So are drunk people responsible or not?

[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.

 

[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.