So are drunk people responsible or not?

[Jadak]

The thing about drinking and driving is that the responsible thing is not to choose not to drive while drunk, as you said, that's stupid. Drunk people can't be expected to not make stupid decisions. The responsibility comes in with making the decision, while sober, to remove from yourself the ability to drive later, knowing that you'll be drunk and stupid then. Don't bring your keys/car, establish a designated driver, that sort of stuff.

Sex is trickier, as choosing to not have sex prior to getting drunk has little relevance to your future drunk self making a different choice.

But as far as that goes, I'm of the opinion that consenting to sex while drunk is still perfectly legit. Wanting to do something is wanting to do something, being too drunk to ignore your desire to sex is not the other persons problem, sober or otherwise. Drunk or not, if you can say yes to sex, then it's fair game for everyone involved.

 

[Dr. Crawver]

There is one key difference to me though between someone having sex while drunk and someone drinking and driving...

Sex while drunk = Two to Tango
Drive while drunk = You alone

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.

I'm actually surprised anyone had a problem with this post. Seemed like it summed up the whole issue pretty clearly.

 

[manic_depressive13]

Came in here pretty much to say this.

My example usually is more along the lines of "if you convince a shitfaced person to come chill with you in a park, it's functionally no different from convincing a shitfaced person to have sex." I like your example better though.

LOL! Yeah! If I can lure a shitfaced person to a park, I should be able to rape them there too!

Look, if you need to "convince" someone to have sex with you, that's the first sign that something is very wrong.

 

[Guffe]

Being drunk does not remove the responsibility, in Finland at least.

Driving while intoxicated = drunk driving.
Having sex with someone who is more intoxicated than maybe healthy, very grey area legally and one should be really careful in this case.

 

[Yopaz]

I feel like people are kind of misunderstanding something about consent in a legal sense in its relation to alcohol. And that is that you can't consent to sex while intoxicated. It doesn't matter if you scream yes a million times, flirt with someone, and do everything short of actually jumping the other person, you have not consented to sex, because you are legally incapable of doing so.

Sure, but does this really clear up anything?

I mean I can be drunk and barely know where I am and I can be drunk and be my usual self with worse motor skills.

It doesn't matter which state I'm in in terms of legal setting or if I have signed a contract, but in the terms of hooking up with someone at a party things get incredibly complicated. I can be drunk and aware and have sex with a girl whom to my knowledge is either drunk and aware or drunk and unaware. We can both be drunk and unaware and end up boinking each other.

While the law is clear on the subject of alcohol and the legal definition of consent the problems arise when we look at each separate case in terms of sex and interactions between people. A sober person can be raped by someone who's drunk, a drunk person can be raped by someone who's sober. A drunk person can take advantage of a drunker person.

When both parties are drunk where do we place responsibility and where do we place blame? We are all responsible for our actions when we willingly drink alcohol, but we're not to blame for what happens to us when we're in that state. We can be held accountable for criminal actions done by accident or purpose and we are still victims if someone decides to steal our wallet or something when we're in a state of insobriety. It's an ocean of gray and it's impossible to set down any firm way to judge this topic.

Drunk driving on the other hand is quite easy. If you know you're going to drink and you're know you're going to be irresponsible enough to danger someone's life by driving home after drinking then you shouldn't bring your car or you should let someone take away your car keys. If you plan to get drunk, don't plan to drive.

 

[Mister K]

As an adult person, you must realise the effects of alcohol consumption and it's consequences. By drinking alcohol you, as a person with certain ammount of freedoms and responsibilities, de facto declare that you are aware of such effects. Thus, since it is YOUR personal wish to drink it, since YOU ARE aware of possible concequences, you bear responsibility for any and all actions you make while drunk. That is unless you were forced to drink and you can actually proove it.

 

[wulf3n]

Also, loving all the people who's stance on being raped while intoxicated is that it was your fault for being drunk. Apparently, the other person in the equation who's taking advantage of an intoxicated person for sex is ignored in favor of trying to equivocate the two.

This topic is too depressing for me to actually dwell too much on, but with that statement, I seriously wonder if people would be so zealous to defend someone who were, say, to take a person's wallet while drunk.

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.

While I can't speak for the people on this forum, the general consensus of the internet (if there is such a thing) pretty much would say "yes take the wallet"

Take for instance the guy that recently spent a third of his annual salary at a strip club while intoxicated [http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/11590451.Lap_dancing_club_accused_of____exploitation____after_drunk_customer_spends___7_500_in_one_night/] who was asking for a refund. The prevailing opinion in the comments section was that yes it was his own fault.

While not literally asking for his wallet it amounts to the same thing.

 

[mrdude2010]

The problem is deciding whether or not you want sex or not is ambiguous and depends on a lot of factors, whereas driving drunk is always a bad idea, period. There's no reason you should ever drive drunk, and you should know that even if you're drunk.

