Hey, Can A Woman "Ask To Get Raped"?

I agree. If the man is drunk and the woman takes advantage of that and has sex with him I don't see how it could be called anything less than rape because they were not able to give consent.

mysteryman, do you not want to hold drunken drivers responsible for the accidents and deaths they cause?

Being intoxicated does not excuse criminal behavior--in fact, being drunk is an aggravating factor in many crimes. Those accidents and deaths might not have happened if the driver wasn't drunk.

The same standard in most rape situations cannot be applied to both parties because only one of them is committing the criminal act--having penetrative sex without the active, fully and freely willing, and conscious consent of the partner--without such consent, the act is the crime of rape. And the penetration is done by the man.

Just being intoxicated is not a crime. The woman isn't committing a crime just by being drunk. The man commits the act of rape, and it doesn't matter whether he is drunk or not, it does not excuse his behavior.

If the man is the one actively doing the penetrating, his consent is implicit in his actions.

What the trolls aren't saying is that men also rape other men and these same standards apply in those instances. These laws protect both males and females who are raped.

There are a long list of individuals deemed not legally capable of giving consent--the mentally retarded, the mentally ill, people who are unconscious, or not fully conscious, those below the age of consent, and those whose judgment and thinking may be impaired by drugs or alcohol, etc.. These are all groups of individuals that the law has deemed vulnerable and not able to sufficiently protect themselves from a sexual assault.

So, the consent statutes are really saying that a man cannot use a woman's more vulnerable intoxicated state to "take advantage of her" by having sexual contact with her that she might not consent to if she was more fully aware of what was going on, or if her abilities to resist and protest had not been diminished and impaired by alcohol. That is why she may be deemed legally unable to consent.

Remorse about a sexual act does not constitute rape. Just because a woman regrets having had sex does not make it rape in the eyes of the law. If a woman chooses to lodge a rape complaint she must allege that she did not give consent--that her intoxicated state prevented her consent and the sexual contact was unwanted. The woman has to feel she was assaulted. And once she lodges that rape complaint, she will be subjected to a lengthy, somewhat humiliating, and very invasive rape kit examination that lasts several hours. This is not something that most women want to go through, and they are certainly not going to put themselves through it for frivolous reasons. And most rapes go unreported. And cases where the female was drunk, in a dating situation, are very difficult for a D.A. to take to court and get a conviction on, so these cases rarely get to court unless there is evidence that force was also used and there were injuries to the victim. So most men are not being arrested for having sex with a drunken woman. They are not even being charged under such laws, and these rapes aren't, by and large, even being reported.

Where these laws are more often applied are in those instances where the rapist was clearly taking advantage of the woman's intoxicated state. So, in this thread, I have already posted numerous stories of intoxicated women who were raped by police officers. And, because of the authority of the police officer, and fear of him, these rapes generally don't require physical force. These officers were either supposed to be assisting the woman, or arresting her, and they wound up raping her. In the most outrageous of those cases, the police officer raped the woman, and after she went to an ER for a medical exam, he showed up as the cop to take her rape report. Without the laws pertaining to consent when the woman is intoxicated, these men would have claimed the sex was consensual, and the woman wouldn't be able to prove otherwise. But, because intoxicated women can't legally give consent, they were able to charge and convict these police officer rapists. And that's only one such type of situation where it is evident that we need to protect intoxicated individuals, both males and females, from sexual assaults by those who will take advantage of their vulnerable situation. We do need these laws on the books, even if they aren't applied most of the time, because there are situations where they are definitely needed.

The trolls are grossly distorting the date rape laws, and how they are actually being applied, by emphasizing those instances where women maliciously and intentionally lie about being raped, or where women try to punish men (sometimes in divorce or custody actions) with claims of rape. Those things happen very infrequently--and women who do such things are wrong, and everyone agrees about that. Neither of the trolls trust women. But most women do not lie about being raped.


Because the law requires you to have permission before entering a woman's body--just as someone needs your permission to enter your home. And, because the law deems certain vulnerable individuals unable to give consent, it's up to you to determine whether the person you have sex with is 13 and not 16 or 17, that the person isn't mentally retarded, mentally ill, or mentally incapacitated by drugs or alcohol. And, if you can't determine those things to a certainty, you are legally safer refraining from intercourse. You have a choice--you don't have to have sex. That is your most important protection. The purpose of the law is to deter behavior under such circumstances.

A sober woman can rape a severely intoxicated man under similar circumstances. In those instances, the man can report a rape. These laws do not just apply to women, they can and do also protect men.

In a date situation, if both parties are intoxicated and have intercourse they are both technically committing rape in some states (but not all), and both could report a rape. But, unless there is clear evidence that one used force or coercion on the other, or that the man was too severely impaired to be the aggressor, those cases will go no nowhere. Common sense tells you that D.A.s don't even bother with cases like that, and they don't.

Most rapes go unreported. Of those that are reported, most do not result in convictions. Date rapes are particularly hard to prove. D.A's don't bother with cases that can't possibly lead to convictions. These laws are applied in those situations where convictions can possibly be obtained, and that is generally based on some evidence beyond just the woman's word that the sex was non consensual, because juries must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

Locker room interviews have an interesting history - I remember when women were first allowed in, though not the details. As it happens now, many women interview in male sport locker rooms and vice versa, usually without apparent incitement or conflict other than in the sport question.

