SincereOnlineGuy Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 Sigh. Victim culture. Whatevs, she was awake and willing, it was not assault no matter how it is twisted. That's wrong, and most already know it. IF a (person) is "too drunk to consent to sex" then it is sexual assault when anybody has sexual contact with (them) regardless of other variables. (that person) being "awake" has exactly no bearing on this reality. and even her way too drunken consent would be (legally) meaningless under such circumstances. 3 Link to post Share on other sites
anika99 Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 That's wrong, and most already know it. IF a (person) is "too drunk to consent to sex" then it is sexual assault when anybody has sexual contact with (them) regardless of other variables. (that person) being "awake" has exactly no bearing on this reality. and even her way too drunken consent would be (legally) meaningless under such circumstances. I agree, but when does drunken sex between two inebriated people become assault? How drunk is too drunk to consent? In my case I was quite obviously too drunk to consent. I couldn't put together a sentence, I couldn't stand up and I was partially unconscious and anyone who saw me would have said no way can she consent to sex. However what if I was very drunk but still functional? I could carry on a conversation and I eagerly agreed to sex and actively participated in the sex but then the next day I said I was too drunk and I had been raped. When does a drunken hookup, which people engage in often and nobody feels violated or raped, cross the line to assault? I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything, I'm truly curious to know how this can be determined. Perhaps it's solely dependent on what the person saying they have been raped feels about it? If they say they were too drunk and it was rape then we have to believe that. I don't have a problem with that overall but there are women who will falsely accuse a man of rape. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
lollipopspot Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 I agree, but when does drunken sex between two inebriated people become assault? How drunk is too drunk to consent? In my case I was quite obviously too drunk to consent. I couldn't put together a sentence, I couldn't stand up and I was partially unconscious and anyone who saw me would have said no way can she consent to sex. However what if I was very drunk but still functional? I could carry on a conversation and I eagerly agreed to sex and actively participated in the sex but then the next day I said I was too drunk and I had been raped. When does a drunken hookup, which people engage in often and nobody feels violated or raped, cross the line to assault? I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything, I'm truly curious to know how this can be determined. Perhaps it's solely dependent on what the person saying they have been raped feels about it? If they say they were too drunk and it was rape then we have to believe that. I don't have a problem with that overall but there are women who will falsely accuse a man of rape. I don't see why this is such a confusing thing. Someone who can't "put together a sentence" is obviously too drunk to consent. Someone who is able to say "Yes" and actively participate - it's not a rape. This is apparently why they whole idea of "enthusiastic consent" is necessary. Do people really not get when someone WANTS to have sex with them? 1 Link to post Share on other sites
basil67 Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 Has anyone else noticed that the OP did two posts and left? I wonder if this actually happened or if she was just giving us a topic to discuss. Anyway, it was interesting but I'm outta here. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Rejected Rosebud Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 I don't see why this is such a confusing thing. Someone who can't "put together a sentence" is obviously too drunk to consent. Someone who is able to say "Yes" and actively participate - it's not a rape. This is apparently why they whole idea of "enthusiastic consent" is necessary. Do people really not get when someone WANTS to have sex with them? You seem to have an agenda. This thread is NOT about a person who was too drunk to consent to sex. It's about a woman who had a memorable sexual experience with her husband while super drunk. For THREE YEARS she considered this to be a memorable sexual experience with her husband - but now she learns that evidently it was NOT her husband with whom she had her memorable drunken sex three years ago. She said she was incoherent, but she wasn't. We know this because of the specific details in the story. Why it's interesting: If the guy pretended to be her husband and she consented with this belief, it could be assault. This is something I didn't know. Also it's interesting because her husband could very well have had sex with her in the other guy's bed that night, while trashed, and not remember it 3 years later. Seriously, I am quite positive that married people who drink a lot have plenty of drunken sex without remembering each case. And, another reason why it's interesting: If it WAS "M," since she'd been confiding her marital problems to him and staying up after her husband was in bed doing so, the "M" person may have felt confident that she WANTED to have sex with him - i.e.; he wasn't pretending to be her husband. Anyway, I think this thread falls into the "cool story bro" category, but it has brought up some things that are interesting to talk about. I do find it interesting how rape and / or sexual assault tend to be a very divisive topic. There are those (mostly men) who do not believe that there can be any such thing as "date rape" or rape by a SO, or incest rape, because of course the woman was always "asking for it" in some way. To them the only kind of rape that exists is when a woman (probably wearing a burqa) is jumped by a maniacal stranger while walking to her car. If she wasn't wearing a burqa, she was mostly asking for it. And then there are those (mostly women) who believe that usually, a woman is a victim of a man or men in most sexual encounters unless she has done that new thing of formally consenting every step of the way - and certainly ALWAYS a victim if she's under the influence of anything. I think BOTH of these stances are terrible for women. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
anika99 Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 (edited) I don't see why this is such a confusing thing. Someone who can't "put together a sentence" is obviously too drunk to consent. Someone who is able to say "Yes" and actively participate - it's not a rape. This is apparently why they whole idea of "enthusiastic consent" is necessary. Do people really not get when someone WANTS to have sex with them? I'm sorry. I don't think you understood my question. I have heard of people being black out drunk (keep in mind, black out drunk is a lot different than passed out drunk) and appearing mostly functional and coherent to others. They have gotten in there cars and driven to a new location, carried on conversations and otherwise seem engaged and aware, meanwhile they are in a blackout. So I don't think it's as cut and dried as you believe. Edited December 28, 2015 by anika99 1 Link to post Share on other sites
lollipopspot Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 You seem to have an agenda... She said she was incoherent, but she wasn't. We know this because of the specific details in the story. Umm, I just call it like I see it. If I have an "agenda" then everyone does who has a point of view. See Anika's story above - she describes being incoherent - and yet she remembers a lot of details of her story. Review that and take it up with her about how that couldn't be possible. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Rejected Rosebud Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 See Anika's story above - she describes being incoherent - and yet she remembers a lot of details of her story. Review that and take it up with her about how that couldn't be possible. She was consciously trying to resist him. The OP was consciously participating and remembers doing so. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts