I read the OP.Again, not the case in the OP. Both people in this case are drunk. No one is debating the one inebriated one is not situation. I think that we agree on that.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I read the OP.Again, not the case in the OP. Both people in this case are drunk. No one is debating the one inebriated one is not situation. I think that we agree on that.
I agree. But it does happen on university campuses quite often these days.I don't believe "next morning regret" should count as rape. That's opening the doors to too many false charges. If you're so suggestible that you go along with things you don't really want to do while buzzed, you maybe shouldn't drink. People if you make it known that you don't want to do something and the person keeps going, then you have grounds for legal action. But people can't read minds.
Then why bring up a different situation?I read the OP.
The question is can someone claim that the other hurt him or her if they were both intoxicated together? If they were both intoxicated and had sex who is to blame if one regrets it the next day and says "I could not have consented, I was drunk". The other could make exactly the same claim.
The question is can someone claim that the other hurt him or her if they were both intoxicated together? If they were both intoxicated and had sex who is to blame if one regrets it the next day and says "I could not have consented, I was drunk". The other could make exactly the same claim.
I wasn't. I was agreeing with someone's post.Then why bring up a different situation?
But will it actually go over with a jury? Let's be honest with ourselves ...
Yeah, that's what I'm thinking - it's rape when the person is so inebriated that they're unconscious or on the verge of it. You can recognize it when you see it.
I think that's sad that it's gone that far.I agree. But it does happen on university campuses quite often these days.
I agree. But it seems as though some people don't. I once heard someone claim that if someone is too drunk to drive safely, then they are too drunk to consent to sex, which is, in my opinion, ridiculous. There is a large difference between a complex activity that requires a fast reaction time, quick decision making, excellent vision, and multi-tasking and consenting to sex, which is a fairly simple decision and activity.
It is rape in my eyes if one says no and the other ignores them or one is passed out and the other party continues.So, I decided to make another controversial thread. However, in this thread, I will refrain from making any claims of my own. I simply want to point out the absurd issue that arises if we assume the truth of the following two statements: (1): A drunk person cannot consent to sex, and (2): Having sex with a non-consenting person is rape.
The obvious logical corollary to these two statements is that if two people who are both under the influence of alcohol decide to have sex with each other while intoxicated, then they have both committed rape. So, should both be prosecuted? It seems to me that in these instances, either neither party is prosecuted, or, if the female later wishes, then she can press charges and potentially get the male prosecuted. Because of this, it's clear that statements (1) and (2) are not really adhered to in reality. Instead, to support the current judicial consensus, either statement (1) must be amended to "A drunk FEMALE cannot consent to sex, but a drunk male can" or statement (2) must be amended to "Having sex with a non-consenting person is not always rape." Most would disagree with statement (2). But denial of this statement raises the question as to why a drunk female cannot consent to sex, but a drunk male can. Furthermore, recall that to hold logically consistent beliefs, you must either accept one of these two amended statements OR believe that when both parties are drunk and have sex, then both have committed rape.
To be clear, I by no means am trying to turn a serious and sensitive subject into a logical semantics game. I am raising a serious problem with regard to consistency in beliefs on this matter. I will refrain from offering an opinion on this issue, as I'm still open-minded on it and am honestly unsure how to deal with these conundrums. So, I want to know which statements you all accept to be true, and why.
The thing is that people, not just women, will often regret sex the day after. That is what is being discussed. In the hypothetical both are drunk, both are having sex willingly. There have been cases where the day after women have said "I was drunk, therefore I could not have consented". If they were both drunk they could both say this. Who raped whom?
I think it’s a little more complex than just the evil boogeyman “feminism.”Here's the confusion.
If one drunk has sex with another drunk, who gave legal consent? Anybody?
For some reason, drunk chicks can accuse drunk dudes of rape. And make it stick, legally.
So,
Why does voluntary alcohol consumption absolve women from responsibility for sleazy sex, but not men?
Feminism, is my guess. Women deserve equality, when it suits. When equality doesn't suit, they want special rights. That's feminism, in my experience.
Tom
I will disagree with you about that.You know what else happens in the #MeToo era?
Wanna be starlets drive themselves to a media mogul's house. They ask for drugs. When offered, they take them. Then they have sleazy sex.
Years later, they file charges for rape.
But it's a new world. Women can't be expected to take responsibility for their own choices, but boy can they press charges.
Because Feminism.
Tom
Well if you’re so blasted that you can’t remember, maybe one could argue that the consent given was dubious.What if they keep saying Yes, but are too drunk to remember doing it?
Tom
So, I decided to make another controversial thread. However, in this thread, I will refrain from making any claims of my own. I simply want to point out the absurd issue that arises if we assume the truth of the following two statements: (1): A drunk person cannot consent to sex, and (2): Having sex with a non-consenting person is rape.
The obvious logical corollary to these two statements is that if two people who are both under the influence of alcohol decide to have sex with each other while intoxicated, then they have both committed rape. So, should both be prosecuted? It seems to me that in these instances, either neither party is prosecuted, or, if the female later wishes, then she can press charges and potentially get the male prosecuted. Because of this, it's clear that statements (1) and (2) are not really adhered to in reality. Instead, to support the current judicial consensus, either statement (1) must be amended to "A drunk FEMALE cannot consent to sex, but a drunk male can" or statement (2) must be amended to "Having sex with a non-consenting person is not always rape." Most would disagree with statement (2). But denial of this statement raises the question as to why a drunk female cannot consent to sex, but a drunk male can. Furthermore, recall that to hold logically consistent beliefs, you must either accept one of these two amended statements OR believe that when both parties are drunk and have sex, then both have committed rape.
To be clear, I by no means am trying to turn a serious and sensitive subject into a logical semantics game. I am raising a serious problem with regard to consistency in beliefs on this matter. I will refrain from offering an opinion on this issue, as I'm still open-minded on it and am honestly unsure how to deal with these conundrums. So, I want to know which statements you all accept to be true, and why.
How did she get to his house? Why did he offer drugs? Did she go back?
Tom
Would you report them, and demand that they be kicked out of your school?
Do you have a legal responsibility to behave in a certain way, despite competent adult behavior?
The bottom line is, why do males have to take responsibility for the behavior of women who are trying to manipulate them with sex?
Tom
Well if you’re also blasted then, for me at least, the whole thing’s a wash. Both got drunk, both can’t remember, then sorry to sound harsh, but that should end it. And if one feels wronged, then the party should try to discuss it with the other party. Or seek therapy or something. It shouldn’t go to court unless coercion was involved.How about if you're also blasted?
And a sexually attractive person, who already said Yes, is right there?
Prevailing societal expectations places on masculinity and femininity.l
Which goes back to my question. Why are men expected to take responsibility for behavior while drunk, but women are not?
Tom
yesIf a man and woman who are both drunk have sex, are both guilty of rape if "consent" requires one to be sober?