All discussion of this issue has focused on first-time couplings, like a first date, or hook-up at a party. But how does one apply this criteria when my wife and I have a bottle of wine to celebrate our anniversary? Am I raping her later that night when we have consensual sex?

A first date and a married couple are very different scenarios, but it raises the question of "how long must a couple be together before a woman can be considered responsible for her own drinking?"

In reality, if women want to be considered equals, they must assume equal responsibility for their consensual behavior while under the influence. I mean really, isn't it pretty ridiculous that two sober people on a date are considered to be responsible for themselves, but after each has had two drinks the man has become responsible for both of them?

Unless the woman is passed out drunk, drunken sex is the same as sober sex in terms of consent. Any girl or woman ought to know that a guy's basic intent is to sleep with her if he is attracted to her and if he has the opportunity. She ought also to know that nearly all guys from the time they take their first drink know that alcohol "loosens' girls up and that we dry to accomplish this with a few drinks. This is reality and there is nothing neccessarily wrong with it. People who are drunk lose inhibitions- and end up doing what they wanted to do anyway, but for peer pressure or societal dissporoval.

That being said- no is no. Proceeding in the face of no or sombody unable to say no because she is drunk is rape.

The problem when one is drunk is that it isn't possible to know what is consensual behavior or not. But I do agree that if a women willingly gets drunk with someone she willingly puts herself at risk and if sex occurs that she believes is a sexual assault she shouldn't expect the justice system to charge the man for a crime unless there is some other type of solid evidence.

Of course everyone agrees no is no, but the problem with a women being drunk is she cannot remember if she said NO or not, or might assume she must of said No, when she didn't because if she was sober she would of said No.

Thus without some other evidence I don't see how there cannot be a reasonable doubt that 'NO' was really said when someone is drunk (not just 2 drinks but like > .15.

Seriously? Let's break it down.... You are in a one-on-one romantic situation. Your wife is presumably not vomiting and black out drunk after splitting a bottle is at most rather buzzed. Basically you guys have agreed to prepare for sex later.

In most drunk girl situations, girl goes out to party with friends/maybe flirt with guys. Girl gets very drunk as in stumbling a bit or more. Drunk girl is surrounded my strange men or friends that she normally wouldn't sleep with... You really see no difference?

Or, girl is dating guy and has expressed the desire not to sleep with him until she's comfortable. Girl gets really drunk but trusts the guy. Now would not be the time for a gentleman to initiate sex.

I've often seen guys hitting on girls who are heading into the ugly drunk/unaware of their actions categories. You're really comparing these sleazes to splitting a bottle of wine with your wife?

When a guy gets really, really drunk does that mean he consents to being mugged, cheating on his girlfriend, etc. Usually people would say he shouldn't have gotten that drunk but that the consequences weren't his intention.

And, billsullivan, great.... alcohol is just a means for guys to sleep with women... what a prize you are. You really would be okay with a mother, sister, daughter, friend accidentally getting a little too drunk and being taking advantage of by a random guy or possible five random guys in a bathroom? (remember, women have a higher percentage of fat and often weigh a lot less; going from buzzed to trashed without meaning too really isn't that hard)

I would say that getting blackout drunk is a stupid decision, but it doesn't mean you deserve to get raped. So, nice to see the mindset of a lot of men around here.

ugh, I am aware of the grammatical mistakes above, but your responses are so hard to hear. I was actually paranoid of ever drinking in college because of the commonly held opinions of men like you guys.

Seriously? Let's break it down.... You are in a one-on-one romantic situation. Your wife is presumably not vomiting and black out drunk after splitting a bottle is at most rather buzzed. Basically you guys have agreed to prepare for sex later.

In most drunk girl situations, girl goes out to party with friends/maybe flirt with guys. Girl gets very drunk as in stumbling a bit or more. Drunk girl is surrounded my strange men or friends that she normally wouldn't sleep with... You really see no difference?

------------------------------­------------------------------­------------------------------­-------------

Oh, I do see the difference. In fact, if you had read my original post, you'd see that no only do I see a difference, but I explicitly stated it when I said, "A first date and a married couple are very different scenarios."

My point, which you missed, is that if we want to absolve women of responsibility for the decisions they make when drunk, it creates a gray area which requires definition. If it's not rape to have sex with your drunk spouse, how about your drunk fiance? Your drunk girlfriend? The drunk girl at the bar?

At what point is a woman responsible for the decisions she makes when drunk? You obviously see a line, I'm just curious where you draw it.

uhhuh:

How many men do you think should be posted at the polling booth, to make sure you're sober enough to state your intentions next time you vote?

