Is drunk sex rape?

[apexalpha]

Both parties are intoxcicated (no consent), one of the persons or both could regret it after they ragain sense. Do you think this could be classified as rape or do you think otherwise?

The legal dictionary defenition of rape:
Rape is the commission of unlawful sexual intercourse or unlawful sexual intrusion.
Lack of consent is a necessary element in every rape. But this qualifier does not mean that a person may make sexual contact with a minor or incapacitated person who actually consented. Lack of consent may result from either forcible compulsion by the perpetrator or an incapacity to consent on the part of the victim. Persons who are physically or mentally helpless or who are under a certain age in relation to the perpetrator are deemed legally incapable of consenting to sex.

[CincinnatiRedsfan]

Here in the United States of America, by law, it's "rape" but I think most of us agree this is hogwash.

You pretty much touched on some of the points. Some people PREFER drunk sex, because it gets them in the mood and they enjoy it. So by this logic, people are ENJOYING rape? That literally makes no sense. The definition of rape is UNWANTED sex.

Even if one person was sober and the other is drunk, that still wouldn't be rape as long as both people agree with it. Some people argue being intoxicated "Makes you say "yes" when you mean "no", but there is no logic in that argument at all.

The funny thing is, it's not uncommon for people to have drunk sex on their wedding night. So I guess this means almost everyone married is a rapist lol. It's so stupid.

[apexalpha]

yes it isn't that black and white and laws don`t take account for all circumstances

[CincinnatiRedsfan]

@Asker Exactly! My cousin was sober and had sex with his girlfriend when she was drunk and she even admitted it's ridiculous to call this "rape."

[apexalpha]

the laws should make allowances for those cases

[CincinnatiRedsfan]

@Asker OR maybe the laws should focus on the SEVERITY of impairment. There is a clear difference between "tipsy" and "nearly passed out"(the latter should be raped.) The funny thing is, it's also considered "Rape" when a person has sex while high on marijuana (and most people tell me it's easy to function while high.)

[apexalpha]

I think a law that accounts for shared responsibility is best

[CincinnatiRedsfan]

@Asker I would agree with that but I also think it's funny how our laws can't distinguish the difference between slight intoxication and severe intoxication (almost passed out.)

[Anonymous]

There has to be a clear indication of consent either verbal or nonverbal. An altered mindset is an incapacity to consent. Regardless of if you were drunk or not you know that the person doesn't have the full capacity in a case where they are really drunk in your scenario. You don't get a free pass for driving drunk or decisions you make while drunk so that is the same if the suspect is drunk at the time. He will still be held responsible for his actions.

[FakeName123]

But who decides who is less drunk and therefor has the burden of responsibility for the both to decide one of them is too drunk in order to stop and prevent the situation?

[apexalpha]

thats why if it comes to court both should be considered rapists

[apexalpha]

but the alcohol intolerance of a guy is higher and it swings in favor of the girl

[Opinion Owner]

It's not a burden of proving who is less drunk. The male is typically the one doing the act so he has to make sure that consent is clearly implied or verbalized. It's not hard to get consent. I wish guys would stop acting like it is. The good rule for a guy to follow is if there is any doubt wait until she is sober. If she wanted to have sex you she'll have sex with you the next day or whenever plus it will earn you respect. To find out what really happened in a situation all it takes is an interview in a police station and most people spill their guts as to what actually happened.

[Opinion Owner]

@FakeName123

[FakeName123]

You haven't been around too much and never seen a woman being active, right? Else you would know your argumentation falls apart right that moment. Women can be quite as active as men are and quite a lot of women actually do prefer to be the active part in order to have a better position for stimulation. Therefor we are back at square one - how exactly does a guy has the responsibility for the situation when both are drunk? If I follow that train of logic, I would come to the conclusion that women are inferior and men need to be held at a higher moral standard, responsibility and accountability.

