The Student Room Group

The "sex with a drunk girl is rape" idea is the most patronising, infantilising BS...

So when I'm having a bottle of wine and some Stilton and crackers with my girlfriend, and we start getting busy, is that rape?

Sorry but if you belief this stuff, you have clearly never been laid or been in a relationship in your life. Ever been to a party? People get drunk and shag at those. Hope it doesn't shock your ridiculously conservative (yes, conservative. You people are the most conservative people around these days) morals too much.

Additionally, it's incredibly patronising and infantilising to women. Because clearly those who believe this are not bothered by the idea of a woman having sex with a drunk man. Only vice versa, which basically means they think that women can't take responsibility for themselves nor make decisions whilst drunk.

Clearly having sex with a girl who is semi-concious is wrong but this kind of hysterical absolutism is really awful.

Scroll to see replies

It's not about them being drunk or a bit tipsy at a house party. It's about the girl being incapable of consent if she is for example, so drunk she can't stand. No lawyer in their right mind would take a case where the girl has had sex consentually at a house party then cried rape because she regrets it when she is sober. That kind of thing you just have to live with I'm afraid.

It's nothing to do with being conservative. It's to protect women who are too drunk to consent or to fend off an attacker. If you're so drunk you can't stand, you are not capable of consensual sex. This area only becomes tricky because people don't seem to grasp that being a bit tipsy and doing something stupid because it was a good idea at the time isn't rape. Someone taking advantage of a drunk person who isn't in control of themselves however, IS rape.

Yes I agree there is a double standard around consent and responsibility when it comes to men and women. I personally think that if both parties were drunk at the time and can prove it, neither is more to blame than the other because neither could truly consent.

You seem to be a bit confused as to how drunk you have to be for this kind of law to take effect. For the "I was drunk" line of argument to work, she has to have been too drunk to consent. Being in that state is a perfectly reasonable explaination as to why it was rape and people in that position should be protected by law.

When applied in the intended situations, laws on drunkeness and consent aren't "hysterical absolutionism" at all. They are protecting vulnerable people from a really disgusting crime.
Reply 2
No one is saying having sex with a drunk woman, with capacity to consent, is rape. So not really sure what this rant is about.
Original post by KingBradly
So when I'm having a bottle of wine and some Stilton and crackers with my girlfriend, and we start getting busy, is that rape?


No! That's never when drunk rape is considered. It's when she's so pissed she can't even speak properly. You think she's in her head enough to consent or deny? And ok let's say she does consent you think you know what she's doing? Having a couple drinks and a snack with your partner and it ending with sex obviously isn't even rape, much less drunk rape. Drunk rape is a thing, it's taking advantage of an albeit stupidly drunk woman.
Original post by KingBradly
So when I'm having a bottle of wine and some Stilton and crackers with my girlfriend, and we start getting busy, is that rape?

Sorry but if you belief this stuff, you have clearly never been laid or been in a relationship in your life. Ever been to a party? People get drunk and shag at those. Hope it doesn't shock your ridiculously conservative (yes, conservative. You people are the most conservative people around these days) morals too much.

Additionally, it's incredibly patronising and infantilising to women. Because clearly those who believe this are not bothered by the idea of a woman having sex with a drunk man. Only vice versa, which basically means they think that women can't take responsibility for themselves nor make decisions whilst drunk.

Clearly having sex with a girl who is semi-concious is wrong but this kind of hysterical absolutism is really awful.


I :biggrin:m with you King!!!
Reply 5
Original post by Gold-Confetti
It's not about them being drunk or a bit tipsy at a house party. It's about the girl being incapable of consent if she is for example, so drunk she can't stand. No lawyer in their right mind would take a case where the girl has had sex consentually at a house party then cried rape because she regrets it when she is sober. That kind of thing you just have to live with I'm afraid.

It's nothing to do with being conservative. It's to protect women who are too drunk to consent or to fend off an attacker. If you're so drunk you can't stand, you are not capable of consensual sex. This area only becomes tricky because people don't seem to grasp that being a bit tipsy and doing something stupid because it was a good idea at the time isn't rape. Someone taking advantage of a drunk person who isn't in control of themselves however, IS rape.

Yes I agree there is a double standard around consent and responsibility when it comes to men and women. I personally think that if both parties were drunk at the time and can prove it, neither is more to blame than the other because neither could truly consent.

You seem to be a bit confused as to how drunk you have to be for this kind of law to take effect. For the "I was drunk" line of argument to work, she has to have been too drunk to consent. Being in that state is a perfectly reasonable explaination as to why it was rape and people in that position should be protected by law.

