Date Rape

Badtz, putting this together with your tale of Mardi Gras drinking and previous blackouts, I’m going to take the risk of saying that you may have an unhealthy relationship with alcohol.

Puking up the alcohol in your stomach only ensures that you don’t get more drunk. Drunk is defined by how much alcohol is in your bloodstream, not by what’s sitting in your stomach, and it still takes the liver about an hour to detoxify a half-ounce of alcohol from the blood. So, it would be at least a couple of more hours to go from puking-drunk to able-to-consent-sober. If not more. Significantly more.

Perhaps your satisfied with the drunken/blacked out consent, but I doubt very much that wring and evilbeth’s acquaintance were.

I don’t think this is relevant, as the OP was asking about the law, not university rules. A school has the right to set rules that are stricter than the law and punish students if they break the rules, but this has nothing to do with what is and is not legal.

If we are thinking of the same case, the situation was not quite the same as you describe above anyway. In the case I am thinking of the woman consented to sex, but then asked the man to stop because he was hurting her. He refused.

Actually, I think that this could be pretty relevant to the OP, depending on how it happened. If things happen the way that Beelzebubba recalls. True, the University can make whatever rules that they want, but in the end, isn’t their wrongful persecution of the guy (assuming sex was consentual) serving to do nothing but spread more misunderstanding about rape? Instead of aiding to clearly define a big grey area, the University just helped to confuse things even more, by making an innocent guy be ostracized by all of his peers.

Of course, if she DID tell the guy to stop, then it’s a non-issue, but I think that Universitie should prescribe to the same basic policies as the law, to avoid persecuting innocent people.

well, now, you see, tho’ already in this thread we had some one say “no” “Stop” etc, and another poster suggested that maybe after that initial ‘no, stop’ there was acquiessence, and therefore no rape.

And therein lies one of the many problems. AFAIAC, it’s like an interrogation w/the cops. As soon as the suspect says ‘I wanna lawyer’, questioning stops. In this case when one or the other party says ‘no, stop’, then it should stop. And, especially in the case of some one under the influence, further allegations afterward ‘they changed their mind’ wouldn’t be relevant. (keep in mind that the jerk that I referenced disregarded the ‘no, stop’ and pushing away. )

What this would mean is that sometimes some folks might not have sex, but then again, the rape charge wouldn’t be risked, either.

In summation if a person verbally is ambivalent about sex, you’re better off letting it go.

I’m in total agreement with wring. I was moved by her description of her horrible experience.

Unfortunately, there are some situations where a man may be punished for something referred to as “date rape,” but which was not any kind of rape. See: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,26986,00.html

In the cited case, Gonzaga University eventually was found guilty of “defamation, invasion of privacy, and negligence” and ordered to pay $1.15 million in damages to a student who they had punished for alleged date rape, although there was no claim by the women that he had raped her and he had not had a hearing of any sort.

I don’t know how common it may be that men are unfarily punished in this sort of circumstance.

The story apparently happened at Brown University in 1997 – a quick search turned up the story of Adam Lack at the Herald.

The university apparently admitted fault and cleared him of any wrongdoing after the above-mentioned suit. Not exactly a “court-of-law”, but I would think that being slapped with a file containing instances of “sexual misconduct” could definitely create some problems down the line.

The way I read the OP, it was not necessarily a question of the strictly legal definition…if the situation in the OP took place at Brown university between 1996 and 1998, jabe could very well have found himself in hot water with far-reaching consequences.

Am I the only one who has noticed the slightly sexist feel this thread has to it?

If a woman is intoxicated, she cannot think rationally and therefore cannot give consent or realize this might not be something she wants to do… BUT, the man should be able to realize that the woman is drunk and unable to give consent?

If there some “ability to rationalize while intoxicated” gene located on the Y chromosome that I am unaware of?

