I want to play devil's advocate

Let's say I got totally trashed at a house party and in my impaired judgement, not knowing any better I got into a knife fight and killed someone. Does that exonerate me of responsibility because I was drunk?

What if I got into a massive car crash and still in a stupor, I told the officer on the scene I was impaired and thus it wasn't my responsiblity because I was too drunk drunk to realize I shouldn't have got behind the wheel? Isn't it still my responsiblity to not drive?

What if, after putting me in hand cuffs and asking me if I understood I had a right to remain silent I responded with "yeah *hic* sure pig and you know what I did it you bastards" is that confession rendered inadmissable?

If I show up to a final exam hammered and mark random bubbles and call the professor a fool, is the grade I got on the test still valid. I mean, I was drunk it wasn't my fault I did such stupid things right?

Finally, let's say a person, drunk out of their mind, petitions a sober person for sex and that sober person takes them up on their offer. If the drunk person, after sobering up realizes it was a mistake, have the sober person charged with rape, even in light of all these examples of intoxication not being a valid excuse for stupid, irresponsible, and illegal behavior?

Should the gender of the drunk person and the sober person make a difference? What about a woman who takes advantage of a man? What about a man who takes advantage of a man? How about a woman who takes advantage of a man?

 

i find this an unjustifiable analogy.

and the most definitive form of rape involving alcohol occurs when the woman is nearly incapacitated, although there are other cases.

there's a difference between being tipsy and being incapacitated.

i haven't seen too many incapacitated people murder other people.

it is practically physically impossible for a completely drunk, incapacitated male to have an erection, so the occurrences of alcohol induced male rape would be few and far between.

 

I agree with SuperNova. The issue of gender here is really not that applicable. If a woman gets drunk to the point where she is incapacitated, she is not able to give consent. She may not have made the best choices through the night, but it is by no means an open invitation to rape. If a sober man rapes an incoherent man, it would be rape just as much as if it were a woman.

 

in your first examples, the person committing the crime was drunk.

in the last example, about rape, the victim is drunk, not the rape offtender.

there is a difference between getting drunk and committing a crime, and getting drunk and being the VICTIM of a crime.

 

^^^ i appologize, i misread the part about who was sober and who was drunk in the end.

 

No.

yes

yes... but a jury or magistrate should take into account that what you say may not be under your best judgement.

Yes, the mark is still valid. Yes, it was your fault you did such a stupid thing.

I'd say the drunk person should live with thier stupid, drunken mistake, same as in all the other examples. Though I certainly wouldn't think much of someone who sleeps with a drunk person simply because they are rolling drunk.

No. No difference on gender responsibilities. If you deliberately go and get drunk, well, sorry but you just have to live with the consequences.

Now as to the rape thing, if the man or woman has been "slipped a mickey" or whatever, with the purpose of being taken advantage of, then it is, most definately, rape.

 

Hang on, she wasn't raped. Read it again. She got drunk, picked someone up, regretted it, and lashed out. Different scenario.

 

"Regarding what counts as force or lack of consent, most laws include physical force and threats of force but not other threats (e.g., threats of divorce). In many jurisdictions, engaging in sexual acts with someone is illegal if that person is incapacitated (e.g., by intoxication or mental illness) and hence unable to give informed consent. "

This came from the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality. If a person is not able to give consent, it is considered rape in many cases.

In the example stilanas says "a person, drunk out of their mind, petitions a sober person for sex and that sober person takes them up on their offer"

According to the law in many jurisdictions, this is considered rape.

 

If they are sober enough to ask for sex, to pick someone up, they are sober enough to give consent. Hell, that IS giving consent.

Incapacitated would refer to being passed out, or too drunk to speak, no?

People really have to be responsible for thier own actions.

 

What inspired this was a story about a guy who was hanging around his dorm when a drunk woman comes out of nowhere and kisses him. She asks him to fuck her so he, in his "wisdom" decided to go along with it. So in this case, the drunk person was drunk of their own volition and was the one who offered sex.

I'm undecided on how to respond to them. This was on another forum and he was getting a lot of insults for what he did, including claims that he was a rapist but at the same time, the so called rapist didn't ask for it, it was offered to them.

 

incapacitated

Incapacitate \In`ca*pac"i*tate\, v. t. [Pref. in- not + capacitate.] 1. To deprive of capacity or natural power; to disable; to render incapable or unfit; to disqualify; as, his age incapacitated him for war.

