So are drunk people responsible or not?

[Something Amyss]

Well that depends, did you ask the person if you could have their wallet and they, drunk and stupid as they are, take it out and give it to you? If so, and if the people in this thread aren't intellectually dishonest and just want to downplay rape for whatever reason, they should say yes, take that wallet.

Also, be sure to bring some paperwork that the victim person who is responsible for their actions can sign, giving away all their worldly possessions to you. According to this thread, that's perfectly acceptable to do and the homeless, poverty-stricken person has no one to blame but themselves.

I guess you could say my larger issue is that I doubt their honesty and/or sincerity. That you immediately got a response saying "depends on the scenario" is a big hint as to why.

 

[Michel Henzel]

CpT_x_Killsteal

I did not mention consent because unless you are totally uneducated/a massive arsehole, consent doesn't need to be explained. No consent equals rape.

My statement is saying that consent when you are not capable of making choices is not consent. A person saying yes when they cannot comprehend that they are walking is not consent its just words.

And yes I will compare drunk sex to that scenario. Is their a difference? they are both rape. I am sure their is a difference in how traumatised the victim feels but it doesn't change it from being rape.

People have been traumatised by both scenarios of rape. Some people have recovered and coped well from the violent type, some from the drunken kind. Some people have fallen apart and committed suicide from the violent form, some from the drunken kind.

Its individual resilience.

Guess by your definition I've been raped several times already.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Any stupid decisions you make alone while drunk are your responsibility.

Someone trying to con you while youre drunk is their responsibility, and abusing your drunkness is recognised in law.

For example, if youre SO drunk that you cannot function and someone convinces you to scrawl your name on a legal document, said document wont be binding if you can prove you didnt sign it while of right body and mind. You cannot trick a drunk person to sign away their house and money, in the same way you cannot convince someone SO drunk they literally would groan "yes" to every question to have sex with you. Both are horrendously immoral and arguably illegal.

If said person decides to drive thats their own prerogative, and no one can lead them through the motions to drive without huge effort. If someone DID hypothetically drag a drunk person to a car, shove them in the drivers seat, start the car and scare the bejeezus out of them im sure they would share a responsibility.

 

[Amaror]

Wow, i just can't believe the people that equate "I got forced to sex by someone" to "I seduced someone yesterday and now wish i hadn't done that.".
It's just horrible to belittle the physically and mentally tormenting experience that actual rape victims had to endure in such a way.

 

[KalCyan]

Wow, i just can't believe the people that equate "I got forced to sex by someone" to "I seduced someone yesterday and now wish i hadn't done that.".
It's just horrible to belittle the physically and mentally tormenting experience that actual rape victims had to endure in such a way.

This is the attitude that causes all these problems. Your statement says every person who has sex while drunk and then says they were raped is lying. Are you so paranoid that you think people who regret sex always call it rape?

This is nothing more than fear of being accused of rape and in some cases trying to justify their own actions in raping someone.

rape is a very under reported crime, so it is a safe assumption that false accusations are very rare. Making it a non-issue, even more so as lying to the police is already a crime.

Please stop helping people justify rape.

 

[Aerevolt]

The first part is circumstantial, the other is not.
There is implied consent in the issue of drunken sex (in cases where people are already in a sexual relationship). There is no consenting to being run over by a drunk driver.
The difference is what you do when you're sober. A responsible sober person will arrange for alternate transportation (to prevent driving under the influence).
And a responsible sober person will make sure they're with people they trust before they get hammered. But you can't always trust other people.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Wow, i just can't believe the people that equate "I got forced to sex by someone" to "I seduced someone yesterday and now wish i hadn't done that.".
It's just horrible to belittle the physically and mentally tormenting experience that actual rape victims had to endure in such a way.

This is the attitude that causes all these problems. Your statement says every person who has sex while drunk and then says they were raped is lying. Are you so paranoid that you think people who regret sex always call it rape?

This is nothing more than fear of being accused of rape and in some cases trying to justify their own actions in raping someone.

rape is a very under reported crime, so it is a safe assumption that false accusations are very rare. Making it a non-issue, even more so as lying to the police is already a crime.

Please stop helping people justify rape.

To add to this, another good way to belittle actual rape victims is to say they aren't "actual" rape victims.

 

[Amaror]

This is the attitude that causes all these problems. Your statement says every person who has sex while drunk and then says they were raped is lying. Are you so paranoid that you think people who regret sex always call it rape?

This is nothing more than fear of being accused of rape and in some cases trying to justify their own actions in raping someone.

rape is a very under reported crime, so it is a safe assumption that false accusations are very rare. Making it a non-issue, even more so as lying to the police is already a crime.