 

[Kathinka]

If you are still able to consent, it's not rape. Simple as that. Regretting sleeping with someone because you were hammered doesn't make it rape by any sane definition.

The story is of course different if someone is so hammered they are no longer able to express consent or completely unresponsive.

 

[Signa]

I think if you're responsible for getting drunk, you're responsible for anything that happens while you are drunk. That's why we don't drive drunk.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

God it's hilarious to see people compare having sex while drunk to rape. The fun never stops. It's like I've entered the Tumblr zone.

Drunk people are responsible for their own actions. Both in the sense that you made yourself drunk, and you're an adult look after yourself.

If you buy something from a store while drunk, they haven't scammed or robbed you.
If you give someone something while drunk, as a gift, it's theirs now not yours.
If you crash while drunk, it's your own fault and Toyota is not responsible for your stupidity.
If you shoot someone while drunk, it's your fault, you pulled the trigger.

Law and society aren't your mum, take responsibility for your own god damn actions.

Edit: Some of these things are arsehole-ish, there's no denying it, but they're not morally reprehensible, and they sure as hell don't warrant having a life ruined.

Edit2, Cos ya never know: If you aren't in some way consenting to sex while drunk, i.e. too intoxicated to participate in the act or say yes, then it still counts as rape even though you are drunk. The whole point I'm trying to get across here is that being drunk doesn't change shit.

 

[Thaluikhain]

There is one key difference to me though between someone having sex while drunk and someone drinking and driving...

Sex while drunk = Two to Tango
Drive while drunk = You alone

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.

I'm actually surprised anyone had a problem with this post. Seemed like it summed up the whole issue pretty clearly.

Not remotely surprised, but yeah. It's not remotely complicated, despite best efforts to make it so.

 

[KalCyan]

The person's statement just sounds like an attempt to justify rape.

The main difference in this case is that in the sex case its the other person committing the crime, for driving its the drunk person.

For driving while impaired its a crime as you are using a device quite capable and even likely of harming or killing people around you while not in a state to control it. We should all know this argument.

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.

These are not hard things to spot. I will not deny that grey areas can happen. But any one using the argument that the impaired person shouldn't have put themselves in that position, is doing nothing more than justifying rape. There is no grey area in that statement.

For times when both people are impaired, don't dance around the idea, its still not that hard to tell. look at the levels of impairment, when that happens and rape is called almost inevitably the victim was vastly more impaired than the other person.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

The person's statement just sounds like an attempt to justify rape.

The main difference in this case is that in the sex case its the other person committing the crime, for driving its the drunk person.

For driving while impaired its a crime as you are using a device quite capable and even likely of harming or killing people around you while not in a state to control it. We should all know this argument.

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.

These are not hard things to spot. I will not deny that grey areas can happen. But any one using the argument that the impaired person shouldn't have put themselves in that position, is doing nothing more than justifying rape. There is no grey area in that statement.

For times when both people are impaired, don't dance around the idea, its still not that hard to tell. look at the levels of impairment, when that happens and rape is called almost inevitably the victim was vastly more impaired than the other person.

Two people consent: sex.
Two people consent, one or both is drunk/high: rape.

Good to know rape isn't about consent in your mind. Bravo for comparing drunk sex to someone being held down and forcefully penetrated while screaming no, or having a knife to their throat or gun to their head.

 

[KalCyan]

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.

 

[KalCyan]

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.

EDIT: Sorry for double post

 

[Dizchu]

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.

 

[jklinders]

Interesting question. I think Tippy2k answered fairly well but it looks like there is some clearing to be done.

There are a couple of layers to this question. If only one party out of the 2 are drunk that creates a power disparity. That immediately makes the possibility that one of the 2 parties will be taken advantage of far greater. If both are drunk then there is less of a power disparity. Rape is often or perhaps overwhelmingly the majority of the time about power so power cannot be removed from this equation.

Another thing is, hooking up with a stranger at a bar for sex is a high risk activity for all parties. These questions always seem to hinge around the notion that consent will be retroactively taken away after the fact. Women who hook up have a chance of being raped. Men have a (statistically tiny) chance of being falsely accused of rape. There are better reasons than this to avoid hooking up. You could catch a disease. You could get killed. Or you could have this happen.

Casual sex is risky and I am sick to death of both sides whining about it being hard to figure out consent in this situation when you could avoid it by using any number of other avenues to do this. There are groups and websites that are used for these types of hook ups these days. Or you could go the other way and try to actually get to know someone before you have sex with them. I'm not being prudish by saying this. It's just smart to acknowledge that an activity is risky when it is.

Drunk driving is different, mainly because there is no power dynamic at all involved. Sure you're drunk and your judgement is clouded but somewhere in that befuddled brain you also know it's stupid and you likely do not have a sober person trying to force you to drive. When a sober person is talking a drunk person to do anything that is bad for them that's where i draw the fucking line.