Co-consensual Rape Countdown

My son is going to college and had to take a three hour course titled "Alcohol EDU" which teaches the kids all about how to be responsible about alcohol. I overheard part of the course where they were talking about sexual consent under the influence of alcohol. The position they took was that it was impossible for someone to consent to sex under the influence. They also pointed out that you are responsible for any acts that you commit while you are drunk so you can't use it as an excuse to rape a woman.

This got me to thinking. Under these rules what if a guy and a girl of legal age get drunk and have consentual sex but are caught in the act by their friends who intervene and bring both to a rape crisis center. Obviously neither was in a state of mind to consent thus they both were raped by the other. In addition both are responsibile for their criminal actions while under the influence. Do they both end up with sexual offender records? Seems like it to me if this is the actual law.

I'm wondering how long before this happens. Don't laugh I'm serious. ;) Do I have to remind you of that underage girl who was charged with child pornography for posting nude pictures of herself on the internet? I'm not sure if this indicates prosecutors have or do not have a sense of humor. I do know regardless of why prosecutors make these bizarre twists that when they do they stick with them. So as soon as prosecutors put two and two together we are going to see lots of people on the sexual offender lists.

I'm leaving it up to you to figure out the implications of all this because it makes my brain hurt. Especially since it means I've been raped by some attractive women that I wasn't even aware had abused me. I feel so used.

Share this

I think consent to sex while

I think consent to sex while drunk should be valid. If someone drinks he should be responsible for his altered state of mind, and know he might to stupid things. It is up to them to wear a t-shirt saying "I do not consent to a sexual relationship" if they feel its necessary.

There's a contradiction in saying we are responsible for our acts while under the influence and saying we are not responsible of our consent.

IANAL but I think in France if both people are drunk there can be no charge while if only the girl is drunk for example she can sue for rape. Morality: if you're going to rape a drunk girl, have a drink before.

Can't Say I Disagree

I not sure I disagree or not. I sure seems to me that someone who is drunk cannot give informed consent. On the other hand if they are responsible for getting themselves in that state (as opposed to being slipped a mickey) then they are certainly responsible for their actions while drunk.

However, I kid about it making my head hurt because it seems fraught with contradiction and I haven't got a good answer. I think you are totally right when you say, "There's a contradiction in saying we are responsible for our acts while
under the influence and saying we are not responsible of our consent.". I don't however see a way to resolve the contradition.

If cemetary plot, insurance, or car salesmen made the habit of frequenting bars and getting drunks to sign contracts then I would have to say that the drunk was not in the position to consent. However, if the decision is whether to buy another beer well that's a different story, after all it's a continuation of something he already consented to while sober.

Certainly if a guy asks a girl up to his bedroom for some drinks and she agrees to it while sober then continues to consent it's not rape, regardless of the state of the guy. Only if she were to say no and he continued anyway would it be rape.

I also have my doubts abou the claim that at any stage one person can say no and if anything happens beyond that it's rape. What if the girl has consented to penetration and then very late in the game decides she's bored or is not going to get off and tries to stop things. Suppose the guy realizes this and ignores her request and takes the extra minute he needs. Now I agree he should stop when asked but it seems to me a category error to call this rape. It's more like an inconvience.

The other thing is that it seems like the girl shouldn't have asked him to stop in the first place. It's as if she was using him purely as the means to an end, a tool, without any thought to his reasons for consenting himself. It seems almost like a fraud or the breaking of a contract. If some girl told me prior to the act she was going to arbitrarily disengage based on her whim I certainly wouldn't consent to that. Sure if she has some unexpected pain, developed a headache, or such, well that's a reason to end what was consented to.

Of course, this is sort of ridiculous. I've never actually had the experience of a girl sayjing no after penetration, but that is one of the scenarios brought up by these types of courses. They say that no matter what point the girl says no you have to stop or it is rape. Seems pretty ridiculous to me.

Think about it. If I don't consent to a wrestling match and someone pushes me to the ground and pins me, well that's certainly battery. If however I challenge him to a wrestling match and he pins me whereupon I say "let me go" well it's obvious that I no longer consent to the wrestling, but is it really battery if he makes me say uncle first?

