This section needs more tears.

I disagree, I like the cute ones sometimes. This was cute. :) As a perpetual traveller this seems realistic to me. Also similar to an experience of my own.

Sometimes I wonder how many people don't actually remember their first time - it seems like a pretty common occurrence.

If you don't remember, does it count? Maybe she passed out before it got to the good stuff.

Wait! Given all the hoopla about the Connecticut girl, and since she doesn't remember given explicit consent after drinking, we should all conclude that she was raped right? I mean that is what we did last time this happened - https://hooksexup.com/regulars/my-first-time/010-female-16-connecticut/

NN has a point... does the cute story make up for the possible rape?

Doesn't this just make it obvious that rape is a matter of interpretation - of how you feel afterwards- in many cases, and not an issue of consent or not. I mean CT girl woke up sore and not very explicit about giving consent too, what makes her a rape victim and this girl not, except in one case she wakes up ashamed and in the other the girl wakes up stoked?

When you think about it, it's kind of amazing... how you look at it changes the whole tone of the story.

RAPE IS RAPE IS RAPE!! There is no INTERPRETATION! This girl woke up afterwards and gave consent, what is so hard to understand about that?? In the other case she woke up and didn't like what happened - that is what makes it rape!

Mz.M. I agree with you that this isn't a case of rape. On the other hand, to say that how the girl felt afterward determines if it's rape or not is insane. Under that premise any time anyone has sex the guy could find out he's a rapist the next morning. Whether it's rape or not depends on what was going on at the time the sex happened and what happened before the sex happened not about what happened after the sex happened. In this case the girl clearly gave consent before they did it - which is why it wouldn't have been rape even if the dude was a dick the next morning.

I really liked this one. Some of these seem fabricated, but this one seems real.

@BJC While I think you are right, I suspect that MzM's attitude is shared by a great many young women out there. Many are so used to being told that they are all potential victims that they expect to be raped or 'almost raped' or, at least, roofied at some point in their lives. This makes it all that much easier to turn an awkward and consent-ambiguous coupling into an out and out rape in the mind of the girl. I would even go so far as to argue that this strain of feminism has left women less empowered and in control of their bodies than what it replaced!

Rape is about power and control. I don't feel like there is a sense of power and control in this one. At the same time if she wanted to call it rape I would stick and that sucks for all men.

@dre ... as a woman who HAS been roofied and then raped by someone I considered a "friend" (and who I thought I could trust to pour me a glass of juice from my fridge), I think that your dismissal that women "are told that they are all potential victims" sounds like a very dangerous attitude to take.

Be, don't you also think the attitude of "If he was a jerk the next morning, it would have been rape but since he was nice, it wasn't rape" is also a dangerous attitude?

Yeah, I'm with BJC. That same variety of dangerous thinking is what turns harmless flirting into a sexual harassment lawsuit. It should never be a simple matter of preference deciding the nature of a crime.

This story could have easily gone int eh other direction. It sounds like she didn't really consent to sex, and was out of it during. That means he did a passed out girl, or did someone pissed of her rocker. Not the gentleman she makes him out to be... the question is would you have had sex with someone you met like that if you weren't drunk?

There are some details missing here that would determine if it could be considered rape or not. Maybe she consented then fell asleep. Just because she doesn't remember the sex, doesn't mean she wasn't alert at the time, alcohol was involved. That does not make it rape in most jurisdictions, despite what college health officials hold as policy on campus. Most importantly, a rape charge generally requires a victim who is willing to press charges. The unsuspecting Aussie could some day find himself in trouble, but this time it seems everyone was happy.

I always wonder why it is always the guy's fault. If we both go home falling down drunk, somehow get it in and then both of us pass out - did the guy still rape her?

It's always the guy's fault. What's the mystery? If a judge calls you "guilty", you're guilty. If a woman says you raped her, then you raped her. That's the nature of rape. It doesn't REALLY matter what happened up to the point when she says it--only what happens after she says it. You pays your money and takes your chances. Any time you're seen with a woman you risk being accused of rape. Consent really means nothing unless you have a lawyer and notary handy. All you can do is reduce the chances (e.g. drink less, avoid obvious "resentful losers", and always thank her afterward (at least for her generosity to be with you)), but there's no sure prevention. So enjoy life. I was accused of rape once. I said, "I guess so. I'm very sorry about that. I'll stay away from you now." and that was the end of that story. I was lucky, but I could also see that my side of the story had NOTHING to do with her experience and her accusation-, so defending my actions, or claiming she consented would just make her angry--and have her tell others, which she never did. This has been a very thought provoking discussion. Thank you everyone! Especially NN, BJC, Mz.M

I think that if she managed to remember him putting on a condom, she would definitly remember been force to have sex. No rape here.

@RL The issue is not force, almost all acquaintance rape in this country is committed without the use of force, the issue is consent.

We need to be sympathetic to the plight of those who have been raped (which can include people of either sex), but the original point stands. Any standard of rape which holds that (in any way, shape or form) a man cannot ascertain 100% whether a woman has consented before or during the act of sex is by definition an unfair standard. Without a doubt, consent is a very tricky and dynamic thing, but someone should be able to tell the moment consent is withdrawn in order to be fairly judged for their actions. Now in most cases, that's not a problem, but it concerns me (from the POV of both sides) that two eerily similar actions in two seemingly similar circumstances can have two drastically outcomes. It's in the interest of noone for men/women to go into sexual encounters under the impression that they're playing russian roulette with their (and their partners') lives.

