I don't understand this. I can understand having sex with someone completly passed out would be rape, but not if the person is conscious and just drunk. 1. Usually in these circumstances both parties have had a drink. As both parties are drunk have they both commited rape? 2. When does being wasted not make you accountable for your actions? If you choose to drive a car , murder, assault, or commit any crime no matter how drunk you are you're 100% accountable by law for your actions. So why is a someone choosing to consent to sex whilst under the influence not accountable for their actions?
Simply having sex with someone who is drunk would not constitute rape. Having sex with someone who is too drunk to knowingly consent can be. The definition and evidence of “too drunk” is where one of the complications occur. No. If all parties involved were too drunk to consent, they’d struggle to actually do anything to each other anyway. No legitimate conviction will come about from a case solely involving consensual sex between two drunk people – there would have to be more alleged (true or not). It doesn’t. Doing things to people who are wasted is the issue.
If the man was too drunk to consent, it could be considered rape on her part (though some in jurisdictions, rape requires some form of penetration of the victim so the technical offence might be some form of sexual assault). Remember, what the law says isn’t always the same as what happens in practice and what happens in practice isn’t always the same as what is reported in the media.
Your analogy says it well. If you chose to drive a car drunk you are committing a crime. If you choose to have sex with a woman who cannot consent you are committing a crime.
If you choose to have sex with a man who cannot consent you are committing a crime. Why can't it ever just be said, if you have sex with a person who is drunk, you are committing a crime?
Actually it is, per the way most laws are written. However, he would have to accused her of the crime first. The odds of that are much lower than the woman saying something. Personally if I were ever in a situation where I and a woman we're both drunk, had sex, and she then had me charged with rape, she would find herself under the same charge. She can't deny it without making her own story fall apart.
My suggestion is you sober her up before the porking procedure commences because if you start the procedure whilst she id inebriated you will yer your anus handed to you on a silver platter.
In California raping a drunk or passed out girl is still rape but under the Democrats Proposition 57 it's no longer a violent crime and you do little time behind bars.
Yes it does. Prop 57 reclassifies many violent crimes as being non violent meaning serving less time in prison like assault and battery with a deadly weapon. . Following crimes qualify as “nonviolent” under Proposition 57: • Rape by intoxication (refers to a circumstance in which the victim was under the influence). • Rape of an unconscious person. • Human trafficking involving a sex act with minors. • Assault with a deadly weapon. • Domestic violence involving trauma. • Drive-by shooting. • Hostage taking. • Attempting to explode a bomb at a hospital or school. • Supplying a firearm to a gang member. • Hate crime causing physical injury. • Failing to register as a sex offender. • Arson. • Discharging a firearm on school grounds. • Lewd acts against a child 14 or 15 years old. • False imprisonment of an elder through violence... https://www.sandiegouniontribune.co...sd-utbg-prop57-opposition-20161021-story.html
Yeah, if anything it's the woman who raped the man. But we have a double standard in our society when it comes to gender.
But suppose she only consents when she is drunk. and how do I measure her, like .08 or .10. Do men have to start carrying a machine with them.
Societies safest bet is to not allow you to have sex with someone who’s drunk because it is impossible to determine if there is or is not real consent. It is a bit of a double standard in regards to responsibility when drive drunk. However making the person responsible for consent when drunk will just lead to a disaster of people taking advantage of others and just using “they were drunk” as their defense.
So, the man has to take a few sips of alcohol to get intoxicated too? Then they will both be under the influence of alcohol. Did you really think this one through?
I know, so arrest both of them, right? If the woman goes to the police, she'll be in danger of being arrested too because she had sex with a drunk man. Or will it be a mad rush, whoever gets to the police first and claims that the other party had sex with them while they were drunk?