[apexalpha]

"The male is typically the one doing the act so he has to make sure that consent is clearly implied or verbalized" this is the main defense of feminists. But in my scenario both are equally plastered

[Opinion Owner]

I has nothing to do with being a feminist it's the law. She can be as plastered as she wants to be but the guy is the one that would perform the act without her consent. She lays there plastered no consent she violates no laws. He lays there plastered does nothing violates no laws. Either one of them doesn't get consent and does any type of sexual act on the other without clear consent that violates laws. Has nothing to do with the person being male or female. Right is right wrong is wrong. Get consent or face to the penalty for the crime

[Opinion Owner]

@FakeName123 You are basing it on a twisted interpretation of what you believe is consent. Drunk is someone being of an altered mental capacity. Look at what I wrote right above this. If he gets consent asking are you sure you want to do this or something similar nothing wrong, if she is too drunk that is something the guy needs to pay attention to otherwise it's a crime regardless of how drunk the guy is. When in doubt don't do it. I don't see how this is so hard to understand. Guys need to start using their brain instead of thinking with their other head.

[FakeName123]

The same should be if the guy is way more drunk than the girl. So we are once more back at square one. Who decides who is the less drunk participant and therefor the one responsible for the entire situation? You are simply following a fallacy, if you assume only the guy is the one less drunk and the one initiating.

[Opinion Owner]

@FakeName123 I've been very clear about this. If there is no victim there is no crime. If the girl does a sex act on the man without getting consent then it is rape that simple. Just as if the guy does it on the girl. It is all about the matter of consent being given. If consent is not obtained then it is a matter of if the person feels they are victim if so then the other person committed rape. I have seen a girls get charged for rape before. It happens but the vast majority of offenders are men and that will never change with attitudes I have seen a lot guys have on this site. I am not following a fallacy I am going based on the law and how a decent human being should operate. When in doubt wait. If you don't get a clear consent, ask otherwise you don't have consent and you just committed a crime.

[FakeName123]

So if both are equally drunk - it depends on a person afterwards saying he/she felt it was rape? Your conclusions become more ridiculous with every passing second. Couldn't a person just say no nonetheless, if he/she doesn't want the act of sex? (If both are awake and not passed out) Is a person responsible for actually saying no, because not saying no is a way of non-verbally consenting as well? If not - why is a drunk driver responsible for crashing infront of a law, but when it comes down to sex it is different?

[apexalpha]

Problem is its impulsive most people can not control them self when intoxicated it removes any inhibition plus to know who was most in control either witnesses or recording would have to exist or its a case where its all up in the air @FakeName123

[FakeName123]

So if it is all up in the air, doesn't that mean it is statement vs statement and the accounting of innocent until proven guilty would be relevant? Additionally it does not answer why you are responsible for driving drunk, but you aren't when having sex. Why is that the case, if alcohol removes "any inhibiton"?

[apexalpha]

@FakeName123 for both drunk driving and the sex you put yourself in that situation when you got intoxicated but it differs in that drunk driving you are solely responsible a car got one driver where as sex its two people involved

[FakeName123]

You aren't solely repsonsible for the car, but for all traffic participants - so no, it does not differ. A car with just in the two-digit amount of mph is already a dangerous object.

[Opinion Owner]

@FakeName123 The consent is a default no until it is clearly as yes. There is only a crime if there is a victim. So if neither party considers themselves a victim then no crime. If one person, without consent being given from either party (this doesn't happen in the real world), feels like they are a victim then it turns into a criminal act. I really wish you would get this both equally drunk that has absolutely nothing to do with this. If consent is not given regardless of how drunk they are then it's a crime period. There are ways to figure it out who started the act. Like I said the default is to no and you need consent to make it yes. You really need to look into the legal standpoints because your arguments are not valid legally. No not saying no is not way of nonverbally consenting to sex it is not saying anything and in that case it is a no. How hard is it to get that?

