Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Please do not quote me "Rape is rape no matter what." Life is never that simple, at least, not real life. Because here I will try to describe a very real situation where something that can be called technically Rape, might not exactly be so given the context of how the refusal is given and received, as well as other factors that contribute to how consent may have been given and then retracted. Because Rape can be a very tricky thing, and as traumatizing as it is for women if it truly occured, being falsely accused of such a crime is also a man's biggest nightmare. Where we fear that if we get drunk with a girl, and we both are fooling around and one thing leads to another, that that next morning she could be gone and then we have a warrant out for our heads for a crime deemed so awful that if the jury actually deems us a rapist, our lives are ruined forever.

Before the story, a little note on the ever so important point of consent:
It really comes down to consent. Was consent given by both parties or one? That's a very simple thing, ah but then we decide to add a twist: ALCOHOL, the devil's nectar, so sweet and so powerful. When consent was given, who was sober? Both, or one or none? If one was drunk, then its easy to see who was victim and who was not. But when both are drunk..ah, now things get interesting and very very confusing. Now we have a whole new list of questions to ask, like, who was more wasted? Who started making contact with who first and did the other party show no sign of repulsion or no sign of wanting to stop? And finally, if they did all that then what if consent was given previous to full inebriation but then changed post inebriation, can the man be claimed a rapist? With all these questions, let's throw together this situation..

▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼
▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼
▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼
Situation:

Mandy went with Billy to a college party, both planned on drinking to forget exams. Mandy knew Billy was in to her but she had just never really decided whether she felt the same. So they go, they both get fairly buzzed, but not totally gone, Billy starts to get close to Mandy, talking sweet drunken nothings and begins to show some advances Mandy doesn't object, either because she's still confused on how she feels or the buzz is numbing her ability to fully gauge what she is doing. Just as Billy would usually never be so brazen, but beer can make heroes of us all. Eventually, the nothings transcend nothingness and forms a sloppy kiss, Mandy isn't sure how she feels about this because by now, they have had quite a few and she can barely stand. Billy, at the same time, senses no objection, giving him a small spark of drunken glee that she might reciprocate and keeps going. Mandy figures, screw it, and continues to permit him feeling her up, still, she's rather confused, not sure if its the alcohol or her that wants it.

They manage to find a room, alone, and Billy is in full Sex mode, pulling off his clothes, almost falling, heart speeding, it would be hard to decide which was more impairing: his hormones, or the alcohol. Mandy, however, sensing this was about to become very real, and lacking the extra hormone impairment, manages to fend off the alcohol long enough to slowly realize that she doesn't really want this, fearing the relationship falling apart post coitus. But between the drinking and his forceful, sloppy drunken state, expressing her displeasure would be a monumental feat, mainly because her own drunken self still wasn't completely against the actions themselves despite the brain telling the body otherwise...at least trying. "No.", "Stop, this isn't right" Came out was "hey, quish it, we shoo really noot be..." *muffled by sloppy kiss* Between his hormones and rushed forcefulness, and the combined alcohol in both their bodies copious enough to lay an Irishman in a coma, as well as her still confused true feelings.

The night transpired without another quiver, the alcohol weighing heavily against them both, as something of a dream for Billy and a nightmare for Mandy, who as soon as she could regain consciousness, was out the door and crying. What's worse? People she knew were at that party, they saw her go upstairs with Billy and not come out all night. Rumors quickly spread, high fives for Billy all around, who could not really remember much of why he should be hi-5'd and was being avoided by Mandy who was getting shit from her "frenemies". Enough to call her mother and cry and talk about. That one phone call leads to a warrant for Billy, a reluctant Mandy does not object, Billy can not believe it.

