And, as Scenic pointed out, if a woman is passed out and a man takes advantage of her, that also is rape.
I believe that that is specifically stated in the law in most states.
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?
True ... forgot that condition.