Should it be illegal to have sex with a woman under the influence of alcohol
- Thread starter Theoryofrelativity
- Start date
You have my sympathies.
This isn't about being passed out. This is about being drunk and making bad decisions.
If a guy gets drunk and ends up taking a few in the pooper, it's his fault. His partners aren't to blame for his lapse of judgement. He is. He chose to drink. He chose to drop his pants.
Hell, I know a few guys that have gotten drunk and sodomized. I blame them. I don't blame the sodomites that popped his asscherry.
Bells
Staff member
Did I say that? Tell me where I said that exactly?
Have you ever been drunk? Ever been out with people who are drunk? Would you get someone drunk just to have sex with them, knowing they'd have refused you if they were sober? Laws that determine 'date rape', where a drug or alcohol is used as the means to rape the victim, are in place because there are people in society who prey on people they know will not be able to fight back or defend themselves.
I cannot understand how so many of you seem to just not get it. Most rape victims who have been drugged through either drugs or alcohol are prey to people they know. Sometimes even family members. So you find it easier to lay the blame on the victim rather than on the person who took advantage of their situation in the first place? Would you see it in the same light if the victim were a child? Do you blame the child for being 'sexy' to the paedophile? Do you think a child is responsible for being sexually molested? It amounts to the same thing in the end. When a person is drunk or drugged, then they become vulnerable to the individual(s) who are around them and if those individuals decide to take advantage of them when they are in such a state, it's the individual's fault and not the victim's.
Why do you think it's ok to rape Roman? Why are you defending the actions of people who prey on others in such a fashion? There is no difference between a person who slips a date rape drug into their victim's drink and a person who ply's their victim with alcohol to achieve the same means. You may think there is a difference, but there is not. The person who uses a pill to rape someone is the same as the person who uses alcohol. The only difference is that one may not have gained access to a date rape drug or may simply have decided that proving rape with just alcohol in the system of the victim would be harder, which goes to show a further level of premeditation. Now if you wish to somehow defend them of their actions, then so be it. But hope that you are never prey to such an individual, as it could be someone you trust who does it to you.
And no Roman, when a guy gets raped neither he, nor his friends, will blame him for it. Because most people understand the difference between right and wrong and understand the trauma the victim goes through after being raped. Most people would never take the blame from the rapist and place it on the victim. But I guess not everyone has such a level of understanding, and for that I pity you and those around you. Because chances are Roman, someone in your circle of friends or family will have been sexually assaulted or raped in the past or may be in the future and if you react like you have done in this thread, the repercussions to that individual(s) could be devastating.
Still suffering from a lack of comprehension Baron? Tell me, is it your age that makes you just so stupid? Do you think that because you're old, you can just be excused or somehow expect to be told you're always right? No Baron. I'm sorry to tell you this, but there is no excuse for rape nor is there any excuse for stupidity, just as the expectation that you're right due to your age will never come to fruition.Baron Max said:
No Baron. What I do expect is for people to not rape. Now I understand, in your neanderthal way of thinking, this might be a bit hard for you to comprehend, but rape is wrong. There is no defence for anyone who rapes. There is nothing that could mitigate a rapist's actions. And no Baron, I'm not demanding special laws for women. I'm demanding special laws for everyone. I'm demanding that everyone has the right to NOT BE RAPED, be they male, female or child. Now maybe you think that you can just take whatever you want, be it a woman, man or child (whichever you're into), but the fact of the matter is, you cannot. And if you're the type of person who needs to get someone drunk for them to have sex with you, then the problem is not with the person you're drugging, but with you.
That's what it amounts to. Because when someone is drunk, they may not be able to understand your actions and what it is you expect from them. Just like a drunk person cannot be considered safe to drive a car or operate heavy machinery because of their lack of judgement, just as it's illegal to get someone drunk to make them sign a contract, it's also illegal to get them drunk to have sex with them. A drunk person may not be able to tell the difference between friendly banter and sexually based innuendo and sexual advances. The problem or the issue isn't with the victim but with the rapist. Now you may wish to mitigate a rapist's actions for whatever reason necessary to you, but the law is against you in that. And no, the law stated in the start of this thread as proposed by ToR is just that.. her proposal. That particular law does not exist. But the law that states that you cannot get a person drunk or drug them with the intent to have sex with them, as it can be considered rape, does exist.
According to you, I've been raped dozens of times, my friends have been collectively raped hundreds of times, my sister raped....
Your definition of rape is wrong.
I haven't read this thread(looks dangerously boring). All I know is that women get entirely too much attention. Please, if anyone doesn't like their wine collection anymore you can freely reach me. Just what we need, further depleting the chances of people like me getting laid.
I agree, and we already have laws against rape. Why do we need anything further? Mitigating circumstances are for the courts to decide, and most of those are already on the law books.