(and I know nobody has actually said this, but I’m sort of getting this impression from a few of you)

My story:
I was talking to a ‘friend’ of mine who was completely drunk, and he asked me if I wanted to come over and drink with him. I was having a bad day and wanted to get out of the house, plus the offer of alcohol sounded nice, so I said sure.
We drank and watched a movie together… 7 shots of vodka and about an hour later, I passed out. I’m not completely sure if this was from the alcohol or because it was way past the time i usually went to bed. I vaguely remember some oral sex and him convincing me to do another shot, and then him insisting that I just go to sleep (I refused, but I guess I did eventually). While sober, I would never have done anything with this person.
A month or so later, I was talking to another friend (actually my ex).
Friend: so, I heard you had sex with [person]?
Me: huh?
Friend: [person] said you went over there and got really drunk and ended up sleeping with him
Me: uhhhh…
This is when I (finally) realized that the guy had probably gotten me drunk and maybe even wanted me to pass out, for the sole purpose of trying to have sex with me. Whether the guy actually did have sex with me while I was passed out/blacked out/whatever or if he was just trying to show off, I’m not sure, but whatever the case, I hold myself responsible because i chose to drink, also because he was drunk himself and while he probably realized what he was doing was wrong, he may not have realized how wrong it was. (If anyone disagrees with me here, I’d like to hear your views.)
Anyway, as far as the OP goes… no. It’s her own damn fault for getting drunk in the first place.

I think we all agree that a drunken woman, lying half passed out and pushing off a man certainly falls under the “rape” category. However, this is not what I envisioned from reading the OP.

I’m thinking a guy and girl meet at a bar. They’re having a great time, laughing, drinking, dancing. She’s already had several shots and is now flashing everyone her boobs. Nobody is groping her. They are laughing and having fun. She invites him to do some body shots. They eventually begin to nuzzle each other. He breathlessly suggests that they go to his apartment around the corner. They proceed to have the hot monkey sex decribed in the OP.

Morning comes, she groans at the sunlight coming into the window. She rolls over, moans because of her throbbing head, winces at the memory of flashing a bunch of strangers her boobs. She then gets of glimpse of the guy she went home with. Not quite as attractive as she thought last night. Pretty ugly, in her now-sober opinion. She deeply regrets having sex with him.

I think this is more the situation described in the OP, and IMHO, a date rape (or rape) didn’t occur. It was drunken consensual sex.

well, thanks, monster. The point, however, that I was trying to get at was this:

MY memories of that event would lead most to use the word “rape” (and correctly, In my estimation). HOwever the male that I was with labeled the event as ‘hot sex’. I know I said ‘no’ and pushed him away. He chose to not remember that part/didn’t remember/ignore/whatever.

So, my advice stands. When there’s any equivocation at all, and especially when alcohol is involved, all parties are better off ceasing the activity. The worst that can come from ceasing is ‘you missed getting laid’. The worst that can happen from not ceasing: criminal charges.

(I’m a bit calmer than when I first read the ‘you shouldn’t have gotten drunk line’ - Getting drunk/being under the influence etc are choices, sometimes not wise ones, I’ll grant you. However, they never give some one else the ‘right’ to assault or otherwise do criminal behavior on the victim. If you rob a drunk, you’re still convicted of theft. )

Oh, wring, I’m totally with you. I was just trying to clarifly the OP, in which it didn’t appear there were differing versions of the evening. With the exception of how cute the guy was.

It’s ok, we’re cool :cool: monster

My thoughts… I think that quite often “non-date” rape is a violent and brutal thing… women beaten bloody, cut, threatened with death, broken bones, etc. More often when people say “date rape” they mean the sex was forced but the crime isn’t as violent. This is by no means meant to say that date rape is never violent, or that non-date rape is always violent… just that I think that is why one is viewed as “worse” than the other.

To ME, which would be worse? Getting dragged into a car and beaten, raped, sodomized, and left bloody on the roadside OR waking up out of a medicated slumber to find a houseguest finishing “his business” with you… Well I’d say the first scenario would be worse. I’ve never experienced the first scenario, but I have the second.

I read it, and I read that you said no. I’m not saying that taking advantage of a drunk person isn’t wrong, but since you can’t remember what happened you can’t say whether or not you consented. Just because someone says no once doesn’t mean they won’t say yes later.

