Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Back in my frat days, we had some required rape sensitivity course or some such. One thing they stated was that if a girl had ANYTHING to drink, and you had sex, it could be called rape. This is of course stupid.
On the other hand, I saw enough girls so drunk off their ass they didn't know where they were, who they were with, or what they were doing. I remember we once found a girl asleep in the pile of coats after a big party and no one knew who she was. A few hours later her friends finally came looking for her.
Having sex with any of them I would have called rape. Sure it was their choice to drink themselves into oblivion, but it doesn't take a lot of morals and personal ethics to figure out that doing anything with them would be taking unwarranted advantage of them. I see sex with them as being no better than having sex with someone who fell down the stairs and was knocked unconscious.
|
Taking advantage of someone who is passed out or totally out of it is of course very wrong. As I recall from my earlier wilder days though there were several times when drinking that I engaged in sex with someone who was probably just as drunk as I was. I can remember waking up the next day and thinking "damn, I wish I had not have done that, I don't even like that person very much". This did not have anything to do with rape but was just two people doing something very foolish because they were drinking.
Under the law that f6twister quoted, I wonder if either one of us had a valid claim for rape since we were both drunk and probably would not have consented otherwise? In other words is the man exonerated if he was just as drunk as the woman who was consenting to sex if she claims later to have been too drunk to have given that consent? I don't think it is rape when both parties engage in a drunken fling and regret it later.