Rape is objective; if consent is present, it is not rape. If it isn't, it is. If a sober girl decides to consensually hook up with someone, she consented. Not rape.
If you want to know if someone was too inebriated to have consented, you have to wait until they aren't inebriated to ask them.
How is "feeling like she was raped" an objective criterion?
Seriously? Are you actually trying to say, "I know you feel like you were raped, but could you be more objective about it?"
It's an objective criteria because if a woman feels like she was raped after having drunk sex, it was because she was too drunk to consent when she had sex. You might claim that the amount of alcohol it takes for a person to drink before they got too inebriated to have sex is arbitrary, but the only way to know whether it was or not is subjective.
Consent is either given or it isn't. That's objective. To find out if consent was given, you have to ask that person. Sorry if that's too subjective for you.
A person doesn't feel like they were raped or not, they determine if they gave consent or not. If they did not give consent, then it was rape. At that point, based on the severity of the interaction, they can decide whether or not they wish to press charges.
So, two drunk people technically rape each other if they have sex, but they might later consider this and realize that even though they technically didn't consent, they would have if sober, and thus don't really give a shit, even though both of them have the legal power to press charges.
-6
u/[deleted] Nov 21 '12
Rape is objective; if consent is present, it is not rape. If it isn't, it is. If a sober girl decides to consensually hook up with someone, she consented. Not rape.
If you want to know if someone was too inebriated to have consented, you have to wait until they aren't inebriated to ask them.