Whacked out, drunken-ass consent is still consent.

http://www.edenfantasys.com/tp-land...ls-advocate-consent-double-standards-0822111/

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

I'd like to hear opinions about this article, as I find it to be an interesting read.

 

My opinion? I agree totally, with this article. There should not be a double standard when it comes to drunk sex/rape/whatever else happens. Especially since everyone knows that when you get drunk, things happen that wouldn't normally happen. Yes means yes in any language, and that should include drunkenness as well.

 

I agree to an extent. There is that line people cross where they intentionally get the other person drunk to have sex with them. But I do think that 'yes, I'm going to drink with this guy who's been hitting on me' might as well be 'let's have drunken sex together? Of course.'

 

If you mean by spiking someone's drink, I see the logic. However, that person is still able to say no, no matter how drunk she/he (yes, men as well) might be. There are women who have sex with someone while they were drunk and suddenly they charge them with rape, which is wrong.

 

Overall, I pretty much agree with the article. Even if they are completely drunk, people are still responsible for their actions, whether consenting to sex, driving or whatever. You may not consciously recall it after the fact sometimes, but you still did it.

 

This article is a bit of a... Meh... for me.
I mean, when drunk, (I'm talking like I've been drunk, so if I'm wrong about anything, excuse me. D: ) you do things that you wouldn't think about doing normally.

But if you say yes, it's still a yes, and you should not be trialed for rape, if you say yes to sex. c:

This reminds me of when my friend was at my house. I was asleep, and he "claims" he woke me up, and asked if he could delete my profile on Pokemon Red Mystery Dungeon, and start his own. I apparently said a sleepy "Sure".
I was then pissed off in the morning, but was alright with it, since I said yes.

 

I think a yes is a yes whether or not the person is drunk. You can be drunk and still knowingly consent to the sex.

 

Being as legalistic as possible, this is shaky ground, and the best way to solve this problem is to find out if she said yes on an evidenced level. I agree that saying yes while drunk is saying yes, but how do you determine if she actually said yes? The involvement of alcohol makes it a bit harder to tell, as I understand it.

 

Therein lies a problem because though you may not be able to prove she said yes, if she was intoxicated she cannot prove she said no. I agree with this, unless it is obviously rape (not just some chick trying to drain you of your money on a lawsuit) then it is correct (to me) I mean you don't see a guy going around screaming he swore he said no, he just get's over it and goes home. That's what happens when alcohol is involved. The article is correct, women who get drunk and say yes then plea they didn't mean it are going to eventually lead to a law being passed (probably something crazy) Anyway, if the woman is of legal age (which would hopefully be the case) to drink then she is of legal age to consent and whether she meant it or not it happened. As long as no substances such as the infamous "Date-Rape drugs" are involved there isn't much that can be done other than shrug your shoulders and move on.

 

I have to politely disagree with that statement.

No matter how little alcohol is in a person's system, it still affects their function to process and make proper decisions.

For example, drunk drivers. Most of them say, "Oh, no, no! I can drive. It's fine!", but that's because they're under the influence of alcohol.

I bet when they're sober, half of the drunk drivers would disagree with themselves if they knew what they were saying while under the influence.

 

This doesn't really apply here.
Saying yes to have sex is different than driving drunk. Driving drunk is illegal. There is no law against having sex while drunk. You might wake up and regret it, but some stupid people believe that if you have sex while drunk and regret it, you can suddenly say they raped you, which is the issue here.

 

This is why there is a problem. If she cannot prove that she said no, then any girl is fair game when she gets drunk. She cannot prove that she did not want it. It is up to a court to get an evidence based account of events and remain reasonable rather than assume that she said either yes or no based on the fact that she was drunk. The victim has passed out or come near it in many cases. Investigations should not be hindered based on the basis of the victim being intoxicated. Find out if she consented as you would with any other rape case, and do not treat it specially or disregard it because of other circumstances. That is the best way to remain consistent, rather than by creating some specialized law for it.

 

Everyone knows that when you drink a lot you can do things you wouldn't do if you were sober. If you get really drunk then you know what might happen and everything you agree to while drunk is your own responsibility/fault. You can regret it in the morning, but it's still something you did willingly and you can't just say you wouldn't have done it if sober and charge someone for rape.

 

This does not address the problem. What if she really did say no? Will this logic help her get her way in that case?

 

i do agree with the point of the article. i know alcohol sometimes causes people to do things they wouldn't normally do, but i also believe that it is the drinker's responsibility not to let it go as far to point where they can't remember anything and can't make good decisions. i mean, it's a different story if someone spiked another persons' drink with something that could make them think differently (not entirely sure which drugs can do that or the extent it can do that though).

 

If she can prove that she said no then sure, if she can't then you should just assume that she said yes since a lot of people do get a lot more, uh... ****ty? when wasted. If she can prove then she said no, then sure, as long as she can't then the obvious thing to think is that she gave him consent.

 

I strongly disagree. Assuming that one is more likely is faulty unless you plan to prove that it acts as an aphrodisiac.

 

That's not what I'm saying though, I'm saying that you can't prove anything either way. So if I was the woman then I might regret it, but I wouldn't charge someone for rape either way and just assume that it was consent, since you can't prove anything. It's better to just let it go.

 

In my personal opinion, someone shouldn't be able to have sex while drunk and then claim rape afterwards. Drunk or not, some part of them still saw a point in it and decided to do it.

 

I see where you are coming from, but let me put it this way. You get drunk alone, and then someone finds out that you are drunk and comes onto you and takes advantage of the fact that you are drunk. Furthermore, let us say that you were aware of the dangers and had wanted to avoid being around people while drunk, and this still happened. How should the law handle that, and how will your logic help in that case? You willingly get drunk in the same sense that you willingly take sleeping pills or go to sleep. If someone comes onto you in your sleep, it is the same to me as someone coming onto you while you are drunk if you did not invite them. Intoxication does not warrant letting something go by itself. You have to at least put yourself in an envirement that invites it knowingly.

This is one of the most ignorant things I have heard someone say. What if they choose not to have sex while drunk and it still happens? You do not think that people can be raped while drunk in all honesty?