Is taking advantage of someone drunk Rape?

[Notshauna]

Source needed.

People with impaired judgements don't lose the ability to say "no".



Presenting your own definition contrary to dictionary sources.

That's because they don't have an impaired judgement, they just don't have a judgement. It's the second one you've listed.

"Something that restrains, blocks, or suppresses."

Which is restraint, and restraint is what causes you to say no. If you have lost the reasoning to as to why you would say no to anything you've lost the ability to say no. You're using the third definition which is the psychological definition of the term, which isn't relevant to the regular English usage.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

I agree but that's not really fault. Taking safety precautions is something we should be teaching people to do, but failing to do so and having another person prey on you for doing so isn't fault. Because ultimately you should be able to drink with impunity and not have to worry about someone raping you because you did.

Well, technically, it is your fault if you're not taking precautions to avoid it. Similar to knowing guns hurt, yet aiming one at your face while cleaning it. There's not much we can do about these things short of educate but ignorance doesn't necessarily mean innocence. It just means you're dumb and or careless.

I'm not saying that the guy who did the act isn't in the wrong by any measure. That's a sleazy thing to do, obviously. I personally would only do such a thing with a girl if she seemed merely tipsy. If she can barely stand, keep her thoughts straight, etc... only thing I am doing is making sure she gets home alive. As I would hope others do for me if I got carried away with the night. That said, morality can't always be dictated by law nor should it. There are always limitations on what we can enforce and can't.

So no, it shouldn't be considered rape or rather classified as such if we're talking about legal proceedings. In most if not all cases, you'd hardly have evidence to even argue on if you wanted to go that far with it anyway. Unless, of course, we're simply scrubbing away the "guilty beyond a doubt" concept and just going with "guilty by accusation" instead. That's why expecting personal accountability and of course, educating people, reminding them of the dangers out there, are far more preferable and manageable.

If you got so drunk that you lost all control and even the ability to say "no" towards an advance, you've already made a terrible mistake that could result in a myriad of problems. Many of which would fall back upon you. Much like getting behind the wheel of an automobile. Doesn't matter if you weren't right in the head. You'd still be considered at fault if you were to get in a wreck with that vehicle.

[bewbew]

That's because they don't have an impaired judgement, they just don't have a judgement. It's the second one you've listed.

"Something that restrains, blocks, or suppresses."

Which is restraint, and restraint is what causes you to say no. If you have lost the reasoning to as to why you would say no to anything you've lost the ability to say no. You're using the third definition which is the psychological definition of the term, which isn't relevant to the regular English usage.

It's a discussion about human behavior and psychological definition is meaningless?

K.

Also, let's go by the second definition."Something that restrains, blocks or supresses"...what, exactly? That definition never specifies what is being blocked. What that barrier is for. The barrier could just as equally impell an individual, in a social situation to say "yes". Blocking from being an outsider, supressing the desire to be one's self and individual and instead to become part of the group.

You are the one to make the leap and say "the capability to say no". Out of thin air.

[Notshauna]

Your definition of rape is ridiculous and allows for people to mutually rape one another.

Technically yes. It's the same reason why underage teens sexting or taking nudes of themselves is technically child pornography.

[bewbew]

Technically yes.

I rest my case, your honor.

[darkwarrior42]

Your definition of rape is ridiculous and allows for people to mutually rape one another.

Since you seem to love defending the idea of people taking advantage of those who are too drunk to know better (since they obviously shouldn't have gotten drunk if they didn't want someone to take advantage of them), a few points.

1) Rape is a crime which requires someone to file a complaint, typically. (Even if it can be charged without a complainant, it's almost impossible to convict that way.) If the person that was drunk doesn't have a problem with it, there's not going to be an issue.

2) Your example here, that of "mutual rape", is one the law hasn't quite caught up to. In all likelihood, one of two things will happen in these cases:
--a: The case is thrown out, since both or neither was at fault.
--b: The man is tried, because rape cases tend to be skewed against the male. (this assumes a heterosexual hookup, obviously this doesn't apply in other cases.)

3) Courts routinely void contracts if one party was drunk or otherwise incapacitated while signing, and the other party knew this fact and took advantage of it. We already have precedent in the legal system for this sort of thing, all we're doing is extending it to other areas where consent is required.



I'm sorry if this means fewer drunken hookups where you can take advantage of someone else's lapse in judgement, but honestly, given that someone who doesn't regret having sex with you can't press charges, there is virtually no situation in which you could possibly be affected by this where I would have even the slightest amount of sympathy for you.

- - - Updated - - -

I rest my case, your honor.

