By Anonymous - 18/07/2015 05:00 - United States - San Francisco
Add a comment - Reply to : #
175 - except if he is equally drunk and she says yes then its not rape because they both consented under the same circumstances... cant tell the context the son meant, so we dont know... (its rape if he stayed sober and took advantage of someone who was intoxicated)
totally. how about instead of offering condoms you throw him to a bunch of feminists who can teach him a thing or two. OP, your son disgusts me :(
Unless the person is speech slurring, droopy eyed, barely conscious drunk, in which case they may be unable to say no, I'm pretty sure it's not rape. As a person who has consented to sex while drunk, I can confirm that I still knew what I was doing and it was still my decision. Consenting to anal while drunk follows that same line of thinking. I understand that rape is a serious issue, but people are way too quick to call rape even over situations where they can be held accountable for their actions just as much as their sexual partner. If anything, it's offensive to people who have literally been forced against their will or been made to do it even after saying no.
drunk doesn't necessarily mean unable to consent. intoxicated means they wouldn't. that's black out level drunk or so drunk a person wouldn't be held liable to a contract. in this scenario it would be rape. also, if he's equally hammered then he really doesn't have an unfair advantage. Unless you're one of those idiots who think both parties drunk = the man is still a rapist.
94, but the man in this case is going in with the intention of getting a woman shitfaced in order to get her to not only consent to sex, but to also consent to bareback anal sex that he knows she would not usually consent to. So even if he's drunk, he still went in with the intention of abusing her drunkenness for his own sexual gain. Sounds pretty rape-y to me. If he was going to a party and wound up hooking up with someone after both parties had gotten a little tipsy (without the plan to get her drunk for sex in the first place), then that would be different.
#125, spoken like a rapist. First of all, it can literally be 1 drink between a girl being tipsy to being blacked out. I've seen that firsthand. Second, even if she's drinking until black out doesn't mean she's a stupid person or that she is responsible for getting raped. It only makes her responsible for her hangover the next morning.
so what you're saying is that if anyone wouldn't normally do something stone cold sober they're being forced against their will the moment alcohol gets involved? you might as well call a guy confident in seducing women a rapist then, because he's going in with the intention of coercing them to consent. alcohol consumption does not render women into children who can't make decisions anymore and be held accountable like an adult. a woman who is black out intoxicated cannot consent, and for that matter neither could a man in that scenario. but drunk is such a spectrum that many individuals are still very coherent when "drunk". and to blanket say that intending to drink with someone so they're relaxed and more likely to consent to something is rape is not only trivializing to actual victims it's also infantilizing women and denying them agency and responsibility. the hypothetical woman is not being roofied, she's not being force fed these drinks, and she's not unconscious. those scenarios are clearly and unequivocally rape. a woman being convinced to try a sex act cause she's more relaxed and less inhibited from alcohol is not necessarily rape. Unless you're saying that tens of thousands of women per year are also rapists due to "beer goggles" or does this logic only apply one way? OPs son is predatory in his desire to bareback anal like an idiot with a stranger during a one night stand, but he is not a rapist by default.
#148, I'm sorry, but if you're going to get that drunk, at least have a friend looking out for you, otherwise you're just inviting trouble. I'm not saying a person taking advantage of the situation shouldn't be held accountable, but you can't rely on the morals of random strangers as far as your well-being is concerned. So yeah, I don't understand people who would get completely and utterly hammered in that setting.
so convincing people of something when they're not perfectly alert and sober is now rape. Good to know. I actually consider women adults capable of making and being held accountable for their decisions. even if -some- alcohol is involved. as I said above, if they're black out level? obviously too far to consent. But this idea that women become helpless children when at all buzzed/drunk on booze who have no agency is laughable at best and subtly sexist at worst. in the rush to protect women from harm people treat them like children. Both in denying the reality that women can consent when at all impaired and in holding them responsible for decision making when impaired. And let's take this idea to an extreme. what if a guy is really good at convincing people? would you argue it's unfair or rape for him to talk a woman into trying different sex acts when they initially are against it? because there are certain people that do argue that. applying an inherently negative connotation to all male sexual "predation" on women. this just comes across as a more soft ball form of that idea to me.
Sort of. Making a plan to get girls drunk specifically to talk them into unprotected anal sounds more like rape though. From the context the son sounded like he would be remaining sober. Making that sort of plan is considered rape since drunk people can't consent.
Don't blame the ENTIRE U.S.'s program. It wasn't that long ago i was in high school and they showed us things you just don't want to see. genitals covered in warts, scabs, lice, etc. a video of actual child birth... scarred most of us for life i'm sure. And I was in a public school district to boot so really it comes down to your local school board being smart or being too sensitive.
Showing kids just the nasty stuff of sex is a fear tactic. Yes, by all means show the effect of unprotected sex, but also show kids how to have sex safely and what to do if there's a slip (what tests to order, what plan B is and how to use it effectively, what resources are available, etc.)