So what are we talking about this for? Rape is against the law, but it's still done. Murder is against the law, but it's also still done. What the fuck? One more law ain't gonna' change a fuckin' thing. And worse, a special law ONLY for women is just going to be disaster for women's rights and equal treatment under the law.
Baron Max
Bells
Staff member
Then please inform us Roman, how do you define rape? Does it even exist in your vocabulary? Do you think rape is wrong? Do you think it should be legal to rape? You may think it's wrong Roman, but the law and society disagrees with you. Now unless you wish to think that everyone else is wrong and only you're right...
I'd suggest you contact your local law enforcement agency and tell them the definition of rape is wrong. You should also contact your local mayor, parliamentary representative and senator and also advise them that you think the definition of rape is wrong. As an added measure, you should look up in the phone book for every rape crisis centre and advise them of the fact you think everyone else has it all wrong. Hell you're in college aren't you? I dare you to stand in the middle of your college during its busiest times and yell out that you think the definition of rape is wrong.
Again, there is no law that states that it's illegal to have sex with a woman who's drunk. What is illegal and is classified as rape is if she's not willing and the rapist has plied her with alcohol, to ensure that she is not in a state of mind to give consent, to achieve the aim of rape. Now you may think that's a done thing amongst the society you seem to keep and so be it. But amongst civilised people, that is classified as rape, just as slipping GHB into a person's drink and then having sex with them without their understanding, knowledge or most importantly consent, is rape. If that's how you get a woman to sleep with you, then it could very well be that you could find yourself in a hell of a lot of trouble. If you think it's fine to get someone drunk and then take advantage of them, again you could get into a lot of trouble. And if you do find yourself standing in front of a judge, charged with rape, then you should tell them that you think the definition of rape is wrong.
Seriously, judges love it when criminals appear before them and tell them the law is wrong..
Don't they have this rule in Muslim countries? Minus the weapons requirement, just the no unaccompanied female part. That's where this is heading. If women want to be treated as equals, they have to assume some responsibility for their actions. Don't go out and get blind drunk then scream rape when someone has consentual sex because you were "incapacitated". How did you get that way? It's one thing if someone slips you a rufee, but if you go to a bar and get drunk you're just as responsible for what happens as a drunk driver.
If you could prove the "aim" was rape, OK. But if you're at a bar buying a woman drinks, and you're drinking too,...That's just social interaction. Sure, every guy knows women are more likely to say yes when drunk, why do you think we buy you drinks? But that doesn't mean the aim is rape. The aim is sex. It's the same reason a salesman takes you out to dinner and buys you drinks. It's called persuasion, not rape.
Men want sex. Damn near everything a man does for a woman is in the hopes of getting sex. That's why we buy drinks, open doors, open jars, and pretend to pay attention while you tell us every detail of your day. Should all these activities be outlawed too? "She was in no condition to give consent, he had just given her flowers and opened a really tight jar."
Then please inform us Roman, how do you define rape? Does it even exist in your vocabulary? Do you think rape is wrong? Do you think it should be legal to rape? You may think it's wrong Roman, but the law and society disagrees with you. Now unless you wish to think that everyone else is wrong and only you're right...
I'd suggest you contact your local law enforcement agency and tell them the definition of rape is wrong. You should also contact your local mayor, parliamentary representative and senator and also advise them that you think the definition of rape is wrong. As an added measure, you should look up in the phone book for every rape crisis centre and advise them of the fact you think everyone else has it all wrong. Hell you're in college aren't you? I dare you to stand in the middle of your college during its busiest times and yell out that you think the definition of rape is wrong.
Again, there is no law that states that it's illegal to have sex with a woman who's drunk. What is illegal and is classified as rape is if she's not willing and the rapist has plied her with alcohol, to ensure that she is not in a state of mind to give consent, to achieve the aim of rape. Now you may think that's a done thing amongst the society you seem to keep and so be it. But amongst civilised people, that is classified as rape, just as slipping GHB into a person's drink and then having sex with them without their understanding, knowledge or most importantly consent, is rape. If that's how you get a woman to sleep with you, then it could very well be that you could find yourself in a hell of a lot of trouble. If you think it's fine to get someone drunk and then take advantage of them, again you could get into a lot of trouble. And if you do find yourself standing in front of a judge, charged with rape, then you should tell them that you think the definition of rape is wrong.
Rape is having sex, forcibly, with someone who doesn't want it. If one (or both) of them are drunk and willing, how does that count as rape?
Next, adultress women will be shouting rape for the affairs they're having because their men throw their skankass out.
HIndsight's always 20/20. That doesn't make a man a rapist.
Those are enemies not friends, and she would have to be one seriously naive woman. It's one thing to be naive, but seriously, unless you know a person well, VERY well, as in like family, you don't drink with them. Hell you shouldnt drink with most family, pick a group of drinking buddies and only drink with them. Experience is your security.
