I started a thread asking this. Click on my name and look through the threads I started.
I’ve never seen anything approaching a comprehensive review of what might constitute a reasonable step to ascertain consent in a legal context.
I’ve gotta say, if such commonplace social conduct presents you with such difficulty, I’d advise on the side of caution and avoid the situation entirely.
I’m guessing the OP’s date has probably left by now anyway.
The OP’s question is not as ridiculous as it may seem. Do you remember the Anticsh college policy? That’s pretty much what it required for every. single. step. So there really are people who want you to do this. Perhaps the OP is asking if those people have gotten their way and included such a ridiculous standard into law and the law just isn’t usually applied (but can still potentially be).
For example, in R. v. MacIsaac, Mr MacIsaac went to an acquaintance’s place. He hugged her twice to which she did not respond negatively. He put his arm around her. She put her arm around him. He kissed her briefly (on the mouth, no tongue). She pulled away. He didn’t push further.
The next day, she went to the police and filed a complaint for sexual assault.
The police went ahead. The prosecution went ahead (it has discretion on these matters). The judge in the first instance convicted MacIsaac.
So, yeah, some people are very much unforgiving and asking what the law is on these matters is a useful thing to do. Brushing away such concerns with “if you have to ask, don’t bother”, isn’t.
Just explain that you’ll need to film every sexual encounter to
- document pre-existing injuries
- prove consent.
oh, and
3) post to a website for your second income stream 
Old joke:
How does the Optometrist make love?
“Is this better, is this worse? Is this better, is this worse…”
There was a rape case in the UK a few years back where it was admitted that sex had occured, but the defendant claimed consent. The putative victim admitted under cross examination that she was so drunk that she couldn’t remember every detail of the night. The case was stopped, and an acquittal was ordered, on the grounds drunken consent is still consent. In this case the possibility of drunken consent, where drunken meant in an alcoholic blackout, was enough to require an acquittal.
I understand his fear, right now in most states of the USA a man is completely at the mercy of any woman he has sex with, there is no way to prevent a later rape charge.
Consent means nothing, when its claimed it can be withdrawn at anytime during the act and the woman needs not to announce it verbally or physically. You’re a rapist now.
Basically no one can tell you how to protect yourself in this situation legally, you are totally at the mercy of the woman and the police and DA in your area.
Your only hope is to feel out a possible sex partner first to make sure you aren’t about to bed a psychotic, and then to subtly get her to leave physical evidence to undermine a future case against you. Love notes, letters, text messages, emails, voicemail, anything you can to create doubt in the mind of the jury.
This. If the person obviously seems to understand what is going on, where she is, who you are, and is able to figure out what is going to happen next - she can consent. If she thinks she’s seeing pink elephants (“Yes, that’s the trunk…”) or that you’re “Bob from Cleveland” or any other warning signs that she has lost touch with reality, then she can’t really consent. Enough alcohol to reduce inhibition is not the same as enough alcohol to prevent consent.
OTOH, what you really seem to be asking is:
Q: Will she still feel that way in the morning, or will she have massive regrets?
A: Who knows? Everyone is different.
Q: Will she regret it enough to claim it was rape?
A: See above
Q: Will the police or prosecutor make something out of it?
A: Depends on how good her story is, how cranky the authorities are, and a dozen details that you and those around you remembered - how you acted, how she acted, how much she drank, etc. Even a false accusation could end up hurting you.
OTOH, a woman does not need to have been drunk to file a rape claim the next morning, legit or not.
Nope. Different country, though.
You really do that? Compile evidence beforehand?
No of course I don’t, but the OP was asking pretty clearly “how can I prevent a female sex partner from accusing me of rape after the fact” and I think getting some physical evidence of the relationship could help.
On a related topic: Rape definition broadened to include men. this article says:
So you would think that a woman having sex with a heavily intoxicated man who cannot give consent is raping him. But it also says:
Which would seem to render the above moot. Unless the woman penetrates the man with some object, she is not raping him by definition. So in the standard alcohol-influenced sexual encounter, only the men can be rapists, regardless of the relative level of intoxication of the two parties.