[FakeName123]

"If one person, without consent being given from either party (this doesn't happen in the real world" How disconnected are you from reality? Almost all sex happens without verbal consent. Almost no one asks like "hey, wanna have sex now?" - "Sure." Intimacy is an act and a development and the consent is very usually given non-verbally. Feel free to make a question on here and ask people, if they have most of their sex - that includes one-night-stands - with or without verbal consent. "I really wish you would get this both equally drunk that has absolutely nothing to do with this." It has lots to do with it, because you are either responsible for what you do when drunk or you aren't. Saying afterwards no, because you were drunk and thus having the excuse of being durnk - but the other party involved has no excuse for being drunk and is fully responsible is a ridiculous double-standard. If you fail to see that, then I am sorry - but then there is nothing I can do for you.

[FakeName123]

"There are ways to figure it out who started the act." Because you record your sex-act at all times? Lol. Most sex-acts happen without witnesses and thus it is statement vs statement. "You really need to look into the legal standpoints because your arguments are not valid legally." The law is not always right and has several contradictions. Furthermore this is not a discussion about the law, but about the ethical aspect of it. "No not saying no is not way of nonverbally consenting to sex it is not saying anything and in that case it is a no." So if you had heavy making out beforehand, going to his/her place into the bedroom, petting, touching, getting naked, clear signs of arousal, etc is not a clear sign of content when it slowly developts further to the point of penetration. Are you socially autistic or something? This is how the majority of sex-acts happen. No amount of ridiculous rationalisation will change that.

[Opinion Owner]

Yes of course what type of person am I to pretend that I know more about US laws than someone from another country. I work experience dealing with this. You are responsible for your actions drunk, period. But consent is very clear and if you can't see that then you have serious issues and need to take a class in non-verbal communication. You utter ignorance for basic communication is astounding. There is a way to ascertain who is at fault and if someone is lying. It's not that hard. @FakeName123

[apexalpha]

@FakeName123 I agree there is usually some making out, going off together etc done before penetration but in some cases when say the girl is not drunk she could refuse at any point but when intoxicated she couldn`t so should the willingness to engage in making out be considered a form of consent?

[FakeName123]

Once more - this is an ethical discussion. The law is an indication, but considering how many outdated and backwards laws there are, the law by no means is an absolute truth. Furthermore the consent can very well be given - verbally or non-verbally - while drunk and then revoked when sobering. I thought it was clear that I am working with the assumptation that the non-verbal consent was given and not forced without ever having said no by the other party. And if it is statement against statement the only way to ascertain would be, if one of the parties would contradict itself. Else it should always be innocent until proven guilty - ethically as well as juridically.

[FakeName123]

"but in some cases when say the girl is not drunk she could refuse at any point but when intoxicated she couldn`t" And the other party is equally drunk - so why would one of them be responsible, if both are drunk and therefor should belack responsibility for what happens? Either you are responsible what you do while being drunk or you aren't - and not shape it like "You are responsible in this circumstance, but not in that circumstance."

[Opinion Owner]

@FakeName123 you have honestly no idea what you are talking about. Law enforcement has ways to get to the truth even if you cannot recognize that. Also laws are mostly stemmed from ethics so there goes that argument you have. Consent is not hard to get. I'd suggest you study up on human behavior and interactions because you are clearly spending too much time behind a computer.

[FakeName123]

Sure, I forgot that law enforcement is god. Omnipotent and omniscience. Oh wait, when you do things in private normally no one will know about it aside from whoever was involved in that private aspect. Additionally if you are so knowledgable about law, you would very well know that eye-witnesses are a very shaky evidence. You surely have heard of cognitive psychology. Also law is not an absolute truth and you agreed with it by saying "mostly stemmed from ethics" - which I personally only partly agree, because political agendas - of the individual or the party - also have a strong influence on law-making. Furthermore ethic is not a concluding argument, but an ongoing and developing process - thus if law was 100% based on the stronger ethical argument of when the law was passed - it still should stand questionable. And even if it was a an concluding argument, the process of falsifiability (read Karl Popper) should still be applied nonetheless for proper scientificity.

[Opinion Owner]

@FakeName123 I can't argue with your highly illogical point of view and ignorance on this subject. I'd suggest you get into the real world and see how it actually operates instead of this fantasy-land that you have created for yourself.