I'd have to think about it more before I could come up with a satisfactory set of guidelines on the issue of being under the influence and consent. Seems like if there is a pattern being followed by the person doing the drinking then consent needs to be assumed.

If a girl says "Lets get drunk and have sex", and you say "I don't drink but don't let that stop you" then she proceeds to get drunk and has sex with you I really don't see how anyone can argue you raped her because she was incapacitated in her decision making.

That's true even if she didn't acutally make the decision while sober. She can always say "Let's get drunkand see what happens. If I'm in the mood you might get lucky." then make the actual decision while drunk. In that case I also do not see how that can be remotely construded as rape.


Consenting to sex while drunk

Even if someone is drunk, they should be able to distinguish between right and wrong. If someone consents to sex- then they are not raped.


I've often wondered about the very same conundrum, having had to take courses or attend seminars discussing the very same thing - every year - when I was in college.


"A free man must be able to endure it when his fellow men act and live otherwise than he considers proper. He must free himself from the habit, just as soon as something does not please him, of calling for the police." - Mises

Consent For Sex

Just in case I need it I had my lawyer draw up this form to get signed in case I ever go out on a date. It may seem like an extreme precaution but nowadays you can’t be too careful. (Don’t tell my wife.)
Sexual Activity Liability and Indemnification
_____________________ (hereinafter referred to as “participant in mutually permitted sex" or PIMPS agrees not to sue or harass or have father or older brothers beat up________________ (hereinafter referred to as "The Provider") for providing sex on the specified day of ___________________ between the hours of__ and__ .
PIMPS acknowledges and understands that no warranty concerning duration of service, size, function or condition of bodily organs or satisfaction either expressed or implied, is made by Provider. This document is offered in order to duly warn PIMPS that unforeseeable risks of harm may caused by activities voluntarily permitted on the part of the “Provider” including but not limited to pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, loss of virginity and loss of reputation which may in whole or in part, be caused by the “Provider.”
PIMPS agrees that neither he/she, nor his/her parents, athletic coaches, piano teachers, boyfriends or girlfriends will sue Provider or his/her agents for any injury that suffers, in whole or in part, from Provider's activities.
PIMPS: ___________________________ DATE:______________________
PROVIDER: _____________________________
WITNESS: __________________________ WITNESS: _________________________________
If PIMPS is under the age of 18 years this document must be cosigned by the PIMPS’S father.
Signature _____________________________


That was funny. I missed it when you posted it.

Gender double standard

There are so many ways in which society displays a male-female double standard, that I think the double standard should be taken as real and acknowledged, particularly in discussions like this one about rape. This double standard is by the way not merely a matter of law and may even not be reflected in law (e.g., if the law is written by people who are being careful to make it gender-neutral).

It seems apparent to me that there is no real, intuitive, contradiction, in this:

it was impossible for someone to consent to sex under the influence. They also pointed out that you are responsible for any acts that you commit while you are drunk

I will restate the point so that the lack of contradiction becomes explicit:

it was impossible for women to consent to sex under the influence. They also pointed out that men are responsible for any acts that the commit while they are drunk

The seeming contradiction is dissolved that easily. Of course, the law may be written to be gender-neutral and therefore may display the contradiction that is being claimed here, and if that is the case then the law may even sometimes be applied in a gender-neutral way by judges trained to do so. But I think the attitudes about sex that the law represents, and possibly disguises with gender-neutral language, are not really gender-neutral.

The same is true of statutory rape. While it is true that some adult female "sexual predators" have been charged, convicted, and imprisoned, there is, I easily observe, nevertheless a strong, often repressed (because of awareness that it is not gender-neutral) current of thought that considers the woman-on-boy consensual but statutory sexual assault itself to be "niiiice" and considers it absurd to imprison "the best teacher ever".

I am not, by the way, taking people to task for the double standard. I'm not sure what I think about it.


P.S. I don't really see any contradiction either in having a gender double
standard, after all a sexual relationship between a man and a woman is
not symmetrical.

While men and women may have

While men and women may have different parts a drunk man is just as incapable of making a rational decision as the woman.

