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


    Moral of the story is: don't get drunk.

    (Original post by anarchism101)
    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'.
    (Original post by idontknowmedoyou)
    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'.
    (Original post by Gold-Confetti)
    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?
    I think we all broadly think the same thing, but I don't think you're appreciating the scope of this law. It doesn't just say 'when someone is drunk to the point that they are physically incapable of consenting in any meaningful way, having sex with them is rape'. It says that there is an arbitrarily decided level of drunkness, beyond which any consent can be considered void after the fact. They can have consented to the initiation of the act, consented through the act and yet, this law would allow the act to still be deemed rape.

    At best, this law is superfluous. If it's being used as you are suggesting - solely in cases where someone is drifting in and out of consciousness or completely and utterly unaware of what's going on around them - then pre-existing laws already covered this. It was already law that you can't have sex with someone who is unconscious. And if it is solely being used in these cases, it has been incredibly poorly written as an article of law because there is huge ambiguity as to when it applies.

    At worst though, this law is frankly dangerous. Because by the letter of this law, it would be possible to prosecute someone who has received consent through the sexual encounter, if after the fact the drunk party decided that they only consented because of the alcohol and that they were above some arbitrary measure of 'drunkness'. Nowhere in the legislation does it say that it can only be used in cases where the drunk person is incapable of maintaining consciousness or something similar. It simply says that consent can be considered void if someone is sufficiently intoxicated. Without qualifying what counts as 'sufficiently' it is all too easy for this law to be abused. And all of this is before we get on to the fact that another recent change now means that when someone is accused of rape, the onus is on the accused to prove consent was given, not on the accuser to prove that consent wasn't given. Together, these two laws create a situation where anyone who has sex with someone who has had a lot to drink could very easily find themselves facing criminal charges.
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...
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.