I figure this is as good a place as any. How does everyone feel about intoxication and consent?

 

Mod Edit: This was split off from the relationship thread. Since this is such a controversial issue, please use care while posting. Thanks ~ Kimberly

I figure this is as good a place as any. How does everyone feel about intoxication and consent?

If somebody gives consent while intoxicated that is their fault. People are responsible for themselves while intoxicated.

 

Sticking your willy in somebody who is unconscious is separate, because they cannot give consent.

Intoxication and consent can be tricky. I think it depends on a couple of factors:

• Would they (or have they) slept with you sober? If so, then you're probably okay regardless of the level of intoxication.
  
• How intoxicated are they? A few drinks is one thing. Stumbling, barely conscious, blacking-out-and-won't-remember-anything-the-next-day drunk is another.
  
• Had they always been saying "no" before and then changed their mind after drinking too much? This happened to a friend of mine once and even though the guy claimed she said "yes" (after weeks of saying "no"), she's always felt like she was raped.
  

If they're intoxicated to the point where they can no longer reasonably judge the consequences of the choices they make for themselves, then I fail to see how anyone could argue they've given consent, since by nature, consent has to be an informed decision.

 

If I got stupidly drunk, completely lost all sense, and then used all of my life savings (and then some) to buy, let's say, a house, I would hope any reasonable lawyer would argue that there's absolutely no way a valid contract could have been formed under those circumstances. The fact I've put myself into a position where I cannot give consent is irrelevant; the other party still has a moral and legal responsibility to ensure that I'm actually able to understand the risks of the situation they're assisting me into.

 

The same goes for sex. If you think otherwise, then please explain to me in whatever rebuttal you offer to this post how you're not inherently arguing that "she deserved it because she got drunk".

If you are stupid enough to get so drunk that you can be taken advantage of, then it is your fault entirely.

Sounds strangely like blaming the victim, that. It was probably her fault for wearing a short skirt too, I guess.

One of the reasons I chose to "invest" in Online Dating was because it avoids this issue altogether. I'm not interested in hooking up with drunk chicks for that reason.

 

With that said, if you give "consent" while drunk, you're responsible for the consequences. If you're the kind of person who likes to make stupid decisions when you get drunk, then:

a) Don't allow yourself to get into such situations while drunk

b) Don't drink in the first place

 

Side note: I hate the phrase "blaming the victim"; it's like bullying people into not holding others responsible >_>

Self-responsibility, we need more it in society. Getting drunk does not excuse you from anything. It's not blaming the victim (so don't draw such lengths with rape) it's facing self-responsibility. You should drink with trusted friends first to get a hold of your tolerance, then apply self-restraint on other parties.

 

I'm not feeling pity for people who drink.

 

Where does the line end? The person taking advantage could be drunk too, is (s)he excused? If I murder somebody while drunk do I get an excuse?

 

 

Side note: I hate the phrase "blaming the victim"; it's like bullying people into not holding others responsible >_>

I completely agree. It's adding an emotional phrase to a logical problem: Drinking issues? Control yourself.

More on that note...

 

Ginger, saying that X happened as a result of Y behavior isn't the same thing as saying, "SHE DESERVED IT!"

 

Do I think women "deserve" to get raped? Ever? No! But that doesn't change the fact that it happened, and that they aren't completely free of responsibility just because they were held responsible in the worst way imaginable.

I never said they deserved it. A person through the middle of a highway doesn't deserve to get hit by a car, but I sure don't feel sorry for him if he does. He made a poor choice, and he will have to deal with the consequences instead of whine about the cars not stopping for him.

Self-responsibility, we need more it in society. Getting drunk does not excuse you from anything. It's not blaming the victim (so don't draw such lengths with rape) it's facing self-responsibility. You should drink with trusted friends first to get a hold of your tolerance, then apply self-restraint on other parties.

What of the self-responsibility of a man to tell the difference between "Yes, I want to have sex with you," and "Yes, I'm so shit-faced right now you could tell me to do handstand on the side of the Humber Bridge and I'd do it for the lolz"? What is that men find so hard ruddy hard to understand that when a girl goes on a night out and gets drunk, that doesn't mean they want you to grope them all over, take them back to your place and take advantage of that vulnerability. Yes, women should exercise caution when getting drunk, although, the irony is this: they only need to take caution because of men thinking that's completely acceptable to get a girl apopletically drunk in order to 'soften them up' into having sex with them. Which seems to be exactly what you're finding permissible here.

 

Thankfully, the law (at least where I live) agrees with me that it is rape on the grounds of the victim not being in a position to give consent to the act. So yes, I'll continue to draw analogies to rape. Because, you know, that's what it is.