Scared, angry, but mostly, confused, Billy can't even get near Mandy long enough to ask questions. When he's forced to get an attorney, he gets a deal from the Judge, plead guilty, get reduced punishment, the attorney warns it might be the best offer as it is there were many witnesses who saw Billy leading Mandy by the hand upstairs and how aggressively he was hitting on her all night. He takes his chances, says the truth will come out in court, puts his faith in the system, what other choice IS there? You're on jury, how would you deal with this? She technically did say no before it happened, whether he could understand it or not, but does that make him a rapist? The same as all the others?

If I was on the jury, I would consider that both parties were drunk. But being drunk doesn't get you out of crimes. If the male initiates, it's the male's fault. If the female initiates, it's the female's fault. Would alcohol excuse any other crime? Rape is rape.

But I wouldn't be on the jury..

I believe in situations like this, every person should ask themselves "Would it be any different if the genders were reversed?" It is crazy how many people start stuttering or making excuses when things like this are brought up. Look at how many guys fuck girls they would never fuck sober because they are drunk; they would get laughed out of court if they claimed rape.

First off, stop bitching about the false accusation garbage Sure, it happens, and it can be damaging, but it doesn't happen out of nowhere. Those who face false accusations do so because they put themselves in a position the be accused (such as having promiscuous sex with the type of girls most guys wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.) Keep it in your fucking pants and you should have very little to worry about.

As for your scenario, I have three things.

First off, being intoxicated (even voluntarily) is a defense to numerous crimes and can bar or lower the crime aimed at you.

Scond, most places (to the best of my knowledge) base consent on a reasonable standard. They've dropped the subjective standard of the accused and shifted to a reasonable person, not to a subjective standard of the accuser. In your case, it would be difficult, though not impossible, to prove that she had made a denial of consent to the point a reasonable person, even sober, would understand it.

Finally, this just goes to show that being shitfaced drunk in sexual situations can be just as harmful for men as it is for women. In the same manner you keep your dick in your pants, keep enough wit about you when drinking to be able to understand your surroundings. Otherwise it's only your fault for what you did while drunk (this does not include what others did to you though).

If you fear being in this situation, then as a man you shouldn't get drunk with a woman in your sights. You have sex with a woman that doesn't want it that's rape. It means that a guy needs to take some extra responsibilities when drinking, which a guy needs to do in the first place.

At 8/8/13 10:32 PM, Camarohusky wrote: \Those who face false accusations do so because they put themselves in a position the be accused (such as having promiscuous sex with the type of girls most guys wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.) Keep it in your fucking pants and you should have very little to worry about.

I love the irony of how the "keep it in your pants" argument only works with you if it's a man, but not when it comes to women or abortions!

LOL!

At 8/8/13 08:14 PM, NightmareWitch wrote: If I was on the jury, I would consider that both parties were drunk. But being drunk doesn't get you out of crimes. If the male initiates, it's the male's fault. If the female initiates, it's the female's fault. Would alcohol excuse any other crime? Rape is rape.

But I wouldn't be on the jury..

isn't it just better for everyone to base it on who consented, and not who initiated it? If they both consented, it isn't rape. And no, alcohol wouldn't excuse any other crime, but of course, had the "victim" been sober, it wouldn't be considered rape now would it? you got the double standard all backward.

also, some people naturally have really shitty judgement. If one of those people were to have sex, would it always be rape for them?

If they are both adults who have been drinking, how can either of them consent ?

If they had drunken sex & when 1 or both of them sober up & remember little or nothing .... How can you claim you were raped when you aren't really able to remember what took place ?

If its the 2 drunk people scenario , I don't see how one can be judged to be to impaired to consent , but somehow the other (usually a male) not excused under the same criteria

Unless of course violence is used, then IMO it also be becomes assault , bodily harm, along with a rape charge

If you had sex with someone who did not consent, which is what you said, then you committed the offence of rape. This does not mean you are 'a rapist', but you fucked up.

I got drunk one night and woke up to a gay man sucking me off. The fact that he was drunk and I was drunk made no difference to the fact that I woke up to a sexual act I had not consented to and not wanted.

