Can drunk people consent to sex?

[TheGoverness]

Look at it this way, you are legally capable if you get behind the wheel drunk, if you commit a murder, if you damage something, if you buy something, if you sign a contract.

The only time it is held that a person is not legally capable is as part of a rape allegation when giving consent while drunk.

Something doesn't seem right about that.

Exactly. If you get drunk and do some **** you regret later, it doesn't matter because you are still fully responsible for your actions because you chose to get drunk. If you don't want to be involved in a regrettable situation, such as getting arrested for drunk driving, then you have to drink responsibly so that situation will never occur.

 

[Quag]

Absolutely. I represented a client a few years back charged with rape. The woman claimed that she met him in a bar and got really drunk, ended up going to a hotel with him. He got up the next morning and went to work. She checked out of the hotel, went home...and didn't call the police until the next day. She claims that she wasn't going to report it but her friends "convinced" her that she was "raped" because she was too drunk. We went to trial and the jury found him NG. Talking to the jurors afterwards, they were really swayed by the fact that she didn't immediately report the "rape". They also found it difficult to determine her state of mind. One other thing that was helpful to me was that the hotel clerk testified that while she was clearly intoxicated, she was not passed out or sloppily falling down drunk. The jurors felt that she knew what she was doing and therefore consented to the sex....and had regrets afterwards.

Like I said it gets messy. Question, was he drunk? If so how drunk compared to her?

 

[Lord of Planar]

It happens all the time, but sometimes we see an allegation of rape because the woman was too drunk to give valid consent, same way as it's viewed that children cannot consent. I'd assume we'd be consistent and say that drunk men cannot consent either, therefore, what we'd have is a mutual rape situation, wouldn't we? I should clarify by drunk, I don't mean unconscious or passed out or drugged so the person is unaware of what's happening. Obviously, unconscious people cannot consent. I'm talking about the common scenario of a man and woman, getting drunk and screwing (like the Jimmy Buffet song).

attaching poll

Using "beuing drunk" as an excuse is simply not acceptable. I can see it now. Someone kills someone else, but is found "not guilty" due to intoxication.

Simply put, a person should not be released from their responsibility if they are drunk. Maybe they should not have gotten drunk!

What is it with people wanting to remove responsibility from personal actions?

 

[TheGoverness]

Using "beuing drunk" as an excuse is simply not acceptable. I can see it now. Someone kills someone else, but is found "not guilty" due to intoxication.

Simply put, a person should not be released from their responsibility if they are drunk. Maybe they should not have gotten drunk!

What is it with people wanting to remove responsibility from personal actions?

I have no idea. And for some reason this only applies to having sex while intoxicated. But for drunk driving cases, they always place the responsibility on the drunk driver.

 

[Kreton]

Most people have made poor sexual decisions while they are drunk. That is not rape. If you got drunk of your own free will, and knowingly engaged in the activity (and by that I mean you did not just lay there passing out) then it is not rape. It is just a poor decision.

 

[Lord of Planar]

In my world, drunk doesn't mean sorta tipsy or a wee bit buzzed. Drunk means both physically and mentally impaired due to alcohol consumption.

To answer the question, I think valid-considered-consent is not obtainable if a person is drunk.

And if both were drunk, was a crime committed?

Rape is a felony, and to put someone in jail over such normal behavior is rather evil.

The question didn't involve one key factor. Now is someone removes the clothing and starts having sex with someone who is passed out, then that is rape.

 

[haymarket]

The alcohol manufacturer, blame them for all the drunk crime, and drunk self-rapes /s

Reminds me of the SEINFELD episode where Jerry and Elaine discuss that only 5% of the population is attractive enough to be really datable. She asks how everybody else gets together and Jerry says "alcohol".

For me, its difficult to image intoxication to the point of not knowing what you are doing. In my life I have been either blessed or cursed with a real inability to get drunk. Only twice in my long life have I every really felt tipsy from alcohol and it takes massive amounts to do even that. I could sit down today and drink 4 long islands - and that is 20 shots of liquor - and still pass a drivers test with one eye closed at night. My dentist tells me it takes really high doses of gas to get me to levels where they can do stuff like root canals. I simply have this instinct to fight really hard to stay in control at all times and under any conditions. And I wish that were not so---- at times. :shock:

So the idea of losing it to a bottle of liquor and waking up next to somebody else is really foreign to me.

So its hard for me to beieve that intoxication is any sort of responsibility relieving excuse.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Nobody can give a legal consent while their thinking is impaired by drink or drugs.

 

[Quag]

Nobody can give a legal consent while their thinking is impaired by drink or drugs.

And if all involved are drunk?

