Confusion continues surrounding drunken consent

[Deleted]

It's only bullshit to you because it proves my point. A severely drunk person doesn't know anything about life at that moment either. What if a person consents while going under anesthesia? Roofied? A bad reaction to medicine?

Nope it does no such thing, we (me and other posters) have explained it to you but you are unable to grasp simple consepts. If you do not want drunken sex like that, then do not become drunk, it is your own fault.

- - - Updated - - -

Is this what the law says? Because if not, you're basically encouraging illegal behaviour.

No he is not encouraging illegal behavior, you are encouraging stupidity.

[Flarelaine]

If you do not want drunken sex like that, then do not become drunk, it is your own fault.

Good thing there are laws to regulate what you can and cannot do to other humans, whether drunk or not.

[Deleted]

Good thing there are laws to regulate what you can and cannot do to other humans, whether drunk or not.

Yup, and none of these laws will say that you can't have sex with people who are drunk and consented to sex.

[Noradin]

2 people are drunk.

Neither of them know what they are doing, according to you, and cannot consent.

How do you reconcile this?

Well that is easy: If one of them was a male then that person is a rapist.

- - - Updated - - -

You understand what black-out drunk is, right? It's the point in which your inebriation causes you to stop retaining memories. And since most people are perfectly capable of functioning normally during this state, yes, it's extremely difficult to know when someone is black-out drunk.

Aditionally, this kind of black-out make someone lose memories from before they even started drinking, as in: memories from when they were perfectly sober.
Not being able to remember something is not proof that one was too drunk to consent during that time.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, it's real simple....why is it wrong to sleep with a 10 year old if they consent? Because they don't know enough about life and consquences to make an informed enough decision to consent (along with it just being disgusting).

Same goes with a severely inebriated person. Again, why are you guys always trying to get a girl drunk in the first place?

What a great scientific breaktrough: Being drunk turns you into a ten year old girl.

[Karon]

Let me guess, that retarded bitch thinks like this:

"you can tell when someone is drunk, it's his fault"


"but he was drunk as well and couldn't tell"

"he shouldn't have been drinking then"

[Bodakane]

Nope it does no such thing, we (me and other posters) have explained it to you but you are unable to grasp simple consepts. If you do not want drunken sex like that, then do not become drunk, it is your own fault.

Yes it does. That is the whole point of guys trying to get women drunk...so they'd agree something they wouldn't normally. It is why you can't drink and drive. The point of alcohol is to numb a person's thought process.

And unwanted sex is not a suitable punishment for being the non crime of being drunk.

Again, what if a person consents while going under anesthesia? Roofied? A bad reaction to medicine?

- - - Updated - - -

What a great scientific breaktrough: Being drunk turns you into a ten year old girl.

Who do you suppose can accomplish more tasks that prove they have the ability for rational thought at that moment....a 10 year old girl or a severely drunk adult?

[Deleted]

Yes it does. That is the whole point of guys trying to get women drunk...so they'd agree something they wouldn't normally. It is why you can't drink and drive. The point of alcohol is to numb a person's thought process.

And unwanted sex is not a suitable punishment for being the non crime of being drunk.

Again, what if a person consents while going under anesthesia? Roofied? A bad reaction to medicine?

- - - Updated - - -



Who do you suppose can accomplish more tasks that prove they have the ability for rational thought at that moment....a 10 year old girl or a severely drunk adult?

It was wanted sex as she consented during the act. People do not go out and go under anesthesia, its not even remotely the same thing, neither is being roofied. Consenting to having sex while drunk is just as much consenting to sex if you are sober. Show me where it says in the law that you can not consent to sex while drunk.

That you can only have sex with drunk woman doesn't mean that the rest of mankind is like that. People drink because they like drinking, people have sex because they like sex. And i know you have a big problem with the next bit, but, females are people too! They like to drink and they like to have sex and they are just like their male counterparts, responsible for their own actions.

[Bodakane]

It was wanted sex as she consented during the act. People do not go out and go under anesthesia, its not even remotely the same thing, neither is being roofied. Consenting to having sex while drunk is just as much consenting to sex if you are sober. Show me where it says in the law that you can not consent to sex while drunk.

