Why is sleeping with a drunk girl rape?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by willbee
because she hasn't said yes?
Original post by bad8oy
surely if she was that drunk then she wont remember anything??????
SO?!
How the hell does that make it any less rape?! By your standards therefore, drugging someone with a date-rape drug is acceptable because 'surely she won't remember anything?'.
Scary.
Original post by bad8oy
surely if she was that drunk then she wont remember anything??????
Not necessarily, this is why Rohypnol is so popular...
Original post by Jack93o
No, but you may call me Captain Obvious
If you're super drunk and if she's super drunk, what is that then? Mutual rape?
Original post by Friar Chris
Sleeping with a 'drunk' person is not automatically rape. Someone who is inebriated may still be competent to decide upon and indicate their consent.
Sleeping with a drunk person who is so drunk that they are incapable of even indicating (let alone make a decision) their consent or refusal has to be automatically treated as rape if they are aggrieved because they never had the opportunity to decide either way - consent is always given, it is not assumed until revoked.
The drunkenness itself is really not the key factor; it's your understanding of consent and rape. I shall re-iterate: consent is not present in the absence of verbal or physical objection; it is not the default state - it is not something that is there until directly revoked..
It has to be given in all scenarios, and thus if someone is drunk to the extent that they are incapable of giving consent, then intercourse with them is rape.
Sleeping with a drunk person who is so drunk that they are incapable of even indicating (let alone make a decision) their consent or refusal has to be automatically treated as rape if they are aggrieved because they never had the opportunity to decide either way - consent is always given, it is not assumed until revoked.
The drunkenness itself is really not the key factor; it's your understanding of consent and rape. I shall re-iterate: consent is not present in the absence of verbal or physical objection; it is not the default state - it is not something that is there until directly revoked..
It has to be given in all scenarios, and thus if someone is drunk to the extent that they are incapable of giving consent, then intercourse with them is rape.
But how does one give consent?
Saying "Yes" only results after a question has been asked, but people don't usually say "Let's have sex" and then wait for an answer. Not to mention, saying something less direct could be misleading. The boundaries are so unclear.
(edited 11 years ago)
When I go Magaluf/Napa/etc, I'm just gonna let the girls rape me...
I think that there has to be a difference between slightly drunk and completely smashed. The hard bit for the law is to decide if the person in question was capable of giving consent and that is a grey area.
If someone is so drunk that they can't even stand up, then chances are they won't be able to give consent because they don't know what's going on.
If someone is so drunk that they can't even stand up, then chances are they won't be able to give consent because they don't know what's going on.
Original post by swiftylol
But how does one give consent?
Saying "Yes" only results after a question has been asked, but people don't usually say "Let's have sex" and then wait for an answer. Not to mention, saying something less direct could be misleading. The boundaries are so unclear.
Saying "Yes" only results after a question has been asked, but people don't usually say "Let's have sex" and then wait for an answer. Not to mention, saying something less direct could be misleading. The boundaries are so unclear.
Not my fault, lol... Obviously practically one doesn't ask a very stuffy question the majority of times one has sex, but in the event of the question posed by this thread it's pretty irrelevant - if someone is so drunk they couldn't make a decision and indicate consent or otherwise indicate/demonstrate the lack of it, then any action with them is rape anyway.
having sex with someone when they're drunk should be illegal and wrong... but i think it should be illegal on both sides - the drunk person (unless spiked etc) should be equally responsible for the situation. unless someone forced the drink down their throat, they are equally responsible for putting themselves in that position.
and i think it shouldn't be about giving consent, it should be about saying 'no'. i don't say 'yes, i consent to you having sex with me' every time i have sex - but if i don't want to, i say 'no'.
and i think it shouldn't be about giving consent, it should be about saying 'no'. i don't say 'yes, i consent to you having sex with me' every time i have sex - but if i don't want to, i say 'no'.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by TheCurlyHairedDude
Lol this. Was at a part a month ago, with this hot girl, about 5am everyone absolutely ****ed going to bed, and not sure but we ended up naked and she wanted to have sex, so I said yeah, she said get a condom lol but I couldn't get hard it felt like I was raping her man, was too easy......
cool story bro.
Original post by Friar Chris
Sleeping with a 'drunk' person is not automatically rape. Someone who is inebriated may still be competent to decide upon and indicate their consent.
Sleeping with a drunk person who is so drunk that they are incapable of even indicating (let alone make a decision) their consent or refusal has to be automatically treated as rape if they are aggrieved because they never had the opportunity to decide either way - consent is always given, it is not assumed until revoked.
The drunkenness itself is really not the key factor; it's your understanding of consent and rape. I shall re-iterate: consent is not present in the absence of verbal or physical objection; it is not the default state - it is not something that is there until directly revoked..
It has to be given in all scenarios, and thus if someone is drunk to the extent that they are incapable of giving consent, then intercourse with them is rape.
Sleeping with a drunk person who is so drunk that they are incapable of even indicating (let alone make a decision) their consent or refusal has to be automatically treated as rape if they are aggrieved because they never had the opportunity to decide either way - consent is always given, it is not assumed until revoked.
