Confusion continues surrounding drunken consent

[Flarelaine]

What if I'm too drunk to make a proper judgment?

If you are that drunk, you have already failed to make a proper judgement. Unfortunately for you, courts will not see it as a mitigating circumstance.

[Torto]

In these uncertain times I thinks it's just safer to practice abstinence or hire a prostitute. Unless the prostitute is drunk of course......

[Deleted]

Yes, people generally can tell when someone is shitfaced, if you can't then the issue lies with you. I can perfectly control myself when drunk.

Yes you can see if people are drunk, you how ever can not see if people are too drunk to consent.

[Seranthor]

these kind of guys would take silence as consent! think if you dont object then its yes!!

who exactly are 'these kind of guys'?

[Deleted]

Lets transform it to money, you can drink moderate amount of alcohol during a business dinner, and you are not to druk to sign a business contract, and it will be a legally binding. After you party hard, now you are totally smashed, the business partner give you a new business contract and try you to sign it, now you are "to drunk to legally sign it" becuse you are "not of a sound mind" hence its is not binding.

Having sex with someone isn't tricking them somehow, giving a second contract is.

But if you need to ask a simpel question 5 time, the person is probebly "not of a sound mind"
His own words trap him, but if he did have a slimy lawyer, He could say my client and the woman talked a hour (giving here time to sober up and be of sound mind) and then have sex, after that they did start to drink again, hence here memory loss....

Not that I do not know what hapen and only speculate.....

If you ask it 5 times it seems that you care enough not to rape that person. And we do not know what she said those 5 times, maybe she said yes 5 times. We simply do not know, but somehow everyone here seems to know what was said.

- - - Updated - - -

If you are that drunk, you have already failed to make a proper judgement. Unfortunately for you, courts will not see it as a mitigating circumstance.

And they won't see a drunk female as mitigating circumstances either. And you do realize that if a male failed to make a proper judgment then the females do the same thing, right??

- - - Updated - - -

The issue here is the society needs to re-educate itself about what is right and what is wrong. This debate is always going to be contentious on a site like this because of people like @MeHMeH who just don't seem to *get it* and cannot actually engage meaningfully or rationally in this debate at all.

The key principle here is that we need to start understanding that if you want to have sex with someone, you should make a sincere effort to ensure that it is something that they actually want, not something that they agree to simply because they're too drunk/high/intoxicated etc to object. A good indicator of this is how they are going to feel about it the next day when they're sober. And if you're in doubt, then the answer is simple: don't have sex. Wait until they're sober, speak to them about it, find out how they feel and use that information going forward.

This whole idea that someone got drunk so it's ok to take the benefit of the doubt and do whatever you please with them is retarded and/or sociopathic. It's simply an excuse used by pathetic, selfish douchebags who care more about getting off than the wellbeing of fellow human beings. It's not hard to understand for anyone with even an ounce of empathy. Maybe people are resistant to it because they know they have been guilty in the past, or fear that they won't get sex in the future if they're compelled to act like decent human beings, or they simply have an irrational fear of being entrapped by some evil woman who just wants to have them sent to jail for no reason....

For someone who "gets it" you surely do not get that the other people often are drunk too. The rest is just some appeal on emotion without a ounce of realization of how the real world actually functions.

As for the case in the OP, it does fall into a grey area legally. The facts that should be assumed based on reasonable doubt are that the guy in question did try to ascertain consent and thought it was enough, although it's also clear based on his texts that he has some inkling that the girl involved is not okay with what happened, and (given that he had to ask 5 times) he wasn't entirely convinced at the time either. But it seems he is also just a kid and kids do stupid things, especially when, like him they consume alcohol. What he is mostly guilty of is acting irresponsibly and making a poor decision. And in a rational society, you have to accept that kids will do stupid things, they will make poor decisions, and we have to be able to recognise when such mistakes are genuinely due to the ignorance of youth, and to turn those mistakes into learning opportunities rather than destroy their lives because of it (note: this is different to an adult doing the same thing, or where it's clear that the 'kid' in question is acting with malice)

If the girl wasn't okay with what happened then maybe she should not drink?? You keep blaming the guy while it is the woman that drinks too much and goes ahead and has sex anyway.

The appropriate remedial action IMO would be that he be sent to some form of mandatory ethical counselling to instruct him on why what he did was wrong and how he should deal with it in the future. No jail sentence, no criminal charges, however if he is ever caught doing the same thing in the future then his 'ignorance' would no longer be an excuse and they would then be able to throw the book at him. For the girl, she should also be made to attend some counselling. Getting drunk is stupid and opens you up to risks, and even though this might be uncomfortable for your average SJW to accept, she is partially responsible for what happened.

Right, blame the guy, not the one who actually has a problem wow, you sure "get it"...

One day, when people actually have actually adopted a culture in which we generally accept that having sex with a drunk person when you don't know in advance that they're up for sex with you is wrong, where we accept that when in doubt rather don't have sex than take a chance with little or no care about the consequences for the other party when they sober up, then stories like this will become a lot less common and it will be a lot easier to achieve consistent justice when it does happen.

Oh lol you are funny, you should really do a stand up comedy show...

