**However people are not human breath alcohol testers and their is a difference between a few beers drunk and passed out drunk so really we asp people have only our own moral compass to guide us and the consent of the intoxicated individual.
**How about if they're too intoxicated to stand, remember what they were doing half a minute ago, but are just about able to slur our the word 'yes'?
If they say they want sex when drunk then they want sex when drunk.
Which is it? You take a calculated guess as to whether a drunk woman means yes; or if a drunk woman says yes, she means yes?
If a woman is drunk, no matter what level of drunk, she is not in any condition to consent to having sex. Anyone taking advantage of a woman who is drunk and says yes to sex is raping her. End of story.
I seriously doubt the OP would say that a man is being raped if he is having sex while intoxicated.
If they both are drunk, are they raping eachother? :P
As I said in a comment above - If both people are drunk, I don't see how you can hold one person responsible for their choices and actions, but not the other.
"lol Yes, any time a woman has sex while drunk, she is being raped."
I tend to find the problem with these discussions are that people use the term 'drunk' differently, which isn't surprising as there is no cut-off point between 'no drunk' and 'drunk'
This is why I went for 'as drunk as possible whilst still being able to express willingness to have sex': "How about if they're too intoxicated to stand, remember what they were doing half a minute ago, but are just about able to slur our the word 'yes'?"
Let's fill out that scenario a bit more; you go to a party. At this party there is a long-term couple, they've been together most of their lives. The woman is someone you know and have fancied, but she's never been interested in you. The couple are drinking, and have a huge earth-shaking fight and she's very upset and continues drinking. She over-does it and drinks to excess, to the point of being barely able to talk.
She's very emotionally vulnerable, she's impaired through alcohol, and wants to have sex with you as a revenge fuck, which will undoubtedly make her feel sick, disgusted and ashamed of herself in the morning.
She's saying 'yes', but is it ethical to have sex with her?
Sleeping with her rather seems like vile behaviour to me. It would seem to be obviously callous behaviour.
Spin the story however you want, the key features were 'drunk' and 'emotionally vulnerable'.
Although the former should have been enough given my first example: "too intoxicated to stand, remember what they were doing half a minute ago, but are just about able to slur our the word 'yes'"
Someone who tattooed a willing person whilst that drunk would be in legal trouble because it wouldn't have met the standard of consent required for tattooing someone. Apparently you agree that having sex with someone in that state is unethical, but the standard for consent in sexual relationships that you want to advocate is basically just 'willingness' all by itself.
How am I spinning? You also left out the key feature of "revenge fuck" Your words not mine.
Have you a tattoo? There are other reasons why a tattoo artist should not tattoo an intoxicated person that goes beyond consent. There is a big difference between unethical and illegal. Yes I would say that willingness would be the standard. What would you say the standard should be?
My point is that the story can be spun however you want, it's just a hypothetical. If you find the concept of a 'revenge fuck' too distracting then let's drop that element and focus on the topic.
Part of the standard of legal consent is being off sound mind. This is already built into law in many places (such as in the UK, where having sex with someone too drunk to consent is illegal).
It can also be spun however you want. You are spinning it now adding and then dropping elements to fit your narrative. I use you own words and I am spinning somehow.
Adults are presumed competent to consent. This presumption can be rebutted, for instance in circumstances of mental illness or other incompetence (i.e. intoxication or drugged).
People have drunk sex all the time. Some regret this decision. It doesn't mean that it is rape.
"It can also be spun however you want. You are spinning it now adding and then dropping elements to fit your narrative. I use you own words and I am spinning somehow."
As I just explained, it's a hypothetical scenario. We can alter it it to fit whatever point we are attempting to illustrate.
Trying to put a spin on real life situations, but hiding some facts and drawing attention to others, is deceptive because they really happened. Hypothetical scenarios are not real; there is no foul play in changing the 'facts' of a hypothetical scenario around.
