assault", etc., I can see some justification.

Would someone giving testimony be allowed to state, "the defendant murdered the victim" or "the defendant committed arson"?

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

There is nowhere near enough information in that article to have an opinion about the case.

Best response in the thread!

Regarding the judge banning the use of "rape" Sexual assault", etc., I can see some justification.

Would someone giving testimony be allowed to state, "the defendant murdered the victim" or "the defendant committed arson"?

If they witnessed it, why not? "I saw the defendant murder the victim," is perfectly admissible testimony.

[diablopilot 2]

One of the reasons I do not like sleeping with someone, even a girlfriend, when they are under the influence.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[diverborg 0]

Wow, this happened in the town I live in. I was a resident advisor in the dorms for a little while at a nearby college. We had a feminist come speak and we all had to grudgingly listen. She made it clear to us that having sex with a girl that is intoxicated is no different than any other form of rape. This girl may have heard the same speech. What a crock of shit!! It was all I could do to not argue with her. Most decent guys are not gonna pick up some girl that is obviously smashed, but most of the time they're gonna be smashed too. But cmon people were talking prison time and being labeled as a sex offender for life. I'm sure if she refused, that would be her defense so she obviously didn't. If this guy is found guilty this will be a bad trend. Can you imagine how packed the jails would be every Sunday morning if every girl started crying rape because she had drunked regrettable sex?

[shermanator 4]

Quote

One of the reasons I do not like sleeping with someone, even a girlfriend, when they are under the influence.

I agree. I do the same thing, . but, we are guys, right, and there is a point, where we just want them to shut up so we can go to sleep!

CLICK HERE! new blog posted 9/21/08
CSA #720

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

There is nowhere near enough information in that article to have an opinion about the case.

Best response in the thread!

Regarding the judge banning the use of "rape" Sexual assault", etc., I can see some justification.

Would someone giving testimony be allowed to state, "the defendant murdered the victim" or "the defendant committed arson"?

If they witnessed it, why not? "I saw the defendant murder the victim," is perfectly admissible testimony.

Really? Is that, without a doubt, what they saw? Did they witness a murder? Then why have a trial?

Even you you believe eyewitness testimony to be honest and unbiased (questionable) and completely accurate (most unlikely), what they may have witnessed was someone firing a gun or stabbing someone. Looks like murder to you? Well allrighty then. Dismiss the jurors ...case closed.

It's not up to a witness to make the determination of guilt.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

At no point does it say that the man was drunk or so drunk that he lost control of his will, quite the contrary. The man says it was consensual. The woman claims she was too drunk to consent and had regrettable sex, she also by implication asserts that the man was in control of his faculties, certainly she assumes he consented at the very least. If you've admittedly gotten yourself so drunk to be in this mess then damned right you should control your drinking, in this case the woman should control her drinking, nobody has information on the man to say either way, deal with it.

We know she did not say NO, drunk or sober no means no, but since she's blaming the alcohol for her inability to consent the inference is that she did NOT say no. If she had said no she could just say "I said NO" rather than "I was drunk".

How much of this was stated in the article?

Also, it seems that your saying that if a woman gets friendly with a guy (let's say kissing)... and she gets hammered, she really has no reason to complain if the guy takes her clothes off and screws her. Is that about right?

See my first post in this thread instead of just attacking a strawman (not that it's much of a strawman).

Let me repeat this because it bears repeating and you seem to have completely missed it. She obviously did not say NO. If she had said NO we would not be hearing that she was too drunk to consent, we'd be hearing that she said NO. Anyone who says they were too drunk to consent is not making an argument that they registered an objection to intercourse, they are saying they lacked the capacity to object so by clear inference we can know that she did not say NO.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Can you imagine how packed the jails would be every Sunday morning if every girl started crying rape because she had drunked regrettable sex?

Well if the jail was packed with those girls it'd be a good thing.

It's a pitty about that speech, sometimes these idiotic memes take root, a young mind is a terrible thing to waste. Perhaps she shoud have given a talk on the dangers of alcohol abuse instead, it might have served the woman better in this case.

[likearock 2]

Quote

Really? Is that, without a doubt, what they saw? Did they witness a murder? Then why have a trial?

Umm, maybe because eyewitness testimony must be validated and can't just be accepted as fact?

