[marrec]

Actually I'm wrong, no state considers it to be rape if neither party is coherent.

Convictions have been made based on individual cases, thought for the most part the Woman in these cases are brushed off as someone who deserved what happened.

I remember a specific case in which a girl was raped by 3 men, they (all 4 of them) were extremely intoxicated and filmed the encounter. On the film you can hear the woman saying no over and over but the men continued. Despite the evidence on the film the men were not convicted because 'She was obviously drunk and flirtatious before the sexual encounter began'.

[Baconsammy]

I think you're getting caught up on "legally" rather than whether that should be legal or not regardless of the law in a particular state. This isn't really a discussion about the current state of the law so much as whether it's forcible sex and SHOULD be considered rape if it isn't already.

Essentially it's illegal to drink and drive, which is good, but it's also in some states now illegal to get drunk and have sex with someone else who is drunk if you're a male. I can see why those cases don't make their way to juries that often. Its hard to find people that will send someone to prison for years over that.

[shadowsdarknes]

Convictions have been made based on individual cases, thought for the most part the Woman in these cases are brushed off as someone who deserved what happened. I remember a specific case in which a girl was raped by 3 men, they (all 4 of them) were extremely intoxicated and filmed the encounter. On the film you can hear the woman saying no over and over but the men continued. Despite the evidence on the film the men were not convicted because 'She was obviously drunk and flirtatious before the sexual encounter began'.

That's wrong. The judge fucked that ruling up. A homemade gang bang porno of a women obviously pleading her attackers to stop should be a guaranteed conviction.

[marrec]

Essentially it's illegal to drink and drive, which is good, but it's also in some states now illegal to get drunk and have sex with someone else who is drunk if you're a male. I can see why those cases don't make their way to juries that often. Its hard to find people that will send someone to prison for years over that.

So if we can't get a conviction (based on some fucked up notion that being drunk allows you to be raped) then at the very least we need to teach men that Rape and Rape-Rape are the same fucking thing and if you use beer to get sex then you should be held accountable for those actions.

That's wrong. The judge fucked that ruling up. A homemade gang bang porno of a women obviously pleading her attackers to stop should be a guaranteed conviction.

That's the problem. Even when there is incontrovertible evidence for the act being Rape our culture still is loath to convict because there is this idea that by drinking a lot of alcohol women are implicitly saying that they've already made a choice and if they afterwards say 'No! What they did to me was wrong!' then they are just either looking for attention or feeling guilty for getting drunk in the first place.

Imagine all the women out there who don't even have video evidence of the wrong that was done to them? Why would they ever come forward and cry foul in the face of our shitty views?

[JokerOfSpades]

First off I kind of find it a bit baffling that you think being in a porn store is that much worse lol. That's beside my point anyway... The point is changing something that society views as shameful into something that's ok and making people that do that thing (which is a normal thing in reality) feel like they're not going to be othered. They absolutely will ask about these things. My wife has looked this stuff up and read countless stories. You don't think the fact that someone likes what some might consider more violent and forceful sex might come up in a rape case? They would probably question that stuff even moreso than the "Well why were you out at the bar that night? You wanted to get laid that night, didn't you?" sort of shit that already goes on in a lot of these cases, and that's what I'm highlighting. All this shit goes up on trial when you accuse someone of rape. Your whole history is aired and questioned. And in a world where women are supposed to not like sex and be more "pure" that's why women don't come forward in some cases.

Now I get you, but it's still unlikely to help anything much. On one end, what they like doesn't matter in the case of them being raped, even if it does come up. Sure it might make some women feel less likely to be judged, but I really don't think it's as intertwined as you believe.

[Gaborn]

Essentially it's illegal to drink and drive, which is good, but it's also in some states now illegal to get drunk and have sex with someone else who is drunk if you're a male. I can see why those cases don't make their way to juries that often. Its hard to find people that will send someone to prison for years over that.

Sure, but that's a different discussion. Rather than be legalistic about something like Ali's story it would be a more useful discussion point when someone says

Is Ali's situation rape or bad judgement or both? What are peoples thoughts here?

to argue the actual question which is not about the legal definition of rape.