The ethics of a 'revenge fuck' are not relevant to the ethics of having sex with the severely intoxicated. If the former was becoming a distraction, it's best to drop it so we can turn our focus on the actual topic.
"Adults are presumed competent to consent. "
Unless drunk.
As I previously mentioned, it is illegal to have sex with a severely intoxicated person in the UK. They are not legally able to consent, and it is considered (by law) to be rape.
"People have drunk sex all the time. Some regret this decision. It doesn't mean that it is rape."
If I was trying to argue 'all drunk sex is rape' then I wouldn't have taken the time to craft an example about someone who was severely intoxicated.
As I just explained, it's a hypothetical scenario. We can alter it it to fit whatever point we are attempting to illustrate.
Some would call this "spinning"
Unless drunk.
The problem with that is that having your judgment impaired does not count in any other situation. If you hit and kill someone with a car you cant argue it wasn't your fault because you were drunk, you weren't "thinking clearly". If you get drunk and blow all your money at the casino the casino wasn't "taking advantage of you because you couldn't give consent". Drinking is the decision to have impaired judgment, no one is FORCING you to get drunk and make a bad decision. I would love to see the court case where a girl has sex with her drunk boyfriend and got pregnant but the guy isn't a father because his decision to make a kid was "impaired". Absurd? Yep its the same thing.
Yes, I did earlier. Rather wishing that I choose another word now because it seems to have rather distracted you from the conversation.
"The problem with that is that having your judgment impaired does not count in any other situation."
I think the issue here is that you are conflating the ability to give consent and criminal accountability.
That a person can't consent to having a tattoo when drunk means that a tattooist is not legally allowed to tattoo drunk persons. That doesn't imply that a drunk tattooist can forcibly tattoo people and expect no legal repercussions.
Similarly, you cannot consent to sex when severely intoxicated under UK law, which means that sleeping with a severely intoxicated person is legally rape. However, UK law doesn't grant any legal exemption for drunk rapists. Those are to separate issues.
Although there may well be laws on how sober you need to be to gamble. Makes as much sense as laws governing pubs wherein pub stewards have to stop serving drinks if someone has become too drunk.
"no one is FORCING you to get drunk and make a bad decision."
No one is forcing anyone to take advantage of drunk people either.
There are two sets of choices involved here. There are the choices that the drunk person may make (which they are criminally accountable for). There are also the choices that the sober person makes (which they are also criminally accountable for)
The choice that consent laws are concerned with is the choice of the sober person to take advantage of the drunk person.
I think the issue here is that you are conflating the ability to give consent and criminal accountability.
I could say the same thing about you
That doesn't imply that a drunk tattooist can forcibly tattoo people and expect no legal repercussions.
I think your example is pretty ridiculous. I don't hear of too many forced tattooings or too many artists charged for giving tattoos to drunk individuals.
you cannot consent to sex when severely intoxicated under UK law
I can't speak for UK law. I am an american and I can only speak to the laws here in the U.S.
No one is forcing anyone to take advantage of drunk people either.
This is assuming that the drunk person is indeed being taken advantage of. Even if that is the case that is a moral/ ethical issue and not a legal one.
You could, but it would be pointless if you didn't explain or justify it.
As it stands, I can't see how I could be conflating consent and criminal responsibility given that my position relies on them being two different things.
"I think your example is pretty ridiculous. I don't hear of too many forced tattooings or too many artists charged for giving tattoos to drunk individuals. "
Why does it matter how often it happens? It wouldn't matter if it never happened (although it does). Do you understand the role of hypothetical examples in clarifying matters of legal principle? It's frustrating that we're tripping over the same point again.
"I can't speak for UK law. I am an american and I can only speak to the laws here in the U.S."
Laws regarding rape seem to vary state-by-state, but a little google searching leads me to believe that similar notions are present in USA law. this link (http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=12517) discusses it and also comments on what I mentioned earlier; alcohol may remove the ability to consent, but it doesn't remove criminal responsibility.
