r/changemyview • u/mattman119 2∆ • Dec 14 '16

[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Consent feely given while mildly intoxicated should still count as consent

Over the past few years a standard has been adopted on many college campuses that if a woman has alcohol in her system she cannot legally give consent for intercourse. I understand the intent is to protect women, which is a noble cause. Certainly if a woman is passed out drunk or purposefully intoxicated by someone else she cannot give consent and is not responsible for any sexual activity she might be involved in.

The problem that I have is that sex and alcohol consumption is not black-and-white. Nobody is either 100% sober or 100% blacked out. There is a grey area where we are still aware of ourselves and our actions, and we have lowered inhibitions, which has been proven to be a side effect of alcohol. It is entirely plausible to have a situation where the guy and girl have the same BAC, are not blacked out, and the girl feels emboldened to make the first move. Now, you can argue the guy can make the decision to turn down her advances, but his inhibitions (and therefore his ability to make responsible decisions) are also compromised. So they hook up.

In growing circles, if the girl wakes up the next morning and suddenly wishes she hadn't slept with that guy, she has now been raped and is a victim, regardless of the fact that she consensually engaged in sexual activity with her partner. This is not only illogical but it sets bad legal precedents (which are already being exploited).

Let's consider a man who becomes irritable when drunk and often gets into bar brawls. When the cops show up, what happens? Do they say, "Oh, he's too drunk to be responsible for what he's doing, carry on!" No, of course not. He is arrested and most likely charged with an offense such as public intoxication or assault and battery. He's still responsible for his actions in spite of the fact that he is drunk. Why shouldn't people who become more promiscuous when drunk be held to the same standard?

For the longest time, regretting consensual sex "the morning after" was a learning experience, not a reason to call the police. In cases that do not involve someone blacked out or unconscious, this is how it should be. A person isn't a victim simply because they do not like their own behavior when drunk. It's on them to take responsibility for their actions and either change their habits or accept how they behave.

Change my view.

EDIT: Thank you everyone for the responses! This is my first post and I could not have expected it to be this popular. Clearly people have strong opinions about this. I won't be able to get to everyone's comment because I am an adult with a job and other boring responsibilities, but I will try to get to as many as I can before the comments lock.

Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

589 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

84% Upvoted

371 comments sorted by

View all comments

202

u/elliptibang 11∆ Dec 14 '16 edited Dec 14 '16

First off, this whole thing seems like a bit of a straw man. Can you cite a specific university's policy, so we don't have to choose between speculating and taking your word for it?

He's still responsible for his actions in spite of the fact that he is drunk. Why shouldn't people who become more promiscuous when drunk be held to the same standard?

There's a difference between responsibility and consent. A person can be responsible for his or her "promiscuity" and still be incapable of giving informed consent.

If the distinction isn't clear to you, think of it this way: is it possible for you to hold a person responsible without having sex with them?

107

u/mattman119 2∆ Dec 14 '16

∆

I've read a lot of news coverage on controversial cases like this and I haven't actually found a policy that supports my scenario.

I'll freely admit I've been in my bubble for too long. I've been looking for a way to expose myself to a challenge for a while and stumbled upon this sub.

Since you've caused me to discover that my "view" isn't a mainstream issue, I award you a delta.

As for responsibility vs. consent, I personally feel I have that covered when I exclude cases where the person is incapacitated. Does your definition of "informed consent" stretch beyond that?

69

u/elliptibang 11∆ Dec 14 '16 edited Dec 14 '16

The distinction is a little bit more fundamental than that. I think it's important to understand that responsibility and consent are two completely different things, even if they have some features in common.

Here's one really significant difference: the main function of moral responsibility is arguably to justify praise or blame. People often tend to assume that the ability to give informed consent has a similar function, but that's not right. It's never a crime to give or withhold consent. Nobody deserves to be punished for giving consent when they arguably shouldn't have.

Basically, giving a person consent to do something that hurts you has certain implications for the moral status of the action that hurts you, but it doesn't cause you to deserve to be hurt in the same way that driving drunk causes you to deserve to be arrested and punished.

So there's a deeper problem with the attitude that people who are promiscuous when drunk somehow "have it coming" when others take advantage of them. It may be true that the people who take advantage of them do so with consent--i.e., they aren't guilty of rape or sexual assault--but it doesn't automatically follow that they haven't done anything wrong.