Please stop helping people justify rape.

Ahh, i always love it when people tell me what i said, even though i didn't say it.
Please give me a citation were i said that every person who has sex while drunk and then says they were raped is lying. I am very curious about that, since i never said that.

I was saying that if a person gives loud and clear consent while the person is drunk they are still giving consent.
If a person doesn't give consent and someone has sex with them anyway it is rape, whether any of them are drunk or not.
If a person is incapacitated to the point were they clearly are incapable of making decisions, whether it's through alcohol or anything else, and someone has sex with them it is rape.
If a person has drunk alcohol, yet is perfectly capable to articulate, move around and generally take care of themselves, and consents to sex it isn't rape.

To answer your other question. No, i don't think everyone that regrets sex calls it rape. That's the very reason i said that i can't believe people that claim everyone that regrets sex should call it rape. My post was triggered by LifeCharacter's claim that a person is unable to give consent when they drank any alcohol at all.

 

[Gorrath]

Eh, this issue is more complicated than it seems many would like to admit. Drunk driving and drunken sex aren't comparable because of the fine reasons that have already been stated. If you get drunk and are victimized, you aren't responsible for being a victim. If you get drunk and victimize someone, you are responsible. That part is simple.

The more complex issue is about drunken consent. This idea that I cannot consent to sex when I'm drunk is circumstantial. How drunk am I? How drunk is my partner? These details really do matter and you can't simply brush aside those considerations and make a blanket statement like, "You're responsible even if you're shitfaced." or "If you're drunk you can't possibly consent." Both are overly simplistic views that fail to recognize that all cases should be judged individually.

I certainly can consent to sex when I'm drunk, whether that is recognized legally or not. I have been pissed plenty of times and really wanted sex with my very sober wife/girlfriend/complete stranger. To assert that I am not responsible for my actions when I was just as enthusiastic about a roll in the sheets as my sober partner was is ridiculous. Conversely, if I am so far gone that I can't even make a coherent sentence and someone takes my drunken passivity for consent, then I have been raped.

We need not, should not, ignore nuance and complexity in favor of touting blanket assertions meant to fit all cases. Doing so is not a path to justice.

 

[kasperbbs]

Those are completely different things. One is acting like a jackass and endangering lives and the other one is someone taking advantage of you because you cannot even mumble the word "no". As for accountability.. Lets say some asshole ran you over, crippled you, killed your kid and claims that hes innocent because he was drunk, so all is good?

 

[Trippy Turtle]

The difference between the car and the rape issue is that you're not raping someone, you're being raped. That's not your fault even if you did get drunk.

I'm assuming the scenario is that they are agreeing to sex while drunk, in that case the same logic should apply. They knowingly got drunk and therefore are responsible for their actions. Doesn't matter if its driving or agreeing to sex.
I hate the sheer injustice of someone being accused of rape because somebody else regrets their own decisions while drunk.

 

[Astoria]

I guess the difference is with drunk driving you clearly have made the decision to drive because no one made you do it but with sex you might not have agreed to it because you're in no state to. So if you have clearly agreed to having sex with someone then yes you are responsible but if not then it's rape. Being drunk doesn't make you incapable of rational thought, it just impairs it and so does being angry and we hold people who are angry responsible.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I hate the sheer injustice of someone being accused of rape because somebody else regrets their own decisions while drunk.

They could prevent that accusation by avoiding having sex with someone if they didn't know they had consent. Not difficult.

 

[NeutralStasis]

For Sex, I have tried writing this a few times but this is pretty much the answer. If you are sober and the other person is not capable of reasonable decisions, you are forcing sex on them. This is not a matter of fucking personal responsibility of the impaired person to not get drunk. This is someone who is both mentally and physically capable taking control of someone who is neither of these things. We can argue and debate about specifics and line drawing but it isn't that damn hard. If you are pushing stuff to happen every step of the way, if they are no longer able to articulate, if they aren't able to think probably. You Are Raping Them.

This is pretty much spot-on.

Having sex while drunk is fine as long as consent is given. You might regret it but everyone regrets things they do when they're hammered.

Having sex while paralytic/passed out though... that requires at least one of the people involved to be sober enough to know what they're doing, and they should know that if someone is barely able to stand or even speak, they just cannot consent.

I don't even think that every person that has sex with someone in this condition is necessarily being malicious. In their minds, they see someone mumbling "whatever" when they're on the floor desperately wanting to go to bed as some sort of meaningful consent.