There are a bunch of FUCKING UNEDUCATED MORONS posting on this thread. You all need to google "affirmative consent"... you /badly/ need to be familiar with that term. In most jurisdictions of the U.S., you cannot technically give consent while intoxicated. That DOES NOT however mean that the judge will always support the case. Usually not. Another factor often looked at is whether "affirmative consent" was given. In a case of a man having sex with a woman, he nearly always has to be giving "affirmative consent." (Although in cases where he doesn't, that can constitute rape of the man.) The woman in the CT story most definitely wasn't giving affirmative consent -she even went so far as to voice the opposite, and he ignored her. THAT was definitely rape. In this case, it doesn't appear the woman gave affirmative consent either (or at least, she doesn't remember doing so). Legally, it sounds like it could be rape, depending on the laws of the country she was in at the time. But if she chooses not to press charges, that is her choice. Either way, the man still gave affirmative consent, so he wasn't raped. She doesn't feel raped, and doesn't want to press charges. Well okay. That doesn't change the circumstances, and that doesn't mean that it's fine and dandy for guys to go around having sex with very intoxicated girls because SOME of them are okay with it SOMETIMES.

Affirmative consent is about the shared responsibility of making sure your partner wants what is happening to be happening, every step of the way. In other words, it's about the way any decent human with competent communication skills should have sex.

If affirmative consent is the law, then the law reveals how irrelevant it is to sexual conduct in this country. (And in any case, you are wrong, most jurisdictions still use language that addresses force and withdrawal of consent not active affirmation) How is it possible for the law to nullify consent on the basis of intoxication? The results would be squarely absurd. Two drunk people who have sex with each other are then either both guilty of rape, or neither is, regardless of what actually happened. You live in a fantasy land if you think that a sexual encounter should be a quasi-legal environment of wondering, then confirming and then wondering if anything has changed. Instead of making us all into potential victims and requiring that a partner check in with us at each opportunity, real empowerment comes with telling each partner that he or she is responsible for speaking up and directing the episode. To do anything less is to buy into the current cult of victim-hood and to accord even more power to those who refuse to speak for themselves.

For me, it's the accusation of rape that's a problem. By the time a judge speaks the damage is done. And any woman can accuse me of rape any time she wants to. I suppose a guy could too, but that's extremely rare. The telling thing in this wonderful story is his last words, "Keep smiling, love". In real terms, that was probably the decision point for our author, not any un-provable consent that happened the night before. If he had said something opposite, she may well have remembered and retold it as a rape. Maybe this is a story about respect and honor. Interesting perspectives, all.

"If affirmative consent is the law, then the law reveals how irrelevant it is to sexual conduct in this country. (And in any case, you are wrong, most jurisdictions still use language that addresses force and withdrawal of consent not active affirmation) How is it possible for the law to nullify consent on the basis of intoxication?" Consent was never present in the first place in the case of intoxication, because of the argument that people weren't in their right mind. You're right that affirmative consent is not present in many laws, but it is present in the rules at many universities now, it is how a lot of people define rape these days, and something that most progressive advocates for women's issues or survivors of sexual assault are trying to get put into law. So I'm willing to bet that in 20 years we'll see a lot of laws that include that language. The sexual assault laws in this country have come a long way, baby. For instance, thirty years ago no states recognized rape if it occured within a marriage. But the laws have a long way to go. There is nothing at all difficult or burdensome about affirmative consent, unless you're a fucking rapist. Affirmative consent can be physical or verbal or both, and if you don't know if you have it but you proceed anyway, you are nothing short of an inattentive lover at the best, and a rapist at the worst.

No one 'said no and meant no' even in the original story. The CT girl said "I don't think I can do this", during the act. To see why this doesn't really count as withdrawal of consent consider the following tale. I, on a hiking trip with some friends, spend all night drinking, the next day I imbibe more to combat the hangover. Later during the day fatigue and drunkness overtake me and I say to my friend "I don't think I can do this" he ignores me and walks on. I don't remember what happened next but I next recall sitting by the fire at the next campsite. I promptly get out my cell phone and report a kidnapping since I had clearly withdrawn my consent from going any further. Tell me why this isn't kidnapping and you'll understand why CT aint rape.

"For me, it's the accusation of rape that's a problem. By the time a judge speaks the damage is done. And any woman can accuse me of rape any time she wants to. I suppose a guy could too, but that's extremely rare. " Cases of women accusing men falsely are also extremely rare. You think once the rape has occured all the damage that can be done has been done? Fuck you. There is the shame many women feel, the fear of being around that man again, etc. Taking a rapist to court can be a very affirming experience for some women. Do some false accusations take place? Yes. Is this also the case for every other crime in this country? Yes. You want to make sure you never rape anybody? Simple. Look for affirmative consent, and don't fuck when particularly drunk.

The scenario of you at the campsite involves you following your friend, presumably free, without physical coercion from him. Also, hiking has not been known to scar people for life, of that I am aware. Having sex with someone else is in fact a great deal more physically invasive to them than walking in front of them. Oh and also, if you have sex with someone who is plastered and says "I don't think I can do this" without stopping to ask them what they mean by that? You pretty much suck as a person.