[Baconsammy]

That's wrong. The judge fucked that ruling up. A homemade gang bang porno of a women obviously pleading her attackers to stop should be a guaranteed conviction.

If all parties are blackout drunk, it is by law not rape, which I'd bet their lawyers argued.

[Gaborn]

If all parties are blackout drunk, it is by law not rape, which I'd bet their lawyers argued.

Read what he just said

That's wrong. The judge fucked that ruling up. A homemade gang bang porno of a women obviously pleading her attackers to stop should be a guaranteed conviction.

He's saying that should be considered rape, your response is "it's not rape by law."

[Baconsammy]

Sure, but that's a different discussion. Rather than be legalistic about something like Ali's story it would be a more useful discussion point when someone says to argue the actual question which is not about the legal definition of rape.

If both people are drunk to the point where the next morning neither knows what happened the prior night? No, I personally don't consider it rape and if I was on a jury I would not vote to convict.

[Gaborn]

If both people are drunk to the point where the next morning neither knows what happened the prior night? No, I personally don't consider it rape and if I was on a jury I would not vote to convict.

So you're saying if a girl was definitely drunk all a guy would have to do is claim he was drunk too and you wouldn't vote to convict for rape?

[marrec]

If both people are drunk to the point where the next morning neither knows what happened the prior night? No, I personally don't consider it rape and if I was on a jury I would not vote to convict.

Being drunk doesn't mean you have a big sign around your neck that says 'Fuck Me'.

[Baconsammy]

So you're saying if a girl was definitely drunk all a guy would have to do is claim he was drunk too and you wouldn't vote to convict for rape?

Wow, good job inferring something that was never said. If I was on a jury, I'd have seen the evidence that they had both been drinking excessively before my decision was made, which is why many of these cases don't make it to the jury. They're too hard to prove or disprove.

[shadowsdarknes]

If both people are drunk to the point where the next morning neither knows what happened the prior night? No, I personally don't consider it rape and if I was on a jury I would not vote to convict.

See this is where the situation gets blurry. In the case of the gang bang, there is conclusive proof of a rape happening. Both parties being blackout and not recalling anything is clearly not rape.

[Future]

So if we can't get a conviction (based on some fucked up notion that being drunk allows you to be raped) then at the very least we need to teach men that Rape and Rape-Rape are the same fucking thing and if you use beer to get sex then you should be held accountable

That's a tough statement. Many people get drunk and have sex, and often that is not rape. How do you protect against those that claim rape as a defense for bad judgement?

While I agree with everyone in here that we need to have tough laws and offer more incentives for women to come forward, we can't forget that false rape accusations/convictions can be incredibly destructive to an innocent person. This is where the conversation gets difficult, IMO, as this shit is often difficult to prove. While there have been cases like the gangrape example above where it looks like men got away with rape, there have been cases where women have admitted false accusations after the fact, long after someone's life was ruined

[Baconsammy]

Being drunk doesn't mean you have a big sign around your neck that says 'Fuck Me'.

No one has actually said that it does. Unless I missed a post.

[marrec]

That's a tough statement. Many people get drunk and have sex, and often that is not rape. How do you protect against those that claim rape as a defense for bad judgement? While I agree with everyone in here that we need to have tough laws and offer more incentives for women to come forward, we can't forget that false rape accusations/convictions can be incredibly destructive to an innocent person. This is where the conversation gets difficult, IMO, as this shit is often difficult to prove. While there have been cases like the gangrape example above where it looks like men got away with rape, there have been cases where women have admitted false accusations after the fact, long after someone's life was ruined

False accusations make up for a small percentage of cases though. I know we have a policy of innocent until proven guilty in this country, but we can't just assume that because a woman was drunk she was totally down to fuck, it's disgusting.