I’m not trying to be mean here, but when it comes to something as serious as rape I think you have to be damn sure before you make accusations. You were drunk. You don’t remember what happened. Yes, it’s a strong possibility that he forced himself on you, but there’s also a possibility that you gave in and said yes. People do things when they are drunk that they would never do sober, that’s why guys are always trying to get girls drunk.

Yeah, but Badtz? There’s no fucking way to prove it. True, she could have done the unlikely and relented, but guess what: it doesn’t fucking matter. The fact remains that any court in America would call this rape, because the last piece of evidence involved is the fact that she said “no” before passing out. passing out. Meaning unconcious. Meaning that this asshole was sitting there, taking advantage of someone who was unconcious. Sure, fine, she might’ve woken up at some point and said “yes,” but she has memories not only of saying “no” once, but of saying “no” multiple times, and even pushing the bastard away! The fact that he didn’t stop when he was told to makes it rape.

Let me ask you this, Badtz: if a woman is assaulted in a dark alley by a man who is violently trying to have sex with her, and she starts off defending herself but eventually says “yes” so that the jackass won’t kill her, is it still rape? I mean, she said “yes,” after all.

If she was drunk at the time, she did not consent, even if she said yes. An intoxicated person cannot give consent; obviously, neither can an unconscious person. If she does not remember giving consent due to intoxication, she did not give it.

Someone who “gives in and says yes” due to duress, intoxication, or unconsciousness is not giving consent.

I suppose you would say that I wasn’t raped because I “consented” to have sex in order to avoid being arrested (my perp presented as a a police officer, and he told me I would be arrested on drug charges if I didn’t have sex with him).
**

Men who try to get women drunk in order to get them to have sex with them are rapists, or at least rapist-wannabees. Obtaining “consent” by inducing intoxication is rape. If the perp had sex with her while she was drunk without having obtained consent from her while she was sober, he raped her.

wring, this is not in any way directed at you. It’s a “theoretical” type, please read as such.

Obviously, an unconscious person can not give consent. However, I must disagree and say an intoxicated person can. If not, then by applying the same logic, an intoxicated person can not commit rape. If he does not remember committing rape due to intoxication, then he did not do it

I agree some one who gives in due to duress such as the “police officer” story you describe is not consenting. Similary, unconscious people are unable to give consent. However, intoxication can not absolve one of responsibility. If the answer was first “no”, but after drinking and badgering it becomes “yes”, then I may agree, depending on individual circumstances. But generally speaking, you’re responsible for your own actions even while drunk, including consenting to having sex with some one who expressed the desire while you were not intoxicated. Note that I don’t mean “so drunk you can’t stay conscious”.

But if you assume male M and Female F are going out to the bar, M asks early on “You wanna come back to my place for some hot monkey-sex?” and F says “No.” Later on, after several drinks, she says “Hey M, I’ve reconsidered. Take me now!”…I don’t see that she can have any case against him in the morning.

I’ll agree if you say “Obtaining ‘consent’ by inducing intoxication specifically for the purpose of obtaining consent.”

No. Women go out and get drunk just like men do. A woman who goes out to a bar, gets drunk, and goes home with some guy and has drunk-consentual-sex can no more claim rape than he can.

Introducing alcohol for the express purpose of getting some one drunk and having sex with them may constitute sexual misconduct. It’s certainly sleazy. Having sex with some one who is so drunk they can not stay conscious after they’ve made it clear the answer is “no” is defintely rape. But having sex with an intoxicated, but otherwise consenting person is not. If you get drunk and say “yes”, then the responsibility is as much yours as his.

for those of you who keep focusing on ‘maybe later she said yes’, allow me to point out that physical contact went on after the ‘no’ and pushing away (ie therefore it’s “unwanted” physical contact). That makes it criminal sexual assault in the eyes of the law in the State of Michigan. Period. Any thing said/done later is irrelevant - the ‘no’ meant **at that point in time “get your fucking hands off of me.” **

My other point is, that the cretin involved did not ever acknowledge the ‘no’. It was all about ‘ahhhh, honey, you know you want it’ crap. And, as has been pointed out, if at some point after (pick an amount of time) of struggling, crying, ‘no’ push shove etc, the other person stops fighting, passes out. whimpers or whatever, do not take that as a “yes”. at the word no, contact should stop. If it doesn’t it’s an assault.

