I read that a woman who's drunk even if she made herself drunk without you cannot consent to sex because of her mental state, and that having sex with her can technically be considered a rape. Is this really true? I find this hard to believe since many couple end up in bed after a night of drinking.
Drunk during sex
- Thread starter swanky
- Start date
If she uses a strap-on and forcibly penetrates him, she's guilty of rape under any scenario.
In the both-partners-pissed scenario, they're both fully aroused -- and both fully "consenting" as far as their consciousness permits. The "rape" aspect arises because, being pissed, the parties are deemed to be incapable of consenting -- even though both were apparently very willing. Exactly the same for both parties. Both are guilty of rape.
You're asking a question about a criminal offence under the law. The first thing you should know—before even asking—is that in English North America there are fifty two different codes of criminal law. In Canada we have one Criminal Code that covers the entire country, but in the Excited States each of the fifty states makes its own criminal laws, and the feds have made a few over the years as well. Nothing says there's anything common to the fifty two different laws covering any crime, including rape. In Canada we haven't even had an offence that's called that for years.
The finer points of laws—like when a person is too out of their gourd to even put a criminal thought together, or to have the foggiest notion of what they missed their chance to say no to—are almost always defined by judges in courtrooms, because the lawbooks can't be big enough for all such details. Since a judge covers only a smallish bit of a state, province or country, those fine points, like how drunk is drunk, are defined for small areas only until an appeal court that covers a bigger area lays down a wider version. But there is no court that covers both Canada and the US. So whose law, where, are you asking about? TERB may have Toronto in its name but the interweeb has no geography.
If all you're really wanting is a guidline to safe and appropriate behaviour with a tipsy date: Unless you're sure she'll remember giving consent, and will only have happy memories of the conjunction to follow, the only safe answer to hear is 'no'. Not only does No Mean No, but the only thing that means yes is a clear, unequivocal 'Yes'.
If you have to ask whether you just got a real yes, then you didn't.
The finer points of laws—like when a person is too out of their gourd to even put a criminal thought together, or to have the foggiest notion of what they missed their chance to say no to—are almost always defined by judges in courtrooms, because the lawbooks can't be big enough for all such details. Since a judge covers only a smallish bit of a state, province or country, those fine points, like how drunk is drunk, are defined for small areas only until an appeal court that covers a bigger area lays down a wider version. But there is no court that covers both Canada and the US. So whose law, where, are you asking about? TERB may have Toronto in its name but the interweeb has no geography.
If all you're really wanting is a guidline to safe and appropriate behaviour with a tipsy date: Unless you're sure she'll remember giving consent, and will only have happy memories of the conjunction to follow, the only safe answer to hear is 'no'. Not only does No Mean No, but the only thing that means yes is a clear, unequivocal 'Yes'.
If you have to ask whether you just got a real yes, then you didn't.
This. Anything else, whether she's an SP or not, is simply taking advantage for selfish reasons, and not cool under any circumstances.
So if I am drunk and get behind the wheel of a car, I can still be charged and convicted of DUI... it was my 'choice' after all, correct?
But if I am equally drunk, I don't have the capacity to consent to sex?
I call bullshit.
But if I am equally drunk, I don't have the capacity to consent to sex?
I call bullshit.
**sigh**
I long for the days where people took responsibility for their own actions.
Too much talk about rights, and no where near enough about RESPONSIBILITY!
I think the OP is confusing something he read with the actual criminal law in Canada.
While its true that you need positive consent, and consent requires capacity to consent,
someone would have to be very drunk to be unable to make a decision whether to have sex with someone.
Most intoxicated persons are capable of making a decision whether to have sex with someone.
If a woman is actually capable of making a decision whether to have sex with someone, and she makes the decision in the affirmative and communicates that decision, then your pretty safe.
Your being way too cautious if you refuse to have sex with an intoxicated women. She would have to be very drunk to lack the ability ie. capacity to consent.
While its true that you need positive consent, and consent requires capacity to consent,
someone would have to be very drunk to be unable to make a decision whether to have sex with someone.
Most intoxicated persons are capable of making a decision whether to have sex with someone.
If a woman is actually capable of making a decision whether to have sex with someone, and she makes the decision in the affirmative and communicates that decision, then your pretty safe.
Your being way too cautious if you refuse to have sex with an intoxicated women. She would have to be very drunk to lack the ability ie. capacity to consent.
The people who are prepared to take responsibility for their own actions are not the major problem -- not then, not now.
The offence (in Canada) is not just driving, but having care and control of the vehicle.
It has been argued that a driver was too drunk to have formed the deliberate intention to drive the car, and therefore the driver did not have the required intent to commit the crime. However, that defence is knocked on the head because the driver made a conscious decision to get drunk, while he was in possession of the car keys and in charge of the car. (If you are pissed, you should hand your carkeys to the barman, with instructions to keep them in the safe until you can collect them the next day.)
In the accusation of rape, the person says, "I was too pissed to make a properly-informed decision whether I consented or not."
The person who has the carkeys in his pocket has/had a legal obligation to stay sober, and he swings if he breaches that responsibility. The person who has sex in a drunken stupor has/had no legal obligation to stay sober enough to make decisions.
Perfectly sensible distinction. Not bullshit at all.
I still call bullshit... a bar with a responsible bartender is not the only place you can get drunk.
According to your example, if I choose to get drunk at my private home I first have the responsibility to offload my keys to my allegedly responsible neighbour to keep safe for the night.