Better safe than sorry.. But stay away from the poop chute D:
96 - its NOT rape if he is equally as drunk and she says yes... if they are both trashed then he cant give consent any more than she can. if he stayed sober and took advantage of someone who was too intoxicated to give consent, then hes planning on raping someone, but we cant tell from the fml
No kidding. How old is this kid anyway? No matter how old though, he clearly thinks that getting a girl drunk in order to have sex is "okay". That's creepy and extremely disappointing that guys think that's somehow not rape. OP, you need to tell him straight up that what he's doing is rape, plain and simple. Don't sugarcoat it.
I'm 100% against rape but where does it say he rapes women. I just saw that he lets women get drunk because then they're more willing to have anal sex. If he'd said I get em drunk so they can't say no then I'd agree but he just seems like douchebag honestly. Not a rapist dbag but a dbag nonetheless.
Just because a person is intoxicated doesn't make consent for sex and only sex invalid. Consent for anything while drunk still applies, you have to live with your mistakes. Whether it be drunk texting, shopping, or anything else. Sure, if they said no while still drunk, that's wrong and is rape, but rape is a very strong word to throw around just because someone made s drunken mistake.
#52 it legally is considered rape if one of the parties is drunk while the other is sober because you may say no while sober to having sex with this person, but while drunk your judgement is off and may say yes, thus it is rape because it is not a solid form of consent. now if both parties are drunk I don't know if it's considered rape or not, most likely not since both parties judgments are off.
Plus, you could all be jumping to conclusions that both or one party consented while under the influence. I don't club much, but the few times I have. I meant a cute girl, who was sober, and then consented as we were both looking for the same thing. Then I got shit-faced as did she, and had a jolly time.
@71: One single drink is not enough suffice for this. What you need to know is that it's not "us" who came up with the idea that having sex with someone who's drunk turns it into rape, it's that we're just following what judges have sentenced in previous cases. The courts have declared that getting someone excessively drunk, however you may define this, in order to increase the chance that they will agree to sexual intercourse with you constitutes rape, because they are considered unable to give consent or objection while strongly intoxicated. It's probably also worth noting that the reason people say these things here is to help the OP, since the son could potentially face rape charges and be convicted of them if he continues acting this way. [Most likely because he's just ignorant of what he's doing.] @52: Not sure whether your country has included such a clause, but in many civil laws around the globe a strong enough intoxication DOES suffice to make someone unable to agree to any froms of contracts or other agreements. In Germany this border is ~0.3%, which is exceptionally high, but it still exists.
#71 The difference is that you and your girlfriend are in a relationship and she most likely knows you are fine with sleeping with her while drunk. This is completely different from the FML. The son is saying he wants to "get em drunk" (as in actively trying to get a girl drunk) so that she will do anal with him, meaning he KNOWS that if she were sober she would not want to do that with him. If you purposefully try to get someone drunk because you know they would never sleep with you while sober, and then take advantage of them....that's a completely different situation than your own. And as people have been saying, it all depends on the laws where you live.
omg. it's not rape if someone is drunk get your facts straight. if you wake up in the morning after being hammered and you're laying next to a naked guy and you realize that you had sex you cannot call rape. YOU chose to drink therefore you have to deal with your actions under the influence. Its only rape if you say no, you pass out, or if they slip a drug in your drink. Geesh this is why people don't believe when a lot of women call rape because some don't know the definition of the word. You can't put on a skimpy ass dress, go to the club , get drunk, have sex, and then wake up calling rape because you regret your decision or don't remember it. you chose to drink deal with the damn consequences. being a woman myself who knows her limits when I see females like this while I'm out it truly disgusts me. I wonder how many innocent men have actually gotten charged because of this ignorance.
Jesus... I'm assuming "get em drunk" doesn't mean "point a gun at them until they drink ten shots". I assume "get em drunk " means "offering them drinks until they're drunk". If you can choose not to get drunk, nobody can force you to. If you choose to get drunk then you need to be ready for the consequences of your actions while inebriated. How is this not obvious? Cop: "oh, driving drunk?" Person: "my friends got me drunk, not my fault. fine them."
I get people don't want to call it rape as they have their own understanding of the word, but can't we agree it's common decency not to do something to someone if you know they won't feel good about it in the morning or enjoy it sober? Does it really have to be unlawful for you to say it's wrong?
OP's son sounds like a douchy party animal who plans to go to the club, get drunk, find some chick who has had just as much to drink, and have some nasty drunk anal sex. This does not sound like rape to me. I think many guys and girls go to a club with the intention of getting drunk and hooking up. Just because you regret your choice of parter, or even the decision in general, the next morning, does not mean you can call rape. It's unfortunate this happens so many times and it is usually the woman claiming it because she is either looking for attention/sympathy or she is just that ashamed of her decision. I'm not saying this happens all the time, but it does happen. It sucks for the men (and women when accused) because it is usually taken seriously, but it also sucks for the women who are actually raped because it's not be taken seriously. In my experience, from what I have read/seen/heard, most women who are actually raped are so "ashamed" of what happened and feel like it was their fault that they don't come forward until way later if at all. There is a gray area here that needs to be looked at.