For those of you who need to (for whatever reason) focus on some one changing their mind, keep your fucking hands to yourself in the meantime, otherwise, it’s an assault. Get it? So, maybe the scene could be: grope grope ‘no, I don’t want to’. stop groping. ok, we talk, spend more time together w/out the hands going on, and **if ** the other person has changed their mind, then they can let you know. (espciailly in the example given of a verbal ‘you know what, I changed my mind, let’s go’. If, of course, instead of saying something like that, they start puking or attempt to leave or actually pass out, leave them the fuck alone, ya know?

Keeee-rist. I remember a scene with my mom at one point. She was mad at me, and started slapping me across my face (I was about 13/14). I, being the stubborn wench I am, decided ‘you’re not going to make me cry’. well, she kept slapping me. After a dozen or so, I realized ‘she’s gonna do this until I cry, okey dokey’, so started crying just so she’d stop hitting me. So, to translate what’s happening to the person saying no: grope grope. “no” . more grope grope “NO” and a push, more frantic grope grope grope. Now, at this point, you realize the other person doesn’t acknowledge your right to say no at all. They may be bigger/stronger than you, you may have found yourself in a position that doesn’t have a safe escape route (and frankly, if it was a friend who thinks of ‘escape routes’ before hand??? ) realistically, what are the options here? how many times should the person have to say ‘no’ before the question and continued groping is stopped? To me the answer is ‘once’. YMMV, but rest assured that in the eyes of the law, your ass may well be in jail if you fail to stop unwanted physical contact.

I’ve gone the whole nine yards on this thread. I almost didn’t post at all. then, thought, maybe some one can learn from my experience (ie that ‘no’ should be taken as a ‘no’, etc.). It was strange, that event happened in 1972. I’d felt rage/hurt/shame for years about it. But when I posted it here, I remember thinking ‘wow - it finally doesn’t hurt anymore to think about that’. Then I came back to the thread and heard/saw the ‘maybe you said yes later’, and it all came back.

I’m not angry about it right now (other, larger issues going on). But, I’m done arguing about it. I know that I was assaulted. I said no, and he persisted. whatever the fuck happened. It was ugly, and it made me question my ability to trust other human beings, my judgement (after all, he was a ‘friend’) etc. I never spoke to him again, after retreiving my glasses the next day (by the way, they were in the back of his hatchback under the seat. I can’t see to the ground without them). I heard that he died of cancer when he was 20.

but if others want to persist in believing that a consent given after repeated assaults and ‘no’ is a consent freely given, - hey, don’t say no one advised you differently. Like I’ve said repeatedly:
at the first ‘no’: stop. Do not touch. do not ask. period. at worst you’ll miss out on a single sexual experience, at best you’ll avoid a rape charge/prison etc. That’s my advice, I’m sticking to it.

Sounds like common sense to me. wring, I’m sorry to hear about your experience. I can’t imagine how painful/infuriating it must be for you to read all these, “maybe the guy successfully pressured her to say ‘yes’ while she was blacked-out” scenarios being given to excuse having sex with an unwilling intoxicated woman. These attempts to justify this behaviour (“I’m not saying it’s right, but, …”) makes me never want to touch a drink ever again. Even water.

I think the problem is that many people view consent as something that does not really have to be given – that men somehow have the right to have sex with any woman who does not explicitly refuse them (and keep refusing them no matter what tactics the men try). This sort of thinking seems to be widespread, but that doesn’t make it any less sick. I don’t think that anyone’s consent should ever be taken for granted. If it’s not explicit, it’s not consent.

