So are drunk people responsible or not?

[JoJo]

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.

Don't forget there are around 200 sovereign states in the world, give or take a few depending on your definition, each with their own laws regarding consent and alcohol. When you say "If intoxicated, one cannot give consent," that is too strong a statement without a jurisdiction attached, for example in my own country drunken sex is legal:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1546789/Drunk-women-can-consent-to-sex-judges-rule.html

That is an approach which I think is more sensible than a blanket ban, personally.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

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.

There is consent. They said yes.
I'm arguing that saying yes while drunk counts as consent. At least going off how the law treats drink driving.

Of course if they didn't say yes at all its rape. But how can you hold the person responsible for drink driving, but turn around and say they aren't responsible for their actions when it comes to sex.

 

[Gorrath]

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.

If someone asks to have sex with someone and that person says yes, how is the partner supposed to "Know" if that yes is a "yes" or a "no" or a "Maybe, depends on how I feel about it later?" A blanket assertion that one cannot give consent if they are drunk is simply absurd. I have been drunk and still been perfectly capable of consenting to sex. I have at times even regretted that decision later. I would never hold the person whom I said "yes" to, to the ridiculous standard of trying to figure out if my words mean what words mean.

There are clear cut cases where someone has used intoxication to rape someone but this idea that a sexual partner is somehow just supposed to "know" whether consent is actually consent or not is untenable.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

A drunk person is responsible for his/her actions.
You know you can't think straight while being drunk and you still decide to get drunk. That means you decided to get in a state where you can't think straight. You did it intentionally therefore everything you do while drunk is done intentionally.

It's like lighting up a stack of dynamite in a room full of people and then saying I don't take responsibility for killing them. I didn't detonate the dynamite, I just put fire on the fuse. If an action leads to another and you are aware of that and still do you, you did the second action intentionally.

EDIT:
Just wanted to point out that having sex with someone who is incapable of giving consent, it's rape.
But if the person is drunk and gives consent, it's not rape.

Basically, drunk sex is the same as regular sex. Consent == no rape, no consent== rape. Drunk or not has no influence. Not saying no isn't consent. Only yes is consent. So you asking and the other person not responding for whatever reason is not consent.

 

[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.

If someone asks to have sex with someone and that person says yes, how is the partner supposed to "Know" if that yes is a "yes" or a "no" or a "Maybe, depends on how I feel about it later?" A blanket assertion that one cannot give consent if they are drunk is simply absurd. I have been drunk and still been perfectly capable of consenting to sex. I have at times even regretted that decision later. I would never hold the person whom I said "yes" to, to the ridiculous standard of trying to figure out if my words mean what words mean.

There are clear cut cases where someone has used intoxication to rape someone but this idea that a sexual partner is somehow just supposed to "know" whether consent is actually consent or not is untenable.

So? All they have to do is not have sex if they don't know for sure if there is consent. That's it.

For some reason, the idea of not having sex with people when consent is uncertain is strange and confusing to many people, but it really, really shouldn't be.

 

[K12]

There's a difference between reduced responsibility and reduced ability to give consent.

Also the level of drunkenness that applies to each situation is very different. If you are passed out blind drunk you're not going to be driving a car but someone could still have sex with you. I don't think the "too drunk to consent" rule is going to apply to someone who is drunk and made a bad decision. It applies to people who are so drunk that they literally don't realize what is happening.

The moral limit for picking up a drunk person versus the legal "not able to consent" limit probably has quite a big gap between them.

If you have the wherewithal to actually start the car and get it onto the road then you are clearly not so drunk that you shouldn't have known better.

The laws are there for protection in both cases but they just protect different people.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Seems like a drunk man is and a drunk woman isnt. Ive read about rape cases where both were drunk, but the woman felt guilty for cheating on her husband and thus accused the man of rape. I think when both are drunk then both are in the wrong and have equal responsibility......unless, of course, there was violence involved. But then a man (whether drunk/sober) takes advantage of a woman totally out of it - and that is rape.

There has to be some accountability for a persons actions while drunk - again depending on the situation and evident as each case is different.

 

[Gorrath]

So? All they have to do is not have sex if they don't know for sure if there is consent. That's it.

For some reason, the idea of not having sex with people when consent is uncertain is strange and confusing to many people, but it really, really shouldn't be.

Because consent is never, ever "certain." You are relying on knowing that the other person means what they are saying. Your assertion is strange and confusing because it is absurd. It relies on the idea that one person can know when a person's words are not what they actually mean or feel or might feel later. Even if I and another person were stone cold sober I could not be "Certain" that if they said yes to sex they actually mean yes. I can only possibly go by what they say, within reason.