Most cases? You assume a friend would rape a friend? No, thats an enemy posing as a friend, HUGE difference.
Most victims know the suspect. It does not mean the victim was friends with the suspect, it simply means that the victim knew the suspect. The only way you know someone is your friend or not is after they prove it, over and over again.
Thats naive thinking. Why are you always the most naive person on this forum? I don't think all women are THAT naive, a lot of women are street smart and know that there are many many people who are potential threats or who potentially want to harm them.
Because it's in human nature to harm other humans. If you want to protect victims, start reducing the harm. You are the same person who thinks if guns are taken away, that there will be less violent crime, your naive thinking makes no sense, because it only creates more victims. Yes you should blame the suspect for commiting the crime, but the victim is supposed to be properly educated so it's not as easy. There are children who are taught not to talk to strangers, this does not mean literally do not talk to strangers, it means do not trust strangers, it's taught early, and as a child grows into an adult it only becomes more true.
Because the victims don't seem to get it. When you think like a victim, only reacting to crime, it only helps crime continue. You are thinking like a victim when you say blame the rapist. YES of course you blame the rapist, they commited the crime, but how about going out of your way to PREVENT rape from ever occuring in the first place? Same problem with the gun law idea you have, you want to remove the guns, but this does nothing to prevent violent people from getting ahold of weapons. You as a person, you fear violent people, you don't fear rapists, you dont fear murderers, these are violent acts, what you actually fear is violent people, now stand up and say it, because if you keep reacting to violent acts, you'll have to declare each individual violent act illegal, while the violent individuals keep inventing new innovative ways to be violent, it's going to be cat and mouse. Why not instead just have much harsher penalties for violent crimes? Otherwise I don't see how your ideas are going to make any sense. There are already laws against rapes and it's not preventing rapes. You also have to understand that the people who have the greatest potential to commit rape are usually easy to spot, they have patterns of behavior, and usually have violent histories.
It's the violent persons fault. It's not the victims fault. The person who initiates the violence is most at fault. In a fight, the person who throws the first punch is most at fault, not the person who accidently kills them in self defense, but thats just my opnion. If someone is attacking you, THEY are at fault, and until the police arrive, YOU ARE THE LAW. I don't blame the rape victim for being raped, I blame the rapist, but the rape victim should always fight back, and the friends of the rape victim if they were friends would never allow it to go that far. To be frank, if I were in that situation and it's my friend and I care about her, the rapist would have to get through me before he'd be able to rape her. If it's a group of us, and that one aggressive violent friend is spazzing out, it's our responsibility to protect the most passive from the violence of the aggressor. This means, friends are supposed to stand up for and defend each other, with the stronger friends protecting the weaker or more vulnerable friends.In a situation where it's one guy vs three, and that one guy is being violent and acting spazzy, we could handle it, likely without anyone getting seriously hurt.
If you were in this situation, as naive as you claim to be, and you are in a room with 3 guys, and you all know which of the 3 is most likely to rape (the violent one who treats women like crap), and this guy is behaving in the wrong sorta way, would you actually just sit there and let this person drug your friend and rape her in front of you? I think even you would stand up and defend your friend, I don't think youd' allow someone to rape your friend even if they were a friend, if they attempt something like that they'd instantly become the enemy.
They already do.
If she was "incapacitated", she couldn't consent, could she?
What do you think about the child who gets into a pedophile's car because the pedophile offers the child sweets? Is the child responsible? They've been told not to talk to strangers etc., so according to your argument they are responsible for any abuse that occurs.
Now compare the situation where a man who wants to rape plies a woman with alcohol, and she doesn't notice that she is drinking 10 times as much as he is.
Yes...
In most cases, the aim is sex by mutual consent. It is when the perpetrator realises that the victim is not consenting (because they are past the point of having the capacity to consent due to drink) but has sex anyway that we cross the line into rape.
If the salesman gets you so drunk you don't know what you're doing, takes you to a hotel and the next day you wake up with a new vacuum cleaner and an empty wallet, is that "persuasion"? Has the salesman "persuaded" you to buy a new vacuum cleaner?
Rape is sex without consent. Surely it is a simple enough concept to grasp. If you give her flowers and she consents to sex, good for you. But if she doesn't consent, and you have sex, that's rape. Simple and obvious, I would have thought.
the above definition is wrong. removing the word 'forcibly' makes the definition right.
rape is having sex with someone without their consent. period.
Bells
Staff member
Contrary to what you may believe Roman, rape is when there is no consent. Now if a woman is so drunk as to not be in control of her faculties and could not be in any state of mind to consent, then yes that is rape. If she was saying no before she was drunk or showed no interest in you when she was sober and you start plying her with alcohol or possibly slipping her a few drugs without her knowledge, and you then have sex with her, she could very well cry rape and you could very well go to jail. Just because she is drunk and "willing" does not mean she was in a state of mind to give consent. I'll make it easier for you..