I'm no admirer of Ines Sainz and what seems like enhanced shorts, though not worn that exact day. She does work for a station that seems to like their females being foxy (I gather). A guy like Portis went off. I'm just not horrified. Apparently though, there are workable interview patterns and this was an aberration.

Perhaps I'm wrong, and there is a seething underbelly of flying harrassment, but it doesn't seem so from my reading.


On the 160 pages and growing, many are skipable, but there are significant posts along the way.

Exactly, so once the government gets into the business of deciding when we as citizens have the right to self determination and when we dont this whole business is going to be a mess. Before the government had to go though the process of getting a court to render a person insane before they lost their rights, now the government feels free to do this after the fact, and for any time period great or small it desires.

I think that the bar for losing the right to run our lives to the government should be set pretty darn high, and that all people should be forwarded when a person no longer has the right to enter into contracts, because the alternative is both chaos and the victimization of those who interact with those who have lost their rights.

mysteryman, take a look at the trolls attitude regarding this subject. They don't care about the fact that women are getting sexually assaulted and raped. They don't care that men are getting assaulted and anally raped by other men either.

To listen to them, you would think that great numbers of women are having and enjoying sex while drunk, but then, when these women sober up, they suddenly decide, "I have been raped!" and they run to the police, and have these men arrested, convicted, and thrown in jail for 10 years. Except that's not happening. In a dating situation, the sole fact that the women was intoxicated is not getting very men arrested, and almost none convicted. Even those women who regret having had the sex while intoxicated are not going to generally report the rape--most don't even consider it rape, and "regret" is not rape.

A woman has to feel pretty upset or outraged about what was done to her to report a rape. To listen to the trolls, women are malicious, untrustworthy, dingbats who suddenly decide, without reason, to go to the police to call a man a rapist. Considering that most actual rapes go unreported, it is ridiculous to even suggest that this is a significant problem. Women take rape accusations very seriously, and the overwhelming majority have no reason to deliberately want to harm men who have not harmed them. And it is insane to think women want to put themselves through the ordeal involved with a rape report just to make some guy miserable, or that the police would be too dumb not to realize what she is trying to do. They don't believe women who come to them with evidence, so are they going to believe a woman who says her date raped her, and it was rape, not because she was "unwilling" at the time, but only because she was drunk? They'll ask him, and he'll say it was consensual, and the rape investigation ends right there because the D.A. has no case. These men are not winding up in jail, and the laws are not being misused.

As I said in my last post, there are instances when we need these laws, because in some circumstances women clearly are sexually assaulted when drunk and the intoxicated state is used by the prosecution to define it as non consensual sex, and to prosecute it as rape. That was the case with the policemen I mentioned. That will likely be the case, or a major part of it, with the 16 year old who was recently gang raped in Canada--the police strongly believe she was under the influence of alcohol and drugs and they feel videos of the attack clearly show it to be rape.

No one forces a man to have sex with an intoxicated woman. If the man has any concerns about possibly getting arrested, or if he doesn't know her well, or doesn't trust her, he should forgo having sex with her.

And no one is taking the woman's choices from her either. She's free to have sex with men while she's intoxicated. The government's not taking her choice away, as the trolls would have you think. If she's an adult, no one is going to force her to report it as rape, just because she was drunk, and the idea of even reporting it, for that sole reason, would never even occur to most women. She's got to see it as an unwanted sexual assault for her to consider it rape in her own mind.

But, if an intoxicated woman is, in fact, raped, by a date or anyone else, the main charge leveled against the man is simply rape, based on her statement that the sex was non consensual, the fact she was intoxicated would likely be considered an additional charge, particularly if the man plied her with alcohol prior to raping her. And plying women with alcohol is just what many date rapists do--to facilitate the rape. And that's also why we need those laws--to try to deter the men who do commit rape this way.

We have the duty to make sure that the laws are just and that they promote our values regardless of whether we think that the citizens will report criminal activity to the state. Your argument basically boils down to " don't piss of your woman and she will likely not report to the state that you are a criminal"....it is a naked power grab for women on your part. Your argument is also one that has already failed, that being when whites tried to claim that laws regarding race did not need to be changed because all Negroes needed to do was behave themselves to avoid getting in trouble with the laws. Men deserve no less protection from unjust laws then do the Blacks, these laws that you propose MUST NOT be allowed to be birthed.

We, the good citizens of this country, have a moral obligation to make sure that you are not successful in your desires to remake sex law according to the feminist agenda. We have already gone too far, some back stepping is called for.

Why would we take the word of a drunk as fact? This defies logic. But the larger problem is that you firefly desire to take away this same womans right to say yes.

is it your contention that men are tieing women down, shoving a funnel down their throat, putting liquor down it, all so that when they ask for sex the women will be so out of it that she says yes?? Because I have heard of no such cases. I suspect rather that you are claiming that women are not responsible for what they drink, because they are too weak of mind and will to resist a drink when offered, or when available. I certainly think more highly of women than you do.