• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

It is possible for two people to rape each other simultaneously.

It is possible for two people to rape each other simultaneously.

  • True

    Votes: 4 26.7%

  • False

    Votes: 7 46.7%

  • Other (please elaborate)

    Votes: 4 26.7%
  • Total voters
    15
backpacker said:
If the two parties cannot legally consent then it could still be simultaneous rape
Click to expand...

If they cannot mutually consent... then they can't have sex. If your'e coma drunk... you can't have sex with a coma drunk...
 
maquiscat said:
Unless you are going to claim that being inebriated does not render one incapable of giving informed consent, then two people both drunk and both having sex that was not forced would be two people engaged in sexual activity without actual consent, thus qualifying as two people simultaneously raping each other. Is there something in this analysis that you disagree with?
Click to expand...

Why are drunk people not able to give consent? They can consent to drive, or fight, or any manner of other things that you get in trouble for doing while drunk.
 
MaggieD said:
That's exactly what you're saying if both are drunk and the girl is under-age.
Click to expand...
....where are you getting the information that the girl is underage? I don't see that on the poster anywhere?

And if one of the persons, guy or girl, is underage, the inebriation has nothing to do with it. So, again...where are you getting this "under-age" thing from?
 
maquiscat said:
Well this thread took off a lot faster than I expected and since a few people have hit upon it, I will reveal what prompted this thread.
View attachment 67221757

Now if person A is drunk and person B has sex with them, and then B is guilty of rape, then when both A and B are drunk, then both are simultaneously raping each other, at least per that legal criteria. Mind you this does not speak to whether or not a prosecutor will try to charge both or not, only that both are meeting the criteria at the same time. It should also be noted that this is not intended to cover all situations where the two people involved are both drunk. Naturally one could get aggressive and the other say "no". But the implication of the poster is that the consent given was not valid since she was drunk. Well then neither is his consent and thus it was a mutual rape.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see what you're going after.


Here's the problem...our laws are not logic free of emotion or compassion. We have one sided laws and protections for specific groups and classes of people. So, applying logic to them is going to result in inequities.
 
celticwar17 said:
If they cannot mutually consent... then they can't have sex. If your'e coma drunk... you can't have sex with a coma drunk...
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing, then I realized, this debate is less about logic, and more about legality, as the laws of many states are currently written.
 
Slyfox696 said:
....where are you getting the information that the girl is underage? I don't see that on the poster anywhere?

And if one of the persons, guy or girl, is underage, the inebriation has nothing to do with it. So, again...where are you getting this "under-age" thing from?
Click to expand...

This thread set up a hypothetical. Could both people rape each other. Someone introduced the concept that if both were drunk there was no crime. I pointed out that if one were underage and the other wasn't, the one that was of age could be charged with statutory rape drunk OR sober.
 
KevinKohler said:
I was thinking the same thing, then I realized, this debate is less about logic, and more about legality, as the laws of many states are currently written.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is that the laws are purposefully vague, the government thus only rules if it will allow the citizens to consent after the fact.

The reason is of course because this makes it easy to hang men, which tends to be the feminists goal, and once they took over sex law boy...

Plus they want men to have fear in our hearts, because we will be more likely to be submissive to women.

Plus this gives women leverage after the fact, now for as long as we both live.

Bill Cosby was when that happened.

SCREW JUSTICE!
 
Last edited:
I can't remember what show this is from. A guy really likes this woman. She invites him over and when he gets there she starts coming on to him strongly. But he can tell she is under the fluency. He asks how much she has drunk. She says four beers and continues kissing him. He says, "hold that thought" and goes to the kitchen and pulls out whiskey and a shot glass. He does the math, accounting for weight differences, and pours himself the correct number of shots.

He then returns to her saying, "just making sure we are on an even playing field."
 
Hah, hah, maybe in some sort'a fantasy, if that's what some people are actually into :lamo
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
This thread set up a hypothetical. Could both people rape each other. Someone introduced the concept that if both were drunk there was no crime. I pointed out that if one were underage and the other wasn't, the one that was of age could be charged with statutory rape drunk OR sober.
Click to expand...
...right, but no one else was talking about that, to the best of my knowledge. So I wasn't exactly sure why you responded with that to the post I created. Just confused is all.
 
celticwar17 said:
If they cannot mutually consent... then they can't have sex. If your'e coma drunk... you can't have sex with a coma drunk...
Click to expand...

