<p>I was told that according to the law, if two persons have consumed -any- alcohol, sexual intercourse can count as rape. Practically speaking, this means the girl can accuse the guy of rape.</p>
<p>I was shocked. Does this seem unfair to anyone else?</p>
<p>It’s called a date rape if the girl can prove the guy intoxicated her and vice versa!!</p>
<p>Basically if the other person says No… it’s a No unless you’re that one frat house that said “No means Yes, Yes means Anal.” Oh silly frats.</p>
<p>In North Carolina the law presumes the girl NEVER gave consent if ANY alcohol was consumed. So, if she had 1 sip of beer and then said “yes,” she can come along afterwards and still make a rape accusation. There’s a sad case like this at Elon this year.</p>
<p>Unless someone forced the alcohol into your system, its not a viable defense. It doesn’t matter whether or not if you were drunk. If you chose to drink and agreed to do it then its not rape. If you can’t handle yourself, don’t drink. This is not the law, just the opinion of someone who has a brain and some logic.</p>
<p>“In North Carolina the law presumes the girl NEVER gave consent if ANY alcohol was consumed. So, if she had 1 sip of beer and then said “yes,” she can come along afterwards and still make a rape accusation”</p>
<p>yikes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yup, that definition is ridiculous but unfortunately it is policy here. I see signs all over the buses at UNC saying “1 in 4 girls will be raped in college.” Well, yeah, with that stupid definition I’m surprised the number isn’t higher. If I were a girl I would be offended that people wouldn’t trust me to make any decisions at all after consuming alcohol.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No means no, no matter how much alcohol there is in your system. You probably shouldn’t put alcohol in your system but that is NO defense for someone raping you. </p>
<p>However, having your judgment impaired by alcohol (note: saying yes to someone you normally wouldn’t say yes to), of your own free will, should not be a viable way to claim rape (which is why I disagree with both the North Carolina law and the claim that dp is making). </p>
<p>Unfortunately, many women are raped by men who are not drunk and take advantage of drunk women. It’s why you need to protect yourselves. However, as a man, if you see a woman drunk and think her judgment is impaired then you need to do yourself a favor and not sleep with the drunk stranger. Some women do cry rape when they’ve made a bad decision and you need to protect yourselves against women like this. Both men AND women need to make good choices that keep themselves out of this situation.</p>
<p>Great so now if I innocently take a girl out for a drink and something happens I get to worry about police kicking my door in…oh boy.</p>
<p>I feel like there are just a lot of cases where alcohol makes things really hazy and no one knows exactly what went down, so they make the law have a really huge definition of rape, a sort of better-safe-than-sorry kind of deal. It does suck, especially for guys, but I don’t know a better kind of law that wouldn’t take away women’s protections for when they actually do get raped.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would imagine the rule has more to do with there being no way to prove whether or not a man purposefully got you drunk to take advantage of you than not trusting you to make your own choices-- it’s that there’s no way to tell whether or not you chose. So it is better safe than sorry, for both the men and the women involved.</p>
<p>To suggest that the legal system actually works for rape victims such that all it would take to get arrested is having sex with someone who had a sip of beer displays so much naivete it’s actually alarming. The number of cases that never even lead to an arrest, much less an actual trial, is huge.</p>
<p>meh the way i see it if a guy has a sip of alcohol then he cant consent either. so just have a sip of alcohol :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Doesn’t no mean no, though? Can’t a woman say no to a drink when she doesn’t want to get drunk? If she drinks too much, that’s on her, not the one-night-stand she hooks up with as a result of her decisions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As far as I know, the NC policy is not a law but is a guideline that many campuses (including my own) use for compiling stats and such. I could be wrong, though. Either way, it is stupid. If it ever became law I wouldn’t be surprised if bars stopped serving drinks to all females as a way to avoid potential liability concerns. Seriously, how sexist of a policy is that coming from people that are supposed to have women’s best interests in part? “We believe in equality, but girls can’t be trusted to do anything after they’ve had a sip of alcohol.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So the woman is right, easy</p>
<p>I have no sympathy for anyone who chooses to get drunk enough to not remember if they were raped or agreed to it.</p>
<p>
I agree with you that agreeing to sex while tipsy is not rape. Who I am concerned about are people (male and female) that are semi-unconscious, black-out drunk and unable to consent. But where do you put the cutoff for being unable to consent? And how would you determine several days later just how intoxicated someone was? As much as I disagree with the have-a-sip-and-you-are-unable-to-consent laws, I do understand where they are coming from.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right. This is where I put it on the man (who is generally accused) to make the decision to NOT have sex with someone who is clearly very drunk. It’s for his own protection. </p>
<p>If they are both in the situation where they are at that point then I don’t think there is much either party can do. Then you have to rely on physical evidence- which generally isn’t very good. Both men and women shouldn’t get that drunk around people they don’t trust. </p>
<p>I just wish both genders had a lot more common sense with alcohol and sex.</p>
<p>Girls take advantage of me all the time when I’m drunk. So, I’ve been raped?</p>
<p>If I say yes, will you promise to seek counseling?</p>
<p>what is some extremely attactive stud gets really drunk, and an extremely large ugly girl takes advantage of that? what would feminists say to that?</p>