[shadowsdarknes]

That's a tough statement. Many people get drunk and have sex, and often that is not rape. How do you protect against those that claim rape as a defense for bad judgement? While I agree with everyone in here that we need to have tough laws and offer more incentives for women to come forward, we can't forget that false rape accusations/convictions can be incredibly destructive to an innocent person. This is where the conversation gets difficult, IMO, as this shit is often difficult to prove. While there have been cases like the gangrape example above where it looks like men got away with rape, there have been cases where women have admitted false accusations after the fact, long after someone's life was ruined

That is what I've been saying. In fact, the journalist in the article mentions statistics showing under reporting of rapes. One can argue the reason why there is under reporting is due to doubt of an actual instance of rape happening, with the justification of calling it rape as a scapegoat to defer shame to cope with bad judgement. Just throwing that out there for food for thought, not that I actually believe in that notion. I do however, believe that side of the story is worth debating

[Gaborn]

That's a tough statement. Many people get drunk and have sex, and often that is not rape. How do you protect against those that claim rape as a defense for bad judgement? While I agree with everyone in here that we need to have tough laws and offer more incentives for women to come forward, we can't forget that false rape accusations/convictions can be incredibly destructive to an innocent person. This is where the conversation gets difficult, IMO, as this shit is often difficult to prove. While there have been cases like the gangrape example above where it looks like men got away with rape, there have been cases where women have admitted false accusations after the fact, long after someone's life was ruined

False rape allegations are a very small percentage of rape claims.

[RukusProvider]

False rape allegations are a very small percentage of rape claims.

Knowing quite a handful of police/detective and having multiple discussions about this, there are more false rape reports than actual rape cases when an investigation is completed.

[marrec]

No one has actually said that it does. Unless I missed a post.

Both parties being drunk enough to not remember what happened the night before amounts to just as much. What's to stop a man from pushing alcohol on a woman in her state of inebriation in an attempt to get to to black out? No, having this grey area of 'Wellllll.... she was REALLY DRUNK AT THE TIME' allows terrible shit to go down in places like Missoula.

Knowing a handful of police/detective and having multiple discussions about this, there are more false rape reports than actual rape cases when an investigation is completed.

Well your anecdotal evidence means fuck when compared to actual statistics.

We're getting on the Victim Blame Train again people, this is not where the discussion needs to head.

[shadowsdarknes]

Both parties being drunk enough to not remember what happened the night before amounts to just as much. What's to stop a man from pushing alcohol on a woman in her state of inebriation in an attempt to get to to black out? No, having this grey area of 'Wellllll.... she was REALLY DRUNK AT THE TIME' allows terrible shit to go down in places like Missoula.

But fucking A. Accountability is with both parties. Women don't get an excuse to be reckless as men don't deserve an excuse to take advantage of drunk girls.

[marrec]

But fucking A. Accountability is with both parties. Women don't get an excuse to be reckless as men don't deserve an excuse to take advantage of drunk girls.

So the onus in this case is on women to make sure they don't get drunk, once again elevating Men above Women.

[RDreamer]

False accusations make up for a small percentage of cases though. I know we have a policy of innocent until proven guilty in this country, but we can't just assume that because a woman was drunk she was totally down to fuck, it's disgusting.

But why are we assuming if both of them are drunk that the man definitely raped the woman? Isn't that also kind of disgusting? ...and frightening?

[Gaborn]

But why are we assuming if both of them are drunk that the man definitely raped the woman? Isn't that also kind of disgusting? ...and frightening?

No one is saying the man definitely raped the woman, but the question is at what point was consent for the sexual interaction established?

[Future]

False accusations make up for a small percentage of cases though. I know we have a policy of innocent until proven guilty in this country, but we can't just assume that because a woman was drunk she was totally down to fuck, it's disgusting.

That's not what I'm saying. Im saying these are situations which can be difficult to prove. I'm not talking about obvious cases where a woman is pass out drunk and the rape was obvious. I'm talking about black out drunk, or drunk enough to make stupid decisions. There is no way for the man to know that she is too drunk to give consent. Worse, if he is also drunk how could he remain alert enough realize the woman is not alert enough to make proper decisions? Anyone who has gone out to bars ever knows that both men and women often make regrettable decisions when drunk. A regrettable decision on a woman's part does not equal rape, although obviously, she can still be raped in this condition

In all honesty, IMO these are cases best avoided by both parties. If there is no hardproof either way, then either party could have their lives ruined and what can anyone say really.

[Mumei]

Knowing quite a handful of police/detective and having multiple discussions about this, there are more false rape reports than actual rape cases when an investigation is completed.

