Schroedinger's Rape Victim

[Ryika]

So here's a thought I had:

If a person so heavily drunk that they're not able to give consent, is brought home by a sober stranger who they don't know, a stranger who uses the situation to have sex with them after they have passed out, then I think we can safely say that this person is committing an act of rape that anybody who witnesses it should stop.

However, if nobody is around to stop it and on the next day, the person who was unable to consent wakes up, realizes they have been used for sex while being very strongly inhibriated, and are... well. Surprisingly fine with the fact that it happened, or even like the idea that they have been used like that, then the crime that was committed has basically been nullified.

The criminal intent of the person who had sex with the strongly inhibited person of course, remains intact. After all, they could not have known that the person would react like that and have accepted that they might cause great trauma for their victim.

I would make the assumption that a person who would not feel violated in such a situation likely already has mental health issues, so consider that possibility when you think about the questions I have for you:

- Is the person a rape victim?
- Is the (non-)victim complicit in potential future acts of rape that the stranger might commit if they don't inform law enforcement about what has happened?
- Assuming the (non-)victim decides to not inform law enforcement and instead tells a third part what has happened, are THEY morally obligated to inform law enforcement?
- Would you say the obligations of the third party are different if the person explains what happened in a light-hearted, joking manner vs. if they told them that they feel violated but did not have the strength to call law enforcement?
- Should they try to convince the (non-)victim that they have been victimized, or should they accept the (non-)victim's perception of the situation?

 

[Perfection]

My general take on these sorts of questions (though typically more profanely worded) is that messed up emotions are the natural response to messed up situations.

I would want the person to report the crime but failure to report is not a great moral failing.

 

[Synobun]

The emotional impact of being a victim is largely out of one's control. Logically speaking they might be a victim of rape but emotionally this may not be true.

How the victim feels about it doesn't change that a crime was committed, however.

Convincing someone that they should feel victimized is pointless and woefully inappropriate in my opinion. That being said, pursuing legal action (if possible) is a wise decision as the person who committed the crime had criminal intent. The issue here is that pursuing a rape claim is a trying experience and extremely difficult to prove in a court of law. The forensics alone can be the catalyst for trauma in a victim. The questioning is invasive. If the victim were to explain that they don't personally feel wronged on an emotional level their case would likely be immediately dismissed. There isn't much of a gain in waving the law enforcement flag in such a scenario because the damage to the victim is a core component of how to get a conviction in the current system.

 

[JollyRoger]

Obviously, the person who got drunk should be prosecuted for public intoxication.

 

[red_elk]

May be that would be a case of victimless crime?
Sex without explicit consent is legally a rape, but I'm not sure if the person would be a victim in described situation. At least if she is generally able to give consent (e.g. by age or mental health criteria), but was only unable to give it at specific moment.

I can think of somewhat similar situation, if for example a thief stole my old laptop which I was going to throw away.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm not a fan of the concept that a person who can stand upright, speak, and make choices of some capacity has asymmetric interpretations of responsibility. I want to be clear that I'm assuming the victim in OP can't do those things.

Somehow, you can be responsible for drunk driving --> manslaughter, killing someone outright, destroying property, money you spend and much more while simultaneously being "too drunk to give consent" somehow per some legal standards. People who are actually moving/speaking and engage in sex acts are not raped, and the laws around these situations are enough to warrant avoiding the situation entirely as the only safe option. Only the accuser's name is protected, and the accused suffer regardless of the legal outcome, sometimes quite drastically. Meanwhile, the burden of proof itself is difficult, and the victims when it is a crime can have their lives ruined or badly damaged. None of this is worth.

Consistent responsibility while impaired under the law is important. I don't see it so my advice to anybody on either side of this is "don't involve yourself in this way with drunk people at all".

So to establish the answers to the OP's question: how intoxicated is this hypothetical person? If this person is passed out/unresponsive/unable to give consent in the literal sense, then we're talking rape. If they're just very drunk, I'm throwing out the consideration entirely and everything below is instead "no". Assuming the former:

- Yes.
- No. One victim not reporting is not the same thing as being complicit in future criminal acts, unless somehow assisting directly.
- According to whose morals? The answer is "no, but you might want to anyway".
- The facts of what occurred are what matters.
- Point out what the facts imply and leave it to the person in question to take responsibility for their choices (assuming they can). They're sober now, so they can do that. If something seems off, they might need support.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Is the person a rape victim?

Yes. An act of rape happened, regardless of how the victim viewed it. If someone punches me in the face, and a officer sees it happen, they would probably get arrested regardless of I ended up okay with it or not.

