Consent, Sex, and Drunkenness

[Saint Frankenstein]

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.

I read the OP.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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. People 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. But people can't read minds.

I agree. But it does happen on university campuses quite often these days.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I read the OP.

Then why bring up a different situation?

 

[epronovost]

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.

I don't think there was

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.

Considering the level of intoxication you need to reach to be considered to be incapable to provide consent, I seriously doubt it's possible for two equally massively drunk sexual partner, both incapable of informed consent, to have sexual intercourse. That's a bit like a fist fight between two quadraplegic persons, I seriously doubt it's possible. You might have is a drunk person that can, despite this, still provide informed consent and another person that is even more drunk but cannot provide informed consent. In that case the person who is less drunk should have enough braincells left to recognise that his or her partner is too drunk to consent.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Then why bring up a different situation?

I wasn't. I was agreeing with someone's post.

 

[epronovost]

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

There are cases where it happened and it's important to mention (over and over if need be) that no gender is "immune" or has "special defense" against rape or sexal assault. The fact that it happens more often to women than men doesn't mean it doesn't happen to men and that men can find justice and did in many case, but it's indeed an uphill battle, probably even more so than for a women. Rape and sexual assaults have a very poor conviction and procecution rate when compared to similarly grave crimes.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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.

I agree. But it seems as though some people don't. I once heard someone claim that if someone is too drunk to drive safely, then they are too drunk to consent to sex, which is, in my opinion, ridiculous. There is a large difference between a complex activity that requires a fast reaction time, quick decision making, excellent vision, and multi-tasking and consenting to sex, which is a fairly simple decision and activity.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I agree. But it does happen on university campuses quite often these days.

I think that's sad that it's gone that far.

 

[epronovost]

I agree. But it seems as though some people don't. I once heard someone claim that if someone is too drunk to drive safely, then they are too drunk to consent to sex, which is, in my opinion, ridiculous. There is a large difference between a complex activity that requires a fast reaction time, quick decision making, excellent vision, and multi-tasking and consenting to sex, which is a fairly simple decision and activity.

And you are correct, the law and court also agrees with you. Police investigator would be force to rule out that no crimes were comitted and even if somehow they got convinced, no procecutor would try his luck with such a flimsy case either and a judge and jury would laugh at his face if he even tried. What you heard is what we call missinformation or someone just being wrong.

Having sex with someone who is legally still capable of providing informed consent (a really low bar mind you), but quite drunk can be called unethical and something that should be avoided, but it's not illegal.

 

[SomeRandom]

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.

It is rape in my eyes if one says no and the other ignores them or one is passed out and the other party continues.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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?

Right, and this is the issue. In my experience, moderate drinking (say, 3-7 drinks depending on the person) is an excuse for reckless behavior more often than a cause of it. I think a lot of people exagerrate how drunk they are, though I may be wrong.

 

[SomeRandom]

Here's the confusion.
If one drunk has sex with another drunk, who gave legal consent? Anybody?

For some reason, drunk chicks can accuse drunk dudes of rape. And make it stick, legally.
So,
Why does voluntary alcohol consumption absolve women from responsibility for sleazy sex, but not men?
Feminism, is my guess. Women deserve equality, when it suits. When equality doesn't suit, they want special rights. That's feminism, in my experience.
Tom

I think it’s a little more complex than just the evil boogeyman “feminism.”
Legally speaking (at least where I live) there is no distinction between the sexes when it comes to this. A man can be raped and the woman accused. And yet it’s more prevalent that a man will be charged instead of a woman. But why this happens I think is more to do with prevailing social attitudes than anything else.
For all our strides towards helping male victims of sexual abuse, how often do you encounter the attitude than a man should be happy they had sex, even if it was in rather dubious circumstances?
How often do you hear of a minor being taken advantage of by an older woman and then being congratulated on “becoming a man?” Because I still do.
Society does have very toxic mentalities still present when it comes to human sexuality. A man should be in control and happy they had sex. There is still so much shame and guilt and stigma surrounding abuse victims. More so with male victims.
Feminists call this “toxic masculinity.” The idea that there are aspects of supposed masculinity that are encouraged by society that are actually harmful to men. A man shouldn’t show their feelings, a man should be tough, a man should be stoic and strong, a man should “man up” etc. Probably an unfortunate name on face value, but I didn’t come up with the term.

Society is just more used to seeing a female being in peril. The woman as the victim is easier to garner sympathy from a mainstream audience. Because that’s a role society is very comfortable with seeing.
Conversely society has a harder time sympathising with male victims when raped by a female because of perceived notions of masculinity, often outdated and toxic.

Whilst there are toxic elements in feminism, like men hating radicals, most feminists I know take just as much umbrage with such scenarios.
And then men turn around and blame feminism. Feminism argues that society was broken before and is still suffering from the hangover. So to speak

 

[Subduction Zone]

You know what else happens in the #MeToo era?

Wanna be starlets drive themselves to a media mogul's house. They ask for drugs. When offered, they take them. Then they have sleazy sex.

Years later, they file charges for rape.

But it's a new world. Women can't be expected to take responsibility for their own choices, but boy can they press charges.
Because Feminism.
Tom

I will disagree with you about that.

 

[SomeRandom]

What if they keep saying Yes, but are too drunk to remember doing it?

Tom

Well if you’re so blasted that you can’t remember, maybe one could argue that the consent given was dubious.

But I mean, I’ve had some wild nights in my time. I usually remember the night before and my memory is awful from the get go. So like how smashed are we talking here?

 

[Nakosis]

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.

I think the problem would be where one person is passed out and unaware of sex even occurring.

 

[epronovost]

How did she get to his house? Why did he offer drugs? Did she go back?
Tom

If a hot girl comes to my office and ask for drugs and offer sex in exchange of better grades (I'm a teacher), my answer isn't "here's enough drugs to render you nearly unconscious and it's 10% for vaginal and 20% extra for anal!" My answer is get out of my office right now and then I contact the school administration immediately to report that kind of behavior.

If I said the former instead of the later, I'm a rapist and a drug peddler. I'm the person in power in that situation. I'm the one who has control over everything. I don't have failling grades or require any services from the girl in question. She doesn't have any authority over me, but I do over her. If a woman request large amount of alcohol and or drugs in my presence in the process of an interview or in any professionnal setting, it's not because she's horny or evil. It's because I set things up in such a way that she feels pressure to give me sexual gratification and would rather be a bit numb while she does it to get what she wants because that it's the thing I will accept over anything else. If I act like a pimp, I shouldn't be surprised that the women who depend on me act like whores. It would be my fault.

It's not criminal to offer sex against services or at least it's in the grey zone of prostitution, but it's a crime to setup a system in which such a behavior is rewarded or even perceived as mandatory to success. Those who setup the system are responsible. Responsability grows with power.

 

[epronovost]

Would you report them, and demand that they be kicked out of your school?

I would yes. If only to protect me against a possible backlash like her trying others even more dubious methods to get what she wants.

Do you have a legal responsibility to behave in a certain way, despite competent adult behavior?

Of course I do. I'm an adult and an adult who in certain circumstances has a lot of power and influence over another one's futur. I must be "the better man" because I'm more powerful and have authority. I hold the dreams of some of my students in my palm. Something they want, something they have worked for.

The bottom line is, why do males have to take responsibility for the behavior of women who are trying to manipulate them with sex?
Tom

Because they are still responsible of THEIR behavior and, in the case of my example above, responsible for the system I have setup.

 

[Father Heathen]

I can see if one was drunk, and one wasn't, but if both were drunk? Retroactively rescinding consent seems like BS. Are they suggesting to never have sex while intoxicated, or just want the charge of rape open as an option should they feel regret and vindictive once sober?
On a somewhat related note, I remember when a prominent member of RF who was an avid feminist (won't name names but they've been gone for years) openly stated that the difference between harassment and flirting depends on the attractiveness of who's doing it, regarding their personal experiences being picked up at bars.

 

[SomeRandom]

How about if you're also blasted?
And a sexually attractive person, who already said Yes, is right there?

Well if you’re also blasted then, for me at least, the whole thing’s a wash. Both got drunk, both can’t remember, then sorry to sound harsh, but that should end it. And if one feels wronged, then the party should try to discuss it with the other party. Or seek therapy or something. It shouldn’t go to court unless coercion was involved.

l

Which goes back to my question. Why are men expected to take responsibility for behavior while drunk, but women are not?
Tom

Prevailing societal expectations places on masculinity and femininity.
A man should “be in control.” Because that’s what a real man does. A woman is still seen as a victim. Because femininity is passive.
You can’t seriously think such attitudes have magically disappeared just because the law says so? People are still racists and the Civil Rights movement was how many years ago?

 

[McBell]

If a man and woman who are both drunk have sex, are both guilty of rape if "consent" requires one to be sober?

yes