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

You are assuming that she actually gave consent--that she was an active, freely willing participant, who not only didn't say, "No", but actually said, "Yes!"--that she was fully aware of what she was doing and wanted to be doing it.

So, why would you think this woman would even want to later claim she was raped, if she was fully aware of what she was doing at the time and presumably enjoyed herself?

And, why would you think that charges of rape of that type are happening with any degree of frequency? They're not.

Generally what happens is the woman has been drunk, she has really not consented verbally, but she may not have actively resisted, or resisted minimally--she was just essentially passive in the situation because she was drunk--and she will then report that she was raped while intoxicated. And that situation would actually be a rape. But most of the time, these rapes are never reported.

The only cases I have read about where the women's intoxicated state constituted legal non consent in an actual rape charge were instances where the woman was extremely drunk, or actually passed out or barely aware of what was happening. There was no consent. Very similar to that recent news story I posted about the 17 year old raped by 3 men when she was passed out at least some of the time. Or college women who passed out in a bedroom at a party and awakened to find a man penetrating them. And in the first case there is a video of the rape that shows the victim's condition, and in the second instances, there were witnesses who walked into the room and saw what was happening. So, the charges were not based on simply the woman's statement about being drunk. In other cases, people who have been at a party or bar with the woman testified to how much alcohol they had seen her drinking to attest to her intoxicated state prior to being with the rapist. So there was corroboration of the woman's drunken state.

It's not just that alcohol influences the woman's decision, it's that the alcohol actually prevented any decision (if she is passed out, or close to it), or the alcohol diminished her inhibitions and also diminished her cognitive functions to an extent where her judgment and ability to evaluate the situation was impaired because of the amount consumed.

There is no standard I am applying--I didn't write the rape laws or the descriptions of "consent". These are the standards states apply, and they might differ from state to state. Most seem to be using the standard applied to DWI--.08 blood alcohol. The same standard you might use in deciding whether to give your wife, or girlfriend, or daughter, the keys to your car after she had been drinking. And most of the time the man has been with the woman while she was drinking prior to sex, so he has some idea of the amount she's consumed, and whether she might have used drugs in addition.

So, I don't think the situation you are describing even exists. If a woman reports a rape immediately, and goes to an ER, her med exam and rape kit would include measuring her blood alcohol level. If she doesn't have that exam done immediately, with blood work, she doesn't have any proof of even being intoxicated, unless there were witnesses who saw how much she had been drinking prior to being with the man. So she can't claim she was drunk, unless she can prove she was drunk. So simply claiming non consent, based only on an unsubstantiated claim of intoxication, isn't going to work, and it won't result in any man going to trial, let alone jail. I can't even imagine someone being charged with a date rape, do solely to the woman's intoxicated condition, without some objective evidence to substantiate her claim she was drunk.

You seem to have the quaint idea that many innocent men are being sentenced to prison for years and years , only on the word of a word of a woman who falsely claimed she was raped. Get real. Even BillRM has come up with exactly ONE case where that happened, and it was not even related to alcohol--and the only reason it became known that the woman lied about being raped, was because she voluntarily admitted it after he had been in prison for about 4 years. He was cleared, and she was sentenced to several years for perjury.

Most reported rapes--actual rapes--never go to trial. Most rapists are never convicted for what they have done. Where there is nothing more than he said/she said, and no other evidence (bruising, ripped clothing, vaginal injury, witnesses, etc.) to confirm that a rape occurred, the D.A. is unlikely to take the case to trial because he has nothing to use to convince a jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The occasional flat out lies told by some women, claiming rape where no rape occurred, do not generally lead to convictions. It's hard enough to get convictions in actual rape cases, a woman who is flat out lying will more likely either be discovered by the police, because of inconsistencies in her story, or her motives to get back at the man, or she will be discredited on the witness stand by the man's defense attorney. Police and D.A.s and defense attorneys are not inept idiots, they deal with liars all the time, and they know how to spot them. If anything, the problem is the police don't believe the women who have actually been raped, so they are not so gullible that they'll unquestioningly believe a deliberate lie from a woman who has an ax to grind with a man, or who is using the man for some reason. And only when the woman admits she was lying do we know that her allegation was false. And almost all of the time, that happens before a case ever gets to trial.