Is the (non-)victim complicit in potential future acts of rape that the stranger might commit if they don't inform law enforcement about what has happened?

No. Just because you fail to report a crime does not mean you deserve to have additional crimes committed against you. Just because I throw a rock at your car and you don't report it, doesn't mean I get to throw a rock at it tomorrow. Nobody can be complicit in being assaulted without provocation regardless of any judgement about their character.

Assuming the (non-)victim decides to not inform law enforcement and instead tells a third part what has happened, are THEY morally obligated to inform law enforcement?

Yes. You generally should report severe violations of the law.

Would you say the obligations of the third party are different if the person explains what happened in a light-hearted, joking manner vs. if they told them that they feel violated but did not have the strength to call law enforcement?

No. Being a dick has nothing to do with moral obligation..

Should they try to convince the (non-)victim that they have been victimized, or should they accept the (non-)victim's perception of the situation?

No. It doesn't matter how it's rationalized. Of course, nobody can be forced to take action.

 

[Arent11]

- Is the person a rape victim?
- Is the (non-)victim complicit in potential future acts of rape that the stranger might commit if they don't inform law enforcement about what has happened?
- Assuming the (non-)victim decides to not inform law enforcement and instead tells a third part what has happened, are THEY morally obligated to inform law enforcement?
- Would you say the obligations of the third party are different if the person explains what happened in a light-hearted, joking manner vs. if they told them that they feel violated but did not have the strength to call law enforcement?
- Should they try to convince the (non-)victim that they have been victimized, or should they accept the (non-)victim's perception of the situation?

From a legal point of view this is clear. What might be unclear is the ethical point of view:

(1) A man that was "raped" by a beautiful woman, might, in fact, not complain but consider himself lucky
(2) A man that was raped by an ugly woman might complain & sue her
(3) A woman that was raped by an extremely beautiful, intelligent, rich man might demand old testamentarian
style that he "takes responsibility" and marries her
(4) A woman that was raped by an ugly, dumb man will be outraged & plot for revenge

-> So, the *ethical* perception of sexual violence is, in fact, quite dependent on the circumstances.
The legal issue is not.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

^ The way the law treats this varies to an extent by state (and certainly between countries) and can be irrational BS. Anybody who is physically capable of getting into the driver's seat is also physically capable of giving consent, but the law doesn't see it that way in all cases...despite that the same law in the same state will hold the same person who can't give consent accountable for other choices they make while intoxicated.

It results in a fundamental reasoning flaw and opens up preposterous situations like both people meeting the legal standards of committing rape (neither technically gave consent and both were drunk). This stuff has gotten silly, but with some very real consequences and ruining of people's lives on both sides.

Valessa made OP example easy (we KNOW the victim passed out somehow as an assumption in the story), but in reality it's not so easy. Assuming drunk people remember anything the next day at all from chunks of time (and depending on the person they might not), accuracy is an issue. I've seen people flat-out deny they did things while drunk while having no incentive to lie whatsoever. They just didn't remember that they were at X place or did/said Y thing, even if both X and Y are innocuous/normal.

As such person in OP can easily counter-claim victim was not only conscious but actually doing things. Still rape? It depends on the facts...usually lacking in real life situations since 3rd party witnesses are rare. Instead you get two stories, neither reliable, and that's where the trouble comes in. I reject the "moral obligation" to report this. That's nonsense. As a 3rd party person listening to one side of the story I know is unreliable and no further knowns/givens, I could easily be reporting a crime that didn't happen and causing a great deal of harm in the process.

That is not a burden to be taken lightly. If you report someone in OP scenario and turns out the drunk person just didn't remember what they did, you are doing something unethical and damaging. I'm not willing to do that with incomplete information.

 

[Sommerswerd]

So here's a thought I had:

If a person so heavily drunk that they're not able to give consent, is brought home by a sober stranger who they don't know, a stranger who uses the situation to have sex with them after they have passed out, then I think we can safely say that this person is committing an act of rape that anybody who witnesses it should stop.

However, if nobody is around to stop it and on the next day, the person who was unable to consent wakes up, realizes they have been used for sex while being very strongly inhibriated, and are... well. Surprisingly fine with the fact that it happened, or even like the idea that they have been used like that, then the crime that was committed has basically been nullified.

I once heard a talk radio hostess... I forget the name of the show, it was years ago... say that she enjoyed very much and was turned on by her boyfriend/ husband(?) taking advantage of her sexually when she was passed out drunk. She claimed to get great pleasure from waking up the next day to find her clothes disheveled and the "evidence" that he had obviously used her while she was unconscious.

A rape prosecution would be very difficult with no cooperation from the "willing" victim.

