Which of these following cases is rape?

Post Reply New Topic

Here is why it's not a double standard.

If the rape occurred because the victim was barely mobile or passed out a rapist in the same position would be physically unable to rape.

Being drunk does not give you a free pass to commit crimes but it doesn't stop you from being a victim of a crime either.

I get what your saying bur for my analogy I'm saying they were equally drunk so neither was barely mobile. I think when the OP asked the questions he was thinking along the lines of same level of drunkenness for each senareo but I may be wrong.

I think that what you're saying makes a lot of sense, actually.
It is perhaps written in a slightly confusing way, but what you are saying still makes a lot of sense I reckon.

I think you're saying something similar to what I was, maybe (although I didn't explain it very well) ... in that that there really should be some means of preventing people from drinking so much alcohol that they become unable to have sentient thought ; or to control their ability to function as a coherent human being.... and that people ought to be held accountable for their actions whether they have chosen to be under the influence of some sort of drug (such as alcohol) or not.... since it's entirely their own choice whether to take such mind-altering substance, in the first place.

Perhaps a law against it would be totally un-enforcable.... but perhaps there should be some kind of heavy social stigma against getting into such a state in public ?

Indeed. Those two things combined mean that a fair interpretation of "drunk enough to be unable to give consent" (which is highly subjective) is "drunk enough to be physically unable to rape someone" (which is much easier to judge). A lower threshold of "drunk enough" would be a double standard.