Whacked out, drunken-ass consent is still consent.

I don't think that's what he's saying.

People can be raped while drunk, yes. For example, a sober person could put something in someone's drink to make them drunk so they can rape them.

However, what Wigglz is saying is that it's hard to tell whether it was rape or normal sex, because drunk people don't think right.

In that case, I have to agree with him, and, in my opinion, I don't think drunk people should be allowed to have sex at all for that reason.

Even if they gave consent, when they're sober again and happen to remember it, they could think of it as rape.

 

This is exactly what I mean. Do you think that a person who chooses to get drunk cannot be raped?

This is faulty and makes no sense. How do you propose banning drunken sex? How do you think that that could happen?

 

No, I don't. Drunk people can get raped.

For your second sentence, I was merely stating an opinion. True, it would be hard to ban it, but I'm just saying that it's a contributing factor to drunken sex or rape.

 

Please explain how this would be possible, and more importantly justify the ethical implications of doing so. If you cannot justify or reason out your position, then it is not worth holding it.

 

Well, it would be possible, if they seriously cracked down on it.

As for implications, well, rape claims would go down, which would be beneficial to law enforcement, as I'm sure law enforcement is always getting bogged down with rape claims, considering how many people there are in the world.

Anyway, it was just an opinion, so it's unnecessary to jump all over me for it.

 

Opinions get made into laws these days. You should be careful about what you put into them. Bad ideas have consequences as well as good ones.

What kind of cracking down would you suggest? All laws end in violence. They will either be fined or arrested for having sex while drunk. People are going to lose money and freedom over this law, and the police are going to gain what? Fewer claims to go over? That is not an even trade by my standards.

 

Personally, I agree with what the article is saying.

I also have to agree with what Makaze says though about this being shaky ground.

At the end of the day... if someone (the female in this case) cannot remember the night before, then... it's hard to be sure if they said yes or no.
The other matter is it is a highly stereotypical and sexist judgement to think that just because a woman was drunk when she had sex, she was raped.
Now, you can split this up into various arguments and cases, but this would leave an entire essay, and I don't have the time or patience to do that. So... Instead I'll say this scenario.

A woman is drunk at a party and surrounded by a lot of her friends etc.
The male in question is a fairly decent guy, maybe a bit drunk too but yeah, generally he also has people at the party that know him. Anyway, they consent and get down to it (not in the same room... Well, you know.)
The next day, the woman wakes up and puts two and two together, but she can't recall what she said last night.
Even if the friends weren't there for the so called decision making, people would be able to tell what was likely to have happened based on how the two had been before (even then this isn't full-proof though, exceptions can happen in any case). Now this is a different situation as to had both of them been alone.
With no one around to say how they had been acting, or whether the guy in question had been drunk too (cause if he was sober, this could lead people to believe he was in control of the 'situation' so to speak) it becomes a completely different ball game. The woman in question might panic, or be ashamed of her decision if she so remembered it.
There is also the option that she MAY actually have been raped. No one can be sure in those scenarios.
It's a very complicated affair.

The question of drunk sex can be scary, because of what rape represents. A guy who is accused of rape can have their lives ruined for obvious reasons.
A solution to this problem would be don't drink. But that clearly would never happen with everyone.

Admittedly, if you look at it with the a drunk person can choose to drive view.
Then yeah, it should be the same as with sex.
Of course though, we could also consider what goes on in the guys head.
I'm not gonna lie, there have been a few parties where I've been sober and a drunk girl has propositioned me. I said no. I'd rather not open that can of worms (also because I'm not a one night stand kind of guy, but still, getting back on track) A guy can take into account that the girl is indeed drunk and might not make the same choices when sober.
While I definitely agree that if a girl consents while drunk, then that is it. She has consented. I still think it's also up to the guy to also judge the situation based on moral grounds.

...There are many views, and many are correct and incorrect for various reasons.
So while I agree with the article, I also think there is no clear way to handle it at present.

 

If you choose to drink, you have no right to deny the consequences it can have due to a change in behavior. End of story.

 

Welp. I think I'm going against everyone in this thread when I say that if someone is drunk, their decision-making capabilities are impaired, therefore proposing sex with him/her would always be taking advantage of them, ie rape.

 

So if you are drunk, and if someone asked you to have sex, that would be them taking advantage of you? I strongly disagree. It might not be a classy thing to do, but first of all, chance is that the person asking/initiating it is probably just as drunk, and second of all, you drank the amount yourself, and you are aware of the effect it has on you, but you still do it, ergo, your own fault.

 

Absolutely. That is.. literally the definition of 'taking advantage'..

That doesn't make it okay.

I find this mindset really discomforting.. Your whole statement smacks of 'she was asking for it'.

 

She was right about this. If you know that someone is drunk and you ask them to have sex with you in light of that situation, then you are taking advantage of the fact that she is drunk, and her by extension.

 

So what if whoever asked her to have sex is equally drunk? The issue here doesn't necessarily make the man sober. Is it still wrong of him? If he is as drunk as she is, in other words, he's not aware of his actions.