I think the challenge was to say why that wasn't kidnapping, not how much someone sucks for being inattentive. You chide the other poster for being concerned about false accusation by telling him it is "extremely rare" -actually there is little data on that at all and it scars too. But you want to know what is extremely rare? People defining drunken sex with ambiguous consent as rape! Finally you never address the absurdity of calling sex consent-less when both parties are drunk. Since neither can consent each rapes the other right? Or is no one raped? Or maybe it just doesn't count as sex?

I don't think you can have it both ways. If rape is a serious crime that we should all be concerned about one can't endorse definitions of it that allows for trivial and petty everyday things like drunk sex or failure to say 'yes' loud enough to count as rape. On the other hand you could endorse sweeping definitions of rape that capture things like this, but in so doing you fail to make it the case that people should be concerned about it just because its rape. If you can't allow for a little rude or uncouth behavior happening during sex and want to call that rape (i.e. not checking what she meant when she said it only once) I guess thats ok, but don't condemn the rest of us for not caring enough when you do.

I actually sort of liked this one.

"But you want to know what is extremely rare? People defining drunken sex with ambiguous consent as rape!" Again. If everyone is being an attentive lover, there should be no such thing as ambiguous consent. For my part, I can't imagine having sex where there was ambiguous consent present. dre and lpp, I'm to take it you like to take advantage of women who are too drunk to actively consent?

Also, for my part? If both people were drunk, and both people engaged in affirmative consent, I wouldn't necessarily call it rape. But if both people were drunk and only one person engaged in affirmative consent? That's when it definitely becomes legal rape. Even when drunk, there's a world of difference between the mindset that affirmatively consents to something and the one that just lets something passively happen to it. There are a lot of reasons someone wouldn't "fight" -but you shouldn't have to fight to have your bodily autonomy respected.

EC - where do you see the affirmative consent in this girl's story. I don't think it's rape, but I certainly don't think there is evidence of affirmative consent. Also, if the guy had been a dick the next morning, would it then have been rape?

Stop evading the question. Face it, your definition of rape comes with an intolerable and absurd consequence; if both parties are drunk enough, they end up raping each other. The absurdity becomes obvious when you fall back on personal judgment ("I wouldn't necessarily call it rape") instead of the legalities you begin your attack with ("Consent was never present in the first place in the case of intoxication, because of the argument that people weren't in their right mind"). If you can't consent when drunk (your claim), and any sex that doesn't involve consent is rape (your claim), then you can't have sex without raping someone if they are drunk- and if both are drunk, then both are rapists. You keep asking that everyone be an attentive lover and problems would vanish, but thats a pipe dream. Checking after every uncomfortable squirm or change in posture in your lover makes you an obsequious lover- not an attentive one. The burden of consent is equally shared by both partners, to put a greater burden on the 'active' partner is to build pernicious power relationships back into sex at just the time most progressives think we are overcoming them.

EC is a feminazi troll, stop feeding her people!

If being drunk changes sex from rape, I guess that bartenders could regularly be charged as co-conspirators in many, many rape cases.

Oops! I mean "changes sex to rape."

So anytime you have sex with a guy you have to explicitly say "I want to have sex with you" or it's rape. That is utter and complete BS with no basis in human nature. Girls and even many guys don't come out and say anything. 99.9% of the time there are no words spoken. Saying that an "affirmative consent" is required is the exact opposite of reality. It's when the girl says "No" or pushes the guy away and he doesn't stop that you get rape. I'd say the naked dash across the campground is pretty clear consent. Why go to a guy's tent naked if you aren't planning to bone him? I agree. EC is a troll. I should never have fed her...

For the EC's of the world showing implied consent by running naked to his tent aint enough, the merest hint of reluctance is a deal breaker and it is up to the person's partner to know exactly when that happened.

JB, You don't have to explicitly say "I want to have sex with you" but if you don't do SOMETHING that explicitly shows you want to have sex with them, that doesn't sound like good sex with me. If you just lay there and let it happen to you (and he goes ahead) that doesn't sound like a healthy situation to me. In the case in CT, she essentially just laid there and said "I don't think I can do this" while he went ahead and used her like a fuck toy. If the people here can honestly say they would have no problem having sex under those circumstances, I think it's disgusting.

"EC - where do you see the affirmative consent in this girl's story." I don't. You apparently misread. I said that she doesn't view it as rape, and that's fine, but that doesn't give license to guys to run around having sex with every blacked-out drunk girl they can find. "I'd say the naked dash across the campground is pretty clear consent." Unless she had changed her consent later (as in the CT case), which she is actually allowed to do.

PLUS, in the CT case, we KNOW that he understood her and understood she didn't want to do it, because he said "Don't worry, I'll be gentle." He was blatantly ignoring/bypassing the consent issue, in the interest of what he wanted. Consent doesn't have to come just in the words "I want to have sex with you now." It's in the expression and confident eye contact, in the gesture of pulling you closer to kiss you and unbuckling your belt, it can be so many things. But in the case it's absent, and one partner is not sure whether they want to continue or definitely doesn't, that should be pretty obvious, and under those circumstances continuing to have sex with the person is NOT okay. Since when did Hooksexup become a haven for manipulative frat boys?