[FakeName123]

I am glad you are so intellectually honest that you are capable of explaining how exactly law enforcement is capable to determine - outside of the involved parties contradicting themselves - what actually happened. It was very insightful to me and I learned a lot. Thanks a lot. Sure, I can also claim I am a professional psychologist and make statements based on that without backing them up in any way. Furthermore I am very glad you agreed to take the chance and make my suggested poll on here about how consent usually is given which is a good way to find out how reality works for most people. But especially glad I am about you understanding what an ethical argument is. /sarcasmendshere Self-Responsibility > Victimhood

[Opinion Owner]

Thank you for MHO!! :D

[apexalpha]

Welcome

[PunkLadyOfDeath]

As a person who has had drunk sex, you know what you're doing. No matter how drunk I've gotten, I'm aware of my thoughts and actions. They're sloppy but intentional. I may not be able to walk but I remember everything said to me and everything I'm saying.
If you however are a drunk who loses the ability to control themselves, which I personally can't imagine nor do I believe is possible, but I can see how perhaps that's forced sex. It's hard to say because everyone reacts to liquor differently. It's situational.

Unfortunately for those who remain in control etc, I think for legal purposes it's easier to assume everyone drunk is lacking control.

So hard to choose a side. Especially because I'm so biased lol.

[dragonfly6516]

So you don't believe in alcoholism? I'm not talking about drunk who choose to stay that way to avoid social problems, I'm talking about people with a legitimate medical condition. It's much the same as a heroin addiction, Their bodies will literally die without it, but fortunately, for those addicted to alcohol their bodies can be safely weaned off of it. My point is, it affects them differently. sort of like an allergy. These people are more likely to black out while drinking. Alcohol shuts off parts of your brain, more specifically the reasoning skills, and your judgement of right and wrong is reason based. So you can't reason effectively, AND you can't REMEMBER if you gave consent, because you can't even remember what happened, but you just woke up next to a creepy guy who's been begging for sex for months. What would YOU think happened? This wouldn't happen to you, right? That's fine, because you're you, and you're not my sister who didn't even know she was ALLERGIC to alcohol.

[dragonfly6516]

It's called In-TOXIC-ation for a reason. It's a mild poison, and it effects everyone differently.

[CincinnatiRedsfan]

@dragonfly6516 With your logic, my uncle must have been raped by several women. He's an alcoholic (dabbled with drugs too) and has had sex with so many women drunk (he admitted it to me.) Now, I guess he's a rape victim.

[PunkLadyOfDeath]

I'm not denying that everyone reacts to it differently. But with my reaction to it, I cannot imagine how anyone can lose control of their thoughts and the things they say. Logically I understand. But I feel like they choose to lose control and they're too irresponsible to be drinkin because they can't control it. Legally it's rape. This GAG question doesn't change the law, nor does my opinion. But I don't actually believe anyone can completely lose control like that. I feel those are their choices. That's my opinion.

[dragonfly6516]

C
Random hookups with strangers or one-night-stands shouldn't happen while either party is drunk. If you don't know them well, you don't know what they are capable of; it's easy to feel coerced or threatened into a sexual act while intoxicated, and thus impaired which a stranger.

But it's your SO that you've been sexually active with for a long time on the regular, that's a different story.

[apexalpha]

yes I agree

[CincinnatiRedsfan]

@dragonfly6516 The fact someone has sex with a stranger has nothing to do with rape or not. A stranger may never rape you, while someone you dated may very well rape you. Drunk sex isn't rape, as long as both people agree.

[dragonfly6516]

I didn't say that. It's more likely that "drunk rape" will occur with a stranger than with someone you're having regular sex with with. But it is more common to be raped by someone you know. I would know this personally. Whether or not drunk sex is rape doesn't change the fact that a woman is more likely to feel like she can't say no, and a drunk man is more likely to feel like he has the green light. Not all rapists are man, not all women are clear in what's ok and what is not. It's just more common/likely for a man to take advantage of a drunk sex partner, because a woman cannot control if he will get hard while drunk. If this is your regular partner, it's more likely they will know you and understand your body language etc.

