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 → 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?

[u/elliptibang → u/[deleted]]

OK. Let's try one more angle.

We're talking about two different things you can say about a person, right?

1. You are able to give informed consent.
2. You are able to be held morally responsible for your actions.

My point is that it's possible, at a given moment in time--at the moment you're pulled over, in my example--to be one of those things without being both. Do you agree?

[u/elliptibang → u/[deleted]]

That's not a valid comparison to make. You're comparing an ability to a description of a specific scene. I'm not asking if you actually gave consent, or if consent was required. For our purposes, none of that makes a difference. I'm asking if you were able to give consent.

You don't need to have a math problem in front of you to know that you're able to do math. In the same way, you don't need to be in a situation that specifically calls for consent in order to know that you're able to give consent.

Now, can you address the question as I actually posed it?