That you can only have sex with drunk woman doesn't mean that the rest of mankind is like that. People drink because they like drinking, people have sex because they like sex. And i know you have a big problem with the next bit, but, females are people too! They like to drink and they like to have sex and they are just like their male counterparts, responsible for their own actions.

How is it not the same thing?

How is a person willingly drinking and then "consenting" to sex while their faculties are hindered not the same as a person willingly going under anesthesia for a procedure then "consenting" to sex while their faculties are hindered? How is it different?

[Deleted]

How is it not the same thing?

How is a person willingly drinking and then "consenting" to sex while their faculties are hindered not the same as a person willingly going under anesthesia for a procedure then "consenting" to sex while their faculties are hindered? How is it different?

Seriously, do you have any idea how different substances make your body react differently?? Do i really have to explain that taking heroin isn't the same thing as taking an Advil? We are talking about alcohol, a legal substance that is used by everyone legally. That there are other substances that under other circumstances can lead to people not being able to give consent has no baring what so ever on this discussion.

[Bodakane]

Seriously, do you have any idea how different substances make your body react differently?? Do i really have to explain that taking heroin isn't the same thing as taking an Advil? We are talking about alcohol, a legal substance that is used by everyone legally. That there are other substances that under other circumstances can lead to people not being able to give consent has no baring what so ever on this discussion.

Stop.

You know as well as I do, that anesthesia and alcohol can both make a person do and say things they wouldn't do otherwise. You are flailing because my argument has your's by the balls.

[Deleted]

Stop.

You know as well as I do, that anesthesia and alcohol can both make a person do and say things they wouldn't do otherwise. You are flailing because my argument has your's by the balls.

No you stop.

That both substances can do things do you doesn't make them function in the same way. You are the one failing to understand that your body will react differently to different substances.

You have no argument at all, while you keep hand waving everything everyone has been telling you here. You still have not been able to tell me where it says in the law that you can not consent to sex while drunk.
That some other substance can do something similar doesn't mean that they are the same thing or work in the same way. Not to mention the fact that they are not used in the same settings.
You are being obtuse at this point, that is all there is too this.

[Noradin]

Stop.

You know as well as I do, that anesthesia and alcohol can both make a person do and say things they wouldn't do otherwise. You are flailing because my argument has your's by the balls.

You are conflating different things to create a gish gallopp.
That is all there is to your posts in this thread.

[Vyuvarax]

The short answer is no, a woman cannot give consent if intoxicated because being drunk, or blackout drunk in this case, impairs her ability to make decisions. Applicable statute excerpt on when a person is considered unable to give consent under the law:

"...the other person's ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age, and the offender knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the other person's ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age."

The only reason more cases don't find defendants guilty is because drunkenness after the fact is difficult to prove in court. However, all the people arguing that it's not illegal are wrong.

[Mehrunes]

You're guilty of the same, you just have a different narrative. :P

I have a narrative rooted in law. Of course, one may think that the current law on consent is wrong, up to them. And to give you credit, some of your posts give more of the feeling of how you'd want things to be rather than how they are. But that's not all of them. And even then, they wouldn't make much sense that way and they'd give bizarre results in investigation and trials on their heads on grounds of proof.

Yes I did. Not sure why you have an issue with this, the words are basically synonyms and my use of a different synonym was because he misconstrued the meaning of the first.

Except they aren't synonyms at all. Unless you think "empty" and "boring" are synonyms as well.

[Bodakane]

No you stop.

That both substances can do things do you doesn't make them function in the same way. You are the one failing to understand that your body will react differently to different substances.

You have no argument at all, while you keep hand waving everything everyone has been telling you here. You still have not been able to tell me where it says in the law that you can not consent to sex while drunk.
That some other substance can do something similar doesn't mean that they are the same thing or work in the same way. Not to mention the fact that they are not used in the same settings.
You are being obtuse at this point, that is all there is too this.

Fine.

Then as I asked numerous times, how is it different? You keep telling me its different and not saying how it's different. So, once again...how is it different?

