Consent, Sex, and Drunkenness

[Rational Agnostic]

So, I decided to make another controversial thread. However, in this thread, I will refrain from making any claims of my own. I simply want to point out the absurd issue that arises if we assume the truth of the following two statements: (1): A drunk person cannot consent to sex, and (2): Having sex with a non-consenting person is rape.

The obvious logical corollary to these two statements is that if two people who are both under the influence of alcohol decide to have sex with each other while intoxicated, then they have both committed rape. So, should both be prosecuted? It seems to me that in these instances, either neither party is prosecuted, or, if the female later wishes, then she can press charges and potentially get the male prosecuted. Because of this, it's clear that statements (1) and (2) are not really adhered to in reality. Instead, to support the current judicial consensus, either statement (1) must be amended to "A drunk FEMALE cannot consent to sex, but a drunk male can" or statement (2) must be amended to "Having sex with a non-consenting person is not always rape." Most would disagree with statement (2). But denial of this statement raises the question as to why a drunk female cannot consent to sex, but a drunk male can. Furthermore, recall that to hold logically consistent beliefs, you must either accept one of these two amended statements OR believe that when both parties are drunk and have sex, then both have committed rape.

To be clear, I by no means am trying to turn a serious and sensitive subject into a logical semantics game. I am raising a serious problem with regard to consistency in beliefs on this matter. I will refrain from offering an opinion on this issue, as I'm still open-minded on it and am honestly unsure how to deal with these conundrums. So, I want to know which statements you all accept to be true, and why.

 

[Skwim]

The only problem I see is with one's definition of "consent." I can be bombed out of my mind and still consent to sex. It may not be well-considered consent, but it's consent nonetheless. And if one objects to this then where does one draw the line between well-considered and ill-considered consent?


.

 

[epronovost]

The only problem I see is with one's definition of "consent." I can be bombed out of my mind and still consent to sex. It may not be well-considered consent, but it's consent nonetheless. And if one objects to this then where does one draw the line between well-considered and ill-considered consent?


.

Legal consent is called ''informed consent''. You have to have all your mental capacity (or at least be functionnal) to make informed consent. You can read the law and jurisprudence to know precisely what are criteria of informed consent.

 

[epronovost]

That's exactly his question.
If someone consents to sex, does being drunk change their consent?
If so, why does it seem that only women can say, "I was drunk, therefore didn't give consent. I'm not responsible for the choices I made.", but a drunk man can't say, "I was drunk, I didn't mean to have sex with an unwilling partner, and am not responsible for my choices."

Tom

For the same reason being hurt by someone while you are drunk makes you a victim and hurting someone while you are drunk makes you a danger to others. I don't understand the confusion here.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Legal consent is called ''informed consent''. You have to have all your mental capacity (or at least be functionnal) to make informed consent. You can read the law and jurisprudence to know precisely what are criteria of informed consent.

Then you're claiming that either it's possible for non-consensual sex to not be rape, or, if two parties have sex while both are drunk, both are rapists. It's empirically obvious that's not the position of the law.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

For the same reason being hurt by someone while you are drunk makes you a victim and hurting someone while you are drunk makes you a danger to others. I don't understand the confusion here.

Again, you're failing to address the issue. If a man and woman who are both drunk have sex, are both guilty of rape if "consent" requires one to be sober?

 

[74x12]

So, I decided to make another controversial thread. However, in this thread, I will refrain from making any claims of my own. I simply want to point out the absurd issue that arises if we assume the truth of the following two statements: (1): A drunk person cannot consent to sex, and (2): Having sex with a non-consenting person is rape.