Rape = No consent.
Consent = No rape.
You guys who keep talking about men plying a female with drink with the intent of raping them, that is NOT the topic here.
This is about women who binge drink, get drunk, chat to a male, he chats back, he never bought her a drink, he has no drugs, he is equally drunk. They kiss they mutually enage in acts of seduction. They may go back to her place, she has sex with him (consentually)
Next day she regrets her actions or may not recall them, she cries rape.
The male did not INTENTIONALLY rape her, he believed her to be consenting. She was a stranger to him before that night thus he cannot judge her state of 'informed consent'. She was fully conscious. Her body and language consented. Her body and language were proactive in the sex act.
YET because the following morning she regrets her actions, possibly has a bfriend or husband , possibly gets an STD, pregnant, or the man decides not to call her again she considers rape as a better alternative to accepting the consequences of her actions.
THIS happens
I am not talking here about protecting women from date rape from men who set out to rape them. This is about protecting men from women who get THEMSELVES drunk SEEK sex then cry rape afterwards.
I phrased the question in the lead post the way I did to see just how far those of you who say
'the female has no responsibility for her own drinking and level of drunkeness and the actions she CONSENTS to while drunk'
would go to protect her from HERSELF.
Rape is a terrible thing, but so is accusing someone of rape when the only thing are guilty of is not knowing the female well enough to know when she is playing with his cock in the bar, inviting him to her palce for sex, she is too drunk to know what she is saying or doing and he should therefore REFUSE.
You are asking that this male demonstrate GREATER strength and self discipline (despite also being drunk) than the female is doing.
This is not a very realistic request and shows very little awareness of the nature of man and human nature.
Women place themselves at greater risk of date rape if they get drunk to the point of making poor choices.
NOTE I reiterate this is not about women plied with drink or drugs for the purpose of obtaining sex. It is not about trust of a male friend being abused.
The question is, if women are not responsible for what they 'consent' to while drunk, how far will you go to protect them from the risks they place themselves under?
This is about women who binge drink, get drunk, chat to a male, he chats back, he never bought her a drink, he has no drugs, he is equally drunk. They kiss they mutually enage in acts of seduction. They may go back to her place, she has sex with him (consentually)
Next day she regrets her actions or may not recall them, she cries rape.
The male did not INTENTIONALLY rape her, he believed her to be consenting. She was a stranger to him before that night thus he cannot judge her state of 'informed consent'. She was fully conscious. Her body and language consented. Her body and language were proactive in the sex act.
YET because the following morning she regrets her actions, possibly has a bfriend or husband , possibly gets an STD, pregnant, or the man decides not to call her again she considers rape as a better alternative to accepting the consequences of her actions.
THIS happens
I am not talking here about protecting women from date rape from men who set out to rape them. This is about protecting men from women who get THEMSELVES drunk SEEK sex then cry rape afterwards.
I phrased the question in the lead post the way I did to see just how far those of you who say
'the female has no responsibility for her own drinking and level of drunkeness and the actions she CONSENTS to while drunk'
would go to protect her from HERSELF.
Rape is a terrible thing, but so is accusing someone of rape when the only thing are guilty of is not knowing the female well enough to know when she is playing with his cock in the bar, inviting him to her palce for sex, she is too drunk to know what she is saying or doing and he should therefore REFUSE.
You are asking that this male demonstrate GREATER strength and self discipline (despite also being drunk) than the female is doing.
This is not a very realistic request and shows very little awareness of the nature of man and human nature.
Women place themselves at greater risk of date rape if they get drunk to the point of making poor choices.
NOTE I reiterate this is not about women plied with drink or drugs for the purpose of obtaining sex. It is not about trust of a male friend being abused.
The question is, if women are not responsible for what they 'consent' to while drunk, how far will you go to protect them from the risks they place themselves under?
This means the man broke the rules. It's against the rules to have sex with an intoxicated person, even if it's not against the law. It's unethical do behave in that fashion. In this situation the guy is at fault.
If a woman is drunk in my opinion, she is not in a proper state to consent as she is not fully conscious if shes drunk. Now if both people are drunk when this happens, well it's different than if the man is completely sobor and shes drunk. If both people are drunk, there should be no real way for her to scream rape because both of them are abusing their bodies and theres no way to prove one way or the other what happened. If however the man is sober and the female is drunk, and she says she was raped, it does not matter how she got drunk, it's rape. This is why as a rule, and it doesnt matter if it's male or female, don't have sex with an intoxicated person, and don't place yourself in situations where you can be charged with rape and all the evidence is right there to use against you. If you are smart, and you know someone is being stupid and trying to trick you into being stupid with them, it's better to let them be stupid and not go down that path.