Let's say this hypothetical situation occurs:

A guy and a girl meet at a bar. They hit it off. Some time later, they decide to leave. The girl is drunk, so the guy walks her back to her place. They have sex. In the morning, the girl wakes up and does not remember giving consent. The guy maintains that she granted consent.

Has the girl been raped?

I would say not. The only way I would consider it close to rape is if the guy were totally sober and had encouraged her to get drunk and deliberately taken advantage of her. Most of the time, however, the guy is equally drunk and they just take a good time a little further than they might have while sober.

The guy better hope not! Who knows? That is what investigators try to find out. Is being drunk past a certain degree past the point of being capable of consenting? I do not know the answer to that. It has been my experience to play it safe and have sexual relations without any alcohol or drugs involved. After the relationship has gained some stability and time, then things are already implied. It sure is not very smart of any guy to have sex under the circumstances as described, nor is it smart of the girl to get drunk with a guy she does not know very well. Neither one of these people as portrayed seem to have been counseled very well by their parents.

I would say yes.

Even if he's equally drunk and out of control?

What if the tables were turned - what if she was sober and he was drunk?

Let's say this hypothetical situation occurs:

A guy and a girl meet at a bar. They hit it off. Some time later, they decide to leave. The guy is drunk, so the girl walks him back to her place. They have sex. In the morning, the guy wakes up and does not remember giving consent. The girl maintains that he granted consent.

Has the guy been raped?

why would the gender of suspect/object make any difference?

If both were drunk behind the point of no return, well than it's a problem which should be investigated if one of them wants to sue the other one.

But if only one of them is drunk, the other one is responsible for the exploitation of the situation.

(in this particular scenario imho)

Either way, he is seen to be the more physically strong. Besides, guys don't have such a good track record when it comes to this kind of thing, so they are less likely to be believed. That is reality and guys should be aware of it and be cautious.

it shouldnt but it does. it's like in most us states minimal age of consent is 16 for a m/f but 18 for a legal homosexual age of consent.
it's totally wrong.

Well, that is not very bright of either party involved. I would say that for something to qualify as rape, lack of consent should be provided. Unless it is clearly forced, or it was clear to the consenting party that lack consent could not be given.
A guy can get pretty horny, although I know i will always wait for consent(or more likely, lack thereof), i am pretty controlled. I think it is reasonable that women have to indicate when there is no consent.(so should men, of course) I would not have sex with someone who is drunk, given i do not have some kind of relation of the kind with her.
Anyway, a priory there is no evidence that the girl did not consent either. It is his word against that of the girl. Innocent until proven guilty. (any jury basing a conviction based on only this is a set of presumptuous idiots, in my view.)

god bless america... land of the stupid laws.

The guy and girl better hope not! Who knows? That is what investigators try to find out. Is being drunk past a certain degree past the point of being capable of consenting? I do not know the answer to that. It has been my experience to play it safe and have sexual relations without any alcohol or drugs involved. After the relationship has gained some stability and time, then things are already implied. It sure is not very smart of any guy to have sex under the circumstances as described, nor is it smart of the girl to get drunk with a guy she does not know very well. Neither one of these people as portrayed seem to have been counseled very well by their parents.

What the thread starter believes:

It is my belief that rape has a simple definition: non-consensual sex. It’s not sex you regret in the morning, sex you’re embarrassed about, sex you were too drunk to remember, or any other kind of sex besides non-consensual sex. This definition is quite fair, assuming the parties involved will always make responsible decisions. However, in many cases, they do not. I am not blaming the victim here, but refusing to accept responsibility for your drunken decisions is sidestepping the problem.

You might then ask: so it’s a woman’s fault if a guy rapes her when she’s passed out from being drunk? No, it is not her fault. She was unconscious and was physically incapable of making a decision. But what *is* her fault is being drunk enough in the first place. I am in no way defending date rape, but if a woman wants to go out and willingly chooses to drink to extremes, she should be ready to accept the consequences of any decisions she may make while inebriated. This is because it is ultimately her decision to make, whether she chooses to be inebriated at the time or not.

The fact that a woman voluntarily hindered her own judgement is not something that anyone else should be responsible for. Alcohol doesn’t magically absolve one of responsibility. It’s one thing if the woman’s passed out, but if she’s smashed and still responsive, she can still consent. It isn’t the job of the law or government to force people to make responsible decisions, inebriated or otherwise. Hell, here in the U.S. we have state-sponsored lotteries that some people blow a lot of their money on! If I buy a lottery ticket while drunk, and lose my money, I certainly can’t sue the government for a refund.

Having first time sex with a girl who is drunk is just not a smart decision for a guy, period. One can try to justify it any way one wants, it is just not smart....

lol let me get this straight, if you're to drunk to make your own decisions other people are allowed whatever they want with you. Is that what you're trying to say?

Unconsciousness of the victim does not justify this.

Exploiting a situation of unconsciousness and helplessness is a very sever crime in my opinion.

Of course you can, buying a lottery ticket is signing a contract. A contract signed while unconscious is not valid.

At least here where I live though.

MRiGnS: In my second paragraph, I clearly stated that having sex with a girl while she is unconscious is rape, because she is unable to consent. But a person is never "too drunk to make their own decisions" unless they are passed out.

lol, I've been in that situation plenty of times. Never felt the need to press charges though.

I strongly disagree.

They may be too drunk to make *good* decisions or *responsible* decisions, but they are still making decisions, no?