[SomeGuy37]

Drunk, or not, 'NO' is 'NO'. Passed out is assumed to be 'NO'. If you are just drunk, feeling silly, and make a bad choice, you can't call it rape, later, when sober and regretting it!! It's OK to get a little drunk, let your inhibitions go, and do something, with someone, and regret it, the next day, but that's a bad CHOICE!! Not rape! There are so many stories out there, and warnings, and ladies, you need to be careful because there are 'predators' out there!! Don't just trust every cute guy!!

[Princesskristaa]

Unless you said "no don't have sex with me" and he did it anyway, he didn't rape you. plain and simple. There's no "consent" you don't have to sign a contract allowing his penis to penetrate your vagina. Unless he forced you, it's not rape regardless of the circumstance

[CincinnatiRedsfan]

THANK YOU! Once again, a teenager here on GAG makes some of the adults looks bad. The funny thing is, if I were to arson a house while drunk, I would still get charged with arson. I can't use the "BUT I WAS DRUNK" excuse.

[Melodic_Heart]

Well, if both of them are drunk in my opinion it isn't... it's complicated, because neither of them gave their consent, but they still did it for some reason. However even if they were both drunk but one of them said no and the other because was drunk didn't care, then I would say it was rape but I wouldn't qualified it as intentional...

[Princesskristaa]

Spreading your legs open is consent for the man to put his dick in. Putting your penis in is consent for it to be received by a vagina. I don't know when people started thinking that sex has to be preceded by some kind of imaginary official contract. If neither of them said "no! Don't fuck me!" Then it's not rape

[Melodic_Heart]

I think I didn't explain well... what I said was exactly that... if both of them were drunk, none of them could give their consent, it CAN'T be classified as rape, even if they regret it tomorrow they still need to manage the consequences of getting drunk and have sex... However if in the same circumstances one of them said no, if one of them said out loud no (the person could still be drunk but still have some conscious of the consequences and decided not to do it) and the other because was drunk "forced" the other, then yes I think it's rape, because someone said no, but I wouldn't compare to those rapes when one of them has totally conscious that the other say no and did it anyway... like I said it was that person fault and has to take responsability, but it wasn't intentional

[Melodic_Heart]

*sorry my bad I was misunderstanding the word consent... yes, I totally agree with you, they had sex, they gave consent right when they made the decision (even if drunk) to have sex, and they have to manage the consequences even if they regret it after

[AustinMan]

If there is no evidence that she did not consent, then it's not rape. I'm very torn about this. I feel like sometimes some women accuse what I call guilt rape. They regret is so they blame their guilt on him. But I want to defend the true victims.

[apexalpha]

yeah in cases when the girl has a boyfriend and he thinks she cheated if she doesn't cry rape

[AustinMan]

Exactly. He may have a point technically but that's no reason to ruin a man's life.

[dartmaul15]

no. I mean, if they're both drunk and unable to concent (due to drunkedness) but still wanted it, WHO are you going to charge?
Exploiting a dead drunk person however... waaaay different story?

[Goldie757]

No it is not rape because they both have the incapacity to consent.

[apexalpha]

well could they both be rapist?

[Goldie757]

@asker nope.

[CincinnatiRedsfan]

@Goldie757 Actually, drunk people can consent just fine really... quit using that lousy excuse.

[kisasame]

If its a random person like a hook up it could be consider rape, but if your girlfriend then its ok. If you are both super drunk then its not. Or at least I think so.

[kisasame]

If the word no do have sex with me or some words like that, and then he does it anyways he has raped her for sure. If the person said yes then its not. But if they are super super drunk probably better to do nothing to them cause they might not remember and if they become pregnant you'll be blamed then call rape on you. In my opinion its better not to have sex with a drunk person (maybe buzzed), because then they may not know if they give constant and rape might have occurred in her mind.

