Cross-posted to The Angry Redhead.
Time for some writing.
Like I don’t already have enough stuff backed up, I was looking through the Writer’s Block Unplugged community today.
I’ve mentioned to you all before how LiveJournal does these question of the day things called Writer’s Block. Well they have a whole community (like a forum) for “unplugged” questions. That is, any question that’s a little too much for the PG13 content of the website. They made the community adults only so you know what you’re doing and they ask a lot of rather odd questions. Some are simply more gross or sexual and kinda goofy. Others are really deep and heavy questions. One of the back ones I stumbled across was:
“If an intoxicated man rapes a woman (intoxicated OR sober), should he still assume full responsibility? Or, like an intoxicated female, he’s too drunk to know what he was doing? Is it still rape if an intoxicated female consents to intercourse, or is she mentally incapacitated?”
The second question was easy to answer, at least for me, having studied rape law here in NY (at least a little bit.)
According to NYS, if you have intercourse with an intoxicated female, it is still rape. It is considered statutory rape, for she has been unable to give her consent to the acts due to her incapacitated mental state. Doesn’t matter if she said yes or not, she was unable to give consent at the time.
As for the rest of the question…
Well here’s my thing. I believe it is absolutely rape if:
- She is intoxicated, has given consent, and the male is sober and has taken advantage of that. That is statutory rape and as the sober party you should have more common sense than trying to get a clearly fall-down drunk girl’s clothes off.
- She is intoxicated and has not given consent. That right there is rape. Period.
- She is NOT intoxicated and has said no, but the male is drunk and does it anyway. She has definitely not given consent and despite the fact that you are too drunk to know what the fuck you’re doing, you need to take responsibility for your actions.
And though the question doesn’t state it, obviously if she’s passed out, you shouldn’t be screwing her. Drunk or not and that goes for the both of you. That is rape. Someone in their sleep (or drunken unconsciousness) is not giving consent and that is not an open invitation.
I also believe that these rules don’t just apply to women being raped. Men can be raped as well. If you are a drunk dude and she is a sober chick, then the law of statutory rape should be applied both ways. She has raped him then. But the reason this doesn’t get brought up nearly as much is for one of the reasons I will state below.
Back on topic, the real issue comes from what happens if BOTH parties are thoroughly intoxicated. There are reasons why this might need to be considered by circumstance rather than just a general law for it.
First of all, if you are a drunk chick and he is a drunk dude and you wake up in bed together with no remembrance of the night before, let it go. The chances are high that, while both incredibly drunk, you thought that sleeping together was a good idea. You may regret it in the morning, but suck it up and behave like adults.
I would say that most of the time you get a problem with false claims of rape in these case s is because the chick wakes up and a) doesn’t remember a damn thing about the night before, b) assumes the sex was forced, c) regrets the encounter. There may be one or all factors involved. So she will go and claim rape when in fact I would say neither party was at fault and both should take responsibility for doing something they otherwise wouldn’t have because they MADE THE CHOICE to get that intoxicated.
I don’t like the idea of a chick being able to use “I was drunk so it was rape” as an excuse after a night of revelry lead to a bad decision. No matter how many witnesses that guy can get to say that she was throwing herself over him, his perfectly good life will still be ruined and he will be considered a “rapist” because some woman can’t live with her actions.
While I put more responsibility and therefore more blame on the sober party (usually the dude in those cases,) I do think the statutory rape law concerning only intoxication is a little too vague to be very good. If you are a sober dude and a drunk chick is throwing herself at you, I believe you should use a bit more common sense when thinking that banging her is a good idea. But if you act stupid and do her anyway, I don’t think it’s necessarily right for her to be able to claim rape just because she regrets it the next morning.
In the case of BOTH parties being thoroughly trashed, I would urge any judge to acquit that case and let both parties live with their freakin’ actions and behave like adults already. Just because you regret it doesn’t make it rape.
Oh, and remember when I said that the statutory rape laws should go both ways, but more often than not a guy won’t claim the rape? That’s because of the prevailing mindset. The morning-after woman will wonder if she was raped and worry about it. The morning-after guy goes “hey, at least I know I got laid.” I don’t say it to sound sexist, men, I really don’t. But after actually hearing stuff like that come out of some guys mouths, it doesn’t surprise me anymore when they do that. It doesn’t help the rape community any, because I think people would take the idea of a man getting raped by a woman more seriously if they reported it more. But I can’t help what comes out of a college-aged guy’s mouth.
Also, the reason why I specified intoxication only in the rape law is because we all know of the dangers of getting roofied. That shit is totally rape and is no fucking joke. But it can be traced in the system of the person the next day, so if your blood comes up with more than just alcohol, then you have a case. If not, maybe you wanna rethink your lifestyle a little bit.