Assuming your case was "the law is a bit muddy here and needs clarification, but works perfectly well in cases where only one person is drunk or impaired", congrats.

If your case was anything else, you have miserably failed to prove anything whatsoever.

[bewbew]

Since you seem to love defending the idea of people taking advantage of those who are too drunk to know better (since they obviously shouldn't have gotten drunk if they didn't want someone to take advantage of them), a few points.

Fallacy by assumption/presumption. I don't like to even get close to drunk people.

[Deleted]

No, force or intimidation is not a requirement.

Wow here you go swinging your victim badge around again.

[darkwarrior42]

Fallacy by assumption/presumption. I don't like to even get close to drunk people.

Care to respond to the rest of my post, or are you going to use my red herring as an excuse to ignore the rest of my post?

(I deliberately included that line to see if you would do exactly this, based on the manner in which you're posting; I am disappointed, but not surprised, that you went for it.)

Edit: Yes, this is true for my last paragraph as well, before you get there, at least to an extent; the point is valid, but could have easily been phrased in a far less provocative manner.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, technically, it is your fault if you're not taking precautions to avoid it. Similar to knowing guns hurt, yet aiming one at your face while cleaning it. There's not much we can do about these things short of educate but ignorance doesn't necessarily mean innocence. It just means you're dumb and or careless.

...

If you got so drunk that you lost all control and even the ability to say "no" towards an advance, you've already made a terrible mistake that could result in a myriad of problems. Many of which would fall back upon you. Much like getting behind the wheel of an automobile. Doesn't matter if you weren't right in the head. You'd still be considered at fault if you were to get in a wreck with that vehicle.

Currently, courts routinely void contracts where one party is intoxicated, and the other party knew this fact and took advantage of it.

Based on your reasoning, is it safe to conclude you believe that such contracts should be enforced without exception, since the person that got drunk knew what they were doing, and is at fault for failing to take proper precautions?

[bewbew]

Assuming your case was "the law is a bit muddy here and needs clarification, but works perfectly well in cases where only one person is drunk or impaired", congrats.

Or that pointing the obvious that many decisions are not truly rational, cold, analytical, and that if we assume only decisions made with reason as it's imperative are valid, we must ignore most, if not all, our decisions, as they are contaminated by other things, such as emotions, desires and instincts, that undermine our better judgement.

If your case was anything else, you have miserably failed to prove anything whatsoever.

It's really not a surprise to me, at this point, how much self-denial runs in people's minds.

But please, do continue to believe all your judgements are right, good, and about axiomatic truths, and all those judgements who are not are in a direct violation of your sense of self, or your rights.

[hrugner]

If it is, I definitely had nights where I left the house planning to get so drunk I'd get raped before morning.

[bewbew]

Care to respond to the rest of my post, or are you going to use my red herring as an excuse to ignore the rest of my post?

(I deliberately included that line to see if you would do exactly this, based on the manner in which you're posting; I am disappointed, but not surprised, that you went for it.)

Edit: Yes, this is true for my last paragraph as well, before you get there, at least to an extent; the point is valid, but could have easily been phrased in a far less provocative manner.

What can I say, I am what I am. I speak how I speak. And I felt lazy to adress the rest of the points.

- - - Updated - - -



Currently, courts routinely void contracts where one party is intoxicated, and the other party knew this fact and took advantage of it.

Based on your reasoning, is it safe to conclude you believe that such contracts should be enforced without exception, since the person that got drunk knew what they were doing, and is at fault for failing to take proper precautions?

Which is nonsense and a sympton of the Law System acting as a paternalistic figure to a generation that is too afraid of being responsible for their own actions.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

Care to respond to the rest of my post, or are you going to use my red herring as an excuse to ignore the rest of my post?

(I deliberately included that line to see if you would do exactly this, based on the manner in which you're posting; I am disappointed, but not surprised, that you went for it.)

Edit: Yes, this is true for my last paragraph as well, before you get there, at least to an extent; the point is valid, but could have easily been phrased in a far less provocative manner.

- - - Updated - - -



Currently, courts routinely void contracts where one party is intoxicated, and the other party knew this fact and took advantage of it.

Based on your reasoning, is it safe to conclude you believe that such contracts should be enforced without exception, since the person that got drunk knew what they were doing, and is at fault for failing to take proper precautions?

The fact that they're being referred to as "contracts" bugs me in of itself. As they're not factual. They're not written. There is no evidence of this contract.

