Is alcohol the key to hooking up with women?

[Cypress25]

Should we let drunk drivers off the hook then? What about people who commit a homicide under the influence? If I pay to get a big penis tattooed on my forehead when I'm wasted should I be able to sue the tattoo parlor?

 

Why are you arguing with me? I don't make the rules. In every state, there are laws against sex with a drunk person. Feel free to look it up. Most if not all states consider it rape to have sex with someone who is intoxicated. Whether or not you agree with that law is irrelevant.

 

The reason is because you're taking advantage of someone who is too drunk to consent, thereby victimizing the drunk person. In the examples you gave (driving drunk, committing homicide while drunk), the drunk person is not being taken advantage of by someone else, therefore the drunk person is not a victim.

 

And most tattoo studios refuse to serve people who are intoxicated, for that very reason. They don't want to be accused of taking advantage of anyone.

 

When you get right down to it, drunk sex is having sex with someone who is not in their right mind. Usually, one of two things will happen the next morning: (1) the girl feels that the guy took advantage of her so she calls the police and reports it as rape; or (2) the girl thinks "ugh, what the hell was I thinking?" and runs out of there before she has to speak to the guy.

 

Neither of those possibilities sound like fun for the guy. I suppose there are rare occasions when drunk sex leads to a relationship, but that is extremely unlikely. I just don't think somedude's plan is going to work. I think it will actually cause more problems for him. Especially if he manages to get a girl drunk and she still won't sleep with him. Now there's a blow to the ego.

[dasein]

In every state, there are laws against sex with a drunk person. Feel free to look it up.

 

I did actually, you are wrong. There's a big difference between being merely drunk, and being so incapacitated by alcohol that you can't form consent. The choice to drink or not does not automatically excuse a woman from responsibility for her actions.

[carhill]

Here's what I see from the Cali Penal Code

In part:

CALIFORNIA CODES
[b]PENAL[/b] [b]CODE[/b]
SECTION 261-269




261.  (a) [b]Rape[/b] is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a
person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following
circumstances:
  (1) Where a person is incapable, because of a mental disorder or
developmental or physical disability, of giving legal consent, and
this is known or reasonably should be known to the person committing
the act. Notwithstanding the existence of a conservatorship pursuant
to the provisions of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Part 1
(commencing with Section 5000) of Division 5 of the Welfare and
Institutions [b]Code[/b]), the prosecuting attorney shall prove, as an
element of the crime, that a mental disorder or developmental or
physical disability rendered the alleged victim incapable of giving
consent.
  (2) Where it is accomplished against a person's will by means of
force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful
bodily injury on the person or another.
  [b](3) Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating
or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this
condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the
accused.[/b]
  (4) Where a person is at the time unconscious of the nature of the
act, and this is known to the accused. As used in this paragraph,
"unconscious of the nature of the act" means incapable of resisting
because the victim meets one of the following conditions:
  (A) Was unconscious or asleep.
  (B) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant that the act
occurred.
  (C) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the
essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator's fraud
in fact.
  (D) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the
essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator's
fraudulent representation that the sexual penetration served a
professional purpose when it served no professional purpose.
  (5) Where a person submits under the belief that the person
committing the act is the victim's spouse, and this belief is induced
by any artifice, pretense, or concealment practiced by the accused,
with intent to induce the belief.
  (6) Where the act is accomplished against the victim's will by
threatening to retaliate in the future against the victim or any
other person, and there is a reasonable possibility that the
perpetrator will execute the threat. As used in this paragraph,
"threatening to retaliate" means a threat to kidnap or falsely
imprison, or to inflict extreme pain, serious bodily injury, or
death.
  (7) Where the act is accomplished against the victim's will by
threatening to use the authority of a public official to incarcerate,
arrest, or deport the victim or another, and the victim has a
reasonable belief that the perpetrator is a public official. As used
in this paragraph, "public official" means a person employed by a
governmental agency who has the authority, as part of that position,
to incarcerate, arrest, or deport another. The perpetrator does not
actually have to be a public official.
  (b) As used in this section, "duress" means a direct or implied
threat of force, violence, danger, or retribution sufficient to
coerce a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities to perform an
act which otherwise would not have been performed, or acquiesce in
an act to which one otherwise would not have submitted. The total
circumstances, including the age of the victim, and his or her
relationship to the defendant, are factors to consider in appraising
the existence of duress.
  (c) As used in this section, "menace" means any threat,
declaration, or act which shows an intention to inflict an injury
upon another.