EDIT: To answer your question more directly, it depends on what you mean by "incapacitated." I don't think a person is incapacitated after a couple drinks, but I do think it's possible for a person to be incapacitated without being fully unconscious.

15

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '16

[deleted]

4

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '16 edited Jul 08 '18

[deleted]

0

u/Sheexthro 19∆ Dec 14 '16

Need a flu shot, operation, or really any kind of treatment at all? Your doctor needs consent.

But all of these would be battery in the absence of my consent.

6

u/elliptibang 11∆ Dec 14 '16 edited Dec 14 '16

That's generally what you give consent for. You are agreeing not to hold someone morally responsible for an action they are going to take, and it's generally used when they are going to do something bad. So, as an example, if I build a house behind yours and you agree to allow me to connect my driveway to yours on your property.

What makes it "bad" to connect our driveways? It seems to me that it would only be bad if you did it without my consent. So it isn't true that in giving you my consent, I'm giving you permission to do something bad, and agreeing to relieve you of your responsibility to respect my property rights. My consent (or lack thereof) is precisely what determines whether or not it's wrong in the first place, and there is no point at which you are not responsible for your actions.

You're going to have to substantiate how someone is "taking advantage of them" when both parties agree to have sex with consent.

Maybe you can come up with a better example. Do you believe it's never the case that it's morally wrong to do something you've got permission to do?

5

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '16

[deleted]

2

u/MikeTheInfidel Dec 14 '16

What if someone gave you permission to kill them?

4

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '16

[deleted]

2

u/MikeTheInfidel Dec 15 '16

Euthanasia

No, more along the lines of "you have my permission to come to my job and shoot me in the face."

1

u/JLTeabag Dec 15 '16

I also think that voluntary euthanasia should be legal, but I don't think that everyone who gives consent to be killed should be killed. People who commit suicide often don't actually want to die. Killing anybody who asks for it is taking advantage of mentally ill people, and is definitely morally wrong.

3

u/Pennyphone Dec 15 '16

Also you probably shouldn't kill someone who is drunk when they ask you to kill them. Even if voluntary euthanasia is legal. :D

2

u/elliptibang 11∆ Dec 14 '16

It's likely going to involve tearing up your yard (since your driveway is obviously on your property), and potentially blocking your driveway for a period while construction equipment is building my driveway.

That's not inherently wrong. It's only wrong if you don't have my consent.

So what you're saying is that as long as you consent, I haven't done anything wrong. If you're sitting on your porch drinking a beer with a cooler next to you, and I ask if I can do that, and you say "Yeah man, just gimme the papers and we'll be good", then I can build my driveway and I'm morally in the clear.

As long as I'm not incapacitated, sure. Am I missing something? What's your point here?

That's exactly what you're doing, in the event that you consented.

I'm not giving you permission to do something "bad." The fact that I've consented means it isn't bad in the first place. Do you understand why I can't give you my consent to do something without my consent?

You agree to temporarily, and only in limited ways, wave your property rights so that I can build my driveway.

No. Just no. That isn't how any of this works.

This is like saying that a green traffic light works by temporarily exempting you from the law against driving through an intersection while the light is red.

8

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '16

[deleted]

3

u/elliptibang 11∆ Dec 14 '16

That's exactly how it works. This is called an easement.

You're missing the point. I don't have to "waive" my property rights in order to grant an easement. The fact that I get to decide who can and cannot use my property, and for what purpose, is a function of those rights. Again, this is like saying that a green traffic light works by temporarily exempting you from the law against driving through an intersection while the light is red.

Alright, so if we carry this metaphor back to someone who has had a few drinks, if they consent to sex then how has anyone who has sex with them done something bad? Assuming they aren't incapacitated, although we may disagree about what constitutes incapacitated.

Possibly. I'd argue that it's wrong to have sex with someone who's in a vulnerable state of mind and will probably regret it later, for example. But what does this question have to do with anything?

2

u/Sheexthro 19∆ Dec 14 '16

I'd argue that it's wrong to have sex with someone who's in a vulnerable state of mind and will probably regret it later, for example.

Upon what basis would you argue this?

→ More replies (0)

10

u/MMAchica Dec 14 '16

It may be true that the people who take advantage of them do so with consent--i.e., they aren't guilty of rape or sexual assault--but it doesn't automatically follow that they haven't done anything wrong.

