Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vector]

Yeah, it's a mess.  I don't pretend to know what to do in cases of mutual intoxication.

*shrug*

I've had folks at the dinner table randomly bring up the fact that they don't think a woman can withdraw consent mid-act.  People don't have that good of an understanding, unfortunately.  There's lots of folks, also, who think that folks are obligated to have sex in a relationship on demand, too.

[Max White]

Drunk sex = rape again? I can give you that if one of the parties is significantly more sober, but if they're both equally drunk who's the perpetrator and who's the victim?

See this always got me a bit. Lets assume we have two people, one is drunk and the other sober.
If Drunk passes out then they are no longer able to give consent, thus any sexual activity with Sober is rape.
If Drunk has their drink spiked, be it illicit drugs or excess alcohol, then their ability to give consent has been compromised against their will, sexual activity with Sober is rape.
If Drunk chooses to drink, then they are still responsible for the choices they make. Assuming they then, in an intoxicated state, agree to have sex with Sober, it isn't rape. Even if when they wake up the next morning and regret what happened.


As for revoking consent mid-act... Well it sucks for the other party, but they are going to have to pull their pants up. From that point on, it is off.

[Vector]

Uh... no.

If my ability to consent is comprised by my own will, such as by going to sleep rather than being drugged or passing out from booze, then I still can't consent.  The fact that someone chooses to do something that makes it so that they cannot consent to sex does not mean that they cannot be raped.

[DWC]

Drunk sex = rape again? I can give you that if one of the parties is significantly more sober, but if they're both equally drunk who's the perpetrator and who's the victim?

If both parties are equally drunk (legally mentally incapacitated and unable to give legal consent) then the court will have to determine who raped who. If there is a male involved it will be them being hauled off to prison. Such is the entrenched sexism in the justice system. There is not a single precedent of the female being convicted in the USA in such a case.

[Max White]

Uh... no.

If my ability to consent is comprised by my own will, such as by going to sleep rather than being drugged or passing out from booze, then I still can't consent.  The fact that someone chooses to do something that makes it so that they cannot consent to sex does not mean that they cannot be raped.

Going to sleep is a form of passing out.

If Drunk passes out then they are no longer able to give consent, thus any sexual activity with Sober is rape.

If you are ever unable to give consent, for any reason, such as being asleep, then you never gave consent. Until you give consent, it is rape. If you are drunk by your own will, you are still able to give consent.

[Vector]

What I'm saying, though, is that this:

See this always got me a bit. Lets assume we have two people, one is drunk and the other sober.
If Drunk passes out then they are no longer able to give consent, thus any sexual activity with Sober is rape.
If Drunk has their drink spiked, be it illicit drugs or excess alcohol, then their ability to give consent has been compromised against their will, sexual activity with Sober is rape.
If Drunk chooses to drink, then they are still responsible for the choices they make. Assuming they then, in an intoxicated state, agree to have sex with Sober, it isn't rape. Even if when they wake up the next morning and regret what happened.

implies that in the third scenario their ability to give consent has been happily floated off, yet it is somehow their fault of someone goes after them.

[Max White]

Ok so my wording was a little sloppy. I just felt I needed to point out the difference between somebody getting drunk by choice and somebody being essentially drugged.
I'm not sure what things are like across the pacific, but in Australia the most commonly used drug to spike peoples drink is alcohol, and a lot of people don't even realize that is still illegal.

[Vector]

No, there is a difference.  I think both are considered rape, but a sentence is way more like to happen in one case than the other.

[Max White]

Except choosing to have sex just because you are drunk by your own free will isn't rape. Reguardless of how sober the other person is.

Heck choosing to use any drug, recreational or illicit doesn't mean you can no longer give informed consent. The only grey area is for prescription drugs, where as somebody must take these drugs for their health. I'm pretty sure that would call for rape charges.

[Vector]

Then why does it matter if someone else gets you drunk?  Surely you're just as capable of consenting or not consenting, given that intoxication apparently isn't a factor.

[Max White]

Because when you chose to get drunk, you understood that impaired judgement came along with that, and you have to live with that. You chose to impair your own judgement.
That is why we still hold people responsible for any deaths they cause by drink driving. When you choose to drink, you are responsible for your actions while you are drunk.

[ragnarok97071]

I think in the US, at least, the law actually states that if you're drunk and have sex, it's rape, because it doesn't differentiate between being drugged of your own will (alcohol, etc.) or being drugged and tricked into consenting.

[Max White]

 

Your laws are weird. Over here it only counts if the plaintiff consumed an amount of a substance against their will. So even if they choose to drink alcohol, if their drink has more alcohol than they can reasonably believe is in there, it is rape.

[Frumple]

Because when you chose to get drunk, you understood that impaired judgement came along with that, and you have to live with that. You chose to impair your own judgement.

Much as I generally agree with that, I can definitely see how it wouldn't be something you'd give legal weight... or particularly moral, really.

By the same standard, if you get drunk and someone talks you into letting them chop your arm off, you'd be unable to, y'know, call the cops or whathaveyou. Senior Limbchopper would by and large be in the ethical clear zone if you were going to apply that sort of heuristic to consent while self-intoxicated.

[Vector]

Yeah, the problem is that when you're drunk driving, the other cars aren't talking you into mowing them down.