Is there a double standard in "date rape"?

Question

I just read an article about this in my wife's Cosmopolitan, and this was brought up and I'd like to ask it here. If a woman is drunk or otherwise under the influence and cannot give consent to having sex, or gives consent and then changes her mind during the act, she is the "victim", no ifs ands or buts about it. But if the man is under the influence, he is still 100% responsible for his actions. To put it another way, if the woman is so drunk she has sex, she can later say her reasoning was impaired and it was rape, but the man cannot say his reasoning was impaired--he's still accountable for his actions under the influence, while she is not. Is that a double standard?

LolaC is not understanding the question. The man *is* responsible if he is under the influence. I'm asking why can the woman say "I was drinking and not able to give consent, therefore it's rape"? It seems like the woman is innocent because she was drunk, but the man was guilty because he was drunk. That's the double standard.

Answer 1

While double standards and biases do exist in society in regards to rape and responsibility and who the victims are I do not see a double standard in you specific example.

Basically, being intoxicated does not excuse you from committing crimes (i.e. rape) because you still have to be lucid enough to physically commit the act. But you can be too intoxicated to consent to sex because you might not be lucid enough to realize what is going on.

I also don't believe that a women could simply claim her reasoning was impaired and that it was rape. She would have either had to have said no at some point, been physically forced or intoxicated to the point where she wasn't even conscious. Girls can't just claim rape if they have regrets the morning after. And if they did try to charge a guy with rape in a situation like this there would be no proof, it would come down to 'he said' versus 'she said' and there would be no conviction.

Answer 2

I Am Not In The Target Group However For Those Who Believe A Double Standard Exists May I Recommend Clarifying Your Position Prior To The Outing? If She Offers To Pay Her Way Or, God Forbid Pay Yours As Well You Will In Turn Sanction All Claims She Has To Independence Of Thought, Word And Deed If, On The Other Hand She Accepts Your Largesse She Is By Extrapolation Obliged To Concede That She Is A Dependent Nay, A Parasite And All Her Airs Of Independence Are Null And Void Offer Her These Two Choices Only No Flexibility Or Compromise Is Permitted Lest It Create A Spurious Atmosphere Of Enjoyment

Answer 3

First off, Cosmopolitan is not a reliable source of legal information. Anything you read there, I suggest you take a cubic root and divide the result by three. Mass media tends to exaggerate and distort things in general, and magazines like Cosmopolitan -- especially so.

NOW. There are certain acts (not only sex, obviously), which require the participants to have certain minimal mental capacity to consent, to form an intent, or to express one's wishes. Being "under the influence" in and of itself does not defeat that capacity; a woman whose "reasoning is impaired" is still legally capable of consenting to sex. However, there does come a point -- generally judged from the totality of the circumstances -- when a person is SO drunk as to lack the mental capacity necessary to give consent, to form an intent, or to understand what he is signing or saying. Unconsciousness, projectile vomiting, deep sleep, or alcohol-induced dementia definitely qualify.

And here is where the "double standard" comes in. By virtue of simple biology, a man who is unconscious, in deep sleep, convulsing, or crazed is a lot less likely to have sex than a woman in the same state of intoxication. Being "under the influence" is not a defense to taking advantage of someone who is passed out cold or otherwise has lost control of her body. A woman who gets penetrated while she is passed out IS a victim -- without quotes. Consent to drink alcohol isn't consent to sex. In general, between two individuals both of whom consumed alcohol, the one who is less intoxicated bears the responsibility.

Answer 4

there is always some kind of double standard when something is looked at in terms of boys v. girls. the assumption is that men are always wanting sex. looking for sex, and trying to get sex. i don't believe this is actually true.
the same is found in domestic violence. the assumption is that a woman can never or would never beat up a man.
also in child molestation. people are shocked that women can be pedophiles too.

the view of that article appears to be that women are not responsible for their actions.......or can change thier minds after giving consent and that is ok but men can't. consent is consent and rape is rape.

i agree with the first poster.......don't drink so much that you can't make rational decisions and don't fool around with someone who is drinking.

Answer 5

Yes, there is a double standard. This is because it is widely assumed that men are generally stronger then woman and that they could fight off any advances of any woman. The truth of this concept is open to wide interpretation, but no law maker is going to give equal protection if it appears that protection for woman (mother role) will suffer.

Men have had to endure this burden for a long time, and as long men want to be perceived as stronger and more (manly) we will have to continue to date with care. Once you are AWARE of an inherent unfairness in a system you can no longer operate within that system and still consider it unfair.
Basically... We know the rules of the game, play at your own risk.

P.S. True woman's lib-ers also have a problem with this, but still don't want to be pawed and taken advantage of by other strong "persons".

Answer 6

In my years as a police officer. I have *never* seen a man convicted of rape just because him and a woman had a few drinks and went back to her place

I think the line gets drawn when they woman is so intoxicated that she is blacking out.

My advice would be if the woman is standing, carrying on a conversation, ect. Have whatever consensual sex you want.

If she is stumbling down, puking, can't talk, passing out, ect. Stay away.

Also, the bottom line is, if she changes her mind in the middle of the act. You have to stop. It my suck, but thats how it is.

Answer 7

Like I have told my teen son, as in football, the best offense is a good defense:

DON'T ever get yourself so loaded that you can't make rationale decisions.

and

DON'T ever have sex with a girl that has consumed any alcohol so you don't have to worry about any consent issues.

Not only is getting persmission to move to the next step socially appropriate, is can be more exciting in the long run.

Answer 8

Inebriations isn't a defense against rape charges any more than it is a defense against property damage charges.

The problem boils down to the intent of the perpetrator, you cannot convict without intent. The man has to know that he is penetrating the woman without or against her consent. Her feelings are irrelevant to whether a crime has been committed.

Answer 9

It's not a double standard. If you voluntarily get intoxicated (i.e. nothing is slipped in your drink) and you commit a crime (rape), then you're accountable. Otherwise anyone who robbed a bank, murdered someone, etc, could just say "Oh I was drunk, I didnt know what I was doing" could get away with their crime.

Answer 10

there is a double standard , and your right women do seem to get preference, Men generally don't complain about having sex, and women, tend to complain if they get ticked of. But those that are really raped are trully victims.