So are drunk people responsible or not?

[Gorrath]

Since she is your wife she has A) given clear signals that she wants to have sex with you when she was sober, B) you've known her long enough to know when you are approaching uncertain/dangerous territory, and C) she hasn't explicitly said "no" or physically resisted you while looking distressed.

All of those are things that should be considered. The fact that my wife and I might get drunk and have sex together shouldn't automatically imply that either of us are incapable of giving consent. Both of us have many reasons to assume that, even if we are both drunk, any consent given can be trusted and is legitimate. That is exactly my point.

If it meets those criteria, you're probably in the clear. That fact that you are so concerned about raping your wife worries me. If you don't know someone, don't have sex unless they told you that's what they want. If they said they don't want sex with you while both sober and under the influence, don't have sex with them. If she is so far gone that she can't give consent/ is borderline unconscious, don't have sex with her.

I am not concerned with "raping my wife", I am concerned with arguments that would suggest that I have raped my wife and especially arguments that suggest that this is what the laws should reflect. If I was concerned with raping my wife, her and I would be discussing this, not me and random internet people I like. I use my wife and I as an example to highlight the absurdity of certain claims, not because I fear that what her and I do is actually wrong.

Both of the examples you give are perfectly reasonable and I have no objection to either of them.

It's not fucking rocket science. If you are so worried, sleep with people you trust. Sleeping with strangers carries a certain level of risk to you no matter what.

It's not rocket science but being able to form a few scenarios that are good and reasonable does not mean that all circumstances are cut and dried. There are plenty of hypothetical and reasonable scenarios where someone might have reasons to think consent was given and then be told that because alcohol was involved they have committed a crime. That's why I have, and will continue to argue that each case should be based on the merits of the case, not on blanket assertions like, "A person can't give consent if they are drunk." My wife and I are a great example of how one or more people could be drunk and there is still good reasons to assume consent is legitimate.

Edited for clarity and fixing quote attribution

 

[Areloch]

Well, as someone that doesn't drink, and hasn't hung out with anyone that's gotten full-on drunk/smashed, I'm inquiring from a point of total ignorance on the matter.

What qualifies as legally drunk? Is there a certain blood-alcohol limit when it comes to the matter of consent? And is there any possibility that the person saying yes can be legally drunk, but give no external perception of it? As in, they seem to be totally fine, but are legally drunk.

 

[OmniscientOstrich]

While it's a very gray area (what if you're both drunk? Did you rape each other?), having sex with someone who is drunk potentially means that someone is taking advantage of someone else. Like I stated, that can be very gray in either direction but drunk driving is pretty black & white.

A better comparison would be driving drunk and raping someone while drunk - both are things you do, and both are crimes.

Okay, the comparison to drink-driving doesn't really hold up, but I think that this is the area of conversation that really needs to be aired out when discussing sex and alcohol. What is it precisely that constitutes rape when alcohol is involved? The only narrative that most people seem to have in mind when discussing this is of a sober man taking advantage of a drunk woman, but what if the genders are reversed in that situation? What if both parties are the same sex? What if both parties are drunk? How are you expected to assess whether someone's judgement skills are impaired when your own judgement skills are impaired? How drunk is too drunk to consent? How is this measured? Does the law take into consideration the fact that different people react to alcohol in different ways and that individuals have different tolerance levels for alcohol? I've never seen a discussion around this topic that actually attempts to answer these questions in a satisfactory manner and I'm led to believe it's not being given any thought at all. I'm not even necessarily saying that having sex with someone who's been drinking is a good idea to begin with altogether, but it's impossible to deny that in a social context sex and alcohol are things that often mix and a dialogue needs to be opened up to establish that people know what the law is, what they're getting into and whether the law actually needs to be re-examined and amended.

 

[Vicarious Reality]

It wasnt me! It was the evil magic drink! Ban it! Ban everyone that uses it! Ban logic!

 

[Pseudonym]

At least from a moral standpoint I think the intention matters. If you know somebody is drunk and think to yourself 'well, that's a good opportunity to screw him/her, now that he/she is drunk' then you are at least a shitty person. (whether rape is the right word, I don't really know) If you just think 'well, that person wants to have sex with me and I with him/her' and he/she happens to be drunk that's a different matter as I don't think we should threat drunk people as being unreasonable or incapable of making any decisions. Indeed the argument: 'if we hold somebody responsible for driving, we should hold them responsible for expressing consent' makes sense to me. Either somebody is capable of making autonomous decisions or they aren't. That said, somebody should still clearly and unambiguously have expressed their consent. If they couldn't or wouldn't and you went ahead and had sex with them anyway, that is rape.

Edit: I think I'd like to add that I personally would recommend and do steer cleer from sleeping with anyone who is drunk. I don't drink so I would be much more clear-minded then the other person and if I believe someone might regret having sex within a day or so I'm not going to do have sex with them now.

 

[laggyteabag]

Say, for example, you drive to a pub or bar, that implies that you are planning on driving back after drinking, so yes, it is your fault.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I think this confusion stems from the point some people make that goes along the lines of something like; "the victim of rape didn't do ANYTHING wrong, it's ALL because of the rapist", which, although in a moral sense resonates with good-spirited people, is untrue. If you get THAT drunk, you clearly are making mistakes. You don't deserve to be raped for those mistakes or anything but it's not a GOOD thing, either. Acknowledging this makes people nervous though. It makes people feel you're blaming the victim by not pretending the victim is the personification of innocence, which no person will ever be.


No, obviously you're not doing everything 100% right if you pass out in random rapists' apartments out of drinking too much. It's fine to acknowledge that while also acknowledging that just cause people make really bad choices and pass out it doesn't give other people the right to rape them.


If we can agree on this much, if we can agree that the victim does bear some personal responsibility, it'll be much easier to see why a drunk driver is persecuted but a drunk rape victim is protected.