EC, you said: "I'd say the naked dash across the campground is pretty clear consent." Unless she had changed her consent later (as in the CT case), which she is actually allowed to do." Ok. Taking that premise, on what basis do you come to the conclusion that this wa not rape. Seriously. The only argument you've made that this wasn't rape is "she was happy the next morning." How in holy fuck is a guy supposed to have any clue whether or not a girl is going to be happy the next morning. Shit, I've been with my girlfriend for years and some mornings she'd pissed off at me for random non sexual reasons. An 18 year old girl who just had sex for the first time could have been any place on the emotional spectrum - and there is no way he could have predicted that.

And the question of two drunken partners still goes unaddressed!

"How in holy fuck is a guy supposed to have any clue whether or not a girl is going to be happy the next morning." There are a lot of uncertainties in life. Want to be on the safe side? Don't have sex with a very drunk girl. "And the question of two drunken partners still goes unaddressed!" That's because it is tricky, and the laws differ by state and by country. Which is why I could only answer for me personally, in which I basically said I look at other factors as well, such as was there coercion in the process of consuming alcohol, was there continual affirmative consent from both or just one, etc...

I mean, I've had drunken sex where I think there was consent from both of us -he pushed me up against the wall, I pulled him close, wrapped my legs around him and kissed him deeply, he picked me up and threw me on the bed, I took off his shirt and grabbed his ass, he pulled off my underwear, etc. We were drunk, but not black-out drunk. But I'd pretty much consider it consenting. Now, this story doesn't exactly provide us details like that, so it's hard to know how enthusiastic she was during the act itself -she was obviously enthusiastic at the point at which she ran after him naked. The fact she can't remember what happens makes it legally murky -but legal murkiness is not exclusive to cases of rape, legal murkiness occurs all the time. Because laws are made by humans, and are always imperfect. But she doesn't feel it was rape, so no jury is going to have to decide, so it's irrelevant. If she felt violated by it, he'd be in some trouble. If he was to argue she was actually showing enthusiastic consent throughout the act, even though she couldn't remember she'd have a hell of a hard time getting a conviction in court. Either way his actions were arguably stupid, having sex with someone that drunk. But the CT case was just totally different, for reasons mentioned above, and because she was so clearly not showing enthusiastic consent, as I did in my consensual drunken sex scenario.

Quit talking about rape already ya freaks

blah, blah,blah. Lighten up in here!

Much of the discussion about affirmative consent misses the point. What objective cues can a male (who has likely been drinking as well) take that he is engaging in an act of consensual sex as opposed to rape? And if in the morning his partner wakes up sore and without any memory of consent, is can we define what he did the night before as rape or consensual based entirely on her feeling about the event? Shouldn't whether it is rape or not be objectively defined by what occurs while he is doing it? And if that is the case, how do we establish standards of proof to criminally prosecute rape (which is not at all a minor crime)? I know that if I forcibly penetrate a stranger walking through the park I'm a rapist and face certain consequences. I know that if I have intercourse with a comatose woman i've committed rape. Fair enough. But I don't know what will happen if I get really drunk with another woman that is really drunk and we have sex...even if I clicked a stopwatch every 30 seconds and asked her if she was still down I do not know if that would help me defend my actions in court unless I also drew up a contract. The numerous comments that guys should just not have sex with drunk girls, or if they do face the risk of being accused of rape shows a profound lack of empathy. Unless a woman has been slipped a roofie, she chose to get drunk...as did her equally drunken partner. That doesn't mean that a drunk woman cannot deny consent, or that she can give it when she is unconscious...but we cannot accept a system where a woman decides whether rape occurred or not 12 hours later based on her definitional views long after the fact. And many of the posters are advocating this view, which is just crazy.

DS. I love your comment.

"even if I clicked a stopwatch every 30 seconds and asked her if she was still down I do not know if that would help me defend my actions in court unless I also drew up a contract. The numerous comments that guys should just not have sex with drunk girls, or if they do face the risk of being accused of rape shows a profound lack of empathy." Funny you say that, because I consider thinking that it's more important for a guy to get his rock's off than to make sure no woman gets raped shows a lack of empathy. I mean really? It's cruel of me to say that you should just not have sex with a very drunk girl? But the fact that you might accidentally rape someone if you do isn't cruel? But if all your worried about is defending your actions in court, rates of conviction in cases of rape are abysmal in the U.S. and even worse in most other countries, so if you insist on continuing to put yourself first I don't think you or your rocks have all that much to worry about, frankly.

The thing is, I do believe rape can be unintentional on the man's part -rarely, but I'm sure it happens. But that doesn't mean it isn't still a scarring experience for the woman. And you seem to denying her her experience. Like if the man didn't jump a woman in the bushes, she's not allowed to feel violated or something. Well, it doesn't work that way. 80% of rapes occur between acquaintences. And no matter the circumstances, being raped usually fucks with a person's self-esteem and comfort in sexual situations for years afterwards... In light of that, I don't really think abstaining from fucking someone who is stumbling or slurring their words is really that big of a sacrifice.

