I don’t see how what you describe could be considered rape, but there’s still some ambiguity in this. In my own experience, I’ve never flat-out asked a partner if she consented to have sex (I can’t imagine a situation where it wouldn’t be creepy and awkward, unless said jokingly). But the “natural progression” into sex involves a lot of non-verbal, but unmistakable, signs of consent. Things like “kissing me back passionately,” “moaning when touched,” and “grabbing my dick” strike me as pretty clear indications that it’s OK to move forward.
If I wasn’t getting any of that, or if I was but then it stopped, I’d be observant enough to pause and ask if everything was okay. If the woman just went dead silent and didn’t move but let me have my way, it still wouldn’t be rape, but as a practical matter you’d have to be pretty boneheaded not to notice the sudden discomfort and ask what was wrong.
However, If you’re suggesting a scenario where the woman offers none of those non-verbal clues at any point but things progress to sex anyway, I’m not really sure how that would work.
That is a super good point. I just got into my time machine and redid my entire post, only this time, I didn’t say anything at all about “the one with the penis” and “the woman”. Now it looks like you’re the one being sexist, because there’s nothing in my post about gender at all! Good catch!
Mhm. If you’d like an abridged edition, it’s the same point made in the post immediately above this one - the situation where somebody definitely doesn’t consent, but there’s literally no way for the partner to tell they don’t consent isn’t a real world situation, so drawing conclusions based on that situation leads to problems.
The first scenario is laughable: if no one said “yes” or “no”, who sues whom for rape? For those who believe it’s rape, can both parties be sued and convicted of rape? It’s a ridiculous stance to take.
Well, nobody sues anybody; the state prosecutes when they think they have enough evidence to do so. They obviously don’t do that when no evidence exists, which is what I’m trying to say. When we’re talking about it on a message board, it’s just a question of definitions: what does drunk mean, what does uncomfortable mean, etc. If drunk means X, and uncomfortable means Y, then all those scenarios are rape, and if drunk means A and uncomfortable means B, they aren’t rape. It isn’t very difficult to break down when we’re making up the scenario.
It doesn’t work that way in the real world in a situation where something happened, but nobody knows what, so things have to be proven. In scenario #1 in the real world, the only evidence of a rape would be the second person’s testimony, which doesn’t sound like it would be very compelling, because who would believe a person would act just like a person who consented without consenting? And that’s, I think, the problem with the hypothetical. It’s loaded.
If I’m stone sober I think it’s my obligation to say no to drunk people. Morally it becomes murkier if both people are too intoxicated to know what they are doing, but where one person is clearly less intoxicated? Yeah, I see that as rape. And considering how often rapists use alcohol as a means to an end, I don’t think you can wave it away and put the blame on women being “irresponsible with their vaginas”. Since this isn’t the pit, I can’t respond to that sentiment in the way in genuinely deserves.
If having sex while one or both partners is intoxicated is rape then I’d assume 60%+ of the country can be classified as rapists and rape victims. I don’t think you can count that as rape. Sex with someone who is passed out is not the same as sex with someone who is tipsy or inebriated.
I’ll take it further by introducing “rape by deception” which is the idea that any false info given, even self aggrandizing non-sense, turns consensual sex into rape. So because she isn’t really a super model, that chick you hooked up with at the bar is a rapist.
And what initiating sex with a sleeping partner? Every long term live in couple has experienced this.
I think this ups the figure considerably, and the only non-rapists left in the world are virgins.
I don’t think the ‘sex with someone who is passed out’ should even be in the same discussion as ‘sex with someone who is inebriated but conscious’
If you have sex with someone who is passed out, it doesn’t matter if they passed out from too much alcohol, or due to an aneurism, or because they are in a coma. You just simply should not have sex with someone who is passed out, for whatever reason.
So, if we take out the ‘passed-out drunk’ cases, the question is how do we classify sex with someone who is drunk, but can still walk and talk. It gets fuzzy, depending on the case, but it seems to me that in those cases you are just as responsible for consenting to sex as when you are sober.
I could argue that I was specifically speaking of ‘man rapes woman’ which you responded to. And I could also argue that women tend to be the victims in about 99.99% of all cases.
From a common-sense social perspective (your jurisdiction’s laws may vary):
And this is basically one aspect of the real-world reality that “consent”, just like other forms of communication, are not all verbal and do involve nonverbal body languages and conduct. Just because you didn’t explicitly write (on paper) or say (aloud, with a witness), “It is July 5, 2012. My name is Mary Jones and I consent to sex with Joe Parker. Witness my signature in perpetuity throughout the universe.”, doesn’t mean you didn’t consent by your own actions and conduct.
Think about this. If you step into a boxing ring where you have signed up to compete, you have, by this very act, consented to being punched, even if you didn’t explicitly verbalize exactly what physical attacks would be permitted. By entering a boxing match, you consented to what commonly happens there. You consented to being punched with a glove. You didn’t consent to be shot with a gun or stabbed with a knife or sword. So if the other competitor pulls a knife and stabs you, you could claim that the injury was non-consensual.
True. But also the responsibility should go the second way; don’t have sex while drunk. If you’d know not to drive while drunk, you should know not to have sex drunk either.
Once upon a time I knew a woman who spent her twenties trying very hard not to be a lesbian. In service of this misguided ambition, she frequently went out, got drunk, and had sex with men she didn’t know well. Were all those men rapists?
ETA: No, I was not one of the men she had sex with while drunk.
But what point does it serve to extend rape to cover someone intentionally getting drunk and having sex? If it just an intellectual exercise in legal technicality?
I think it could be dangerous and erode the seriousness of actual rape, hey if everything is rape anyway it can’t be so bad.
I start feeling the effects of alcohol after 2 glasses of wine. If someone has sex with me after I’ve had two glasses of wine, they should get a criminal record and go to prison?
To take a scenario given earlier, if two people have 4 beers each* at a party and then have sex, should they both be convicted of rape?
Not enough to lose track of what’s happening but not sober either.