Must read for anyone interested in the consensus debate: The Alcohol Blackout

[Deleted]

If you can't drink safely maybe you shouldn't drink it at all

True. As a continuation to that, if you can't smoke without killing people by giving them cancer, maybe you shouldn't smoke at all.

[Spectral]

It sounds like you hung out with some pretty shitty people, in my partying days if someone got too drunk we just used to draw on their faces and tie their shoes together.

You seem to be conflating "too drunk" with "passed out". These are not the same thing. Someone can be too drunk to provide what qualifies as legal consent, but seem relatively lucid, particularly to someone else that's also too drunk to provide legal consent.

- - - Updated - - -

Does it mean you weren't robbed? Does it mean the person who robbed you is somehow less to blame? No? Then there's no point in bringing it up.

Victims of crime aren't partly responsible for being victimized.

If I get blackout drunk, don't remember what happened to my money, but have someone saying, "you actually bought a big round of drinks, it was like 100 bucks dude", I'm going to be disinclined to claim that I've been robbed. Not recalling something due to extreme inebriation is something I have experienced, but I don't generally insist that I'm not in any way responsible for anything I did of my own volition.

Again, people seem to be conflating "blackout drunk" with "passed out". To be clear for anyone that's not familiar, "blacking out" is drug-related amnesia - it doesn't indicate a specific level of inebriation and isn't something than an observer will necessarily know is occurring to the inebriated individual, especially if the observer is also drinking.

- - - Updated - - -

If both parties are drunk and had sex while drunk, who raped who?

Oh, I think we all know the answer to that.

[Dhrizzle]

You seem to be conflating "too drunk" with "passed out". These are not the same thing. Someone can be too drunk to provide what qualifies as legal consent, but seem relatively lucid, particularly to someone else that's also too drunk to provide legal consent.

How do you classify when someone is too drunk but doesn't seem too drunk? As long as someone is capable of speech and says "yes I'd like to have sex" (or similar words) then isn't that consent?

[Deleted]

Raise the drinking age for women to 25, problem solved.

Making alcohol illegal for women, obviously they need protection from the evil patriarchic beverage that was solely invented to muddle their choice making process and allow men to court them and succeed that they would otherwise find undesireable. (No, not talking about someone being blacked out, entirely different situation altough some people want to tell us there isn't any between having drunk a single glass and being blacked out).

[Theodarzna]

''Consent and alcohol make tricky bedfellows. The reason I liked getting drunk was because it altered my consent: it changed what I would say yes to. Not just in the bedroom but in every room and corridor that led into the squinting light. Say yes to adventure, say yes to risk, say yes to karaoke and pool parties and arguments with men, say yes to a life without fear, even though such a life is never possible. Still, there is a point at which someone who has drunk too much cannot, legally, consent to sex. So what is that line, exactly? And if your partner has been drinking all night too, how can he or she detect it? For that matter, has your partner passed the point of consent too? ''

I think this paragraph captures the heart of what is going on. Most people who have sex with someone who is drunk is also drunk themselves and there is a disconnect between that fact and who gets often charged with being a "rapist" in this new Drunk Sex = Rape society we live in.

[Spectral]

How do you classify when someone is too drunk but doesn't seem too drunk? As long as someone is capable of speech and says "yes I'd like to have sex" (or similar words) then isn't that consent?

While it can be legally tricky, I don't think it's necessary from an ethical standpoint to build a highly specific set of rules; I would prefer to consider cases individually, as there are quite a few shades of gray. I've had sex with my wife when I'm clearly beyond any legal ability to consent, but I don't think any reasonable person would have an ethical qualm about it. In stark contrast, a stone sober person having sex with a very drunk person they met is behaving in a predatory fashion; whether it's "rape" or not, it's clearly unethical. There's tons of murky middle ground in the middle with considerations including prior relations between the people, inebriation, apparent inebriation, enthusiasm level, and more.

[oxymoronic]

The problem right here is that it is, in fact, victim blaming.

Is it okay for me to beat the crap out of my children if they talk back to me? Of course not.

Is it okay for me to quickly grab money out of someone's hand just because they had it out? Of course not.

Is it okay for me to have sex with a woman just because she's pliable (aka drunk), dressed skimpily or alone? Of course not.

Is it your fault you were robbed by the guy in the mask with a gun? Of course not.

Is it okay for me to run over the kids in the street that are being annoying? Of course not.

Seriously. People need to stop rationalizing bad behavior as being the fault of the victim. End of discussion.

Should women take precautions? Yes. And the same is true in all of the other situations. But at no point is it ever the fault of the victim. Be an adult and start acting like an adult.

funny his last line is be an adult and start acting like an adult... um let me tell you buddy as an adult, ITS YOU FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT YOURSELF. yes you deserve to be fucking robbed walking down certain streets with fucking money in your hand. you straight up deserve it, now i cant say the same for rape cause u fucks will go insane, but yes a woman needs to protect herself or she failed. end of story

[Adam Jensen]

Why can't sensible precaution apply to sexual assault?

It can, however, an ass-naked gorgeous woman does not deserved to get raped any more than a conservatively dressed Mormon does.

Should we lock our cars? Yes. Are we at fault if someone goes into our unlocked cars and steals from them? No. Could we have done better to protect ourselves? Sure.

[PosPosPos]

So basically, people need to differentiate between justified victim blaming and not.

If your negligence contributes to a crime committed against you, then you assuredly have part of the personal and moral responsibility, even if not legally.

[dofri]

If you are not careful in life you are more likely to be the victim of crimes (of any kind). That it a simple fact that you can whine about all day but it is the way it is.

Is it fair? No.
Are you to blame? No.
But you are still stupid/naive as feck if you ignore the fact and more so if you try to get others to ignore it.

[oxymoronic]

But in any non-rape related situation, it's not considered victim blaming to point out (possible) risks or risk aggregation. That's the whole problem there is - why has rape to be treated differently from about any other crime there is?

Rape is thought of as, a man penetrates a woman without her consent, sometimes by force, intimidation, etc. With that in mind anything that harms children or women is taken more seriously as a man is suppose to be able to defend himself from such situations. I don't mind, I value my wife and children's life more than my own.