Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    ...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.
    Whoops, my bad, must've misread or misunderstood one of your previous posts Many apologies.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    Whoops, my bad, must've misread or misunderstood one of your previous posts Many apologies.
    Nah that's fine, as long as we've come to an understanding.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    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.
    "The gist of your argument is that if you're sufficiently drunk, you aren't responsible for your actions."

    This is not my argument at all. If you are too drunk to say yes, say no, stand up, whatever. It is not YOUR actions. It is only theirs. You aren't capable of consensual sex in this case. That's why it's considered rape?!

    This argument doesn't apply in any of the scenarios you suggested. This entire debate centres around consent to have something done to you and whether you are capable of giving consent while intoxicated. That doesn't apply in a scenario where you personally choose to vandalise. Your decision to vandalise has nothing to do with consent.

    Now the question of how drunk is too drunk is relevant here. But really that is a line for a qualified judge to draw.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    I'm calling the police, you filthy rapist.

    (Original post by KingBradly)
    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.
    But in all seriousness, yes. This double standard is unacceptable. Third wave feministas seem truly uncomfortable with the idea that women have agency too.

    Also, like I've always said, consent is consent. This 'informed consent' thing is nonsense. How do we even measure that - have people take a sobriety tests and maybe a written exam before bumping uglies to make sure they're thinking clearly? I've purchased things while drunker than a peach orchard boar before. Was I robbed? No. The same applies when choosing to have sex. Was it rape? Hell no; you consented to it. Accept responsibility.

    Drunk women are just as responsible for their decisions as drunk men. That's how equality works.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gold-Confetti)
    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.
    My OP does not sound like an attack on the justice system at all.

    Clearly there are people out there who have the insanely absolutist view that having sex with a woman who is drunk is always rape. Those are the people I have a problem with.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gold-Confetti)
    "The gist of your argument is that if you're sufficiently drunk, you aren't responsible for your actions."

    This is not my argument at all. If you are too drunk to say yes, say no, stand up, whatever. It is not YOUR actions. It is only theirs. You aren't capable of consensual sex in this case. That's why it's considered rape?!

    This argument doesn't apply in any of the scenarios you suggested. This entire debate centres around consent to have something done to you and whether you are capable of giving consent while intoxicated. That doesn't apply in a scenario where you personally choose to vandalise. Your decision to vandalise has nothing to do with consent.

    Now the question of how drunk is too drunk is relevant here. But really that is a line for a qualified judge to draw.
    Of course it's your actions. We aren't talking about someone getting intoxicated, and then someone else having sex with them without any consent (or if that is what you meant, then I obviously agree that that is rape). We're talking about someone getting intoxicated, consenting to sex and then after the fact declaring that because they were so drunk, the fact that they consented is irrelevant.

    If someone gets drunk and then invites a sexual encounter, then they have clearly given the impression that they want sex. But this law would mean that if they were deemed sufficiently drunk, the fact that they invited the act would be moot, and the other participant could potentially be tried for rape. That is what I disagree with.

    Now that is just semantics. Consenting to have sex with someone, and consenting to allow someone to have sex with you is the same thing.

    Okay then, consider these two scenarios:

    1) If someone gets incredibly drunk, says 'I'm going to go beat the crap out of that person' and proceeds to beat the crap out of them, should they be considered responsible for beating the crap out of them?

    2) If someone gets incredibly drunk, says 'I'm going to go and have sex with that person' and proceeds to have sex with them, should they be considered responsible for having sex with them?

    Surely you see that without being unbelievably hypocritical - and frankly nonsensical - you've got to give the same answer to each of these?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Drunk rape is when a someone can barely stand and can hardly speak, people take advantage of this and think that just because someone can't directly say 'No' obviously means yes when it doesn't. Obviously people shouldn't get in this state but that doesn't mean that they can be raped.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by idontknowmedoyou)
    Drunk rape is when a someone can barely stand and can hardly speak, people take advantage of this and think that just because someone can't directly say 'No' obviously means yes when it doesn't. Obviously people shouldn't get in this state but that doesn't mean that they can be raped.
    But what if they get into this state and directly, emphatically say yes?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    My OP does not sound like an attack on the justice system at all.

    Clearly there are people out there who have the insanely absolutist view that having sex with a woman who is drunk is always rape. Those are the people I have a problem with.
    Those people, everyone should have a problem with because they clearly don't understand that drunk and too drunk to consent are two different things.
    Apologies that I seem to have misinterpreted the OP. I read it as implying that EVERYONE, and therefore the law/ police believe that if you are drunk you are automatically too drunk to consent, which of course, isn't true.

    If you're talking about the school of thought that believes drunk/ tipsy sex is automatically rape, without looking at technicalities surrounding ability to consent, then I agree with you that view is incredibly problematic.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Yes, but what's to stop the girl saying that's the case when it reality it is the 'bit tipsy and now regretting it'?