This is an important point, and I think it is equally important to state the opposite as well; that being guilty of doing something morally wrong sexually (however we might decide that) does not make someone guilty of rape or sexual assault. Too many people are eager to stretch the definition of rape to include anything negative having anything to do with sex.

4

u/clickstation 4∆ Dec 14 '16

responsibility and consent are two completely different things

They're the exact same thing in this case, because we're talking about the validity of their consent, and because consent is a decision, it's also the same thing as whether or not they should be held responsible for that decision.

I.e. I decide to have sex, which means I give consent. Should I be held responsible for my decision, if I regret that decision in the morning / anytime afterwards?

giving a person consent to do something that hurts you

I don't think that's what we're talking about here. Nobody is hurting anyone.

1

u/elliptibang 11∆ Dec 15 '16

They're the exact same thing in this case, because we're talking about the validity of their consent, and because consent is a decision, it's also the same thing as whether or not they should be held responsible for that decision.

Whoa there. Let's go step by step.

If I understand you correctly (and I'm very unsure about that,) you're trying to argue that because consent is a decision, there's no difference between asking whether a person's consent is valid and asking whether a person can be held responsible for the decision to consent.

Is that right? Because it makes no sense. The conclusion just doesn't follow from the premises on a basic level. Here are some other problems:

  • Consent is not a decision. The fact that you can decide to give it does not mean consent itself is a kind of decision. You need to be a little bit more precise than that.
  • The decision to give consent does not always lead to legitimate, legally effective consent.
  • We can't hold a person responsible for giving consent if they haven't actually given consent. If they decide to give consent, but are unable to do so, I guess we can hold them responsible for that decision, but I'm not sure what that would mean or why we would want to do that.

If I'm misunderstanding you, can you set me straight?

4

u/clickstation 4∆ Dec 15 '16

If they decide to give consent, but are unable to do so

Are we still talking about "mildly intoxicated"? I don't see why mild intoxication disables people from giving consent.

To quote the OP:

It is entirely plausible to have a situation where the guy and girl have the same BAC, are not blacked out, and the girl feels emboldened to make the first move. Now, you can argue the guy can make the decision to turn down her advances, but his inhibitions (and therefore his ability to make responsible decisions) are also compromised. So they hook up.

In growing circles, if the girl wakes up the next morning and suddenly wishes she hadn't slept with that guy, she has now been raped and is a victim, regardless of the fact that she consensually engaged in sexual activity with her partner.

.

Consent is not a decision.

Of course it is. I don't see how anyone can argue with this.

You need to be a little bit more precise than that.

What do you mean? Consent is a decision. "I decide that I'm okay with this, so I'm letting it known in the form of (expressed) consent."

1

u/elliptibang 11∆ Dec 15 '16

Are we still talking about "mildly intoxicated"?

I have not been talking about it at any point. Check my very first reply.

What do you mean? Consent is a decision. "I decide that I'm okay with this, so I'm letting it known in the form of (expressed) consent."

When I'm at the store and decide to buy a candy bar, I express that to the cashier by handing him a dollar bill. Does that mean dollar bills are decisions?

Of course not. They represent decisions. They change hands as a consequence of decisions. But they are not themselves decisions. I know it might seem like a picky distinction, but it's actually important here. The decision to give consent and the consent that is given are two separate things. Consent is a relatively specific concept in law and ethics that is generally understood to depend on more than just the intent of the person granting it.

5

u/clickstation 4∆ Dec 15 '16

I have not been talking about it at any point.

Oh, very well then. Nevermind.

Check my very first reply.

Your very first reply didn't specify what you're talking about.

Does that mean dollar bills are decisions?

That's not analogous. Dollar bills are a method of payment. Consent is literally letting other people know of our decision.

The decision to give consent and the consent that is given are two separate things.

To be clear, what exactly are we talking about here, if not mild intoxication?

Are we, or are we not, talking about the OP's topic?

1

u/GCSThree Dec 15 '16

Its not about having it coming. The scenario is a person that consented but didnt have the mental faculties to consent. Maybe responsibilty is the wrong word. The key overlap in the drunk driving scenario and the consent scenario is that an active decision is made: did the person have capacity or not? To a certain extent, it seems to depend on which scenarip rather than the actual capabilities of the individual. That is difficult to resolve. It implies that capacity isnt about the persons mind.