I believe that the accusation of rape in any case, where the victim is inebriated, without further evidence besides the accounting of the two individuals in question, should be tossed out. Namely because the burden of proof resides with the accuser and there just simply isn't much there to work off of save for the toxins remaining within her system. That said, it still doesn't mean anything, because everyone has different reactions and levels of coherency while under the influence.

So either you outlaw sex while drunk entirely (which is just awkward) or you disregard the cases that are produced by such situations. Instead fall back on the idea that the victim is largely at fault (and is) and that the accusations laid out cannot be really proven beyond a doubt.

At least with more straightforward rape cases there is physical evidence to work with. Namely because they often require violence and force to be initiated. Which can leave indications on the victim's body, clothing, etc. "Drunken rape" can look like nothing more than casual sex where you'd have to assume the accused is simply guilty. Which essentially goes against our entire justice system really.

[Deleted]

Not in any sane persons wildest imagination. Having poor judgement doesn't mean you are unaware of your actions. As you are not unaware of your own actions then you are also responsible for them. You may regret your decisions afterwards but in that case you do what everyone else does. Laugh it the fuck off and accept you're a dumb cunt who can't handle your drink and get better at handling it in the future.

How do you know if someone is aware of their actions?

I'm regularly getting blackouts while I'm drunk and yet I can talk, walk, ride a bike and text just fine. How would you notice that someone is having a blackout? The next day I don't remember anything from the period I had a blackout. Sometimes I did nothing out of the ordinary, and sometimes I've done weird stuff like talking to a wall or other unexplainable shit. Things that just don't make sense.

I repeat, how would you know if someone is blacked out or not? How do you know if someone is aware of their own actions? You might believe someone is simply drunk while he or she might be blacked out drunk, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. But for sex it makes for ALL the difference, as one of the cases would be classified as rape.

Anyway, a solution to this would be to go out with friends you trust if you know you're prone to getting blackouts. That's all I can think of, but you have to know that those friends are what you think of them and won't take advantage of you.

And no, drinking less isn't a guaranteed solution since I've also gotten a few blackouts from only a few drinks. It seems blackouts and alcohol are related but not a 1 on 1 basis, sometimes they can be explained by lots and LOTS of drinking, but other times they come on unpredictable times. For example, that time I had a blackout and argued with a wall was while I only had 2 beers. That's normally not even nearly enough to get tipsy, in fact it's even safe to drive legally. It's weird.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

How do you know if someone is aware of their actions?

I'm regularly getting blackouts while I'm drunk and yet I can talk, walk, ride a bike and text just fine. How would you notice that someone is having a blackout? The next day I don't remember anything from the period I had a blackout. Sometimes I did nothing out of the ordinary, and sometimes I've done weird stuff like talking to a wall or other unexplainable shit. Things that just don't make sense.

I repeat, how would you know if someone is blacked out or not? How do you know if someone is aware of their own actions? You might believe someone is simply drunk while he or she might be blacked out drunk, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. But for sex it makes for ALL the difference, as one of the cases would be classified as rape.

If you "black out", you shouldn't be drinking to begin with.

...and that's regardless of whether or not sexual cases during the "black out" could be considered rape and in favor of the accuser. That's just ridiculous. You're asking for all kinds of problems.

[Slant]

You're not really making a strong point, the point is is that even if you are drunk you should show restraint and not get in the car. And if you can't you shouldn't drink period. It's up to the individual drinking to make sure he doesn't do something stupid not the people around him.

And as far as your blood tests go I'm sure it doesn't work very well if it can be tempered with by drinking after the fact or just getting the time wrong.

As far as the "difference" between driving drunk and having sex while drunk the difference is is that you're not putting anyone else at risk that's not invovled since the person you're having sex with (unless you're committing rape) is also consenting and thus willingly participating. The people you hit with your car are not.

"Blabla stating obvious shit, the sky is blue... yay, I'll just doubt science cos science is shit for my argument and by the way, I'll just play "spot the difference" with this argument, because that is how you win debates!"

Did I summarise your post correctly?

Yes, if you're drunk, you shouldn't drive. If you can't drink, you shouldn't drink. We know that, that's not really part of the debate. But thank you for educating me, I totally would never have figured those facts of life out... god, you're wise.

I'm not even... blood tests, science... believe what you will...

As for comparing drunken sex to someone hitting pedestrians... not sure when it happened, but a few posts ago someone started coming up with that weird ass example and completely forgot that... nobody cares about pedestrians or other shit, that's not the point. The point is how alcohol affects decision making. If he drove into a mall with thousands of people that wouldn't change the point.

. <------------------------------point.... you -------------------------------------------------------- \o/

[Deleted]

How do you know if someone is aware of their actions?