"This is assuming that the drunk person is indeed being taken advantage of. Even if that is the case that is a moral/ ethical issue and not a legal one."
You're going to need to justify that claim. The issue of taking advantage of other people is a place where laws (both in the UK and the USA) are often applied. This whole issue boils down to misuse of power over other people who are in a state of vulnerability, which I think is definitely an area of legal interest.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
trog.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
politicartoons2013-03-28 09:49 pm
no subject
**How about if they're too intoxicated to stand, remember what they were doing half a minute ago, but are just about able to slur our the word 'yes'?
If they say they want sex when drunk then they want sex when drunk.
Which is it? You take a calculated guess as to whether a drunk woman means yes; or if a drunk woman says yes, she means yes?
If a woman is drunk, no matter what level of drunk, she is not in any condition to consent to having sex. Anyone taking advantage of a woman who is drunk and says yes to sex is raping her. End of story.
no subject
lol Yes, any time a woman has sex while drunk, she is being raped.
My god, you are an idiot.
no subject
If they both are drunk, are they raping eachother? :P
As I said in a comment above - If both people are drunk, I don't see how you can hold one person responsible for their choices and actions, but not the other.
no subject
I tend to find the problem with these discussions are that people use the term 'drunk' differently, which isn't surprising as there is no cut-off point between 'no drunk' and 'drunk'
This is why I went for 'as drunk as possible whilst still being able to express willingness to have sex': "How about if they're too intoxicated to stand, remember what they were doing half a minute ago, but are just about able to slur our the word 'yes'?"
Let's fill out that scenario a bit more; you go to a party. At this party there is a long-term couple, they've been together most of their lives. The woman is someone you know and have fancied, but she's never been interested in you. The couple are drinking, and have a huge earth-shaking fight and she's very upset and continues drinking. She over-does it and drinks to excess, to the point of being barely able to talk.
She's very emotionally vulnerable, she's impaired through alcohol, and wants to have sex with you as a revenge fuck, which will undoubtedly make her feel sick, disgusted and ashamed of herself in the morning.
She's saying 'yes', but is it ethical to have sex with her?
Sleeping with her rather seems like vile behaviour to me. It would seem to be obviously callous behaviour.
no subject
no subject
(for the record, I do consider having consensual sex with someone to get back at another person to be less vile than rape)
no subject
no subject
Although the former should have been enough given my first example: "too intoxicated to stand, remember what they were doing half a minute ago, but are just about able to slur our the word 'yes'"
Someone who tattooed a willing person whilst that drunk would be in legal trouble because it wouldn't have met the standard of consent required for tattooing someone. Apparently you agree that having sex with someone in that state is unethical, but the standard for consent in sexual relationships that you want to advocate is basically just 'willingness' all by itself.
no subject
Have you a tattoo? There are other reasons why a tattoo artist should not tattoo an intoxicated person that goes beyond consent. There is a big difference between unethical and illegal. Yes I would say that willingness would be the standard. What would you say the standard should be?
no subject
Part of the standard of legal consent is being off sound mind. This is already built into law in many places (such as in the UK, where having sex with someone too drunk to consent is illegal).
no subject
Adults are presumed competent to consent. This presumption can be rebutted, for instance in circumstances of mental illness or other incompetence (i.e. intoxication or drugged).
People have drunk sex all the time. Some regret this decision. It doesn't mean that it is rape.
no subject
As I just explained, it's a hypothetical scenario. We can alter it it to fit whatever point we are attempting to illustrate.
Trying to put a spin on real life situations, but hiding some facts and drawing attention to others, is deceptive because they really happened. Hypothetical scenarios are not real; there is no foul play in changing the 'facts' of a hypothetical scenario around.
The ethics of a 'revenge fuck' are not relevant to the ethics of having sex with the severely intoxicated. If the former was becoming a distraction, it's best to drop it so we can turn our focus on the actual topic.
"Adults are presumed competent to consent. "
Unless drunk.