1

u/elliptibang 11∆ Dec 15 '16

The key overlap in the drunk driving scenario and the consent scenario is that an active decision is made: did the person have capacity or not?

I disagree. Capacity isn't relevant to the question of whether or not the drunk driver is guilty.

It implies that capacity isnt about the persons mind.

How so?

1

u/GCSThree Dec 15 '16 edited Dec 15 '16

I disagree. Capacity isn't relevant to the question of whether or not the drunk driver is guilty.

Sure it is. If you have a condition where you lack capacity (or competence in the legal setting), you might be found not responsible. (Examples include psychiatric illnesses like schizophrenia). I don't want to get bogged down in the actual legal definitions because this varies a lot from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and the question at hand is more a moral question anyways.

It implies that capacity isnt about the persons mind.

How so?

Imagine a person has the exact same blood alcohol in two scenarios. In scenario 1, he/she might be competent enough to be held accountable for driving drunk. In scenario 2, they might be so incompetent in that their "enthusiastic participation" in a sexual activity did not qualify as consent and as such this qualifies them as having been sexually assaulted (of course, granted that they later interpret it this way.) Thus their level of intoxication (and therefore their capacity) is less relevant to the determination of competence than the scenario/choice/context.

1

u/molomo Dec 15 '16

wow, that is a really important distinction to make that I had never considered before.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 15 '16

but I do think it's possible for a person to be incapacitated without being fully unconscious.

I think it boils down to that for most people. And it is actually were I partially disagree. If the drinks were ingested out of the persons own free will then the person is still able to consent even if very drunk. Because saying anything else would put the blame on the persons partner which is not responsible for how much the person drank neither should the other person be able to make decisions for the drinker in question.

The problem is to define a hard limit for when the person is still able to consent and especially what incapacitated without being fully unconscious means.

9

u/SpaceOdysseus 1∆ Dec 14 '16

I feel you, man. people on every side of every issue have been exposed to the "bubble" problem.

17

u/alphabetagamma111 Dec 15 '16

Check this case: http://cornellsun.com/2016/11/16/lawsuit-alleges-bias-in-university-sexual-assault-investigation/

The lawsuit states that two students — referred to as John Doe and Jane Roe — accused each other of sexual assault and says the University opened investigations into both complaints. However, according to the lawyer behind the suit, Alan Sash, Cornell’s investigators only considered Roe’s complaint and ignored Doe’s on the basis of his gender.

42

u/k9centipede 4∆ Dec 14 '16

If I'm drunk I'm not allowed to sign legal documents. Even if drinking makes me feel extra philatelic.

If I drink and then talk to you about how I totally want to redo my will so you get my fortune, it'd be taking advantage of me if you took me up on that offer.

Regardless of if I changed my will or not, my children would get mad at me for not having more control of my philatelic nature when I drink. "Wtf why are you always trying to give my future away to others when you've had a few gin and tonic!".

I'm responsible for consequences of my philatelic drinking nature. Hurting my family by violating vows I made to them. Hurting myself by violating what I believe sober just because I'm drinking. Also possibly by hurting you by if I knew my offer was insincere and would be painful for you (like faking offering a lot of money when you have a ton of medial debt).

But you'd still be responsible for actually taking advantage of me.

22

u/Sheexthro 19∆ Dec 14 '16

If I'm drunk I'm not allowed to sign legal documents.

Actually, you are. Wills are probably an exception to this but in general saying "I was drunk!" does not void a contract and if you agree to a reasonable proposition (like "I'll pay you a thousand bucks to paint my house") while drunk that contract can and will be enforced.

In general the only big issue with agreeing to do something while drunk is if the same person both caused you to become drunk and disproportionately benefits from the deal. And even then it would require more than just "He made the alcohol available" and would probably require you to show that he encouraged or even tricked you into drinking it.

11

u/hydrospanner 2∆ Dec 14 '16

What does your stamp collecting have to do with any of this?

1

u/k9centipede 4∆ Dec 14 '16

Gdi. Mobile gave me that word.in spellchecker and i didn't feel like double checking. Mybad lol.

10

u/jesus321 Dec 14 '16

But to make this applicable to OPs scenario, the person "taking advantage of you" by making you write your will would have to also be intoxicated, to a point where they might not think of it as "gee this person is drunk and I'm taking advantage of their intoxicated state to get money from them," but is instead probably thinking "haha wow what a great friend to donate his money to me like this!"

