It is rape in some states, Wisconsin being one that I know of off hand. In Wisconsin having sex with someone you know is drunk is second degree sexual assault, a serious crime on par with using physical violence to force them to have sex with you.
I stand corrected.
Wisconsin does indeed have a law criminalized sex with the "intoxicated." "Wisconsin law defines second degree sexual assault as any of the following criminal acts...Sexual contact or sexual intercourse with a person known to be intoxicated, known to be unconscious, or known to suffer from diminished capacities of any sort that temporarily or permanently render the victim incapable of understanding the consequences of such conduct."
It's worth noting that "intoxicated" is pretty vague; it probably doesn't import the BAC test wholesale. Just a little tipsy, probably not, blacked out drunk, probably yes, anything between probably depends on how sympathetic a victim you are, how misogynistic a jury you get, and how good your lawyer is.
This means I've been raped by multiple girls who took advantage of me when I've been blacked out drunk. The worst part is when they recount all the nasty details and I can't remember a bit of it.
That's totally rape, bro.
Drunk and impaired is grey area, but unconscious? That's not a difficult call. You're not capable of consenting then.
But this is the problem! If the other person claims to be too intoxicated then they can recant their answer as they can claim to legally not be able to give consent. If you continue fooling around and it leads to sex like it often does then one party could be legally fucked. It's a mess. To stop and ask yes/no to begin with is not a part of norms. The whole thing in question is way more complex and nuanced than how this rule treats it.
But it should be, and those who refuse to take the slightest steps to ensure that their partner is consenting deserve to get hit with whatever rape charges get thrown their way.
You're playing with fire when you follow the standard script for sexual relations in this country. Morality demands that you go off-script.
is the girl retarded in this case, or a child? why are you absolving this hypothetical girl of personal responsibility? she doesn't have to take a whole bunch of shots from a stranger, and probably won't.
i agree it's a sleazy thing to do, but don't see how it would be considered rape.
The girl is not a child, but the guy is a scumbag.
You're the one allowing someone to dodge responsibility for their actions- you are excusing intentionally impairing someone else's judgment in order to get them to sleep with their sorry ass. I am not sure if there's a reasonable way to write the distinction into the law, but if someone intentionally buys someone else drinks with the intent to impair their judgment to get laid, they're a rapist, even if you can't prove that that was their intention in court.
