Drunken Sex and Rape [Probable Trigger Warning]

[sourmìlk]

Note that my questions here arise purely from ignorance. I do not, in any way, harbor opinions about the inferiority of either gender and I, without qualification or ambiguity, think that rape is wrong. I also certainly hold that taking advantage of a person too drunk to rationally consent to sex is morally wrong.

But I don't quite see why it should be illegal. People are responsible for agreeing to things and their actions when drunk, right? Drunk people sign contracts, etc. And when they screw up, we hold them responsible for that: it's why drunk drivers are punished. Why is it that, in the case of sex, we aren't allowed to treat consent as consent? Although I think that it's wrong for a person to take advantage of a drunk person, isn't his or her consent while drunk still his or her own prerogative? Should he or she not be responsible for the consequences of her actions while drunk or sober?

Again, sorry if these questions are offensively ignorant, I just don't know much about the ethics in this area. If the mods feel this thread is inappropriate or too sexist or somethhing, I understand.

EDIT: note that I am not asking anything along the lines of 'wasn't she asking for it?' By definition, a woman cannot ask for rape. If she didn't explicitly consent, her other supposed signals don't matter, I get that.

[Falling]

But I don't quite see why it should be illegal. People are responsible for agreeing to things and their actions when drunk, right? Drunk people sign contracts, etc. And when they screw up, we hold them responsible for that: it's why drunk drivers are punished.

You're describing two different scenarios here. One has a drunk person signing a contract, which generally is a no-no, and the other has a sober person sign a contract and later break it when drunk.

See the difference?

The problem as I see it is that it's totally possibly to be too drunk to consent at all. I'm not talking "I being of sound mind allow you to sex me," but people can be too drunk to say "yes" or "no". And if we're talking about things after the fact, there's really no way to have a clue as to where a person's mental state was.

[sourmìlk]

But I don't quite see why it should be illegal. People are responsible for agreeing to things and their actions when drunk, right? Drunk people sign contracts, etc. And when they screw up, we hold them responsible for that: it's why drunk drivers are punished.

You're describing two different scenarios here. One has a drunk person signing a contract, which generally is a no-no, and the other has a sober person sign a contract and later break it when drunk.

See the difference?

Yeah, I get the difference between the scenarios, I just didn't think it was relevant. The point was that drunk people are responsible for their actions.

The problem as I see it is that it's totally possibly to be too drunk to consent at all. I'm not talking "I being of sound mind allow you to sex me," but people can be too drunk to say "yes" or "no". And if we're talking about things after the fact, there's really no way to have a clue as to where a person's mental state was.

Well when you're too drunk to express consent, then I see why that's a problem. But holy shit, I didn't really get that people could be so drunk as to not respond to a sentence and still be conscious.

[Falling]

Yeah, I get the difference between the scenarios, I just didn't think it was relevant. The point was that drunk people are responsible for their actions.

Well of course it's relevant. If we can't let you consent to a contract drunk, then why this?

Well when you're too drunk to express consent, then I see why that's a problem. But holy shit, I didn't really get that people could be so drunk as to not respond to a sentence and still be conscious.

Ok maybe losing the ability to utter monosyllabic words is rare, but getting to drunk to not understand what's going on? Yea, happens all the time.

[Роберт]

This actually seems to be discussed ad nauseum in every thread that mentions rape.

Minors who murder can be help accountable for their actions and at times even tried as an adult, right? Even though they can't do contracts or otherwise legally consent? For example, a 12 year old boy could be convicted of rape of one of his peers, but if a man were to willingly have sex with him, NO MATTER WHAT THE BOY SAID, it would be rape.

Drunk people are in general held responsible for their actions. A person who was drunk at the time can be convicted of rape. But, if a person who was drunk at the time later says they were raped... why would you doubt that?

[Azrael]

Nope.

There's a so-recent-it's-still-on-this-page thread regarding Consent Impairment. It should help (and can be further extended if necessary) to clarify what effect "drunk" has on "consent".

I'll leave it to the cautious reader to identify my obvious schmuck trap.