The obvious logical corollary to these two statements is that if two people who are both under the influence of alcohol decide to have sex with each other while intoxicated, then they have both committed rape. So, should both be prosecuted? It seems to me that in these instances, either neither party is prosecuted, or, if the female later wishes, then she can press charges and potentially get the male prosecuted. Because of this, it's clear that statements (1) and (2) are not really adhered to in reality. Instead, to support the current judicial consensus, either statement (1) must be amended to "A drunk FEMALE cannot consent to sex, but a drunk male can" or statement (2) must be amended to "Having sex with a non-consenting person is not always rape." Most would disagree with statement (2). But denial of this statement raises the question as to why a drunk female cannot consent to sex, but a drunk male can. Furthermore, recall that to hold logically consistent beliefs, you must either accept one of these two amended statements OR believe that when both parties are drunk and have sex, then both have committed rape.

To be clear, I by no means am trying to turn a serious and sensitive subject into a logical semantics game. I am raising a serious problem with regard to consistency in beliefs on this matter. I will refrain from offering an opinion on this issue, as I'm still open-minded on it and am honestly unsure how to deal with these conundrums. So, I want to know which statements you all accept to be true, and why.

Of course it makes no sense and is just more proof that feminism has gone to far.

 

[Skwim]

That's exactly his question.
If someone consents to sex, does being drunk change their consent?

But Hubert Farnsworth presented two assumed truths:

assume the truth of the following two statements: (1): A drunk person cannot consent to sex, and (2): Having sex with a non-consenting person is rape.​

And what I'm saying is that his first statement is false---it doesn't lend itself to being true. It's like saying

assume the truth of the following two statements: (1): Dogs can drive cars (2): Dogs driving cars is safe​

Fine, but why should either statement matter when the notion of "can drive" is not factual? Want to pose false statements, go right ahead, but it's all pretty meaningless.

.

 

[Skwim]

Legal consent is called ''informed consent''. You have to have all your mental capacity (or at least be functionnal) to make informed consent. You can read the law and jurisprudence to know precisely what are criteria of informed consent.

First of all, Farnsworth said nothing about informed or legal consent. Those are your conditionals, which don't apply to the situation.

But as a matter of personal interest, please tell me at what point in my declining mental capacities informed consent changes to uninformed consent because I find no criteria that tells me. And, in as much as you say there are such criteria I'm ready to learn. Please share.

.

.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For the same reason being hurt by someone while you are drunk makes you a victim and hurting someone while you are drunk makes you a danger to others. I don't understand the confusion here.

The question is can someone claim that the other hurt him or her if they were both intoxicated together? If they were both intoxicated and had sex who is to blame if one regrets it the next day and says "I could not have consented, I was drunk". The other could make exactly the same claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're missing his point.
If drunk people can't be held responsible for joint decisions, why do some people get convicted of rape when both parties were inebriated?

To put it shortly, why are guys held legally responsible for choices made while drunk, but not women? Why does a drunk chick get to accuse a drunk dude of raping her, when they were both drunk?

Feminism. That's why. Equality for women, except when they want special rights.
Then, everything changes and they need protection and affirmative action.
Tom

Unfortunately it does seem to be the guy that all to often is blamed when this sort of activity happens. For those that do not live in the real world, women get horny too. They are as apt to take advantage of a guy that they like as a guy is to take advantage of a girl that they like. And as you said, if both were drunk who is to blame? They could even make a drinking game of agreeing to the next step as some colleges foolishly demand.

 

[epronovost]

To put it shortly, why are guys held legally responsible for choices made while drunk, but not women?

A man can accuse a woman to have raped him if he was too drunk to consent to sexual activities. The law doesn't make any distinction about gender on rape (at least not in my country).

For someone to be accused of rape, that person must meet the criteria of criminal responsability. If you are found to be sane and old enough to be criminaly responsible, you can be accused of ANY crime you might commit. Being very drunk or high doesn't deny criminal responsability, but it does deny your ability to provide informed consent.

Why does a drunk chick get to accuse a drunk dude of raping her, when they were both drunk?