Two twelve year olds cannot legally consent whether they can say, "Let's do this!!" in most places. I assume all places in the US, but you never know what Alabama law really is.
 
maquiscat said:
Do you this the title is a true statement?
Click to expand...

To wit, Is it possible for two people to rape each other simultaneously?

Hmmm...simultaneous rape...

No, I don't think so.

In rape, there's always an aggressor and an unwilling participant who submits by force or out of fear. If the hypothetical rape happens between both parties simultaneously, then whose the aggressor and whose submitting? By default, I'd call that "rough sex" (with or without a safe word) and be done with it.
 
Objective Voice said:
To wit, Is it possible for two people to rape each other simultaneously?

Hmmm...simultaneous rape...

No, I don't think so.

In rape, there's always an aggressor and an unwilling participant who submits by force or out of fear. If the hypothetical rape happens between both parties simultaneously, then whose the aggressor and whose submitting? By default, I'd call that "rough sex" (with or without a safe word) and be done with it.
Click to expand...

So then is it your position that a person who is drunk when another engages them in sex is not raped, even when they would not normally engage with said other person when sober?
 
maquiscat said:
So then is it your position that a person who is drunk when another engages them in sex is not raped, even when they would not normally engage with said other person when sober?
Click to expand...
Assuming the person
  1. Understood what was happening
  2. Actively consented and participated

Then no rape occurred, in my opinion. If the person was passed out, passing out, unable to resist, unable to comprehend what was happening, unable to consent, then it was rape.
 
maquiscat said:
So something set me off towards this statement. I want to hold off on presenting it, so as not to influence others' thinking.

Do you this the title is a true statement? Please be prepared to support your answer one way or the other.
Click to expand...

I think I know what you are thinking. In that situation, no of its a man and a woman tv's man is always the one doing the rape. If it's two men nobody cares in fact it's quite funny. If it's two women...a conundrum.

Or so it would seem.
 
pinqy said:
If the person was passed out, passing out, unable to resist, unable to comprehend what was happening, unable to consent, then it was rape.
Click to expand...

The common consensus seems to be, and the standard within the law seems to be, that if one is drunk, then one cannot comprehend what is happening, rendering them unable to consent. I take it then that you feel that there needs to be a certain level of drunkenness before you'd consider the individual unable to comprehend and consent?
 
maquiscat said:
The common consensus seems to be, and the standard within the law seems to be, that if one is drunk, then one cannot comprehend what is happening, rendering them unable to consent.
Click to expand...
I disagree that that's the common consensus and I am not aware of any state that regards simple intoxication to render one unable to consent.


I take it then that you feel that there needs to be a certain level of drunkenness before you'd consider the individual unable to comprehend and consent?
Click to expand...
If someone is physically incapable of resisting, or indicating lack of consent, and fails to give affirmative consent, then s/he has not agreed to sex. But otherwise, a bad choice is still a choice.
 
maquiscat said:
So then is it your position that a person who is drunk when another engages them in sex is not raped, even when they would not normally engage with said other person when sober?
Click to expand...

If it's a one-sided intoxication, then yes. It's very possible for the more sober person to forcibly rape the inebriated person. But if both parties are drunk, how exactly do you define "uninhabited sex" as rape? I mean, if we are to go there then every casual meeting at local bar where alcoholic drinks are consumed that turn into a one-night stand should be classified as rape. I'm not discounting that date rape doesn't happen. I'm just saying we go a step too far when we see rape in nearly every episode of consenting, casual or promiscuous sex act even when one participant is more inebriated than the other.

If you wake up and find yourself somewhere you hadn't planned to be and it turns out you had sex with someone unexpected, then I'm in the camp that says this was probably a date-rape situation. If, however, you you wake up in the apartment of the guy or girl you met at the bar last night, beer cans and whisky bottles are half-empty on the living room table and your clothes are thrown all over the place, then chances are you had a pretty good time; you were just too drunk to remember all the details.
 
Last edited:
maquiscat said:
So something set me off towards this statement. I want to hold off on presenting it, so as not to influence others' thinking.

Do you this the title is a true statement? Please be prepared to support your answer one way or the other.
Click to expand...

I suppose that if a couple were engaged in sexual activity, and during this act, each person envisions him/herself as the rapist, and were to be physically and verbally abusive to the other person, then yes. I think two people can rape ech other.
 
Slyfox696 said:
I'm not sure that is true.
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean a situation where both parties involve have both given their consent! I change my answer. No. They can't both commit rape against each other simultaneously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom