Is sex with someone who is intoxicated rape/sexual assault? (1 Viewer)

[Lolsmith]

join date 2007 woah

Classic case of being almost raped.

You choose to get shit faced you take responsibility for all the things you do when you are shit faced.

please be trolling

 

[Ivorytw]

what happens if you pass out whilst rooting.

happens to me all the time.

 

[Ivorytw]

I would also like to say that there is a big difference between going out with the intention of targeting a drunk girl on the precedence that she is drunk and her judgements are incurred and having sense with a drunk girl.

 

[RANK 1]

what happens if the guy is passed out and a girl takes advantage of him, is that still rape?

 

[Ivorytw]

yes definitely

 

[mirakon]

I smell a cantankerous peasant and a slave to the contemptible and absurd notions of modernity. A woman's body is the sole right of the husband to be taken and used on request or command.

Wait a minute

*narrows eyes*

Cosmo is dat you?

 

[Annihilist]

No, I was actually disgusted and wanted to see if everyone thought the same (luckily it's only that retarded Annihilist) and see what arguments people have against it.

And I was having a discussion about it the other day after my party with a few people that were there and some people made good points on both ways and I wanted to see what the internet had to say, what shadow said just sparked my memory.

It wasn't specified so I assumed.

I don't understand why you are able to attack me because my point of view differs from yours.

For one, I simply believe in people's individual responsibility to not fuck up. And I believe that people's decisions, such as whether to have sex or not, are entirely their own responsibility. And if you make the decision to have sex with someone, then that's your decision.

Actual forced violent rape is another issue altogether and I by no means believe that that is right in any case. I read somewhere earlier that you said "no one deserves to be raped if they're intoxicated". Or maybe that wasn't you. But that's right, no one does deserve to be raped. It's a horrible thing to do. But the debate was not about the ethical connotations of rape itself.

The issue actually comes down to the nature of consent. Where we differ is that you believe people are unable to consent while intoxicated. I believe that people are able to give consent regardless of intoxication.

I am not saying people don't need to give consent. I am just saying they are able. If they do not give consent, that is rape. If they do, then it's not. I don't believe level of intoxication is relevant to their ability to give consent.

Maybe they wouldn't consent if they were sober, but who's fault is it if they made that mistake of drinking/taking enough drugs to so something they wouldn't normally do, and then actually do it?

My point is if someone gets drunk, has sex with someone, and regrets it the next morning when they sober up, legally, that is grounds for pressing rape charges. And under the law, it is considered rape, because the person in question would not have agreed to it under circumstances where they are sober. And I don't believe that is right. I don't believe it was the fault of the so-called "offender" that these two had sex.

The other thing I want to point out is that taking advantage of someone is not necessarily rape. If someone tries to intoxicate another to the point where they will agree to sex, it's not rape, per say. Now, you would say that it is rape. In a legal context, you would be correct. But in an ethical context it varies. Their level of intoxication is entirely their own responsibility (unless they were spiked. But this does complicate the issue a bit more and I'm not going to get into this unless it is deemed necessary). And if they agree to sex, well, who's fault is that? And if they blame the other person then I think that is sad and pathetic. If you make a bad decision, I don't believe you can blame anyone but yourself.

Now, legally, I am wrong. I understand that.

And I do not advocate actual rape. I got the impression that you seem to think I would, so I'm going to state clearly that I do not.

And another thing, whether I agree with your philosophical and ethical ideals does not imply any intelligence or lack thereof. Do not insult my intelligence simply because I disagree with your values. You may call me a reprehensible asshole if you really feel the need, but my level of intelligence has nothing to do with it.

 

[Shadowdude]

Because:
1. It is the law.
2. YOU should be responsible enough to be able to determine it, and if she says later that she can't remember ANY part of the night leading to or after the sex act(s) that means she was intoxicated, which makes it rape. Pretty much it's her words against yours and people would be more likely to believe the victim.

Showing the signs of being intoxicated:
- Slurred speech
- Stumbling
- Slowed reaction time
Again, this is COMMON SENSE
IF YOU'RE INTOXICATED AS WELL THEN IT IS MUTUAL RAPE (writing this is capitals because you obviously didn't read it BEFORE)

If their intoxication is enough to say they are in a "grey area" then they are too intoxicated for you to have sex with. Fuck.

If there is enough confusion to say "hey, this may be a grey area" then you should be responsible enough to weigh out the consequences and make a decision on how to act. i.e. DON'T HAVE SEX WITH THEM.

If you are hungry and see a berry in the forest that you're pretty sure is poisonous because you've seen something like it on a tv show do you eat it because you're unsure or do you leave it and get something safe to eat?

You're the one talking about resorting to rape/sexual assault to "get with" a girl.

1. Sure, it's the law - but it's a matter for the jury to decide. If you want to talk about qualitative stuff, then sure - yes, it's all good and fine to say, "Yes, when they are intoxicated - and they can't think for themselves... etc. etc. etc." then it is rape. But I'm saying that we have to face that if we're at a bar, we're also likely to be drunk - and our own inhibitions and thinking isn't all that flash either.

2. So following on from my point, assuming that we're having no crepe and both parties were drunk - what if the guy wakes up the next morning and can't remember too? Then what, it's double rape? Who's the victim then? As OzKo, I believe said - it's technically "rape" apparently, but what court is going to convict anyone of that? You're sort of assuming that a guy will pick-up some intoxicated girl and have sex with her, while completely sober. Is that morally wrong? Sure, why not. Is it illegal? Apparently it is.