I find this mindset really discomforting.. Your whole statement smacks of 'she was asking for it'.

I didn't say that, but if you drink to the extent you are unable to act according to what you would if sober, that is your own fault. No one forced you to drink that much.

 

I suppose they could make a law so that every alcohols have something scribbled on the bottle (like those silly obvious warnings printed on cigarette boxes). "Getting wasted can lead to piss poor decision making, to say the least"

If someone drank so much that he can' t even remember if he agreed to sex or not then too bad for him (or her), maybe he should have thought of that before drinking that much. If he did say no then it' s a rape and should be treated as such. As to how to determine who lies or not ... well, that' s not my job, but if there isn' t any solid proof on either side personally I' d let it slide.

 

In practice, the person proposing this is usually drunk as well or at least under the influence. Thus his/her decision-making capabilities are also impaired. So that person may not even be consciously taking advantage of them, i.e. rape them. How will you ever tell the difference?

I'll tell you. The line is so dangerously thin that it shouldn't exist altogether. You are responsible for impairing your own judgement. People change upon consuming alcohol, in a number of different ways. They become naive, apathetic, melancholic, angry, euphoric, nasty and often a combination of the aforementioned. Why would they be the victim in one situation and the culprit in all the others? That's exactly the kind of double standard the article is trying to address (even though I didn't read it XD).
I got suckered into slashing the tires of a motorcycle after an evening of getting wasted. Got me in a lot of trouble. Do you think I blame the people who talked me into it? No, it was still my decision to do it, and my decision to change the way I think.

 

I agree with Styx, it was your decision to get drunk and thus impair yourself. Unless someone forcibly made you do it, anything done while impaired is your responsability. Now again, if force comes into play then that is a different story. Bottom line is this, unless the girl was raped (even if alcohol was not involved) there is a clear definition of rape. She said no, but the guy forced her anyway. Alcohol isn't really a factor here, rape is rape. As such would mean, consent is consent whether you are drunk or not.

 

I think the circumstances matter. I mean, if I get drunk, go to some dudes house and have sex with him and regret it, I'm not going to say he raped me (just because I was drunk when I said yes), nor am I going to take legal action.

But at the same time, if I'm drunk in a public place like a bar or a club, and some stranger lures me to his car and takes me to his place and sexes me up using some half-unconscious mumble of a consent to justify it, then yeah. I'd feel taken advantage of--but I would still ultimately feel at fault for it happening.

Personally I'm not much of a drinker and doubt I ever will be. But I know if I get drunk knowing I'm drinking alcohol, and something like that happens...As long as I DID say 'yes' in some form it's my fault. ​

 

Something like this is interesting because it almost happened to me. A few weeks ago, I had gone to a party and had come to find out the next day that someone spiked my drink [with what, I don't know] in hopes of me having sex with them.

In the event that it would've happened, and I would have said yes, then I guess I would have said yes. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. It could also have gone the other way and be said that I was taken advantage of in a state that wasn't caused by me - it would still be my fault right? Even if it were deemed not my fault I would feel that somehow it was.

 

Man, here I walked in the thread thinking I'd have something new to say, and Mak and Styx ganked me somethin' fierce.

Any rate, there is definitely a double standard there. We need to set the bar at a certain point with regards to one's decision-making ability while drunk, and continue the case-by-case arguments from there. Not knowing if someone said yes or no due to drunkenness is not terribly different from not knowing due to not being there, is it? In a court of law it would depend on the same factors, as far as I can tell. That is, were there witnesses, is the testimony reliable, and so on. I'd say the testimony of anyone who was under the influence at the time is unreliable, and thus both parties are innocent if the only grounds for accusation is one or another hang-over tirade.

I think this is an important point of the article:

"Now this is where people claim it gets murky, but it really doesn’t. There are some who might claim that because Edith was clearly intoxicated, she was incapable of giving consent to have sex. I don’t buy that; and neither should anybody else. If you’re blacked-out drunk, but still capable of talking, walking and doing things, you’re still responsible for your actions and your decisions. If instead of climbing out of a window, Edith Zimmerman had clambered behind the wheel, the cops wouldn’t have let her off a DUI simply because she was 'too drunk' to make the decision whether to drive or not."

It's not the legality that's a concern. It's the capability of the person to make decisions. It's a matter of accountability; if a person is held accountable for his/her decisions when drunk driving, but not when drunk $%&#ing, that is, objectively speaking, a double standard. That's the long and short of it. Now, if there's spiking involved, that is one person attempting to skew the decision-making ability of another, which is shakier ground. Even so, if you really don't feel like getting diddled, shouldn't you be checking for stuff in your drink, or not taking your eyes off it, or something? I just can't imagine a drunk horny hound-dog being enough of a master of covert ops to make it happen without some negligence on behalf of the other party.

Damn straight. Which is why I choose not to drink. :B Don't worry ladies and gents, I'll drive you home and protect your naughty parts. Or, perhaps, indulge you if you're feeling frisky. <3

 

I have heard otherwise on this end. Especially if this has not happened to you before.