 

[BeerTent]

I'm a little Canadian on my thoughts on this. We believe that every action one takes, is done because that person wants to do it.

In a nutshell, every single action you take, you should be held accountable for.

There are no if's. There are no ands, and no butts.

Yes, you can hold me accountable for that stupid joke.

I've been pretty destroyed a few times whilst drunk. I've had a drink, I've had two drinks, and I ploughed through an entire 8 pack of those disgusting cold-shots. I've made the decision every time to not drive. I've taken my keys out of my pocket and given them to someone else. I've called a cab and left my bike double-locked down-town. Really, the only thing where I didn't have a choice in the matter is the inevitable projectile vomit.

But I till made a choice to get that wasted in the first place.

The notion of someone being "Too drunk to be responsible." just doesn't fucking fly. That's fucking stupid. You made a series of choices. You chose to drive downtown. You chose to take a series of "I'll have what she's having." bar requests. You choose to ignore the phone in your pocket, and chose to not request help. And if you choose to get behind the wheel, then you choose to accept the consequences. Just because you're somewhere between "Beyond buzzed." and "fuck-tarded like a teenager" it doesn't mean you don't have the power to make a good decision.

Same goes for sex. But I feel that I could go for paragraphs and paragraphs on that one.

 

[Thaluikhain]

So? All they have to do is not have sex if they don't know for sure if there is consent. That's it.

For some reason, the idea of not having sex with people when consent is uncertain is strange and confusing to many people, but it really, really shouldn't be.

Because consent is never, ever "certain." You are relying on knowing that the other person means what they are saying. Your assertion is strange and confusing because it is absurd. It relies on the idea that one person can know when a person's words are not what they actually mean or feel or might feel later. Even if I and another person were stone cold sober I could not be "Certain" that if they said yes to sex they actually mean yes. I can only possibly go by what they say within reason.

And if they are drunk, you know there's a big element of doubt in there. If someone is giving enthusiastic consent while sober, you can be pretty sure that they are consenting.

 

[Gorrath]

So? All they have to do is not have sex if they don't know for sure if there is consent. That's it.

For some reason, the idea of not having sex with people when consent is uncertain is strange and confusing to many people, but it really, really shouldn't be.

Because consent is never, ever "certain." You are relying on knowing that the other person means what they are saying. Your assertion is strange and confusing because it is absurd. It relies on the idea that one person can know when a person's words are not what they actually mean or feel or might feel later. Even if I and another person were stone cold sober I could not be "Certain" that if they said yes to sex they actually mean yes. I can only possibly go by what they say within reason.

And if they are drunk, you know there's a big element of doubt in there. If someone is giving enthusiastic consent while sober, you can be pretty sure that they are consenting.

And here's where we get into greater nuance than simply "being certain." A person can easily claim they were certain the drunk person they had sex with wanted to have sex and be totally correct in believing that. So what we are talking about isn't certainty, but what is or isn't reasonable. It is usually reasonable to assume that if someone says yes to sex, they mean it.

If someone is giving me enthusiastic consent for sex, I should be able to presume they mean it whether they are drunk or not. I don't "know" there is a big element of doubt in there. Once again you are asserting that someone should or does know something they can't possibly know. What you are suggesting here is that every time my wife and I split a bottle of wine, I should have big doubts as to whether or not any subsequent sex we have is consensual or not. Why on Earth would I even be expected to have reservations about that if she's saying "Let's have sex?" If she's drunk and doesn't want sex, she is still perfectly capable of letting me know. If she's drunk and wants sex, she is also perfectly capable of letting me know that too.

What you are saying is that every time I have sex with my wife after a night of drinking, I am raping her and/or she's raping me. If that's true we're gonna need to round up most of the married people in the country and haul them into court.

 

[Thaluikhain]

What you are saying is that every time I have sex with my wife after a night of drinking, I am raping her and/or she's raping me.

No, that is nothing whatsoever to do with what I am saying.

I am saying that if you have sex with someone and you don't know if there is consent, such as they are drunk or something, then you don't know if you are raping them. And that this is a bad thing which should be avoided, is very easy to, but that people are resistant to avoiding.

 

[Gorrath]

What you are saying is that every time I have sex with my wife after a night of drinking, I am raping her and/or she's raping me.

No, that is nothing whatsoever to do with what I am saying.

I am saying that if you have sex with someone and you don't know if there is consent, such as they are drunk or something, then you don't know if you are raping them. And that this is a bad thing which should be avoided, is very easy to, but that people are resistant to avoiding.