The other thing I think guys like you don't get -publically accusing someone of rape is a very embarassing experience for the woman -because she's often confused about the situation, wondering if she is partially to blame, should have been more careful, etc... and she knows that if she makes it public, tons of people are going to be accusing her of lying, calling her a whore, etc. So out of women who are ACTUALLY raped, only about 1 in 3 ever goes to the police over it. And the number of false accusations is pretty low. I'm trained as an advocate for survivors of sexual violence. My father is a survivor as well. And I know other men who are sympathetic to survivors of sexual assault, even when those survivors got drunk and hooked up willingly before it occured. So don't go painting this as some kind of war of the sexes, it's not. I think it's about people who understand what survivors of sexual assault go through, vs. those who just don't care to listen or learn.

Must you give this overly simplistic interpretation to everything you read? It is not about a guy just wanting to get his rocks off, it is about responsibility, equality and ensuring that sex can be enjoyed. You begin by proposing such a strict definition of rape that it tends to capture a great deal of what most couples would describe as enjoyable sex. Then you place the entire burden of meeting that criteria on the head of the more active partner. Finally when people point out how absurd your criteria are and how unequal the burden of responsibility you freak out and accuse them of lacking empathy. In fact adopting the measures you propose would destroy the spontaneity, lust and magic of sex. And this occurs precisely because it forces me to think of myself as a potential rapist and my partner a potential victim in every sexual encounter. This turns sex into a negotiating session, a constant game of 'do i still have permission?' and no one should be forced to live in such a joyless and hyper-aware way. By turning sex into something measured and transactional you tarnish the prize - no one else wants to live that way. Its like we all treat ourselves as victims and so alter the act to protect our scares, but that is a way of corrupting and debasing the act itself. No one should be able to inflict a form of their own pain and worry on others by forcing them to be aware of any and all reluctance and then threatening legal action when they fail in this impossible task.

"By turning sex into something measured and transactional " That's funny. I sure don't think my scenario of mutually consensual sex was measured and transactional at all. I guess you'll only see what you want to see. Or maybe you're just bad at communicating during sex. But personally, I think the view that if you communicate clearly or that if the woman is also assertive that it's "unsexy" is rather juvenile. "felony rape requires criminal intent, i.e., an evil mind that willingly has nonconsensual sex with a woman" If you go drunk driving and kill someone, you're still held accountable. Being drunk should not be an excuse for criminal behavior either. "Make a list of all of the men in your life that you don't hate. Now imagine that every one of them that has ever had sex with a girl that stumbles around a bit or slurs her words because she had a few drinks, is criminally prosecuted for rape. This is what you proposed to me when you said men assume the risk of rape prosecution" No, what is proposed is that if he doesn't consent, and he doesn't realize it because he's negligent or drunk, he doesn't get off the hook. Again, if neither of them remember what happened a criminal conviction is highly unlikely, so I don't know why you've got your panties in a bunch. "Stop trying to diminish its dark power by expanding its definition to the absurd." You're the one trying to tell the girl from CT she wasn't raped as she feels she was because she didn't say "no, stop" she only said "I don't think I can do this" (repeatedly). I'm pretty sure you're the one trying to deny rape victims their experiences. And yes, in my view the simplest solution to your claim that it's not fair to hold men who are drunk accountable for their actions, is that then men should either know better than to drink that much or not drink and fuck. Seems pretty fucking simple to me.

Whoops. That should have been: "No, what is proposed is that if she doesn't consent, and he doesn't realize it because he's negligent or drunk, he doesn't get off the hook."

And to your continual complaint that some percentage of people will be falsely incarcerated for rape. Again, you're probably right. But that percentage is very small, and the percentage of people who run around free after actually raping someone is fairly large. Look at what happens with murder in this country: the percentage of people who actually murdered someone and run around free is fairly small, but we're still always hearing about people who've been incarcerated for years for murder who are suddenly proven innocent (they're usually men of color). There isn't a crime out there on the books that doesn't result in some false incarcerations. That's inevitable. With something like murder, it seems our society has decided it's a serious enough crime that we should be tough on seeking out and arresting criminals anyway -usually someone is arrested to close every murder case, usually rightly and sometimes wrongly. Rape isn't taken nearly as seriously, considering our government knows that at least 1 in 6 women is raped (it's in the national crime statistics) and fear of false incarcerations keeps the vast majority of rapists frome ever being arrested or persecuted. While a much higher percentage of murder cases result in convictiosn than rape cases, statistics consistently indicate that murder cases result in AT LEAST as high a percentage of false convictions. What should we do about that situation? Arrest fewer people for murder? You act like it's possible to come up with a law that guarantees justice for everyone. Life isn't so simple.

One final little thing I thought of: You said that you agreed it should be considered rape if someone has sex with someone else while they're totally unconscious (from drinking or something else). However, if someone was unconscious when the event took place, I guarantee you they are not going to remember it later. It would be pretty easy for the person who was conscious at the time to claim that the other person had been conscious and consented, but must just not remember it later. How do you propose such cases be handled? Seems to me you're contradicting yourself.