FBI reports an 8% unfounded rate. That certainly doesn't sound like "more false rape reports than actual rape cases." And even that 8% is not a rate of false rape reports, since unfounded does not necessarily mean that it was false:

"This statistic is almost meaningless, as many of the jurisdictions from which the FBI collects data on crime use different definitions of, or criteria for, "unfounded." That is, a report of rape might be classified as unfounded (rather than as forcible rape) if the alleged victim did not try to fight off the suspect, if the alleged perpetrator did not use physical force or a weapon of some sort, if the alleged victim did not sustain any physical injuries, or if the alleged victim and the accused had a prior sexual relationship. Similarly, a report might be deemed unfounded if there is no physical evidence or too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist. As such, although some unfounded cases of rape may be false or fabricated, not all unfounded cases are false."

[marrec]

But why are we assuming if both of them are drunk that the man definitely raped the woman? Isn't that also kind of disgusting? ...and frightening?

We aren't assuming that, but in almost all cases a woman who claims she was raped while very drunk will not even get an investigation opened.

That's fucked up.

[RukusProvider]

So the onus in this case is on women to make sure they don't get drunk, once again elevating Men above Women.

So a drunk woman going over to a man's place who has been hitting on her the whole time is expecting exactly what when she goes over?

A snuggle party?
A deep political and socioeconomic discussion?
Sex?
Chess and other board games?

[Baconsammy]

Both parties being drunk enough to not remember what happened the night before amounts to just as much. What's to stop a man from pushing alcohol on a woman in her state of inebriation in an attempt to get to to black out? No, having this grey area of 'Wellllll.... she was REALLY DRUNK AT THE TIME' allows terrible shit to go down in places like Missoula.

No it doesn't. Two gay men go to a bar. They meet, they laugh, they drink. They drink a lot. And a lot more. Then they go back to one of their apartments and have sex. Neither wanted nor intended to have sex. Neither can recall giving consent or hearing the other not give consent. Who raped whom? This is an example my sister in law, a cop in Durham county NC, gave me.Who is the rapist? The answer - the person who reports it first. She also points out they don't go to court or prosecute those situations because they're near impossible to prove or disprove, and it's a matter of personal awareness and responsibility. The same applies to a man and a woman who both get stupid drunk. And there are actual incidents of the male coming forward and claiming he was sexually assaulted by the woman. He won't win in court either.

[Gaborn]

So a drunk woman going over to a man's place who has been hitting on her the whole time is expecting exactly what when she goes over? A snuggle party? A deep political and socioeconomic discussion? Sex? Chess and other board games?

What makes you think she was actively "going over" and not dragged out of the bar/club whatever drunk and taken there, drunk, and raped, drunk?

[marrec]

That's not what I'm saying. Im saying these are situations which can be difficult to prove. I'm not talking about obvious cases where a woman is pass out drunk and the rape was obvious. I'm talking about black out drunk, or drunk enough to make stupid decisions. There is no way for the man to know that she is too drunk to give consent. Worse, if he is also drunk how could he remain alert enough realize the woman is not alert enough to make proper decisions? Anyone who has gone out to bars ever knows that both men and women often make regrettable decisions when drunk. A regrettable decision on a woman's part does not equal rape, although obviously, she can still be raped in this condition In all honesty, IMO these are cases best avoided by both parties. If there is no hardproof either way, then either party could have their lives ruined and what can anyone say really.

Fucking christ you're suggesting that a man taking advantage of a women in a drunken state is not accountable because she's too drunk to articulate? You're basically saying Date Rape is unfortunate but unavoidable.

This is the kind of education we need in the country, so that these kinds of opinions don't permeate our culture. The benefit of the doubt is almost ALWAYS given to the man in these situations because we think that if a woman chooses to drink she is also choosing to have doubt cast on her if she is raped.

From the first drink she takes she's going to be held accountable for drinking in the first place.

[Mumei]

So a drunk woman going over to a man's place who has been hitting on her the whole time is expecting exactly what when she goes over? A snuggle party? A deep political and socioeconomic discussion? Sex? Chess and other board games?

That she not get raped.

It seems a reasonable expectation.

