Which of these following cases is rape?

Post Reply New Topic

They are all rape

I don't think being drunk changes anything. If you think being drunk makes you unable to understand the nature of sex and its consequences, then would I be legally in the right to rape somebody against her consent if I were drunk? Some of you said that the women aren't able to give consent, in other words, not able to understand her actions, when she is drunk. So doesn't that mean that a drunk rapist isn't conscious of his actions either? I think at least he would have to be tried as having been temporarily insane in a court system that considered intoxication to be so debilitating to one's reasoning ability. I don't think there is any crime where being drunk is a mitigating circumstance, so I don't see why it should be when somebody wants to be a victim.

And if you're one of the people who thinks that A isn't rape but B is, then I have a question: How can a man be guilty of rape if he is not aware at the time of having sex whether he was committing it?

penis = rape

KILL ALL TEH MEZ!!!1!!1

Not. No regret about doing it though the man was an ass for accepting.



This one borders rape and it really depends on just how drunk the girl was. Technically if she was not drunk enough to form coherent words and talk her way into him agreeing then it is not drunk. On the other hand, if she was drunk when she started flirting heavily and kept having alcohol until she just couldn't speak coherently... and the he had sex.. that is rape.



Not rape.



In some states that is considered rape since he is the one who pursued her for it. In my opinion.. if both were equally drunk then I'd say they raped each other.



Its not rape. She should give him another go when he's sober 'cause its not cool to not remember half of it.

I hold the view that a crime occurs regardless of the fact that no one has compained yet, if I throw a stone at your window the act of throwing a stone with the intention of breaking the window is a crime. The vandalism does not become a crime at the moment you complain to a policeman.

None of them are rape as there is no resistance or refusal. Both parties consent and are lawfully consenting. The fact someone regrets it afterwards doesn't change the fact that wanted it beforehand, intoxicated or not.

Crying rape should never be an excuse if everyone thinks badly of sleeping with someone "below you". This is a common occurrence now and is very shameful.
It ruins people's lives. Even if they are acquitted they are usually never seen in the same light by anyone again.

If there were other factors involves like mental disabilities, under age partners then yes statutory rape or similar is definitely the case.

A, B, C and D are not rape.

Well, A and B would depend somewhat on just how drunk she was, but if she was still able to not only initiate, but be persistent about it, then it seems unlikely that she was drunk to the point of being unable to understand what she was doing. (Of course, I have little experience with drunkenness myself, so I could be wrong here.)

E would depend on "how drunk" and also on what "takes advantage" means.

If someone is coherent enough to make an active effort to try and have sex with someone, then they are coherent enough to be held responsible for their actions, man or woman.

A man doesn't get off the hook for raping someone because he's drunk. Nor does he get off the hook for beating someone's ass because he was drunk. The only way this scenario is rape is when the person is literally incoherent from alcohol, in which case they should learn to stop drinking so f*****g much.

So what you're saying is that if I've had two pints over the course of an hour that I can't consent to sex?! I would be above the legal driving limit and could be considered 'inrttoxicated' by that yardstick. However, a lot of people would be very insulted if you used that as a yardstick, seeing as they have all their faculties.

If I have, say, three or four pints, does that mean that I am not allowed to consent to sex?

Bear in mind that these would have been over several hours, and I would be aware of my faculties.

agreed

Define 'intoxicated'.

I would feel very rejected if you said that you wouldn't have sex with me because you considered them 'intoxicated' when they considered themselves nothing of the kind (and neither would most people). We're talking people who are above the legal alcohol limit for driving, but are otherwise still very intelligible.

If they're struggling to speak, falling over, being sick, quite tired, unsteady on their feet, you'd have a point.

I'd be pretty hacked off if you said you wouldn't sleep with me because I'd had two or three pints though.

Last edited by Tequila on 10 Aug 2013, 10:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

So you're saying almost all the endless millions of sexual encounters that begin in night clubs are cases of rape?
If you're going to take this in black and white, it is best you see the fundamental flaw with a black and white example.
It would make a good chunk of my city, men and women, along with countless other cities or drinkers, rapists by your example.

It would make the vast majority of people in the UK - men and women - rapists. Even if the 'raped' person had amazing sex and loved every minute of it.

It's a bizarre and ludicrous statement.

I don't understand how someone's not capible of consenting to sex when their drunk but is able to be charged for drunk driving. When someone choses to drive drunk their jungment is also impared when they make that decision & they are held accountable for any wrecks & deaths that may result despite the fact that their jugement was impared when they made the decision in the 1st place. Yet when they are drunk they are suddently deemed incapable of making the decision to have sex or not. People need to be held accountable for their own desisions. If someone choses to get wasted around people he/she doesn't know; he/she was a moron not to consider that they might try to take advatage or that he/she might come on to them while drunk & he/she should own up to that decision instrad of crying rape, just as when a person choses to get wasted at a place he/she drove too, he/she was a mornon to to consider that he/ahe might drive back & should be picked up & charged for drunk driving if he/she decideds to drive back.

If you throw a stone my window, the policeman will see it and may take you down to the station, but they will contact me and if I don't want to peruse, it then you cannot be charged, however you might be charged with some other public order offense, otherwise you will be unarrested, and you will be free to go.

There are also other reasons why you might throw a stone at my window that aren't malicious, such as me asking you to.

There are these legal safeguards for a reason, and are not just opinions, they are based on centuries of legal testing, and they actually use the word 'safe'. An acquittal is made when a conviction is deemed 'unsafe'. As in the evidence, no longer stand ups to scrutiny, or there is new information, that changes the course of events.

In the case of assault if I give the defense of consent, that should be enough for it to be thrown out.

It is the same as operating heavy machinery. Your ability to actually task safely is impaired. But you are right, you have opportunity not to get to the point where you drink drives.

Whilst you might argue that for sex, it isn't actually a crime to drink and have sex.

That is because you aren't putting others at risk, just the consenting parties. If you where having foreplay whist driving maybe you would have a point.

We are talking about consent here.