If the man is drunk but the woman is sober and they have sex the woman should be charged with statuatory rape.

If both are drunk it makes absolutely no sense to say they raped each other. Under this circumstance it should be legal so long as both are over the age of consent.

In addition the state of mind when someone consents should be what counts. If you consented before you got drunk that should be valid. Still if the person says no while drunk then the sex should stop or it's rape. Imagine the number of married couples that plan a night to have a few bottles of champagne and then have sex. Can you call that rape?

There is absolutely no rational justification for treating men and women differently when it comes to rape, statuatory or otherwise. It is sex discrimination.

Cock blocking as a crime

Which brings up the important issue of whether "cock blocking" should be a crime.   After all, isn't that forcing sexual behavior on someone that they didn't desire.  In this case preventing them from having sex when the wanted it.  Hmmm....

Also think about the issue of socialism and sex.   Isn't sex a need just like food and shelter?   So don't men have a positive right to sex?   From each according to their abilities ....


( Please excuse my bad

( Please excuse my bad spelling)I'm not sure if people have noticed this, but USA is one of the most hippocriticaly countries in the world. We bring slaves to this country and count them as 3/5 of a citizen even though there is no representation for them what so ever. We allow former black slaves the right to vote before we allow woman, white woman in particuler. We even made it a requirement by law that a 18 year old may be forced to fight in a war, but can't even vote in the country he may die for.
This country in the past was hippocriticaly, and still is to this very day. Which includes the way laws that involves sex are handled. Woman want equal rights, but don't want equal respocibility. They don't have to serve in the draft, and laws in sex are very less servere on them. I heard a story about a 17 year old guy getting a blow job from a 15 year old girl and was sentenced for 15 years in prison. Thats not even actual sex, and look at how long he got. Now, this was in the South. Which has the most hippocriticaly vaules in the country. But still. I bet if it was the other way around. 15 year old guy and 17 year old girl. They would have said " niiiiice " to the guy and told the girl that she " shouldn't " do it again. Now that may be a bit of a exageration. Though this is a simular fate on most cases like that.

What im sayinging is this. Our country is very hippocriticaly in many ways, mainly in sex. If you want things to change. Stop teaching your childeren these values. Vote better people in office and this stuff may actualy change.

Ok. I found this looking

Ok. I found this looking for a specific answer to a specific question, and I just wanna know what people have to say, and if anyone can help me out with the current facts, it would be much appreciated.

This whole thing is about drinking and sex, but really in essence you could say its about making important decisions while drunk and whether they should be valid decisions.

So if an underage (20 yrs old) woman were to get drunk, with no intentions of making any major decisions for the night, but was than, for lack of a better word, "seduced" into signing a legal document that put them into a government branch of service (specifically, the Army,) in the presence of witnesses, one of which was a Military recruiter, who knew she was intoxicated. Please give me your opinions on such a situation, and if anyone would happen to know the current legalality on that kind of thing, please please do let me know.

Thank you.

Go see a lawyer

Talk with a lawyer. Don't cruise the internet for legal advice. If you are going to do so go to a lawyer blog, like or some other blog where there are lawyers. There might be some lawyers here. I was under the impression Scott was studying law.

Not a lawyer but my understanding is that contracts are only valid if you signed them when you were of sound mind. Joining the military is a serious enough contract that a reasonable person would presume that such a contract must be signed when sober.

I think that where this contract was signed would provide evidence as to the circumstances also. If it were signed in a bar then I think that would be one piece of evidence that would be in her favor. If she were picked up at a bar by the recruiter that would be another. If she had witnesses that would be more evidence. If she signed in at a particular date and time and she could get a sworn statement from a witness that they had seen her drunk just prior that would be evidence. Etc.

evryone is saying that wemon

evryone is saying that wemon or incapable of makeing rational decitions while drunk i belive that the real problem is that wemon or incapable of makeing rational decitions ever. of course im jokeing but really if you have sex ever no mater what the conditions are you can be charged with rape it will allways be her word agint yours inless you get written consent and vidotape it to use in court.

the only logical soultion is to just murder everyone you have sex with you will get way further in life as a ex murderer than an ex rapeist