The broader defintion is for state compilation purposes, it is not a new federal law.
Rape on teh federal level mcust contain a federal jurisdictional element, as most US crimee need, so not many rapes, or sexual abuse, are committed federal wide.
Here it is mentions “sexual act”, nothing about penetration.
I am not at home now, but I do have a US SC case in my notes about gender classifications on whether a woman can rape a man. I’ll get it later.
This may be the case I was thinking of? Since the law did not say a woman can statutorily rape a man by the wording/text of the statute, the defendant claimed it violated the Constitution. The court said NO, the statute stands.
In my mind, if this was the case, I had the facts mixed up, but it still deals with gender rape, just the non inclusive classification of women as the actor.
It does vary from state to state (assuming we’re talking about the U.S.). FWIW, these are the relevant portions of the Texas Penal Code as an example:
There is no rigorous definition of “too drunk” (i.e. BAC, or whatever). You can’t consent to sex acts if you are unconscious, unaware, or unable to resist (this would include just saying ‘no’). You can’t consent no matter what your mental faculties if someone spiked your drink, etc. However, the provisions of (3) and (5) imply that you can grant advanced consent to sex acts before you are drunk. Bear in mind that the acts requiring consent are split up into categories. So having consent for, say, vaginal penetrative sex doesn’t constitute having consent for oral sex.
With respect to TX specifically, I think that answers most of the OP’s question. It is not illegal to have sex with someone who has consumed any quantity of intoxicant. It is illegal to have sex with someone who is too intoxicated to say “no”, unless they granted you permission before-hand.
That said, my totally unprofessional advice would be not to risk it. Ethical issues aside: always get explicit consent, and if you even suspect that the person might be too drunk to grant it or, having given, that they are too drunk to withdraw it, stop. Rape is a highly emotionally charged issue. Especially in trials with a male defendant and a female plaintiff, the reality is that juries are usually going to err on the side of the plaintiff, even if that’s not the way things are supposed to work. It’s hard enough to prove explicit consent that occurs in private between two stone-sober people. Don’t put yourself at any more risk than you have to.
It seems the article is only referring to the legal definition of the specific word “rape,” judging by the article. “Sexual assault” can still be carried out without invoking that definition.
While I totally understand your point here, and would agree your scenerio represents a crime; in reality its’s often not that simple.
For example:
If you get falling down drunk and you GIVE someone money out of your wallet, is it a crime for them to take it? Or if you give them a favorite picture, and they give you a treasured trinket at the same time; is it a crime? Would it be a crime if either one or both were drunk?
I think these analogies may more accurately model some situations than the one you describe.
MichaelE, I’ve your thread about ascertaining consent, and Miss E’s suggestion that the male phrase request for permission as questions of whether the girl enjoys some action is practical but not flawless (as she says herself).
It might not annoy the girl as much as repeated requests for permission, but in the case you cited, if that boy had touched that girl’s breast and then proceeded to ask whether she enjoys his touching, the initial touch was still performed without the girl’s consent.
In other words, Miss E’s suggestion doesn’t kick in until the action is already done. Although you may be given the chance to discontinue your action if she says “no I don’t like that,” her slapping your hand away terminates the action immediately and still leaves you open to an allegation the next day.
Even if I reasonably judge a potential partner to not be psychotic, people who are not psychotic nonetheless can feel uncomfortable with unannounced contact.
What about a written document listing all permissible actions and all forbidden actions to be drafted and signed before an encounter? Or if not, an oral exchange in which the partners ask about permissible actions or forbidden actions? These might save the male from asking incrementally, but are they any less repellent?
Is that the one from the early 90s which basically said that before doing ANYTHING with a woman, you should verbally ask?
e.g. watching a movie, you should ask “May I put my arm around you?”
then at the door, “May I kiss you on the cheek/lips?”
Then presumably later on, “May I insert my penis into your vagina?”
If it is the one I am thinking of, it was widely criticized, but from what I remember it could get you into disciplinary troubles at the school if you didn’t follow it. In other words, if you were gazing into each others’ eyes and leaned forward for the kiss and she backed away, a man could actually get in trouble with the school.