I think the best thing to do is encourage sex ed classes to teach what consent is. Maybe indicate that there's a bit more nuance than "yes means yes", though that's usually reserved for people who are already well-acquainted with each other.

Except that is not how policy and laws are written. If intoxicated, one cannot give consent. It does not detail the level of intoxication, only that if one is intoxicated. I work on college campuses, and you can be damn sure that this is how the case is read. I would also encourage those with interest, to look at how Title IX is being used on college campuses across the country in regards to this very argument.

Regardless if you agree with it or not, men who have sex with others while they are intoxicated can easily find themselves in a world of hurt. It is best to simply not to engage in sex while the other person is intoxicated in any fashion.

 

[Euryalus]

The difference between the car and the rape issue is that you're not raping someone, you're being raped. That's not your fault even if you did get drunk.

I'm assuming the scenario is that they are agreeing to sex while drunk, in that case the same logic should apply. They knowingly got drunk and therefore are responsible for their actions. Doesn't matter if its driving or agreeing to sex.
I hate the sheer injustice of someone being accused of rape because somebody else regrets their own decisions while drunk.

Only if they were "there" enough to mean yes and not just say it. That's the argument. You have to be able to be there mentally enough to actually choose.

So in theory... Yes? If they were at a level where they could give consent?

In practice how would you measure it? Fuck, just don't sleep with drunk people. That's the law's approach I think.

 

[ryukage_sama]

I read something that made me think. Someone wrote that if you can't consent to sex when you're drunk because of how impaired your thinking is, then drunk drivers shouldn't be held responsible for their drunk driving either, since they're too drunk to be held responsible for their actions.

I don't like to admit it, but I can't really find any major flaws in that logic. So does this mean that really drunk people can consent to sex, or that they shouldn't be held responsible for driving drunk?

There is a major, glaring fallacy in the proposition. Having sex involves two people and both parties are, to varying degrees, responsible. A person is responsible for buckling their seat belt, but another driving would still be responsible for killing that person in an auto accident that was his/her fault. Yes, the one party would be responsible for getting him/herself drunk, but the other party would be responsible for taking advantage by doing something that couldn't be done while the person was sober. That's the reason why legal contracts need to be made with both parties being of sound mind.

Having sex with a person who is drunk would be akin to deliberately putting that same person who is known to be be incapable of driving behind the wheel of a car. Making the excuse that it's okay to have sex with someone who got themselves drunk is selfish, callous and cruel. I'll concede that both parties can be at fault if both are similarly impaired.

 

[Dizchu]

Except that is not how policy and laws are written. If intoxicated, one cannot give consent. It does not detail the level of intoxication, only that if one is intoxicated.

So if two drunk adults have sex, they're both breaking the law? If nobody can "legally consent" what kind of scenario would that be regarded as?

Is it only an issue once on of the individuals objects to the incident (legitimately or not)?

 

[Kathinka]

The difference between the car and the rape issue is that you're not raping someone, you're being raped. That's not your fault even if you did get drunk.

I'm assuming the scenario is that they are agreeing to sex while drunk, in that case the same logic should apply. They knowingly got drunk and therefore are responsible for their actions. Doesn't matter if its driving or agreeing to sex.
I hate the sheer injustice of someone being accused of rape because somebody else regrets their own decisions while drunk.

Only if they were "there" enough to mean yes and not just say it. That's the argument. You have to be able to be there mentally enough to actually choose.

So in theory... Yes? If they were at a level where they could give consent?

In practice how would you measure it? Fuck, just don't sleep with drunk people. That's the law's approach I think.

Depends I think. In most jurisdictions (including where I live) Yes means yes. If you regret that decision or made it lightly because of self-intoxication, your partner is not to be blamed. It isn't your sexual partners responsibility to monitor your level of consciousness. If you consent and don't withdraw consent, then you've done it. Hell, where would we get if it was forbidden to have consensual sex because they had something to drink.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

Only if they were "there" enough to mean yes and not just say it. That's the argument. You have to be able to be there mentally enough to actually choose.

So in theory... Yes? If they were at a level where they could give consent?

In practice how would you measure it? Fuck, just don't sleep with drunk people. That's the law's approach I think.

They could prevent that accusation by avoiding having sex with someone if they didn't know they had consent. Not difficult.

The whole argument was that there consent counts no matter how drunk they are, just like their decision to drive counts. You can't plead "I was too drunk to realize I was even doing it" in court for drink driving, and you shouldn't be able to do it for sex. Why the double standard? Are they responsible for their actions or not?

 

[Thaluikhain]

Are they responsible for their actions or not?

They are not responsible for the actions of someone who chooses to have sex with them without knowing if there is consent.