When applied in the intended situations, laws on drunkeness and consent aren't "hysterical absolutionism" at all. They are protecting vulnerable people from a really disgusting crime.


Original post by Zarek
No one is saying having sex with a drunk woman, with capacity to consent, is rape. So not really sure what this rant is about.


We're clearly in agreement that there is such a thing as being "too drunk to consent", obviously that's true. But I know people who have literally said sex with a girl who is drunk is rape. Not sex with a girl who is drunk to the point of being semi-conscious and incapable of making decisions. Just drunk. Look at this post here: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4139355

No where does it say "sex with a girl too drunk to consent is rape", it just says "drunk".
Reply 6
Original post by 0to100
No! That's never when drunk rape is considered. It's when she's so pissed she can't even speak properly. You think she's in her head enough to consent or deny? And ok let's say she does consent you think you know what she's doing? Having a couple drinks and a snack with your partner and it ending with sex obviously isn't even rape, much less drunk rape. Drunk rape is a thing, it's taking advantage of an albeit stupidly drunk woman.


Of course drunk rape is a thing. But my point is that sex with a girl who is simply "drunk" is not rape. She would have to be in a state where she is unable to make decisions. Some people seem to believe that sex with a girl who is drunk is automatically rape.
Original post by KingBradly
Of course drunk rape is a thing. But my point is that sex with a girl who is simply "drunk" is not rape. She would have to be in a state where she is unable to make decisions. Some people seem to believe that sex with a girl who is drunk is automatically rape.


Original post by KingBradly
We're clearly in agreement that there is such a thing as being "too drunk to consent", obviously that's true. But I know people who have literally said sex with a girl who is drunk is rape. Not sex with a girl who is drunk to the point of being semi-conscious and incapable of making decisions. Just drunk. Look at this post here: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4139355

No where does it say "sex with a girl too drunk to consent is rape", it just says "drunk".


You can't argue semantics bruv. Date rape normally is when the victim is presumed beyond able of self defense. Particularly two strangers or unwed people. Even though I think a rare number of wives in the west have reported their own husband for "raping" her.

Your example was about you being with your date, your partner, wife whoever, someone who you're sexually active with anyway. And you two have alcohol on a date. And then have sex later. That's not rape is it? Unless of course, you do rape her. As in trying to make her when she says no, passed out, nearly passed out, drunk or sober, and if she's disturbed enough she has every right to report you for it. But some reason attacked girls keep it quiet, especially if they are with the guy. Whether she's been drinking wine with a date, chugging beers and shots at the pub, or walking home sober after school/work, ****ing someone who doesn't consent is rape. It's not like being intoxicated gets you more privileges after being attacked, in fact it might make it worse for the victim. So I'm not sure really what you're getting at.

As for that person who said sex with a drunk is rape end of, how about we just wait for them to talk then yea? :colonhash:
Original post by KingBradly
So when I'm having a bottle of wine and some Stilton and crackers with my girlfriend, and we start getting busy, is that rape?

Sorry but if you belief this stuff, you have clearly never been laid or been in a relationship in your life. Ever been to a party? People get drunk and shag at those. Hope it doesn't shock your ridiculously conservative (yes, conservative. You people are the most conservative people around these days) morals too much.

Additionally, it's incredibly patronising and infantilising to women. Because clearly those who believe this are not bothered by the idea of a woman having sex with a drunk man. Only vice versa, which basically means they think that women can't take responsibility for themselves nor make decisions whilst drunk.

Clearly having sex with a girl who is semi-concious is wrong but this kind of hysterical absolutism is really awful.


Did you read this?

Sam Obeghe, 24, was having intercourse with the 21-year-old shop assistant at his own apartment at the end of a drunken night out - only to stop when she unexpectedly cried the name of his friend Zack Garrigan. As he did so, the woman - who had earlier been drunkenly romping with 22-year-old Mr Garrigan in the flat - ran her fingers through Mr Obeghe hair and realised she was with the wrong man.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/12/university-student-cleared-of-raping-woman-who-thought-she-was-s/

Original post by Gold-Confetti
It's not about them being drunk or a bit tipsy at a house party. It's about the girl being incapable of consent if she is for example, so drunk she can't stand. No lawyer in their right mind would take a case where the girl has had sex consentually at a house party then cried rape because she regrets it when she is sober. That kind of thing you just have to live with I'm afraid.