I agree that having drunk with someone that is unconscious is rape. If she was unconscious because she had too much to drink, I agree that it would be devilishly difficult to successfully prosecute the rapist unless there were other witnesses. Because, as you say, the victim will not know whether she does not remember the event because she: 1) just cannot remember the sex act because she drank too much or 2) passed out from too much alcohol. If the former, she may well have consented but there is no way to tell because she does not remember. If she was passed out at the time it occurred then she has been raped, but the victim does not know whether this has happened or not...she doesn't remember. All that she knows is that she had sex the night before. So we are in agreement so far. But to describe this as an inconsistency misses my point. I asked you how we objectively define, at the time that the alleged criminal act is occurring, that it is rape? This is critically important because I think it is reasonable to expect that a man should know when he is committing a crime if he is to face severe punishments for his acts. You haven't answered. You have larded your responses with nonresponsive rape statistics, ad hominem attacks, and arguments from authority but haven't answered this question. So I've given you my answer. Rape is where a woman is forced to have sex either through threats of violence, physical intimidation that doesn't necessarily involve threats, or because she is unconscious. Having sex with a drunk woman is not rape. I do not agree with your now repeated view that when a man has sex with a woman that has been drinking he has assumed the risk of being charged with rape. So let's return to your question. How should I handle the case of a woman that drank so much that she lost consciousness, and there were no witnesses to her partner having sex with her in this unconscious state, and by definition the unconscious woman would have no recollection of whether she had consensual sex or not? There is no way to prosecute such a case because the rapist will claim that the woman was conscious and consented and she does not remember one way or another. A woman does not deserve to get raped because she passed out but it is the kind of crime where it is impossible to establish what happened. But because we have identified a scenario that we agree is rape, and that cannot be effectively prosecuted, does not in my mind justify expanding the definition of rape to the level you have advocated.

EC, someone else left a thoughtful post in the middle of our exchange but I think inadvertently also used the initials EC. And his post is the one that observes that your approach to sex is "measured and transactional." I agree with the poster's views but am mostly responding to again object to your repeated ad hominem attacks. That you disagree with him does not mean that he is "bad at communicating during sex."

The law has a state of mind called "recklessness" which can comprise criminal intent. And your example of a drunk driver is a good one. Just so you know, the standard of recklessness is one of a person whose actions are so egregious and likely to inflict harm that we say they state of mind in putting these events in motion was tantamount to bad intent. With your drunk driving scenario, it is easy to define the actual crime...i.e., running over someone. If a man gets drunk and violently rapes a woman, it is easy to apply the same logic. But you are talking about "accidental" rape. The law has never lowered the standard of recklessness to negligence or accident. Sure you could face civil liability for say, causing an auto accident, for negligence. But you could never face criminal liability for it because of the severe consequences that criminal liability carries. You ended your posts, again with offpoint rape statistics. I would agree that our society should aggressively prosecute rape. Presumably your statistics refer to the larger category of acquaintance rape as well as rape from strangers. You have also advocated the position in your latest posts that our society should accept incarceration of larger numbers of innocent and falsely accused men of rape so that we can also convict a higher number of rapists and that we should diminish the protections our systems afford to the accused. The men in your life would likely be alarmed if you told them it would be okay if they were falsely imprisoned for rape for society's sake, but I leave that to them. I could not disagree with your more. Whenever someone is falsely convicted of a crime it ruins their lives. Our system, properly in my mind, accepts the notion that it is better in some instances to let the guilty walk free than to imprison an innocent person. And the system still falls short. I think the false murder convictions noted in your post are tragic...they certainly were for the accused and his or her families. But your response is that if lots of people have been falsely convicted of murder, we should further reduce the protections in our system because false rape convictions are equally acceptable. I just can't agree. I think the bottom line is that rape cases are hard to prosecute because they should be. If a woman is forcibly raped by a stranger, there is a body of physical evidence as well as the circumstances of their meeting that would make it easier for a jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt, that rape has occurred. But when you have acquaintance rape, and no one else is around, it devolves in to a "he said, she said" without any evidence. It is understandable that a jury would find it harder to convict on that basis. It is the nature of the crime. When we get to your definition of rape, we reach the absurd situation of "he said, she doesn't really remember."

Okay fine. A drunken woman ties up a sober man, teases him until he's hard, rides him, and regrets it. She's a rape victim. Happy now?

I did give you how I would define rape. I sad that if there is an absence of clear affirmative consent. If you think a sex act in which the woman is not an enthusiastic participant is less "transactional" than one in which she is, well, I feel sorry for you. And I said that affirmative consent can take many forms and gave examples. I feel like you're playing dumb or something. "Sure you could face civil liability for say, causing an auto accident, for negligence. But you could never face criminal liability for it because of the severe consequences that criminal liability carries." If you kill someone, you can face manslaughter. The law assumes that drunk driving is inherently a risky behavior, so it puts the onus on you not to drink and drive. Do plenty of people do it anyway? Yes, but if something bad happens, the perpetrator is still held responsible. "You have also advocated the position in your latest posts that our society should accept incarceration of larger numbers of innocent and falsely accused men of rape so that we can also convict a higher number of rapists and that we should diminish the protections our systems afford to the accused." Actually, I did not advocate that. Actually, I posed a question to you which you failed to answer. Do YOU think that we should prosecute fewer murderers so that fewer innocent men would wind up on death row or incarcerated for life? "When we get to your definition of rape, we reach the absurd situation of "he said, she doesn't really remember." Not just my definition of rape; this is also the case with your definition of rape, since, again, if someone is raped while unconscious, they're not going to remember what happened. I think you need to do some more thinking about this yourself. "Okay fine. A drunken woman ties up a sober man, teases him until he's hard, rides him, and regrets it. She's a rape victim. Happy now?" Now that's just a stupid thing to say. Clearly you didn't read half of my posts. It's not about male vs. female, and not (in my mind) strictly about drunk vs. sober. Affirmative consent is the most important factor in determining what happened.

