Jarimir said:
Here's the rub. You have stated repeatedly that people should not have sex with anyone they've just met at a bar or any establishment or event where people might be drinking to avoid the possibility of "raping" someone. This would suggest that you believe that once a person 1st feels the effects of alcohol they are completely out of their mind and not capable of making the same decisions they would while sober. Sometimes just one drink is enough for that. When pressed, however, you jump to a senario where the person is on the verge of being black out drunk. So which is it? Is "tipsy sex" rape, or is "on the verge of being blacked out sex" rape?
I'm inclined to think you're not reading what I wrote carefully enough to get what I'm actually saying, so let me stop here and re-post relevant quotes from myself, with a line-by-line explanation for your benefit. The fact that you've glossed over what I've said and made baseless conclusions because of it before (with me, no less) makes me think that this is necessary.
minuialear said:
The point at which someone is not in full control of their faculties, is the point at which they cannot give willful, informed consent.
If for one person, this is after one drink, then it's after one drink. If it's only when the person is black-out drunk, then it's when the person is black-out drunk. Yes, the amount it takes to mess up one's ability to reason varies from person to person; this is, however, irrelevant to my point. My point is, when a person isn't capable of making informed consent, then they have grounds to say they didn't give willful, informed consent for something like sex. Whether it took them 1 or 10 shots to get there is irrelevant.
The reason I suggested that people shouldn't sleep with those who may have just had one, even if they can handle the 10 before getting tipsy, is due to the complaint people keep bringing up that it's impossible to tell how much another person can really handle before it starts to affect them (which people are using as an excuse to assume someone's capable of consent unless they are sloppy drunk). Considering I (hopefully, by now, obviously) am not just referring to people who are sloppy, black-out drunk, I posited the problem can be rectified if one plays it safe. If you can't tell, is it really that big of a deal to be expected to play it safe and wait until you can ensure you're getting informed consent before doing anything? If you're at an intersection and a car next to you is blocking your view of oncoming traffic into a lane you want to turn into, would you consider it a violation of your rights not to be expected to wait until you can be sure no cars are coming, before you make your turn (even if that means sitting in the lane until the car next to you is no longer blocking your view)? If someone tells you not to pick up a gun because they don't know if the safety's on or not, are you going to get angry with them for telling you "better safe than sorry"?
minuialear said:
To the fullest extreme, even if a guy is close to blackout drunk and is BEGGING people to sleep with him, this doesn't count as willful, informed consent.
In case you didn't notice this the first time: this was meant to be an example of the worst-case. Just because I don't specifically point out every single possible scenario ("After drink 1 x; after drink 2, y; after drink 3..."), doesn't mean that I'm harping on the worst-case scenario because it's the only scenario relevant to what I'm saying. Especially when I just said
minuialear said:
The point at which someone is not in full control of their faculties, is the point at which they cannot give willful, informed consent.
which also includes people who are drunk/tipsy to the point where their thought processes are compromised, but not "My liver is about to die"-drunk.
minuialear said:
Because people who don't have control over themselves (e.g., unconscious people, people handicapped physically, mentally, or as a result of drugs/etc) aren't capable of making informed decisions.
Again, "handicaps" aren't always of the incredibly extreme variety; being buzzed to the point where you can't think as well as you did prior to drinking counts as a handicap, as well as being drunk to the point where you can barely move or speak.
As a general remark on your interpretation of this post so far, you need to stop imposing your own assumptions on my words, and start actually reading generic statements as generic statements. Or at least asking "By this, do you mean...?" Because I'm noticing a trend of you assuming people mean what you want them to mean, and then going off on tirades about it, and it's getting a bit annoying.
minuialear said:
And no (pre-emptive argument), the argument that "you wouldn't do anything drunk that you wouldn't wanna do sober" doesn't hold much water, so arguing that it's still consent on that basis would be bordering on ridiculous.
I'm assuming no issue has been taken with this. Moving on:
minuialear said:
If either person is drunk and unable to make rational decisions, how is it something they are anticipating? You also seem to be forgetting the fact that consent is not a one-time deal; a girl or guy telling someone that (s)he'd be willing to have sex with him/her in half an hour, is not consent for sex that is performed half an hour from then. Consent must be given at the time of intercourse. Again, consenting before the act itself is not giving consent for anything that happens later in the night, because saying, "Yeah, sure, I'll sleep with you" is not equivalent to signing a binding contract requiring either party to actually have sex. People's minds change, and they are entitled to change their minds. However, if they're ability to give willful, informed consent is impaired, it's hard for this to occur. In fact, it's impossible. Therefore someone sleeping with you when you're under the influence and unable to give willful, informed consent can still be considered a form of rape.
You didn't really address this, so I'm going to assume you either both understood and agreed with it, or you didn't really read it at all.
And to post something that I feel I've had to repeat over and over and over again, and which you clearly didn't catch:
minuialear said:
I'm not saying that a dude or chick who gets drunk doesn't have some hand in putting his/herself in danger of one of these situations. I'm saying if people are going to use the "if (s)he didn't wanna have sex, (s)he shouldn't have gotten drunk" argument, it's just as valid to turn that around and say "if the girl/guy you wanted to have sex with was more drunk than you were, was drunk before you were, etc, why did you continue to try and have sex with her/him?" In this thread there is a lot of people hinting at some dangerous opinions about what it means to give consent, and how much responsibility someone has in actually making sure they have consent, which is what I take issue with.
As I've said multiple times, the point is accepting that both parties have a responsibility to act like mature adults. Any argument one makes about how it's the more drunk person's fault that the situation happened can be turned on its head.
- If (s)he didn't want sex, (s)he shouldn't have gotten drunk. (If (s)he didn't want to be accused of having sex with him/her without getting proper consent, (s)he should have either waited to get proper consent, or, if this was impossible at the time, shouldn't have had sex in the first place.)
- (S)he willfully got drunk, and therefore deserved to end up having sex with person 2. (Person 2 willfully chose to not get proper consent before having sex with a drunk/more drunk person, and therefore deserved being charged with having sex with the person without getting proper consent.)
etc.
The point isn't to say people shouldn't have sex ever or should never have sex while drunk (I even said such, though I'm not feeling generous enough to post my entire reply history here for your befefit--feel free to go through and do it yourself if you feel so inclined). The point is, if one party (the more drunk one) is expected to shoulder any responsibility for the event, it only makes sense that the other party has some of the responsibility as well. Especially considering the solution is "if you can't get consent, don't have sex."
And as I stated previously,
minuialear said:
Both parties would be able to make a sexual assault and/or rape charge, in instances where both are equally drunk. This happens all the time (i.e., the law doesn't require that one person have to be the assailant and another to have to be the victim; both can be victims in instances where it's clear that both were equally lacking in an ability to make rational decisions).
Which addresses the scenario where both people are equally drunk. Further clarification and expansion of the scenario can be provided.
HOWEVER, in practice, it's rarely the case where both people are actually equally drunk. Which should come as no surprise, because the chances of finding someone exactly as drunk as you at a party are clearly slimmer than finding someone who is more or less drunk than you, if only because different bodies metabolize alcohol differently (much less because one has just had more than other, etc). Therefore while I addressed the unlikely scenario where both are equally drunk, the reason why most of my posts do not focus on the equally-drunk scenario is because it rarely ever actually happens.
If you need further clarification I will give it.