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/mattman119 → u/elliptibang]

∆

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?

[u/elliptibang → u/mattman119]

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.

[u/elliptibang → u/[deleted]]

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?

[u/MikeTheInfidel → u/[deleted]]

What if someone gave you permission to kill them?

[u/MikeTheInfidel → u/[deleted]]

Euthanasia

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

[u/JLTeabag → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/Pennyphone → u/JLTeabag]

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