Whoops. Should have been "I did give you my definition of rape, which is if there is an absence of clear affirmative consent." (which again, can take many forms, but reasonable adults should be able to tell if it's not there)

EC, first, the post about being tied up was not made by me, as was clear on the initials. I will again ask you to stop insulting me and other posters simply because we disagree with you. The serial ad hominem attacks do not make your arguments any more persuasive. Thank you for telling me you think I'm playing dumb. Again, what objective way can we define rape, while it is occurring? "absence of clear affirmative consent?" What could that possibly mean? I need to ask a woman every 30 seconds if she has withdrawn consent? Why not put the burden on her to tell me that she does not want to have sex? And, after all, does it matter? Because if she does not remember whether she gave consent or not, under your definition a man should be convicted of rape. In your second post, you say "reasonable adults should be able to tell if it's not there." How? I have had drunken sex with a number of partners in my life, and I believe that in each instance it was consensual. But how would I know that for certain? And how would I defend against a woman that had no recollection of the night before but when she woke up she knew in her heart that she would never willingly fuck someone that she just met the night before, much less a revolting slug like me? In the example of the woman from CT, two adolescents (not "reasonable adults" perhaps) have sex. The girl asks the boy at the outset if he has any condoms. Later, she says she does not think she can do this. Whether this means that she does not want to do this, or that she does not think she can do this without her partner's guidance and help is anyone's guess. It is hard to tell from the specific communication, and the victim herself could not make sense of it until many years later. The "rapist," sadistic fiend that he was, kissed her goodnight and tucked her into the spare bedroom. I know you believe this young man should have spent the next seven years in jail and spend the rest of his life tossing burgers or laying brick (assuming he could get these jobs) but I see a story of drunken misunderstanding where the facts during the act do not show if it was rape or not (does "I don't think I can do this" mean "help me do this," or "stop!" especially in light of the early request that he "go get his condoms.") In terms of your points about drunkenness. Yes, the law states that you should not drink and drive, and that if you become intoxicated and drive a motor vehicle you know there is a high risk you will harm other human beings and therefore you have a reckless state of mind. Likewise, if you get very drunk and kill someone or forcibly rape someone you cannot point to your drunken state as an excuse. The analogy falls entirely apart when you talk about drunken sex. It is not illegal to have sex after consuming alcohol. When a man has sex with a woman that has consumed alcohol, he has not assumed the risk of being accused of rape. Again, what can we look at objectively while the sex act has occurred that would define it as rape? Violence, physical intimidation or sex with an unconscious person would fit the bill. And the perpetrator would face the consequences, assuming that it could be proven, regardless of whether he was drunk or sober. If simply getting drunk and hanging out with the opposite sex constitutes recklessness (per your analogy of getting drunk and driving), then both parties have been reckless, no? If someone drinks and they kill someone, or forcibly rape someone, they should not be able to use their intoxication as a defense because they were at least reckless. But drinking and fucking is not reckless behavior, and your repeated suggestion any many that has sex with a woman that has had alcohol should face the justifiable risk of a false accusation of rape because he was reckless is completely outside of the mainstream, and in my view is absurd. With respect to "he said, she doesn't really remember," as I stated earlier, I agree that sex with an unconscious woman is rape. But there are certain crimes that are, and should be, impossible to prosecute. If she has no recollection whether she was conscious or not during sex this should not serve as the basis of a rape prosecution. Assuming she was unconscious, if she has no recollection of the night before and there are no witnesses to the event it is impossible to know whether she gave consent or not. She may have been unconscious, but she does not know that and this provides no basis for a rape prosecution. Under such circumstances, a man would be permitted to get away with rape. The victim did not at all deserve this simply because she drank too much and lost consciousness, but her decision to do so left her vulnerable to a crime that could not be proven in court. Finally, do I think we should prosecute fewer murders so that fewer innocent men would end up on death row or incarcerated for life? Yes. But the calculus is more complicated. Whether prosecutors bring murder (or rape) charges is based on the requirements of proving murder or rape before a jury. If your question is should we reduce the protections afforded the accused in our criminal justice system (such that conviction would be easier and therefore induce prosecutors cast a wider net in the cases they bring), I strongly disagree.

The girl who wrote this is my roommate in real life... SHE doesn't think it was rape, and neither do I! Let's call it mutual happy drunk sex which was (unfortunately?) only a blurry memory the next morning.

