Can an intoxicated man claim rape the same way an intoxicated woman can?

[Proserpina]

Ah. That makes sense.

Interestingly, I'm seeing that the State is or has been interested in the income derived from the whole Mary Kay Letourneau-Fualaau (good grief - try saying that after a few beers!) debacle. She was convicted (and that worked so well...not), but while she was never ordered to pay child support for her children with Vili, they did actually receive some sort of state aid and the government appears to want that money back.

 

[quincy]

Interestingly, I'm seeing that the State is or has been interested in the income derived from the whole Mary Kay Letourneau-Fualaau (good grief - try saying that after a few beers!) debacle. She was convicted (and that worked so well...not), but while she was never ordered to pay child support for her children with Vili, they did actually receive some sort of state aid and the government appears to want that money back.

I can see how states would have an interest in finding the fathers of children whose mothers are receiving welfare payments, to seek reimbursement for the money spent by the states on the children. I am sure that is why a handful of males in a few states who were minors at the time of their statutory rapes have been ordered to pay child support. This seems to be (from my very brief review) only if it can be determined that the sex between the minor boy and the older female was consensual.

Although I have not read in depth any of the cases I ran across, there is San Luis Obispo County v Nathaniel J.. This is a 1996 California case that involved the statutory rape of a 15-year-old boy (Nathaniel) by a 34-year-old woman (Ricci Jones), who gave birth to Nathaniel's child in 1995. Although Jones was convicted on the rape charge, Nathaniel had said the sex was consensual. Because he was a "willing partner," he was ordered to pay child support.

Bucher/Fuller was the most recent male-rape case I located where the male claimed that the sex was not consensual but, admittedly, I didn't search very hard. And I thought Bucher was appealing his case, but I could be wrong.

 

[Proserpina]

I can see how states would have an interest in finding the fathers of children whose mothers are receiving welfare payments, to seek reimbursement for the money spent by the states on the children. I am sure that is why a handful of males in a few states who were minors at the time of their statutory rapes have been ordered to pay child support. This seems to be (from my very brief review) only if it can be determined that the sex between the minor boy and the older female was consensual.

Although I have not read in depth any of the cases I ran across, there is San Luis Obispo County v Nathaniel J.. This is a 1996 California case that involved the statutory rape of a 15-year-old boy (Nathaniel) by a 34-year-old woman (Ricci Jones), who gave birth to Nathaniel's child in 1995. Although Jones was convicted on the rape charge, Nathaniel had said the sex was consensual. Because he was a "willing partner," he was ordered to pay child support.

Bucher/Fuller was the most recent male-rape case I located where the male claimed that the sex was not consensual but, admittedly, I didn't search very hard. And I thought Bucher was appealing, but I could be wrong.

This whole thing is disturbing, in all honesty. There are many people who believe that if the penis is awake and bobbing about willy nilly (I'm going to get crucified for that, aren't I?), the "owner" of that penis is obviously consenting to whatever happens next. The reality is that sometimes that penis does all sorts of things without the owner's knowledge and consent.

If Randy Rachel has a few too many drinks, goes home with Horny Harry and does the jiggy jiggy with him, she can make a case against Horny Harry because being drunk made it impossible to give consent.

If Randy Robert has a few too many drinks, goes home with Horny Harriet and does the jiggy jiggy with her, why can't he use the same reasoning?

 

[quincy]

This whole thing is disturbing, in all honesty. There are many people who believe that if the penis is awake and bobbing about willy nilly (I'm going to get crucified for that, aren't I?), the "owner" of that penis is obviously consenting to whatever happens next. The reality is that sometimes that penis does all sorts of things without the owner's knowledge and consent.

If Randy Rachel has a few too many drinks, goes home with Horny Harry and does the jiggy jiggy with him, she can make a case against Horny Harry because being drunk made it impossible to give consent.

If Randy Robert has a few too many drinks, goes home with Horny Harriet and does the jiggy jiggy with her, why can't he use the same reasoning?

I agree that it is disturbing.*

The bodies of both men and women can respond involuntarily. Sexual responses are not an indication of consent. Fear does not prevent sexual responses.