So, let's keep things in perspective.

You are expected to know how much alcohol you can safely and legally consume before you get behind the wheel of your car. You are expected to know how much your wife or girlfriend can safely and legally consume before you can hand her the keys to drive you home from a party. So, it's not as though people are completely in the dark about what constitutes legal intoxication.

In date rape situations, the rape is difficult to prove, when actual rape has occurred--i.e. the woman said "No", offered some resistance, and the man penetrated her anyway. The woman who simply regrets doing something later, and then claims she was unable to give legal consent because she was drunk, is not likely to be believed by anyone--unless she can prove she was, in fact, drunk.
And, if she was impaired by alcohol, the man might, only might, be charged with rape.

The point of these laws, including the statutory rape laws, is to deter behavior under certain conditions--to prevent certain groups of individuals from being raped. And that includes individuals who are impaired by alcohol.

And these laws, pertaining to those who are impaired, have been on the books for years and I'm not sure that there is evidence to suggest they are being misused. Our jails are full enough, they are not looking to round up innocent men and toss them in a cell. Obviously, two people who are dating, and have a good relationship, and regularly have sex, are not going to have a problem if they have sex when they are drunk, or when just she is drunk, if he knows she doesn't mind it. The issue of rape, while under the influence, would generally occur only if that woman would not have had sex with that man if she had been sober. The kind of situation where the man would be taking advantage of her drunken state. And, in that sort of situation, the man should refrain from sex, if he really wants to protect himself from any possible legal entanglements.

No I don't.

What mandatory reporting laws, arrest laws, and prosecution policies are you talking about?

We are talking about sex with a legally adult intoxicated female--something most likely to occur in a date rape situation.

Someone above the age of consent cannot be forced to report a rape. And a prosecution really cannot take place if the woman will not testify--she's the chief witness. A great many women don't want to subject themselves to that ordeal. That's why most rapists are not charged and not convicted. If I report that another woman was raped, she has to be willing to lodge a complaint, get a rape kit examination, and follow through with the legal process--she can't be forced to do that. It's her choice.

Are you talking about those 12 year old girls you'd like to see able to give legal consent for sex? Mandatory reporting of statutory rape? Well that is different. So is mandatory reporting of sexual abuse of the elderly. But only mandatory reporters have to report such things when they are aware of them.

This thread started with a discussion of a PR campaign which was designed to attack rape myths and rape apologist's attitudes--that she "asked for it". It was also to inform women about the rape laws, since not everyone is familiar with them, and to help women to understand they are not to blame for their own rape. It was not intended to drum up rape charges against innocent men. The primary purpose of that ad campaign was to deter rape.

Oh, come off it. Men are not getting "an express ticket to the slammer" in these situations, unless the woman was extremely intoxicated, and she can prove that in some way (so there is no question she wasn't consenting), and she chooses to report it as a rape. That only happens when there are witnesses, or videos, or photos, or a blood alcohol test, or something, to substantiate her extremely intoxicated condition and what happened to her when she was under the influence. And, even then, convictions are hard to get. Plenty of jurors will still believe "she asked for it".

Look, you think 12 year old girls should be fair game without it being called rape. You don't care how drunk the woman is, as long as she's breathing and not out cold, you don't want it called rape. But current laws will not let you have sex in those situations without it being considered rape. And I didn't write those laws. Feminists did not write those laws. They were written by men. And, if you don't like those laws write to your state senator, and state assemblyman, and state attorney general, and your governor, and tell them to change them. But don't you think they would already be aware if many men were being unfairly imprisoned under such laws?