An example of 'resisting' might be avoiding a kiss or pushing someone away or saying 'no'. Hard to prove inability to give consent after the fact for something as transitory in effect as alcohol. Evidence would be circumstantial, at best. I've had women come on to me who were obviously intoxicated and whom I presume might be unable to give clear consent even if their proactive actions indicate that they might have. One factor is I know them and another is they're married, so I default that their behavior is not within their character or 'normal' for them. Better to err on the side of 'just saying no' in those cases, IMO.

[Eclypse]

My first ever kiss was 2 years ago when I was 19 and with the sister of a friend who was quite a few years younger. We were both insanely drunk. I remember somewhere in the back of my mind among the haze was a voice telling me it was wrong but the rational part of my brain was too far gone. I probably wouldn't have got into trouble if we'd gone further as it turned out she had a crush on me for ages, and her mum and brother had been cool with it. But I personally felt bad. Afterwards I asked myself wtf was a girl her age getting blind drunk at her brothers party. Those thoughts don't pass thru when you are sober.

 

I had a few more drunk hook ups after but they were unsatisfying. Then when I began dating my gf everything was done sober. In fact we've only had 1 drink together in 18 months and I couldn't be happier. The point is: it's much more satisfying if both parties at sober, or at the very least not drunk to the point where they are unaware of their surroundings. YMMV

[FredRutherford]

Of course, women get drunk and lose control of their actions, but that's no reason to take advantage of them, right?

Just like someone suffering a big loss, like losing their spouse and family in a car accident.

Or a police officer involved in a (justified) shooting death.

 

They can't think straight and aren't in their right mind. That's why they're not allowed to work for a few days.

 

Think of it the other way around:

how would you like it if someone took advantage of you when you weren't doing so well or not thinking so clearly, and sold you a lemon car or ripped you off in some door-to-door sales job?

 

Say the salesman for that diamond ring you buy your beloved, he or she sells you an inferior-grade diamond. Or costume jewelry.

You know nothing about jewelry and trusted the store. You'd be a little upset, huh?

 

 

OR....

You reveal some info. to a friend about a girl you want to date.

When you're not lookin', this "friend" takes her out on a date....

 

Or....

You get mad 'cause you had a bad day golfing. You pitch your golf clubs. You're friend, who was with you and knows your love of golf and those golf clubs, takes them from your trash can.....

 

 

SomeDude,

A lot has been said in this thread, and you've received some sound advice.

 

Understand you're lonely and want female companionship, but please consider your motives here.

You're really not the kind of man who would prey on a woman like that, are you?

Edited November 14, 2011 by FredRutherford

[Cypress25]

I did actually, you are wrong. There's a big difference between being merely drunk, and being so incapacitated by alcohol that you can't form consent. The choice to drink or not does not automatically excuse a woman from responsibility for her actions.

 

Care to cite your source? I'd like to know which state this is, and how they determine the difference between "drunk enough to consent" and "too drunk to consent."

 

This has nothing to do with taking responsibility for your actions. This is about taking advantage of someone who can't think straight. And it doesn't just apply to women.

[dasein]

Care to cite your source?

 

Nope, you didn't, why should I?

 

Read the Ca statute carhill posted above or simply google "rape alcohol" like I did and read up on the matter. I would suggest sticking to actual law and especially legal cases as opposed to feminist propaganda on blogs and college websites. Those latter are riddled with BS and don't reflect the actual state laws.

 

This has nothing to do with taking responsibility for your actions.