But proving rape has always been difficult, for women as well as men. Perhaps that is why studies have shown the majority of those who are raped do not report their rapes or choose not to pursue legal action against their rapists.



*(so is the image of penises awake and bobbing willy nilly )

 

[JustWonderingWh]

A woman who gets drunk, gives verbal consent, and regrets it the next day is no more likely to get a rape accusation taken seriously by the police than a man would. What makes you think that a woman could get away with that?

I was explained to they can because you can't give consent to sex (legally) while being intoxicated. Does this mean only women can be rape victims under those circumstances?

 

[cbg]

Have we established that your belief that one cannot legally consent to sex while intoxicated is, indeed fact?

 

[JustWonderingWh]

That's what an attorney told me. I'm taking his word for it.

 

[cbg]

I had an attorney tell me once that if the Department of Labor found out that she had two different health insurance polices (one through her own employment and one through her spouse's) that they would cancel both of them and she'd be left with no insurance at all. Which is all different kinds of wrong.

 

[I'mTheFather]

The Florida statutes do not differentiate between male and female victims.

However, the fairly recent case of a college football player accused of raping an intoxicated woman resulted in no charges despite her blood alcohol level being measured shortly after the incident because the prosecutor felt there wasn't enough evidence to prove the sex was not consensual.

Was your blood alcohol measured shortly after? If not, there's definitely no case, even if there may have been one otherwise.

 

[TigerD]

The Florida statutes do not differentiate between male and female victims.

However, the fairly recent case of a college football player accused of raping an intoxicated woman resulted in no charges despite her blood alcohol level being measured shortly after the incident because the prosecutor felt there wasn't enough evidence to prove the sex was not consensual.

Was your blood alcohol measured shortly after? If not, there's definitely no case, even if there may have been one otherwise.

I wouldn't put too much in that decision. The investigation was delayed months while the investigating officer tried to talk the alleged victim out of the complaint because the guy was a football player. The prosecuting attorney graduated from the university, graduated law school at the university in question, his wife graduated from the university, his daughter earned both her undergraduate degree and her law degree at the university, and his son graduated from the university. You could say he has extensive ties with an interested party and probably shouldn't have been involved in this case at all.

DC

 

[CdwJava]

The problem is proving that the person in question was so impaired by their voluntary inebriation that they were clearly unable to give consent. Merely being impaired or at a particular BAC doesn't mean that one is too impaired to consent to sex or other activity. To prove that a person was soooo intoxicated as to be unable to consent, it often takes statements from others as to the level of incoherence, slurred speech, passing out, or other indicators that would lead a reasonable person that the victim was unable to grant consent.

Acquaintance rape can be difficult to prove under the best circumstances, when one or both parties have been drinking it can make it more complicated.

 

[Ladyback1]

I am of the opinion that if the male party was so drunk as to not remember anything, and not be able to consent...then the female must of had some tongue depressors (or toothpicks) and medical tape.

The whole "whiskey d*ck" thing and all....

Granted I am not a male, and I have never been *that* drunk. However, I have had the opportunity (in my younger partying days) to go to bed with males that were that drunk---and I propping it up would have been the only way I could have had sex with them. **shrug**

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

You obviously were not one of the many woman to grace my bed. Or should that be who's bed I graced?

I am of the opinion that if the male party was so drunk as to not remember anything, and not be able to consent...then the female must of had some tongue depressors (or toothpicks) and medical tape.

The whole "whiskey d*ck" thing and all....

Granted I am not a male, and I have never been *that* drunk. However, I have had the opportunity (in my younger partying days) to go to bed with males that were that drunk---and I propping it up would have been the only way I could have had sex with them. **shrug**

 

[Proserpina]

You obviously were not one of the many woman to grace my bed. Or should that be who's bed I graced?

"I ended up drunk and naked in some floozy's bed, wearing nothing but a smile and this rather large codpiece".

(Thanks, BlackAdder)

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

"I ended up drunk and naked in some floozy's bed, wearing nothing but a smile and this rather large codpiece".

(Thanks, BlackAdder)

ROFLMAO Look at the pic on Wikipedia.