I'm regularly getting blackouts while I'm drunk and yet I can talk, walk, ride a bike and text just fine. How would you notice that someone is having a blackout? The next day I don't remember anything from the period I had a blackout. Sometimes I did nothing out of the ordinary, and sometimes I've done weird stuff like talking to a wall or other unexplainable shit. Things that just don't make sense.

I repeat, how would you know if someone is blacked out or not? How do you know if someone is aware of their own actions? You might believe someone is simply drunk while he or she might be blacked out drunk, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. But for sex it makes for ALL the difference, as one of the cases would be classified as rape.

Anyway, a solution to this would be to go out with friends you trust if you know you're prone to getting blackouts. That's all I can think of, but you have to know that those friends are what you think of them and won't take advantage of you.

And no, drinking less isn't a guaranteed solution since I've also gotten a few blackouts from only a few drinks. It seems blackouts and alcohol are related but not a 1 on 1 basis, sometimes they can be explained by lots and LOTS of drinking, but other times they come on unpredictable times. For example, that time I had a blackout and argued with a wall was while I only had 2 beers. That's normally not even nearly enough to get tipsy, in fact it's even safe to drive legally. It's weird.

If someone is coherently responsive in speech and motor skills then I will assume they aren't blacked out. How am I supposed to tell when someone who appears sober or sober enough has a blackout? That's not a me problem but a you problem that you gotta deal with afterwards. If you can't trust yourself around even the tiniest amounts of alcohol then alcohol isn't for you. In fact, if it's as bad as you say when you drink then you're a goddamn danger and a menace both to yourself and others. Your irresponsible behavior and decision making pre-consumption could end up getting someone jailed, lose their job, friends or even family. I don't mean this to be rude. It's just the truth. Don't ever drink again if you're this bad with alcohol.

[Raelbo]

If they have reservations but change their mind due to emotionally impaired judgement, you still changed your mind and made a new decision.

I think you failed to grasp what I was saying. I am saying that sometimes a lowering of inhibitions allows people to do things they want to do but couldn't due to any number of reasons. However there are other times that a lowering of inhibitions allows them to do things they don't want to do at all.

Simple example: I read an opinion of someone on an internet site with which I disagree. Sober, I would remain civil and not call them an ignorant, trolling douche, but drunk I might.

Having the impulse to do something is not the same as having a genuine desire to do it.

"It clearly points to a predatory nature and the victim being unable to consent, because they've lost all inhibitions, you could of asked to sacrifice them to the sun and they'd of responded the exact same way."

If losing inhibitions is, by definition, to do what one truly desires, and if one is a willing participant it's not rape, then...I'm right.

Well it doesn't. This is why you are wrong. You have replaced "losing inhibitions" with "doing what one truly desires", hence it is a strawman.

People toss "strawman" around and don't even know what it means. I didn't make up his argument, I directly pointed out the contradiction in saying "losing inhibitions" means "you are taking decisions that are completly out of the real you".

No, you replaced his assertion with your own and then proceeded to attack your assertion instead of his.

If anything, losing inhibition is about BEING the "true" you.

No it's not. It's about acceding to a certain facet of the true you.

People are complex and so too is our decision making process. We make decisions by weighing up information against our values. Getting drunk can cause our ability to measure information against our value system to become skewed, hence we can end up making decisions that are bad and which go against our "true" nature.

In the case of the original question: The decision to have sex with someone is fairly complex. Part of the decision has to do with physical attraction. A person could be good looking, or have a great sense of humour, or have a fascinating personality, all of which might cause someone else to feel some level of attraction towards them. But just because there is an animal impulse in us to have sex with people we're attracted to doesn't mean it's what we actually want all the. Inebriation though has the ability to cause our judgement to be clouded and our usual safeguards against acting on those impulses to fail.

[cFortyfive]

I'm regularly getting blackouts while I'm drunk

And you're still drinking. Smart decision.
Anyways of course not.

[Raelbo]

Nah. People get drunk for the very reason to lose inhibition. If you later end up regretting it, though call.

People get drunk for any number of reasons. The fact that Mary got drunk because she wanted to have sex with Joe doesn't give Sam the right to take advantage of Mary when Joe isn't interested. Nor does it give Joe the right to take advantage of Jill who got drunk to have a bit of fun.

I'm kinda surprised the "yes" side is winning this to be honest. SJWs everywhere.

I am surprised at the number of "no" votes tbh.

Voting yes doesn't mean that every case of someone having sex with a drunk person = rape. It means that people who "take advantage" of someone who is drunk in order to have sex with them can be rape.