That is what I am saying. If both are whacked of their face then neither should complain. If the girl is flopping around and the guy is stone-cold, then that may be interpreted as rape. It also probably depends on the girl. Some girls get really uptight about rape and others don’t mind
For the love of Christ, cut that last sentence. You know what i mean
It is a bit scary to see some pulling the concept of “informed consent” into this. Dealing with obtaining informed consent to participate in treatment and in research activities on a regular basis as I am, it makes me think that we are going to need to obtain a written consent for sex after explicitly reviewing the purpose, risks and benefits, costs and payments, limits of confidentiality, and right to withdraw.
Do we all start with the premise that, everything else being equal, both partners in sex are equally responsible for their actions and decisions?
Hopefully we can agree that “drunken” or “drunk” involves a broad range of intoxication. Do you know when you yourself have crossed some line between sober and drunk? Do you know where, for yourself, tipsy ends and drunk begins?
I suspect that, even if you believe you can clearly demarcate these experiences for yourself, it would not be a reasonable expectation that anyone can discern such from external observations. How then do we specify where the ability to give “informed” consent to sex comes to an end?
On a tangent, what are the reasons that people drink in the first place? Even casual drinking appears to be done to “take the edge off” or “relax,” and typically this reflects a cognitive relaxation rather than a physical one. Otherwise why not just take a nap? A bit more drinking is often done to “loosen one’s inhibitions” in order to have more fun. Thus, part of the process seems to me to involve intentionally altering one’s standard cognitive constructions about what one should do and how one should behave.
A bit more controversial point is that some people (and seemingly to me, more often women than men) seek a plausible deniability to engage in sex. More generally, it is fairly common for men and women to seek an excuse for stupid or embarrassing behavior by citing intoxication. In short, my impression is that the entire process of drinking alcohol is to establish a context in which social norms can been modified.
Should it be said that any man or woman who has consumed any alcohol is no longer able to give consent to sex? I think this flies in the face of the unstated portion of a large chunk of our social interactions. The alternative is to place the responsibility for the interaction on the participants involved and recognize that there is no reasonable way to establish a standard about when in the process of intoxication the ability to consent to sex clearly ends. Someone who responds to the advances of a drunk woman should not be held liable regardless of his or her level of intoxication. Someone who has sex with a drunk woman who is slurring her words, but who still says yes to sex is doing something I wouldn’t do, but doing something I wouldn’t do is not a good standard for establishing laws.
I do agree that one should be required to get an explicit affirmative consent before sex (meaning that a passed out person cannot consent), but how far back do we extend this requirement? What proportion of romantic involvements have included “Do you want to have intercourse with me?” “Yes, and you?” “Yes.” Can it be said that it was rape if that did not happen?
Women who are concerned about what happens to their virtue have to take responsibility for their own behavior that might place such virtue in jeopardy. Men cannot be held to an unreasonable standard for ascertaining another person’s diminished ability to consent.
I’m going to have to disagree with you there. Someone already mentioned that “I was drunk” is never considered a valid alibi.
On a related note, I don’t think there’s ever been a man who’s said “lady! Stop sucking my dick or I’m going to call the cops!!”
Woman convicted of rape - Thing like this you really can’t make up.
I wish I could remember who it was…pro-basketball guy I think…that videotaped ALL his sexual partners consenting to having sex with him. He’s smart, but keee-rist if that doesn’t take the spontaneous rush out of things…
Not even all that smart. Since when does giving consent deny the ability to revoke consent the moment the camera’s off? It sounds like a well-meaning idea someone had a year or two back: condom wrappers that would bear the fingerprints of two people cooperating to open one. Doesn’t mean a damn thing, for the same reason; no means not only “no” but a negation of all preceding "yes"es.
Maybe he just keeps the camera rollin’…
Female->Male rape is rarer, but probably for physiological reasons for than moral or psyhological. But it does happen.
It generally goes unreported.
The thing is, unless you’re unconscious, comatose, paralyzed, in a persistent vegetative state, dead or tied down, sex is not just something ‘someone does to you’.
I mean I can’t speak for others, but after years of conducting my own research into the matter, it’s definitely an activity in which both (all) parties are performing some actions.
Men have been raped by women; IIRC it usually involves multiple women and strangulation ( to produce an erection; it’s a reflex of some sort ), with a fair chance of the man dying.
Or one woman, a drunk man, and sufficient rubbing of the genital area.
Erection is a response to stimulus. Stimulate it enough, and it will rise.
An example mentioned on another board, an eleven year old boy assaulted by an older ( and 40 pounds heavier ) girl. He noted that if he had reported it, he, not her would have been accounted the criminal, and would be on file as a sex offender for life.
If someone says to (drunk) you, “bet you $1,000 dollars you can’t put the 8-ball in the corner pocket,” and you yell “yer on!!”, weave your way over to the pool table, and strike the cue ball, missing the 8-ball by a mile, you are not liable for the $10,000 (le’ts ignore for the moment the legality or illegality of gambling).
You certainly participated - you took the shot. But you could not legally give consent to the bet because you were drunk. The person who made the bet had no (at least moral) right to take advantage of your condition and propose the bet, and could not legally rely upon your assent. Likewise with sex - you could certainly have sex drunk, but the person with whom you have sex had no (at least moral) right to ask you to have sex, and could not legally rely upon your assent.
Sua
You’ve been hanging around different bars than I have. Drunk or sober, you are expected to pay off any bet you took and lost in any bar I have been in.
If you had made the shot, the other guy would have been expected to pay. We call it being responsible for our actions. People who welsh on bets get hurt were I come from. (by the way, how did the wager jump from $1,000 to $10,000?).
The drunken better would not legally be responsible for the bet.
Sua
Is that true in Vegas?
Exactly. If I lose $10,000 at the roulette, can I get it back if I can show I was drunk at the time?
Also, regarding sex while drunk: doesn’t it matter what kind of sex they were having?
That is, if the guy is lying on his back and she’s riding him like a cowboy, then it’s not rape, no matter how drunk she is.
I think there have been some cases on this, and I recall one in Atlantic City, but I don’t recall the result. My guess is that it would not be true in a casino. There, you are not solicited to make the bet, but chose to enter the casino. The loss of the bet would be the result of your actions.
Sua
It certainly could be. The sexual position has no bearing on whether the alleged victim’s alleged consent was legally valid.
Sua