 

[Manc Skipper]

None of them can make a legal contract. So long as nobody objects, it's cool. If somebody does, all bets are off!

 

[Lord of Planar]

Nobody can give a legal consent while their thinking is impaired by drink or drugs.

Then they shouldn't have got intoxicated. It was their responsibility to control their actions. Intoxication is not a viable excuse to claim it was no longer one's responsibility.

 

[disneydude]

Like I said it gets messy. Question, was he drunk? If so how drunk compared to her?

They had both been drinking. She was MUCH more drunk than he was....however, still not so drunk that the jury found that she couldn't consent. If she had been falling down drunk or almost passed out, the jury likely would have found otherwise. Here...the jury believed she was very drunk but not to the point that she didn't know what she was doing. Her judgment was impaired but poor judgment on her part did not equal rape on his part. Although....to be careful I wouldn't take the chance. A different jury may have found otherwise. Its a risk. One not worth taking.

 

[disneydude]

Nobody can give a legal consent while their thinking is impaired by drink or drugs.

I disagree. Even a couple of drinks can impair your thinking. It doesn't necessarily mean you can't consent. The issue is whether your judgment is so impair as to make it impossible for you to consent.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Alcohol causes impairment. The degree is variable between individuals and their circumstances. Since it cannot be predicted (and an impaired person's self-assessment is suspect) then any intake can be enough to render consent unlawful.

 

[DiAnna]

Too subjective to be a yay or nay response. Someone who is not yet unconscious but can't stand or walk without assistance is clearly too drunk to consent to anything, and probably will have no memory of what happened anyway. This kind of drunk includes both men and women, since women (and men, for that matter) can clearly sexually assault someone whose physical ability to defend themselves or resist is severely impaired or non-existent.

I've seen videos of several young men sexually assaulted a young woman on a pool table. The woman was going in and out of consciousness, occasionally waving a hand and once swatting at the man on top of her. At trial, the defense was that since she was conscious at least some of the time, it wasn't rape. I say, horse feathers. She was much too inebriated to even know where she was, let alone give consent to pulling a damned train. Don't forget, this very well could have been (and actually has been) the situation with male on male rape as well; an infamous frat party that made the news years back comes to mind.

Now two people who have too much to drink, get the giggles, and end up doing it while whispering slurred but sweet nothings in each other's ear, that's a different matter. Morning regrets are not unusual on both sides, but it's not rape. It's abject stupidity.

I think this is about so-called "date rape", and the belief some have that if a woman has a couple drinks, gets buzzed, lets a guy kiss her and maybe even cop a feel, then says no when he tries to rip off her panties, that it's not rape because she was "teasing" him. I can't count the number of times I've heard men saying to each other, "If she didn't want it, she shouldn't have gone out in the first place and let the guy spend money on her."

The word "no" is uttered and the sexual assault continues, it's rape. If no word is uttered because the victim, male or female, is unconscious or too intoxicated to form a coherent sound, it's still rape. If two people are buzzed to the point that inhibitions are gone, but they can still walk, talk, and jointly fornicate, it's not rape.

 

[Quag]

They had both been drinking. She was MUCH more drunk than he was....however, still not so drunk that the jury found that she couldn't consent. If she had been falling down drunk or almost passed out, the jury likely would have found otherwise. Here...the jury believed she was very drunk but not to the point that she didn't know what she was doing. Her judgment was impaired but poor judgment on her part did not equal rape on his part. Although....to be careful I wouldn't take the chance. A different jury may have found otherwise. Its a risk. One not worth taking.

Like I said messy.

 

[X Factor]

Too subjective to be a yay or nay response. Someone who is not yet unconscious but can't stand or walk without assistance is clearly too drunk to consent to anything, and probably will have no memory of what happened anyway. This kind of drunk includes both men and women, since women (and men, for that matter) can clearly sexually assault someone whose physical ability to defend themselves or resist is severely impaired or non-existent.

I've seen videos of several young men sexually assaulted a young woman on a pool table. The woman was going in and out of consciousness, occasionally waving a hand and once swatting at the man on top of her. At trial, the defense was that since she was conscious at least some of the time, it wasn't rape. I say, horse feathers. She was much too inebriated to even know where she was, let alone give consent to pulling a damned train. Don't forget, this very well could have been (and actually has been) the situation with male on male rape as well; an infamous frat party that made the news years back comes to mind.

Now two people who have too much to drink, get the giggles, and end up doing it while whispering slurred but sweet nothings in each other's ear, that's a different matter. Morning regrets are not unusual on both sides, but it's not rape. It's abject stupidity.