I have to say, the law is very inconsistent when it comes to the accountability of your actions while intoxicated. If a woman drove a car while intoxicated and killed someone she'd get jailed for sure. She cannot say "Oh I was drunk so my decisions were impaired; I wasn't in control of myself and the alcohol made me dim-witted enough to think I was ok to drive." That can never be an acceptable defense in court. Yet, if the same woman decides to have sex with someone else while drunk, she becomes a victim, and has no accountability of her actions whatsoever. Why is this? Is it only because there is now another (sober) person involved? What if, hypothetically speaking, the woman in the DUI case could prove that she had an asshole 'friend', who was sober, who convinced her to drive drunk (for whatever crazy reason, like it would be 'funny' or smth). How much would the courts hold the friend accountable? Would the friend get jailed at all? Would the friend get jailed more? Would the woman get off scot-free? Definitely think there are some flaws/loopholes/inconsistencies in the law when it comes to accountability while intoxicated that should be looked into.
I don't disagree with you but I just saw it like buttering up your mom with gifts or compliments so you can ask for that new game you want. Rape is one of the most disgusting crimes possible and I feel like we've downed it to people making mistakes (drunk or not) and not men or women knowingly taking advantage of someone sexually against the others will. My two cents though
So... Women aren't allowed to choose to drink because if something happens after they choose to enjoy a nice drink or two it's "not rape".... Wow. So all the men who choose to go to bars to creepily watch women waiting for one to be a little too drunk is the girls fault for choosing to drink... That's great. Real smart
#137 but the whole point is if they're drunk, they legally aren't capable of decision-making when it comes to sex - that's why sex with a drunk person is rape (if you're sober). If someone cannot be held accountable for sexual acts, cannot say 'yes', - if there is no such thing as consensual drunk sex... how can someone be a rape victim in one scenario, and a wilful child molester in another? Doesn't make sense. You're either in the right mind to have sex, and therefore accountable for your actions, or you aren't. The legal status of your state of mind can't change simply depending on who you're having sex with - that's just grossly inconsistent and arbitrary.
@100: California rape law (where this took place): (a) Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following circumstances: (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. In plain English, this translates to "Intoxication by alcohol or drugs impaired the victim's ability to consent. The defendant knew or reasonably should have known about the victim's impairment" (all of the above quoted from websites stating & interpreting laws). Unconsciousness is treated separately from intoxication. Many states have laws like this, where even if a victim is passive (does not resist) as a result of alcohol or any other drug, s/he can press rape charges due to impaired judgment, not having enough coordination or self-awareness due to intoxication, and so on. In some places rape isn't just sex in the presence of "no" but also sex in the absence of "yes." So yes, getting someone drunk, and NOT EVEN to the point of black-out-drunk, can indeed be considered rape.
55, it's only rape if the individual in question is impaired enough to be considered legally intoxicated. that's when contracts don't apply and spoken oaths are not admissible as evidence even with recording. a person can still consent when buzzed/drunk. drunk doesn't necessarily have a legal connotation. for some drunk means relaxed and likely not good to drive, but still possessing critical thinking. for others it means slightly tipsy. for some it means forgetting several hours and being completely lost. the son is a jackass to risk STDs and bareback random women. but he's not by default a rapist. is it likely he could unwittingly rape a girl? yes. if he's not aware she's that far gone. but it doesn't mean he is a rapist by default. just a shortsighted dipshit.
#177 What? When did I ever say rape in a relationship is ok? All I said is that if you are in a relationship with someone where the two of you are completely aware that you're fine with responding to the other's sexual advances while drunk, then that is ok imo and completely different than what's going on in the FML. Basically I'm saying if a dude's wife/gf was drunk, they both knew from previous occasions/conversations/wtv that she is fine with drunken sex with him, she pounces on him, they make out and things lead to sex...I would not consider him a rapist or an asshole. Of course if she was passed out or unaware and he was basically fucking her unconscious body, or if she was showing any signs of discomfort/reluctance (big or small), that would be a different case. But my comment clearly wasn't talking about forcing someone to have sex with you while unconscious/drunk. It was about whether or not responding to sexual advances or seducing someone while they're drunk is ethical. And pointing out that the situation of a couple who know they are fine with it, and a dude targeting girls he knows would refuse him if they were sober, are two completely different situations.
Where does it say that the son isn't planning on going to a party to get drunk himself and have sex with another drunk person? It sounds to me like that is, in fact, his plan. So if he is drunk, and the girl is drunk, could he then call rape on her because his judgement was impaired as well?
#215: Not really. In my original comment I specifically say: "you and your girlfriend are in a relationship and she most likely knows you are fine with sleeping with her while drunk" meaning I was acknowledging the fact that the girl is the sober one in your particular case. However, I then say "this is completely different from the FML..." meaning my comment (and future ones) were now referring to the FML's context. Which should have been obvious since I was using the "she and he" now rather than the "you and your girlfriend." The FML is about a (presumably sober) man, and a drunk girl. It's not about you and your girlfriend, so it doesn't really make sense that all the comments would change the context to accommodate your own.