It's nothing to do with being conservative. It's to protect women who are too drunk to consent or to fend off an attacker. If you're so drunk you can't stand, you are not capable of consensual sex. This area only becomes tricky because people don't seem to grasp that being a bit tipsy and doing something stupid because it was a good idea at the time isn't rape. Someone taking advantage of a drunk person who isn't in control of themselves however, IS rape.

Yes I agree there is a double standard around consent and responsibility when it comes to men and women. I personally think that if both parties were drunk at the time and can prove it, neither is more to blame than the other because neither could truly consent.

You seem to be a bit confused as to how drunk you have to be for this kind of law to take effect. For the "I was drunk" line of argument to work, she has to have been too drunk to consent. Being in that state is a perfectly reasonable explaination as to why it was rape and people in that position should be protected by law.

When applied in the intended situations, laws on drunkeness and consent aren't "hysterical absolutionism" at all. They are protecting vulnerable people from a really disgusting crime.


You can't conflate someone being raped whilst drunk, and someone consenting whilst drunk. The first is undoubtedly heinous; the second I would contest.

The gist of your argument is that if you're sufficiently drunk, you aren't responsible for your actions. That once you are sufficiently drunk, you can no longer be held accountable for what you do. The problem with this argument, is what happens if someone gets totally rat-arsed and then vandalises someone's car? Should they be tried for vandalism? Or how about if they start a fight and beat the crap out of someone, or commit some other offence? Saying that once you are sufficiently inebriated, you cannot be held accountable for what you do whilst under the influence is a very dangerous precedent.
Reply 10
[QUOTE=KingBradly;65652001]We're clearly in agreement that there is such a thing as being "too drunk to consent", obviously that's true. But I know people who have literally said sex with a girl who is drunk is rape. Not sex with a girl who is drunk to the point of being semi-conscious and incapable of making decisions. Just drunk. Look at this post here: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4139355

No where does it say "sex with a girl too drunk to consent is rape", it just says "drunk".The post you cite largely supports drunken consent. The OP is criticising contempt for and perhaps a predatory attitude to women who are drunk.

I guess grey areas probably do arise with drunken sex, with both parties judgement badly affected. And that is why courts sometimes get to judge on very messy and confusing situations. A principle of avoiding out of control drunkenness and of leaving no doubt about consent makes a lot of sense.
Original post by 0to100
No! That's never when drunk rape is considered. It's when she's so pissed she can't even speak properly. You think she's in her head enough to consent or deny? And ok let's say she does consent you think you know what she's doing? Having a couple drinks and a snack with your partner and it ending with sex obviously isn't even rape, much less drunk rape. Drunk rape is a thing, it's taking advantage of an albeit stupidly drunk woman.


But if she has got that drunk entirely of her own volition, how is that rape? If someone gets incredibly drunk by choice and has sex with someone by choice - albeit whilst under the influence of the alcohol - how exactly is that rape?

The only way you can argue that it should be considered rape is if you're saying that once sufficiently drunk, you cannot be held accountable for your actions and choices - so even though they consented, they can't be held to that consent as they weren't in a fit state to give consent. So what if someone gets just as drunk and then commits any crime? Are the culpable?
Original post by Audrey18
Did you read this?

Sam Obeghe, 24, was having intercourse with the 21-year-old shop assistant at his own apartment at the end of a drunken night out - only to stop when she unexpectedly cried the name of his friend Zack Garrigan. As he did so, the woman - who had earlier been drunkenly romping with 22-year-old Mr Garrigan in the flat - ran her fingers through Mr Obeghe hair and realised she was with the wrong man.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/12/university-student-cleared-of-raping-woman-who-thought-she-was-s/



From this bit here I read. That's rape! What an opportunist! Let's hope he stopped but she still probably reported him.
Original post by Luke Kostanjsek
But if she has got that drunk entirely of her own volition, how is that rape?


People go to sleep - during which they cannot consent to sex either - of their own volition as well, but I'd say it's fairly uncontroversial that having sex with someone while they're sleeping is rape, no?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Luke Kostanjsek
But if she has got that drunk entirely of her own volition, how is that rape? If someone gets incredibly drunk by choice and has sex with someone by choice - albeit whilst under the influence of the alcohol - how exactly is that rape?

The only way you can argue that it should be considered rape is if you're saying that once sufficiently drunk, you cannot be held accountable for your actions and choices - so even though they consented, they can't be held to that consent as they weren't in a fit state to give consent. So what if someone gets just as drunk and then commits any crime? Are the culpable?


