Is sex with someone who is intoxicated rape/sexual assault? (2 Viewers)

[Riproot]

I just want to clear this up so (a) certain (person/)people on here don't rape some poor girl(s).


Also, if you have any links to information regarding this such as anti-rape campaigns, laws, etc. plz post.

 

[jnney]

yes it is.

 

[kfnmpah]

really? so anytime some dude bangs a chick who is drunk, it's ~technically~ rape?

 

[OzKo]

Depends on how drunk the guy is.

If the guy is drunk as well, I would regard that a consensual.

 

[iRuler]

Depends on circumstances

 

[Shadowdude]

really? so anytime some dude bangs a chick who is drunk, it's ~technically~ rape?

Umm... Lolsmith, before you read on - I should say that I immensely respect you as a person and it just so happened that when Riproot made this thread and Nicola made the above post... I thought of you.


So what Riproot is basically saying is that when Lolsmith and Lady Lolsmith went back to their hotel room and supposing they had sex, that because I saw Lady Lolsmith drinking alcohol - Lolsmith is now liable to the charge of rape.


And yet again let me make the point about one night stands and club pick-ups. So you're telling me that all the guys there are also liable of rape? All of them? No exceptions?

 

[pony_magician]

jesus

 

[mirakon]

Um.......

 

[Lolsmith]

oh man

 

[Riproot]

Depends on how drunk the guy is.

If the guy is drunk as well, I would regard that a consensual.

That's actually mutual rape by both parties.

But it's up to the parties involved to decide whether they want to press charges, and because they are both at fault I'm not sure how that would go down.

Umm... Lolsmith, before you read on - I should say that I immensely respect you as a person and it just so happened that when Riproot made this thread and Nicola made the above post... I thought of you.


So what Riproot is basically saying is that when Lolsmith and Lady Lolsmith went back to their hotel room and supposing they had sex, that because I saw Lady Lolsmith drinking alcohol - Lolsmith is now liable to the charge of rape.

Drink alcohol =/= intoxicated.

Also, if you read http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/pubs/issue/i4.html you would know that it says "if under different conditions they would not perform the sex acts" (paraphrased) which in your case, was exactly what you described, but in lolsmith's case is completely different.

And yet again let me make the point about one night stands and club pick-ups. So you're telling me that all the guys there are also liable of rape? All of them? No exceptions?

Not every one-night stand is a drunken thing.
Yes, if the other party was intoxicated.
Yes.
As above.

 

[Power Rangers]

if she doesn't object



she's fair game


jokes, if she's completely out of it, leave her alone

 

[Annihilist]

Not at all.

I think the question of "is it right?" or "is it ethical?" is a much more important and compelling question.

Is it to be defined as rape? Well, if the consent was under intoxication it's technically still consent. So you cannot call it "rape". People who call it rape either refuse to take personal responsibility, or don't believe people need to take personal responsibility for how much they drink, or what substances they consume, and the situations they get themselves into.

If someone wakes up and realises they agreed to having sex with someone while intoxicated, can they then turn around and say "that person raped me"? No. You made the decision to drink too much or take too much drugs, and then made another decision to have sex with someone else. Take some fucking responsibility.

Not to say that people can't take advantage of another's intoxication. And it's not to say that people are rightful in taking such advantage. But it is not to be defined as "rape". Not in my opinion at least. It's still consensual, but the intoxicated person consented while, well, intoxicated.

Are you really completely powerless when you are intoxicated? Are the decisions you make when drunk not really your responsibility? If you don't want people to take advantage of you when you're intoxicated...don't drink or take drugs then. Simple. It is a well known fact that if you do so, you are bound to make stupid decisions. Own up to your actions.

This seems to be the inversion of the other thread, about guys saying it's okay to rape someone who is dressed like a slut, because "they were asking for it". It's people making stupid decisions and blaming it on someone else, refusing to take personal responsibility for decisions they made and asserting themselves as powerless and helpless victims.

And I'm definitely not saying raping someone who is drunk is okay. I'm saying that if someone consents to sex, regardless of their sobriety, then it's a "yes", and it can no longer be defined as rape.

EDIT: I understand the law does define this as "rape". However I for one completely reject this notion, and I believe this law should be revised. And I definitely reject the notion that the law is always right. I believe that the law is seldom right.

 

[a c]

Depends on how drunk the guy is.

If the guy is drunk as well, I would regard that a consensual.

By definition it can never be 'consensual' if one of the parties is too intoxicated to consent. Whether both parties are too intoxicated to give 'consent', makes no difference to whether an assault is initiated.

 

[Shadowdude]

"if under different conditions they would not perform the sex acts"

so basically

a girl and a guy refuse to have sex in public because... well, they don't want to do that

but they have sex in the bedroom

ZOMG IT'S RAPE BECAUSE IN DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES (i.e. if it was in public) THEY WOULDN'T PERFORM THE SEX ACT

 

[soloooooo]

Depends how drunk the person is. If they are unconscious => rape and not appropriate. Otherwise, it is not rape if they can still speak.

 

[Lolsmith]

The issue with any form of rape is consent. Rape is defined as sexual action(s) taken without the consent of one party. When someone is slightly tipsy, they are still within a frame of mind that can provide consent and it can be inferred that they would provide that consent if they were in a sexually active and healthy relationship for several years beforehand; but it can't be said that it is a certainty it would be.

With the specific case of intoxication, it varies circumstantially. Hypothetically though, when a man or woman is so intoxicated that they cannot provide consent and one party continues without that consent being provided, they are committing rape. Whether the performance of either of those parties is satisfactory is irrelevant.

It should be noted that consent can be withdrawn at any time and, like I said, if it so continues without that consent, you are committing a crime.

 

[pony_magician]

jesus christ just don't bang a blackout drunk woman

 

[kfnmpah]

ann has spoken.

 

[a c]

The jury will have to determine whether or not B ‘agrees by choice’ and had ‘the freedom and capacity to make that choice’. This does not mean that every time B has been drinking she loses the freedom and capacity to decide whether to have sexual intercourse. It is suggested that the freedom and capacity to make such a choice is only lost when she is incapacitated by the alcohol. This is a question of fact for the jury to make. There are also two ‘evidential presumptions’ which could be relevant. If the complainant was asleep or ‘otherwise unconscious at the time of the relevant act’ (s.75(2)(d)) or if ‘any person had administered to or caused to be taken by the complainant, without the complainant’s consent, a substance which…was capable of causing or enabling the complainant to be stupefied or overpowered at the time of the relevant act’ (s.75(2)(f)) then there will be no consent unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue that there was consent (Finch and Munro, 2004). It is suggested that in these situations it would be exceptionally difficult to raise an argument that B was consenting.

 

[Riproot]

Not at all.

I think the question of "is it right?" or "is it ethical?" is a much more important and compelling question.

Is it to be defined as rape? Well, if the consent was under intoxication it's technically still consent. So you cannot call it "rape". People who call it rape either refuse to take personal responsibility, or don't believe people need to take personal responsibility for how much they drink, or what substances they consume, and the situations they get themselves into.

And if someone under 15 years of age gives consent is it technically still consent?

No, because they aren't in the right state of mind (they aren't mature enough) to give consent.

"if under different conditions they would not perform the sex acts"

so basically

a girl and a guy refuse to have sex in public because... well, they don't want to do that

but they have sex in the bedroom

ZOMG IT'S RAPE BECAUSE IN DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES (i.e. if it was in public) THEY WOULDN'T PERFORM THE SEX ACT

Whilst intoxicated, you berk. That whole section was about when one of the parties was intoxicated.

And yes, if they did that whilst intoxicated it's rape.