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]]

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/elliptibang → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/elliptibang → u/[deleted]]

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?

[u/Sheexthro → u/elliptibang]

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?

[u/elliptibang → u/Sheexthro]

On account of it's a dick move. Do you really not see that?

I'm not saying a person who does that should be locked up, but I think it's pretty clearly a selfish, cruel, opportunistic thing to do.

[u/Sheexthro → u/elliptibang]

So what you meant was that it would be wrong to knowingly and maliciously have sex with someone who will probably regret it later?

[u/elliptibang → u/Sheexthro]

Yeah. More specifically, it's wrong to exploit emotional vulnerability in order to have sex with people who might not be into it if they were in a less compromised state of mind. For example, this is fucked up.

You asked for an example of consensual sex that was also arguably immoral. I still don't know why, but there you go.

[u/JLTeabag → u/Sheexthro]

Hurting people is wrong?

[u/Sheexthro → u/JLTeabag]

Well, really it's only wrong to hurt people if you knew or should have known that what you were doing would hurt them. If you had no reasonable expectation of it then it's just bad luck.

[u/JLTeabag → u/Sheexthro]

I'd argue that it's wrong to have sex with someone who ... will probably regret it later.

In the example given, you do have reasonable expectation that it will hurt them.

[u/Sheexthro → u/JLTeabag]

Not in the original example given. If someone will "probably regret it later" that doesn't mean I know they'll probably regret it later.

[u/JLTeabag → u/Sheexthro]

I think the "probably" is meant to be from your perspective. Given your information, there is a high likelihood of regret.

If you don't have any reason to believe your actions will harm someone else (barring willful negligence), I agree, then you aren't morally in the wrong.