"When a guy gets really, really drunk does that mean he consents to being mugged, cheating on his girlfriend, etc. Usually people would say he shouldn't have gotten that drunk but that the consequences weren't his intention"

------------------------------­------------------------------­------------------------------­-

Oh, jeez. Nowhere have I stated or implied that being drunk equals consent. What I believe is that if a woman chooses to get drunk, and then later consents to sex, a man cannot be blamed for taking her at her word.

Your analogy fails because in the case of the mugging, the drunk man has not consented to be mugged, whereas in the point at issue, the drunk woman has given explicit consent to the sex.

Your analogy would be more accurate if you were comparing your drunk strawman to a drunk woman who said, "no." Then you'd be spot on, and both the mugger and rapist should go directly to jail.

No one said that a drunk girl is granting consent by definition. NO ONE!

What is being said here is that when a gril is drunk it very hard to determine if she has granted consent or NOT. This is true for things other than sex. For example, I know people that wouldn't eat sushi but give them a few drinks and they will try it.

So you have many biased and flawed assumptions.

Like this one; friends that she normally wouldn't sleep with.

By 'normally' you mean when sober. Well she isn't sober! What is her 'normal' behavior when she has had a few drinks?

Or, girl is dating guy and has expressed the desire not to sleep with him until she's comfortable. Girl gets really drunk but trusts the guy. Now would not be the time for a gentleman to initiate sex.

People get more comfortable when they are drunk. Now I agree 100% a gentleman would NOT initiate sex but we are talking about the LAW here and CRIMES and not what would be gentleman behavior.

Is it a CRIME if the man does initate sex? I say only if the girl did NOT grant consent and then we are back to the basic problem here; How does society (police, DA) know if the girl granted consent or not?

To just assume she didn't because of the assumtions you make about what a girl would normally do or what she is comfortable isn't a fair legal standard in my view. The girl has the burden of proof and if she is drunk she must have some other evidence that a crime was committed.

No gray area is created. Because in the case of a spouse or fiance with whom you have had consensual non-drunk sex regularly before, there is an implied consent that requires more explicit repeal. Yes she can say no at any point and you have to respect that or it is rape, but you also don't need more explicit approval to iniitate sex because there is an implied prior approval.

No such prior approval exists in a date situation.

No gray area

Sure he can. If a man signs a sales contract with a minor - full well knowning the person is a minor and not legally competent to give consent to the contract, the man is liable for the consequences.

Same thing here.

If you cannot tell if someone is capable of giving consent then the logical and safe thing is to assume they are not. What's hard abou thtat?

"If you cannot tell if someone is capable of giving consent then the logical and safe thing is to assume they are not. What's hard abou thtat?"

------------------------------­------------------------------­----------

There's nothing hard about that; but only because you laid out a very clear-cut scenario. Like it or not, there are gray areas. Here are two for you to consider.

1) A business man is at a hotel restaurant, but not drinking. He leaves with a woman who he believes is sober, and has consensual sex with her. In reality, she has had a few drinks, and she awakes the next day with regrets. Has the man committed a moral transgression because he failed to recognize that her consent wasn't fully informed?

2) A man is drunk at a bar, and leaves with a woman who is equally drunk. They have consensual sex. Do you believe the man (who is just as impaired as the woman) is responsible to interpret how informed the woman's consent is? Is he even capable of that?

Obviously, no means no at all times, and I agree that a sober man ought never take advantage of a drunk woman. But, to pretend as you do, that there are no gray areas, is a simplistic.

"Or, girl is dating guy and has expressed the desire not to sleep with him until she's comfortable. Girl gets really drunk but trusts the guy. Now would not be the time for a gentleman to initiate sex."

...ahh, but the problem here is that women tell guys they want "alpha males" and "go-getters" who "don't take no for an answer," but then expect him to play "gentleman" when she's liable to make a decision she won't like the next day. The situation you have described is douchy, but I wouldn't consider it true rape.

Related: I suppose "gentleman" implies something less genteel to me than to you. More like a cover-up artist who looks slick but is a lowlife underneath. Not for no reason are they called "gentleman's clubs."

The problem with the "drunken consent" issue is that it's really about psychological control, not physical control (which defines the conventional definition of a rape.) Unlike physical control, you can't give that psychological control away without doing something you choose to do...and something a lot of people do (drink a lot) expressly for its nickname of "liquid courage."

In counterpoint, I don't understand the attraction of sex with a person who has been drugged or is falling down drunk.

*Last sentence of: <link>