 

[Angst]

- Is the person a rape victim?

Rape is, by definition, sex without informed consent. So yes, this is rape. The emotional or legal consequences of it are actually irrelevant to whether something is something independent of these considerations.

- Is the (non-)victim complicit in potential future acts of rape that the stranger might commit if they don't inform law enforcement about what has happened?

No, as with how "regular" rape victims aren't complicit in their rapist's future endeavours when not turning him in. Victims are not responsible for their assailants' actions.

- Assuming the (non-)victim decides to not inform law enforcement and instead tells a third part what has happened, are THEY morally obligated to inform law enforcement?

This is less clear. Are they ordinarily? I actually don't know.

- Would you say the obligations of the third party are different if the person explains what happened in a light-hearted, joking manner vs. if they told them that they feel violated but did not have the strength to call law enforcement?

Can't answer this, as I couldn't answer the previous.

- Should they try to convince the (non-)victim that they have been victimized, or should they accept the (non-)victim's perception of the situation?

I lean towards yes, but I dunno. This is a complicated issue that doesn't actually depend on whether we talk of a "(non-)victim" or a "regular" victim.

 

[Yeekim]

No, as with how "regular" rape victims aren't complicit in their rapist's future endeavours when not turning him in. Victims are not responsible for their assailants' actions.

Reporting a rape one has witnessed is afaik not legal obligation, but it is definitely a moral obligation.
I can't see why it would be different for a victim.

EDIT: That said, TheMeInTeam explained well, why one should doubt whether a crime has even been committed here IRL.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

From a legal point of view this is clear. What might be unclear is the ethical point of view:

(1) A man that was "raped" by a beautiful woman, might, in fact, not complain but consider himself lucky
(2) A man that was raped by an ugly woman might complain & sue her
(3) A woman that was raped by an extremely beautiful, intelligent, rich man might demand old testamentarian
style that he "takes responsibility" and marries her
(4) A woman that was raped by an ugly, dumb man will be outraged & plot for revenge

-> So, the *ethical* perception of sexual violence is, in fact, quite dependent on the circumstances.
The legal issue is not.

Disgusting post. Not only do you imply that somehow being raped by a good-looking, succesfull man is less bad (really? do women enjoy being raped by pretty men? is rape enjoyable when the guy has a six pack?), you also imply that women generally "plot for revenge", but only if the guy is ugly? Not everyone is as petty and superficial as you are, lol. Your view of the world (of women especially) is genuinely disturbing and has me shaking my head violently.

I once heard a talk radio hostess... I forget the name of the show, it was years ago... say that she enjoyed very much and was turned on by her boyfriend/ husband(?) taking advantage of her sexually when she was passed out drunk. She claimed to get great pleasure from waking up the next day to find her clothes disheveled and the "evidence" that he had obviously used her while she was unconscious.

A rape prosecution would be very difficult with no cooperation from the "willing" victim.

If said radio hostess has talked this scenario through with her partner (which I assume) then that would be a form on consent, in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with playing out rape fantasies as long as both parties are consenting and in control, the same goes for all "defiant" fetishes in my opinion anyway.

 

[Sommerswerd]

If said radio hostess has talked this scenario through with her partner (which I assume) then that would be a form on consent, in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with playing out rape fantasies as long as both parties are consenting and in control, the same goes for all "defiant" fetishes in my opinion anyway.

I didnt get the impression that this was a "scenario" or "fantasy" though. It didnt come across as something she and her SO planned out or anything like that. It just seemed like her SO was in the habit of sexing her whenever she happened to be passed out drunk and she liked that. Does that change your opinion of the situation?

 

[Ryika]

The underlying question seems to be if you can give consent for a future situation in which you don't have the ability to consent or revoke consent. Can you tell your boyfriend that he can have sex with you while you're passed out? Or even that he can wake you up by doing sexual things? I would say yes, and would perceive anybody who wants to tell me that I'm not actually able, or allowed, to do that, as a serious interference in my personal freedom.

That's however a different scenario from the OP, in which no consent was expressed, or implied, as the person who was used for sex, did not give consent to what would happen in the future, the person doing the act did not know that she would wake up and be okay and like it.

Ironically given his current situation, there is a comedy bit by Louis CK where he talks about a similar situation with a waitress. Not sure it's appropriate for this forum, but a youtube search for "Louis CK waitress" should get you there.

 

[Hrothbern]

The example is clean cut defined. And that is rape.

For all the other questions I think it is very important to make a difference between the interests involved.
In principle there are 4:

• The victim
• The people with close ties to the victim at that moment and in the future (parents, future husband, etc)
• The society as a whole as represented by the state
• The rapist

The questions 2-5 are, as I pick them up, asking whether there is a moral issue if you do NOT do what is in the best interest of the state.