I think this is about so-called "date rape", and the belief some have that if a woman has a couple drinks, gets buzzed, lets a guy kiss her and maybe even cop a feel, then says no when he tries to rip off her panties, that it's not rape because she was "teasing" him. I can't count the number of times I've heard men saying to each other, "If she didn't want it, she shouldn't have gone out in the first place and let the guy spend money on her."

The word "no" is uttered and the sexual assault continues, it's rape. If no word is uttered because the victim, male or female, is unconscious or too intoxicated to form a coherent sound, it's still rape. If two people are buzzed to the point that inhibitions are gone, but they can still walk, talk, and jointly fornicate, it's not rape.

What are you saying? Sounds a little like you're saying this thread is some veiled way to justify or defend rape, but I don't want to assume.

 

[Goshin]

It happens all the time, but sometimes we see an allegation of rape because the woman was too drunk to give valid consent, same way as it's viewed that children cannot consent. I'd assume we'd be consistent and say that drunk men cannot consent either, therefore, what we'd have is a mutual rape situation, wouldn't we? I should clarify by drunk, I don't mean unconscious or passed out or drugged so the person is unaware of what's happening. Obviously, unconscious people cannot consent. I'm talking about the common scenario of a man and woman, getting drunk and screwing (like the Jimmy Buffet song).

attaching poll

Both men and women go out and get drunk with the express purpose of hooking up with a stranger, and using "I was drunk" as an excuse for their behavior...


... so maybe we ought to think twice about calling it rape.



Passed out cold is different obviously.

 

[DiAnna]

What are you saying? Sounds a little like you're saying this thread is some veiled way to justify or defend rape, but I don't want to assume.

Oh, heavens, not at all. I read the OP, I read the poll options, then I spouted my opinions of all situations of sexual situations involving consent versus non-consent in a stream of consciousness way that covered all bases that came to mind.

Honestly, Xy, you seem determined to read between the lines of anything I write searching for a hidden agenda. You should know by now that I simply say what's on my mind, which responded not only to the OP but to many other posts in this thread, along with my own decades of experience dealing with complex relationships between the genders, which drugs and alcohol make considerably more complicated, both societally and legally.

 

[X Factor]

Both men and women go out and get drunk with the express purpose of hooking up with a stranger, and using "I was drunk" as an excuse for their behavior...


... so maybe we ought to think twice about calling it rape.



Passed out cold is different obviously.

Yes, I agree, that is obviously different, so is a clear "no". There's not even much to discuss there. It's interesting to see my OP along with subsequent posts being misconstrued as a suggestion that it's actually non-consent while drunk that's invalid.

 

[Absentglare]

Alcohol is the #1 date rape drug.

 

[X Factor]

Oh, heavens, not at all. I read the OP, I read the poll options, then I spouted my opinions of all situations of sexual situations involving consent versus non-consent in a stream of consciousness way that covered all bases that came to mind.

Honestly, Xy, you seem determined to read between the lines of anything I write searching for a hidden agenda. You should know by now that I simply say what's on my mind, which responded not only to the OP but to many other posts in this thread, along with my own decades of experience dealing with complex relationships between the genders, which drugs and alcohol make considerably more complicated, both societally and legally.

Di, when you say that "this" is really all about, essentially, justifying date rape, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that the "this" you're referring to is the thread itself, but I didn't want to make an assumption so I asked. Believe it or not, I've actually been encouraged to do that.

You've totally answered my question and I do thank you for that.

 

[Northern Light]

But that applies to the same people who get drunk before they have sex, right? If a woman/man gets drunk on their own accord, then they are fully responsible for the actions that they commit while being intoxicated.

That comparison doesn't make sense. If you're drunk and someone runs you over with their car, then you're a victim regardless if you're drunk or not. If someone rapes you when you're drunk, it's the same thing. The consent thing is about protecting victims, not perpetrators. That's why you can't use intoxication as an excuse in court if you crash a car or rape someone, but it's valid if you're the victim of a sexual assault.

Legally speaking, drunk people can't consent, and it's to protect victims. In practice, lots of drunk people have sex and no one cries rape. The point is that intoxication lowers inhibitions and the ability to stop sexual acts, so if an accusation is made, it can be pursued legally.

Also keep in mind that consent laws include sex that's already in progress. You can withdraw consent at any time even if you're already having sex, and if the other party doesn't stop then that's also rape. So if someone is drunk and passes out while having sex and the other person continues, that's questionable territory... territory that could've been avoided if the person weren't drunk in the first place.

 

[RetiredNSmilin]

Drunk sex is walking that fine line where it is completely enjoyable and then where nothing works anymore.

 

[RetiredNSmilin]

Maybe that hits on a possible answer. Consent needs to be established before intoxication.

that does not cover BEER GOGGLES sexual attraction, though.