 

Wrong.

[Cypress25]

Nope, you didn't, why should I?

 

How do you expect me to believe you otherwise? If you had a source, you would cite it. I did read carhill's source, which supports what I've been saying. If you can find a source that supports what you're saying, I would believe it. Until then, the fact remains that drunk people cannot legally consent to sex, whether you like it or not.

[TheBigQuestion]

You can't go by the code alone. You need to find case law that explains how those particular statutes are construed in that (or any other) state. I'd look it up but I've been studying federal income tax for the past 4 hours and refuse to read another law the rest of the night.

[dasein]

How do you expect me to believe you otherwise?

 

I don't care whether you believe me or not.

 

If you had a source, you would cite it.

 

You posted a false statement, "In every state there are laws against having sex with a drunk person," without any sources. I told you how to go and find the truth of the matter, which consists of looking at actual state statutes and caselaw, as TBQ confirms also. Sorry, that's all you get, do your own research.

 

I did read carhill's source, which supports what I've been saying.

 

No, it does not. "Unable to resist" does not equate to "drunk." Drunk people have consensual sex millions of times a day all over the country in every position imagineable without breaking any laws whatsoever.

 

Until then, the fact remains that drunk people cannot legally consent to sex, whether you like it or not.

 

Oh, well in that case I guess that settles the matter.

[betterdeal]

If both people are equally drunk, who assaulted who?

 

Look, drink if you enjoy drinking. Sex when blind drunk is a hassle more than anything. It's like sewing a needle whilst riding a bike. You can be a bar fly and, by the process of Brownian motion, some day some woman will hit on you. Not likely you'll form a lasting relationship, but you'll be able to cadge yourself a knee-trembler down a dark alley with someone who's shaking off something or other.

 

Once you get into a sexual or romantic relationship, after a few months honeymoon period, you'll be bored of all the spontaneous sex, and you'll need to have other things to fill your time. Normally that means the hobbies, pastimes, things you used to do before the shagfest. If that was drinking, you'll go back to drinking. If it was birdwatching, you'll go back to that. If it was staring at a wall and getting bored, that's what you'll revert to doing. If it was yearning for a relationship, you'll probably go back to that too and sublimate it as "she's not the one" or some other such bollocks.

 

So mix it up a bit. Have a few more interests. Some things you do alone. Some you do with others. Some physical, some mental, some spiritual. Some creative, some serious, some light. You might even think about the seven aspects of life and how you have mastered them so far:

 

• Physical
  
• Mental
  
• Spiritual
  
• Familial
  
• Social
  
• Vocational
  
• Financial
  

 

And see there's lots to do with a life to make it long, happy and meaningful. Lots more than getting sex. And we all judge each other (subconsciously or otherwise) on how we handle these aspects of life so it feeds into your ability to attract lovers too.

[Cypress25]

If both people are equally drunk, who assaulted who?

 

Whoever calls the police first. It's a messy situation because it's often he said/she said and if neither of them can remember what happened, it's even harder to determine who the victim is.

 

In general, whoever reports the crime first is the victim.

 

You posted a false statement, "In every state there are laws against having sex with a drunk person," without any sources. I told you how to go and find the truth of the matter, which consists of looking at actual state statutes and caselaw

 

It's a true statement, and of course I've seen it in state penal codes. Where else would I find information like that?

 

"Unable to resist" does not equate to "drunk." Drunk people have consensual sex millions of times a day all over the country in every position imagineable without breaking any laws whatsoever.

 

It does if being drunk is the reason that the person is unable to resist, as the statute says. If the victim claims that being intoxicated prevented him/her from resisting, then you've got yourself a rape charge. The sex position is irrelevant.

 

Keep in mind that there is no crime unless someone presses charges. If you have sex with a drunk woman and she doesn't press charges, you're off the hook. But if she does press charges on the grounds that she was drunk and unable to consent, she would indeed have a case. She can claim that she lacked the capacity to consent, and it would be up to a jury to prove otherwise. Here's a lengthy case study for you, about such a case in MA: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/450/450mass583.html

[Art_Critic]

If both people are equally drunk, who assaulted who?

