There are degrees of murder. Why should there not be degrees of rape? like if a woman leads a man on and the man is drunk and she acts like she is consenting until the last minute
Getting intoxicated is no excuse for bad behavior. It's my night off from work and I even say that as a slightly intoxicated man.
Stop leading me on you Australian temptrest! Lol. I wish that people would start a thread with more initial gunpowder. Threads of a low velocity and low caliber.... Are boring.
There typically is, just not under the same terms. In most jurisdictions, there will be a range of different offences under which something that would generally be recognised as "rape" can be prosecuted, ranging from things like "sexual assault" through to "aggravated rape". There can also be additional offences depending on the circumstances, such as general assault or unlawful detention and, as in all criminal offences, sentencing can and does take account of the specific severity of the crime. Those are pretty poor examples of mitigation for rape (or indeed any other crime). If you really want to understand this topic, I'd recommend you get a better understanding of the realities of rape and sexual assault rather than relying on stereotypes and propaganda.
Here's the question. If he is the one who is drunk, then that means that he cannot give informed consent (according to people who claim women who are drunk are raped on that basis), therefore isn't she the rapist if they have sex?
Just "being drunk" doesn't invalidate consent, it is being too physically and/or mentally incarcerated to give meaningful consent. Alcohol is a common cause for a victim to be in that condition, but it isn't the only one. If all people involved were equally that drunk (or otherwise incapacitated), it would be unlikely they'd be able to even do anything anyway but if they somehow did, it would be unlikely that anyone could be charged. In the majority of cases of incapacitation being the primary basis for a rape accusation, the victim will have been significantly more intoxicated than the accused though.
Any person who engages in a sexual act is entitled to say no. man or woman. If one of the parties is drunk or drugged or sick or not sober for any reason, it is forbidden to touch him without his express permission!!
I totally agree there can be, there are, different degrees of rape. Over in some parts of Europe, there are some women claiming now that the man they willingly chose to hop into bed naked with, the man whom they willingly had sex with the previous night also, "raped" her, even though these women totally concede they never actually said "no". Or women claiming "rape" because they thought the man was wearing a condom but he wasn't, or that case where a man actually got convicted because the woman had decided to have sex with him but then changed her mind halfway in the middle of intercourse and claimed the man didn't pull out fast enough. It's becoming very common now that women are blaming men for rape for situations in which, the woman initially sent clear messages she wanted to have sex, then wasn't very keen about having sex but didn't put up any strong objections, and then regretted the encounter afterwards. It sounds totally absurd and unbelievable but many men are actually getting convicted and sent to prison in these sort of situations, and the judges, society, the law is on the side of the woman. I have posted several stories about such cases in this forum. Assange Accusations in Sweden Another case of Australia's sexual consent law Exclusivity is a factor in borderline rape cases California makes it a crime to remove a condom without woman's explicit consent
Stealthing is rape. Removal or non use of a condom after it has been agreed that one should be used absolutely is rape. She may have consented to sex but she has not consented to either pregnancy or risk of STDs. I love that the same people, the SAME people blaming women for “using abortion as birth control” seem fine with men not using any birth control at all. Incel thinking.
If she consents to sex, even with protection, then she consents to the risk of both pregnancy and STD. There is a failure rate for all forms of protection. Granted, she does not consent to the greater risk of both that comes from unprotected sex, but she consents to the risks that the conditions warrant.
In your opinion, and the opinion of many radical feminists. Any form of vaginal sex carries the risk of pregnancy or STDs (though that degree of risk can vary). This is the modern feminist mentality. They think that even if a woman is consenting to sex, if she doesn't consent to any aspect of that sex, that such should be considered "rape" -- the same type of rape as a man having sex with a woman who did not consent to sex. Most conservatives would find this view totally absurd. Once she goes into a private bedroom with a man, and takes off her clothes, and the intimacies of sex begin, a line has been crossed. At that point you can't claim "rape". (Or you shouldn't be able to, in my opinion) I think maybe you are confusing "sexual violation" with "rape". Or what you refer to as "rape" is a very different thing from what pops into the head of most normal people when they hear the word.
In a lot of court cases now, they just automatically believe the woman and put the accused man in prison. As an entertaining hypothetical, I've always wondered what would happen if a man, having some fear or suspicion that the woman he slept with might falsely accuse him of rape, ran and went to police first, before the woman had a chance to, and made up a story accusing her of raping him. I suspect there would be double standards and that still wouldn't save the man from her allegations. They always believe the woman over the man in these sorts of situations. It's unfair and totally hypocritical in a society that claims to believe in gender equality, but that's just the way the world works.
Apparently there's no shortage of people (women, presumably) who believe that men 'can't get it up' when they're drunk, thus no man could ever have sex while drunk... Obviously most of us know that isn't true, but then again, gotta wonder how many women lawmakers (not typically known for their sex appeal) have been told precisely that by men who just don't want to have sex with them...
Well given the infinite different levels of sentencing at the discretion of the judge I would say everything is taken into account.
Its an argument I've seen alarmingly frequently used to justify why drunk men are 'rapists' but drunk women are not, because 'obviously' the men arent really drunk if they're getting it up. And I've never encountered this 'argument' from anyone but women (probably because first hand experience would preclude any man from believing it).
According to science alcohol doesn't make much of a difference. This actually surprised me because alcohol, personally, kills it for me. no alcohol main effects were apparent. This suggests that alcohol attenuation effects on penile tumescence may be more limited than previously thought and that the threshold for these effects is somewhat higher than indicated by prior work. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3164266/
Yes I know. I was speaking to an either ignorant beleif or disingenuous copout used to justify the disparity, not any sort of legit claim. There is no other objective explanation for how a drunk man and a drunk woman can have sex and it turns out to be 'rape' later simply because they were drunk.
I hate to say it, but there is no shortage of men who believe this too. The overall ignorance of what our bodies do and can do is rather staggering. Look at the number of men who think that cutting the tube from the testicles to the rest of the ejaculation system will somehow affect the nerves for sensation or the erection process. The testicles are still there and still delivering testosterone to the body.
That presumes that they weren't drunk enough to have forgotten what happened. And it would not surprise me that in believing, while they are sober, that it can't happen when drunk, assume that they are remembering it as a drunken false memory. I should probably note that these would also likely be the men who don't get laid while drunk. And actually thinking about it, some of these men might not get drunk. While I have imbibed many times, I've not been drunk in over 2 decades. Not everyone who drinks does so to get drunk.
THAT belief goes back to Shakespeare specifically the “Porter’s scene” from Macbeth https://www.infoplease.com/primary-.../william-shakespeare-macbeth-act-ii-scene-iii