Fucking christ you're suggesting that a man taking advantage of a women in a drunken state is not accountable because she's too drunk to articulate? You're basically saying Date Rape is unfortunate but unavoidable. This is the kind of education we need in the country, so that these kinds of opinions don't permeate our culture. The benefit of the doubt is almost ALWAYS given to the man in these situations because we think that if a woman chooses to drink she is also choosing to have doubt cast on her if she is raped. From the first drink she takes she's going to be held accountable for drinking in the first place.

Perfect example of that norm of giving a ridiculous amount of latitude to men in terms of giving them the benefit of the doubt.

[Baconsammy]

But why are we assuming if both of them are drunk that the man definitely raped the woman? Isn't that also kind of disgusting? ...and frightening?

You also cant prove or disprove that the woman didn't instigate the sexual encounter against the wishes of the male. That's why the laws state that if both parties are incoherent, it's not rape, and it wont go to court.

Fucking christ you're suggesting that a man taking advantage of a women in a drunken state is not accountable because she's too drunk to articulate? You're basically saying Date Rape is unfortunate but unavoidable.

The law agrees with him. Not just that she's too drunk to articulate, but that he's also too drunk to process what she's saying or doing.

[shadowsdarknes]

So the onus in this case is on women to make sure they don't get drunk, once again elevating Men above Women.

No one is elevated higher than anyone. There are decent people at the bar and some sleazy people too. I think common sense would influence a women going out getting drunk to maybe be mindful of who is approaching her or stick with her girl friends. It doesn't mean anyone is on a higher pedastal.

[RDreamer]

No one is saying the man definitely raped the woman, but the question is at what point was consent for the sexual interaction established?

Marrec seemd to be kind of implying it with this:

Both parties being drunk enough to not remember what happened the night before amounts to just as much. What's to stop a man from pushing alcohol on a woman in her state of inebriation in an attempt to get to to black out? No, having this grey area of 'Wellllll.... she was REALLY DRUNK AT THE TIME' allows terrible shit to go down in places like Missoula.

Both parties being drunk enough to not remember what happened the night before amounts to [... being drunk means having a sign around your neck saying "fuck me"]

At least, that's the implication I got. If both cannot remember what happened the night before and both were drunk, then who's the rapist and has a rape even occurred?

That's the problem with the legality of these things, I think. There is an inherent gray area that is literally disprovable and highly bendable in a bad way. That's why the onus is on culture to change rather than the law to try and change these things. Not saying the law and its interpretation and use in some cases (like the video taping story posted earlier) isn't completely and utterly fucked up in some cases. Yes that needs to change, too But I think to really get the numbers down we have to change the culture starting from a young age.

[ReBurn]

No one is saying the man definitely raped the woman, but the question is at what point was consent for the sexual interaction established?

If both were drunk and consent by either party was never established then what is the right thing to do? Charge both with rape? Or charge neither with rape? Because if that's the scenario it wouldn't be right to charge just one of them.

[kirblar]

We aren't assuming that, but in almost all cases a woman who claims she was raped while very drunk will not even get an investigation opened. That's fucked up.

Or an economical use of resources, given the low probability of prosecution. (Not playing Devil's advocate or trying to be deliberately provocative- just trying to point out that detectives/investigators have limited resources.)

[marrec]

So a drunk woman going over to a man's place who has been hitting on her the whole time is expecting exactly what when she goes over? A snuggle party? A deep political and socioeconomic discussion? Sex? Chess and other board games?

A man shouldn't expect anything out of that fucking situation and if he does he's a complete asshole. How stupid can you get?

No it doesn't. Two gay men go to a bar. They meet, they laugh, they drink. They drink a lot. And a lot more. Then they go back to one of their apartments and have sex. Neither wanted nor intended to have sex. Neither can recall giving consent or hearing the other not give consent. Who raped whom? This is an example my sister in law, a cop in Durham county NC, gave me.Who is the rapist? The answer - the person who reports it first. She also points out they don't go to court or prosecute those situations because they're near impossible to prove or disprove, and it's a matter of personal awareness and responsibility. The same applies to a man and a woman who both get stupid drunk. And there are actual incidents of the male coming forward and claiming he was sexually assaulted by the woman. He won't win in court either.

