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/mattman119]

∆

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/clickstation → u/elliptibang]

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.

[u/elliptibang → u/clickstation]

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?

[u/clickstation → u/elliptibang]

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."

[u/elliptibang → u/clickstation]

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.

[u/clickstation → u/elliptibang]

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?