[Raelbo]

Yes you can see if people are drunk, you how ever can not see if people are too drunk to consent.

As already said: If in doubt, don't assume consent.

I really don't understand what the problem is with this principle. There are only two possible reasons that I can think of:

1) People actually want to be able to have easy sex with drunk people. They place more importance on getting laid than making sure the other person isn't fucked over in the process (which is essentially what western rape culture is).

2) People don't understand the idea of being able to reasonably establish consent before drunkenness happens. They conflate having sex with an established sexual partner after a few drinks with going to bar, finding someone who is barely of consenting age, getting them blackout drunk and then claiming afterwards that they totally consented.


Let me be clear. The problem is not having sex with people who are drunk. It's when the drunkenness is the only reason that the sex happened in the first place, especially if the perpetrator is using this as their strategy to obtain consent that they are uncertain would be forthcoming otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh lol you are funny, you should really do a stand up comedy show...

Every single thread about rape you're here spouting your emotionally vapid garbage. It's tiresome. You're either intentionally being disengenuous or you just outright lacking any capacity for empathy.

Your attitude is totally selfish and self centred. You claim to support the idea of "taking responsibility" but your arguments are utterly devoid of supporting that notion - let alone logic, consistency, reason or critical analysis. I am not going to "debate" until you can demonstrate that you're capable of actually engaging in discussion instead of trying to ram your unsubstantiated opinion down everyone's throat. Time to grow up man.

[Dangg]

If you are that drunk, you have already failed to make a proper judgement

If a women is that drunk, did she fail too?

[Deleted]

As already said: If in doubt, don't assume consent.

Yea that doesn't work that way at all, if you asked for consent and you got consent and you start making out and stuff then you do not assume anything. Yet according to you she is still in her right to withdraw consent after the fact, that is just plainly stupid.

I really don't understand what the problem is with this principle. There are only two possible reasons that I can think of:

1) People actually want to be able to have easy sex with drunk people. They place more importance on getting laid than making sure the other person isn't fucked over in the process (which is essentially what western rape culture is).

2) People don't understand the idea of being able to reasonably establish consent before drunkenness happens. They conflate having sex with an established sexual partner after a few drinks with going to bar, finding someone who is barely of consenting age, getting them blackout drunk and then claiming afterwards that they totally consented.

1) Drunk people want to have sex, because being drunk inhibits inhibition. This means drunken people will give consent more quickly, this doesn't mean that others take advantage of this as these others are drunk too 999 of a 1000 times. This simply means that if you do not want to have sex like this then you should not get shitfaced. See this is all on you, if you do not want to do this then don't do it, but do go around blaming other people for what you do.

2) Because that is not how it works, you do not "establish consent" before you get drunk, this is just one of these things that happen. And immediately you go to "finding someone who is barely of consenting age,l getting them blackout drunk". That is all in your fucking mind, people choose to drink, and people should who choose to drink should accept the consequences of this.

It is not a hard concept, if you do something then you are responsible for it.

Let me be clear. The problem is not having sex with people who are drunk. It's when the drunkenness is the only reason that the sex happened in the first place, especially if the perpetrator is using this as their strategy to obtain consent that they are uncertain would be forthcoming otherwise.

If you do not want to bang someone drunk, then do not get that drunk. It is not rocket science, it is called "personal responsibility".

[Wilfire]

Consent is hard to communicate clearly, especially when you're drunk. Lots of people flunked primary education so they play fast and loose with words. "No" can mean anything ranging from its proper meaning to "yes" and "I don't care". Inversely "yes" can mean "no" and whatever else people want it to mean. Throw body language into the mix and you've got yourself a complex situation.

If you want to have sex without getting into trouble with the cops, you need goodwill. Your partner likes you so even if you do something that they hadn't consented to (such as a surprise backdoor job for example), they are more likely to just let it slide than call the cops on you.

Unless you are prepared to sign 100 pages of paperwork every time you have sex just to avoid trouble, just stick to banging your partners.

[Deleted]

Every single thread about rape you're here spouting your emotionally vapid garbage. It's tiresome. You're either intentionally being disengenuous or you just outright lacking any capacity for empathy.

Your attitude is totally selfish and self centred. You claim to support the idea of "taking responsibility" but your arguments are utterly devoid of supporting that notion - let alone logic, consistency, reason or critical analysis. I am not going to "debate" until you can demonstrate that you're capable of actually engaging in discussion instead of trying to ram your unsubstantiated opinion down everyone's throat. Time to grow up man.

The only one here who is spouting emotional garbage is you, you keep bringing up emotional garbage that has nothing to do with it all while calling all males rapist at the same time.

As soon as you even have a single thing worthy to say i will listen, it is just that you spout nothing but sexist nonsense and expect everyone to agree with you. If they don't you go on little rants like this and call people various names.

[Raelbo]

If you ask it 5 times it seems that you care enough not to rape that person.

It's stuff like this that tells me all I need to know about your ability to form a rational conclusion.