    In these kinds of cases history has shown it's the girl who gets believed instantaneously.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    But what if they get into this state and directly, emphatically say yes?
    Well it depends entirely on the situation. Also I doubt that often people directly ask a person if they want to have sex. I assume that usually they will just start making out and then continue and then if the girl/boy doesn't stop it and say no then its fine, but thats not always right because she/he may be too intoxicated to reply or not know whats going on. But as you said if they directly said yes then again it depends, sometimes when people are drunk if they are that intoxicated you could ask them to jump out of a window and they would do it. If they say yes and are into it I wouldn't call that rape. Also if the other person is completely sober then I would say its rape because they are taking advantage of a drunk person.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by idontknowmedoyou)
    Well it depends entirely on the situation. Also I doubt that often people directly ask a person if they want to have sex. I assume that usually they will just start making out and then continue and then if the girl/boy doesn't stop it and say no then its fine, but thats not always right because she/he may be too intoxicated to reply or not know whats going on. But as you said if they directly said yes then again it depends, sometimes when people are drunk if they are that intoxicated you could ask them to jump out of a window and they would do it. If they say yes and are into it I wouldn't call that rape. Also if the other person is completely sober then I would say its rape because they are taking advantage of a drunk person.
    But here, you're implicitly saying that the person in question is not legally responsible for their actions whilst drunk. You're saying that even in the event of their total consent, the consent might nonetheless 'not count' because they were sufficiently drunk to rob them of the ability to control or understand their actions.

    So does this apply if they were to commit a crime whilst just as drunk? Like you said, some people would jump out of a window if they're asked to when sufficiently drunk. What if someone who was sober said it would be funny if the drunk person were to break into a house, and they did so? Are they legally culpable for breaking and entering? Because your line of reasoning would end with the conclusion that they aren't culpable surely?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    But here, you're implicitly saying that the person in question is not legally responsible for their actions whilst drunk. You're saying that even in the event of their total consent, the consent might nonetheless 'not count' because they were sufficiently drunk to rob them of the ability to control or understand their actions.

    So does this apply if they were to commit a crime whilst just as drunk? Like you said, some people would jump out of a window if they're asked to when sufficiently drunk. What if someone who was sober said it would be funny if the drunk person were to break into a house, and they did so? Are they legally culpable for breaking and entering? Because your line of reasoning would end with the conclusion that they aren't culpable surely?
    They would have to take responsibility for that according to law, although I doubt an extremely drunk person would be able to do that if they are in the state that I am talking about, I know I said before about they would jump out a window if asked but I meant if you you asked they would say 'yes' same thing as if a person asked them for sex they would say 'yes'.
    If a person asks an obviously very drunk person say they are sat on the floor obviously messed up the rooms spinning to them and a person goes up to them and says wanna have sex and they say yes in slurred words I think that is rape because its taking advantage of their body and they may not even have understood what was being asked if they were that drunk. And it shows the sober persons priorities is having sex with a drunk person over idk maybe helping them? its messed up.
    Im not taking about a person who is a little drunk, or averagely drunk I am talking about a person who is completely f-cked up and need help rather then being taking advantage of.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    Of course it's your actions. We're talking about someone getting intoxicated, consenting to sex and then after the fact declaring that because they were so drunk, the fact that they consented is irrelevant.

    If someone gets drunk and then invites a sexual encounter, then they have clearly given the impression that they want sex. But this law would mean that if they were deemed sufficiently drunk, the fact that they invited the act would be moot, and the other participant could potentially be tried for rape. That is what I disagree with.

    Now that is just semantics. Consenting to have sex with someone, and consenting to allow someone to have sex with you is the same thing.

    Okay then, consider these two scenarios:
    1) If someone gets incredibly drunk, says 'I'm going to go beat the crap out of that person' and proceeds to beat the crap out of them, should they be considered responsible for beating the crap out of them?

    2) If someone gets incredibly drunk, says 'I'm going to go and have sex with that person' and proceeds to have sex with them, should they be considered responsible for having sex with them?
    Okay here is my thoughts on your post as it goes along. I tried to insert my commentary next to the relevant points you made but it wouldn't post in that format.

    No we aren't because for drunk rape to apply you have to be so drunk that you CAN'T consent...

    I'm not saying that being drunk means you can't consent. I'm saying being drunk to the point where for example, when they are unable to stand, means they are too drunk to consent, so sex at this point is rape. What you're talking about is sex with someone who is drunk. Not drunk to the point they cannot consent. Again, how drunk is too drunk- I am not in a position to decide.

    To repeat, I'm not saying that being drunk means you can't consent. I'm saying being drunk to the point where for example, you can't stand, means you are too drunk to consent

    The entire idea of being "too drunk to consent", is that you couldn't instigate activity like this. If you are capable of doing so, you're clearly not too drunk to consent.

    I'm assuming that the kind of scenario we're talking about is someone asking to have sex with a drunk girl. There she would be consenting to allowing them to have sex with her. As in she is permitting them to do something to her.

    As far as I know, this scenario has nothing to do with consent, but let's just apply things like it does. Them declaring they're going to beat someone up would act as consent.Clearly they're capable of making decisions (giving consent if you like). This would mirror drunk sex- a bad decision, but one they were capable of making all the same. A scenario that mirrors drunk rape would be that they're incapable of deciding to beat someone up. For example, they can't stand, talk. That would be parallel being intoxicated to the point where you cannot consent.To answer your question, yes I would consider them responsible because declaring they were going to do it is intent. And then they actually do it. So legally- There's your mens rea and actus reus they could use the defence of intoxication I suppose, but the whole thing that makes it rape is that the victim couldn't or didn't give their consent. Clearly, the person in this scenario is not intoxicated to this point.

