[DreamP346]

If a man or woman is too drunk to consent or dissent then it is considered rape, and I agree it should be. Too intoxicated to consent or dissent is not being intoxicated to the point where judgment is impaired and consent is given when it may not have otherwise been. When do you become intoxicated, when your over the legal limit to drive? This means any women who's ever had drunken sex was technically raped by the man, surely that can't be right?

But, if two people are both intoxicated then does that mean they're raping each other? Being drunk doesn't and shouldn't give you a pass on your actions but it also shouldn't absolve you of bad decisions and irresponsible alcohol consumption - and this goes for men and women: using my hypothetical sambuca bar shot drinking challenge if me and a woman voluntarily imbibe alcohol all evening then go to bed together drunk and consenting AT THE TIME then wake up in the morning and both say to each other 'WTF are you?' Then technically we've raped each other? More accurately we've both acted irresponsibly and are need to earn to take responsibility for out own actions.

I'm not all about taking advantage of drunken girls, but what makes me very uncomfortable is the fact that a soon as intoxication becomes a contributing factor the woman seems to be automatically absolved of responsibility leaving the man accountable. Flipping the script does this mean if a drunk man in a bar takes a sober waitress home with him at the end of the night she's raped him?

I know that men can generally tolerate a lot more alcohol than women and I would NEVER take advantage of a drunk and vulnerable girl, but have you ever seen programs like 'boozed up Britain'? Women, not all, but many, are going out and drinking more and behaving just as badly if not worse than a lot of men are. I think men and women need to take more responsibility for their own actions.

To all your question, the answer is yes. Its just a very complicated scenario. Just like two 13 year olds having sex is illegal (they are statutory raping each other), it will never be persecuted. Having sex with an intoxicated person is illegal (theoretically). Can that person sign a legal agreement selling something or giving something up during that state? If no, then how can they legally give consent to have sex. I'm not saying that all drunken sex should be prosecuted, but from a legal standpoint, it can be rape.

[chaya]

When I lived at home in Hawaii, I had a Samoan friend named Mara. At 15 she was 5'11" and stronger than most men. Rumors said that she had her way with several boys, against their will. She would never talk about it, at least with me.

[Hugo-B]

To all your question, the answer is yes. Its just a very complicated scenario. Just like two 13 year olds having sex is illegal (they are statutory raping each other), it will never be persecuted. Having sex with an intoxicated person is illegal (theoretically). Can that person sign a legal agreement selling something or giving something up during that state? If no, then how can they legally give consent to have sex. I'm not saying that all drunken sex should be prosecuted, but from a legal standpoint, it can be rape.

SP346, I see what you are saying, a lot of Law sits quietly in place so the authorities can call upon it when they need to to punish people as, when, and if they see fit. I've heard Lawyers say this is why the government deliberately leave certain Laws open to broad interpretation., so the two 13 year olds can stay out of prison would be a good example

[Hugo-B]

I was just reading about the Julian Assange case. 'Assange v Swedish Judicial Authority 2011'. It was left open to the jury to find a lack of consent where the complainant had stipulated that she would only consent to protected sexual intercourse and was not aware that Assnage had failed to use a condom.

I thought about this today and my inchoate reaction was 'but the penetration was consensual - she agreed to sex'. After a more carful analysis I compared this to the following scenario: If a doctor carries out a rectal/prostate examination on me and I tell him he has to wear surgical gloves, and he fails to do so, has he sexually assaulted me? If I stipulate that the act - regarding my own body - can only take place under (reasonable) express terms and conditions, and he agrees then fails to do so although the entry/penetration is not forced then consent has been deceitfully obtained. I suppose deceitful acquisition of consent is closer to 'submission' i.e., coercing someone into consenting.

Whilst this scenario is, again, a far cry from the 'stranger dragging his victim down the alley' situation, according to the definition of rape, this qualifies. However, I doubt the judge would impose a penalty quite as strict and the charge could be reduced to sexual assault by the Lawyers I guess.

What do you guys think: rape or not?

My stance is YES, in accordance with the definition, though whilst rape is not graduated I would consider it slightly less severe than some of the alternative scenarios because the decision to go through with the sexual act was consensual and reached by free will without coercion, so would undoubtedly be less traumatic. Of course it would be subjective since the consequences regarding the spread of disease and unwanted pregnancy could be severe, and though not eliminated by a condom would be drastically reduced.

[Stillness]

I don't think it's rape anymore than a woman poking a hole in a condom or lying about being on the pill is. It's deceptive and low down if he actually did it, but it's not rape. It's a lesson in choosing your partner wisely and probably really a lesson in not making an enemy out of superpowers.

[Hugo-B]

Stillness, I was just going to compare it to a woman lying about being on the pill. I only think it is rape according to the new definition in the 2003 Act.

There was a case in the UK about a man who knew he was HIV positive and neglected to tell three partners who contracted the disease, he was charged with grievous bodily harm. This is comparable if we assume there is an implied obligation to inform your partner of any STD's you have, and the outcome was GBH, I suppose Assange would/could face GBH charges if she contracts an STD as a consequence.

If Assange's 'victim' is so traumatized perhaps she'll donate all of the money she's earned in interviews etc to a charity which helps rape victims and their families...

**** knows no fury like a woman's scorn!

[Hugo-B]

Didn't realize they sensor the H- E -double L word out.

[Little]

Maybe I should go alter the profanity filter :P

Really, the Assange case would depend on the details. Sounds like she insisted he use a condom if they were to have sex and he just said "too bad gonna do it anyways!" The issue of consent between people who would be sexual partners if they could agree on the details is practically impossible to debate. Imagine being naked with someone you'd like to partner up with, genitals in the same geographic area, insisting that s/he use an immediately physically verifiable barrier method before penetration, but penetration happens anyways without it ... how is that not sexual assault?

[Stillness]

Imagine being naked with someone you'd like to partner up with, genitals in the same geographic area, insisting that s/he use an immediately physically verifiable barrier method before penetration, but penetration happens anyways without it ... how is that not sexual assault?

If she said "no, stop" and he didn't then it doesn't matter why she said it - it's assault. If he tricked her into having sex with him the way he wanted to and she was cool with it until after the fact when she discovered what had happened, I don't see that as criminal. Maybe it is, but I'm not sympathetic to it. If she contracted a disease then that would be a horse of a different color.

[rcoreyus]

People would like to believe that rape is a simple "rape is rape" situation, but in reality it is very complex. The whole idea of "consent" is fuzzy when you include alcohol, sleep, and cases where the two people had different ideas of what sex acts were within that consent.

I honestly think you need to judge the cases independently, its very difficult to come up with simple rules that will cover all situations.

That said, I think it is clear that by reasonable definitions of rape, women can and do rape men, but that it is less common than men raping women, or men raping men. Women can also rape other women, though that is also less common.