[Mustachekitteh]

If both are then it's not. Just a mistake they will regret later. lol

[CityBoy773]

If both of them are drunk, then its complicated. But if ONE person is drunk, to a point where they don't know what's going on, then its rape. For EXAMPLES sake, I will use a drunk female and a sober male.

Lets say she is in fact drunk. When you're drunk, everything seems like a good idea and you only think about it when your seconds from it happening, if at all. For something like sex, she might be giving all the signals that she wants it. But think about if she were sober. Would she be like this? If the answer is no, then don't do shit. Take her ass home before someone takes advantage, because then its rape. If she's drunk, acting like she wants it, but then starts to act/say otherwise, even if its a subtle ass hint, and you STILL do it, then its rape.

[CincinnatiRedsfan]

So what if I get drunk and burn a house down. I shouldn't be charged with Arson, right? After all, I 'didn't know what I Was doing"? No, this is crap. The truth is, people know what they are doing when they are drunk.

[CityBoy773]

No, bitch. I'm relating this to rape idiot. If you burn a house down, you got some demons in you. And not for everyone, cause I'm one of those people who get so drunk I don't know what the FUCK I am doing.

[Dirtynoiseplay234]

It is because you are really not in the right frame of mind so you can't really make the right decision at that time. I also know a lot of people who mostly get pregnant from drunk sex

[thatkaruguy]

No but according to feminists of both parties are drunk it doesn't matter as long as the woman regrets it

[apexalpha]

its one sided with feminists

[Klaatu51]

if they r BOTH intoxicated then nope

[ArabianPwincess197]

I don't think it is

[Chrissy1986]

I wouldn't call it rape but others might. Since both parties are intoxicated I would asume that if one of them said no it would stop. However no verbal consent given could be seen as rape but if no one says no I classify that as giving consent

[Octavius]

It legally is in the U. S. no matter how little drunk you are. If they're alcohol level is over.08 they legally cannot give consent and they have sex they can have the other person charged with rape.(The campus security at my college said if a girl even has a single drink then it'd be rape. I'm not sure if he was exaggerating or he was dead serious but I have no intention to find out).
If you're having sex with someone you aren't in a long term committed relationship where you don't completely trust each other then don't have sex with the person. There'd be a difference between me having sex with my girlfriend of 5 months when I'm completely plastered and me having sex with a chick I met that night at a bar when I'm smashed.

[FakeName123]

Only under certain circumstances when the drunk person pased out. Else, no. You are still responsible for what you do drunk (like when you drive over someone while being drunk you are still held accountable).

Being drunk is just a cheap excuse for having done wrong decisions.

[Koldhearted]

it is in the eyes of the law if you are a man

[I_am_repulsive]

If you both consent to it then it's not

[chuppachup]

I don't think drunk sex is rape. As long as both people are giving off signals that show consent (verbal or body language) then I don't see it as rape. Unless one of the people spiked the other with drugs or something.

[GoodDogNigel]

If one person intentionally intoxicated the other then I'd see the argument, but otherwise if you got drunk with your own free will and had sex, that's not really the other person's fault.

[DrakeSenpai]

Nah it isn't

[Maverickj]

It depends. Usually not.

What's worse is that when both the man and the woman are drunk, the man is automatically viewed as a rapist. It's sexist on so many levels. Not only does it imply that only men can be rapists, it also implies that women are children who aren't responsible for their own decisions.

[apexalpha]

there been loads of cases were men got raped when passed out by women

[Maverickj]

@apexalpha too bad these cases never get any attention. Hell, even Amy Schumer admitted to raping a guy, but the worst part is that she doesn't even realize it.

[apexalpha]

thats why men need a movement for equal rights like the feminists

[Maverickj]

@apexalpha there is, it's called egalitarianism. A movement like feminism but for men also exists, it's called the MRM (Men's Rights Movement). People who are part of it are called MRA's (Men's Rights Activists).

[apexalpha]

I only heard of dads rights group but these groups are not loud thats why I never heard of them