But you're right though. A witness can say he saw someone shoot someone or push someone off a building. Whether or not that killing constitutes murder is a legal evaluation that is not directly observable.

However, it's a stretch to carry over those legal arguments too far. The woman in this case, as a witness, should be able to give testimony that the defendant had sex with her without her consent. Otherwise known as rape.

Of course, it's still up to the jury to validate that witness testimony.

[dorbie 0]

She wasn't barred from saying they had sex, she was barred from saying he raped her. I suspect this was because the judge thought the key decision for the jury in this case was to determine whether the circumstances amounted to rape, and that would have been prejudiced by all the witnesses in the trial using that term which in this case WOULD have been pejorative. If all the prosecution witnesses before the jury are saying "rape" and "sexual assault" in a case which centers around whether the circumstances even amounted to rape you might think you risk a miscarriage of justice.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

She obviously did not say NO. If she had said NO we would not be hearing that she was too drunk to consent, we'd be hearing that she said NO. Anyone who says they were too drunk to consent is not making an argument that they registered an objection to intercourse, they are saying they lacked the capacity to object so by clear inference we can know that she did not say NO.

"Too drunk to consent" could mean that she was passed out on the floor, or it could mean that she was too drunk to even speak or to put up resistance. So, assuming that she never said "No" (and that's a big assumption from the few details given), there is nothing that indicates that she in any way said "Yes" or gave consent otherwise.

"Too drunk to consent" could also mean that she did say "Yes" but now believes she was too inebriated to know what she was doing, in which case the man should not legally be at fault (assuming that she got herself drunk, rather than being drugged or something like that).

There are just way too many possibilities of what might have happened, and there aren't enough details in the news to make a judgment about it. But that's what the judge and jury are for, and I'm sure they'll get a lot more details than what we're getting. It sounds like it's a case of "he said/she said" unless there were other witnesses, and if she's claiming that she was too drunk to consent (and not claiming that someone else drugged her), then I doubt the judge and jury are going to believe that she was sober enough to remember exactly what happened. And I don't think that the man should be convicted unless it's pretty clear that he did indeed rape her - beyond a reasonable doubt, of course.

Oh, and as for banning certain words from the trial, that just doesn't seem like a good thing to start doing. (Or is that something that often happens??? I've never heard of such a thing.)

[Richards 0]

Quote

"Too drunk to consent" could also mean that she did say "Yes" but now believes she was too inebriated to know what she was doing, in which case the man should not legally be at fault (assuming that she got herself drunk, rather than being drugged or something like that).

There still needs to be some kind of a line drawn. Even if someone is capable of speaking, sometimes it is painfully obvious that the persons behaviour indicates that they are too drunk to make intelligent decisions.

Even if she is saying yes, if it is obvious that that is the alcohol speaking and she is not in any condition to be aware of the ramifications of her decisions, and likely would not be having sex with the guy otherwise, then he is still in the wrong if he has sex with her.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[Armour666 0]

how come that excuse is not aceptable for impared driving cases? regardless of level of intoxication you are held responsable for the actions of chosing to drive or not. But your not held acountable to make a decision for having sex?

If one person is sober and the other is not there is no excuse as the person who is sober has the ability to make rational choices. If both have been drinking then neither have the capasity to make a decision and should not be rape. If she is pased out it's rape as she can obviously can not consent. Thats my view on it

SO this one time at band camp.....

"Of all the things I've lost I miss my mind the most."

[Richards 0]

Quote

If one person is sober and the other is not there is no excuse as the person who is sober has the ability to make rational choices. If both have been drinking then neither have the capasity to make a decision and should not be rape. If she is pased out it's rape as she can obviously can not consent. Thats my view on it

[Lindsey 0]

If you're gonna get so drunk that things happen to ya' that you'd prefer didn't happen, then the problem lies in your drinking. Gotta take some responsibility for yourself.

Any man who is interested in having sex with a woman who is THAT intoxicated obviously has some serious issues of his own. He'd be a frightening man in my opinion.

BUT if ya' open yourself up to being taken advantage of by such a person, then it's one of life's lessons that, hopefully, you'll learn from.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[dorbie 0]

Let me repeat, read my first post in this thread.

Quote

"Too drunk to consent" could also mean that she did say "Yes" but now believes she was too inebriated to know what she was doing

She can believe she's the Queen of Sheba, that doesn't mean we have to bow in her presence.