Some posters in this thread seem confused as to what is meant by “too drunk to consent to sex”. I don’t think anyone here has suggested that a woman who has a couple of drinks, explicitly consents to have sex with a man, and feels bad about it the next morning is the victim of rape. I would feel sorry for a woman in that situation, but I would not consider her to have suffered criminal violation. However, it is possible for someone to become so drunk that they are incapable of giving informed consent. I have seen people so drunk that they did not know where they were or what was happening to them. They couldn’t even recognize the people around them. A person in this condition might not actually say, “No, I don’t want to have sex with you”, but this does not mean that they have consented to sex. To take advantage of a person in this condition is rape, and no amount of blaming the victim makes it anything less.

I do not drink alcohol at all myself, so I have managed to avoid ever being in a situation where someone might take advantage of my drunkenness. However, I can tell a story in which I was in the position to be the one to take the advantage. Perhaps it will help to clarify things for some people.

One night I was heading back to my dorm room when I happened to run into some friends. Two of them said “hi” then went off into a room to get something, while the third (I’ll call her Hildegard) stopped to talk to me on the stairs. I could tell by the smell if by nothing else that Hildegard had been drinking a lot, but she was still upright and seemed coherent enough. As we were talking, she started stroking my arm. After a moment she said, “Oh, is that your arm? I thought it was the bannister”, but she didn’t stop. A little while later Hildegard suddenly announced that it had been too long since she had last had sex (we hadn’t been talking about sex previously), and that her roommate was gone for the weekend so she was going to have to go back to her room all alone.

There was little doubt in my mind that Hildegard was making a pass at me. As I think it is immoral to take advantage of drunk women and since I don’t particularly desire Hildegard even when she doesn’t smell like a barroom floor, I soon made my farewells and left her with her other friends.

To this day I am not completely certain what was going through Hildegard’s mind that night. The next morning she remembered seeing me, but couldn’t recall anything we had talked about. It wasn’t until considerably later that I told her what I’ve just recounted above, and she seemed genuinely surprised. Hildegard swears that she had never had any conscious desire to have sex with me, and that she certainly wouldn’t have wanted to be unfaithful to the man she was dating at the time. She could offer no explanation for her behavior. I wasn’t very satisfied with this as I like for things to have explanations. The best one I have managed to come up with is that Hildegard really did think that my arm was the bannister, and that her complaints about being horny and lonely were not intended as any sort of sexual invitation. She was just horny and lonely and too drunk to realize how I might interpret her statements. She didn’t really want to have sex with me at all, no matter how it seemed.

In light of this I am certainly very glad that I reacted the way I did. But I imagine that some people in my situation might instead have decided to accompany Hildegard back to her empty room. What might have happened then? Perhaps Hildegard would have realized that her friend expected sex, perhaps she would have been capable of giving a clear “no”, and perhaps her friend would have accepted this and gone away, but I do not think that this is the most likely scenario. That is what still upsets me about this, because there is no doubt in my mind that if anything else had happened then Hildegard would have been the victim of rape.

I do wish that Hildegard would moderate her drinking, and I have told her so. I wish she would understand that her drinking habits often place her in the position of being an easy target. But no matter how irresponsible she may be, if anyone takes advantage of her irresponsibility then that is their fault, not hers. The victim’s lack of good sense doesn’t make it less of a crime.

I agree that getting people drunk for the purpose of getting their consent to have sex is sleazy, and with the new info I agree that wring has grounds for a sexual assault charge since she remembers being groped after telling the guy no and attempting to push him away. I also agree to a ‘yes’ under physical duress is not consent, but I don’t agree with those who believe that a ‘yes’ under some other kind of pressure is rape - according to some people, if a guy tells a girl he will dump her and tell everybody she’s a slut if she doesn’t have sex with him, it’s rape if she says yes.

I have learned to separate my sense of right and wrong from what should be enforced by the government on everybody. In events where memories are clouded or missing I think we need some hard evidence of wrongdoing before accusations of serious crimes are made. Now, if a friend or relative of mine was taken advantage of when drunk, either had no clear memories or was nagged or threatened with some kind of social ostracism into having sex with someone she didn’t really want to there is a strong chance that I would take it upon myself to ‘punish’ the offender, but I would not believe it should be taken to court.