 

The person who puts his penis inside another drunk person who hasn't given consent because they are too intoxicated..

 

If all it took to not be guilty of rape was to be as drunk as the woman you rape then all the rapist out there would have to do is pound a bottle of jack before hitting up a bar to find a victim.

[Queen Zenobia]

The person who puts his penis inside another drunk person who hasn't given consent because they are too intoxicated..

 

If all it took to not be guilty of rape was to be as drunk as the woman you rape then all the rapist out there would have to do is pound a bottle of jack before hitting up a bar to find a victim.

 

Well that certainly is the law in some places. Basically, guilt on the basis of one's downstairs equipment. It really shouldn't be that way. Barring any physical evidence (injury, trauma, etc.) two drunk people having sex should never warrant a rape charge.

[Art_Critic]

two drunk people having sex should never warrant a rape charge.

 

that was part of my point.. if all it took to not be guilty of rape was for a rapist to down a bottle of whiskey then go out and pray on women, how would that be okay..

 

If 2 drunk people having sex means they both consented because they are drunk then a rapist only has to be drunk and pickup a drunk women to continue to be inside the law..

See how messed up that sounds ?

 

If a woman while drunk takes a broomstick and eff's another drunk person (male or female) is she guilty of rape.. yes..if (s)he was so drunk they were incapacitated..

 

It's all about the penetration and whoever is wielding the penetrating object.

[Queen Zenobia]

that was part of my point.. if all it took to not be guilty of rape was for a rapist to down a bottle of whiskey then go out and pray on women, how would that be okay..

 

If 2 drunk people having sex means they both consented because they are drunk then a rapist only has to be drunk and pickup a drunk women to continue to be inside the law..

See how messed up that sounds ?

 

If a woman while drunk takes a broomstick and eff's another drunk person (male or female) is she guilty of rape.. yes..if (s)he was so drunk they were incapacitated..

 

It's all about the penetration and whoever is wielding the penetrating object.

 

Well for one, I'm pretty sure using a broomstick is considered (sexual) assault, not rape.

 

But, personally, I don't think anyone should be having drunk hookup sex, so I wouldn't be ok with anyone getting drunk and having sex (forcibly or not). What I was more getting to was the issue of legality. If two drunk people have sex neither can consent, but yet you think the male should be the guilty party solely on account of his genitalia.

 

On the other side of your scenario, is that if a woman regrets a hookup, all she would have to do is down some whiskey in order to have a valid claim of rape. Unrealistic? Perhaps, but no more than rapists downing whiskey to avoid rape charges.

 

Rape is almost always a he said she said case, adding alcohol only makes it more so. I'd rather have a rapist go free than a innocent person sit in jail for rape due to a drunk hookup. Again, that's just me, I can't speak for anyone else here.

[Art_Critic]

On the other side of your scenario, is that if a woman regrets a hookup, all she would have to do is down some whiskey in order to have a valid claim of rape. Unrealistic?

 

Unrealistic.. yeah..

 

but I'm sure it has happened.. there are false rape cases out there.. and not just one or 2.. so a man needs to be careful..and part of that is not praying on drunk women...

The laws are setup to protect the victim and not a predator.. good thing too..

[Cypress25]

I'd rather have a rapist go free than a innocent person sit in jail for rape due to a drunk hookup.

 

Really?! Doesn't that seem kind of dangerous? Rapists are often serial rapists, so to say you'd rather see a rapist go free is basically saying you don't care if he rapes dozens of other women throughout his lifetime.

[Queen Zenobia]

Really?! Doesn't that seem kind of dangerous? Rapists are often serial rapists, so to say you'd rather see a rapist go free is basically saying you don't care if he rapes dozens of other women throughout his lifetime.