You are the same person that thinks giving consent is the same as drunk driving.

[Deleted]

The short answer is no, a woman cannot give consent if intoxicated because being drunk, or blackout drunk in this case, impairs her ability to make decisions. Applicable statute excerpt on when a person is considered unable to give consent under the law:

"...the other person's ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age, and the offender knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the other person's ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age."

The only reason more cases don't find defendants guilty is because drunkenness after the fact is difficult to prove in court. However, all the people arguing that it's not illegal are wrong.

The problem with this line of thought is that if a woman cant consent while drunk then a man can't either. And when both are drunk that means that no one can consent.
If this where true that would mean that males could also sue for not having to pay custody as they were impaired at the moment of conception. Of course this would not include all of the pregnancies, just the ones that resulted from drunk sex with a stranger.
And to top it all off, the person they are having sex with is inebriated too, that means that he is also impaired and can has a much harder time being able to make judgment calls on if a person is drunk or not.
What you are talking about only holds true if there is a case of acting maliciously, drunken sex isn't malicious, it is drunken sex.

- - - Updated - - -

Fine.

Then as I asked numerous times, how is it different? You keep telling me its different and not saying how it's different. So, once again...how is it different?

You are the same person that thinks giving consent is the same as drunk driving.

I already told you that, if you need more time to wrap your brain around it then take another 10 minutes.

And no, i do not think that giving consent is the same as drunk driving, that is either your strawman or your incapability to understand the subject at hand.

[Bodakane]

The problem with this line of thought is that if a woman cant consent while drunk then a man can't either. And when both are drunk that means that no one can consent.
If this where true that would mean that males could also sue for not having to pay custody as they were impaired at the moment of conception. Of course this would not include all of the pregnancies, just the ones that resulted from drunk sex with a stranger.
And to top it all off, the person they are having sex with is inebriated too, that means that he is also impaired and can has a much harder time being able to make judgment calls on if a person is drunk or not.
What you are talking about only holds true if there is a case of acting maliciously, drunken sex isn't malicious, it is drunken sex.

- - - Updated - - -



I already told you that, if you need more time to wrap your brain around it then take another 10 minutes.

And no, i do not think that giving consent is the same as drunk driving, that is either your strawman or your incapability to understand the subject at hand.

No you didn't.

Both severely impair judgement. You think there's this bigger difference when there isn't, because we are talking about the ability to consent. As far as the law is concerned in terms of consent, the only thing that matters is how severely impaired you are.

So I'll answer the question since you can't, there is no difference. The ONLY thing that matters in this discussion is consent and as i told before, being severely impaired, BY FUCKING DEFINITION means a person can't consent.

[Deleted]

No you didn't.

Both severely impair judgement. You think there's this bigger difference when there isn't, because we are talking about the ability to consent. As far as the law is concerned in terms of consent, the only thing that matters is how severely impaired you are.

So I'll answer the question since you can't, there is no difference. The ONLY thing that matters in this discussion is consent and as i told before, being severely impaired, BY FUCKING DEFINITION means a person can't consent.

So i'll repeat myself, apparently i have to..

Taking an Advil isn't the same thing as shooting up heroin, both will take away your headache but that doesn't mean that they are the same thing. Your body reacts differently to them and they are not used for the same things or in the same settings. The same goes for alcohol and anesthesia, they arent remotely the same thing.
As for the law, you are incorrect it not only matters how impaired you are, it also matters how you came to be impaired, being roofied isn't the same thing as you getting drunk. And when you are knocked out you can not consent, that is when you are impaired enough not to be able to consent, because you physically can not consent when you are not conscious. You fucking some guy and regretting it is not even remotely being impaired enough that it isn't your own fault.
I will state it again, if you drink you are still responsible for your own actions.

[Noradin]

So I'll answer the question since you can't, there is no difference. The ONLY thing that matters in this discussion is consent and as i told before, being severely impaired, BY FUCKING DEFINITION means a person can't consent.

So you agree that the girl raped the boy? Because he was drunk?

[Shadowferal]

Just for the sake of the thread: How alcohol complicates sex-assault cases

Procedures in Canada are really fucked up.