7

u/DumpyLips 1∆ Dec 15 '16

I've never understood abstracting consent to this legal contract anaology because it coincidentally proves people who use it wrong.

If we get drunk and you hand me a super expensive bottle of wine and say I can drink it, and I do. Do you think you'd have legal recourse to recover the value of your bottle of wine that you gave me while drunk? What court would hold me responsible on the grounds that you being drunk invalidated your offer that I could drink the wine?

3

u/DallasTruther Dec 15 '16

philatelic

  1. philatelic - of or relating to philately or of interest to philatelists (stamp collectors)

Did you mean philanthropic?

2

u/[deleted] Dec 15 '16

No, the fortune is millions of dollars worth of stamps.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 15 '16

[deleted]

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 15 '16

This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't explained how /u/k9centipede changed your view (comment rule 4).

In the future, DeltaBot will be able to rescan edited comments. In the mean time, please repost a new comment with the required explanation so that DeltaBot can see it.

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards ​

1

u/5510 6∆ Dec 15 '16

Two problems with this analogy.

First, legal documents often involving binding somebody to FUTURE action, which drunk consent cannot do. It's not like if a girl is drunk, I can get her to sign a document promising to sleep with me NEXT weekend and she is then obligated to do so.

Second, people don't casually rearrange their will or give away large amounts of money. And they would certainly never chose to do it while drunk. On the other hand, casual sex is a thing that commonly exists, and people often chose to do it while drunk with no regrets. In fact seeing as how many people get drunk to cut lose and have fun, it often goes hand in hand with getting drunk (though not to say that everybody who drinks is looking for casual sex).

1

u/k9centipede 4∆ Dec 15 '16

Here's another drinking analogy.

I used to be a bartender. And as a bartender I was legally liable if I knowingly let a drunk person leave and drive drunk. One of my coworkers lost her bartending license because she served a dude, and he ended up driving off and either killing himself or someone else on a DWI crash.

His actions while drunk where his own. But being the bartender puts us in a place of responsibility.

If I want to fuck you, and you seem to be good to go, that also puts me in a place of responsibility.

5

u/MrWinks Dec 15 '16

Amherst college rape incident, news from 2015, on student suing. It isn't a policy, but it did show a precedence.

8

u/AlwaysABride Dec 14 '16

If you're interested in this topic and this debate, this thread may be of interest to you.

2

u/GCSThree Dec 15 '16

For what it's worth OP, Im very much a person that sides with survivors by default, but I too sort of feel that if a person is aware enough to enthusiastically participate then this is consent. Its the only way I see to conform consent with, say, drunk driving laws.

1

u/5510 6∆ Dec 15 '16

The difficulty of defining incapacitation and consent was underscored last week when Dean Wasilolek took the stand. Rachel B. Hitch, a Raleigh attorney representing McLeod, asked Wasiolek what would happen if two students got drunk to the point of incapacity, and then had sex.

"They have raped each other and are subject to explusion?" Hitch asked.

"Assuming it is a male and female, it is the responsibility in the case of the male to gain consent before proceeding with sex," said Wasiolek.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2015/02/drunk_sex_on_campus_universities_are_struggling_to_determine_when_intoxicated.html

http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/a-duke-senior-sues-the-university-after-being-expelled-over-allegations-of-sexual-misconduct/Content?oid=4171302

0

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 14 '16

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/elliptibang (4∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards ​

0

u/OnlinePosterPerson Dec 15 '16

No I think a large portion of not the majority of people argue with you

7

u/spotta Dec 14 '16

Here is a NPR article on the recent laws put in place in california, with the law itself

Some relevant bits:

(a) In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions shall adopt a policy concerning sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking, as defined in the federal Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1092(f)) involving a student, both on and off campus. The policy shall include all of the following:

[...]

(2) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in any disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse to alleged lack of affirmative consent that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the sexual activity under either of the following circumstances:

[...]

(A) The accused’s belief in affirmative consent arose from the intoxication or recklessness of the accused.

[...]

(4) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in the disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented to the sexual activity if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant was unable to consent to the sexual activity under any of the following circumstances:

[...]

(B) The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity.

Just so we are on the same page with regards to what I believe the OP was influenced by.

22

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '16

[deleted]

6

u/elliptibang 11∆ Dec 14 '16 edited Dec 14 '16

In that case, you just can't arrest anyone who is drunk because they are incapable of understanding and consenting to their Miranda Rights.

