Replies

And, as Scenic pointed out, if a woman is passed out and a man takes advantage of her, that also is rape.

Hello, Cathryn. Nice article, and I would like to add My two cents here as well.
I am rather uncertain how to accept this statement, as on the surface it appears to be self-explanatory, but some experiences from My past have taught Me that all is not always as it appears. If I get so drunk that I black out and do not remember things, and My girlfriend does as well, and then the next morning find out that we ummm... 'had an encounter', which one of us is 'guilty' of rape? From what she told Me, we were both more than half asleep, and things just progressed, er, 'naturally'. Mind you, I did not remember it until the next day when she made mention of it, so I am somewhat confused.
I also note that merely being intoxicated does not absolve one from the consequences of your actions while under the influence. Did I commit a crime? Did she? (FWIW, I was the 'passive' partner in that encounter) It seems to Me that by your referenced position, either we are both guilty, or we are both innocent.
Next, we come to an imaginary scenario (yes, guys, I mean imaginary, and there is no way you are going to admit it happened to Me, and especially on a public forum): what if in one occasion -or more than one occasion- I became so inebriated that I lost consciousness, and wound up either on someone's bed or with someone in bed with Me that when I was totally sober would never DREAM of having intercourse with them, but it happened. Do you think I could claim 'rape'? Would you not imagine instead that I might be laughed out of court if I tried to pursue it? Am I instead the one responsible because I became so intoxicated that I participated?
Next we come to the definition of 'forced', or what exactly it means to be 'taken advantage of'. I have had occasion to encounter members of the opposite sex that preferred things done a certain way (who doesn't, eh?), and sometimes that rather stretched the boundaries of your definitions to date. Some preferred, ummm... a bit of 'restraint' (no, not bondage) being placed on them, some preferred MORE restraint, and some preferred... the element of surprise. Did a crime take place on those encounters, even if they were the preferred method? And if it did not, could not charges still be brought up later if your definitions are taken wholly at face value?
Call Me 'politically incorrect' (it would not be the first time), or even insensitive, but My position is: If you become intoxicated or influenced by narcotics of any type, only you are responsible for what occurs.

Comments?

It all boils down to consent. If the women in question desired restraint, or surprise, or even desired to resist because it was a turn-on for her, it cannot be rape. She is desiring and consenting to it.

As for you being raped, I'm assuming you're a man, and there is always that anatomical hurdle to get over.

If you become intoxicated or influenced by narcotics of any type, only you are responsible for what occurs.

Under the law, a woman that is "asleep" or "unconscious" is unable to give consent, and therefore sex would fall under the umbrella of rape.

This is an important aspect of the law when you begin thinking about GHB - the date rape drug - and it being administered to an unknowing woman.

Well, you've raised some great issues because of the ambiguous fact patterns involved.

If I get so drunk that I black out and do not remember things, and My girlfriend does as well, and then the next morning find out that we ummm... 'had an encounter', which one of us is 'guilty' of rape? From what she told Me, we were both more than half asleep, and things just progressed, er, 'naturally'. Mind you, I did not remember it until the next day when she made mention of it, so I am somewhat confused.

Did you notice that the fact pattern changed here? Initially, you suggested that you both "blacked out" (i.e., that neither of you had any memories of the events) and then later you suggested that both of you recovered your memories of the events (which suggests that you both were at least conscious enough to participate) and that your conduct had progressed "naturally," (which suggests that they were as consensual as drunks can get).

Your second hypothetical:

I became so inebriated that I lost consciousness, and wound up either on someone's bed or with someone in bed with Me that when I was totally sober would never DREAM of having intercourse with them, but it happened. Do you think I could claim 'rape'? Would you not imagine instead that I might be laughed out of court if I tried to pursue it?

The common law crime of rape is a crime against a woman. A woman could be convicted of rape, but only by participating in the rape of another woman.

Your third hypothetical:

Next we come to the definition of 'forced', or what exactly it means to be 'taken advantage of'. I have had occasion to encounter members of the opposite sex that preferred things done a certain way (who doesn't, eh?), and sometimes that rather stretched the boundaries of your definitions to date. Some preferred, ummm... a bit of 'restraint' (no, not bondage) being placed on them, some preferred MORE restraint, and some preferred... the element of surprise. Did a crime take place on those encounters, even if they were the preferred method? And if it did not, could not charges still be brought up later if your definitions are taken wholly at face value?

The way to handle these situations is to discuss and consent to them in advance. Then there's no problem. ;-)

I also note that merely being intoxicated does not absolve one from the consequences of your actions while under the influence. Did I commit a crime? Did she? (FWIW, I was the 'passive' partner in that encounter) It seems to Me that by your referenced position, either we are both guilty, or we are both innocent.

Here's another scenario: you are wealthy and a woman decides to get you drunk and have sex with you, for the purpose of getting pregnant by you and suing you for $$$$$ for child support. Has she committed a crime? From my viewpoint she has, but try getting a court to take you seriously

If I decide to get drunk, and while drunk do a bad thing, I am treated by the legal system as being just as guilty as if I did it while completely sober. But if, without my consent, somebody slipped something into my Pepsi which impaired me, I could probably make a good argument to get off.

My point here is that a woman who willingly consents to drink with a guy should not be allowed to cry "Rape!" if she subsequently drunkenly decides it would be a good idea to jump into bed with the guy, and later doesn't remember consenting. "Incapacitation rape" should be reserved for the case where he drugs her without her knowledge or consent.