By the way, I love that you can go on and on about how society requires us to face all of the consequences of our actions under the influence of alcohol, but you apply your logic only to men. The man is entirely responsible, at the penalty of rape charges, for knowing throughout the sex act whether there is affirmative consent at every stage. Even if his partner doesn't tell him to stop, he needs to pick up nonverbal cues, etc., and demand that she verbally assure him at every stage that she wants to have sex. And then he has to have her sign a written confession so that she will remember her consent in the morning. And, the fact that he must perform this difficult task under the influence of alcohol is not a mitigating factor because he shouldn't have been drinking in the first place and, like a drunk driver, he should bear all consequences that flow from consumption of alcohol. Women, according to you, have no responsibility when they drink. After all, they are the victims here. According to you, if a woman drinks at all, a man should see this as a "don't fuck me" sign on her forehead and should not have sex with her at all. If he does, he is responsible for whatever happens and assumes the risk of a false accusation of rape. If they've been drinking and she goes home with him, she has absolutely no responsibility for communicating her wants and desires. She does not have any responsibility for communicating to the man that she does not consent or that she has withdrawn consent at some point, because, after all, she's been drinking and may not have her wits about her. Worse still, the drunk woman (who has no responsibility) may wake up in the morning and not remember that she gave affirmative consent every thirty seconds. Unless her partner got it in writing, under your views he should be charged with rape. Why? Because he is entirely responsible for communicating during sex and assumed the risk in having sex with a girl that was drinking.

DS for the win!

"Women, according to you, have no responsibility when they drink. " You're still a fucking moron. If she shows affirmative consent and he doesn't, she's raping him. If he shows affirmative consent and she doesn't, he's raping her. The CT case was clearly a case of him raping her. This case is not very clear to the girl who wrote it or to us. You don't seem to get the concept of affirmative consent. Continue having your drunken, non-communicative "sex" -sounds thrilling.

"If they've been drinking and she goes home with him, she has absolutely no responsibility for communicating her wants and desires." Actually, she has ALL the responsibility for communicating her wants and desires. If she doesn't communicate her wants and desires (i.e. communicating of wanting and desiring is absent), he shouldn't have sex with her -d'oh. And vice versa, as stated above.

Oh yes, and by the way, you correctly judged that I AM angry. Why am I angry? Because I've had so many friends who've been raped, duh! Sometimes they've been pinned down, sometimes they've been gagged with a cock, one guy refused to let my friend go because she said didn't say she wanted to stop until AFTER they'd been having consensual intercourse a few minutes, and some girls have just had guy friends they trusted fuck them when they were drunk and passed out or nearly passed out. They all really messed with my friends' self-esteem and ability to trust the opposite sex for awhile. Guess what else? I'm not going to apologize to you for being angry. Being a nice, complacent woman all the time often gets you nowhere good in this world.

I wonder, does being gagged in the way described and not biting constitute an affirmation ?

She wasn't enthusiastic to begin with, and when it started hurting her she tried to pull away, if that means anything to you. And I'm sure you think you're funny, but I think you're sick and immature. Maybe one day you'll have a daughter, and you'll start to care.

@EC: I get the feeling that DS' problem with your approach is your lack of objectivity. And almost total avoidance of what the original issue was. I haven't read the CT case, but I'm sure we were looking at why post-coital state of mind should have ANY bearing on whether sex was rape or not. In an extreme case, if I go out now and stab someone, its murder...I cannot in the morning think "NO, why did I stab them, I regret it" and then hope to be convicted for manslaughter instead. Surely you understand that a criminal act such as rape requires a 'mens rea' (guilty mind / criminal intent). This renders "accidental-rape" literally IMPOSSIBLE. Additionally the issue of your friends, is non-sequitous (<<is that a word?) to the discussion. They've been raped, not really what we were trying to get at. Last point: "I don't think I can do this," not sure how I'd react this, but it isn't a 'no'. (Which we all know means 'no'.) I've heard an, "I don't think I can do this." when kissing a girl in a club, to which I said, "Tell me if you want me to stop." She didn't, I continued... if this was sex, would that make it rape? LAST last point, don't have sex with drunk girls?? Can't girls not have sex with drunk guys?? You are putting a lot of responsibility on a guy who is probably equally or in a lot of cases maybe more drunk than the girl. Also, if the girl is on top, and she doesn't give this holy grail of "active consent," is that rape?

@MZm - at the end neway Just read the CT case, I noted the "I can't do this" you'd have expected him to at least offer to stop. Asking for condoms is obviously consent, although the "cant do this" possibly withdrew that. Relatively different to this case tho. Also, "RAPE IS RAPE IS RAPE!! There is no INTERPRETATION! This girl woke up afterwards and gave consent, what is so hard to understand about that?? In the other case she woke up and didn't like what happened - that is what makes it rape!" Rubbish, sorry MzM. "This girl woke up afterwards and gave consent" what use is consent afterwards?? "In the other case she woke up and didn't like what happened" - doesn't really matter does it, ANYone here who has slept with a girl for the 1st time knows she regrets it in some capacity, girls always do, weather its "I bet you think I'm a slag?" to "I never have sex on the 1st date" Girls are just like that, so relying on afterthought to constitute a crime is useless. btw, the "We just met" iv heard, but I think I can assume consent from the fact she went down on me,and took off MY belt, or could that have been an 'accident'?? p.s. My belt is notoriously difficult to undo - think my mom may have had that planned.

Can people lay the fuck off the girl from Connecticut already? Please? Y'all are making it sound like rape is about splitting hairs. Was there consent, spoken or implied? If yes, awesome, not rape, like in this case. Was the girl either unconcious, or clearly not wanting to, or SAYING NO, as the girl in Connecticut was? Then yes, it's rape. It has nothing to do w/if a girl regrets it, or "decides" it's rape afterwards. It's if there's consent.