> Consenting to something when you're black out drunk is still consent.
This is not at all true. You don’t have the capacity to consent if you’re black out drunk.
This is not at all true. You don’t have the capacity to consent if you’re black out drunk.
Afterward, neither might be sure what actually happened, but both knew that whatever happened was what they went out for. Going to that bar and getting that drunk was something each chose to do while still sober, exactly like everybody else there.
So, was every last patron of that bar raping somebody every weekend?
Such bars certainly still exist.
I think for this reason sex in general is not a worthwhile risk for most people
And no means no, and her not being enthusiastic is a good sign you should go home. Those go a long way to not being accused.
Agreed that being wrongfully accused of rape is a crapshoot.
I meaaaaaan sort of. You can see how much they drink in front of you. You can't say whether they have pre-gamed or are sneaking shots from the bar/a flask they carry while you are in the bathroom.
Obviously if they seem so drunk they aren't in their right mind you should wait, but I'm just pointing out this isn't strictly true
I am wholly behind consent between children and adults of actually significant age gap being invalid (the standard creepiness rule from xkcd comes to mind,) but mental fitness to make the choice really is a blurry line and intents should be considered. Well-meaning people who had no intent to exploit or coerce are not rapists because of one voluntary beer, nor should the justice system treat them as such. It only encourages another kind of victimization via the courts.
> Did the would-be rapist encourage them to drink more, or order them strong drinks on purpose?
That isn't the criteria, the criteria is whether or not the victim is too drunk to consent. How can you know this?
> I think I would tend to believe victims are victims
I don't think you would if you were the rapist who had misjudged the drunkenness of the other person
Arguably while sober its possible that both parties in full possession of their faculties may have made the choice to have drunk sex with someone only actuated when they both sloppy drunk met the ultimate person they were going to get busy with. The problem is that the answer is indeterminate.
If someone absolutely intended to get busy it argues against them being the victim by virtue of having made as you've said the decision to take such action while sober however its absolutely possible for them to rape another who didn't make such a decision while drunk number one are themselves are too impaired to judge the situation and its also possible for someone else to believe they were getting over on an impaired partner. That is someone, drunk number two, can morally but not legally be guilty of rape because it was their intent to get someone drunk to impair their judgement to allow them to sleep with them.
This is something like driving a little drunk and arguing whether or not someone murdered someone by driving impaired. It can be legitimately difficult to tease out moral culpability in edge cases. For example its entirely possible for the drunk driver to be blameless in a crash caused by the incompetent actions of a sober driver, for example running a red light.
Most situations are less ambiguous and the the solution to such ambiguity is to simply not drive drunk or use alcohol to lubricate sexual conquests.
There is a degree in moral insanity in a substantial portion of the population not understanding how to deal with such a simple situation.
... and wholly irrelevant to the legal question.
I think it's important to understand that alcohol only slows your thinking, it doesn't "change your personality" or make your thoughts or wants go places they otherwise wouldn't. All that is socially learned. The drunk you is you. If you state consent as drunk, it's because you want to.
In practice, though, blackout is a terrifying experience, and for all the blacked-out person knows they were completely unconscious during what happened. So they can't be faulted for fearing they were abused. And so, for your sake and theirs, you should NEVER have sex with anyone if there's the slightest chance they have blackout, i.e. if you can tell they are drunk at all. This is an easy rule to follow, and I have very little sympathy with people who can't.
Plus, beyond my anecdote, the guy above posted research. Do we not believe in science anymore?
You are confusing posting a link with winning an argument. The problem is people have fundamental moral and legal disagreement about what constitutes consent with poster asserting it has to do with ability to make decisions and others including lawmakers in multiple states holding it rests in not being sufficiently impaired to severely degrade ones decision making ability.
It's impossible for the posters link to resolve this divergent understanding.
People's entire lives are derailed when they drink and get in a car and get caught for a DUI. The fact that we prosecute people, fine them amounts greater than some people's entire savings, throw them in jail, make them loose their jobs... For deciding to get into a car after 5 drinks. But if you decide to sleep with someone after 5 drinks, you were taken advantage of and that person should be prosecuted. In one case we give no sympathy for being drunk, and in the other we treat you like a child.