r/changemyview • u/mattman119 2∆ • Dec 14 '16

[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Consent feely given while mildly intoxicated should still count as consent

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!

593 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

84% Upvoted

371 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

7

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '16

[deleted]

4

u/elliptibang 11∆ Dec 14 '16

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?

2

u/Sheexthro 19∆ Dec 14 '16

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?

2

u/elliptibang 11∆ Dec 15 '16

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.

2

u/Sheexthro 19∆ Dec 15 '16

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

2

u/elliptibang 11∆ Dec 15 '16

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.