If he has to ask 5 times, it means that the first answer wasn't convincing. Most likely because she wasn't participating, even though she said "yes"

Obvious. Yes, I do agree, the guy is likely concerned about making sure he has consent, but he clearly fails to understand what that means. He's acting like an immature douche because if he's not 100% certain the correct approach isn't to keep asking, it's to accept that she clearly is not in the right state of mind, and it's better to just not have sex tonight.

In what fucking rational universe do you conclude that hey, I'm not 100% convinced she actually wants this, but she said yes, so I guess I'll get on with it.

There is world of difference between a woman climbing all over you, tearing yours and her clothes off to get your dick into her, and someone just lying there garbling the world "yes".

[Seranthor]

Your honor, I did not check if she was too drunk to consent. I believe everyone can consent at all times and it doesn't matter how drunk someone is.

So what you are saying is that every male needs to have a portable breathalyzer with them and before sex they say 'Please blow in the tube so I can check if you are capable of giving consent'. More and more it is starting to appear that they should ban alcohol, or ban women from being in public without the supervision of a relative.

[Deleted]

It's stuff like this that tells me all I need to know about your ability to form a rational conclusion.

If he has to ask 5 times, it means that the first answer wasn't convincing. Most likely because she wasn't participating, even though she said "yes"

Or it means that he is just really unsure of himself, but hey, he is a guy, surely he is a rapist

Obvious. Yes, I do agree, the guy is likely concerned about making sure he has consent, but he clearly fails to understand what that means. He's acting like an immature douche because if he's not 100% certain the correct approach isn't to keep asking, it's to accept that she clearly is not in the right state of mind, and it's better to just not have sex tonight.

Sooo he is concerned about having consent, but still he is raping here and it is totally his fault that she drinks too much. Again, if she doesn't want shit like this to happen then she should not get that drunk.

In what fucking rational universe do you conclude that hey, I'm not 100% convinced she actually wants this, but she said yes, so I guess I'll get on with it.

In the universe where she jumps him even though he is not sure of the situation? You are hellbent on blaming the guy for this while you have no idea what was going on.

There is world of difference between a woman climbing all over you, tearing yours and her clothes off to get your dick into her, and someone just lying there garbling the world "yes".

And you have no idea which of these two happened here, you are right, neither do i but i do lay the responsibility by the person who got shitfaced.

[Seranthor]

Your honor, I did not check if she was too drunk to consent. I believe everyone can consent at all times and it doesn't matter how drunk someone is.

Which brings up another question... at what point legally, in your esteemed opinion, is someone 'too drunk to consent'. Since you appear to want to create a uniform standard for these things.

[Flarelaine]

If a women is that drunk, did she fail too?

She has, but that does not entitle you to anything.

[Raelbo]

The only one here who is spouting emotional garbage is you, you keep bringing up emotional garbage that has nothing to do with it all

Sex is an emotional interaction. So bringing emotion into it is totally on topic. Maybe you simply have zero emotional intelligence, and I wouldn't hold it against you, but I would argue that such a condition would make you unqualified to do anything in this debate except listen....

while calling all males rapist at the same time.

That is quite the accusation you make there. Care to substantiate?

As soon as you even have a single thing worthy to say i will listen

Irony....

it is just that you spout nothing but sexist nonsense and expect everyone to agree with you.

Care to substantiate? I have pretty much kept everything gender neutral (as I always do) except when quoting the specific case of the OP (which happens to be a female "victim" and male "accused")

If they don't you go on little rants like this and call people various names.[/QUOTE]

[Wilfire]

She has, but that does not entitle you to anything.

It takes 2 people to initiate sex. Did they both rape each other?

[Deleted]

Sex is an emotional interaction. So bringing emotion into it is totally on topic. Maybe you simply have zero emotional intelligence, and I wouldn't hold it against you, but I would argue that such a condition would make you unqualified to do anything in this debate except listen....

Oh lol, are you really saying that it is okay for you to spout emotional garbage just after you accused me of doing that??
The only thing you do here is name calling, like

Maybe you simply have zero emotional intelligence

.
Fact is, you keep bringing up emotional nonsense like

finding someone who is barely of consenting age, getting them blackout drunk and then claiming afterwards that they totally consented.

, that has no place in this discussion yet when someone points out that it is not the guys fault that a girl gets shitfaced then all off a sudden they are "spouting emotional nonsense"..

That is quite the accusation you make there. Care to substantiate?

Just look at what i quoted just above this about males getting females drunk.. But hey, that totally isn't what you meant, right!? /s

Irony....

Somehow i suspect you have no idea what that is..

Care to substantiate? I have pretty much kept everything gender neutral (as I always do) except when quoting the specific case of the OP (which happens to be a female "victim" and male "accused")

Yea, but we all know what you mean, we have been over this too many times for you to now claim y ou are gender neutral on this, you are not.

[Flarelaine]

It takes 2 people to initiate sex. Did they both rape each other?

Your premise is wrong. They need not both initiate. If one of them initiates and the other is incapable of resisting, it will still happen.

[Deleted]

Your premise is wrong. They need not both initiate. If one of them initiates and the other is incapable of resisting, it will still happen.

No his premise isn't wrong, you are just trying to change the premise to fit your agenda. The premise is "if both people are drunk do they rape each other"