Canada has similar laws.

 

(what Google must think of my searches over the last few minutes. :lol:)

Just leads to girls regretting having sex and claiming it was rape. Happens all the time.

Self-responsibility, we need more it in society. Getting drunk does not excuse you from anything. It's not blaming the victim (so don't draw such lengths with rape) it's facing self-responsibility. You should drink with trusted friends first to get a hold of your tolerance, then apply self-restraint on other parties.

What of the self-responsibility of a man to tell the difference between "Yes, I want to have sex with you," and "Yes, I'm so shit-faced right now you could tell me to do handstand on the side of the Humber Bridge and I'd do it for the lolz"? What is that men find so hard ruddy hard to understand that when a girl goes on a night out and gets drunk, that doesn't mean they want you to grope them all over, take them back to your place and take advantage of that vulnerability. Yes, women should exercise caution when getting drunk, although, the irony is this: they only need to take caution because of men thinking that's completely acceptable to get a girl apopletically drunk in order to 'soften them up' into having sex with them. Which seems to be exactly what you're finding permissible here.

 

Thankfully, the law (at least where I live) agrees with me that it is rape on the grounds of the victim not being in a position to give consent to the act. So yes, I'll continue to draw analogies to rape. Because, you know, that's what it is.

 

Both the man and the woman are responsible. Saying that either party is 100% responsible while the other party is completely innocent is insane.

What has exposure or crimes of misdemeanor got to do with consent? You don't consent to commit crimes. If that's meant to be a comparison to the concept of consent in rape cases, then we're not even talking about the same court of law... ridiculous.

It is all just showing that even with impaired judgment, you are still responsible for your actions.

Except, I've already referenced a precedent where the victim was judged not have been responsible.

 

What has exposure or crimes of misdemeanor got to do with consent? You don't consent to commit crimes. If that's meant to be a comparison to the concept of consent in rape cases, then we're not even talking about the same court of law... ridiculous.

 

consent to the laws themselves.

No.

 

You don't consent to the law, you have an obligation to follow the law. Consent is a concept applied when an individual faces a choice to make an agreement with another party, or decline the opportunity to do so, stating that both individuals must be sufficiently well informed and legally capable of making that decision in the first place. Since you have no choice about following the law, consent is a redundant concept.

That isn't the way it works here though.

You're willfully ignoring legal precedent, choosing instead to compare chalk and cheese, and use a combination of thesaurus.com and RuneScape to rationalise it.

 

It's hilarious, actually.

So Ginger, you're only responsible if you do bad things while drunk but if bad things happen to you, you're not responsible?

He is using an analogy that we are all familiar with. He isn't using RS to rationalize. I just don't see what you don't get about taking responsibility for getting piss drunk and having sex with a person you didn't really want to have sex with on your own accord. If you can't control yourself when you drink, don't drink around people who will take advantage of you, that is being responsible.

It's wrong to take advantage of somebody when they're drunk.

 

It's wrong to get so drunk that you loose your personal conduct.

 

The latter just happens to be a lack of self-responsibility, and thus must be the greater of the two evils. I cannot agree ethically nor legally somebody is not responsible when they're drunk. Now, if you believe people have a right to get drunk safely, then we cannot ever agree.

So Ginger, you're only responsible if you do bad things while drunk but if bad things happen to you, you're not responsible?

Yes, because there a clear difference between being the perpetrator of a crime, and being the victim of one because someone knowingly abused your vulnerability at that moment in time to get you to consent to something you would not otherwise have done.

 

Interestingly, you said that this was a case of "saying that X happened as a result of Y behavior." So you're essentially admitting that, had Y not happened, X would never have occurred?

I don't want to speak for Muggi, but that is exactly what he said. Don't get drunk in an environment where unwanted things will happen, and those unwanted things won't happen. You are making a choice when you start to ingest alcohol or drugs.

So Ginger, you're only responsible if you do bad things while drunk but if bad things happen to you, you're not responsible?

Yes, because there a clear difference between being the perpetrator of a crime, and being the victim of one because someone knowingly abused your vulnerability at that moment in time to get you to consent to something you would not otherwise have done.

 

Interestingly, you said that this was a case of "saying that X happened as a result of Y behavior." So you're essentially admitting that, had Y not happened, X would never have occurred?

 

Correct, and Y can "equal" any of the following:

- Girl chooses to drink excessively

- Girl chooses to put herself in dangerous situations

- Guy chooses to become a rapist

 

As I've said before, it's insane to place 100% of the blame on one person and then consider the other completely innocent. Which is what you seem to be doing.