Unfortunately for most men if they ever claim rape by a woman it will be hard to get any kind of legal response, no matter the situation, that's a problem that's quite related to this though. The area may be grey, but by putting the onus on the woman to avoid drinking we're also allowing for a LARGE area of actual rape happening with no repercussions for the rapist.

[Baconsammy]

Marrec seemd to be kind of implying it with this: Both parties being drunk enough to not remember what happened the night before amounts to [... being drunk means having a sign around your neck saying "fuck me"]

It also doesn't mean having a sign around your neck saying, "I got stupid shitfaced and therefore not responsible for anything I do from this point on." Two stupid shitfaced people are a recipe for disaster, but neither is more to blame than the other. Now if one isn't, then that fucker is a rapist.

[Gaborn]

If both were drunk and consent by either party was never established then what is the right thing to do? Charge both with rape? Or charge neither with rape? Because if that's the scenario it wouldn't be right to charge just one of them.

That's why physical evidence is important. For example, was there signs of struggle? Scratches on the man's back? On the woman's? Both? a lack of scratches at all could indicate the woman was unaware of what was happening at all.

[Baconsammy]

Happy mothers day to you all. Taking my wife up to Mt Ranier to see some snow. Enjoy your day.

[marrec]

Marrec seemd to be kind of implying it with this: Both parties being drunk enough to not remember what happened the night before amounts to [... being drunk means having a sign around your neck saying "fuck me"] At least, that's the implication I got. If both cannot remember what happened the night before and both were drunk, then who's the rapist and has a rape even occurred? That's the problem with the legality of these things, I think. There is an inherent gray area that is literally disprovable and highly bendable in a bad way. That's why the onus is on culture to change rather than the law to try and change these things. Not saying the law and its interpretation and use in some cases (like the video taping story posted earlier) isn't completely and utterly fucked up in some cases. Yes that needs to change, too But I think to really get the numbers down we have to change the culture starting from a young age.

If both parties are drunk and there is evidence of a physical attack on the woman (despite her not remembering it) then SHE WAS FUCKING RAPED.

But there will be no investigation, because she was SUPER DUPER DRUNK.

Don't you see where this attitude leads?

[ReBurn]

That's why physical evidence is important. For example, was there signs of struggle? Scratches on the man's back? On the woman's? Both? a lack of scratches at all could indicate the woman was unaware of what was happening at all.

It could also indicate that the man was unaware of what was happening at all. I think that's why the drunk rape thing is so hard to prove and rarely gets attention. If the eyewitnesses don't know even know what happened it's very hard to see either as credible. It'll probably stay that way until there's a way to prove what happened at all.

[marrec]

It could also indicate that the man was unaware of what was happening at all. I think that's why the drunk rape thing is so hard to prove and rarely gets attention. If the eyewitnesses don't know even know what happened it's very hard to see either as credible. It'll probably stay that way until there's a way to prove what happened at all.

Right, so we need to change the culture surrounding it to help prevent it. Which includes not using this vague language of Victim Blaming as an excuse for a potential Rapist to get away with rape.

[Gaborn]

It could also indicate that the man was unaware of what was happening at all. I think that's why the drunk rape thing is so hard to prove and rarely gets attention. If the eyewitnesses don't know even know what happened it's very hard to see either as credible. It'll probably stay that way until there's a way to prove what happened at all.

I was referring to scratches as well as scraping both parties nails to show who was doing it. If the woman wasn't at all that might indicate that she was unresponsive to what was going on. Same with things like bite marks as an indicator of passion/engagement vs lifelessness. Sex is usually (though not always ) a very physical process and if all of the physical markers point a particular way that's a tell of what happened.

Right, so we need to change the culture surrounding it to help prevent it. Which includes not using this vague language of Victim Blaming as an excuse for a potential Rapist to get away with rape.

Yep. This tangent was getting off topic and marrec is right in identifying the real issue here. There will ALWAYS be gray situations, the key is how to reduce them by changing the culture of rape which leads to some abusers getting away with rape by creating a gray area.

[Amibguous Cad]

If both people are drunk to the point where the next morning neither knows what happened the prior night? No, I personally don't consider it rape and if I was on a jury I would not vote to convict.

Does this apply to other crimes? If one is blackout drunk and assaults someone, is that exculpatory? What about if they get behind the wheel of a car?