So a person who is "drunk out of their mind" would then lack the natural power to decide whether or not they wanted to have sex, thus making them incapacitated. I guess there is a gray area as to determine who is or is not incapacitated, but I really think a person drunk out of their mind would fit the bill.

Yes people have to take responsibilty for their own actions. But doesn't that also apply to the person who decided that have sex with someone drunk out of their mind?

I personally feel that false allegations of rape have done nothing but make it harded for women to prove their rape. Every case needs to be looked at separately.

 

Agreed Piper. It's a tough one. I guess it comes down to the motives of the "rapist", and just how drunk the "victim" was.

As to the story above, I'd say no, he wasn't a rapist. The woman was capable of walking and talking - hence not totally incapacitated by any means. Still, the guy sounds like a loser, a dog, what else have you.

 

i am quite positive that the implication of this thread was that while a drunk person who murders someone is considered at fault, a drunk person who has sex is not.

unfortunately it is not so cut and dry. #1 a sober person can a lot more easily tell a drunk person "no i don't want to have sex with you" then they can save themselves from being shot.

#2 as i said before, "drunk" means more than just tipsy. two drinks at the bar and then going home with someone does not qualify as rape. being blacked out however does.

 

Being under the influence is not an excuse for those kinds of behaviors. There is a thing called "self control". I have been "messed up" in the past quit a bit, but never did anything that I shouldn't have done, because even in my most out-of-it situations, I still had a conscious. But that's me. I think that many times, people use excuses too loosely. Again, self control comes into play.

JMHO.

Peace.

 

I am not referring to rape in my previous post, just so we're clear on that!

I believe that someone can be taken advantage of when they are in a passed-out drunken stupor. I mean, if you're unconscious, or in and out of conscious, what possible defense can one have?

Peace.

 

Dudes who have know the score usually refuse to fuck drunk chicks. "Asking for" sex isn't a crime, like the other scenerios provided are. I would think that sober people should be more responsible than to take up an offer from sex from a chick who was so loaded she was "drunk out of her mind." As others have said, being that drunk causes the lac of being able to give consent. As "Asking for" sex isn't a crime, yet killing someone is (and doesn't have the "consent" factor, as the aggresor, not the victim was the drunk on) and driving drunk are.

Yes, it is complicated. Caveat; don't have sex with drunk chicks. It may probably get you in trouble. Really, is picking up womyn who are too drunk to say no the best this dude can do? (stilanas I did not mean you, you know that, I was refering to your hypothetical dude ) Most men are together enough, and kind enough, to get laid without having to have his partner nearly anesethized.

OTOH, some womyn regret having sex AFTER the fact, when before and during the fact they gave FULL consent. This shouldn't be considered rape, as long as she was in a mind/body state of being able to give consent. (ie sober and not ill or mentally ill.) I knew girls in college who would do this regularly, and were regular sufferers of "Morning after guilt" and "Why doesn't he call me." This ISN'T rape, just poor judgment on the girls' part. So yeah, a womyn can "Regret" having sex without it being rape, as long as she gave consent and was totally able to during the act.

 

where do you draw the line of when someone is able to give consent and not? Its obvious that someone who is passed out cant give consent, so there is no need to even further discuss that.

There is no fair, accurate way of telling when someone is too drunk to give consent. I know many people who can function well over the legal limit(to drive) and others who are trashed right at it. Are we going to rely on the 'victim' to decide if they were able to give consent the next day? Thats very scary.

 

They think they can, but they can't. My dh used to think he was "OK to drive." After 3 or 3 drinks, but I could tell he was impaired, even though not really drunk. (As a result I always get the keys on the way home!)

My caveat again; Don't have sex with drunk chicks. It won't kill you not to, but it could get you in trouble to do so. I made a keepable promise in college to never have any one night stands and never have sex with drunk guys, and I kept it. Never regretted anything the next morning either. If I can do it, so can you.

Assume any amount of drunkness may be "too drunk" to give consent. That way you are safe. It really isn't a big deal, don't do drunk chicks.

 

Realistically, that is not reasonable. While that may be a way to play it safe, its not going to happen. Every night guys go and pick up women in bars.

I think there are very few instances where a woman cant give consent while drunk. While drinking may hamper your decision making skills, it doesnt free you from responsibility. Ultimately, the responsibility must be with the person who is consuming alcohol

 

Here is the source:

No link because its a private forum.

Here are a few "brilliant" posts in his defense:

It actually turns out it was a moot point though.