 

Yes, it could be dangerous, but much less dangerous than the alternative which is people going to jail for rape when they in fact didn't rape anyone. And, since I'm a woman, of course I don't want to see anyone raped. If it were possible I'd never have anyone wrongfully convicted of a crime and I'd have no guilty people let off the hook. Unfortunately there's no real world scenario in which that could work.

 

To put it another way, I'd rather a serial killer go free than someone go to jail for killing in self defense.

[dasein]

It's a true statement,

 

No, it's not. The statement "There are laws in every state against having sex with a drunk person" is false. There are indeed laws in most states against having sex with someone who is so incapacitated by an intoxicating substance that they are incapable of forming consent. That and "drunk" though, are two entirely different things. For example, you can be drunk enough to register .008 on a BAC test for DUI purposes and form consent to sex just fine. You can be too drunk to operate machinery yet form consent just fine.

 

Moreover, penal codes themselves merely contain the language of the statutes. Those statutes in a vacuum are relatively meaningless. In order to find out exactly what constitutes "too incapacitated to form consent," as you have been told twice now, you will need to look at caselaw, not statutes, in the state in question.

 

And when you do that, you will find that in most states, "incapacitated" means exactly that, nearly or fully passed out, incapable of walking, talking, in a stupor, etc. Those are the types of criteria you will find, not "drunk." Of course someone can claim whatever they want about their mental state, but that doesn't change what the law actually says.

 

and it would be up to a jury to prove otherwise.

 

Juries don't "prove" anything.

Edited November 16, 2011 by dasein

[betterdeal]

that was part of my point.. if all it took to not be guilty of rape was for a rapist to down a bottle of whiskey then go out and pray on women, how would that be okay..

 

You've clearly never downed a bottle of whiskey. If you had, you'd know the only praying you'd be doing is to the porcelain god.

 

Seriously, if two people are blind drunk and have sex, neither is capable of informed consent and both are just as guilty of having sex with someone who couldn't legally give consent. Both are sex offenders, by the definition of informed consent.

[betterdeal]

Really?! Doesn't that seem kind of dangerous? Rapists are often serial rapists, so to say you'd rather see a rapist go free is basically saying you don't care if he rapes dozens of other women throughout his lifetime.

 

You'd rather lock up innocent people? Why not lock up ALL men and then there will be no rape of women? And lock up ALL women too, to prevent shop lifting.

 

There. Crime is solved!

[Art_Critic]

You've clearly never downed a bottle of whiskey.

 

Actually.. Clearly I have.. 24 years sober now though...

 

The issue BD is the woman is who has to give consent..

The one being penetrated...

Clearly you are not understanding that I'm not making things up.. can you not get it that making it okay to rape a woman just by both being drunk that it would open the door for women to be prayed on..

Edited November 16, 2011 by Art_Critic

[FredRutherford]

SomeDude,

Take a look at this thread about a drunken sex incident, where a woman lost her virginity that way:

 

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3312371&postcount=17

 

 

We had been friends for about 8 years. He was not a virgin, I was (also raped as a child but I still never had consensual sex, so I dont consider that maybe I am weird).

 

Anyway, it lasted all of 3 minutes (maybe and probably less, really).

 

I was really, REALLY drunk (and I do not mean that like omg I was drunk aaahh..I had been drunk plenty and I knew then, just as I did when I had sex with him what I was doing.) and in a really bad and sad place.

Neither "finished".

 

I did not want to date him before nor after the experience.

 

We are not friends anymore, it is not totally all his fault what happened but

a true friend would not let me self destruct just because I wanted too,

 

you may or may not understand that.

I made the decision to have sex, and will have to live with that regret and guilt on my own.

I thought having sex with someone I was not in love with could not hurt me, but I was wrong.

 

 

 

This part is telling:

 

a true friend would not let me self destruct just because I wanted too,

Edited November 16, 2011 by FredRutherford

[Els]

Well for one, I'm pretty sure using a broomstick is considered (sexual) assault, not rape.

 

Wait, you don't think it's okay for the penis wielder to get jail time for rape if nonconsensual sex occured, but it's okay for the broomstick-wielder to get jail time for sexual assault?