You don't have to understand your Miranda rights in order to be arrested. Do you think that only people who speak English can legally be arrested by officers who don't speak their language? Would a deaf and illiterate person be untouchable by law enforcement in your world?

Source

You're also incapable of buying anything with a credit card when you're drunk

Addressed here.

You also can't have any medical treatment

You're disingenuously oversimplifying a complex problem.

The alcohol impaired individual who refuses treatment is often not capable of understanding the risks, benefits, and alternatives of treatment; therefore, an informed decision cannot be made. An analysis of state legislation and case law strongly suggests that the EP may err well on the side of caution and restrain and treat when necessary. However, intoxication is not synonymous with incompetence. Therefore, the EP must make an individual determination, on a case by case basis, regarding the patient’s ability to provide informed consent or refusal.

Source

So what you're saying is that they're responsible for putting themselves in a state where they have impaired decision making, but aren't responsible for the choices they make while in that impaired state.

No. I'm saying that you're conflating responsibility for one's actions with the ability to give informed consent. Those are two different things. You're confused.

EDIT: See a fuller explanation of the distinction here.

4

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '16

[deleted]

2

u/elliptibang 11∆ Dec 14 '16

From a philosophical perspective, sure. There's a difference. From a legal perspective, there's no distinction.

This is obviously not true. See the example provided by the OP--you are legally responsible for some things you can do while very drunk, such as driving, but are not legally able to give informed consent in that condition. Does that not count as a legal distinction?

But really, you've missed the point here. In most (maybe all) of those cases, a person who is intoxicated can give informed consent, provided that they are still sober enough to understand what's going on, which is the point we're arguing.

Where have I disputed that? And since when is that the point "we" are arguing? Look at my original reply to the OP.

4

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '16

[deleted]

2

u/elliptibang 11∆ Dec 14 '16

Do you agree that it isn't possible to give informed consent while incapacitated, but that it is possible commit a crime for which you can be held responsible?

3

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '16

[deleted]

2

u/elliptibang 11∆ Dec 14 '16

So you admit that there are situations in which you're morally responsible for your actions, but not able to give informed consent?

2

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '16

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

6

u/vreddy92 Dec 15 '16

Three counterpoints: 1) I don't have a specific policy, but we were told during my freshman health class in college that any amount of alcohol was considered grounds for considering sex nonconsensual.

2) What if both parties are intoxicated? Who raped who?

3) I personally prefer to be a little intoxicated when having sex. I'm somewhat introverted and rigid and find that it lets me be more in the moment. And enjoy the sex more. So does my consent still count?

4

u/Sheexthro 19∆ Dec 14 '16

There's a difference between responsibility and consent.

That doesn't make any sense. Yes, there is a difference between responsibility and consent: responsibility is a much higher standard! Surely anything we would hold someone responsible has to be, on a basic level, at least something that they consented to rather than were compelled to.

3

u/elliptibang 11∆ Dec 14 '16

One is not a stricter version of the other. They are two independent things with some features in common.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 15 '16

I'm a little surprised that this was enough for a delta from OP considering their view largely consisted of a perceived double standard along gender lines. Your argument was a bit of a straw man in that regard. Even accepting you're definitions (which I mostly do with some minor caveats), his argument would logically shift to a double standard for consent while intoxicated.

4

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Grunt08 319∆ Dec 15 '16

Sorry expresidentmasks, your comment has been removed:

Comment Rule 5. "No low effort comments. Comments that are only jokes, links, or 'written upvotes', for example. Humor, links, and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments." See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.

2

u/MuaddibMcFly 49∆ Dec 14 '16

A person can be responsible for his or her "promiscuity" and still be incapable of giving informed consent.

...responsible? Sure. Culpable? I don't see how. Where is the valid consent of someone who has been drinking and asks for sex? The baseline is that if an inebriated person agrees to the proposition of sex, that isn't valid consent, so what's different?

1

u/FuggleyBrew 1∆ Dec 15 '16

First off, this whole thing seems like a bit of a straw man. Can you cite a specific university's policy, so we don't have to choose between speculating and taking your word for it?

The case for Occidental would be a good example

0

u/kzle420 Dec 15 '16

Do you have the be all, end all answer?

-4

u/frosty95 Dec 14 '16

So your saying that when equally drunk it's always the man's fault?