Imagine if, instead of a man and woman 'consummating a relationship', it was two men, one homosexual and one heterosexual who has never had a homosexual experience, and you were the one who said 'no, this isn't right' but he still put it in you. After forcefully coming on to you while you were in a drunken stupor. Y'see?

Might not be the answer you wanted to hear, but there it is. Alcohol is a dangerous and risky drug, but you can't blame anyone but yourself for drinking it. Unfortunately it's only after several years of drinking alcohol that you learn how dangerous it is and how much risk you put yourself in when drunk.

*replace 'you' with 'Billy'

there should be a law, no sex above an alcohol limit, everyone can carry around breathalizers

At 8/9/13 08:53 AM, Memorize wrote: I love the irony of how the "keep it in your pants" argument only works with you if it's a man, but not when it comes to women or abortions!

LOL!

.....Wow. Yes deciding whether or not to have an Abortion is exactly the same thing as deciding to rape someone.

At 8/9/13 01:57 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 8/9/13 08:53 AM, Memorize wrote: I love the irony of how the "keep it in your pants" argument only works with you if it's a man, but not when it comes to women or abortions!

LOL!

.....Wow. Yes deciding whether or not to have an Abortion is exactly the same thing as deciding to rape someone.

Nice deflection.

Go back and re-read his post.

He was talking about how there are false accusations of rape, but that the "men brought it on themselves for sleeping around."

Point being: His "keep it in your pants" argument isn't something he would accept on the issues I brought up.

So before I go, here's a tip: Learn to read.

At 8/9/13 10:24 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: And no, alcohol wouldn't excuse any other crime,

WRONG!

Voluntary intoxication is a valid defense to NUMEROUS crimes.

At 8/9/13 03:38 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 8/9/13 10:24 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: And no, alcohol wouldn't excuse any other crime,

WRONG!

Voluntary intoxication is a valid defense to NUMEROUS crimes.

DUI. DWI. Manslaughter. Hit and run...

If you were to walk up to a drunk guy in a bar and ask him for $100, and he gives it to you... should the police arrest you and charge you with theft?

getting someone drunk & then taking advantage of them is almost as bad as rape. if they're so drunk they can't give their consent properly then it is rape. imagine how easy it would be if we could blame all out problems on alcoholic intoxication . . . it probably wouldn't last long before alcoholic beverages would have to be banned again. here's a tip: being under the influence of alcohol lowers inhibition so you should consider what the person under the influence really would want were they sober

--supergandhi64

At 8/10/13 04:43 AM, supergandhi64 wrote: you should consider what the person under the influence really would want were they sober

--supergandhi64

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content

How do they decide what they want to do before their alcohol content reaches 0.2%? Do they write it down on a piece of paper?

At 8/10/13 01:49 AM, Memorize wrote: DUI. DWI.

Crimes that have a person's intoxication as an element are obviously not of the sort that intoxication would excuse.

Hit and run.

Hit and run, to the best of my knowledge is strict liability, thus meaning that no mental state is required and voluntary intoxication cannot be used as a defense.

Manslaughter.

In most jurisdictions, voluntary intoxication is a defense to specific i ntent crimes (in a common law jurisdiction) or to the mental states of knowingly or purposely (for MPC jurisdictions.) Manslaughter falls under neither category (being a general intent crime or reckless crime.) However, crimes like murder (both 1 and 2), burglary, robbery, fraud,and arson (as well as many others) can be defeated by a claim of voluntary intoxication as the requite intent or mental sate was incapable ofbeing present. Often times, murder is lessened to manslaughter, and so on and so forth.

If you were to walk up to a drunk guy in a bar and ask him for $100, and he gives it to you... should the police arrest you and charge you with theft?

Depends on quite a few things. If you had knowledge that the man would not give it to you sober, and you intentionally targetted him when he was drunk in order to bypass his normal response, than yes. In ANY crime that requires consent, or when using the defense of consent (as you would be in your example) the person consenting must have the capacity to consent. A person who is intoxicated rarely has legal capacity to do much at all, let alone consent.