You cannot "know" whether someone is consenting or not, you can only presume based on reasonable circumstances. So here's the problem with what you're saying: If I swap out "know" with "can reasonably assume" in your statement then I think your statement is okay. One should not have sex with someone they can't reasonably assume is consenting. However, asserting that a sexual partner being drunk means that you can't reasonably assume that they are consenting means that every time my wife and I get to drinking, neither of us can reasonably assume the other wants sex, even if we say we do. That is absurd.

What's more, if you can't reasonably assume the other person is consenting, then having sex with them would be rape. Even if my wife and I both actually did mean what we were saying, it wouldn't matter, because we could not possibly assume reasonable consent at the time. We would have committed rape, whether or not we felt like it was rape at the time or even later. Either you can assume reasonable consent or you can't and if you have sex with someone who cannot reasonably consent, you have committed rape.

You say that has nothing at all to do with what you're saying, but it is a direct consequence of what you're saying.

 

[CaitSeith]

They are the ones who decided to get drunk. They know how the alcohol changes their sense of perception and logic, so being drunk it's not a valid excuse to not being held responsible of their actions.

 

[Qwurty2.0]

What you are saying is that every time I have sex with my wife after a night of drinking, I am raping her and/or she's raping me.

No, that is nothing whatsoever to do with what I am saying.

I am saying that if you have sex with someone and you don't know if there is consent, such as they are drunk or something, then you don't know if you are raping them. And that this is a bad thing which should be avoided, is very easy to, but that people are resistant to avoiding.

You cannot "know" whether someone is consenting or not, you can only presume based on reasonable circumstances. So here's the problem with what you're saying: If I swap out "know" with "can reasonably assume" in your statement then I think your statement is okay. One should not have sex with someone they can't reasonably assume is consenting. However, asserting that a sexual partner being drunk means that you can't reasonably assume that they are consenting means that every time my wife and I get to drinking, neither of us can reasonably assume the other wants sex, even if we say we do. That is absurd.

What's more, if you can't reasonably assume the other person is consenting, then having sex with them would be rape. Even if my wife and I both actually did mean what we were saying, it wouldn't matter, because we could not possibly assume reasonable consent at the time. We would have committed rape, whether or not we felt like it was rape at the time or even later. Either you can assume reasonable consent or you can't and if you have sex with someone who cannot reasonably consent, you have committed rape.

You say that has nothing at all to do with what you're saying, but it is a direct consequence of what you're saying.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Euryalus]

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?

Man I am far too lazy to try and go into the philosophy of how decisions are made right now. I was mostly just explaining the train of thought behind the idea that consent can't be given while drunk.


I do see your point though, neatly nestled in there and subtle as it may be. I would argue though that the way your arguing it makes the just answer that we shouldn't prosecute drunk drivers rather than allow that drunk people are giving consent.

If alcohol impairs one's ability to make informed decisions, nearly to the point of questioning whether someone really even knew what they were doing, then the question holds. Can someone who's drunk actually mean yes?

 

[visiblenoise]

They are the ones who decided to get drunk. They know how the alcohol changes their sense of perception and logic, so being drunk it's not a valid excuse to not being held responsible of their actions.

Yea, I was gonna say yes just because I don't think anybody should ever willingly get that extremely shitfaced and then get some kind of "shitface immunity".

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Perhaps we need to define what constitutes a state of "drunk."

- Some view it as a couple beers, where you're in that slight hazy state, but otherwise clearly maintain most if not all of your mental faculties. (In which case, making an argument for rape comes off as crazy.)

- Some people view it as a few shots, where you're obviously affected, but otherwise clearly still maintain most of your faculties, outside of a more apparent loss in some motor skill. (In which case, making an argument for rape comes off as crazy.)

- Some view it as several shots/a significant portion of a bottle of your choice, where you're very obviously affected and, likely, need to get the hell out of wherever you are before you start (or continue) making reeeeally stupid decisions. You've lost a significant portion of your inhibitions and motor skills are very clearly taking a nose dive. (This is where it starts to get a little tricky, IMO, since some people retain every last bit of cognizance up until the next step while others are floundering...the grey areas! The grey areas!)

- Some view it as being so thoroughly intoxicated that you've lost both your ability to speak or move, therefore losing any and all ability to offer resistance to someone else's advances. (In which case, it'd definitely be rape.)

In the first scenario? You'd be held accountable for driving over the limit.

In the second? The same.

In the third? The same.

In the fourth? How the hell did you even get behind the whe- The same.

Responsibility for sex, however, stops once you can't make decisions, which is different for different people...the grey areas!

 

[Weaver]

Intoxicated sex is the best. These laws don't know what they're missing out on.