I think you are severely underestimating the level of disability a person must reach to not be able to consent to sexual activities. Jurisprudence and the law state that a person must be sufficently intoxicated to be incapable to understand what's happening (so either unconscious or about to fall unconsious) and/or so drunk a person is incapable of reacting to what's happening. You need to be very seriously wasted to be at that point. I don't think there has been a case where a person that drunk managed to rape someone like that. Just think about it. How can a man so drunk he can barely stand and cannot walk straight with the reaction time of a potato assault someone? That's basically impossible. What you could have is a man who is drunk, but that still possesses his ability to judge situations rape an even more drunk women (or vice versa).

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

My partner and I have been bombed off of various substances and would bang like jack rabbits but I stop when she lets me know she's uncomfortable. Usually she's the one initiating it, at that. So I don't know. It seems fairly straightforward to me in my private life.

 

[Skwim]

You're missing his point.
If drunk people can't be held responsible for joint decisions, why do some people get convicted of rape when both parties were inebriated?

To put it shortly, why are guys held legally responsible for choices made while drunk, but not women? Why does a drunk chick get to accuse a drunk dude of raping her, when they were both drunk?

Feminism. That's why. Equality for women, except when they want special rights.
Then, everything changes and they need protection and affirmative action.
Tom

Gotcha.

.​

 

[74x12]

A man can accuse a woman to have raped him if he was too drunk to consent to sexual activities. The law doesn't make any distinction about gender on rape (at least not in my country).

But will it actually go over with a jury? Let's be honest with ourselves ...

 

[Subduction Zone]

My partner and I have been bombed off of various substances and would bang like jack rabbits but I stop when she lets me know she's uncomfortable. Usually she's the one initiating it, at that. So I don't know. It seems fairly straightforward to me in my private life.

The thing is that people, not just women, will often regret sex the day after. That is what is being discussed. In the hypothetical both are drunk, both are having sex willingly. There have been cases where the day after women have said "I was drunk, therefore I could not have consented". If they were both drunk they could both say this. Who raped whom?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

A man can accuse a woman to have raped him if he was too drunk to consent to sexual activities. The law doesn't make any distinction about gender on rape (at least not in my country).



I think you are severely underestimating the level of disability a person must reach to not be able to consent to sexual activities. Jurisprudence and the law state that a person must be sufficently intoxicated to be incapable to understand what's happening (so either unconscious or about to fall unconsious) and/or so drunk a person is incapable of reacting to what's happening. You need to be very seriously wasted to be at that point. I don't think there has been a case where a person that drunk managed to rape someone like that. Just think about it. How can a man so drunk he can barely stand and cannot walk straight with the reaction time of a potato assault someone? That's basically impossible. What you could have is a man who is drunk, but that still possesses his ability to judge situations rape an even more drunk women (or vice versa).

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking - it's rape when the person is so inebriated that they're unconscious or on the verge of it. You can recognize it when you see it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yep.
Because Feminism.

It's not about equality. It's about special rights for women.
That's why I'm not a feminist. If this were all about equality, I'd totally be there.

But it isn't, and I'm not.
Tom

Well feminism is a big tent, but there seem to be far more anti-men feminists than equality feminists. At least from a male perspective that is what I notice. I am sure that there are some women that are reasonable and only want equal opportunity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking - it's rape when the person is so inebriated that they're unconscious or on the verge of it. You can recognize it when you see it.

Again, not the case in the OP. Both people in this case are drunk. No one is debating the one inebriated one is not situation. I think that we agree on that.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The thing is that people, not just women, will often regret sex the day after. That is what is being discussed. In the hypothetical both are drunk, both are having sex willingly. There have been cases where the day after women have said "I was drunk, therefore I could not have consented". If they were both drunk they could both say this. Who raped whom?

I don't believe "next morning regret" should count as rape. That's opening the doors to too many false charges. If you're so suggestible that you go along with things you don't really want to do while buzzed, you maybe shouldn't drink. But if you make it known that you don't want to do something and the person keeps going, then you have grounds for legal action. People can't read minds, though.