I just said in my 1st post here that she is albeit stupid. There was another thread where I said this

Original post by 0to100
I don't think it's right nor enjoyable to **** someone too drunk to understand anything, much less that her pants are being taken off
But if she's drinking, that's on her, I'm all about personal responsibility. You can't just go round knocking em back and expecting to be safe and sound. You SHOULD be no matter WHAT but the REALITY is that you're NOT. Even sober it's dangerous.



LOL plot twisttt



in this thread
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4139355

That being said while she should be taking responsibility that doees NOT justify taking advantage of someone who can't even see straight. How is that even enjoyable. You're just lusting for a hole. Now if you had some drinks and you two are already sexually active, or already agreed to have sex, before drinking, strictly under those conditions it's ok.
Original post by Zarek
No one is saying having sex with a drunk woman, with capacity to consent, is rape. So not really sure what this rant is about.


Is called trolling
Original post by KingBradly
We're clearly in agreement that there is such a thing as being "too drunk to consent", obviously that's true. But I know people who have literally said sex with a girl who is drunk is rape. Not sex with a girl who is drunk to the point of being semi-conscious and incapable of making decisions. Just drunk. Look at this post here: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4139355

No where does it say "sex with a girl too drunk to consent is rape", it just says "drunk".


And those people are either not being specific enough about what they class as "drunk", or idiots who don't understand what rape, consent or drunk means! Someone saying it doesn't make it true. Nor is that way of thinking in line with the general population or the law.
Your OP sounds more so like an attack on the justice system than it does on people who are misinformed about what intoxicated rape consists of.
Original post by anarchism101
People go to sleep - during which they cannot consent to sex either - of their own volition as well, but I'd say it's fairly uncontroversial that having sex with someone while they're sleeping is rape, no?

Posted from TSR Mobile


That's a daft comparison. Whilst you're asleep you aren't conscious, you have no idea what's going on and obviously can't consent. Whilst drunk, you most certainly are conscious and are aware of what is happening around you. If someone goes to sleep, they aren't conscious so quite clearly cannot then say 'I want sex with you'. Whilst drunk, someone most certainly can say 'I want sex with you' given as that's what this law is about.

Interestingly, by conflating being drunk with being unconscious or asleep, you are again suggesting that whilst drunk you have no awareness or control over your actions whatsoever. So I ask again; if someone gets incredibly drunk and then commits a crime, are they culpable? Because by your own argument, by being that drunk they are unable to control their actions in any meaningful way, and so should get a free pass.
Original post by 0to100
I just said in my 1st post here that she is albeit stupid. There was another thread where I said this

in this thread
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4139355

That being said while she should be taking responsibility that doees NOT justify taking advantage of someone who can't even see straight. How is that even enjoyable. You're just lusting for a hole. Now if you had some drinks and you two are already sexually active, or already agreed to have sex, before drinking, strictly under those conditions it's ok.


But you didn't answer my question. If someone gets totally inebriated and commits a crime, are they or are they not culpable? Because either someone who is drunk is legally responsible for their actions, or they are not. If you believe they are legally responsible for their actions, then you can't say that their consent doesn't count. If you believe they aren't legally responsible for their actions, then if I get suitably ratarsed I can start robbing houses and starting fights and claim that it was all under the influence so it wasn't really me committing the crime.

Now, I subscribe to the notion that if I choose to get intoxicated, I am responsible for what I did whilst intoxicated. If I were to go out and start a fight, that is my fault and I should face an assault charge. If I were to wake up next to someone who I don't remotely recognise and I would have never slept with were it not for the alcohol, that is my fault and I face the ramifications of what I chose to do whilst drunk.
Original post by Luke Kostanjsek
But you didn't answer my question. If someone gets totally inebriated and commits a crime, are they or are they not culpable? Because either someone who is drunk is legally responsible for their actions, or they are not. If you believe they are legally responsible for their actions, then you can't say that their consent doesn't count. If you believe they aren't legally responsible for their actions, then if I get suitably ratarsed I can start robbing houses and starting fights and claim that it was all under the influence so it wasn't really me committing the crime.

Now, I subscribe to the notion that if I choose to get intoxicated, I am responsible for what I did whilst intoxicated. If I were to go out and start a fight, that is my fault and I should face an assault charge. If I were to wake up next to someone who I don't remotely recognise and I would have never slept with were it not for the alcohol, that is my fault and I face the ramifications of what I chose to do whilst drunk.


...I never said their consent doesn't count...I have been saying this whole time it does count...that even if she's drunk which is her fault if she is not able to defend herself or give consent, why do it.

Quick Reply