At 8/10/13 10:13 PM, Camarohusky wrote: A person who is intoxicated rarely has legal capacity to do much at all, let alone consent.

This kinda sounds like we should be intoxicated as much as possible to avoid responsibility.

At 8/10/13 10:50 PM, NightmareWitch wrote: This kinda sounds like we should be intoxicated as much as possible to avoid responsibility.

That is a bad side effect. However, being intoxicated is no defense to civil claims and in many cases is an extreme aggravating factor. On top of that there are numerous good things you cannot do while intoxicated. Not to mention there are many laws against drunkenness in certain activities or situations. And finally, I am pretty sure that if it can be proven that you intentionally became drunk as to shield yourself from liability from an act you were premeditating, the defense falls apart.

At 8/10/13 08:03 PM, HibiscusMallow wrote:

At 8/10/13 04:43 AM, supergandhi64 wrote: you should consider what the person under the influence really would want were they sober

--supergandhi64

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content

How do they decide what they want to do before their alcohol content reaches 0.2%? Do they write it down on a piece of paper?

i never said they'd decide . . . that's exactly the point. since intoxication lowers inhibition it's up to your to be considerate & respectful of their wishes instead of theirs alone when you're around drunk people. if you can't say with confidence you know the person well enough to recognize how they would act were they sober then you probably shouldn't be leading them on when they're drunk. this isn't a hard dilemma either & if you have trouble understanding it then you aren't mature enough to be drinking alcohol anyway

--supergandhi64

At 8/10/13 10:13 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

If you had knowledge that the man would not give it to you sober, and you intentionally targetted him when he was drunk in order to bypass his normal response, than yes. In ANY crime that requires consent, or when using the defense of consent (as you would be in your example) the person consenting must have the capacity to consent. A person who is intoxicated rarely has legal capacity to do much at all, let alone consent.

I'm just tired of you people attempting to have it both ways.

On one hand, your voluntarily being drunk and making an idiotic decision such deciding to steal, drive, and fight can't be used as a defense for your stupid behavior.

But one other hand, if you agree to doing certain other things (like Sex... because with you idiot left wingers, somehow the most ridiculously of stupid excuses become legitimate when it comes to anything sex related) it magically becomes a solid excuse to avoid your own personal responsibility.

The only reason why you people are even taking that position is because you're imagining it happening to a woman rather than a man.

But even still...

All of what you said sounds wonderful... now how do you prove it?

I think that would probably qualify as rape, but the charges wouldn't be as high as others. You might compare it to when you kill someone when drunk. I doubt the charges would be as bad, but you're definitley going to jail for something or you at least have to know something or be really popular like Laura Bush, lol.

At 8/11/13 08:59 AM, Memorize wrote: I'm just tired of you people attempting to have it both ways.

You mean the law having it both ways?

On one hand, your voluntarily being drunk and making an idiotic decision such deciding to steal, drive, and fight can't be used as a defense for your stupid behavior.

IT CAN. Are you not even reading?! There are certai level of crimes that do not require a higher level mental state where being drunk is no defense, but those are the lesser intents.

But one other hand, if you agree to doing certain other things (like Sex... because with you idiot left wingers, somehow the most ridiculously of stupid excuses become legitimate when it comes to anything sex related) it magically becomes a solid excuse to avoid your own personal responsibility.

Consent requires a higher intent, such as knowledge. You cannot negligently consent to an act. You either know what you're consenting to or you do not.

The only reason why you people are even taking that position is because you're imagining it happening to a woman rather than a man.

No, because it's the law.

All of what you said sounds wonderful... now how do you prove it?

ORS 163.315
ORS 161.125
Here

Here's the results of a quick search without entering into deep legal doctrine. (Do remember, this is THE LAW, not my opinion)

At 8/11/13 05:59 AM, supergandhi64 wrote: i never said they'd decide . . . that's exactly the point. since intoxication lowers inhibition it's up to your to be considerate & respectful of their wishes instead of theirs alone when you're around drunk people.

