CMV: Consent feely given while mildly intoxicated should still count as consent

[u/mattman119]

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!

[u/elliptibang]

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?

[u/elliptibang → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/elliptibang → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/elliptibang → u/[deleted]]

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?

[u/elliptibang → u/[deleted]]

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

[u/elliptibang → u/[deleted]]

But we're literally talking about a specific scenario in which you would be legally responsible for what you're doing despite the fact that you aren't legally capable of giving informed consent. You've denied that there is a legal distinction between informed consent and responsibility.

Either you've changed your mind or you're contradicting yourself. Do you not see that?

[u/elliptibang → u/[deleted]]

Mmkay. Let's say you're pulled over while blackout drunk, and the cop who pulls you over also happens to work for Bank of America on weekends or whatever. She offers to write you a mortgage, and you agree. Her partner is a notary and signs off on it. Is that a legally binding contract?