Intoxication is very rarely exculpatory in our criminal justice system for a very good reason. You are responsible for everything that you do while you are drunk, and allowing it to be exculpatory encourages people to get drunk and THEN commit crimes. I can't believe that this is the hill you're choosing to die on- you do know that in the instant case, despite her intoxication, the victim was very clearly not consenting? Surely intoxication can blur the lines of what constitutes meaningful, informed consent, but there's no grey area in this case at all.

[RDreamer]

If both parties are drunk and there is evidence of a physical attack on the woman (despite her not remembering it) then SHE WAS FUCKING RAPED.

And if there is no evidence of a physical attack on the woman?

And if there is how do you prove that equates to rape. As Gaborn pointed out scratches and stuff. I've been with women that scratch pretty heavily when fully consensual sex is going on.

But there will be no investigation, because she was SUPER DUPER DRUNK. Don't you see where this attitude leads?

Yes, I know that's a shitty situation, and we should definitely have the funding to investigate these things much deeper than we already do. Her being super duper drunk definitely shouldn't mean no investigation. It should mean a full investigation to see if the situation does amount to "both were black out drunk and neither knew what happened afterwards" (which I'll admit is probably very few of the cases overall) or if it is a case of the guy forcing the girl or giving her drinks in order to get her drunk, etc. (likely a lot more of the cases, I know).

[Future]

Fucking christ you're suggesting that a man taking advantage of a women in a drunken state is not accountable because she's too drunk to articulate? You're basically saying Date Rape is unfortunate but unavoidable. This is the kind of education we need in the country, so that these kinds of opinions don't permeate our culture. The benefit of the doubt is almost ALWAYS given to the man in these situations because we think that if a woman chooses to drink she is also choosing to have doubt cast on her if she is raped. From the first drink she takes she's going to be held accountable for drinking in the first place.

Too drunk to articulate?? You keep putting words in everyone's mouth here. I am saying that in cases where she is drunk, but shows no resistance at the time, but then the next day thinks she might have been raped as she doesn't remember (or similar)....this is the textbook example that is near impossible to prove. And yes, the reality is that these cases will probably side with the defendant. Not just because of a rape culture, but because you are innocent until proven guilty.

Unfortunately this means that if she did resist, how is that proven? It's a difficult situation to be in. Best avoided

[shadowsdarknes]

Both parties being drunk enough to not remember what happened the night before amounts to just as much. What's to stop a man from pushing alcohol on a woman in her state of inebriation in an attempt to get to to black out? No, having this grey area of 'Wellllll.... she was REALLY DRUNK AT THE TIME' allows terrible shit to go down in places like Missoula.

You know what? What's to stop a woman from pushing alcohol on a man in an attempt to get him blackout, lure him home and accuse rape when it's possible the guy just passed out on the couch and the women pissed off because she didn't get laid decides to get revenge? Unlikely but possible especially in the way your presenting your argument.

I feel like your portrayal of men is unfair. It's insulting to a person like me. Having a good time buying drinks, laughing and enjoying myself in the company of a woman is intent to rape? That's what your making it seem like. Give me a break. Most guys are respectable and will maintain pace with a girl to not get her too drunk and not get too drunk himself.

Can alcohol play to either party's advantage? Absolutely. In fact, I've been partying with girls who are below my standards sober who intentionally get me shit faced so I find them more attractive. They sometimes succeed. Here is the question. Am I being raped? Or am I raping them because I'm now drunk and horny?

Judging by your attitude, I'm raping them because men are evil.

[kirblar]

Does this apply to other crimes? If one is blackout drunk and assaults someone, is that exculpatory? What about if they get behind the wheel of a car? Intoxication is very rarely exculpatory in our criminal justice system for a very good reason. You are responsible for everything that you do while you are drunk, and allowing it to be exculpatory encourages people to get drunk and THEN commit crimes. I can't believe that this is the hill you're choosing to die on- you do know that in the instant case, despite her intoxication, the victim was very clearly not consenting? Surely intoxication can blur the lines of what constitutes meaningful, informed consent, but there's no grey area in this case at all.

Other crimes don't depend entirely on communication of intent.