--supergandhi64

how does the law find out what happened without the appropriate documents?

At 8/11/13 06:00 PM, HibiscusMallow wrote: how does the law find out what happened without the appropriate documents?

what are you even talking about

--supergandhi64

Can't say you were drunk and get let off in the UK. Apparently it's a crime of 'basic intent' rather than 'specific intent'.

http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/R-v-Woods.php

R v Woods (1982) 74 Cr App R 312

The appellant committed rape whilst intoxicated. He sought to rely on the defence of intoxication.

Held:

The crime of rape is one of basic intent and therefore defence of intoxication was not open to the appellant.

Griffiths LJ:
"If Parliament had meant to provide in future that a man whose lust was so inflamed by drink that he ravished a woman, should nevertheless be able to pray in aid his drunken state to avoid the consequences we would have expected them to have used the clearest words to express such a surprising result, which we believe would be utterly repugnant to the great majority of people. We are satisfied that Parliament had no such intention."

At 8/8/13 10:32 PM, Camarohusky wrote: First off, stop bitching about the false accusation garbage Sure, it happens, and it can be damaging, but it doesn't happen out of nowhere. Those who face false accusations do so because they put themselves in a position the be accused (such as having promiscuous sex with the type of girls most guys wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.) Keep it in your fucking pants and you should have very little to worry about.

Oh really?

There was a case about a girl who put her dad in jail when she was 12. She later got him out by telling she lied; the reason?
She was mad at him.
That's it.

http://www.imperfectparent.com/topics/2012/04/04/man-release d-from-prison-daughter-claims-she-falsely-accused-him-of-rap e/

And there is another one of a woman who accused a complete stranger of rape in Singapore, but he managed to escape being charged guilty due to a security camera footage that was found that proved his alibi. The two didn't even know each other. I'll post the link once I find it, as I read it a couple weeks ago on my mobile phone.

So your point is moot. All it takes is a malicious intent to do a false charge, promiscuous or not, no sex required.

At 8/11/13 10:16 PM, Aethos wrote: So your point is moot.

No it's not. There is always a VERY slim possibility of such things happening. However, they are nowhere near the epidemic most who compain of them claim they are. They are about as likely as being struck by lightning. Just like lightning, if you don't go around looking for lighning with a tall metal rod (or umbrella, or golf club) you're highly unlikely to be struck. Same here, if you don't go around looking for casual sex with people whom you d not know very well, the chances of getting accused of rape are extremely (almost negligibly) low.

At 8/11/13 10:40 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 8/11/13 10:16 PM, Aethos wrote: So your point is moot.

No it's not. There is always a VERY slim possibility of such things happening. However, they are nowhere near the epidemic most who compain of them claim they are. They are about as likely as being struck by lightning. Just like lightning, if you don't go around looking for lighning with a tall metal rod (or umbrella, or golf club) you're highly unlikely to be struck. Same here, if you don't go around looking for casual sex with people whom you d not know very well, the chances of getting accused of rape are extremely (almost negligibly) low.

Then wouldn't your argument go both ways?
Same for a girl who doesn't go to parties or dress skimpy or going to Saudi Arabia or enter a dangerous area or all those combined etc the chances of her getting raped increase, as well as her chances of not getting raped and being able to accuse someone.

You don't have to be someone who has a lot of sex to be accused of rape. You just simply have to have sex in order to have your chances increased. Twice in your life is enough if the scenario turns out bad, as with the OP's example. It depends more on the environment than it does of the sex itself.

At 8/11/13 06:49 PM, supergandhi64 wrote:

At 8/11/13 06:00 PM, HibiscusMallow wrote: how does the law find out what happened without the appropriate documents?

what are you even talking about

--supergandhi64

word of mouth isn't good enough proof in a court of law, if you want to stop people taking advantage of drunk women you need to make it illegal to have sex with a blood alcohol content above 0.2 without documentation