So are drunk people responsible or not?

[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.

 

[Gorrath]

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.

All of those are things that should be considered. The fact that my wife and I might get drunk and have sex together shouldn't automatically imply that either of us are incapable of giving consent. Both of us have many reasons to assume that, even if we are both drunk, any consent given can be trusted and is legitimate. That is exactly my point.

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.

I am not concerned with "raping my wife", I am concerned with arguments that would suggest that I have raped my wife and especially arguments that suggest that this is what the laws should reflect. If I was concerned with raping my wife, her and I would be discussing this, not me and random internet people I like. I use my wife and I as an example to highlight the absurdity of certain claims, not because I fear that what her and I do is actually wrong.

Both of the examples you give are perfectly reasonable and I have no objection to either of them.

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.

It's not rocket science but being able to form a few scenarios that are good and reasonable does not mean that all circumstances are cut and dried. There are plenty of hypothetical and reasonable scenarios where someone might have reasons to think consent was given and then be told that because alcohol was involved they have committed a crime. That's why I have, and will continue to argue that each case should be based on the merits of the case, not on blanket assertions like, "A person can't give consent if they are drunk." My wife and I are a great example of how one or more people could be drunk and there is still good reasons to assume consent is legitimate.

Edited for clarity and fixing quote attribution

 

[Areloch]

Well, as someone that doesn't drink, and hasn't hung out with anyone that's gotten full-on drunk/smashed, I'm inquiring from a point of total ignorance on the matter.

What qualifies as legally drunk? Is there a certain blood-alcohol limit when it comes to the matter of consent? And is there any possibility that the person saying yes can be legally drunk, but give no external perception of it? As in, they seem to be totally fine, but are legally drunk.

 

[OmniscientOstrich]

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.

A better comparison would be driving drunk and raping someone while drunk - both are things you do, and both are crimes.

Okay, the comparison to drink-driving doesn't really hold up, but I think that this is the area of conversation that really needs to be aired out when discussing sex and alcohol. What is it precisely that constitutes rape when alcohol is involved? The only narrative that most people seem to have in mind when discussing this is of a sober man taking advantage of a drunk woman, but what if the genders are reversed in that situation? What if both parties are the same sex? What if both parties are drunk? How are you expected to assess whether someone's judgement skills are impaired when your own judgement skills are impaired? How drunk is too drunk to consent? How is this measured? Does the law take into consideration the fact that different people react to alcohol in different ways and that individuals have different tolerance levels for alcohol? I've never seen a discussion around this topic that actually attempts to answer these questions in a satisfactory manner and I'm led to believe it's not being given any thought at all. I'm not even necessarily saying that having sex with someone who's been drinking is a good idea to begin with altogether, but it's impossible to deny that in a social context sex and alcohol are things that often mix and a dialogue needs to be opened up to establish that people know what the law is, what they're getting into and whether the law actually needs to be re-examined and amended.

 

[Vicarious Reality]

It wasnt me! It was the evil magic drink! Ban it! Ban everyone that uses it! Ban logic!

 

[Pseudonym]

At least from a moral standpoint I think the intention matters. If you know somebody is drunk and think to yourself 'well, that's a good opportunity to screw him/her, now that he/she is drunk' then you are at least a shitty person. (whether rape is the right word, I don't really know) If you just think 'well, that person wants to have sex with me and I with him/her' and he/she happens to be drunk that's a different matter as I don't think we should threat drunk people as being unreasonable or incapable of making any decisions. Indeed the argument: 'if we hold somebody responsible for driving, we should hold them responsible for expressing consent' makes sense to me. Either somebody is capable of making autonomous decisions or they aren't. That said, somebody should still clearly and unambiguously have expressed their consent. If they couldn't or wouldn't and you went ahead and had sex with them anyway, that is rape.

Edit: I think I'd like to add that I personally would recommend and do steer cleer from sleeping with anyone who is drunk. I don't drink so I would be much more clear-minded then the other person and if I believe someone might regret having sex within a day or so I'm not going to do have sex with them now.

 

[laggyteabag]

Say, for example, you drive to a pub or bar, that implies that you are planning on driving back after drinking, so yes, it is your fault.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I think this confusion stems from the point some people make that goes along the lines of something like; "the victim of rape didn't do ANYTHING wrong, it's ALL because of the rapist", which, although in a moral sense resonates with good-spirited people, is untrue. If you get THAT drunk, you clearly are making mistakes. You don't deserve to be raped for those mistakes or anything but it's not a GOOD thing, either. Acknowledging this makes people nervous though. It makes people feel you're blaming the victim by not pretending the victim is the personification of innocence, which no person will ever be.


No, obviously you're not doing everything 100% right if you pass out in random rapists' apartments out of drinking too much. It's fine to acknowledge that while also acknowledging that just cause people make really bad choices and pass out it doesn't give other people the right to rape them.


If we can agree on this much, if we can agree that the victim does bear some personal responsibility, it'll be much easier to see why a drunk driver is persecuted but a drunk rape victim is protected.