As I previously mentioned, it is illegal to have sex with a severely intoxicated person in the UK. They are not legally able to consent, and it is considered (by law) to be rape.
"People have drunk sex all the time. Some regret this decision. It doesn't mean that it is rape."
If I was trying to argue 'all drunk sex is rape' then I wouldn't have taken the time to craft an example about someone who was severely intoxicated.
no subject
Some would call this "spinning"
Unless drunk.
The problem with that is that having your judgment impaired does not count in any other situation. If you hit and kill someone with a car you cant argue it wasn't your fault because you were drunk, you weren't "thinking clearly". If you get drunk and blow all your money at the casino the casino wasn't "taking advantage of you because you couldn't give consent". Drinking is the decision to have impaired judgment, no one is FORCING you to get drunk and make a bad decision. I would love to see the court case where a girl has sex with her drunk boyfriend and got pregnant but the guy isn't a father because his decision to make a kid was "impaired". Absurd? Yep its the same thing.
no subject
Yes, I did earlier. Rather wishing that I choose another word now because it seems to have rather distracted you from the conversation.
"The problem with that is that having your judgment impaired does not count in any other situation."
I think the issue here is that you are conflating the ability to give consent and criminal accountability.
That a person can't consent to having a tattoo when drunk means that a tattooist is not legally allowed to tattoo drunk persons. That doesn't imply that a drunk tattooist can forcibly tattoo people and expect no legal repercussions.
Similarly, you cannot consent to sex when severely intoxicated under UK law, which means that sleeping with a severely intoxicated person is legally rape. However, UK law doesn't grant any legal exemption for drunk rapists. Those are to separate issues.
Although there may well be laws on how sober you need to be to gamble. Makes as much sense as laws governing pubs wherein pub stewards have to stop serving drinks if someone has become too drunk.
"no one is FORCING you to get drunk and make a bad decision."
No one is forcing anyone to take advantage of drunk people either.
There are two sets of choices involved here. There are the choices that the drunk person may make (which they are criminally accountable for). There are also the choices that the sober person makes (which they are also criminally accountable for)
The choice that consent laws are concerned with is the choice of the sober person to take advantage of the drunk person.
no subject
I could say the same thing about you
That doesn't imply that a drunk tattooist can forcibly tattoo people and expect no legal repercussions.
I think your example is pretty ridiculous. I don't hear of too many forced tattooings or too many artists charged for giving tattoos to drunk individuals.
you cannot consent to sex when severely intoxicated under UK law
I can't speak for UK law. I am an american and I can only speak to the laws here in the U.S.
No one is forcing anyone to take advantage of drunk people either.
This is assuming that the drunk person is indeed being taken advantage of. Even if that is the case that is a moral/ ethical issue and not a legal one.
no subject
You could, but it would be pointless if you didn't explain or justify it.
As it stands, I can't see how I could be conflating consent and criminal responsibility given that my position relies on them being two different things.
"I think your example is pretty ridiculous. I don't hear of too many forced tattooings or too many artists charged for giving tattoos to drunk individuals. "
Why does it matter how often it happens? It wouldn't matter if it never happened (although it does). Do you understand the role of hypothetical examples in clarifying matters of legal principle? It's frustrating that we're tripping over the same point again.
"I can't speak for UK law. I am an american and I can only speak to the laws here in the U.S."
Laws regarding rape seem to vary state-by-state, but a little google searching leads me to believe that similar notions are present in USA law. this link (http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=12517) discusses it and also comments on what I mentioned earlier; alcohol may remove the ability to consent, but it doesn't remove criminal responsibility.
"This is assuming that the drunk person is indeed being taken advantage of. Even if that is the case that is a moral/ ethical issue and not a legal one."
You're going to need to justify that claim. The issue of taking advantage of other people is a place where laws (both in the UK and the USA) are often applied. This whole issue boils down to misuse of power over other people who are in a state of vulnerability, which I think is definitely an area of legal interest.