The drunkenness itself is really not the key factor; it's your understanding of consent and rape. I shall re-iterate: consent is not present in the absence of verbal or physical objection; it is not the default state - it is not something that is there until directly revoked..
It has to be given in all scenarios, and thus if someone is drunk to the extent that they are incapable of giving consent, then intercourse with them is rape.
The only thing missing from this statement is an /thread
I don't understand it either.
They consented to getting drunk enough to no longer be able to give consent at the time, and it's not like they don't KNOW that if you get drunk out of your mind you might well end up in bed with a stranger.
In my opinion, they almost give consent by extension in that they give consent to get that drunk, and give consent to accept the risks that come with getting that drunk.
I'm not saying that all excessively drunk girls are fair game for rape, I'm just saying that if they were in a vulnerable position, it's because they CHOSE to put themselves into that position.
They consented to getting drunk enough to no longer be able to give consent at the time, and it's not like they don't KNOW that if you get drunk out of your mind you might well end up in bed with a stranger.
In my opinion, they almost give consent by extension in that they give consent to get that drunk, and give consent to accept the risks that come with getting that drunk.
I'm not saying that all excessively drunk girls are fair game for rape, I'm just saying that if they were in a vulnerable position, it's because they CHOSE to put themselves into that position.
Original post by bad8oy
surely if she was that drunk then she wont remember anything??????
What the actual ****?
Original post by moonkatt
The only thing missing from this statement is an /thread
Indeed. How the thread is still going is beyond me! It's quite obvious, just don't sleep with anyone who is too drunk to consent!
Yeah, I mean why would you want to refer to the law when deciding whether something is legal or not? Much better to just make some crazy **** up and then argue about it.
I think the courts are fairly happy with the idea that (in this specific context) consent can be implied without the need for anyone to actually sign stuff first. It's normally pretty obvious at some point before any penetration actually occurs whether the sex is consensual on the part of either person or not. Tbh the guy with the "if it feels rapey, it's probably rape" comment had this thread sewn up a long time ago.
As for the thread in general, I'm not aware of any successful prosecutions where the girl had had 1 shandy and then claimed her consent was invalid. The ones that have been covered by the press involved women who were essentially comatose. Strangely there are less threads on whether sex with a women who is out cold for non alcohol related reasons is still rape, apparently for some reason that is a clearer distinction.
Original post by swiftylol
Saying "Yes" only results after a question has been asked, but people don't usually say "Let's have sex" and then wait for an answer.
As for the thread in general, I'm not aware of any successful prosecutions where the girl had had 1 shandy and then claimed her consent was invalid. The ones that have been covered by the press involved women who were essentially comatose. Strangely there are less threads on whether sex with a women who is out cold for non alcohol related reasons is still rape, apparently for some reason that is a clearer distinction.
Original post by johnadams121212
If you get so drunk that you are no longer responsible for your actions, why should someone else be responsible for them.
If you get so drunk that you are no longer responsible for your actions, why should someone else be responsible for them.
What in the name of holy hell are you taking about? If you are forcing yourself on someone who is blind drunk, those are YOUR (not their) actions. On spying a drunk person, YOU (not they) are still responsible for yourself, and you do not have the right to do as you please because they are drunk.
If you feel like a physical fight and go out and assault a drunk person because they are an easy target as they are incapacitated, due to being intoxicated, those are YOUR actions. The blame would lie squarely with yourself and not the drunk person.
Is this how you get laid op?
Sleeping with a girl who is drunk isn't rape. Raping a girl who is drunk is rape.
Basically boils down to whather the girl agrees to have sex. Simple really.
Basically boils down to whather the girl agrees to have sex. Simple really.
Original post by johnadams121212
Not that I want to, but I asked a question in another thread which was misconstrued and an argument kicked off. So it got me thinking, but correct me if I'm wrong.
So the legal argument for sleeping with a drunk person is that "they were not capable of giving proper consent", right? They were too out of their mind to make a proper decision before committing an act.
But why is that a problem. Surely by that logic, drunk drivers and drunk murderers should not be punished as well, as they were too intoxicated to make a proper decision and that any damage caused by their actions were 'accidental' ?
If you get so drunk that you are no longer responsible for your actions, why should someone else be responsible for them. Why should the man who you sleep with when drunk, take the blame and forever carry the stigma of being a racist, even if you lose the case? How does someone even tell when you're too drunk? It's a ridiculous legal argument.
So the legal argument for sleeping with a drunk person is that "they were not capable of giving proper consent", right? They were too out of their mind to make a proper decision before committing an act.
But why is that a problem. Surely by that logic, drunk drivers and drunk murderers should not be punished as well, as they were too intoxicated to make a proper decision and that any damage caused by their actions were 'accidental' ?
If you get so drunk that you are no longer responsible for your actions, why should someone else be responsible for them. Why should the man who you sleep with when drunk, take the blame and forever carry the stigma of being a racist, even if you lose the case? How does someone even tell when you're too drunk? It's a ridiculous legal argument.
Nice parapraxis
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