Fact is, I'd wager and state that in these scenarios were hypothesising - both parties are tipsy, perhaps some intoxicated - but you seem to be of the assumption that there is a sober guy who will 'prey' on drunk girls.

Oh and I'm the one resorting to rape/sexual assault to get with someone? Hmm, that reminds me on your "wouldn't have done it otherwise" point. You wouldn't have touched me at the Roundhouse if you were sober - but no, you hugged and touched me and tickled me and did whatnot. Am I going to call that sexual assault now because you certainly wouldn't have done that when you were sober?

 

[Timske]

Definitely rape/sexual assault. Clearly states 'intoxicated', under the Crimes Act 1900. Victims who are intoxicated lack the capacity to consent.

 

[Timske]

I don't understand why you are able to attack me because my point of view differs from yours.

For one, I simply believe in people's individual responsibility to not fuck up. And I believe that people's decisions, such as whether to have sex or not, are entirely their own responsibility. And if you make the decision to have sex with someone, then that's your decision.

Actual forced violent rape is another issue altogether and I by no means believe that that is right in any case. I read somewhere earlier that you said "no one deserves to be raped if they're intoxicated". Or maybe that wasn't you. But that's right, no one does deserve to be raped. It's a horrible thing to do. But the debate was not about the ethical connotations of rape itself.

The issue actually comes down to the nature of consent. Where we differ is that you believe people are unable to consent while intoxicated. I believe that people are able to give consent regardless of intoxication.

I am not saying people don't need to give consent. I am just saying they are able. If they do not give consent, that is rape. If they do, then it's not. I don't believe level of intoxication is relevant to their ability to give consent.

Maybe they wouldn't consent if they were sober, but who's fault is it if they made that mistake of drinking/taking enough drugs to so something they wouldn't normally do, and then actually do it?

My point is if someone gets drunk, has sex with someone, and regrets it the next morning when they sober up, legally, that is grounds for pressing rape charges. And under the law, it is considered rape, because the person in question would not have agreed to it under circumstances where they are sober. And I don't believe that is right. I don't believe it was the fault of the so-called "offender" that these two had sex.

The other thing I want to point out is that taking advantage of someone is not necessarily rape. If someone tries to intoxicate another to the point where they will agree to sex, it's not rape, per say. Now, you would say that it is rape. In a legal context, you would be correct. But in an ethical context it varies. Their level of intoxication is entirely their own responsibility (unless they were spiked. But this does complicate the issue a bit more and I'm not going to get into this unless it is deemed necessary). And if they agree to sex, well, who's fault is that? And if they blame the other person then I think that is sad and pathetic. If you make a bad decision, I don't believe you can blame anyone but yourself.

Now, legally, I am wrong. I understand that.

And I do not advocate actual rape. I got the impression that you seem to think I would, so I'm going to state clearly that I do not.

And another thing, whether I agree with your philosophical and ethical ideals does not imply any intelligence or lack thereof. Do not insult my intelligence simply because I disagree with your values. You may call me a reprehensible asshole if you really feel the need, but my level of intelligence has nothing to do with it.

Sorry buddy your point of view doesn't matter it's the law that decides.

 

[AAEldar]

Sorry buddy your point of view doesn't matter it's the law that decides.

Now, legally, I am wrong. I understand that.

?

 

[Annihilist]

Sorry buddy your point of view doesn't matter it's the law that decides.

I know. I disagree with the legal perspective. I am stating my ethical point of view.

 

[ShaxBOS]

It depends if they wanted to do it or not, if they wanted it then it's probably more justified than doing it sober because people lose their inhibitions when drunk.

 

[soloooooo]

It is not illegal at all. I give the following analogy:

Male A is drunk. He has smashed down a train of shots in under 2 hours and for all purposes is wasted. He goes to Escort Agency B and pays for sex with Escort C.

Under the above legal definition it could be argued that Escort C had raped Male A even though Male A had paid for the service (although legally is not allowed to give consent under the definition).

That would be just stupid.

 

[I Study Hard]

I don't have the time to read this whole thread right now but you should be looking at s61 of the Crimes Act.
s61I will tell you that sexual assualt is defined as any person who has sexual intercourse with another person without the consent....and who knows that the other person does not consent to the sexual intercourse...
s61HA(6)(a) will tell you that a person may be found to not have consented to sexual intercourse on the grounds that they were substantially intoxicated by alcohold or any drug.

This would lead me to believe that aslong as a girl isn't blind drunk you should be fine. Think about it in these terms, if you feel like it's wrong it probably is =P

 

[I Study Hard]

Definitely rape/sexual assault. Clearly states 'intoxicated', under the Crimes Act 1900. Victims who are intoxicated lack the capacity to consent.

Substantially intoxicated. I think it's the level of intoxication that actually matters.

 

[bineal]

lookat all these squares

 

[delian]

Substantially intoxicated. I think it's the level of intoxication that actually matters.

hard to gauge, though

 

[lolcakes52]

This is stupid. If someone has a cancer in their brain that presses on the frontal lobe, impairing there judgement, is it illegal to have intercourse? Fuck no. People make mistakes and its the stupid ones who make them more than once.

 

[soloooooo]

This is stupid. If someone has a cancer in their brain that presses on the frontal lobe, impairing there judgement, is it illegal to have intercourse? Fuck no. People make mistakes and its the stupid ones who make them more than once.

To be honest, I would be more concerned and worried about their Cancer rather than the fact they had (consensual) sex with a 15 year old etc.