    This would depend how drunk they are. I am not trying to say that drunk sex is always rape. I'm saying that being too drunk to consent makes it rape. The fact that the 'victim' instigated it would suggest they are NOT too drunk to consent. I am not contesting the fact that being drunk does not make it rape. I'm saying that it depends HOW drunk. If you are too drunk to consent then yes, it IS rape. The person in this scenario is not too drunk to consent!

    I understand this thread says sex with a "drunk" girl. But "drunk" begs the question of how drunk are we referring to?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by idontknowmedoyou)
    They would have to take responsibility for that according to law, although I doubt an extremely drunk person would be able to do that if they are in the state that I am talking about, I know I said before about they would jump out a window if asked but I meant if you you asked they would say 'yes' same thing as if a person asked them for sex they would say 'yes'.
    If a person asks an obviously very drunk person say they are sat on the floor obviously messed up the rooms spinning to them and a person goes up to them and says wanna have sex and they say yes in slurred words I think that is rape because its taking advantage of their body and they may not even have understood what was being asked if they were that drunk. And it shows the sober persons priorities is having sex with a drunk person over idk maybe helping them? its messed up.
    Im not taking about a person who is a little drunk, or averagely drunk I am talking about a person who is completely f-cked up and need help rather then being taking advantage of.
    Breaking and entering was just an example, the same logic applies if they threw a rock through a window or any criminal act really.

    I absolutely agree it's pretty reprehensible and would probably say something about that person, if they were trying to hook up with someone who is that inebriated. But could you really call it rape? Given as rape is defined as sexual penetration without consent I would say you couldn't, because it was a sexual act between consenting adults.

    I agree it could well be pretty messed up, but criminal? There I don't agree. You're either arguing that a person who is that drunk is capable of being responsible for their actions, or they are not. And I think to say that they aren't sets a very dangerous precedent, as the exact same line of reasoning could be used to exonerate any criminal act committed whilst intoxicated.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Yes, but what's to stop the girl saying that's the case when it reality it is the 'bit tipsy and now regretting it'?

    In these kinds of cases history has shown it's the girl who gets believed instantaneously.
    In the case of tipsy and regretting it, it isn't rape I stated it earlier that things like this you just have to live with unfortunately.
    However, you make a valid point that there is nothing preventing people from lying, and yes, I agree, this is a huge problem. I'm not denying false rape accusations are seriously condemnable.

    However, there should still be protection for those who were genuinely drunk raped. People trying to cheat the system and make stuff up should be dealt with accordingly.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    Breaking and entering was just an example, the same logic applies if they threw a rock through a window or any criminal act really.

    I absolutely agree it's pretty reprehensible and would probably say something about that person, if they were trying to hook up with someone who is that inebriated. But could you really call it rape? Given as rape is defined as sexual penetration without consent I would say you couldn't, because it was a sexual act between consenting adults.

    I agree it could well be pretty messed up, but criminal? There I don't agree. You're either arguing that a person who is that drunk is capable of being responsible for their actions, or they are not. And I think to say that they aren't sets a very dangerous precedent, as the exact same line of reasoning could be used to exonerate any criminal act committed whilst intoxicated.
    For most criminal acts like that I'm sure they would get a warning, I doubt it would lead to a sentence. I would say its rape because the yes most likely has no meaning they may not even know what they are being asked and also rape is such an awful thing, they may not even remember the experience because they could be that drunk but the next day they wake up, they are in pain, maybe in a bed with their rapist and thats how they know. I think there is a line of whats drunk rape and whats not and it depends on the situation as I'm sure it does in court when the rapist is getting sentenced.
    Just imagine it was your daughter or sister as an example she went out on her first night out and thought she could take on more drinks then she actually could. Some guy sees her on the floor obviously messed up (idk maybe her makeups smudged or she's talking to herself slurring her words) he sees an opportunity and asks her for sex she says yes and it happens. She wakes up the next morning in pain next to him. Would you want justice for that?
    Also in my opinion people who take advantage of others like that when people are in that state should be given punishment because if they do that to one girl/boy then they can do it to 50, if they got away with it some sickos would literally go around to every party and do it to whoever they could because its technically 'legal'.
    Offline

    20
    (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.
    Depends on the circumstance. I've had sex with girlfriends when we've had a few, and when we've used other things too.

    But having sex with a girl who you don't know is a different thing entirely. You know where you are with a girlfriend/FWB/whatever, but you haven't got the measure of that with someone you've just met.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    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.
    That depends how drunk you are and is precisely the legal limit between being able to meaningfully consent - when you are no longer fully conscious, or significantly aware, of what is going on around you.

    I've seen this explained time and time again on here, yet people continually persist in misrepresenting it simply as 'drunk'.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    What happened to this rape consent app idea? Did the feminists get it shut down or something?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 11, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.