The legal definitions of "rape", which differ from state to state, have been thoroughly covered in this thread much earlier and the laws from several states were posted in their entirety several times. We have also posted the rape laws for several countries and have discussed those. There is no point going through these in detail again. Those who are interested, can read their state laws or the laws for the country in which they live.

Most states define rape as sexual intercourse, without consent, or intercourse with an individual who is deemed unable to legally consent. Sexual intercourse refers to the insertion of a penis into a vagina.

Male on male anal penetration with a penis, without consent, may, or may not be called "rape", depending on the state. In New York State, for instance, it is not called "rape", however it is an equally serious felony and the punishments are equal in severity to those for rape of a female.

Penetrations with objects, forced oral sex, etc,. are generally not called "rape" under most state laws. However, those are serious sexual assaults, and the punishments can be quite harsh.

In the U.K., "rape" is specifically restricted to non consensual sexual intercourse with a female by a male. Only a male can be charged with "rape".

Canada, I believe, no longer has the legal charge of "rape". They use various categories of sexual assault.

Women can commit statutory rape of a male (or female) who is below the age of consent. It is almost unheard of for women to be actually charged with the legal rape of an adult male in the U.S.--forcible sexual intercourse against his will, or without consent. Several factors seem to affect this. There is the societal "myth" that males do not consider merely unasked for normal sexual intercourse as an assault, so there is an unfounded belief that males may always be implicitly consenting to such intercourse and it is not a crime. Because of the size and strength disparity between most males and most females, it is widely believed that males could physically resist efforts to force intercourse against their will, so the female would have to physically restrain the male, or have him held down by someone else, or threaten with a weapon, or have intercourse with a comatose or unconscious male, in order for the male's report (or the report of a witness) to be considered credible that the intercourse was without consent--and there would have to be evidence that these were the conditions under which the intercourse took place. In addition, because of social stigmas, about being seen as "unmanly", males are reluctant to report sexual assaults by females (they are also reluctant to report assaults by other men). So, while it is technically possible for a female to insert the man's penis into her own vagina, against a man's protests, or without legal consent, it is almost unheard of for a woman to be charged with, and convicted of, the specific crime of rape of an adult male in the U.S.

A woman (or man) can be charged with unwanted penetration of objects into the bodily openings of either a male or female, but in most states this would not be specifically defined as legal rape--but, depending on the severity of the assault, the punishments could be quite harsh and equivalent to those for legal rape.

Therefore, the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of rape victims are female, and the overwhelming majority of rape victims are female.

The problems of male victims of sexual assaults have been discussed throughout this thread. The discussion has not been limited to female victims.

Anyone who is still confused about the issue of whether someone is impaired by alcohol, and that such a person might be legally unable to consent to sex, should find out the specific standards for such intoxication in their state, and the sexual assault laws pertaining to sexual contact with such individuals. In the U.S., sexual assault laws vary from state to state.

Most people know the legal blood alcohol limits for DWI in their state. There are numerous Web sites that help you estimate blood alcohol levels given body size and weight, size and type of alcoholic drinks consumed, and the time frame in which the alcohol was ingested. Because females are generally of smaller size and weight than males, their blood alcohol level will typically rise at a faster rate than males if both consume an equal amount of alcohol within a given period of time. The guidelines on estimating blood alcohol are designed to help people avoid a DWI charge. Those concerned about sexual assault charges with intoxicated individuals could use such guidelines as a rough indication of degree of intoxication. Just as one can avoid DWI charges by not driving, one can avoid sexual assault charges with intoxicated individuals by refraining from sex with such individuals. If you wouldn't give her the keys to your car, and let her drive you home from the party, perhaps you better think about the possible legal repercussions of having sex with her in that intoxicated state before you do anything. It really isn't all that complicated.

Some states may also require ejaculation inside the female, or completed sexual intercourse.

You can always contact the D.A, for your county and ask for specific information about the above.

If you are too lazy to do that, you are not interested in learning the answer.