My angle of approach to these kinds of crimes is that the interests of the victim should prevail over all other.
That means that if the first need of the victim is to seek emotional support (if only just by sharing) with somebody close (for a woman raped typical a good girlfriend or her mother) IT CANNOT BE THAT such a person getting that intimate confidence would in any way be forced to report to the state by a law reflecting state interests. For the simple reason that this would increase the treshold for the victim to find emotional support.
As simple as that.

So what happens further is how the victim, probably in full or partial consensus with the person in confidence moves on. And this can have again many angles:

• The victim evolves as a person over time and changes her view on what happened and acts at a later time accordingly
• The victim wants the rapist to be punished and goes for that
• She wants to ignore it and bury it (can work, can at a later phase of her life play up in a very negative way)
• So many else, from a personal view
• Can decide to seek professional help, without intending at that moment to report. Just seeking the help to deal with it. (and yes now we come to the laws and moral of the professional help in how far they are bound to report. The issue again being: IF they are bound to report, increasing the treshold to seek professional support, this can go at the expense of the prime need requested by the victim: just help to deal with it)

 

[Arent11]

Disgusting post. Not only do you imply that somehow being raped by a good-looking, succesfull man is less bad (really? do women enjoy being raped by pretty men? is rape enjoyable when the guy has a six pack?), you also imply that women generally "plot for revenge", but only if the guy is ugly? Not everyone is as petty and superficial as you are, lol. Your view of the world (of women especially) is genuinely disturbing and has me shaking my head violently.

Do note that there are various cultures which have completely different views which you or I might conceive as "disgusting" (Islamic world!). I obviously did not say that these are my own viewpoints, but I said that a man/woman might think this way. Please reread my post, if you are unsure. There are even legal systems that force rape victims to marry their rapist, which westerners usually protest against.

I get the impression that you misunderstand my post on purpose.

 

[Sommerswerd]

The underlying question seems to be if you can give consent for a future situation in which you don't have the ability to consent or revoke consent. Can you tell your boyfriend that he can have sex with you while you're passed out? Or even that he can wake you up by doing sexual things? I would say yes, and would perceive anybody who wants to tell me that I'm not actually able, or allowed, to do that, as a serious interference in my personal freedom.

That's however a different scenario from the OP, in which no consent was expressed, or implied, as the person who was used for sex, did not give consent to what would happen in the future, the person doing the act did not know that she would wake up and be okay and like it.

I agree that the radio host situation with her SO is very different from the OP now. But also consider how she first came to the realization that it turned her on to have been sexed while passed out. Obviously you didn't have the benefit of actually hearing her describe her feelings on air, but from the way she was describing things, it seemed that she and her SO didn't actually discuss this beforehand and it was more of them just going out and getting hammered together one night, stumbling home, she passed out and he just did it and she discovered what happened the next morning and decided that she really liked that he did that. I remember her saying something along those lines, but again, this was a few years ago.

EDIT: Reflecting back on it again... some of the other women on the show gasped and tried to reprimand her, but she just hand waived them and said "I know, I know, but I don't care what y'all say, I just like it, turns me on..."etc. I distinctly remember that.

 

[Crezth]

Is rape rape if it isn't rape? Makes you think

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Do note that there are various cultures which have completely different views which you or I might conceive as "disgusting" (Islamic world!). I obviously did not say that these are my own viewpoints, but I said that a man/woman might think this way. Please reread my post, if you are unsure. There are even legal systems that force rape victims to marry their rapist, which westerners usually protest against.

I get the impression that you misunderstand my post on purpose.

There is not one monolithic "islamic culture" that condones rape. I heavily doubt most women in islamic societies do, especially those that were victims of said mentality. So, in reality, we are talking about a small amount of reactionary men in power who don't want gender dynamics nor the legal system to change and a whole lot of men who passively support it, because it benefits them.

I didn't purposefully misunderstand your post at all, I get that you were "representing someone else's viewpoint" (whoever that may be), but these supposed scenarios that you conjured up are more telling about what you think than you think (hope you like this sentence, I put a lot of effort into it)

I didnt get the impression that this was a "scenario" or "fantasy" though. It didnt come across as something she and her SO planned out or anything like that. It just seemed like her SO was in the habit of sexing her whenever she happened to be passed out drunk and she liked that. Does that change your opinion of the situation?

In that case I would actually retract my statement. I think it's pretty clear we're talking about rape here and the radio host simply enjoyed it. There was no consent and absolutely no way whatsoever for her SO to know for sure that she'd enjoy it.